Page Title

Non-fiction and essays

University essays

American Studies
Second Year

Film and History 303 - Term Paper

Term Paper: Thirteen Days (AMST 303, Autumn 2002)

Americans wishing to travel to Cuba have had numerous difficulties over the past forty years. Relations between
the two countries have been strained since Fidel Castro’s rise to power and his embrace of Communism. That
the United States has tolerated such a thorn in their belly for so long can be attributed to the consequences
resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, all of this was cast aside in 2001 when Kevin Costner took
the film in which he stars concerning the momentous events of October 1962, director Roger Donaldson’s
Thirteen Days, to Cuba to show some of the people directly involved in the crisis and, as reported in various
newspapers, to Castro himself.# While it should not be inferred that the film was able to repair American-Cuban
relations, the fact that non-American participants from the time wished to see the film lends a certain degree of
creditability to the enterprise. However, controversies would arise soon after release, with some negative
attention focused on Costner’s portrayal of Kenneth O’Donnell, which many felt deviated too far from the
historical record.
Taking its title from Robert Kennedy’s memoir of the Crisis, Thirteen Days deals with the period in October 1962
when the Kennedy Administration attempted to deal with the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba. While the
Crisis and its eventual resolution are familiar to many, the film is distinguished by the fact that it is more
concerned with the decision making process at the highest levels of government. The film pits the Kennedy
brothers, President John and Attorney General Robert, with the support of Special Assistant Kenneth O’Donnell,
played by Kevin Costner, and their wish for a non-violent solution against the hawkish military leaders who
seem hell bent on attacking Cuba from the outset. Thus follows many tense meetings of ExComm, the
government body formed to deal with the crisis, where eventually the decision is made to blockade Cuba. After
the public declaration of American knowledge of the missiles, the President and his advisors act and react in
response to Soviet actions. After the receipt of Soviet leader Khrushchev’s two letters, a deal is brokered by
Bobby Kennedy and a Soviet contact, and the crisis is resolved.
The production of Thirteen Days was made possible in large part due to the release of a book that brought to
public attention some of the details of the ExComm meetings. The screenplay for the film was written by David
Self, largely based on Ernest May and Philip Zelikow’s The Kennedy Tapes, which consisted of transcripts of
tapes made by President Kennedy during the Crisis. Indeed, the possibility for a film was foreshadowed in the
book’s introduction, when the editors note: “With verbal debris cleared away, these transcripts have some
qualities of a screenplay.”# This idea was followed by Self, who constructed a screenplay that incorporated
many lines taken directly from the transcripts, but more significantly, allowed the writer to present the
governmental meetings with a certain degree of authority. As the film developed, more information was
provided, in interviews conducted with Robert McNamara, Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense, and former pilot Bill
Ecker, who flew low-level reconnaissance missions over the missile sites. However, one source that caused
some controversy was the use of Kenneth O’Donnell’s personal documents provided by his son Kevin, who
was also an investor in the one of the companies behind the movie.#
Kevin Costner’s portrayal of O’Donnell caused a good deal of consternation among critics and historians and
served as the basis of much controversy surrounding the film’s release. In fact, it is unlikely that the film could
have been made in the first place without having a Hollywood star such as Costner on board. The film had a
troubled history in trying to get the support of a major studio, and went through three studios and eight directors
before New Line Cinema took the project on with Roger Donaldson at the helm. As reported in the Chicago Sun
Times, “The studios weren’t sure if the Cuban Missile Crisis was commercial. To them this looked like an
expensive art film about something that happened a long time ago.”# Costner’s presence as actor and
producer undoubtedly helped New Line to provide the budget of approximately $80 million.
In interviews conducted at the time of release in December 2000 and January 2001, Costner tried to explain his
motives in backing the project, and why he was making another movie involving President Kennedy after Oliver
Stone’s JFK. Recalling himself as a youth at the time of the crisis, Costner described how he had felt that “the
neighborhood was wrong” and how his parents acted differently during the time.# He was concerned that if he
had played JFK, in what could be seen as the logical choice for a big star, audiences would be too busy
comparing his portrayal to the real JFK at the expense of the rest of the movie. Instead he chose to take the part
of Kenneth O’Donnell, and attempted to take his place in an ensemble cast. With tapes provided by O’Donnell’s
son and interviews with his family, Costner was able to find something out about the man who “rates exactly two
insignificant lines” in the 700 pages of The Kennedy Tapes, yet who seems to play a pivotal role in resolving the
crisis in the film.# The defense offered by Costner and others for this was that by using O’Donnell, who was
relatively unknown to the public, the filmmakers could present the events from the view of an “everyman”
character, one without detailed knowledge of exactly what was happening. This character could be seen to
represent the American public, largely unaware of the unfolding events until after JFK’s speech to the nation,
several days after the administration had learned of the missiles’ presence. Costner felt that if the film had used
the Kennedy brothers as the focal point, the film may have received criticism for trying to rewrite their history
more favorably, but using someone close to them was better to represent a window of legitimacy.
When asked why he was involved in making another film about JFK, Costner admitted that the Kennedy name
still carried meaning today. He saw importance in depicting President Kennedy in a positive light, especially by
focusing on the most important contribution to his presidency. This was instead of being concerned with the
private indiscretions that had tarnished the image of Kennedy that Costner seems to have held since childhood.
Many reviewers suggested that the film was created the way it was in large part due to Costner’s view of
President Kennedy, which is largely sympathetic to JFK and his brother. This was probably also due to Costner’
s relationship with the director, Roger Donaldson.
The Australian-born Donaldson also remembered being a child during the events of October 1962, and in
interviews described how it had affected him. A school boy in Australia at the time, Donaldson kept a diary of
how things seemed different during the crisis. This personal attachment to the events on the part of the director
undoubtedly helped in bringing a sense of gratitude towards the Kennedys for keeping the world from nuclear
meltdown. Having launched his career with Costner in 1987 with No Way Out, Donaldson saw an opportunity for
both of them in creating a serious film, as reported in the Times of London: “I need the film as a filmmaker. I
think Kevin needs it as an actor. And most importantly, I think the business needs it – otherwise we are sitting
here talking about Charlie’s Angels all the time.”# Indeed, many people in Hollywood were describing both
Donaldson and Costner as being waning forces, after several big-budget failures, so they saw the chance to
restore some creditability with Thirteen Days. The fact that Donaldson is Australian perhaps gave the film a
more neutral perspective than if it had been an American director, and he told reviewers that he tried to “tell it
like it was.”
In dealing with the real history of the Crisis, which has received many studies from both the American and
Soviet perspectives, Thirteen Days provides the audience with some indication of what occurred during the
meetings that were conducted by President Kennedy and his advisors. The information provided by the
Kennedy Tapes allows the viewer at least an idea of how the American government dealt with the increasing
tensions that arose as the crisis progressed. An interesting aspect of the film is that it tells the story almost
entirely from an American perspective. While this technique is far from uncommon in the Hollywood history
genre, in this film as the superpowers are edging towards confrontation, it is the division among the American
government that is the real catalyst for drama.
The military advisors, led by Air Force Chief Of Staff Curtis LeMay, played by Kevin Conway, are portrayed as
unfailingly hawkish, eager to launch an air strike on the Russian missile silos, followed by a land invasion.
Against this is President Kennedy, his brother and O’Donnell, who try to seek an alternative course of action.
This tension forms the basis of much of the discussions that occur in the film, although some critics felt that the
film treated the military unfairly. Some saw it as a continuation of Oliver Stone’s military-industrial complex
theory of JFK, and pointed to Costner’s presence in both projects as a common thread. Indeed, in an article in
Spectator, Frank Johnson attributed this viewpoint as being more in line with Robert Kennedy’s book Thirteen
Days, which Johnson considers a much more liberal version of the Kennedys role in the crisis. He also
mentions evidence from the tapes, not included in the film that refer to JFK initially favoring the air strike option,
and only later changing his mind.#
The critical reception for Thirteen Days was generally positive, with reviewers praising the film for dealing with
such a significant historical event with a commendable degree of accuracy and sensitivity. While historians, as
usual with any historical film, were swift to point out minor deviations from the documented history, the majority
of them were in favor of the film in general. However, some reviewers were concerned that a film lacking a great
deal of action, focusing on negotiation, argument and political dealings instead, would fail to attract a wide
audience. The fears were partially realized, as the box office receipts seem to indicate. The film grossed less
than $35 million in the United States, with an additional $20 million overseas, a market that Roger Donaldson
thought could be more profitable than America.# This is compared with the film’s budget of approximately $80
million, so by Hollywood standards, Thirteen Days was not a resounding success. Audience response varied,
with some viewers praising the film for its intelligent depiction of complicated events and being able to keep the
story suspenseful, despite the outcome being known already. Other viewers saw the film as lacking in dramatic
tension, and more akin to a TV movie or documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. Another complaint that
surfaced was in the depiction of Kenneth O’Donnell.
Michael Nelson, a professor at Rhodes College took his class to see Thirteen Days so they could discuss what
historical lessons could be gleaned from it. However, he was concerned afterwards that they were left with the
impression that O’Donnell was more important than Bobby Kennedy and other cabinet members in the
ExComm meetings. He refers to the pep talks that O’Donnell gives to the Kennedys, and to the pilots that make
the dangerous low-level flights. Nelson concluded by saying that while Thirteen Days deserved praise for its
verisimilitude in recreating the world of the 1960s, including the White House interiors, it was damnable for
being inaccurate on major matters, such as the role of O’Donnell, and the reasons behind the crisis. In order to
rectify this, he hoped that students would be encouraged by the film to read books about the events and see the
real problems for themselves.#
It was not simply the depiction of O’Donnell that caused problems, but also in the manner of the portrayal by
Costner. Critics and the public alike were concerned about the use of a supposedly authentic Boston-Irish
accent for O’Donnell and the Kennedys. While Bruce Greenwood as JFK and Steven Culp as Robert Kennedy
received praise for their recreations, many felt that Costner’s performance was over the top, and detracted from
the film. Kevin Costner defended the use of the accents as representing the bond between the brothers and
Kenny, and showing how they were virtual outsiders in Washington. Ernest May, co-author of The Kennedy
Tapes had doubts about Costner playing O’Donnell, feeling it would divert viewers’ attention from the main
story. However, May gradually conceded the need in the movie for one perspective on the events, someone who
had access to the issues, but without particularly sophisticated knowledge.
One aspect of the film that could be difficult to defend is the apparent absence of the Soviets or the Cubans from
the story. This criticism was particularly apparent in the international media, where reviewers felt that the film
presented a very one-sided view of the conflict. The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev only appears in the form of
his letters sent to President Kennedy, and apart from a few discussions with Soviet personnel in Washington, it
is an entirely American viewpoint. The only Cubans depicted are those military personnel in the missile site
sequences, but none of them has a speaking part. The reason behind this is probably because the film is
seeking to address the difficulties in making decisions among the higher levels of government, and trying to
introduce the other side’s viewpoint would complicate matters further.
Apart from the complaints about the representation of the military, O’Donnell’s increased importance and the
lack of international perspective, the consensus among historians was that Thirteen Days stayed remarkably
close to the documented history. From the events in the White House to the reconstruction of key external
sequences, the attention to detail is commendable. According to Bruce Greenwood, the construction of a replica
of the White House from the period, including part of the exterior as well as the meticulously reproduced interior
helped the actors focus themselves on becoming their characters.
In dealing with political decision-making, Thirteen Days addresses an important issue from which many of
today’s Hollywood films seem to shy away. The film is more interested in how leaders use their advisors,
discussing not only various courses of action open to them, but also the potential consequences of those
actions before making a decision. Above all, the film makes the viewer appreciate to some degree the
difficulties President Kennedy had to address, when arguably there was no real blueprint of how to deal with the
situation. Though questions do remain over the portrayal of the military leaders, the film deals sensitively with
the idea of a President having to decide when military action is necessary and justified. As occurred in the 1962,
the film depicts the one casualty of the Crisis, Major Rudolph Anderson, shot down while on a U2 spy plane
mission over Cuba. Here President Kennedy is given a clear opportunity to retaliate, but while this could satisfy
a desire for vengeance, he realizes that the consequences could be far worse. The viewer gets a certain sense
of the pressure the leaders are under, and after some loss of faith in the office of the President with recent
indiscretions, this film helps to restore some respect for Kennedy in particular, but for the Presidency in general.
In its representation of the historic film genre, Thirteen Days stays faithful to the general patterns associated
with historic film. There are the familiar “When-where-who” titles that flash on screen, usually to introduce the
various members of President Kennedy’s cabinet, and to keep track of the date during the crisis. Interestingly,
as one reviewer noted, the actual day number is not shown, which may seem slightly odd when the title of the
film is considered. The familiar three-act structure is adhered to, with introduction to the characters and the
problem of the missiles, followed by the point at which it seems conflict is likely, and the resolution of the crisis
when it seems to be unsolvable. The fact that the outcome is so familiar makes it impressive that the tension is
kept high when the film could easily become flat. There is clearly a partisan bias towards the Kennedys and
Kenny, with the military advisors cast as the villains, not the Soviets as one might reasonably expect in an
American film about the Cold War. While the actual divisions may not have been so pronounced, the film
continues Hollywood’s post-Vietnam stance towards the military as a potentially dangerous part of society that
must be kept in check.
Director Roger Donaldson’s background in documentary films can be evidenced in some of the visual
techniques he uses in Thirteen Days. Especially early in the film, Donaldson uses black and white footage
leading into scenes, often reminiscent of famous images from the Kennedy days. The effect this has is to give
the viewer a sense of the period, and adds a certain degree of authenticity to the production. Another interesting
technique that is employed is the combination of archive footage of crowd scenes that have received a false
color treatment and have been inserted with newly shot material. This technique is reminiscent of Oliver Stone’s
JFK, and the effect is just as subtle, though did not cause any controversy when the film was released, unlike
Stone’s film. A possible explanation for this is that the technique is used in Thirteen Days without trying to
convince the audience of something, it is simply presenting a view of the public, whereas in JFK, practically
everything on screen is designed to persuade the viewer. The inclusion of broadcasts from Walter Cronkite
adds a further degree of authenticity, in his capacity as an iconic figure from the Kennedy era.
The use of screen titles to introduce the principal characters within the government has the effect of making the
people on screen seem as though they are the person on the caption. This technique reinforces the
documentary feel that the film often displays. This is helped by the fact that several of the actors seem to have
been chosen for their resemblance to the actual persons they are portraying, and many reviewers noted this fact
when examining the effect of the film. Another visual aspect that reinforces one of the sub-themes of the story is
in the framing of Jack, Bobby, and Kenny in shot together, not only suggesting their closeness, but also their
being separate from the other members of the government. This occurs throughout the film, except for the end,
when Kenny looks out at the brothers talking and realizes that they constitute an even more exclusive club, and
even he cannot really come between them.
While Thirteen Days refers to an incident forty years in the past, and is concerned with the now defunct Soviet
Union, it has clear bearing on today’s world. The film reminds the audience of the potential dangers when
leaders depend too greatly on their advisors, and unless they demonstrate strong leadership themselves, the
safety of nations is at risk. It suggests how personal relationships can help, but also hinder national
government, and that negotiation, discussion and compromise are needed to reach important decisions.
The relevance to the present became apparent on Thirteen Days’ cinematic release, as noted by Hoberman in
the Village Voice: “the film encourages the audience to ponder, if they dare, the spectacle of George W Bush
under pressure.”# Released at a time when large portions of the American public were concerned about the
capabilities of the newly elected President, the film suggested the value of leadership in a crisis. Indeed,
Armyan Bernstein, when asked about the relatively poor box-office performance of Thirteen Days suggested
that: “If we had opened the movie around the time of the presidential election…we might have seen different
results – for both the movie and the election.”#
One aspect of the film’s relevance that Kevin Costner referred to during interviews was the fact that despite the
successful resolution of the crisis in 1962, there are still missiles on both sides. Costner hoped that the film’s
release would stimulate public discourse on nuclear issues, especially with the encouragement of a missile
defense system by the US Government under George W Bush. This has caused concern throughout the rest of
the world, and Costner was not alone in warning against the public’s complacency surrounding the nuclear
issue.
Dalia Acosta, writing in Havana after Costner’s trip to Cuba posed an interesting question in how a film about
the missile crisis might look if made from the Cuban perspective.# As yet, this remains to be seen. Indeed, with
the recent declassification of Soviet documents pertaining to the Crisis, and in particular suggestions as to why
the missiles were installed in the first place could offer an entirely different perspective for a film. However,
without the Americans playing an important role, it is questionable whether a Hollywood studio would back such
a project. Thirteen Days does deserve the praise it received for dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis in a non-
jingoistic manner, and for shedding new light on an event about which the whole story has still not been fully
told. This is not to say that the film is the definitive version of events, as it is clearly lacking the Soviet
perspective. By the incorporation of relatively recently released material, it contributes a study of decision-
making at the highest levels of government, and the pressures leaders are put under by their own advisors as
well as their counterparts in other countries. Above all, it makes the audience thankful that someone was able
to defuse a problem that could very easily have become the catalyst for World War Three. Thirteen Days offers
an epitaph for JFK that focuses on his most significant achievement as a leader, rather than his personal
failings as a man.

Bibliography
Kennedy, Robert F. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: WW Norton & Co. 1969.
May, Ernest R and Philip D Zelikow. The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1997.
White, Mark J. (ed.) The Kennedys and Cuba: The Declassified Documentary History. Chicago: Ivan D. Ree,
1999.
Internet resources:
Political Film Society (30/10/02).
http://www.geocities.com/~polfilms/thirteendays.html
IMDB User comments for “Thirteen Days” (30/10/02).
http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0146309
IMDB Box Office and Business for “Thirteen Days” (30/10/02). http://us.imdb.com/Business?0146309

Non-fiction

Hom-UHT Publishing