Reflections on History: 
A Review of “Thirteen Days” continued
 
by Meg Bryant 

One thing that greatly added to the historical feel of the film for me 
was the way the sets recreated the actual environments of the events—the 
Oval Office, the Cabinet Room, Bobby Kennedy’s office (which you can see a 
recreation of at the Kennedy Library in Boston), and the White House portico. 
There were several instances where I felt like I was looking at the actual 
historic photographs I researched and acquired for my museum’s exhibit.
 
I am speaking from experience when I say it is no small task to sift 
through the vast amounts of information on the missile crisis, to identify 
the key players, the step-by-step order of events, and the significance 
of those events.  Obviously, when this film was being created it was approached 
with an admirable commitment to accuracy.  It also managed to remain dramatically 
gripping while retaining accuracy.  Even though we know how things turned 
out, that it didn’t all end in nuclear war, I found myself on the edge of my 
seat throughout the film.
 

While I don’t believe the dramatic embellishment of O’Donnell’s 
role takes away from the general historical accuracy of the film, it is 
my only complaint about the film.  During the actual thirteen days in October 1962 
someone expressed a concern that events could lead to a sort of Pearl Harbor in 
reverse with President Kennedy taking on the role of Tojo.  In the movie this 
reference is attributed to O’Donnell.  In fact, it was Bobby Kennedy who made 
the comment (actually, it was written on a note he passed to someone during 
an ExComm meeting).  And then there’s the whole thing with O’Donnell calling 
the pilots before each photography mission over Cuba… I guess there’s no way 
we can actually be certain that it didn’t happen, but it did seem a little 
farfetched to me.  I also think the story would have been better served if the 
film were about ten minutes shorter—which could have easily been accomplished by 
removing some of the extraneous Kenny O’Donnell moments (but I guess Costner 
is the star, after all).
 

One of the best things about this film are the performances of Steven Culp 
and Bruce Greenwood.  They both did an amazing job portraying these two extremely 
familiar historic icons, and the praise they are receiving from various critics is 
well deserved.  One thing in particular that struck me was the depiction of the 
relationship between the Kennedy brothers and their friendship with Kenny O’Donnell 
and how well these relationships were portrayed by the actors.  There are moments in 
the film you witness these intense moments of non-verbal communication between 
the brothers that seems so grippingly real—it’s almost as thought Steven Culp 
and Bruce Greenwood were channeling Jack and Bobby.  The scenes of the three men 
conferring on the portico outside the Oval Office in particular show the camaraderie 
they shared, and I don’t think it is embellished—while O’Donnell’s role 
in the events shown in the film is exaggerated at some points he was in fact very 
close to both Kennedy brothers, especially Bobby.
 

Many have said that the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was the 
Kennedy brother’s brightest moment, and while you can’t really take a Hollywood 
film as an historical document, it’s hard not to agree after seeing this film. 
As I watched the final scene showing the brothers and their friend sharing a 
conversation on the White House portico, I found myself thinking about how the 
situation could have ended much differently had someone else been president. 
That in turn led me to reflect that less than six years later two of these young 
men were dead, and I wondered how the world might have been different had 
either—or both—survived.
 

[This review is for use in the Totally Steven! newsletter only. 
Please do not reprint or cross-post without the author’s express written permission.]

 
  
  

 

Back to Newsletter