Thirteen Days Film Review

01/08/2023 Thirteen Days: Nuclear War, but From the Wrong Perspective Thirteen Days is set in October of 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came to the brink of nuclear war. The movie follows Kenny O’Donnell, President John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and other members of the U.S. cabinet, struggling to find a way to stop World War 3 from happening, and negotiating with the Russian Premier, Nikita Khrushchev. Although Thirteen Days perfectly encapsulates the stress and panic of the Cuban missile crisis and is a well-made movie, that does not make it a historically accurate film. Despite being a historically inaccurate movie, Thirteen Days manages to be correct about a few instances. Several critics noticed that Thirteen Days is surprisingly accurate in displaying the White House. Many rooms shown are modeled correctly, from the Oval Office to the Roosevelt room to the living room. (whitehousemuseum.org) The film does an excellent job of the portrayal of a potential world-destroying event, and the stress that ensues with that. President Kennedy is represented by Bruce Greenwood, and he performs terrifically. Instead of making President Kennedy into a dim-witted idiot, he is shown as a man with good judgement and high intelligence when it comes to making dangerous decisions with one of the most stressful predicaments a person could face. Others may argue with whether this setting is accurate or not, but the exclusive American perspective is absolutely accurate because it shows that the Americans had no idea of what the Cubans or Soviets were thinking, which adds to the intense atmosphere. However, the viewers do get to observe some scenes in a Cuban jungle, where the MRBM’s and IRBM’s were stored. 1 of 7 01/08/2023 As stated earlier, Thirteen Days is not a history lesson. The movie is filled with mistakes and false information. The biggest issue in the film is the fact that Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner) plays the lead role. When reviewing his interaction with Peter Almond (Thirteen Day’s producer), Robert McNamara states; “For God’s sakes, Kenny O’Donnell didn’t have any role whatsoever in the missile crisis; he was a political appointment secretary to the President; that’s absurd.” (web.archive.org) This leads viewers to question why Kenny O’Donnell had such a big part in the film if he did not in real life, and “had nothing to do with the Cuban missile crisis.” (Nelson, ‘Thirteen Days’ Doesn’t Add Up) A fully fake scene appeared in the movie when O’Donnell is telling a pilot to lie if he was shot at during a mission where he must fly over Cuba to observe the surroundings of a military base. Of course, the pilot does end up lying to the government officials saying, “it was a cake walk.” This would never have happened in real life because O’Donnell obviously did care for the safety of the world around him and America, and also because he did not have an important role in the Cuban missile crisis. Another fault in Thirteen Days is how the Joint Chiefs of Staff is portrayed. Within the movie, they are pressuring and cornering President Kennedy into starting the nuclear war, almost like they want it to happen. The best way to describe these military men is right wing war-crazed freaks. An honourable mention to continue the list of inaccuracies in Thirteen Days, is that many prominent members of Ex Comm are barely seen such as, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had a larger role in the meetings than portrayed. Unfortunately, the inaccuracies of Thirteen Days overpower the accuracies by a long shot. The major inaccuracy is that the presidential adviser, Kenny O’Donnell, had not much, or anything at all to do with the Cuban missile crisis. The reason being for O’Donnell’s lead role is because “he was in a position to see much or all of what went on but was not a policy contestant 2 of 7 01/08/2023 or even a person particularly sophisticated on the issues; he was an inside Everyman, evaluating the crisis almost as an ordinary citizen would.” (May, Thirteen Days in 145 Minutes) While that might make sense to a film critic, the average movie-goer or history buff is not going to understand that decision, and they will be misled with false information. Going back to the Chiefs of Staff and how they were characterized, especially General Curtis LeMay, is just the ideology that Americans are low-intelligence trigger happy fools. While that might have been true in real life, the movie is spreading the message that the military is nothing more than a band of lunatics. This movie could be extremely impressionable and would certainly influence the audiences understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis. When watching Thirteen Days, the audience will notice that a couple of scenes are filmed in black and white and then go back to colour, but why? This was an attempt to look like the TV broadcasts or documentaries might have looked like at the time, and to create a historical appearance. However, the attempt failed at doing what it tried to accomplish. Director Roger Donaldson uses this effect inconsistently which messes up what he was going for and confuses the audience. It does not make sense to have these black and white scenes, and the movie could have gone without them. It was a bad choice on Donaldson’s part. Some of the historical figures within Thirteen Days are decently accurate, but others are not even remotely close to their real-life counterparts. Starting with Bruce Greenwood as President Kennedy. JFK is portrayed in a sensible way. The main message the movie is trying to put out is how well President Kennedy handled the situation and that he was able to keep his composure. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy is played by Steven Culp, and the reviews have many compliments to give for Culp’s performance. Culp is great in the film, and made RFK appear intelligent, prepared, and “gave him his mature aura of fatalism and destiny.” (Mick LaSalle, ON 3 of 7 01/08/2023 THE EDGE OF WAR / "Thirteen Days” explores adrenaline and angst of Cuban missile crisis.) Unfortunately, not every historical figure was portrayed accurately, and that is the case with Kevin Costner as Kenny O’Donnell. O’Donnell has an overwhelmingly fake Boston accent in Thirteen Days, and it is distracting from the rest of the movie. O’Donnell is depicted as the average family man but is also seen “flirting manfully with Jackie Kennedy.” (The Guardian, Thirteen Days: on the brink of nuclear war, Hollywood steps in) Since, O’Donnell did not have a substantial influence in the real-life event of the Cuban missile crisis, it does not seem fit for the movie to be filmed from his perspective if he did not have to deal with most aspects of the crisis. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, is played by Dylan Baker. Many people praise Baker’s performance, but for someone who was so involved with the conflict during the real thing, McNamara was not shown very much in Thirteen Days, despite his significance. Baker did a decent job at portraying the former Secretary of Defense, but McNamara is also just a caricature of his real self- “recognizable only in the one case by steel-rimmed glasses.” (May, Thirteen Days in 145 Minutes) Finally, General Curtis LeMay. LeMay is played by Kevin Conway and is portrayed horribly. He is shown as an immature man, begging and pressuring President Kennedy into starting World War 3. Michael Nelson explains, “the generals and admirals must also seem wild-eyed (and in the case of the Air Force chief of staff, Curtis LeMay, wild-eyebrowed), profane (“get the bastards”), bombastic (“shoot the red dog”), and conspiratorial.” (Nelson, ‘Thirteen Days’ Doesn’t Add Up) The most obvious bias in Thirteen Days is how pro-Kennedy it is. Of course, this cannot be helped because the movie takes place during the Kennedy administration, so it would be almost impossible for it to not be pro-Kennedy. The reason for it being pro-Kennedy is because of how President Kennedy is portrayed as a sophisticated man who saved the world from disaster, which 4 of 7 01/08/2023 democrats and republicans can argue over whether that was true or not. The second most obvious bias is how the Joint Chiefs of Staff are portrayed as idiots, specifically LeMay. This bias is suggesting that the U.S. military is incompetent. Michael Nelson describes this as “West Wing syndrome.” Nelson also suggests, “By the end of the movie, you half expect the generals to start talking, Dr. Strangelove style, about preserving the purity of our bodily fluids.” (Nelson, ‘Thirteen Days’ Doesn’t Add Up) The main protagonist of this dramatized version of the Cuban missile crisis is Kenny O’Donnell, who is seen giving advice to the President, and pep talks to Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The Kennedy’s are also seen as heroes, along with Robert McNamara. The main reason that all these men are “the good guys” is because they are all portrayed as highly intelligent people who know what they are doing and know what they are getting into. An example of O’Donnell being the protagonist is when the Joint Chiefs of Staff are trying to convince President Kennedy to declare war on the Soviets, O’Donnell says to the President, “Look, I’m your political adviser. I’m giving you a political analysis. This is a set-up.” (Nelson, ‘Thirteen Days’ Doesn’t Add Up) Another example is when Admiral Anderson was firing flares from one of the naval ships, which was not permissible. McNamara gets terribly upset with Anderson and yells, “This was not the President's intention when he gave that order. What if the Soviets don't see the distention? What if they make the same mistake I just did? There will be no firing anything near ANY Soviet ships without my express permission, is that understood, Admiral?” This scene shows that McNamara is in charge and knows exactly what to do, making him appear manly and heroic. The villains of the movie are the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Anderson, LeMay, and Taylor are all targeted specifically, because of how badly they want to go to war. They are so desperate to do so, that they corner the President, speak in unprofessional language about the Soviets, and give 5 of 7 01/08/2023 commands that are not approved from their superiors. All of them are shown as unethical and crude. The main message of Thirteen Days is how the United States of America saved the world from nuclear disaster. This is shown more towards the end of the film, when Robert Kennedy secretly negotiates with the Soviet Union Ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, and come to a mutual understanding that the Soviets will step down and remove their missiles if America removes their missiles from Turkey and pledges not to invade. Another message is just how close the world came to getting in another war, and how the Cuban missile crisis really is the most dangerous moment in history. This is represented throughout the whole film but once again it is shown towards the end of the movie, but just before Robert Kennedy negotiates with Anatoly Dobrynin, when the feeling of danger, anticipation, and tension was at its highest point. After analyzing and scrutinizing Thirteen Days, it is safe to say that although it is perfect for capturing those two weeks of fear, it is not as thorough as a history class. Ernest May explains, “No one should see the movie expecting to learn exactly what happened.” (May, Thirteen Days in 145 Minutes) The movie is entertaining, but it is not accurate enough, mainly because it is from O’Donnell’s perspective when he was useless in the real situation, and how the Joint Chiefs of Staff were portrayed. Overall, Thirteen Days is not historically accurate, and is not a useful source of information. 6 of 7 01/08/2023 Works Cited Ebert, Roger. “Thirteen Days Movie Review & Film Summary (2001): Roger Ebert.” Movie Review & Film Summary (2001) | Roger Ebert, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/thirteen-days-2001. LaSalle, Mick. “On the Edge of War / ‘Thirteen Days’ Explores Adrenaline and Angst of Cuban Missile Crisis.” SFGATE, San Francisco Chronicle, 2 Feb. 2012, https://www.sfgate.com/ movies/article/ON-THE-EDGE-OF-WAR-Thirteen-Days-explores-2965412.php. “Localhost.” 'Thirteen Days' Doesn't Add Up, https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5428. May, Ernest. “Thirteen Days in 145 Minutes.” The American Prospect, 7 Nov. 2001, https://prospect.org/features/thirteen-days-145-minutes/. Online Newshour: 'Thirteen Days' -- February 22, 2001, https://web.archive.org/web/20011111155920/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/janjune01/thirteen_2-22.html. “Reel History | Thirteen Days: On the Brink of Nuclear War, Hollywood Steps In.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Nov. 2009, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/nov/26/thirteen-days. “Thirteen Days (Film).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Jan. 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Days_(film). “'Thirteen Days' Is Accurate Where It Counts.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 22 Jan. 2001, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-22-ca-15450-story.html. “Thirteen Days.” Metacritic, 25 Dec. 2000, https://www.metacritic.com/movie/thirteen-days. “'Thirteen Days': Just the Facts?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Jan. 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/01/12/thirteen-days-just-the-facts/ 4a2f172a-8a1f-43ad-8b9a-c4b287fc846f/. “Web Archive - Internet Archive.” Web Archive - Internet Archive, https://webarchive.unesco.org/#!/. “The White House in the Movies & TV.” Movies & TV - White House Museum, http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/special/movies.htm#thirteendays. 7 of 7