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.