KILLING KENNEDY, a good place to start the discussion!

In 1992, William Manchester wrote, "Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning...if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something.
A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one."

Mr. Manchester was certainly justified in holding his opinion. He had been asked by the Kennedy family to look into JFK's death shortly after it happened and his files became the template used by the Warren Commission. In 1967, he published his findings in a bestselling book entitled The Death of a President.

After watching the National Geographic original movie Killing Kennedy based on the Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard book of the same name, it occurred to me that the filmmakers (and authors) paid close attention to the work done by Mr. Manchester and the Warren Commission.

Over the years, I've spent considerable time looking into the JFK assassination (I refuse to call it the Kennedy Assassination in order to distinguish it from the other Kennedy Assassination - RFK, which most people seem to forget). I will not, by any means, call myself an expert. But I am well read on the subject. And as a well read student of the subject, I have come to one steadfast conclusion...we will NEVER know with certainty what happened in the murder of President John F. Kennedy on 11/22/63.

Mr. Manchester made convincing arguments. So did the Warren Commission and the authors and filmmakers of Killing Kennedy. But Oliver Stone (in his film JFK), Jim Garrison and the legion of other conspiracy minded authors and filmmakers also made convincing arguments. In the end, their are just so many theories, questions and explanations that I'm afraid the truth will never be ascertained clearly enough to put the issue to rest...unlike Abraham Lincoln's murder at the hands of John Wilkes Booth.

So...where does that leave the telefilm Killing Kennedy? In my estimation, it was well done with good quality and it stuck faithfully to its premise. **SPOILER ALERT** The premise was that Lee Harvey Oswald was delusional with a false sense of his own importance and, therefore, assassinated JFK without any assistance. His reason for committing this murder was to show the world (and particularly the Marxists) that he was a man who could do something important. Jack Ruby's motivation in killing Oswald was to spare Mrs. Kennedy the pain of having to return to Dallas to testify against Oswald in a trial (and because he was so overwhelmed by his own grief over JFK's death). On the surface, these motivations and characterizations are convincing. They are also the line towed by Mr. Manchester and the Warren Commission since the 1960s.

However, many things were ignored by the film in order to make this premise convincing. First of all, Oswald wasn't simply a delusional nut job. He had mafia and CIA connections (in the 1950s and 1960s, the mafia and CIA often worked together for their mutual benefit). Both Oswald and his uncle had worked for Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello and Oswald knew Jack Ruby. Mr. Ruby was also a known gunrunner for Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante. He was also an associate of Jimmy Hoffa, a sworn enemy of the Kennedys. These things were never referenced in Killing Kennedy because they would have detracted from the filmmakers' premise. The magic bullet, JFK's head going back and to the left during the final kill shot (something that would defy physics if the shot came from the back), the ease with which Oswald renounced his US citizenship and then regained it (with money given to him by the US government), Oswald's Russian friends in Dallas who worked for the CIA, the plots against JFK in Chicago and Tampa with "assassins" who were eerily similar to Oswald, at least on paper...the list goes on and on. But I think you get the point.

Killing Kennedy will not put the questions about JFK's killing to rest. And it left out a tremendous amount of material. But it was a good telefilm with fine acting...particularly by Rob Lowe, who played JFK. If you know little or nothing about the JFK Assassination and wish to learn more, I'd recommend this film as a decent starting point. But I would also recommend you follow it up with Oliver Stone's JFK and then read as much as you can about the subject without losing your sanity. But, above all, I'd recommend that you look at both sides of the argument...the lone gunman theory and the various conspiracy theories...with an open mind. Then, when you are appropriately enlightened, form your own opinion. That's what I've done and I'm confident in my opinion.

Good luck to you in your quest for knowledge. But please keep one thing in mind...as interesting as this subject might be, let's not forget that we lost an incredible man (despite his flaws, which we all have) and an inspiring leader on November 22, 1963. And our country suffered considerably because of it.

Will Fox allow SLEEPY HOLLOW to keep its head?

I expect I'm not alone in this, but I have an unpleasant history of getting into a new show that doesn't survive its first season and, in some cases, only makes it a couple of episodes (anyone remember last year's Zero Hour?). I've considered jumping on the bandwagon and following shows that I know will get renewed...thereby not leaving me hanging. But with a few exceptions like The Big Bang Theory and Castle, I just can't seem to get into the popular fare...especially if it's a reality show like Dancing With The Stars, America's Got Talent or anything that features Simon Cowell.

Nevertheless, as the new television season gets underway, I can't resist the urge to sample some new offerings and see what happens. The first one to sink its claws into me is Fox's Sleepy Hollow. Based loosely...and I mean VERY loosely...on Washington Irving's short story The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Fox's version tells the story of Abby Mills, a modern-day sheriff in the town of Sleepy Hollow and Ichabod Crane, a soldier in George Washington's Revolutionary army who wakes up 250 years after being buried in a cave. It seems that the Headless Horseman, who Crane beheaded in a Revolutionary War skirmish, has returned to contemporary Sleepy Hollow along with Crane. And as one of the four riders of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible, the Headless Horseman intends to bring about the end of the world...unless our two heroes can stop him.

If this show had come out ten, five or even three years ago, I'd say that it has little to no chance of finding an audience. But entertainment is different today. We are now in the age of Grimm, Once Upon A Time, True Blood, World War Z, Twilight and countless other fairytale/monster incarnations. Add in elements of witchcraft, ancient orders and End of Days prophecy, and it looks like Sleepy Hollow is poised to take off in the ratings. And though I generally dislike witchcraft stories, I think I'm going to enjoy this show.

Those of you who follow this blog are familiar its theme: history as entertainment. While Sleepy Hollow is a FAR cry from real history, the pilot episode has shown me that it will have enough historical elements and references to keep a history buff like me happy. Aside from references to George Washington, Revolutionary War battles and Colonial assemblies, the pilot also teased me with promises that future episodes would refer to such historical hits as The Boston Tea Party.

I've always been fascinated by the idea of someone from the past living in our world today. In fact, it was that concept that inspired me to write my novel Long Live The King: Book One of the Charlemagne Saga. With the creators of Sleepy Hollow applying that concept to a television show, I find myself once again rooting for a new series. I just hope the powers that be at Fox will give Sleepy Hollow a chance to find its audience. I'd hate to have my hopes once again dashed Zero Hour-style.

Until then, I intend to be tuned into Fox at 9 pm Monday nights.
  

THE LONE RANGER wears the Hollywood formula like a badge!

As I discussed in my previous blog post about the movie White House Down, Hollywood is obsessed with making sure its movies fit a certain formula. This is, of course, done because filmmaking is a business above all else. Formulas are the best way for studios to ensure that they'll get their money back...the motto is, if it's worked before, it will work again. And that brings us to The Lone Ranger.

Based on the popular radio show from the 1930s and the even more popular television show from the 1950s, Disney's The Long Ranger is a light-hearted adventure western about a masked lawman and his trusty Indian sidekick who try to bring justice to the wild west. I expect most everyone has heard of The Lone Ranger and most people over the age of 60 probably watched the show on television. Therefore, I don't need to go into great detail in explaining the film's concept. The problem for Disney, however, is in making a relic of 1950s black and white TV appealing to younger audiences who have likely seen few if any westerns. That is not to say that resurrections of past pop culture icons is not possible. Just look at the success of Warner Bros.' reboot of the Superman franchise. Superman is not unlike The Lone Ranger. Both originated in the 1930s and thrived on 1950s television. The big difference, however, is that superhero movies are very much in vogue today. And westerns are not.

So the question becomes how does Disney hedge its bets to ensure they'll turn a profit after investing a reported $225 million to make The Lone Ranger and an additional $100 million to advertise it. The answer, according to Disney, lies in the formula. Hollywood studios have seen time and again that they can reap huge profits on properties that are predictable, offensive to few if any groups and tied to huge merchandising campaigns (all the better if they can also be incorporated into theme park merchandising). On paper, The Lone Ranger fits the bill. It has brand recognition, a big producer (Jerry Bruckheimer), director (Gore Verbinski) and star (Johnny Depp). But above all, it has a familiar formula.

What is this formula I keep talking about? Well, it's essentially the formula I described in my White House Down post...in this case, there's a slight variation because The Lone Ranger is primarily a buddy movie and the star of the film (Depp) plays a supporting role. But the formula basically remains the same: the hero doesn't want to be the hero, the villain has no redeeming qualities, the stunts are over the top and unrealistic, the action is punctuated by one-liner quips, a damsel is in need of rescue, a father figure/role model type character turns out to be the ultimate bad guy and the villain is brought down in the end with the hero tying every thing up nicely, then riding off into the sunset. As I said, this formula has worked many times in the past so Disney had every reason to expect it to work for The Lone Ranger.

Unfortunately for Disney, it looks as if the well-worn formula may not work this time around. Initial box office returns have not been good for The Lone Ranger and critics have been panning the film. There can be many reasons for this, but I believe it is because the makers of this film relied too much on the old formula. The western genre is already pretty much played out. Hollywood relied so heavily on that genre in the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s, that by the 1980s anytime someone put on cowboy boots, donned a Stetson and rode a horse, they became a caricature and/or a mockery. My feeling is that if Disney intended to throw big money at a played out genre the would have to do so in a fresh and original way...that means diverging from the predictable fare. That is not what Disney chose to do. And I think it will hurt them.

Although audiences feel comfortable with familiarity, too much of it will turn them off. A predictable plot in an over-played genre will likely prove to be too much for audiences. While The Lone Ranger is fun escapist fare and the acting is very good, I don't believe it will connect with audiences for the reasons I mentioned.

A note to Hollywood...let us live under the illusion that our entertainment isn't being spoon-fed to us. Please.     

WHITE HOUSE DOWN is action...make no mistake about it.

Well...of course...if I write a blog about history as entertainment, I would have to write something about the new action film White House Down starring Channing Tatum and Jamie Fox. It's the story of a bunch of baddies taking over America's most iconic and important building with the president trapped inside. Movies don't get more "Americana" than that. So...did it blow my mind? Did it make me laugh? Cry? Clutch my armrests with white knuckles? Did it leave me stunned, speechless or spellbound? With ticket prices in the $10 to $15 range, audiences have certain expectations from their silver screen entertainment...especially during the Summer. And the question is...did White House Down deliver? Well...

If you grew up in the 1980s like I did, you're no stranger to over the top action films (in fact one such film was actually titled Over the Top). These films all fit a certain formula which includes muscular/jacked male leads with big guns trying to save nothing less than the world itself from unrepentant bad guys with no redeeming qualities. The dialogue is short and snappy with one-liners like, "I like you Sully. That's why I'll kill you last." (Arnold's Commando). A person in power who the main character trusts usually ends up being the evil puppet master by the end of the film. And there's almost always some damsel or child in distress who makes the fight personal for the hero. If there was an "Eighties Action Film Checklist" White House Down would garner all the requisite checkmarks even though it's more than twenty years removed from that cinematic era.

Enough already...what's the verdict on the film?

While White House Down can be categorized as a formulaic action film in keeping with the heyday of action films, it has a few things that separate it from the typical fare. First of all, the special effects are amazing. I don't think a film like this could have been made in the 1980s because the technology wasn't around back then to pull it off convincingly. Second, the acting is very good...better than your average 1980s actioner. Third, it has some nice subtle touches of history woven into it that history buffs like myself enjoy...most standard action films ignore that.

Wait a minute, Guy...you didn't offer much to make us think this wasn't a typical action movie!

That's right. I didn't. And the reason I didn't is because there wasn't a lot to separate White House Down from the pack of action films. But that doesn't mean that this film is mindless junk...far from it. I contend that if you go into the theater expecting nothing more than adrenaline pumping action from a somewhat predictable plot punctuated by the types of characters you've seen before, you will not be disappointed. Now of course that description doesn't make the film sound very appealing...unless you consider that most recent box office champions fit into that formula. The truth is that audiences find a certain comfort in predictability. Moviegoers rarely pay money to see action films that make them think. They want to see big muscles firing big guns. They want to see the world saved and the damsels rescued. They want the bad guys to be completely bad with hats that are pitch black without any shades of gray. And they will pay big money to see this...most of these films earn well over half a billion dollars in their box office runs.

It's obvious that the makers of White House Down considered the parameters of their genre carefully. They deliberately included all the criteria found in action films and they were cautious not to offend anyone on the international scene who might be buying tickets to see the film...****SPOILER ALERT**** That's why the villains who take over The White House are domestic radicals and racists (groups that almost everyone can despise) rather than foreign enemies.

And now for my verdict...

I enjoyed it very much because I didn't have any highbrow expectations. I wasn't looking to be enlightened. I didn't think my political or world views would be challenged. I didn't expect White House Down to give me any sort of epiphany. I plopped down my money thinking that I would be treated to some fun escapist entertainment. And that is precisely what I received. Sure, there may have been some predictability and a great deal of unrealistic happenings, but that's what the action genre has offered us since its inception and it's not likely to change any time soon. White House Down gives us what we expect...nothing more, nothing less.     

Will MAN OF STEEL destroy Hollywood or save it?

Are Superman's shoulders broad enough to support an entire industry? Warner Bros. certainly hopes so. If you've been following entertainment news lately, you know that two of Hollywood's heaviest hitters, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, recently predicted the implosion of the Hollywood system. The basic gist of what they said was that Hollywood's reliance on big budget "tent pole" films prevents smaller scale, less popcorn-friendly movies from being made. Therefore, if and when these big-budget extravaganzas bomb, Hollywood will implode because it had too much riding on precious few films. Spielberg cited his movie Lincoln as an example of a film that almost became a smaller scale television production. He didn't say it, but one can infer that were it not for the clout of Mr. Spielberg such would have been the fate of Lincoln.

What does this have to do with Man of Steel (aka Superman)? Well...with a budget of over $200 million and a full-scale hype machine behind it, Warner Bros. Studios is banking on Man of Steel to pull in huge box office numbers and re-ignite their superhero franchise. But wait, you might be saying, what about all these other superhero movies that have filled our movie screens lately? Aside from The Dark Knight (aka Batman), recent box office champions in this genre have come from Marvel Studios, which is owned by Disney. Warner Bros. owns DC Comics, which is a whole different stable of superheroes. So...back to my original question...what does the prediction made by Spielberg and Lucas have to do with Man of Steel? The answer is...everything. If Man of Steel becomes a billion dollar box office bonanza, it will spawn two sequels, then launch a Justice League film that will essentially be a DC Comics All-Star movie in the vein of Marvel's Avengers, which grossed more money that the GDP of many countries. After that, Warner Bros. is planning on making films featuring Aquaman, Wonder Woman and God knows who else.

So, are Spielberg and Lucas right? Will Hollywood's reliance on big budge lack-of-originality films prevent smaller, less predictably commercial films from reaching the silver screen? Possibly. But it's interesting to note that the two men who made this prediction are the ones who are responsible for ushering in the age of tent-pole filmmaking (anyone remember Jaws and Star Wars?).    

Now what about Man of Steel? It's in the theaters now. Does it live up to the hype and production expense? Will it put Warner Bros. safely back on a path paved with gold? Having just seen the film, I would say "yes" to both these questions. Man of Steel has all the over-the-top action and effects audience expect in a superhero film. But it also has a strong story with plenty of character development. Henry Cavill, who plays the title character, makes a convincing Superman and brings a depth of emotional angst and loneliness to the part. The film's villain, General Zod is played by Michael Shannon, who is an incredibly talented actor with an ability to tap a range of convincing emotions. I was also impressed by the screenwriter's ability to create a complicated story and give us much of the character origin that previous Superman films ignored. So my final assessment is that Man of Steel reaches beyond cliched superhero fare to give us a story that could survive quite well without the big-budget effects that characterize tent-pole films.

Spielberg and Lucas may be warning us against a reliance on epic motion pictures, but if all these films have the depth that Man of Steel possesses, perhaps we might be able to avoid a Hollywood implosion. Only time will tell.   

GAME OF THRONES season finale disappointing? Say it ain't so.

What can I say about Game of Thrones that hasn't already been said or written? The characters are rich, deep and they seem to be real flesh and blood people. The numerous storylines run concurrently and intersect seamlessly. The imaginative settings seem to be real places. Even the names appear to be authentic. And what about the plot twists? There are more surprises in this HBO series than one would find in a lifetime of Christmases.

But I think there is one thing that has been rarely said or written about Game of Thrones. And that one thing can be summarized in a single word...disappointment.

What is that? Did I dare say I was disappointed in Game of Thrones? With the popularity of this show, it seems almost blasphemous to utter such a statement. But at the risk of being haunted by all the Stark spirits, I said it (actually, I wrote it...but who wants to be technical?). I was disappointed when the credits finally rolled on tonight's season finale.

But before you summon your dragons to smash me upon Casterly Rock, let me explain. I'm not saying I'm disappointed in the show or this entire season. I'm simply talking about tonight's finale. 

What does it mean to be disappointed? It means that you were expecting...nay, anticipating a certain outcome, and you did not receive it. And what was I expecting from the season finale of Game of Thrones? To be honest, I'm not really sure...but I thought I'd be treated to a season climax on par with the shocking season 1 finale. Short of that, I thought I'd be treated to an episode that grabbed me by the...ahem, uh collar...as much as the previous episode did. Remember the previous episode? It's the one everyone was talking about. It's the episode that ended with the Red Wedding and the slaughter of the majority of the Stark family. It was the shock of shocks that no one expected (unless of course you read the books and already knew what was going to happen). It was epic storytelling that blew me away. And I LOVED IT! It was imaginative and it flew in the face of conventionality. It shattered the myth of the happy ending. In a word, it was brilliant.

But that was the previous episode, not tonight's season finale. Tonight's episode was a story building episode...the valley that comes between emotional peaks. I imagine in a book it would fit nicely. After a powerful scene as gut-wrenching at the Red Wedding, it would be necessary to give the reader a moment to catch their breath with the events that transpired in tonight's episode. But let's not forget that tonight's episode was a season finale. With season finales audiences have certain expectations. In the case of Game of Thrones, the bar of expectation had been set so high that audiences (myself included) thought they would be treated to something that would just blow their minds. No one was sure what a mind exploding episode would look like...perhaps Daenerys Targaryen's dragons might turn and kill her in the most heinous of ways...I don't know. But we were sure...I was sure...something big would happen in tonight's season finale.

Alas, it did not happen. Arya Stark killed her first man. Tywin Lannister continued to plot. Jaime Lannister returned to the love of his life, his sister Cersei. Oh, and Theon Greyjoy's favorite appendage was put in a box and shipped to his father. No big deal, right? In any other series, these events would be pretty big...but in the world of Game of Thrones, they ranked low on the excitement scale.

So what are we to make of an anti-climactic season finale? Precisely what George R.R. Martin and the show's creators wanted...more expectation. Martin and the filmmakers deliberately created a series that would keep audiences guessing. And in order to do that, you must NOT give the audience what they expect. If we expected a finale bigger than the episode that came before it, they would give us one that was smaller.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the beauty of Game of Thrones...unpredictability. So am I really disappointed? Only in myself for believing I could predict the unpredictable.

Nice work Game of Thrones. You surprised me yet again. See you next season.    

PAWN STARS...reality or fantasy? Or both?

In my previous post, "Thumbs up for Billy Joel and AMERICAN RESTORATION" I discussed the History Channel's attempts to increase their shows' ratings by having celebrities make guest appearances. Two days later, the History Channel is at it again...this time with their top rated show PAWN STARS. In this case, the show's move to its new slot at 9 pm Eastern time on Thursdays was marked by Rick Harrison's visit to Rock and Roll Fantasy Camp with not one, but two celebrities in attendance.

The celebrities featured in this episode were 1980s Rock n Roll heartthrob Kip Winger (from the band Winger) and Rock n Roll legend Roger Daltrey (lead singer of The Who). Of course, Daltrey was the bigger draw here and Rick was appropriately star struck by the British singer. Rick's efforts to sing like a Rock n Roller were entertaining, albeit brief. Most of the show proceeded as usual with people bringing merchandise into the pawn shop and Corey, the Old Man and Chumlee wheeling and dealing with them.

In several of my other posts, I addressed the issue of whether or not the History Channel's reality shows are staged. My conclusion is that they are...especially PAWN STARS. After all, I've never heard of a single pawn shop anywhere in the world that gets the kinds of treasures brought into it that are offered to the folks at the Gold and Silver Pawn Shop of Las Vegas.

When I assert that the show is scripted, I'm referring to more than just the items that come into the pawn shop. I'm also talking about the things the main characters do and the people they meet. I've never been to a Fantasy Rock and Roll Camp before, but my guess is that the average person would not get a private tutorial from two Rock n Roll stars the way Rick Harrison did...especially if one of the stars is as big a name as Roger Daltrey. Make no mistake, this is not real reality television.

But we don't really watch TV to see our own lives, do we? We watch to be entertained and to see the lives that others live...or the lives we think they live. In that case, the fantasy world of the Gold and Silver Pawn Shop fits the bill nicely. And throwing a Rock and Roll Fantasy Camp into mix only heightens the illusion.

So why do we like PAWN STARS so much? It's consistently the #1 rated show on cable and has spawned numerous copycats (one of which is also on the History Channel...CAJUN PAWN STARS). My guess is that it is because the principle characters are likeable, the give and take between them is entertaining, often amusing and the items which are featured are almost always unique and interesting. Added to that, we get our history handed to us in an original way.

Above all, however, I think the show is appealing because it feeds a fantasy that we all have. No, I'm not talking about a fantasy to become a rock n roll singer, or to even hang out with one (or two). The fantasy I'm referring to is the near universal belief that somewhere in our mountains of possessions there is an item that we could take into a pawn shop and exchange for a huge payday. I must admit that I've had that thought. And I know my wife does every time she looks around our house and sees the things I've accumulated over the years.

So there you have it...PAWN STARS isn't reality television, it's fantasy. And tonight's episode just made it that much more obvious.

Thumbs up for Billy Joel and AMERICAN RESTORATION

In my February post entitled PAWN STARS, PICKERS AND STURGIS, I discussed a cross-promotional strategy employed by the History Channel to garner higher ratings. As an avid viewer of this channel, I've also seen them implement other strategies to increase viewership. It seems that one of their favorite techniques is to have guest appearances on their reality shows.

Of course, guest appearances are nothing new to television programming. Networks and shows have been doing it almost since television first invaded American homes in the 1940s. In fact, I'd venture to say that every successful show...at least within the last 20 years has had at least a few notable celebrities make guest appearances.

But reality shows are another story, right? They're supposed to be based on "real" life and how many of us run into big time celebrities in our real lives? How many pawn shops have A-list actors come into their  store looking to buy something? How many "pickers" are hired by Captain Kirk himself (William Shatner) to decorate their homes? And how many restoration shops are hired by world famous musicians to refurbish old motorcycles?

I'm referring to tonight's episode of American Restoration in which Billy Joel hired Rick Dale and his team to restore a 1967 BSA motorcycle. Now there can be no doubt that this episode was orchestrated in History Channel board rooms and negotiated by entertainment lawyers and/or agents. Billy Joel would not just walk into a shop in Vegas where a reality show is shot without having struck some sort of deal in advance. Clearly, this episode was orchestrated with television ratings in mind. And whatever price "The Piano Man" demanded was worth paying for the bump in viewership.

Despite my cynical tone, I actually have no problem with this little maneuver on the part of the History Channel and the producers of American Restoration. In fact, I actually enjoyed it. Being a fan of Billy Joel, I found the show fun to watch. My only issue is that this is obviously not television based on real life. It is scripted television and, like all scripted television, it is all based on ratings. If Billy Joel can improve the ratings of American Restoration, what's wrong with that? It's just like Leonard Nimoy appearing on The Big Bang Theory, Jimmy Buffet appearing on Hawaii Five-O, and the Harlem Globetrotters appearing on a 1970s episode of Scooby Doo.

So...how successful was Billy Joel's appearance on American Restoration? From an entertainment standpoint, I think it upped the ante a bit. When Billy Joel was on camera, it was obvious that "the man has the power to perform" (to quote a Billy Joel song). He was funny, a bit witty and charismatic. Of course, he also has the celebrity factor going which means that viewers were interested in seeing his motor cycle shop in Oyster Bay, NY which is named "20th Century Cycles". I doubt viewers would be very interested in seeing this shop if it was owned by John Doe, rather than Billy Joel. But that's the power of celebrity.

Fortunately, American Restoration has a lot of other charm going for it besides celebrity guest appearances. The characters are individualistic and play off each other in an entertaining way. There's often enough dramatic tension between them to keep viewers watching even though we know the tension will never become too intense. The characters are also likeable. And, of course, it's always a treat to see them turn a rusted, decrepit piece of junk into a gem that collectors would love to have.

Left to it's own devices, American Restoration is entertaining viewing. Now, a case can certainly be made that it doesn't belong on a network whose very name states that it's all about history. Then again, viewers do receive a bit of a history lesson every time the guys on American Restoration repair something from long ago...like a 1967 BSA motorcycle. So, like the late Siskel and Ebert, I'll give the show two thumbs up...and I expect that I'll be joined by other thumb wavers whenever celebrities grace the show with their presence. Who knows, maybe Henry Winkler, a man famous for flashing his thumbs on Happy Days will make an appearance...he already has on Pawn Stars, at least by way of a picture that not-so-subtly sits by Rick Harrison's desk. And yes, he is giving the show a "thumb up". 

THE GREAT GATSBY and Jay-z's jazzy hip hop.

How do you update a classic story and make it a film that will resonate with contemporary audiences? That's a question that filmmakers have been asking for years. Another variation on that question would be, How do you turn modern audiences on to a period film? Obviously, the story, the director and the casting play a big part. But regardless of the names behind the film, the faces on the screen or even the timelessness of the story, audiences need to feel as if the movie speaks to them where they are in their time. And the most proven way for a film to relate to modern audiences is through it's soundtrack.

Hollywood has been putting modern music into period films for years...with various degrees of success. The example that comes to mind most glaringly is A Knight's Tale, which starred the late Heath Ledger. It was a fun, entertaining story about a medieval knight, but I was totally turned off by the filmmakers' use of Queen's rock n' roll classic We Will Rock You during major fight scenes in the film (If I recall, they also used some classic AC/DC songs). And I wasn't the only viewer to be turned off by this. Well-known critics panned the movie for this very reason. In our minds, modern music took us out of the fantasy of being in the middle ages.

This brings us to director Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby. If you've seen the previews or read the hype, you know that Jay-Z was a major contributor to the soundtrack along with other well-known rappers and hip hop artists. Of course neither rap nor hip hop were around in the 1920s and my fear was that the use of such music in this period film would detract from my fantasy of being in 1920s' New York with the film's characters. I must admit that I thought my fears were confirmed when I first heard the music in the early parts of the movie.

But I was surprised...and ultimately proven wrong. The more the story unraveled and I was sucked into it, the less I thought of the rap and hip hop music as being from our time. It began to feel that the music from Jay-Z and the other artists actually belonged in 1920s era New York. I didn't have time to question that during the movie because I was too caught up in the great drama. But later on, I asked myself the question, why did this obviously modern music seem to belong to an era that occurred almost a hundred years ago?

After some thought, I realized the answer to my question. Aside from the fact that the musicians affiliated with the film are talented professionals, the reason the music fit so well is because it matched the theme of the story. Based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the screenplay by Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce was trying to make a statement about how the nouveau riche (new rich) started with nothing, achieved riches in a single generation, but ultimately longed for acceptance by the old money people. What other musical genre better speaks to that theme than rap and hip hop? Most of these artists started in the inner city ghettos, achieved wealth and popularity fairly quickly and their music is now considered mainstream. They are transforming society with their newly acquired flash the way Gatsby transformed 1920s New York in the movie.

Certainly not all rap and hip hop artists strive for the establishment's approval the way Gatsby did in the film, but many of them do. To understand my point, simply listen to the lyrics of some of your favorite songs from this genre. These songs talk about money: the need to acquire it, the usefulness of it and what it means for them once they have acquired it. They're Jay Gatsby in the 21st Century. Hopefully, they won't meet with his tragic demise and I don't think they'll live out the rest of the theme of the story...which is that the establishment will never accept the nouveau riche and will actually eat them up and spit them out instead. I think rap and hip hop are legitimately changing popular tastes and are becoming accepted in a way that Jay Gatsby could only wish for.

So my hat goes off to Baz Luhrmann and the extremely talented filmmakers behind The Great Gatsby for creating a great film and for using the soundtrack to feed the theme of the story. I'd also like to extend my appreciation to Jay-Z and the other artists who created a soundtrack that not only paid respect to the Jazz Age, from which this story originally came, but also added their own modern flavors to it in a way that enabled contemporary audiences to identify with a by-gone era.

The 2013 version of The Great Gatsby is an incredible film that should be appreciated by the eyes and the ears of all who sit in it's audience. I highly recommend it.    

THE RT CONVENTION: They've got what you want

As my loyal readers know, this blog is dedicated to history as entertainment. But every now and then I think it's good to diversify. Since my return from the RT Booklovers Convention in Kansas City, I've had many curious questions about how it went. So here goes...

First of all, a little history (sorry, the historian in me can't resist). RT stands for Romantic Times and it's an organization that was created by lovers of romantic stories. They review and promote books, encourage writers, provide a community for readers and, for the last 30 years, sponsor a major convention. Each year, their convention comes to a different city. This year they were in Kansas City. Next year they will be in New Orleans.

Anybody who's an avid reader knows that its nice to venture out of your reading comfort zone and pick up a book from a different genre every now and then. For that reason, the RT Convention began several years ago to open its doors to genres other than romance. Of course, the stock and trade of their convention remains romance, but now readers and writers of thrillers, mysteries, horrors, young adult, coming of age, inspirational, new adult (late teens/early twenties), paranormal and many other genres are encouraged to attend the RT Convention.

My novel LONG LIVE THE KING: Book One of the Charlemagne Saga was published this year in the thriller genre. Being an author who doesn't typically write in the romance field, I wasn't sure what to expect at RT. And to be honest, for the first several hours I thought I'd made a big mistake in coming. The vast majority of attendees were women...I'd estimate 40 women to every one male (great odds if you're single, but I'm not). Most of the books being promoted were romance and/or erotic...not my typical fare. But the main reason I questioned my decision to attend was because it was unlike any book event I'd ever been to. Since my novel's release, I've attended book festivals in Baltimore, Boston, Tampa Bay, Miami, Charlottesville, Tucson, Fort Meyers, and Venice (Florida). All these events were wonderful and my book was well-received, but RT was a convention, not a festival. At RT I would not be allowed to sell my book the way I did at the festivals...and that meant less book sales to off-set the cost of attending the event.

Fortunately, all my concerns were put to rest once I started talking to people. Like most book events I've attended, the people were friendly, helpful and patiently tolerant of my confusion. What set RT apart, however, was the...I don't know how else to say it...the egalitarianism of it all. Fans and authors mixed freely, frequently and casually. At this point, one may say, "well, of course, what's the big deal? It's not like the authors are Brad Pitt or President Obama." While that's true, there are some really big authors out there who, in any another setting, would be mobbed by fans or hounded by reporters...think Stephen King, John Grisham, J.K. Rowling. While these authors weren't at the convention, other notable, million + selling authors were...and they were hanging out in the bar, the lounge, the hallways and in the elevators with the rest of us. And they freely gave advice or answered the questions of anyone who asked.

While it was nice to hobnob with the big wigs of my chosen field, I must admit that I was equally excited about the freebees...and there were lots of them. Most of the 400 + authors who were in attendance came to promote their books, so they gave away a lot of swag that included, pens, magnets, posters, shot glasses, candies, gum, DVDs, toys, trinkets, t-shirts, etc. Several publishers sponsored events that ranged from a disco night to a breakfast, dinners, food and wine social and many, many sweets. Bestselling paranormal romance author Heather Graham sponsored a fright night themed event and Avon Publishers gave away an estimated $70,000 worth of free books that have not yet been released. If you enjoy books and entertainment related freebees, this event was like ten Christmases rolled into one.  

To be honest, I met so many cool people and best-selling authors, that its hard to remember them all. Fortunately, I saved a program which lists the authors. So, in the interest of name dropping, I'll mention a few of the authors I spoke to, hung out with or ran into. If you don't know their names, you will most certainly know their work...just look it up on the internet. Some of the authors include: David Morrell, Andrew Peterson, John Scalzi, Robyn Carr, Brenda Jackson, Sylvia Day, Jude Deveraux, Cherry Adair, Heather Graham, Mary Burton, Julie Garwood, Ilona Andrews, Alyssa Day, Ann Voss Peterson, Brenda Novak, A.C. Arthur...there are countless more, but I think you get the point. Also, E.L. James, the author of Fifty Shades of Grey was there, but I didn't see her.

Oh, and I forgot to mention...for you women out there...there were numerous male cover models (the ones found on the covers of romance/erotic books) walking around without their shirts on...not my cup of tea, but whatever.

Anyway, such was my adventure at the RT Convention. As I mentioned, next year's event will be held in New Orleans and if the RT people can turn Kansas City into a wild place, imagine what they can do with The Big Easy. I, for one, will be there to find out.

One little, two little...nine little VIKINGS. We want more!

Those blasted Vikings did it! They invaded our culture and sacked our imagination. They pillaged our entertainment. Like the real Vikings upon which they're based, the History Channel's Vikings hit us swiftly. They hit us hard. Then they left us as quickly as they came and all we can do is wonder when they'll come back to finish the job.

As you can probably guess, I don't think a mere nine episodes is enough for this series. The characters are too rich. The mythology is too vast. The history is too unexplored. If Vikings was a network show, we'd likely be treated to twenty-two episodes (a full season). Even a half season of eleven episodes would be better than a meager nine. But let's face it, the networks aren't likely to take a risk with a show like Vikings. From their perspective there's too much to lose in taking on such an ambitious and expensive production...namely their female audience. Vikings is aimed at a predominantly male audience. But that's fine with the brass at the History Channel because their main demographic is male. You're not likely to find Cupcake Wars or Fashion Star or any other estrogen-laced shows on the History Channel. It's mostly men who like history and it's mostly men who watch the History Channel. For that reason, Vikings is a perfect fit.

But only nine episodes? For an entire season? What else will save us from the nauseating programming that our wives and girlfriends subject us to? Of course, there are sports...thank God...and Game of Thrones, but we don't all have HBO. Spike TV can step in and the History Channel's other testosterone-fuelled shows like Mountain Men, Counting Cars, American Restoration and of course Pawn Stars can pacify us. But we need our fix of original programming that's not reality based.

Vikings is a smart, exciting, adventurous and...oh, I hate to use this word...educational show. It pulls us back into the 9th Century and lets us play warrior with larger than life characters. It introduces us to real history, real mythology and real people. For you purists out there, I know the show's main character, Ragnar Lothbrok, is largely perceived as a legendary figure, but the way he is portrayed on the show is quite realistic. Furthermore, the final verdict has not yet come in as to whether or not the Ragnar Lodbrok (I know, different spelling) of legend was also a real person. I, for one, like to believe that he was (I also like to believe that there was an Arturius of Britain upon which the King Arthur legends were based).

Anyway, back to my point...Vikings is such a great show, that nine episodes for one season simply isn't enough. I want to know how Ragnar will handle his brother's treachery, his pregnant mistress, his wife's fury over said mistress and the political entanglements he has found himself wrapped up in. As I said before, the show is rich and the possibilities for entertainment are endless. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until 2014 to find out what will happen next. Of course, we could cheat and check our history books, but I have a feeling the show's creators will pull in a lot of extra material that the historical record and the legends leave out. No, there really isn't much we can do but wait for season two. We'll expect it to be as good as the first...and hope they give us more than only nine episodes. 

But if Vikings wants to truly be like it's namesake, the 2014 season will raid hard, fast, then disappear again into the fog to leave us ravaged and anticipating season three. Are we to be like the villagers of old who took what the Vikings dished out, or will we convert them to our ways and make them live among us in more than nine episodes? Only Father Time and the Gods of Cable Television know the answer to these questions.

KICKSTARTER, VERONICA MARS and the freedom of the 21st Century!

Anyone who's active on social media or entertainment news is certainly aware of the Kickstarter campaign for a movie version of Veronica Mars. If you're not, I'll summarize: Veronica Mars is a television show that ran on the CW network from 2004 to 2007. It had a loyal fan base, but was cancelled nonetheless. As often happens in such cases, fans and show creators frequently spoke of making a movie based on the show. Sometimes such endeavors work...the most obvious being Star Trek. Usually, however, the box office returns for the movie don't justify the expenses...an example would be Serenity, which was a movie based on the television show Firefly. In the case of Veronica Mars, the studio that owned the show (Warner Bros.) wasn't interested in paying for a film but the show creators convinced them to get behind the film and distribute it if they could raise the production budget from the fans on a website called Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is a relatively new phenomenon. Founded in 2009, Kickstarter is a site that allows people with creative projects to raise funds from average, everyday people. Many different projects such as comic books, plays, music, video games, even food-related projects have found funding on this site. Of course, so have films. Prior to Veronica Mars, no feature-length motion picture ever found complete funding on Kickstarter. The site was mostly utilized by creators of short films and people who were seeking development monies for their features.

Veronica Mars changed all that. With a stated goal of raising $2 million dollars to cover production costs, the filmmakers and crew made an appeal to the general public. The response was overwhelming and people kicked in a whopping $5.7 million dollars for the production. How did they get nearly 3X what they asked for? The answer is simple. They assured donors that every penny raised would go into the production and more money meant greater effects and better stunts.

So...what does the success of Veronica Mars mean for the future of filmmaking? The answer lies in the time-tested axiom that success breeds imitation...especially in Hollywood. With studios tightening their purse strings and looking for guaranteed profits on their investments, its no wonder that makers of lower budgeted films are now turning to Kickstarter.

Zach Braff is the perfect example of a feature filmmaker turning to Kickstarter. Zach is a veteran actor who starred in the television show Scrubs as well as a number of films. He is also a director and screenwriter whose first directorial effort Garden State was a commercial and critical success. But Zach was still having a difficult time raising the funds for his next film, Wish I Was Here. According to Zach, he had an investor who was willing to provide the funds, but the investor wanted to maintain creative control of the project. In order to get around that, Zach turned to Kickstarter with a stated goal of raising $2 million. Less than 12 hours into the first day of his post, Zach has raised nearly half of his stated goal. I think its safe to say that his project could become as successful as Veronica Mars.

As Zach Braff's project shows, Kickstarter is rewriting the rules for filmmaking. It's making studio heads out of regular people. Prior to Kickstarter, studio heads or big money investors were the ones who decided which films saw the light of day and which didn't. But now consumers can decide. If we like a potential project, we'll fund it. Who cares what the big boys in the suits say?

I think Kickstarter has opened up a whole new world for the filmmaker and the filmgoer and it's very exciting. As both a filmgoer and a filmmaker, I'm doubly excited. My partners and I will be posting our film project, Tried and True on Kickstarter in the very near future. Here's hoping we can follow down the path that Veronica Mars has blazed. See you on Kickstarter!

GAME OF THRONES and VIKINGS...Sunday night rocks!

Sunday night has become my favorite night and it's all because of television. Is that sad? Or am I in league with the rest of the population? Judging by the incredible ratings of The Bible and Vikings on The History Channel and Game of Thrones on HBO, I'd say I'm in lock step with everyone else.

To date, we are three episodes into the third season of Game of Thrones and the seventh episode of Vikings just aired. It wouldn't benefit either my readers or myself to summarize what's happened in every episode of these shows. HBO and The History Channel already do that on their websites. Instead, I'd like to talk about how the two shows compliment each other...which is interesting considering they're produced by different companies, aired on different networks and one is fantasy and the other is based on real history.

I've been watching Game of Thrones since the first episode of the first season and I haven't missed a single airing. Impressive, I know. But before everyone lines up to congratulate me on my ability to watch television, I'd like to steer this blog back to its purpose...to discuss the melding of history and entertainment. I'm not normally a fan of fantasy, but George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones does such a great job of incorporating real history into its storytelling, one would think it was based on actual events and medieval legends. The fact, however, is that Martin birthed the Game of Thrones stories from his own active imagination. I've never met the man and know very little about him, but he is clearly a student of history because the subject permeates his stories. In tonight's episode, for example, I observed so many historical depictions or touches that I stopped counting a half hour into the show. I particularly appreciated the opening scene of the episode when the dead nobleman was put on a barge and pushed down river so an archer could hit the barge with a flaming arrow and turn it into a burning funeral pyre. Of course, that's the same thing Vikings, Celts and other cultures did in real life. It was also a scene that was depicted on last week's episode of Vikings on The History Channel. Several minutes later in the same Game of Thrones episode, many rebellious slaves were crucified along a thoroughfare just like Spartacus was by the Romans in real life (and in the Spartacus movie and television show...I'm not sure if it was yet depicted on the show because I've only seen one episode of it so far. But if it hasn't been, it certainly will be). 

I've already discussed The History Channel's Vikings in a separate blog entry, so I won't rehash old material. I will, however, say that Vikings is a wonderful follow-up to Game of Thrones. Its weapons, costumes, modes of travel and frequent references to "the gods" fits so well with the Game of Thrones motif that it would be understandable if someone thought the two shows were merely different chapters of the same story. It's not inconceivable to think that a character could be pulled out of Vikings and inserted with ease into an episode of Game of Thrones and vice versa. It's too bad the two shows weren't on the same network because the cross-promotional possibilities would be a marketer's dream.      

If you're a lover of history like I am or merely a casual enthusiast of the subject...heck, if you just like good storytelling, Sunday night is the night for you. And you can watch the shows in any order you like because both The History Channel and HBO rebroadcast each episode several times in the night. Of course, you could also watch the shows whenever you want On Demand. The possibilities are endless!  Oh what a great time to be a history buff!!!

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL changed my life (a little)

I'll probably offend people by saying this, but...wait for it, wait for it...I hated The Wizard of Oz. There, I said it. I know it's blasphemous to make such a confession, but the original film just seemed so corny to me and overblown. I didn't like the flying monkeys, the agressive trees, the disgustingly jovial munchkins. The Tin Man and Scarcrow just seemed silly to me and the Cowardly Lion irritated me to no end. The biggest offender of my sensibilities, however, was Dorothy. Her wide-eyed innocence and high pitched voice grated on me like fingernails on a chalkboard.

But just as school house chalkboards have evolved into computerized Smartboards, I've been forced to adjust my attitide toward the 1939 Judy Garland film. Admittedly, the last time I saw the movie, I was in my early teens (and that was several decades ago). I couldn't really appreciate the character development, the themes and the life lessons of the film. I also didn't recognize that the effects were actually quite impressive considering they were made so long ago when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. All that was lost on my young mind. But a recent viewing of Oz the Great and Powerful has changed all that.
 
The film, which was directed by Sam Riami, starts like the original did in black and white. Unlike the spoiled and wining Dorothy, this film gives us James Franco's Oz, a con man and wanna-be magician who lives for no one but himself. Immediately, it was a character I could appreciate. I won't go into detail about the rest of the plot because there are countless other online reviews that have already done that. The purpose of this writing is to discuss my evolution. Since Riami and Franco sucked me in with the opening black and white sequences, I joined them in The Land of Oz with it's oversized flowers, biting fairies and flying monkeys. I'm not sure if it was because I saw a world like this in Avatar that I was more accepting of it than I was decades ago with the original film, but I found myself following the adventure whole heartedly. Of course, it helped that Mila Kunis was waiting for us as soon as we arrived in the colorful, fantastic Land of Oz.

I thought James Franco's character was appropriately developed during the film. He stayed true to his selfish self so convincingly that we still believed in the final act of the movie that he might leave the people high and dry and abscond with their gold. Of course, he didn't do that, but it was nice for us to be able to think that he would.

As an origins story, Oz the Great and  Powerful had a difficult task of having to set up the original...a story that (most) people know and love...while also having to create something fresh and unique. While the filmmakers impressed me with their satisfaction of the latter task, it was their handling of the former that compelled me to re-evaluate my attitude toward The Wizard of Oz. I liked how and why they turned Mila Kunis' character from a beautiful innocent to a wicked revenge seeker. As I said, they did a great job of developing the main character of Oz. I liked how they made the three witches in the story personal so that we could identify with them. I enjoyed the film's subtle references to the Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Man (though that one was a bit harder to detect in this story than the others). And I loved the way the filmmakers carried through with their theme that the wizard's magic was illusionary, but the basis of his power was the people's belief in him. It was a compelling theme that has as much relevance for us today as it did when the original film came out during the Great Depression.

I wish I could have seen Oz the Great and Powerful before I watched The Wizard of Oz. If that had been the case, I might not have spent decades criticizing Dorothy, The Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. As penance for my hostility, I plan to order the original film from Netflix and watch it for the first time in thirty years. Hopefully, it will become as vibrant to me as the oversized flowers in The Land of Oz.

THE VIKINGS are more than football...'bout time Hollywood noticed!

The Vikings were taylor made for Hollywood!

I mean the real Vikings...an historical mixed bag of good and evil. They were unspeakably violent and essentially invented the term rape and pillage. They were fierce and merciless to their enemies. They celebrated brutality and drank to excess. By today's civilized standards, they were as wild as the wildest beasts. They lived to fight, feast and have sex. But they weren't completely low brow. The Vikings had hierarchical societies with codes, well-established religious beliefs and kinship bonds. They were also brilliant navigators and ship builders who found the New World 500 years before Columbus.

I say the Vikings were taylor made for Hollywood because they are a lesson in contrasts and because their every deed seemed to be larger than life...of course, that's not entirely true. They did the things that every other society of their day did: farming, fishing, blacksmithing, etc. But the grand things they did were grander than those done by everyone else around them, and Hollywood loves epic
lives. 


I'm surprised, therefore, that it took Hollywood this long to give the Vikings their due. I know...I know...there have been movies about the Vikings before. The one by Kirk Douglas comes to mind, as does the 2007 film Pathfinder and, of course, Thor and Marvel's Avengers. But none of these films did any justice to the real Vikings. Their depictions of the Northmen (Vikings) were as accurate as the images put forth by the NFL team from Minnesota. That's why I'm so delighted that the History Channel brought us a new series entitled The Vikings.

Admitedly, I have a few personal reasons for being excited about this new series. First, I'm half Norwegian and the Vikings have long been my people's claim to fame (and infamy). Second, my novel Long Live the King: Book One of the Charlemagne Saga explores how the great emperor Charlemagne dealt with these raiders from the north. Third, as a student of history, I've long been fascinated by these hard living people from some of the coldest places on earth.

As of this writing, the History Channel has aired four episodes of The Vikings and I've been captivated by each installment more than the last one. What is more amazing is that the show's creators are making me root for people who do dispicable things like steal from churches and slaughter innocent monks. The storytellers bring a sympathetic humanity to the characters and the actors led by Travis Fimmel and Gabriel Byrne allow us to identify with the people they portray. Above all, The Vikings offers a realistic portrayal of Viking life...not the cartoon version that popular culture has fed us for so long.

As a fan of this sort of entertainment, I can only hope that this series has a long and fruitful run. I'm anxious to see how the show's creators deal with the power struggles within the Viking community and the influence of Christianity on their pagan lives. If the show's currently high ratings are any indication, there are millions of others who share my sentiments. Lets hope the suits at the History Channel continue to see it our way!

For more info about my book:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Live-King-Book-Charlemagne/dp/193824379X/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_pap?ie=UTF8&qid=1364380807&sr=8-1&keywords=guy+cote+long+live+the+king

BURT WONDERSTONE's box office isn't INCREDIBLE

For decades, people have complained that Hollywood lacks originality. This complaint goes at least as far back at the 1970s. In 1975, Jaws introduced Hollywood to the concept of  "tent pole" filmmaking where studios produce a few big budget, epic-style films each year. These tent pole films are expected to pull in massive revenues and thereby prop up the studios in the event that their other films flop at the box office.

The tent pole strategy usually works pretty well for studios...witness last year's Marvel Avengers for example or Avatar. If a tent pole film hits with audiences, the studio can afford a few flops throughout the year. It is when a tent pole fails that the studio is in serious trouble...like last year's John Carter that cost Disney $250 million to make and only pulled in $73 million at the domestic box office. Fortunately, Disney also generated revenue from the overseas markets, DVD, pay-per-view, etc. so they were able to off-set some of those expenses. But John Carter did his damage to The House of Mouse and I'm sure someone somewhere lost their job over it.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone was never intended to be a tent pole film. It's budget was only around $30 million, a figure that is generally considered low budget by Hollywood standards. It has some big stars, Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey, but it was released in March, a typically slower time at the box office. Tent poles are almost always released in the summer and at Christmastime. So does this mean that Hollywood wasn't expecting much from Burt Wonderstone?

No.

I think they were expecting a great deal from this film about magicians. The marketing campaign for the movie was impressive and expensive, which shows that the studio had faith in the film. And it had what people often complain is lacking in Hollywood...originality. Very few films have been made about magicians, especially in recent years. When you add to that the fact that it's a comedy, you should have something truly original on your hands.

As of today (Sunday 3/17/13), Burt Wonderstone generated $10.3 million since it hit the theaters on Friday March 15. Expectations were for it to make more than $15 million. Because it only made two-thirds of what it was expected to make, the press is already labeling it a failure. Since studios are deathly afraid of flops and the media is already panning Burt Wonderstone, we should expect that the film will probably disappear from theaters within two to three weeks.

I, for one, think that's sad because Burt Wonderstone may not be a roll-on-the-floor, clutch-your-sides hilarity, but it was fun, light-hearted and, above all, original. I wish Hollywood would take more risks with material like this, but entertainment is a business and the purpose of a business is to make money. If audiences won't pay to see original product, Hollywood will give them what they will pay for...overdone formula flicks, sequels or remakes.

So when it comes to Hollywood, it really is a case of...YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. 

Thank God for the History Channel's The Bible mini-series

It is the most influential book in the the Western World and the best selling book in all of human history. For thousands of years, people have killed for what is written on its pages. Wars have been fought and societies have risen and fallen because of its teachings. Even today, world leaders pay homage to it whether they believe it or not. Roughly a third of the world's population, more than 2 billion people, consider themselves adherents of this book. It is, of course, the Bible and it is the subject of a new History Channel mini-series.( http://www.history.com/shows/the-bible)

To say it is a monumental task to capture this book in a mini-series is like saying that Jaws was a fish and the moon is just a rock. The Bible is so full of stories, life-lessons, history and prophecy that it can't ever be fully captured by a television production, no matter how great the budget. When you add to this the fact that its stories are so well-known and its text is so revered, it would seem like a Mission Impossible assignment for any filmmaker to receive. To tighten the noose around the filmmakers' necks even more, we need to remember that in our politically correct world it is not prudent to talk too much about God or to ever get too religious...especially if you want to appeal to a broad audience, as is the case with television.

Well...now that the parameters have been set and we know what the creators of the mini-series are up against, how did they fare? As of this writing, only one episode of The Bible mini-series has aired. The story starts with Noah on the Ark recounting the creation story as it is told in Genesis and it progresses through the stories of Abraham and Moses. Episode one concludes with Joshua taking the city of Jericho. For a two hour show that is interrupted by commercials, the first installment in the series covers quite a bit of territory. Of course, it glosses over a lot. It also expects the viewer to be familiar with the material...for example, a rainbow is shown during the Flood sequence, but it is never explained to be God's promise not to bring another flood. As I watched this, I couldn't help but wonder if someone who didn't know the stories would have understood these touches.

The Bible mini-series also had other more theological subtleties that I'm not sure many viewers would get...like when Abraham was talking to God and the figure of God was Jesus, who we will see in a future episode. Theologically speaking, the series creators were of course saying that Jesus and God are one and the same and they have always been so, but will the average viewer catch that? I don't know.

At this point, I can't render a verdict on the entire series because I've only seen one episode. But I can say that I am duly impressed by the scope and quality of the production. I am also respectful of the task the filmmakers have before them and appreciative of their faithfulness to the spirit of the text. Lastly, I am thankful that they chose to take this on. Every generation should have a television or motion picture collection of Biblical epics to call their own. In my estimation, its an important guidepost for our society. Hopefully, its ratings will be good enough to make other Hollywood filmmakers sit up and take notice. To quote Cecil B. DeMille's most famous work, "So let it be written, so it shall be done."

ARGO, LINCOLN, DJANGO...fiction is big bucks!

Like a billion other people, I watched last night's Oscar telecast. Unlike a majority of the viewers, however, I had no interest in what the actresses were wearing. I was only mildly interested in Seth MacFarlane's hosting abilities. Some of the songs impressed me, particularly Adele's Skyfall. But the main reason I watched the show was to see which "historical" movie won Best Picture. I put quotation marks around the word historical because none of these films were completely accurate and some of them were totally fictionalized.

Argo, of course, won and as a result, the web was set ablaze with comentary on the movie and interviews with people involved in the real hostage rescue that was portrayed in the film. The most attention grabbing interview was with the Canadian ambassador who was depicted in the film. His greatest complaint was that his role was downplayed. I've read other interviews with people who thought the movie added too much fiction...most notably a chase at the end of the film that never took place in real life. And as one might expect, the Iranian government was all up at arms about the movie, claiming it was a US government sponsored PR film to promote the CIA.

Django Unchained was undoubtably a work of fiction. Just like Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, Django was a fantasy in which some of history's greatest villains (in this case, slave owners) were slaughtered by the people they abused. It made for great entertainment and Tarantino was a wizard with dialogue, but it's not real history. Fortunately, most people realize that Django was pure fiction and they don't think that the real Ante Bellum South really had a purveyor of revenge like Tarantino's Django character.

Les Miserables was also a fictionalized account of a real historical event. With this film we dealt with the French Revolution. The songs in this film were great and the acting was superb, but like Django Unchained, it was a complete work of fiction...though I think it was far more accurate than Tarantino's revenge fantasy.

Of all last night's Oscar contenders, Lincoln was the most historically accurate. I think Steven Spielberg and his team worked hard to get the facts straight in this film and for the most part, they succeeded. I did read, however, that a Connecticut Congressman was upset that the filmmakers erred in depicting his state as having voted against the abolition of slavery. So I guess even Lincoln was historically inaccurate.

So where does all this leave the lovers of real history? Right where we should be. Films are meant to entertain and at times enlighten, but they can't take the place of the real stuff. True life is often too complicated and its characters motivations are too ambiguous to be condensed into the constraints of a movie. That's why storytellers dating back to ancient times have always relied on dramatic license to tell their stories. Today we replace dramatic license with "based on a true story", but the meaning is the same.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Spend your money to enjoy these films while eating your popcorn and slurping your soda and don't throw a fit over historical inaccuracies. If you want historical truth, read a book. That's what I do.
    

ZERO HOUR...Conspiracy theorists unite!

Who killed JFK? Did President Roosevelt know the Japanese would attack before December 7, 1941? Did the US government fake the moonshot and create the whole thing in a Hollywood sound stage? Are there really alien bodies in Roswell, New Mexico? Did Charlemagne fake his death and bury his hunchback son in his place? (ok, I admit that last conspiracy came from my novel Long Live The King...shameless plug). The world is full of conspiracy theories and ABC's newest series, Zero Hour is the latest addition to that genre.

So far, only two episodes of the series have aired, but the show is already shaping up to be a standard conspiracy story. The villain is pure evil...he's even called the Angel of Death. The show has a reluctant hero who is a bona fide skeptic. There's a sexy FBI agent who insists on helping the hero even though he doesn't want her help. And there are two sidekicks who will do anything the hero asks of them. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that there's a damsel in distress who is the hero's love interest (and wife), and the whole adventure started with history's ultimate bad guys, the Nazis.

Of course, we've seen these elements countless times in television, movies and books (the Indiana Jones movies, National Treasure, The Da Vinci Code and pretty much any book by Steve Berry or James Rollins), but that doesn't mean they're not fun. Audiences love a good conspiracy. If life as we know it is in the balance or, as in the case of Zero Hour, the world might actually end, then we love it even more. Conspiracies work very well as mini-series, two hour movies or books with a clear beginning, middle and end. But do they work as an on-going series?

At this point in Zero Hour the hero (played by Anthony Edwards) is motivated to pursue the bad guy because he is trying to rescue his kidnapped wife. But how long can the script writers keep that motivation going? I expect there will come a time in the near future when audiences tire of the villain's idle threats to kill the girl. If they shock us and actually have the bad guy bump her off, what then will motivate our hero besides revenge?

Another concern I have is that the clues can only unfold for so long. Audiences have short attention spans and they're going to want to see results for all the hero's hard work. I can see this story line being wrapped up by the end of the season, but what happens if there is a season two? Certainly, the show's creators can come up with another conspiracy, but the trick will be the hero's motivation. There will have to be significant character development this season so that next season the main character will pursue the villain without someone near and dear to him having to be kidnapped.

Those are just some of my concerns, but the bottom line is that I am definitely enjoying Zero Hour and I hope the writers can keep it fresh enough to maintain an audience because everybody loves a conspiracy. And the more shows like this that come out, the more alternatives we have to mindless reality television. So I say Viva la Conspiracy!    

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD...the 1980s are here again!

February 16, 2013

Why should anyone who appreciates history go see A Good Day to Die Hard, episode 5 of Bruce Willis’ Die Hard series? Well, if they are a history purist or a fan of realism, they shouldn’t. If they’re not willing to suspend disbelief…even for a couple of hours…they should avoid this film as if were a communicable disease. But if you are someone who enjoyed the 1980s, you should drop everything and streak to the theaters…that’s not to say you should drop your clothes and streak, that’s a fad from the 1970s. No, I mean to say that you should drive or walk to a theater to see A Good Day to Die Hard.

“Why?” you might ask. Well, to put it simply, this is a big budget action extravaganza like they made in the 1980s. It’s original Die Hard on steroids (another thing we heard a lot about in the 1980s). And the filmmakers do a good job of reminding us about the “Decade of Excess” by referencing the year 1986, President Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and having a great deal of the story take place at Chernobyl.

The action starts almost as soon as John McClane (Bruce Willis) arrives in Moscow and continues without much interruption through to the climax of the film. A prolonged car chase rips through the Moscow streets and adds a few interesting twists to the overplayed concept by having McClane drive his stolen vehicle off a bridge, down a car carrier, over the roofs of vehicles and across a median to arrive in the proper lane to pursue the bad guys…if you enjoy stunts, it was pretty cool. Other sequences have McClane and his son (played by Jai Courtney) dodge countless bullets, fall through numerous floors and scaffolding, and leap from helicopters to avoid death and bring down the baddies. They face nuclear radiation head on without wearing protective suits (not unlike what Indy did when he hid in a fridge during a nuclear blast in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and come out of it unfazed. Make no mistake…these guys are superheroes without the capes, cool nicknames or copyright claims of Marvel or DC Comics.

Now back to the history purist and the fan of realistic entertainment…A Good Day to Die Hard gives you a lot to thumb your nose at. Obviously, father and son McClane could never do in real life what is depicted in “reel life”. And how is it that average cop John McClane always finds himself in high-stakes contests with international terrorists? I know a lot of cops and none of them have had a single run-in with an international terrorist, let alone five run-ins that involve the kind of weaponry that only the highest brass at the Pentagon know about. And the film’s account of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster is, of course, highly inaccurate.

But if you went to the theater and paid your $10 plus to see A Good Day to Die Hard, you didn’t go to see realistic scenarios or historical accuracy. You went to watch good old-fashioned (are the 1980s considered old fashioned?) action. You weren’t there to be intellectually challenged, you wanted to be visually stimulated by the biggest explosions and amused by repetitive catch phrases (I forgot to count how many times John McClane said he was on vacation). Ignoring the latest weapon gadgetry and the characters’ cell phones, A Good Day to Die Hard is a film that would have fit right in with 1980s cinema. And I for one am glad to see it back on our screens…especially since audiences seem to have ignored Arnold’s The Last Stand and Stallone’s A Bullet to the Head.

I loved the 1980s and would like nothing more than to see the action heroes of yesterday take the place of the comic book heroes of today. Then again, that’s just me. Are there any other fans of Rad Flicks out there?  

IS DEREK JETER EXPENDABLE? ARE ANY OF US?

February 12, 2013

I recently read an article in The New York Times about how fans start waiting at 3 a.m. outside the Yankees training facility in Tampa, Florida for a chance to get an autograph from Derek Jeter. After showing up many hours later, Jeter signs a few signatures, then enters the facility. Every time, he leaves the majority of his fans without an autograph. That article got me thinking about the importance of any one individual.

Those of you who know me are aware of my allegiance to Elvis Presley, John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone and other big name entertainers. I’ve always been fascinated by individuals who do exciting things with their lives. But the above referenced article causes me to question the significance of these people. Would we still have rock n’ roll if Elvis never showed up? Would westerns have still had their heyday without John Wayne? Would teenage boys in the 1980’s still have had macho role models without Sylvester Stallone?

What about the great names of history? Would Europe have made it through the Dark Ages without Charlemagne? Would the American colonies have broken away from England without George Washington? Would the slaves have been freed without Abraham Lincoln…better yet, would we have even fought the Civil War if he hadn’t been elected? The “what if’s” of history are innumerable and speculative at best.

The point of this blog entry isn’t to answer these questions, it’s to consider whether or not anyone is expendable. My contention is that every one of the questions I posed can be answered in the affirmative because no one person is indispensable…no matter how important they might think they are. The Yankees will still win and lose without Jeter. America will still thrive whether Obama is there or not. Disney will still make Star Wars films without George Lucas.

So do people have a destiny? Were we born for a purpose or will our futures be determined by random events? That’s a tough line of questioning to take…like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Of course, the great thing about answering these questions is that no one can ever say you’re wrong. There are no facts to support your conclusions. They are all entirely speculative. Because of that, everyone is able to interpret destiny differently. I remember reading an interview with Eddie Murphy in the 1980’s in which he said that he always knew he would become famous. Other entertainers have said similar things. So have notables in history. But I wonder how many anonymous waitresses, gas station attendants and bellmen have made similar claims.

I guess the lesson that can be taken away from this blog entry…certainly the one I’ll take from it…is that when we think we’re “God’s gift to…(fill in the blank)” and we act accordingly, we might want to ask ourselves if someone else could take our place. In almost every instance, the answer would be YES.

Maybe celebrities should take that into consideration when they decide not to sign a slip of paper for an adoring fan who has been waiting for them since three in the morning.     

KARDASHIANS, PAWN STARS, AMERICAN PICKERS...WHO CARES? WE ALL DO!

February 7, 2013

Kardashians, Pawn Stars, American Pickers…who cares? We all do!

Why do I care what happens to the Kardashians? What’s so important about American Idol? How does it affect me if Mike and Frank find the honey pot on American Pickers? Is it going to make my life any better to know that Rick Harrison from Pawn Stars got a great deal on a Pinocchio doll? What about Cajun Pawn Stars? Will we all sleep better at night knowing that they bought another gun from someone in The Big Easy?

These questions popped into my mind as I tuned in to History International and saw a show called Cash Cowboys, which is essentially the same premise as American Pickers except that these pickers are guys in the west who wear cowboy clothes that went out of style twenty years ago. There’s no point in elaborating on Cash Cowboys. It’s almost exactly like American Pickers except it doesn’t have a tattooed lady named Danielle. What I find significant about the show is that it prompted me to ask, “Why do I care about any of this stuff?”

As their names suggest, the History Channel and History International should feature programming that involves history…not alligator hunting in the swamps, ax men, people who drive 18 wheelers on icy roads, guys who restore dilapidated items, men who count cars or pawn shops. But that’s the voice of a history purist…someone who wants to see interesting documentaries about Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, the Dark Ages, Genghis Khan, even Fatty Arbuckle. I want to watch original programming like last year’s Hatfields & McCoys. Alas, it is not to be for two main reasons: original programming in the form of a mini-series is expensive to produce and documentaries about the past don’t yield the kind of ratings that attract advertisers.

So the history purist faces a conundrum. Does he/she ignore the fluff of “reality” shows in order to hold out for more informative programming? Or does he/she embrace the “reality” trend? I submit that the purist should take the latter course. Why? Because reality is history.

What is that you say? Reality is history? How can Kim Kardashian’s tumultuous love life be history in any way whatsoever? To address that line of inquiry, I suggest you look at the Great Man Theory of History (GMTH). The GMTH asserts that the best way to understand a particular culture is to study the great men (and women) who defined that society. In our day and age, the “great” men and women are the entertainers. Now before you grab your pitchforks and run me out of the village, let me explain! I’m not saying that the Kim Kardashians of the world are great, I’m saying that they have the power to influence as many people as a medieval king because they command our movie screens, radio airwaves, television screens and even our blogs (like this one…sadly). We pay billions of dollars to watch these people entertain us. We adopt their fashions, their styles, their mannerisms, their beliefs. They both define our culture and reflect it.

When historians hundreds of years from now want to learn about us in the 21^st Century, they will most certainly examine our reality shows. How does that make you feel?