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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"LINCOLN", A FILM THAT BELONGS TO THE AGES

November 19, 2012

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

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

Now on to the film itself…

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

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

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

THE NOT-SO-GREAT TRADITION OF SCANDALS

November 12, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Pawn Stars, Pickers, and Sturgis!

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

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

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

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

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

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