The Vindication of Right: A Look at Thirteen Days

The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 was one of the closest moments that the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ever came to a nuclear conflict during the Cold War era. At the time, it was a defining moment for the Kennedy administration. A moment where any kneejerk reaction from either side could have plunged the world into not only World War III but also into a war that would have seen nuclear attacks, killing untold millions. This was a moment where ultimately cooler heads prevailed. And all I can say is thank heavens that Kevin Costner was there to see this country peacefully through!

When the USSR placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, little did they know that almost 40 years later, Costner would be there to help advise and guide not only John F. Kennedy, but also Robert F. Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, and a host of other historical figures that played a role at this crucial crossroads. Costner, for his efforts, deserves not only a medal, but also a knighthood and preferred parking for the rest of his life. We admire you, Kevin. Thank you for your service.

All right, all right, before I overplay my sarcastic hand even more, a little backstory. Thirteen Days, released in 2000, is the dramatic retelling of the Cuban Missile Crisis as it unfolded for the Kennedy administration. From the moment the missiles were discovered in Cuba to the consultations with cabinet members and the military to the dramatic confrontation at the United Nations, Thirteen Days manages to pack quite a bit of history in almost two and a half hours. And for the most part, the film pulls it off quite well.

No matter what name is above the poster, the central figure of this film is Bruce Greenwood as President John F. Kennedy. Greenwood is simply incredible. Being able to portray a figure from history so convincingly is a hard task for any actor, especially in a film that isn’t just a biography of Kennedy alone. Thirteen Days is a group effort, so it is even harder for any character in the JFK role. For instance, Anthony Hopkins does a brilliant job as Richard M. Nixon in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film. I think it is the best role of Hopkins career. But that film is a story that centers on Nixon from his early life to the end of his presidency, which gives Hopkins a lot of material to work with to be sure. By comparison, Thirteen Days is literally about thirteen days in October 1962. Yet even with this limited timeframe, Greenwood excels throughout. He’s so good, that I’d elect Greenwood as John F. Kennedy to high office right now.

There are little bits of background history sprinkled throughout Thirteen Days. For instance, Kennedy had back pain problems and Joseph Kennedy Sr. was considered to be an appeaser during World War II. But these subtle moments aren’t out of place, forcefully wedged into the narrative of Thirteen Days unnaturally. After all, we’re on a timeframe here. There simply isn’t time to get into the backgrounds of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara or speechwriter Ted Sorenson. The movie almost plays like it was in real time. The missiles are in Cuba, now. So what do we do and what do we do quickly?

I’d also like to give special mention to Steven Culp as Robert F. Kennedy. Culp not only looks the part, but he and Greenwood work very well together portraying these famous brothers. Also, Culp had prior experience playing RFK in 1996’s Norma Jean & Marilyn, which I believe does not involve a dramatic recreation of Adlai Stevenson’s confrontation of the Soviet Union at the United Nations, but don’t quote me as I haven’t seen it. What I have seen is Robert Culp in Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday and he certainly played a convincing role as a character possessed by the murderous spirit of Jason Voorhees.

Also, Dylan Baker and Michael Fairman do well as Robert McNamara and Adlai Stevenson respectively. I would recommend seeing the fascinating documentary The Fog of War if you wish to know a bit more about McNamara. Please read Lauren Bacall’s memoir By Myself if you wish to read passages about how she was oddly attracted to Adlai Stevenson. (I only say this because I read it recently and those moments in the book surprised me a bit. The glamorous Bacall had a thing for the nebbish Stevenson. Really?!)

Director Roger Donaldson has had a career of almost hits. Looking over his filmography, I’d have to say that the biggest standouts were 1988’s Cocktail with Bryan Brown and some unknown by the name of Tom Cruise and 1995’s Species where we get to see Natasha Henstridge. (Well, we get to see a lot of Natasha Henstridge, if you know what I mean. Let’s just say there’s a generation of fans who were thankful that Species came out on DVD since they had paused their VHS copies a lot, causing some well-worn areas that tracking adjustment will not fix.)

Anyway, the direction on Thirteen Days is efficient, if not spectacular. Historical events are recreated without too much distraction or overreliance on CGI. Thankfully, the story itself happens in a lot of conference rooms and offices, so the budget didn’t have to be too overwhelmed. There is some period stock footage used and some of it was colorized, but it is rather seamlessly blended unless you’re looking for it, like I was this time around.

I’ve heard some criticism that the film doesn’t explore the effects that the Cuban Missile Crisis had to the average person on the street in the United States or in Cuba or in the Soviet Union. Speaking of which, in Thirteen Days we also don’t see any conferences on the other side over in Moscow among the Soviet leadership with Premier Nikita Khruschev and other members of the Politburo. Well, I say, good. If one wants to do a six- or eight-part mini-series regarding every aspect of these historic events, that would be the perfect time to convey all those viewpoints. But here you have just under 150 minutes to get your story in and out and done, without the time to spare.

Thirteen Days focuses more on the back and forth, the political chess match both within and without. It is like a World War II submarine film where we spend almost the entire runtime on only one sub with one crew, always guessing, strategizing, trying to put yourself in your opponent’s shoes when plotting your next move. In this instance, Thirteen Days succeeds admirably, even though we know the outcome of the events depicted. Moments of tension do steadily build and ultimately pay off.

Of course, there are a few flaws in Thirteen Days. For instance, the film incorrectly portrays that some military advisors were gung-ho for war more than anyone else. In truth, Robert F. Kennedy was initially for an invasion of Cuba to take care of this issue, something that the movie doesn’t even touch upon. In reality, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did what they were supposed to do: prepare for the eventuality of war. They are not diplomats. They informed the President of those options that were ready should he give the go-ahead. Yes, there were some who wanted to blow the communists to kingdom come, but it wasn’t necessarily as black and white, us vs. them, as the film leads you to believe.

For all the enjoyment I had with this film, there is the biggest bone of contention I have with Thirteen Days. This would be with the star, the producer, the legend: Kevin Costner. Now, let me preface this with a statement: I like Kevin Costner. I truly do! When given the right script, he can direct and/or act with the best of them. I mean, look at his resumé: Field of Dreams, The Untouchables, The Bodyguard, Dances with Wolves, A Perfect World, Open Range, Bull Durham, Sizzle Beach U.S.A. (Okay, I just wanted to check if you made it that far.) Costner even had his own Kennedy connection by previously being in Oliver Stone’s JFK in 1991. Of course, Costner has had some turkeys, but every actor takes some missteps, I don’t hold it against him.

The bottom line is that the character he was portraying, Kenneth O’Donnell, just wasn’t as involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis as much as this movie contends. Yes, O’Donnell was a special advisor and friend to the Kennedys, but he didn’t dictate policies or decisions. He wasn’t constantly hovering there to receive significant looks from Kennedy in cabinet meetings or giving pep talks to both Jack Kennedy before going on TV and to Bobby Kennedy before he met with Soviet connections at the Department of Justice.

This isn’t to diminish O’Donnell completely. He was close enough to JFK that he was in the motorcade on that fateful November day in Dallas. O’Donnell helped with Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential bid until that ended violently as well. But O’Donnell was not the Kennedy go-to in international matters like this. Even Robert McNamara himself said this wasn’t true and that Ted Sorenson was more of a player in this than O’Donnell ever was. Then again, Costner was a producer on Thirteen Days and McNamara wasn’t. I don’t know if the boosting of the O’Donnell character for Costner’s sake was intentional or not. What I will say is that at times, John F. Kennedy himself seemingly takes a backseat to O’Donnell in Thirteen Days.

The odd part is that if you wrote Costner’s character out of the script, you could achieve the exact same story. Of course, JFK wouldn’t get that many nods of approval from Costner in key dramatic moments and we would be without the pleasure of Costner stumbling through a Massachusetts accent. (By the way, why did Costner make that choice? To make it harder on himself? It isn’t like Bruce Greenwood sounds like spent all day pahking his cah by the gahden. Did Costner learn nothing from the accent drubbing he rightfully got for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? Sure, Costner can do a vague westerny accent in stuff like Silverado or Wyatt Earp, but New Englander/Bostonian tones are well beyond his wheelhouse. [By the other way, why did Costner release a Wyatt Earp movie that close to the definitive and more crowd-pleasing version in Tombstone? I mean, c’mon Kev, you ain’t Kurt Russell. Golly, what terrible timing!] But I mightily digress.)

Thirteen Days wasn’t a hit at the box office upon release, and one can probably see why. After all, it isn’t action packed along the lines of a Jack Ryan film, no matter how much spin a trailer puts on it. In comparison to a Tom Clancy thrill ride, Thirteen Days can be regarded as a film where we watch a bunch of people debating and talking in a variety of different offices and conference rooms in the White House and the United Nations. No nukes explode, only one plane gets shot down, the end.

But the strength of Thirteen Days rests in the dialogue and the performances. Even with the historical inaccuracy and misguided accent, Costner doesn’t phone it in at all. Greenwood and Culp both do great work here. The stakes were incredibly high, and the drama was inherent in the actual historical events unfolding over those two weeks where we came close to going over the edge. And possibly at the end of the day, Thirteen Days is a good primer on how to avoid going over similar edges in the future. No matter what though, it never hurts to have your accent tight and ready to go at a moment’s notice.

This post is a proud contributor to the Two Jacks Blogathon at Taking Up Room hosted by Rebecca Deniston. Thank you to Rebecca for having me participate in the blogathon! Be sure to check out other fantastic posts over at Taking Up Room! https://takinguproom.com/2023/08/21/announcing-the-two-jacks-blogathon/

Announcing the Two Jacks Blogathon