Those blasted Mayans...what Apocalypse?

December 21, 2012

I thought I had a front row seat to the Apocalypse, the last great show on earth. According to the media, the Mayans promised it, so did the Hopi Indians, solar experts, the Bible, the Chinese Book of Changes (called I Ching), the Hindu religion, geologists studying geysers at Yellowstone National Park, physicists at Berekely Uni and…programmers at the History Channel. For several days leading up to December 21, the History Channel aired end of the world specials with such titles as Seven Signs of the Apocalypse, Nostradamus 2012, Last Days on Earth and Doomsday episodes of Decoding the Past and Brad Meltzer’s Decoded. Similarly, the Discovery Channel aired such shows as 2012 Apocalypse and the National Geographic Channel launched a show called Doomsday Preppers, which is a documentary series about survivalists who prepare for cataclysmic events such as the 2012 Apocalypse. And there were countless other Doomsday specials and series that saw air time on other channels. To put it simply, we were inundated with warnings that the world would end TODAY!

But we’re still here. Why? What happened? Was everybody wrong? How could it be that all these disparate groups came to the same conclusion about the same exact date, yet were all mistaken?

Predictions are a tricky business. Just ask anyone who used to work for the Psychic Friends Network before it declared bankruptcy in 1998 (why didn’t they see that coming?). And End of the World prophecies are far more complicated than individual predictions. History has given us a long list of people who failed in that endeavor…most recently, Harold Camping, whose Family Radio International plastered the country with warnings that the Day of Judgment would come on May 21, 2011, then recalculated after 5/21/11 came and went. The next date Camping selected was October 21, 2011. When he found that the world was still spinning on October 22, 2011 and people were still doing their things, Mr. Camping wisely decided to hang up his Doomsday hat. Nostradamus, the most famous predictor of catastrophes, wrote about his “visions” in vague terms. For example, consider his quatrain that supposedly predicts the attacks of 9/11…

“Volcanic fire from the center of the earth
will cause trembling around the new city:
Two great rocks will make war for a long time.
Then Arethusa will redden a new river.”

People who want to believe that Nostradamus had the great gift of prophecy have found very inventive ways to apply this quatrain to the horrible events of 9/11, but I think anyone with a degree of common sense would take issue with these assertions. This quatrain could apply to practically any war, any city with the word new in its title (look out New Lenox, Newark, New Braunfels, New Bedford, New Orleans and New Haven) and any catastrophe that involves a volcano.

What about the Bible’s book of Revelations? It clearly predicts the End of the World. But like Nostradamus, it is non-specific. The author of the book, John of Patmos, speaks of earthquakes and lightening, famine, plagues, pestilence. He paints us a picture that includes falling stars, scorched earth, seven seals, four horsemen and mythical beasts. Consider Revelations 4:8…

“And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night.”

How are we supposed to predict the date of the End of the World with information like that? The bottom line is…we’re not. The Mayans couldn’t do it, Nostradamus couldn’t do it, Harold Camping couldn’t do it and neither can we. As Matthew wrote in the New Testament, “of that day and hour knoweth no man” (Matthew 24:36).

End of Days prophecies make for great entertainment, but they are poor guides for us to follow. However, if any of you stopped paying bills or maxed out your credit cards with the belief that December 21, 2012 would rid you of all debt, I extend to you this comforting thought: if the past is any indication of the future, you’ll have many upcoming Doomsday prophecies on which to hang your hopes for debt deliverance.

Musings on the finale of HBO's BOARDWALK EMPIRE

December 10, 2012

As my readers know, this blog is all about the melding of history and entertainment. Fortunately, there is never any shortage of material that fits into that category. One of my favorite history as entertainment programs is HBO’s Boardwalk Empire. For those who are unaware of the show, Boardwalk Empire is the creation of Martin Scorsese, Mark Wahlberg, Terence Winter, Tim Van Patten and other very talented filmmakers. It chronicles the exploits of Enoch (Nucky) Thompson (played by Steve Buscemi) as he uses largely illegal means to control Prohibition-era Atlantic City, New Jersey.  Nucky Thompson is technically a fictional character, but he is based largely on corrupt politician/racketeer Enoch L. Johnson (Nucky Johnson), who controlled Atlantic City from the 1910s until his imprisonment in 1941. In Boardwalk Empire, the fictional Nucky Thompson cavorts with an assortment of real-life historical figures ranging from prominent members of President Warren G. Harding’s cabinet to gangsters like Al Capone, Lucky Luciano and Arnold Rothstein. The African American character Albert “Chalky” White seems to be loosely based on a real-life boxer from that time named Chalky Wright, though the character on Boardwalk Empire is a bootlegger, not a boxer and the real Chalky Wright actually spent very little time in Atlantic City in the 1920s.

The season two finale of Boardwalk Empire aired a little over a week ago (Sunday December 2, 2012). It was good and left me longing for more, but it wasn’t as surprising as the finale for season one, and it wasn’t as exciting as the previous episode promised it would be. The season one finale brought viewers the death of James Darmody, one of the most complex and pivotal characters in the series. The episode prior to the season two finale brought Al Capone and Chalky White to Nucky’s aid and promised an unsteady alliance for the final episode. I was a little disappointed by the conclusion of season two because, based on the ending of season one, I was expecting to be hit with something totally unpredictable. Unfortunately, the season concluded the way I expected it might with villain Gyp Rosetti meeting his Maker and Nucky regaining his empire with his brother Eli Thompson by his side. I would have preferred to see something a little bit more by the way of a cliffhanger for the main character. I also would have liked to have seen more of the plight of former Prohibition Agent Nelson Van Alden. Those of you who watch the show know who I’m talking about. Former agent Van Alden is one of the show’s most dynamic characters who, at the end of season two, is in the midst of a transformation from incorruptible do-gooder to gangster. It is a great journey for the character and one I would love to see further developed.

I think I was expecting more from the finale of the second season because the actors and filmmakers of this series have consistently done an incredible job of sucking me into the drama and giving me characters I legitimately care about (even the really bad ones). Viewers of Boardwalk Empire have a lingering sense of inevitable catastrophe as we watch the series unfold. We seem to be forever waiting for the volatile characters to explode and take much of humanity down with them. It’s an excitement we relish…unpredictable, simmering just below the surface, ready to surprise us at any moment. That is why I was mildly disappointed by the last episode of season two. It promised the volcanic detonation I had come to expect, but delivered the equivalent of a few sticks of dynamite exploding in an abandoned distillery.

Don’t get me wrong, I still love the show, recommend it highly and can’t wait for the start of season three. I just want a payoff in my finales that is not what I expect…like when Nucky Thompson killed Jimmy Darmody at the end of season one. Now that was a finale!  

OF "RED TAILS" AND RACISM...ENOUGH ALREADY!

I just finished watching Red Tails on HBO. It was a film I intended to see when it hit the theaters MLK weekend 2012, but I didn’t get a chance to. Before recording my thoughts on the movie, I decided to check the internet to see what other people said. What I found downright depressed me. Of the several sites I visited, the one that I found most disturbing was...

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/why-did-red-tails-fail-to-soar-at-the-box-office

The author of this blog made several good, albeit angrily worded observations of the film. I agree, for example, that the acting was not exactly Oscar-caliber. I also think that Red Tails should not have been billed as an obligatory “must-see” for African-American film-goers. The author is also correct in asserting that the film would have benefitted greatly from an A-list cast that might have included Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock…perhaps even Morgan Freeman. But the author’s claim that “the film sucks…big time” is, in my estimation, far too harsh. I also don’t believe that the dialogue was “laughable”. I think the author of the previously mentioned blog missed the point of the film…which I will come back to in a moment.

But first I would like to address what irritated me the most…the comments people left at the end of the blog. While many of them were appropriate and spoke to the author’s review of the film, many more were despicable. Why does a review about an African-American centric film or the film itself have to generate comments that include phrases like… “black people look for white people to torture” and “you’re a racist hypocrite”? Why do commentators feel the need to throw in words like “honky”, “darkies”, repeatedly use the “N-word”, and reference the KKK? One commentator even went so far as to call the people in the theater with him “loud, arrogant, putrid-smelling ghetto types and their wailing, crying little obnoxious welfare babies”. How in any way does this kind of language further the discourse about race relations or even permit us to accurately review a film? The following statement left by a commentator best sums up my thoughts on this subject… “Wow – Just read these comments. I am from South Africa… AND I THOUGHT WE HAVE RACE ISSUES. Don’t kill each other people.”   

Now, back to the film itself. If I recall correctly, George Lucas, the Executive Producer, stated on several occasions that he wanted Red Tails to be a family-friendly adventure film that featured a primarily African-American cast. The filmmakers did not set out to make Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan, both heavy, gritty movies. Red Tails was intended to be the kind of movie that teachers could show in school and parents could watch with children. It’s a standard adventure with a fairly predictable plot, some campy dialogue and sympathetic characters. It was meant to entertain and raise curiosity. So many people today think that a film has to teach them something that they were too lazy to read in a book. Why can’t a movie simply entertain and encourage intellectually curious viewers to learn more about the subject on their own?

I, for one, lament the fact that people expect their entertainers to be their educators. If you want to learn the true history of the Tuskegee Airmen, buy a book. There are plenty of them available on the subject. If you want to be entertained by an uplifting adventure film, watch Red Tails.

And PLEASE keep the racial insults and death threats for the filmmakers to yourself!

"LINCOLN", A FILM THAT BELONGS TO THE AGES

November 19, 2012

Very few filmmakers have the ability to turn a Congressional vote into a compelling 2 ½ hour movie. But that is precisely what Steven Spielberg did with Lincoln. Of course, Mr. Spielberg is not a typical filmmaker. The man who virtually created the summer blockbuster (Jaws, in case you forgot) has had many years and many films to hone his craft. And I believe it is that experience coupled with his innate skills that enabled Mr. Spielberg to create such a fascinating film.

I would certainly be remiss if I didn’t mention the amazing performances of Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones and others. Each of these actors brought their characters to life in such a way that the viewer forgot he/she was watching a performance. It’s a true testament to their craftsmanship that we stopped thinking of them as Hollywood celebrities and imagined them to be the people we learned about in history class…especially Abraham Lincoln, whose likeness we see countless times every day. What a daunting task it must have been to portray such a well-known and beloved icon.

Now on to the film itself…

The title of the movie is a little misleading, because it’s not a biopic of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln only deals with the last half year of the president’s 56 year life. Furthermore, the focus of the film is not so much Abraham Lincoln as it is the passage of the 13^th Amendment, which abolished slavery. It was President Lincoln’s masterful manipulation of key political players of his day that secured passage of this crucial amendment. The film does a good job of showing the motivations of the people involved without demonizing them. It conveyed the racial attitudes of the time, though I think it softened them a bit in order to appeal to a mass audience. Lincoln addressed the reservations Northern whites had concerning the Constitutional abolition of slavery and their concern over the possible enfranchisement of former slaves. But I don’t think it delved deep enough into the fear Northern whites had of a black vote. The vote, of course, means power. While Northern whites may have been all for ending slavery (and the war), they were still deathly afraid of giving voting power to blacks…they might elect black judges, congressmen, senators, even a black president! Can you imagine? Though we today realize the idiocy of such prejudices, people in mid-19^th Century America held very strongly to such attitudes. While Lincoln did address these beliefs, I believe it toned down the vehemence behind them.

The climax of Lincoln was the House of Representatives vote on the 13^th Amendment, but it was the wrap-up that brought us back to the personality of Abraham Lincoln. We saw him touring a battlefield, meeting with General Ulysses Grant to discuss post-war reconstruction, taking a carriage ride with his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, while speculating about their future…and then the dreaded theater. Fortunately, Mr. Spielberg added a nice twist here. For me, it was this post-climactic period that made the title character most endearing. I must admit, however, that I was hooked from the very start of the film.

For those of you who are debating whether or not to spend your hard earned money on this film, I can only say “Do it”. Abraham Lincoln sits atop America’s pantheon of greatness and there are precious few filmmakers with whom we should entrust this man’s legacy. Fortunately, Steven Spielberg is one of these filmmakers and he has given us a part of the Lincoln story that has been little told and never before filmed. This movie is a must see for anyone who wants to learn more about what created the life we have today or is looking for entertainment that is not silly or needlessly sensationalized. This ain’t Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter…thank you, Mr. Spielberg!  

THE NOT-SO-GREAT TRADITION OF SCANDALS

November 12, 2012

My readers know that the subject of this blog is history as entertainment. At first glance, it might appear that today’s post stretches the parameters of that subject, but it doesn’t. Historically speaking, people find sex scandals to be the most entertaining of subjects.

Did I read that correctly? A sex scandal in a history blog?  

Yes. What is currently happening to General David Petraeus is sadly very historical and, to most people’s way of thinking, very entertaining. How far back should we go? Bible times? Samson lost his hair (and his power) because of his lust for Delilah. Salome used her sex appeal to entice King Herod to give her John the Baptist’s head on a platter. In ancient times, Cleopatra’s seductive ways either directly or indirectly led to the downfall of two great Romans (Julius Caesar and Marc Antony). Charlemagne went to war with King Desiderius of Italy in part because he cast aside Desiderius’ daughter to take another woman. Henry VIII divided his country, created his own religion and plunged his nation into war in order to divorce his wife and bed and wed another. Alexander Hamilton slept with another man’s wife, then wrote a newspaper article explaining that the couple in question was trying to extort him because of it. And how about our presidents? How many of them have had extra-marital affairs? George Washington had dalliances with another man’s wife (Sally Fairfax). Thomas Jefferson had children with his slave Sally Hemings (though he wasn’t married at the time). Jumping to the 20^th century, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy (does this one surprise you?), Lyndon B. Johnson, George H.W. Bush (rumored) and, big shocker, Bill Clinton have all plucked the forbidden fruit…some on many occasions and with astonishing variety. JFK, for example, was known as a great “swordsman” and when someone asked Lady Bird Johnson about her husband’s liaisons with other women, she said, “Well, Lyndon loved the human race…and half of the human race are women.”   

What does this have to do with General Petraeus? I think the answer to that is obvious. The downfall of this great man is very much in keeping with the past…another case of history repeating itself. And, as I said, people love scandals, especially those of a sexual nature. Cleopatra would mean nothing to us if not for her powers of seduction and we find most of our monogamist presidents to be pretty boring. And we’re downright ashamed of some of them. By all accounts, Richard Nixon was faithful and devoted to his wife Pat, though admittedly, people despise him for another form of cheating.

The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, sex sells books, songs, video games, television and movies. I would not be surprised if General Petraeus receives so many entertainment offers from this scandal that he has to start his own production company. In fact, it’s already begun…there is one Petraeus book on the shelves right now entitled All In and it was written by his “other woman”, Paula Broadwell. I wonder if the title of her book is referring to something more than the general’s military exploits.     

Pawn Stars, Pickers, and Sturgis!

                I'd like to share my thoughts concerning history as entertainment in this blog.

                Who am I to write such a blog? I’m a lifelong student of history with a Masters Degree in the subject, a veteran teacher and the author of LONG LIVE THE KING: BOOK ONE OF THE CHARLEMAGNE SAGA. I am also the author of six screenplays, one of which is currently in pre-production to become a feature film.  

               The History Channel is one of the highest rated cable networks. Numerous movies, television, songs and video games are inspired by history. In short, history pervades our media and I thought readers might enjoy my thoughts on the subject.

               And away we go…Last night, I watched The History Channel’s cross-bred trip to Sturgis, South Dakota. For those of you who are unaware of what happened, The History Channel sent its two highest rated reality shows (American Pickers and Pawn Stars) to Bike Week in Sturgis, while also sprinkling in characters from two more of its reality series, American Restoration and Counting Cars. The cross-promotion began with an episode of American Pickers in which Danielle bought the frame of a 1935 Indian motorcycle for $8,000. Mike and Frank realized that the only way they could get their money back would be to hire Rick Dale from American Restoration to restore the bike to its pristine condition. They then took it to Bike Week in Sturgis, where they sold it for a profit. The guys from Pawn Stars ended up in Sturgis because they bought Chumlee a motorcycle for his 30^th birthday and decided to take it on a road trip to Bike Week. The road trip included Danny “The Count” from Counting Cars. While the others rode motorcycles, Rick Harrison drove an RV that he filled with antiques for his business along the way.     

I enjoyed The History Channel’s Sturgis experiment and appreciate their efforts to mix things up and give these shows a theme. Ironically, it’s the addition of a theme that also dispels some of the illusion of these reality series. We want to believe that what the boys in American Pickers and the guys in Pawn Stars purchase are real and not coordinated simply to generate ratings. The truth, however, is that they are carefully selected. How else do you explain someone trying to sell a fully functional Cold War fighter jet to a pawn shop in Las Vegas? The stuff that passes through that shop could rival the Smithsonian’s collections.

So my evaluation of The History Channel’s Sturgis cross-promotion is neither totally lauding nor fully applauding. I like my reality shows to make me believe they are real, but I also enjoy divergences away from the same old, some old. And I LOVE Sturgis!!

Another great book festival!

Here are a few pics from last Saturday's book festival located in St. Petersburg, Fl.  The Times Festival of Reading was a lot of fun.  I met some fascinating people and had a great time.  I hope they enjoyed meeting me as much as I enjoyed meeting them. 

 

Thanks for checking out my blog.  For those of you who read my last post, I've decided to take this blog in a different direction and focus on the joining of history and entertainment.  Check out next weeks post to find out exactly what that entails.

Fosters.com - Dover NH, Rochester NH, Portsmouth NH, Laconia NH, Sanford ME

Fosters.com - Dover NH, Rochester NH, Portsmouth NH, Laconia NH, Sanford ME

Poll

Please vote on the question of the week:  "Who would you like to know more about?"  The poll will close next Saturday, July 21 at noon.  Thank you!

Where are they when we need them the most?

Two weeks ago, The New York Times published an opinion piece entitled Where’s Charlemagne When We Need Him? By Istvan  Deak. I found this article particularly interesting because my novel Long Live the King is about a fictional organization which tries to clone Charlemagne in order to install him at the head of the European Union, effectively bringing back Charlemagne to rule Europe when we need him the most. I would be tempted to ask if Dr. Deak read my book before he wrote his article, but I know that is not the case as my book was just published this week.

In light of Dr. Deak’s article and in consideration of my book’s premise, I began wondering what other historical figures might be particularly relevant to today’s world.  I decided, therefore, to explore that subject in my blog. Over the next several months, I will assemble a list of the fifty (50) people from history who would have the greatest positive impact if they were brought back to exist in our modern world. I will not deal with villains. Nor will I include individuals who started religions (i.e. Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Moses/Abraham, etc.). In each posting, I will compare two individuals with a brief biography on each one and list of their pros and cons to effect positive change in our world today. I encourage you to post your suggestions for people to add to the list and post your vote on which character you would prefer when two of them are compared.  

This run-off of the top fifty (50) people will be organized in a bracket system the way sports tournaments operate. In other words, the winners from round one will face off in round two, etc. When the final winner is determined, I will write a short story about that person living in the modern world and post it exclusively on this blog for my readers to enjoy.

Please post any of your suggestions at the end of this blog and look for my book Long Live the King on Amazon.com or go to my website guycotebooks.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Let the fun “what-if’s” begin…

Welcome to my blog!  Here, I'll be discussing my books, writing, history, and much more.