As I watched the latest Hercules movie starring Dwayne Johnson, I was reminded of a quote from my favorite western, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The quote was "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Hercules is, of course, a legend or a myth (depending upon how you want to look at it), and it's full of fanciful elements that couldn't possibly be real...hydras, three-headed wolves, lions with impenetrable hides, etc. But to ancient people, the stories of Hercules served an important purpose. They gave people a role model to look up to, a hero to try to emulate. And everyone needs a good role model. Society demands it. Without a do-gooder for people to emulate, the people become lost and follow their own innately selfish desires. We've seen that play out many times throughout history.
What I liked about the new Hercules movie was that it didn't try to make us believe in Olympian gods that were jealous of men or fanciful creatures like hydras and centaurs. Rather, it addressed those parts of the Hercules story and let the viewer decide if they were fictional or real. Was there really a half-god/half-human strongman who performed 12 superhuman labors? According to this movie, it doesn't matter.
What matters is what the people believe because belief is what inspires people. An army that thinks it will lose usually does and the same goes for any individual fighter. But if a combatant or an entire army believes it's invincible, it often is. Again, history has played that out for us many times.
The filmmakers who brought us the latest Hercules film did an excellent job of showing us how important belief is. And in so doing, they didn't take themselves or their story too seriously. Hercules is a fun, action-packed film with a message that's as relevant today as it was 2,500 years ago: It's not what the truth is, it's what people believe the truth is.
Truer words have never been spoken...at least I believe they haven't.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Nazis, scoundrels and the Real Pirates of the Caribbean
This morning I watched a History Channel special on pirates. I didn't catch the title of the show, but if I was it's creator I would have called it The Real Pirates of the Caribbean. I was just looking for some filler TV to view while eating breakfast, but ended up watching the rest of the show...nearly two hours worth. And the attention-grabbing documentary set my mind to working on an endlessly perplexing question: Why are we so fascinated by despicable people?
Pirates, mobsters, serial killers, drug pushers, Nazis...they've all gotten more than their fair share of representation in the media. And some of our best directors, actors and authors have made careers out of depicting notorious individuals. The films of Martin Scorsese most readily come to mind.
Again, I ask "why?"
Are scoundrels more interesting than do-gooders? In many cases, yes. That would explain why we've seen more films featuring Batman than Superman...Batman is a vigilante whereas Superman is a "boy scout".
Let's analyze our psyches for a moment. In my estimation, the reason everyone knows of Al Capone and few are aware that Elliot Ness brought him down is because the vast majority of us are wannabe villains. I know...I know...we don't want to think of ourselves that way. But let's look at the facts. We love Billy the Kid though he had all of the qualities we supposedly despise: irresponsible, quick-tempered, violent, amoral, prejudiced. When you think of it, most...if not all...of our cherished rogues were the kind of people we'd never want to meet in real life. Nevertheless, we'll readily give them hours of our valuable time...just as I gave my precious minutes to the likes of Blackbeard, Henry Morgan, Anne Bonny and Black Bart.
I must admit that part of me imagined being in their shoes (or peg-legs), firing cutlasses, raiding ships, drinking rum, stealing booty, killing soldiers and governors. If I was to do those things in real life, my family would disown me and probably banish my name from our genealogy. But people who didn't know me would likely be endlessly fascinated by me. They'd write books about me and make movies. I'd be a celebrity!
So there it is...we're fascinated by scoundrels because we secretly envy them. Something in our dark nature wishes we could be as heartless and daring as them.
But in the pantheon of enviable villains, the Nazis fall into a class all their own. I've yet to meet anyone who says they admire Hitler and his goosestepping minions, or that they'd like to emulate them (of course Neo-Nazis, skinheads and former presidents of Iran would disagree...but I haven't met them). We'll watch movies and shows about Nazis, though, and read about them. Nazi-related media is big business.
The Nazis, it seems, are our perfect illustration. We're endlessly fascinated by them, but would never want to be them. And we despise them down to our core. I think the reason for this weird dichotomy is proximity. Whereas pirates of the Blackbeard or Jack Sparrow variety were three hundred years ago, the terror caused by the Nazis is recent and affected many of our families personally. That's why we have pirate parades and see kids dressed as pirates for Halloween, but we don't have Nazi celebrations or see Nazis marching around on All Hallows Eve threatening a trick of they don't get a treat.
I just hope the people three hundred years from now won't celebrate Nazis the way we celebrate pirates. That would be a most disturbing commentary on humanity.
Pirates, mobsters, serial killers, drug pushers, Nazis...they've all gotten more than their fair share of representation in the media. And some of our best directors, actors and authors have made careers out of depicting notorious individuals. The films of Martin Scorsese most readily come to mind.
Again, I ask "why?"
Are scoundrels more interesting than do-gooders? In many cases, yes. That would explain why we've seen more films featuring Batman than Superman...Batman is a vigilante whereas Superman is a "boy scout".
Let's analyze our psyches for a moment. In my estimation, the reason everyone knows of Al Capone and few are aware that Elliot Ness brought him down is because the vast majority of us are wannabe villains. I know...I know...we don't want to think of ourselves that way. But let's look at the facts. We love Billy the Kid though he had all of the qualities we supposedly despise: irresponsible, quick-tempered, violent, amoral, prejudiced. When you think of it, most...if not all...of our cherished rogues were the kind of people we'd never want to meet in real life. Nevertheless, we'll readily give them hours of our valuable time...just as I gave my precious minutes to the likes of Blackbeard, Henry Morgan, Anne Bonny and Black Bart.
I must admit that part of me imagined being in their shoes (or peg-legs), firing cutlasses, raiding ships, drinking rum, stealing booty, killing soldiers and governors. If I was to do those things in real life, my family would disown me and probably banish my name from our genealogy. But people who didn't know me would likely be endlessly fascinated by me. They'd write books about me and make movies. I'd be a celebrity!
So there it is...we're fascinated by scoundrels because we secretly envy them. Something in our dark nature wishes we could be as heartless and daring as them.
But in the pantheon of enviable villains, the Nazis fall into a class all their own. I've yet to meet anyone who says they admire Hitler and his goosestepping minions, or that they'd like to emulate them (of course Neo-Nazis, skinheads and former presidents of Iran would disagree...but I haven't met them). We'll watch movies and shows about Nazis, though, and read about them. Nazi-related media is big business.
The Nazis, it seems, are our perfect illustration. We're endlessly fascinated by them, but would never want to be them. And we despise them down to our core. I think the reason for this weird dichotomy is proximity. Whereas pirates of the Blackbeard or Jack Sparrow variety were three hundred years ago, the terror caused by the Nazis is recent and affected many of our families personally. That's why we have pirate parades and see kids dressed as pirates for Halloween, but we don't have Nazi celebrations or see Nazis marching around on All Hallows Eve threatening a trick of they don't get a treat.
I just hope the people three hundred years from now won't celebrate Nazis the way we celebrate pirates. That would be a most disturbing commentary on humanity.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Between Shakespeare and Kennedy, what's in a title?
As most of my readers know, I've been hard at work on my latest novel. The good news is that it's done and I'm very excited about it. The bad news is that the title I originally selected doesn't seem to be the kind of title that makes people think of a thriller.
So what is the title?
Before I tell you that, let me give you a little history (would you expect anything less from me?). In the early morning of June 5, 1968 Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California. The killer who was literally caught with the smoking gun in his hand was a Palestinian nobody named Sirhan Sirhan. The case seemed pretty cut and dry until witnesses began mentioning a woman wearing a polka dot dress who fled the hotel shouting, "We shot him! We shot him!"
There were also many oddities concerning Sirhan's appearance at the time of his apprehension. With all the chaos surrounding him in the wake of the shooting, he wore a serene, peaceful expression on his face. His eyes were glossy and his pupils were dilated. But he didn't have any drugs in his system, except for 4 Tom Collins drinks.
During police interrogations, Sirhan maintained that he had no recollection of the shooting whatsoever. The only thing he could recall was having coffee with a beautiful woman wearing a polka dot dress, then waking up to people pummeling him in the hotel's kitchen pantry. Sirhan is still in maximum security prison in California and to this day he maintains the same story with no recollection of the shooting.
Thus ends the history lesson. Of course, there's far more to the story than what I mentioned. But I gave you enough to now tell you the title I originally conceived for my novel: THE GIRL IN THE POLKA DOT DRESS. My story is set in the modern day and involves a re-investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder that focuses on this mysterious figure. And, as I said before, it's a high suspense thriller.
My problem is that people who aren't aware of the alleged conspiracy behind Robert Kennedy's murder have no idea what my title would mean. And I'm afraid they'll think THE GIRL IN THE POLKA DOT DRESS is a book about fashion or some other traditionally female subject. Therefore, I've been mulling over other titles, a few of which I like very much.
William Shakespeare famously wrote, "what's in a name?" And the publishing world's equivalent to that question is "what's in a title?" When you consider that big money...tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars...are tied up in making a book as marketable as possible, the title has obvious importance.
So you'll just have to stay tuned to see what title I select. But no matter what the title is, I can assure you that this book will be an exciting, nail-biting, edge of your seat thriller that also tugs on the heart strings. Despite the obvious cliche's of that sentence, the truth remains that the book really will keep the reader engaged until they've processed the very last word!
So what is the title?
Before I tell you that, let me give you a little history (would you expect anything less from me?). In the early morning of June 5, 1968 Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California. The killer who was literally caught with the smoking gun in his hand was a Palestinian nobody named Sirhan Sirhan. The case seemed pretty cut and dry until witnesses began mentioning a woman wearing a polka dot dress who fled the hotel shouting, "We shot him! We shot him!"
There were also many oddities concerning Sirhan's appearance at the time of his apprehension. With all the chaos surrounding him in the wake of the shooting, he wore a serene, peaceful expression on his face. His eyes were glossy and his pupils were dilated. But he didn't have any drugs in his system, except for 4 Tom Collins drinks.
During police interrogations, Sirhan maintained that he had no recollection of the shooting whatsoever. The only thing he could recall was having coffee with a beautiful woman wearing a polka dot dress, then waking up to people pummeling him in the hotel's kitchen pantry. Sirhan is still in maximum security prison in California and to this day he maintains the same story with no recollection of the shooting.
Thus ends the history lesson. Of course, there's far more to the story than what I mentioned. But I gave you enough to now tell you the title I originally conceived for my novel: THE GIRL IN THE POLKA DOT DRESS. My story is set in the modern day and involves a re-investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder that focuses on this mysterious figure. And, as I said before, it's a high suspense thriller.
My problem is that people who aren't aware of the alleged conspiracy behind Robert Kennedy's murder have no idea what my title would mean. And I'm afraid they'll think THE GIRL IN THE POLKA DOT DRESS is a book about fashion or some other traditionally female subject. Therefore, I've been mulling over other titles, a few of which I like very much.
William Shakespeare famously wrote, "what's in a name?" And the publishing world's equivalent to that question is "what's in a title?" When you consider that big money...tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars...are tied up in making a book as marketable as possible, the title has obvious importance.
So you'll just have to stay tuned to see what title I select. But no matter what the title is, I can assure you that this book will be an exciting, nail-biting, edge of your seat thriller that also tugs on the heart strings. Despite the obvious cliche's of that sentence, the truth remains that the book really will keep the reader engaged until they've processed the very last word!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)