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?