Tom Wolfe — The Right Stuff — Videos

Posted on December 10, 2016. Filed under: American History, Art, Articles, Blogroll, Book, Books, College, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Education, Entertainment, Fiction, Heroes, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, Movies, Movies, Music, People, Philosophy, Photos, Press, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Video, War, Wisdom, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

Image result for tom wolf the right stuff

The Right Stuff – The Bell X-1 (with Levon Helm as CPT Jack Ridley)

The Right Stuff (Part 2)

The Right Stuff (Part 3)

The Right Stuff (Part 4)

The Right Stuff (Part 5)

The Right Stuff (Part 6)

The Right Stuff (Part 7)

The Right Stuff (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Right Stuff
The Right Stuff (book).jpg

First edition
Author Tom Wolfe
Country United States
Language English
Genre New Journalism
Non-fiction
Publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Publication date
1979
Media type Print (hardcover & paperback)
Pages 436 pages
ISBN 0-374-25032-4
OCLC 5007334
629.4/0973 19
LC Class TL789.8.U5 W64 1979

The Right Stuff is a 1979 book by Tom Wolfe about the pilots engaged in U.S. postwar research with experimental rocket-powered, high-speed aircraft as well as documenting the stories of the first Project Mercury astronauts selected for the NASA space program. The Right Stuff is based on extensive research by Wolfe, who interviewed test pilots, the astronauts and their wives, among others. The story contrasts the “Mercury Seven[1] and their families with test pilots such as Chuck Yeager, who was considered by many contemporaries as the best of them all, but who was never selected as an astronaut.

Wolfe wrote that the book was inspired by the desire to find out why the astronauts accepted the danger of space flight. He recounts the enormous risks that test pilots were already taking, and the mental and physical characteristics—the titular “right stuff”—required for and reinforced by their jobs. Wolfe likens the astronauts to “single combat warriors” from an earlier era who received the honor and adoration of their people before going forth to fight on their behalf.

The 1983 film The Right Stuff is adapted from the book.

Writing and publication

First-state dust jacket, showing initial design never released in a public edition[2]

In 1972 Jann Wenner, the editor of Rolling Stone assigned Wolfe to cover the launch of NASA’s last moon mission, Apollo 17. Wolfe became fascinated with the astronauts, and his competitive spirit compelled him to try to outdo Norman Mailer‘s nonfiction book about the first moon mission, Of a Fire on the Moon. He published a four-part series for Rolling Stone in 1973 titled “Post-Orbital Remorse”, about the depression that some astronauts experienced after having been in space. After the series, Wolfe began researching the whole of the space program, in what became a seven-year project from which he took time to write The Painted Word, a book on art, and to complete Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine, a collection of shorter pieces.[3]

In 1977 he returned to his astronaut book full-time. Wolfe originally planned to write a complete history of the space program, though after writing through the Mercury program, he felt that his work was complete and that it captured the astronauts’ ethos — the “right stuff” that astronauts and test pilots of the 1940s and 1950s shared — the unspoken code of bravery and machismo that compelled these men to ride on top of dangerous rockets. While conducting research, he consulted with General Chuck Yeager and, after receiving a comprehensive review of his manuscript, was convinced that test pilots like Yeager should form the backdrop of the period. In the end, Yeager becomes a personification of the many postwar test pilots and their “right stuff.”[4] The phrase itself may have originated in the Joseph Conrad story “Youth”, where it was used.

The Right Stuff was published in 1979 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux and became Wolfe’s best selling book yet.[citation needed] It was praised by most critics, was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award, and won the National Book Award for Nonfiction.[5][6]

In the foreword to a new edition, published in 1983 when the film adaptation was released, Wolfe wrote that his “book grew out of some ordinary curiosity” about what “makes a man willing to sit up on top of an enormous Roman candle… and wait for someone to light the fuse.”[7]

Book

The story is more about the space race than space exploration in general. The Soviet Union‘s early space efforts are mentioned only as background, focusing entirely on an early portion of the U.S. space program. Only Project Mercury, the first operational manned space-flight program, is covered. The Mercury Seven were Scott Carpenter, Gordon Cooper, John Glenn, Gus Grissom, Wally Schirra, Alan Shepard, and Deke Slayton. Emphasis is given to the personal stories of the astronauts and their wives rather than the technical aspects of space travel and the flights themselves.

The storyline also involves the political reasons for putting people into space, asserting that the Mercury astronauts were actually a burden to the program and were only sent up for promotional reasons. Reasons for including living beings in spacecraft are barely touched upon, but the first option considered was to use a chimpanzee (and, indeed, chimpanzees were sent up first).

Another option considered were athletes already accustomed to physical stress, such as circus trapeze artists. Wolfe states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, insisted on pilots, even though the first crew members would not actually fly the spacecraft. When Gus Grissom lands at sea and exits his space capsule, saving the capsule seems more important to the recovery team than saving the pilot because of the value of the data.

Wolfe contrasts the Seven with the Edwards AFB test pilots, among whom was Chuck Yeager, who was shut out of the astronaut program after NASA officials decided to use college-degreed pilots, not ones who gained their commissions as enlisted men, such as participants in the USAAF Flying Sergeants Program in World War II. Chuck Yeager spent time with Tom Wolfe explaining accident reports “that Wolfe kept getting all wrong.” Publishing insiders say these sessions between Wolfe and Yeager led Wolfe to highlight Yeager’s character, presence, thoughts, and anecdotes throughout the book. As an example, Yeager prides his speech to the Society of Test Pilots that the first rider in the Mercury development program would be a monkey, not a real test pilot, and Wolfe plays this drama out on the angst felt by the Mercury Astronauts over those remarks. Yeager himself downplayed the theory of “the right stuff,” attributing his survival of potential catastrophes to simply knowing his airplane thoroughly, along with some good luck.

Another test pilot highlighted in the book is Scott Crossfield. Crossfield and Yeager were fierce but friendly rivals for speed and altitude records.

Film adaptation

A 3-hour, 13-minute film stars Sam Shepard, Scott Glenn, Ed Harris, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, Barbara Hershey, Kim Stanley, Levon Helm, Veronica Cartwright, Pamela Reed, Lance Henriksen, and the real Chuck Yeager in a cameo appearance. NFL Hall of Famer Anthony Muñoz also has a small role, playing “Gonzalez”. It features a score by composer Bill Conti.

The screenplay was adapted by Philip Kaufman from the book, with some contributions from screenwriter William Goldman (Goldman dissociated himself with the film after quarrelling with Kaufman about the story). The film was also directed by Kaufman.

While the movie took liberties with certain historical facts as part of “dramatic license”, criticism focused on one: the portrayal of Gus Grissom panicking when his Liberty Bell 7 spacecraft sank following splashdown. Most historians, as well as engineers working for or with NASA and many of the related contractor agencies within the aerospace industry, are now convinced that the premature detonation of the spacecraft hatch’s explosive bolts was caused by failure not associated with direct human error or deliberate detonation at the hands of Grissom.[citation needed]

This determination had, in fact, been made long before the movie was filmed, and even Tom Wolfe‘s book only states that this possibility was considered, not that it was actually judged as being the cause of the accident. In fact, Grissom was assigned to command the first flights of both Gemini and Apollo. Ironically, Grissom died in the Apollo 1 fire because there was no quick-opening hatch on the Block 1 Apollo Command Module – a design choice made because NASA had determined that the explosion in the hatch on Grissom’s Liberty Bell 7 had been most likely self-initiated.[citation needed]

Another fact that had been altered in the film was the statement by Trudy Cooper, who commented that she “wondered how they would’ve felt if every time their husband went in to make a deal, there was a one-in-four chance he wouldn’t come out of that meeting.” According to the book, this actually reflected the 23% chance of dying during a 20-year career as a normal pilot. For a test pilot, these odds were higher, at 53%, but were still considerably less than the movie implied. In addition, the movie merely used the fictional Mrs. Cooper as a vehicle for the statement; the real Mrs. Cooper is not known to have said this.[8]

Wolfe made no secret that he disliked the film, especially because of changes from his original book. William Goldman, involved in early drafts of the script, also disliked the choices made by Kaufman, saying in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade that “Phil [Kaufman]’s heart was with Yeager. And not only that, he felt the astronauts, rather than being heroic, were really minor leaguers, mechanical men of no particular quality, not great pilots at all, simply the product of hype.”[9] Critics, however, generally were favorable toward the film.

References

Citations

  1. Jump up^ Wolfe 2001, p. 143. Note: Wolfe uses this term exactly once.
  2. Jump up^ The Right Stuff.” ABE books. Retrieved: 3 November 2009.
  3. Jump up^ Ragen 2001, pp. 22–26.
  4. Jump up^ Wolfe 1979, p. 368.
  5. Jump up^ Ragen 2001, p. 26–28.
  6. Jump up^ “National Book Awards – 1980”. National Book Foundation. Retrieved 2012-02-21.
    This was the award for General Nonfiction (hardcover) during a period in National Book Awards history when there were many nonfiction subcategories.
  7. Jump up^ Wolfe 2001, Foreword.
  8. Jump up^ Wolfe 1979, p. 22.
  9. Jump up^ Goldman 1983

Bibliography

  • Bryan, C.D.B. “The Right Stuff (review).” New York Times, 23 September 1979.
  • Charity, Tom. The Right Stuff (BFI Modern Classics). London: British Film Institute, 1991. ISBN 0-85170-624-X.
  • Goldman, William (1989). Adventures in the Screen Trade: A Personal View of Hollywood and Screenwriting (reissue ed.). Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 0-446-39117-4.
  • Ragen, Brian Abel, ed. Tom Wolfe: A Critical Companion. West Port, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2001. ISBN 0-313-31383-0.
  • Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979, ISBN 0-374-25032-4.
  • Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam, 1979, ISBN 0-553-24063-3.
  • Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Bantam, 2001, 1979, ISBN 0-553-38135-0.

External links

Tom Wolfe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Thomas Wolfe or Tom Wolf (politician).
Tom Wolfe
Wolfe at White House.jpg

Wolfe at the White House on March 22, 2004
Born Thomas Kennerly Wolfe, Jr.
March 2, 1931 (age 85)
Richmond, Virginia, U.S.
Occupation Journalist, author
Language English
Nationality American
Period 1959–present
Literary movement New Journalism
Notable works The Painted Word, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, A Man in Full, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, The Bonfire of the Vanities, I Am Charlotte Simmons, Back to Blood
Spouse Sheila Wolfe
Children 2

Thomas KennerlyTomWolfe, Jr. (born March 2, 1931)[1] is an American author and journalist, best known for his association with and influence over the New Journalism literary movement, in which literary techniques are used extensively and traditional values of journalistic objectivity and evenhandedness are rejected. He began his career as a regional newspaper reporter in the 1950s, but achieved national prominence in the 1960s following the publication of such best-selling books as The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (a highly experimental account of Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters), and two collections of articles and essays, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers and The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby. His first novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, published in 1987, was met with critical acclaim, became a commercial success, and was adapted as a major motion picture (directed by Brian De Palma).

Early life and education

Wolfe was born in Richmond, Virginia, the son of Louise (née Agnew), a landscape designer, and Thomas Kennerly Wolfe, Sr., an agronomist.[2][3]

Wolfe grew up on Gloucester Road in the historic Richmond North Side neighborhood of Sherwood Park. He recounts some of his childhood memories of growing up there in a foreword to a book about the nearby historic Ginter Park neighborhood.

Wolfe was student council president, editor of the school newspaper and a star baseball player at St. Christopher’s School, an Episcopalian all-boys school in Richmond, Virginia.

Upon graduation in 1947, he turned down admission to Princeton University to attend Washington and Lee University, both all-male schools at the time; at Washington and Lee, Wolfe was a member of the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity. Wolfe majored in English and practiced his writing outside the classroom as well. He was the sports editor of the college newspaper and helped found a literary magazine, Shenandoah. Of particular influence was his professor Marshall Fishwick, a teacher of American studies educated at Yale. More in the tradition of anthropology than literary scholarship, Fishwick taught his classes to look at the whole of a culture, including those elements considered profane. The very title of Wolfe’s undergraduate thesis, “A Zoo Full of Zebras: Anti-Intellectualism in America,” evinced his fondness for words and aspirations toward cultural criticism. Wolfe graduated cum laude in 1951.

Wolfe had continued playing baseball as a pitcher and had begun to play semi-professionally while still in college. In 1952 he earned a tryout with the New York Giants but was cut after three days, which Wolfe blamed on his inability to throw good fastballs. Wolfe abandoned baseball and instead followed his professor Fishwick’s example, enrolling in Yale University‘s American studies doctoral program. His PhD thesis was titled The League of American Writers: Communist Organizational Activity Among American Writers, 1929–1942.[4] In the course of his research, Wolfe interviewed many writers, including Malcolm Cowley, Archibald MacLeish, and James T. Farrell.[5] A biographer remarked on the thesis: “Reading it, one sees what has been the most baleful influence of graduate education on many who have suffered through it: it deadens all sense of style.”[6] His thesis was originally rejected but he finally passed by rewriting it being objective instead of subjective. Upon leaving Yale he wrote a friend explaining through expletives his personal opinions about his thesis.

Journalism and New Journalism

Though Wolfe was offered teaching jobs in academia, he opted to work as a reporter. In 1956, while still preparing his thesis, Wolfe became a reporter for the Springfield Union in Springfield, Massachusetts. Wolfe finished his thesis in 1957 and in 1959 was hired by The Washington Post. Wolfe has said that part of the reason he was hired by the Post was his lack of interest in politics. The Post’s city editor was “amazed that Wolfe preferred cityside to Capitol Hill, the beat every reporter wanted.” He won an award from The Newspaper Guild for foreign reporting in Cuba in 1961 and also won the Guild’s award for humor. While there, he experimented with fiction-writing techniques in feature stories.[7]

In 1962, Wolfe left Washington for New York City, taking a position with the New York Herald Tribune as a general assignment reporter and feature writer. The editors of the Herald Tribune, including Clay Felker of the Sunday section supplement New York magazine, encouraged their writers to break the conventions of newspaper writing.[8] During the 1962 New York City newspaper strike, Wolfe approached Esquire magazine about an article on the hot rod and custom car culture of Southern California. He struggled with the article until finally a desperate editor, Byron Dobell, suggested that Wolfe send him his notes so they could piece the story together.

Wolfe procrastinated until, on the evening before the article was due, he typed a letter to Dobell explaining what he wanted to say on the subject, ignoring all journalistic conventions. Dobell’s response was to remove the salutation “Dear Byron” from the top of the letter and publish it intact as reportage. The result, published in 1963, was “There Goes (Varoom! Varoom!) That Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby.” The article was widely discussed—loved by some, hated by others—and helped Wolfe publish his first book, The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, a collection of his writings in the Herald-Tribune, Esquire, and other publications.[9]

This was what Wolfe called New Journalism, in which some journalists and essayists experimented with a variety of literary techniques, mixing them with the traditional ideal of dispassionate, even-handed reporting. More specifically, Wolfe experimented with four literary devices not normally associated with feature writing—scene-by-scene construction, extensive dialogue, multiple points of view, and detailed description of one’s status-life symbols (the materialistic choices one makes)—to produce this stylized form of journalism, which would later be commonly referred to as literary journalism.[10] Of status symbols, Wolfe has said, “I think every living moment of a human being’s life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status.”[11]

Wolfe also championed what he called “saturation reporting,” a reportorial approach where the journalist “shadows” and observes the subject over an extended period of time. “To pull it off,” says Wolfe, “you casually have to stay with the people you are writing about for long stretches . . . long enough so that you are actually there when revealing scenes take place in their lives.”[12] Saturation reporting differs from “in-depth” and “investigative” reporting, which involve the direct interviewing of numerous sources and/or the extensive analyzing of external documents relating to the story. Saturation reporting, according to communication professor Richard Kallan, “entails a more complex set of relationships wherein the journalist becomes an involved, more fully reactive witness, no longer distanced and detached from the people and events reported.”[13]

One of the most striking examples of New Journalism is Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. The book, an account of the adventures of the Merry Pranksters, a famous sixties counter-culture group, was highly experimental in its use of onomatopoeia, free association, and eccentric punctuation—such as multiple exclamation marks and italics—to convey the manic ideas and personalities of Ken Kesey and his followers.

In addition to his own forays into this new style of journalism, Wolfe edited a collection of New Journalism with E.W. Johnson, published in 1973 and titled The New Journalism. This book brought together pieces from Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, Norman Mailer, Gay Talese, Joan Didion, and several other well-known writers with the common theme of journalism that incorporated literary techniques and that could be considered literature.[14]

Non-fiction books

In 1965, a collection of his articles in this style was published under the title The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, and Wolfe’s fame grew. A second volume of articles, The Pump House Gang, followed in 1968. Wolfe wrote on popular culture, architecture, politics, and other topics that underscored, among other things, how American life in the 1960s had been transformed by post-WWII economic prosperity. His defining work from this era is The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (published the same day as The Pump House Gang in 1968), which for many epitomized the 1960s. Although a conservative in many ways and certainly not a hippie (in 2008, he claimed never to have used LSD and to have tried marijuana only once[15]) Wolfe became one of the notable figures of the decade.

In 1970, he published two essays in book form as Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers: “Radical Chic,” a biting account of a party given by Leonard Bernstein to raise money for the Black Panther Party, and “Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers,” about the practice of using racial intimidation (“mau-mauing”) to extract funds from government welfare bureaucrats (“flak catchers”). The phrase “radical chic” soon became a popular derogatory term for upper-class leftism. Published in 1977, Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine included one of Wolfe’s more famous essays, “The Me Decade and the Third Great Awakening.”

Back row – Shepard, Grissom, Cooper; Front row – Schirra, Slayton, Glenn, Carpenter.
The astronauts of the Mercury Seven were the subject of The Right Stuff.

In 1979, Wolfe published The Right Stuff, an account of the pilots who became America’s first astronauts. Famously following their training and unofficial, even foolhardy, exploits, he likened these heroes to “single combat champions” of a bygone era, going forth to battle in the space race on behalf of their country. In 1983, the book was adapted as a successful feature film.

In 2016 Wolfe published The Kingdom of Speech, which is a controversial[16] critique of Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky.[17]

Art critiques

Wolfe also wrote two highly skeptical social histories of modern art and modern architecture, The Painted Word and From Bauhaus to Our House, in 1975 and 1981, respectively. The Painted Word mocked the excessive insularity of the art world and its dependence on what he saw as faddish critical theory, while From Bauhaus to Our House explored the negative effects of the Bauhaus style on the evolution of modern architecture.[18]

Made for TV movie

A fictional television movie appeared on PBS in 1977, “Tom Wolfe’s Los Angeles”, a suitably satirical story set in Los Angeles. Wolfe appears in the movie himself.[19][20]

Novels

Throughout his early career, Wolfe had planned to write a novel that would capture the wide spectrum of American society. Among his models was William Makepeace Thackeray‘s Vanity Fair, which described the society of 19th century England. Wolfe remained occupied writing nonfiction books and contributing to Harper’s until 1981, when he ceased his other work to concentrate on the novel.

Wolfe began researching the novel by observing cases at the Manhattan Criminal Court and shadowing members of the Bronx homicide squad. While the research came easily, the writing did not immediately follow. To overcome his writer’s block, Wolfe wrote to Jann Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone, to propose an idea drawn from Charles Dickens and Thackeray. The Victorian novelists that Wolfe viewed as his models had often written their novels in serial installments. Wenner offered Wolfe around $200,000 to serialize his work.[21] The deadline pressure gave him the motivation he had hoped for, and from July 1984 to August 1985 each biweekly issue of Rolling Stone contained a new installment. Wolfe was later not happy with his “very public first draft”[22] and thoroughly revised his work. Even Sherman McCoy, the novel’s central character, changed: originally a writer, the book version cast McCoy as a bond salesman. Wolfe researched and revised for two years, and his The Bonfire of the Vanities was published in 1987. The book was a commercial and critical success, spending weeks on bestseller lists and earning praise from much of the literary establishment on which Wolfe had long heaped scorn.[23]

Because of the success of Wolfe’s first novel, there was widespread interest in his second. This novel took him more than 11 years to complete; A Man in Full was published in 1998. The book’s reception was not universally favorable, though it received glowing reviews in Time, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. An enormous initial printing of 1.2 million copies was announced and the book stayed at number one on the New York Times bestseller list for ten weeks. John Updike wrote a critical review for The New Yorker complaining that the novel “amounts to entertainment, not literature, even literature in a modest aspirant form.” This touched off an intense war of words in the print and broadcast media between Wolfe and Updike, John Irving, and Norman Mailer. In 2001, Wolfe published an essay referring to these three authors as “My Three Stooges.”

After publishing Hooking Up (a collection of short pieces, including the 1997 novella Ambush at Fort Bragg) in 2001, he followed up with his third novel, I Am Charlotte Simmons (2004), which chronicles the decline of a poor, bright scholarship student from Alleghany County, North Carolina, in the context of snobbery, materialism, institutionalised anti-intellectualism and sexual promiscuity she finds at a prestigious contemporary American university. The novel met with a mostly tepid response by critics but won praise from many social conservatives, who saw the book’s account of college sexuality as revealing of a disturbing moral decline. The novel won a Bad Sex in Fiction Award from the London-based Literary Review, a prize established “to draw attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel”. Wolfe later explained that such sexual references were deliberately clinical.

Wolfe has written that his goal in writing fiction is to document contemporary society in the tradition of John Steinbeck, Charles Dickens, and Émile Zola.

In early 2008, it was announced that Wolfe was leaving his longtime publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. His fourth novel, Back to Blood, was published in October 2012 by Little, Brown. According to The New York Times, Wolfe was paid close to US$7 million for the book.[24] According to the publisher, Back to Blood is about “class, family, wealth, race, crime, sex, corruption and ambition in Miami, the city where America’s future has arrived first.”[25]

Recurring themes

Several themes are present in much of Wolfe’s writing, including his novels. One such theme is male power-jockeying, which is a major part of The Bonfire of the Vanities, A Man in Full, and I Am Charlotte Simmons as well as several of his journalistic pieces. Male characters in his fiction often suffer from feelings of extreme inadequacy or hugely inflated egos, sometimes alternating between both. He satirizes racial politics, most commonly between whites and blacks; he also highlights class divisions between characters. Men’s fashions often play a large part in his stories, being used to indicate economic status. Much of his recent work also addresses neuroscience, a subject which he admitted a fascination with in “Sorry, Your Soul Just Died,” one of the essays in Hooking Up, and which played a large role in I Am Charlotte Simmons—the title character being a student of neuroscience, and characters’ thought processes, such as fear, humiliation and lust, frequently being described in the terminology of brain chemistry. Wolfe also frequently gives detailed descriptions of various aspects of his characters’ anatomies.[26]

Two of his novels (A Man in Full and I Am Charlotte Simmons) feature major characters (Conrad Hensley and Jojo Johanssen, respectively) who are set on paths to self-discovery by reading classical Roman and Greek philosophy.

Law and banking firms in Wolfe’s writing often have satirical names formed by the surnames of the partners. “Dunning, Sponget and Leach” and “Curry, Goad and Pesterall” appear in The Bonfire of the Vanities, and “Wringer, Fleasom and Tick” in A Man in Full. Ambush at Fort Bragg contains a law firm called “Crotalus, Adder, Cobran and Krate” (all names or homophones of venomous snakes).

Some characters appear in multiple novels, creating a sense of a “universe” that is continuous throughout Wolfe’s fiction. The character of Freddy Button, a lawyer from Bonfire of the Vanities, is mentioned briefly in I Am Charlotte Simmons. A character named Ronald Vine, an interior decorator who is mentioned in The Bonfire of the Vanities, reappears in A Man in Full as the designer of Charlie Croker’s home.

A fictional sexual practice called “that thing with the cup” appears in several of his writings, including The Bonfire of the Vanities, A Man in Full and a (non-fiction) essay in Hooking Up.

The surname “Bolka” appears in three Wolfe novels—as the name of a rendering plant in A Man in Full, as a partner in an accounting firm in Bonfire of the Vanities, and as a college lacrosse player from the Balkans in I Am Charlotte Simmons.

The white suit

Wolfe adopted the white suit as a trademark in 1962. He bought his first white suit planning to wear it in the summer in the style of Southern gentlemen. However, he found that the suit he purchased was too heavy for summer use, so he wore it in winter, which created a sensation.[27] Wolfe has maintained this uniform ever since, sometimes worn with a matching white tie, white homburg hat, and two-tone shoes. Wolfe has said that the outfit disarms the people he observes, making him, in their eyes, “a man from Mars, the man who didn’t know anything and was eager to know.”[28]

Views

In 1989, Wolfe wrote an essay for Harper’s Magazine titled “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast“, which criticized modern American novelists for failing to engage fully with their subjects, and suggested that modern literature could be saved by a greater reliance on journalistic technique. This attack on the mainstream literary establishment was interpreted as a boast that Wolfe’s work was superior to more highly regarded authors.[29]

Wolfe was a supporter of George W. Bush and said he voted for him for president in 2004 because of what he called Bush’s “great decisiveness and willingness to fight.” (Bush apparently reciprocates the admiration, having read all of Wolfe’s books, according to friends in 2005.[30]) After this fact emerged in a New York Times interview, Wolfe said that the reaction in the literary world was as if he had said, “I forgot to tell you—I’m a child molester.” Because of this incident, he sometimes wears an American flag pin on his suit, which he compared to “holding up a cross to werewolves.”[31]

Wolfe’s views and choice of subject material, such as mocking left-wing intellectuals in Radical Chic and glorifying astronauts in The Right Stuff, have sometimes led to his being labeled conservative,[32] and his depiction of the Black Panther Party in Radical Chic led to a member of the party calling him a racist.[33] Wolfe rejects such labels; in a 2004 interview, he said that his “idol” in writing about society and culture is Émile Zola, who, in Wolfe’s words, was “a man of the left” but “went out, and found a lot of ambitious, drunk, slothful and mean people out there. Zola simply could not—and was not interested in—telling a lie.”[32]

Asked to comment by the Wall Street Journal on blogs in 2007 to mark the tenth anniversary of their advent, Wolfe wrote that “the universe of blogs is a universe of rumors” and that “blogs are an advance guard to the rear.” He also took the opportunity to criticize Wikipedia, saying that “only a primitive would believe a word of” it. He noted a story about him in his Wikipedia entry at the time, which he said had never happened.[34]

Personal life

Wolfe lives in New York City with his wife Sheila, who designs covers for Harper’s magazine. They have two children, a daughter, Alexandra, and a son, Tommy.[35]

A writer for Examiner Magazine who interviewed Wolfe in 1998 said, “He has no computer and does not surf, or even know how to use, the Internet”, adding, however, that Wolfe’s novel A Man in Full does have a subplot involving “a muckraking cyber-gossip site, à la the Drudge Report or Salon.”[35]

Influence

Wolfe is credited with introducing the terms “statusphere,” “the right stuff,” “radical chic,” “the Me Decade,” “social x-ray,” and “pushing the envelope” into the English lexicon.[36][dubious ] He is sometimes credited with inventing the term “trophy wife” as well, but this is incorrect: he described emaciated wives as “X-rays” in his novel The Bonfire of the Vanities but did not use the term “trophy wife”.[37] According to journalism professor Ben Yagoda, Wolfe is also responsible for the use of the present tense in magazine profile pieces; before he began doing so in the early 1960s, profile articles had always been written in the past tense.[38]

Terms coined by Wolfe

List of awards and nominations

Television appearances

  • Wolfe was featured as an interview subject in the 1987 PBS documentary series Space Flight.
  • In July 1975 Wolfe was interviewed on Firing Line by William F. Buckley, Jr., discussing “The Painted Word”.[44]
  • Wolfe was featured on the February 2006 episode “The White Stuff” of Speed Channel‘s Unique Whips, where his Cadillac‘s interior was customized to match his trademark white suit.[45]
  • Wolfe guest-starred alongside Jonathan Franzen, Gore Vidal and Michael Chabon in The Simpsons episode “Moe’N’a Lisa“, which aired November 19, 2006. He was originally slated to be killed by a giant boulder, but that ending was edited out.[46] Wolfe was also used as a sight gag on The Simpsons episode “Insane Clown Poppy“, which aired on November 12, 2000. Homer spills chocolate on Wolfe’s trademark white suit, and Wolfe rips it off in one swift motion, revealing an identical suit underneath.

Bibliograph

Non-fiction

Novels

Featured in

Notable articles

  • “The Last American Hero Is Junior Johnson. Yes!” Esquire, March 1965.
  • “Tiny Mummies! The True Story of the Ruler of 43rd Street’s Land of the Walking Dead!” New York Herald-Tribune supplement (April 11, 1965).
  • “Lost in the Whichy Thicket,” New York Herald-Tribune supplement (April 18, 1965).
  • “The Birth of the New Journalism: Eyewitness Report by Tom Wolfe.” New York, February 14, 1972.
  • “The New Journalism: A la Recherche des Whichy Thickets.” New York Magazine, February 21, 1972.
  • “Why They Aren’t Writing the Great American Novel Anymore.” Esquire, December 1972.
  • “The Me Decade and the Third Great Awakening” New York, August 23, 1976.
  • Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast“, Harper’s. November 1989.
  • “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died.” Forbes 1996.
  • “Pell Mell.” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2007).
  • “The Rich Have Feelings, Too.” Vanity Fair (September 2009).

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ This was the award for hardcover “General Nonfiction”. From 1980 to 1983 in National Book Award history there were dual awards for hardcover and paperback books in many categories, including several nonfiction subcategories. Most of the paperback award-winners were reprints, including the 1980 General Nonfiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Summer Story (1988) — Videos

Posted on July 29, 2015. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Education, Entertainment, Fiction, Freedom, Friends, Love, media, Movies, Music, Vacations, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

A Summer Story (1988) full movie

A Summer Story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Summer Story
Directed by Piers Haggard
Produced by Danton Rissner
Written by John Galsworthy
Penelope Mortimer
Starring James Wilby
Imogen Stubbs
Susannah York
Kenneth Colley
Music by Georges Delerue
Cinematography Kenneth MacMillan
Edited by Ralph Sheldon
Release dates
  • 11 August 1988(New York City New York)
Running time
95 minutes
Country United Kingdom
Language English

A Summer Story is a British drama film released in 1988. Directed by Piers Haggard, with a script written by Penelope Mortimer, it stars James Wilby, Imogen Stubbs, and Susannah York.[1] In 1902, a young gentleman visiting a rural area has an intense love affair with a village girl. Twenty years later, he is passing that way again. The film is based on the John Galsworthy story The Apple Tree.

Plot

In the summer of 1902 Frank Ashton, an educated young man from London, is on a walking holiday in Devon with a friend. When he falls and twists his ankle, Ashton is helped at a nearby farmhouse and stays there for a few days to recover, while his friend goes on. Ashton quickly falls for the village girl who looks after him, Megan David, and she falls in love with him, to the great distress of her cousin Joe Narracombe, who wants her for himself. Ashton and Megan spend a night together, and after that he takes the train to a seaside town to cash a cheque at a bank, promising to return the next morning and take Megan away with him and marry her.

On arrival in the town, Ashton finds a branch of his bank, but it will not cash his cheque, insisting on first contacting his branch in London. While he is delayed, Ashton meets an old school friend, staying at a local hotel with his three sisters, of whom the oldest is Stella Halliday. Thanks to the bank’s delays, he misses the train he needed to catch to make his rendezvous with Megan. During the day that follows, he spends more time with his friend and his sisters, and while Stella flirts with him he begins to have second thoughts about marrying Megan.

Megan then travels to the seaside town looking for Ashton, carrying her luggage for running away. He sees her on the beach and follows her into the town, but when she turns and catches a glimpse of him, he hides.

Twenty years later, Ashton is married to Stella and they are motoring through Devon. They have no children. Ashton visits the farm where he seduced Megan and is recognized. He learns that Megan was heart-broken about losing him and also that she died soon after giving birth to a son, who she named “Francis”, or Frank. He is taken to see Megan’s grave, which is at the spot where he had arranged to meet her. She had asked to be buried there, to wait for his return. In motoring away with Stella, Ashton passes his son, young Frank, who gives him a friendly wave.

Cast

  • Camilla Power – Sabina Halliday
  • Juliette Fleming – Freda Halliday
  • Sukie Smith – Betsy
  • John Savident – Bank Clerk
  • Rachel Joyce – Post Office Girl
  • Patrick Morris – Pierrot 1
  • Paul Allain – Pierrot 2
  • Christopher Majeika – Pierrot 3
  • James Wilson – Pierrot 4

References

  1. Jump up^ A Summer Story at bfi.org.uk

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Summer_Story

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Whistle Blower (1986) — Video

Posted on July 29, 2015. Filed under: Blogroll, British History, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Entertainment, Foreign Policy, Freedom, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Video, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

The Whistle Blower (1986) Michael Caine Full Movie

The Whistle Blower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the 1986 film. For the 2010 film, see The Whistleblower.
The Whistle Blower
The Whistle Blower.jpg
Directed by Simon Langton
Produced by Geoffrey Reeve
Written by John Hale (book)
Julian Bond
Starring
Release dates
December 1986 (UK)
10 July 1987 (USA)
Running time
100 minutes
Country UK
Language English
Box office $1,500,000[1]

The Whistle Blower is a 1986 British spy thriller film, starring Michael Caine, based on the novel of the same name by John Hale. It was directed by Simon Langton, the son of actor David Langton, who co-stars in the film.

Plot

Frank Jones (Caine) is a retired British naval officer and Korean War veteran, who is now a businessman. His bright but naive and idealistic son, Robert (Nigel Havers), works as a linguist at GCHQ, the top secret British intelligence listening station, using his love of Russian to listen to various pieces of communication on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

The film opens on Remembrance Day in Whitehall, as the war veterans line up to walk past the Cenotaph, then moves back to a conversation between Frank and his son at Robert’s flat some months earlier, where Robert tells Frank that strange things are happening at GCHQ, and he’s planning on leaving and marrying an older woman called Cynthia (Felicity Dean) with whom he’s fallen in love.

Robert says a Soviet mole was found, and that security is all over the place encouraging people to rat on each other. The higher ups seem convinced that if they don’t do something, their American friends in the CIA will stop working with them. Frank isn’t thrilled over the marriage plans, and he tells his son before he leaves that it’s unlikely anything off key can be happening in the agency. It’s obvious that Frank loves his son deeply and wants him to be happy, whatever he may choose for himself.

The scene cuts to a room in British Intelligence, where operatives including Bruce (Gordon Jackson) are listening to a tape recording of the conversation between Frank and his son.

A few days later, police tell Frank that Robert has died in a fall in an apparent suicide, and a verdict of accidental death is recorded. However, in the midst of his grief, Frank is puzzled by the circumstances of his son’s death and decides to use his old skills to conduct his own investigation. He approaches his friend Charles Greig (Barry Foster), who had joined MI6 after his service in the navy. Greig agrees to make discreet enquiries on his part.

Returning to Robert’s flat, Frank is confronted by radical socialist journalist Bill Pickett (Kenneth Colley), who had arranged to meet Robert to discuss the problems at British Intelligence, but Frank rejects his investigative approaches. Frank is also told that he is in the running for a large government contract for his firm, with an implicit undertone that he not make waves about his son’s death.

The rest of the film digs into an examination of the British establishment which is disturbing and ugly, and make Frank question his view of the country he loves. There are strong echoes of the Anthony Blunt case and the Cambridge spies. Frank, discreetly pursued by British Intelligence, finds men who easily consider others expendable if their ideas of class and privilege are endangered.

Pickett is also killed in mysterious circumstances in a traffic accident, having found out the name of the man who Robert wished him to meet before meeting Frank. Frank is then approached by Robert’s best friend and fellow British intelligence linguist Allen Goodburn (Andrew Hawkins) at Robert’s funeral. Frank learns from Goodburn that it was his good friend Grieg who had approached him as to Robert’s feelings for the service. Frank gets Grieg drunk and gets him to confess that he was at Robert’s flat the night Robert died. Greig admits he was there as the service had something on him, but that his job was only to leave the door open and let “others” heavy-hand Robert, not kill him. he also reveals the name of the mole as Sir Adrian Chapple (John Gielgud).

Leaving Grieg in his drunken stupor, Frank is picked up by British Intelligence and driven to a country house, where he is confronted by Secretary to the Cabinet (David Langton) and Lord (James Fox). They explain to him that his son was out of control, and was killed as part of a plan to mislead the Americans to the extent of the depth of Russian intelligence’s operatives inside British operations, in the hope that they could continue to gain intelligence from the CIA. They have presently left the higher Russian operative in place, until they can assess the extent of the damage caused. They advise Frank that should he go public with any of this information, he and/or Robert’s girlfriend Cynthia and her daughter will be killed or at least restrained.

The film returns to the present, and the Remembrance Day parade. Frank confronts Chapple at his home in Whitehall, and gets him to confess to being a spy for Russia. Frank orders him to sign a full confession, which he does, but as Frank reads it, Chapple produces a gun and demands its return. Frank grabs the gun, which goes off and kills Chapple — leaving his signed confession to act as a suicide note and put Frank in the clear. He returns to the Remembrance Day parade.

The closing credits roll to an ambulance attending the death of Chapple, as Frank walks past the Cenotaph up Whitehall.

Production

The film was largely shot on location in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire; home of GCHQ, which forms the premise of the film. Cheltenham Racecourse, Cheltenham Crematorium and The Promenade feature in the film[2]

Response

Though it was given a limited release, the film opened to positive reviews. It has an approval rating of 86% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Cast

References

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Ruling Class (1972) —

Posted on July 28, 2015. Filed under: British History, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Education, Entertainment, Family, Freedom, Friends, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, Movies, People, Politics, Rants, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , |

The Ruling Class (1972)

The Ruling Class (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Ruling Class
1972 Peter Medak film The Ruling Class distribution poster U.S.jpg
Directed by Peter Medak
Produced by Jules Buck
Jack Hawkins
Written by Peter Barnes
Starring Peter O’Toole
Alastair Sim
Arthur Lowe
Harry Andrews
Music by John Cameron
Cinematography Ken Hodges
Edited by Ray Lovejoy
Distributed by United Artists (UK theatrical)
Embassy Pictures
Momentum (UK DVD)
Criterion (Region 1 DVD)
Release dates
13 September 1972
Running time
154 minutes
Language English
Budget $1.4 million

The Ruling Class is a 1972 British black comedy film.[1] It is an adaptation of Peter Barnessatirical stage play of the same title which tells the story of a paranoid schizophrenic British nobleman (played by Peter O’Toole) who inherits a peerage. The film co-stars Alastair Sim, William Mervyn, Coral Browne, Harry Andrews, Carolyn Seymour, James Villiers and Arthur Lowe. It was produced by Jules Buck and directed by Peter Medak.

The film has been described as a “commercial failure […that] has since become a cult classic”;[2] Peter O’Toole described it as “a comedy with tragic relief”.[3]

Plot

Following the death from accidental asphyxiation of Ralph Gurney, the 13th Earl of Gurney (Andrews), Jack Gurney (O’Toole) becomes the 14th Earl of Gurney. Jack, a paranoid schizophrenic, thinks he is Jesus Christand shocks his family and friends with his talk of returning to the world to bring it love and charity, not to mention his penchant for breaking out into song and dance routines and sleeping upright on a cross. When faced with unpalatable facts (such as his identity as the 14th Earl), Jack puts them in his “galvanized pressure cooker” and they disappear. His unscrupulous uncle, Sir Charles (Mervyn), marries him to his mistress, Grace (Seymour), in hopes of producing an heir and putting his nephew in an institution; the plan fails, however, when Grace falls in love with Jack. Jack gains another ally in Sir Charles’ wife, Lady Claire (Browne), who hates her husband and befriends Jack just to spite him. She also begins sleeping with Jack’s psychiatrist, Dr. Herder (Michael Bryant), to persuade him to cure Jack quickly.

Herder attempts to cure him through intensive psychotherapy, to no avail; Jack so thoroughly believes that he is the “God of Love” that he dismisses any suggestion to the contrary as insane. The night his wife goes intolabour, Herder makes a last effort at curing Jack; he introduces Jack to McKyle (Nigel Green), a patient who also believes himself to be Christ — or as the patient puts it, “The Electric Messiah” — who subjects an unwitting Jack to electroshock therapy. The plan works, and as Grace delivers a healthy baby boy, Jack proclaims, “I’m Jack, I’m Jack”. His family takes this to mean that he has returned to his senses, but in reality he now believes himself to be Jack the Ripper.

Sir Charles sends for a court-appointed psychiatrist (Graham Crowden) to evaluate Jack, confident that his nephew will be sent to an asylum for life. He is once again thwarted when the psychiatrist discovers that Jack was a fellow Old Etonian, bonds with him and declares him sane.

Jack murders Lady Claire in a fit of rage when the aging woman tries to seduce him. He frames the Communist family butler, Tucker (Lowe), for the murder. Shortly afterward, Sir Charles suffers a debilitating stroke and Dr. Herder has a nervous breakdown upon realizing what Jack has done. Jack assumes his place in the House of Lords with a fiery speech in favour of capital and corporal punishment. His colleagues applaud wildly, completely unaware the speech is the ranting of a lunatic, in contrast to society’s reaction when Jack believed he was Christ. That night, he murders Grace for expressing her love for him. Her terrified scream is matched by the sound of a baby cooing “I’m Jack, I’m Jack,” suggesting that their son has inherited Jack’s madness.

Cast

Production

O’Toole held the rights to Barnes’s play; Medak approached O’Toole repeatedly about exercising those rights. According to Medak, the project got started one night that he and O’Toole were returning from the theatre, which “meant stopping at every pub between Soho and Hampstead, and it didn’t matter if it was after closing hour because he would knock on the door and just say ‘Peter’s here,’ and every door opened for him”; Later on, at O’Toole’s apartment, the deeply inebriated actor phoned his manager and said, “I’m with the crazy Hungarian and I know I’m drunk but I give you 24 hours to set this movie up.” The next day, Medak received a call from United Artists and a deal was put together to shoot The Ruling Class.[2]

The screenplay was adapted by Peter Barnes from his play with few major changes. It was filmed at a sprawling estate in Harlaxton with the interiors reconstructed on sound stages. It cost around $1.4 million, with O’Toole working for free (he was instead paid a great deal for the big budget Man of La Mancha, released by the same studio later the same year).[citation needed]

It was the official British entry at the 1972 Cannes Film Festival.

Reception

The film divided critics. The New York Times described it as “fantastic fun” and Variety called it “brilliantly caustic”, but the Los Angeles Times called it “snail-slow, shrill and gesticulating” and Newsweek said it was a “sledgehammer satire“. Jay Cocks called the screenplay a “snarling, overwrought and somewhat parochial satire on aristocracy and privileged morality”; he called the film “wretchedly photographed…as if it were shot under floodlights”; in contrast Cocks praised the performances by Alastair Sim, Arthur Lowe,William Mervyn, Coral Browne, and James Villiers, but reserves most of his praise for O’Toole, saying his performance is of “such intensity that it may trouble sleep as surely as it will haunt memory. All actors can play insanity; few play it well. O’Toole begins where other actors stop, with the unfocused gaze, the abrupt bursts of frenzied high spirits and precipitous depressions. Funny, disturbing, finally devastating, O’Toole finds his way into the workings of madness, revealing the anger and consuming anguish at the source.”[4]

Despite mixed critical reaction to the film, O’Toole’s performance was universally praised and garnered numerous prestigious awards and prizes, including an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. Reportedly, when United Artists, its North American distributor, told producer Jules Buck that it would be cutting the film extensively for US release, Buck punched the company’s London representative and bought the film back.[citation needed] Avco Embassy then bought distribution rights and cut its 154-minute running time by six minutes.[3]

The film was banned by the South African Publications Control Board.

In a review nearly 30 years after The Ruling Class was first released, Ian Christie said the film is “unashamedly theatrical, and it emerges from a particularly interesting period in English culture when theatre and cinema together were mining a rich vein of flamboyant self-analysis. Many stage works of this period cry out for filmic extension—in fact, Medak had just filmed a very different play that mingled fantasy and reality by a writer often bracketed with Barnes, Peter Nichols’ A Day in the Death of Joe Egg. But what makes The Ruling Class exceptional (and difficult for some) are its outrageous mixing of genres and its sheer ambition. Not only are there allusions to Shakespeare and Marlowe, but also to Wilde and Whitehall farce; to the gentility of Ealing Studios, with a plot that distantly evokes that other great black comedy Kind Hearts and Coronets, and to Hammer’s gore-fests.”[5]

Awards and nominations

Subsequent history

In 1974, following an earlier-than-normal TV screening of the film on BBC TV, which broke a gentlemen’s agreement allowing a ‘window’ of theatrical distribution before any TV screening, the UK‘s Cinematograph Exhibitors’ Association (the theatrical distributors’ association) recommended its members blacklist all future movies produced by Jules Buck.[7]

Embassy Pictures re-released the film in May 1983.[8]

References

  1. Jump up^ Variety film review; 19 April 1972, page 18.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Tatara, Paul. “The Ruling Class”. Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved 2011-05-22.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b “The Independent on Sunday (London), 23rd July 2001”. 2001-07-23. Retrieved 2007-09-23.
  4. Jump up^ Cocks, Jay (18 September 1972). “Cinema: Cartoons from Punch”. Time. Retrieved 2011-05-22.
  5. Jump up^ Christie, Ian (29 October 2001). “The Ruling Class”. The Criterion Collection. Retrieved 2011-05-22.
  6. Jump up^ “Festival de Cannes: The Ruling Class”. festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  7. Jump up^ “British Film Institute ‘Key Events’ list for 1974” (PDF). Retrieved 2007-09-23.
  8. Jump up^ Klemesrud, Judy (8 May 1983). “Cinema: Cartoons from Punch”. Arts and Leisure. The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-05-22.

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruling_Class_(film)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Nuclear Secrets — Videos

Posted on March 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bomb, British History, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Diasters, Documentary, Education, Energy, European History, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Films, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Missiles, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, People, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Nuclear Secrets 1 of 5 The Spy from Moscow

Nuclear Secrets 2 of 5 Superspy

Nuclear Secrets 3 of 5 SuperBomb

Nuclear Secrets 4 of 5 Vanunu and the Bomb

Nuclear Secrets 5 of 5 The Terror Trader

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman — The Nuclear Express: A Political History of The Bomb and Its Proliferation — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Supervolcano — Videos

Posted on September 28, 2014. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Climate, Communications, Computers, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Food, Geology, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, Volcano, Water, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Naked Science – Super Volcanoes

Supervolcano (full movie)

Yellowstone Caldera : The Biggest Volcanic Eruption Ever Awaits Mankind

Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Rock — Video

Posted on December 21, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Entertainment, Movies | Tags: , , |

The Rock

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Powder — Videos

Posted on August 2, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Education, Energy, Entertainment, Farming, Films, liberty, Life, Movies, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

 

powder

Powder

Powder is a film about a boy nicknamed “Powder,” with incredible intellect, telepathy, and paranormal powers. It stars Sean Patrick Flanery in the title role, with Jeff Goldblum, Mary Steenburgen, Bradford Tatum, Lance Henriksen, and Brandon Smith in supporting roles. The film questions the limits of the human mind and body while also displaying our capacity for cruelty; it raises hope that humanity will advance to a state of better understanding.

Powder is a 1995 American drama film written and directed by Victor Salva and starring Sean Patrick Flanery in the title role, with Jeff Goldblum, Mary Steenburgen, Bradford Tatum and Lance Henriksen in supporting roles. It is about a boy nicknamed “Powder”, who has incredible intellect, telepathy and paranormal powers. The film questions the limits of the human mind and body while also displaying our capacity for cruelty, although it raises hope that humanity will advance to a state of better understanding.

Plot

Jeremy Reed, whose nickname is Powder, is an albino young man who has incredible intellect and is able to sense the thoughts of the people around him. Jeremy’s brain possesses a powerful electromagnetic charge, which causes electrical objects to function abnormally when he is around them, as well as when he becomes emotional. The electrical charge also prevents hair from growing on his body. Jeremy’s mother was struck by lightning while pregnant with him; she died shortly after the strike, but Jeremy survived. His father disowned him shortly after his premature birth, and he was raised by his grandparents. Jeremy lived in the basement and worked on their farm but never left their property, learning everything he knew from books. He is taken from his home when his grandfather is found dead of natural causes. Jessie Caldwell (Mary Steenburgen), a child services psychologist called in by Sheriff Doug Barnum, takes him to a boy’s home because he is now effectively a ward of the state.

Jessie enrolls him in high school, where Powder meets physics teacher Donald Ripley. Donald finds out that Powder has supernatural powers as well as the highest IQ in the history of mankind. While his abilities mark him as special, they also make him an outcast. On a hunting trip with his schoolmates, Powder is threatened with a gun by John Box (Bradford Tatum), an aggressive student who views him as a freak. Before John can fire, a gun goes off in the distance and everyone rushes to see that Harley Duncan, one of Doug’s deputy who is hunting with the boys, has shot a doe, which is now dying. Anguished by the animal’s death, Powder touches the deer and Harley, inducing in Harley what the students assume is a seizure. However, Harley admits to Doug that Powder had actually caused him to feel the pain and fear of the dying deer, and he cannot bring himself to take another life. Because of the experience, Harley removes all of his guns from his house although Doug allows him to remain as a sheriff’s deputy without a sidearm.

Doug enlists Powder to help speak to his dying wife through telepathy. Through Powder, the sheriff learns that his wife clings onto life because she didn’t want to leave without her wedding ring on her finger and without him reconciling with his estranged son, Steven. She tells him that Steven found the ring and it has been sitting in a silver box on her nightstand throughout the entire movie. Doug then places the ring on his wife’s finger and reconciles with Steven, letting his wife die peacefully.

Powder meets Lindsey Kelloway, a romantic interest, but their relationship is broken by Lindsey’s father. Before the interruption, he tells Lindsey that he can see the truth about people: that they are scared and feel disconnected from the rest of the world, but in truth are all connected to everything that exists. Powder goes back to the juvenile facility and packs away his belongings, planning to run away to his deceased grandparents’ farm. He pauses in the gym to stare at a male student washing, noticing the latter’s luxurious head of hair as well as body hair which he himself lacks, and is caught at it by John Box, who accuses him of homosexuality. John steals Jeremy’s hat and taunts him, but Powder reveals that John’s words mimic what his stepfather said before beating him when he was 12, further angering him. John and the other boys humiliate Powder, stripping him naked and taunting him. His powers begin to manifest by pulling at their metal buttons and any piercings. Eventually a large spherical electric burst erupts throwing Jeremy in a mud puddle and everyone else to the ground. His classmate John is found still, with his heart stopped. Powder uses an electric shock to revive him.

In the final scene Powder returns to the farm where he grew up, now in probate with the bank, and finds that all of his possessions have been removed. He is joined by Jessie, Donald and Doug, who persuade Powder to come with them to find a place where he will not be feared and misunderstood. Instead, a thunderstorm arrives and he runs into a field where a lightning bolt strikes him, and he disappears in a blinding flash of light.

Cast

Reception[edit]

Powder received generally mixed reviews from critics. It currently holds a rating of 47% (“Rotten”) on Rotten Tomatoes based on 19 reviews, as of May 2011. Caryn James of The New York Times described the film as “lethally dull” and said, “This intensely self-important film has no idea how absurd and unconvincing it is.”[1]

Since its release, the film has grossed approximately $31 million worldwide.

Controversy[edit]

The film’s production by Disney resulted in a controversy over the choice of director Victor Salva, who had been convicted of molesting a 12-year-old child actor in 1988. When Powder was released, the victim came forward again in an attempt to get others to boycott the film in protest at Disney’s hiring Salva. Since then, Disney has not picked up any more pictures by Salva.[2][3]

Remake[edit]

The film was remade by Bollywood under the title of Alag.

References[edit]

  1. ^ James, Caryn (October 27, 1995). “Powder (1995)”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2011.
  2. ^ Infamy that has no end, Chicago Tribune, October 29, 1995
  3. ^ Victim speaks out against molester, TimesDaily, October 25, 1995

External links[edit]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Enemy Of The State: Life Imitating Art –National Security Agency Targets American People — Videos

Posted on June 25, 2013. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Business, Comedy, Communications, Computers, Crime, Economics, External Hard Drives, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

enemy-of-the-state-movie-poster-1998-1020192861

Enemy-of-the-State-movie-poster

movie_photos_enemy_of_the_state

nsa-building

NSA Phone Records

PRISM_logo prism-slide-1

prism-slide-4 prismnew prism slide prism-slide-2

ENEMY OF THE STATE… (1998) MUST WATCH..TAKE SERIOUSLY..

Nova: The Spy Factory Full Video

INTERVIEW with NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: Confirm EVERYONE in US is under VIRTUAL SURVEILLANCE since 9/11

He told you so: Bill Binney talks NSA leaks

James Bamford on NSA Leaks – Charlie Rose 06/13/2013

Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA

James Bamford: Inside the NSA’s Largest  Secret Domestic Spy Center

James Bamford on NSA’s un democratic Surveillance

Enemy of the State

Enemy of the State is a 1998 American action-thriller about a group of rogue NSA agents who kill a US Congressman and try to cover up the murder. It was written by David Marconi, directed by Tony Scott, and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. It stars Will Smith and Gene Hackman, with Jon Voight, Lisa Bonet, and Regina King in supporting roles.

The film grossed over $250,000,000 worldwide ($111,549,836 within the US).

Plot

As the U.S. Congress moves to pass new legislation that dramatically expands the surveillance powers of intelligence agencies, Congressman Phil Hammersley (Robards) remains firmly opposed to its passage. To ensure the bill’s passage, National Security Agency official Thomas Reynolds (Voight) kills Hammersley, but he is unaware of a video camera set up by wildlife researcher Daniel Zavitz (Lee) that has captured the entire incident. Zavitz discovers the murder, and alerts an underground journalist, at the same time transferring the video to an innocuous computer disc. Reynolds learns of Zavitz’s footage, and sends a team to recover the video. While fleeing, Zavitz runs into an old college friend, labor lawyer Robert Clayton Dean (Smith). Zavitz secretly passes the computer disc into Dean’s shopping bag without his knowledge. Zavitz flees and is killed when hit by a fire truck. Reynolds soon has the underground journalist killed.

When the NSA discovers that Dean may have the video, a team raids his house and plants surveillance devices. Unable to find the video, the NSA proceeds to falsely incriminate Dean of passing classified information to Rachel Banks (Bonet), a former girlfriend. The subterfuge destroys Dean’s life: he is fired from his job, his bank accounts are frozen, and his wife (King) throws him out of the house. Dean, trailed by the NSA, meets with Banks, who sets up a meeting with “Brill”, one of her secret contacts. After meeting an NSA agent posing as Brill (Byrne), Dean realizes his error, only to have the real Brill, retired NSA agent Edward Lyle (Hackman), ferry him to temporary safety and help rid Dean of most of the tracking devices he is unwittingly carrying. Dean ultimately rids himself of the final device and, fleeing his pursuers, escapes.

With Dean and Lyle in hiding, the NSA agents kill Banks and frame Dean for the murder. Lyle is able to find evidence that the NSA executed Hammersley’s murder, but it is destroyed during an escape from an NSA raid.

It is then revealed that Lyle was an expert in communications for the NSA; he was stationed in Iran before the Iranian Revolution. When the revolution occurred, Lyle made it out of the country, but his partner, Rachel’s father, was killed. Since then he has been in hiding. Lyle tries to coax Dean into trying to run away, but Dean is adamant about clearing his name.

Dean and Lyle blackmail another supporter of the surveillance bill, Congressman Sam Albert (Wilson), by videotaping him having an affair with his aide. Dean and Lyle “hide” bugs that Reynolds had used on Dean in Albert’s room so Albert will find them and have the NSA start an investigation. Lyle also deposits $140,000 into Reynolds’ bank account to make it appear that he is taking bribes.

Lyle contacts Reynolds to tell him he has the video of the Hammersley murder and asks to meet. Dean tells them that the Hammersley murder footage is in the hands of Mafia boss Joey Pintero (Sizemore), whose office is under FBI surveillance. Dean, Reynolds, and the NSA team head into Pintero’s restaurant, precipitating a gunfight that kills the mobsters, Reynolds, and several of his NSA team.

Dean and Lyle escape, with Lyle quickly disappearing from the authorities. The FBI discovers the plot behind the legislation, causing it to fail, though they cover up the NSA’s involvement. Dean is cleared of all charges and is reunited with his wife. Lyle escapes to a tropical location, but sends a “goodbye” message to Dean.

Cast

  • Will Smith as Robert Clayton Dean
  • Gene Hackman as Edward “Brill” Lyle
  • Jon Voight as Thomas Brian Reynolds
  • Barry Pepper as David Pratt
  • Regina King as Carla Dean
  • Ian Hart as John Bingham
  • Lisa Bonet as Rachel F. Banks
  • Jascha Washington as Eric Dean
  • James LeGros as Jerry Miller
  • Jake Busey as Krug
  • Scott Caan as Jones
  • Jamie Kennedy as Jamie Williams
  • Jason Lee as Daniel Leon Zavitz
  • Gabriel Byrne as Fake Brill
  • Stuart Wilson as Congressman Sam Albert
  • Jack Black as Fiedler
  • Anna Gunn as Emily Reynolds
  • Laura Cayouette as Christa Hawkins
  • Loren Dean as Loren Hicks
  • Bodhi Elfman as Van
  • Dan Butler as NSA Director Admiral Shaffer
  • Seth Green as Selby (uncredited)
  • Tom Sizemore as Boss Paulie Pintero (uncredited)
  • Jason Robards as Congressman Phil Hammersley (uncredited)
  • Philip Baker Hall as Attorney Mark Silverberg (uncredited)
  • Brian Markinson as Attorney Brian Blake (uncredited)
  • Larry King as Himself (uncredited)
  • Ivana Miličević as Ruby’s Sales Clerk

Production

Although the story is set in both Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, most of the filming was done in Baltimore. Location shooting began on a ferry in Fells Point. In mid-January, the company moved to Los Angeles to complete production in April 1998.[3]

Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise were considered for the part that went to Will Smith, who took the role largely because he wanted to work with Gene Hackman and had previously enjoyed working with producer Jerry Bruckheimer on Bad Boys. George Clooney was also considered for a role in the film. Sean Connery was considered for the role that went to Hackman. The film’s crew included a technical surveillance counter-measures consultant who also had a minor role as a spy shop merchant. Hackman had previously acted in a similar thriller about spying and surveillance film, The Conversation (1974).

Reception

Enemy of the State was moderately well received by critics. Rotten Tomatoes presented a 71% “Fresh” rating for the movie, with 57 critics approving of the movie and 24 noting the film as “Rotten;”[4] similar results could be found at the website Metacritic, which displayed a normalized ranking of 67 out of 100 on the basis of the views of 22 critics.[5] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times expressed enjoyment in the movie, noting how its “pizazz [overcame] occasional lapses in moment-to-moment plausibility;”[6] Janet Maslin of the New York Times approved of the film’s action-packed sequences, but cited how it was similar in manner to the rest of the members of “Simpson’s and Bruckheimer’s school of empty but sensation-packed filming.”[7] In a combination of the two’s views, Edvins Beitiks of the San Francisco Examiner praised many of the movie’s development aspects, but criticized the overall concept that drove the film from the beginning — the efficiency of government intelligence — as unrealistic.[8]

According to film critic Kim Newman, Enemy of the State could be construed as a “continuation of The Conversation,” the 1974 psychological thriller that starred Hackman as a paranoid, isolated surveillance expert.[9]

Box office

The film opened at #2, behind The Rugrats Movie, grossing $20,038,573 over its first weekend in 2,393 theatres and averaging about $8,374 per venue.[10][11]

Real life

An episode of PBS’ Nova titled “Spy Factory” reports that the film’s portrayal of the NSA’s capabilities are fiction: although the agency can intercept transmissions, connecting the dots is difficult.[12] However, in 2001, then-NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who was appointed to the position during the release of the film, told CNN’s Kyra Philipps that “I made the judgment that we couldn’t survive with the popular impression of this agency being formed by the last Will Smith movie.[13]” James Risen wrote in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration that Hayden “was appalled” by the film’s depiction of the NSA, and sought to counter it with a PR campaign on behalf of the agency.[14]

In June 2013 the NSA’s PRISM and Boundless Informant programs for domestic and international surveillance were uncovered by the Guardian and Washington Post as the result of information provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. This information revealed much more extensive capabilities than those represented by the film, such as collection of internet browsing, email and telephone data of not only every American, but citizens of other nations as well. The Guardian’s John Patterson opined that Hollywood depictions of NSA surveillance, including Enemy of the State and Echelon Conspiracy, had “softened” up the American public to “the notion that our spending habits, our location, our every movement and conversation, are visible to others whose motives we cannot know.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_%28film%29

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

James Bamford — The National Security Agency (NSA) — Videos

Big Brother Barack Targets All The American People As Enemies of The State and Democratic Party — National Security Agency’s PRISM Is The Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Means of Invading Privacy and Limiting Liberty — Outrageous Overreach–Videos

No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Uses Stellar Wind and PRISM To Create Secret Dossiers On All American Citizen Targets Similar To East Germany Stasi Files–Videos

NSA’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Go See Lincoln — Now — Now — Now –Videos

Posted on February 2, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Culture, Economics, Education, Entertainment, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Go see Lincoln — now, now, now!

Raymond Thomas Pronk

Lincoln_meeting_advisers

President Lincoln meets with advisers to discuss the timing for passing the 13th Amendment

Credit: http://www.examiner.com

“Lincoln,” the film, is a riveting and moving masterpiece of an historical drama that covers the last four months of Abraham Lincoln’s life and his efforts to pass through Congress the 13th Amendment and end the Civil War.

Lincoln is played by Daniel Day-Lewis, who spent a year researching the life and time of the president. Lewis’s memorable performance transforms Lincoln from a white marble statue in Washington, D.C., to an in-the-flesh father, husband, lawyer, storyteller, politician, strategist and visionary on the screen. His performance should earn Day-Lewis another Oscar, which would be his third Academy Award for best actor.

The focus of the movie is Lincoln’s efforts in January 1865, with the assistance of his close adviser and Secretary of State William Seward (played by David Strathairn), to round up enough Democratic and Republican votes to pass a bill in the House of Representatives that would lead to the passage of the 13th Amendment that would abolish slavery in the United States.  Lincoln directs Seward to enlist three unscrupulous political agents to offer patronage jobs, once they leave Congress in March, to lame-duck Democrats, who lost their seats in the November 1864 election, in exchange for their voting for the bill in January.

Lincoln seeks the assistance of Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), leader of the abolitionist movement and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to secure the votes of radical Republicans in the House.

Lincoln also needs the votes of all the conservative Republicans in the House. To accomplish this, Lincoln seeks the help of Preston Blair (Hal Holbrook), founder of the Republican Party, and unofficial adviser to Lincoln. Blair gives Lincoln his support provided he is given the authority to go to Richmond, Va., the capitol of the Confederacy, to initiate peace talks.

Blair is successful in getting the Confederacy to send a three-man peace delegation headed by the Confederate States vice president Alexander Stephens (Jackie Earle Haley), that is delayed en route by Lincoln in order to first get the emancipation bill through Congress. The bill almost fails at the last moment when the Democrats disclose to the House the rumor that a Confederate peace delegation is in Washington. Lincoln replies to the rumor by sending a misleading message to the House and the historic bill passes on Jan. 31.

Lincoln finally meets with the Confederate peace delegation on Feb. 3, 1865, in Hampton Roads on the River Queen steamboat. The meeting ends in failure because Lincoln offers no concessions and demands the end of slavery as a condition for peace — the unconditional surrender of the South.

The Civil War’s massive death toll exceeding 600,000 and destruction are graphically illustrated on screen with Lincoln’s visit on April 3 to the Petersburg battlefield after the Union victory to meet with Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (Jared Harris).

“Lincoln” is a Hollywood blockbuster film with record box-office receipts of more than $175 million and 12 Academy Award nominations. The film faces stiff competition at the box office and at the Academy Awards from the films “Argo”, “Les Miserables”, “Life of Pi,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Zero Dark Thirty”.

I believe Lincoln will win at least five Academy Awards including best picture, actor (Day-Lewis), director (Steven Spielberg), adapted screenplay (Tony Kushner), and cinematography (Janusz Kamiński) at the 85th Academy Awards ceremony on Feb. 24.

Celebrate the anniversary of the birth of this historic president on Feb. 12, 1809 or the Presidents’ Day and the Washington’s Birthday holiday on Feb. 18 by seeing “Lincoln”.

Film rating: A

Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Lincoln Official Trailer #1 (2012) Steven Spielberg Movie HD 

Steven Spielberg Talks to TIME About ‘Lincoln’

Lincoln Interview – Daniel Day-Lewis (2012) – Steven Spielberg Movie HD 

Lincoln Interview – Sally Field (2012) – Steven Spielberg Movie HD

DP/30: Lincoln, actor Sally Field

Sally Field “Lincoln” Interview

DP/30: Lincoln, screenwriter Tony Kushner

Tommy Lee Jones’ Official ‘Lincoln’ Interview

Lincoln Q&A – Full Interview (2012) – Steven Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis Movie HD

Beyond The Trailer:        Lincoln 2012 Movie Review – Steven Spielberg & Daniel Day

DP/30: Lincoln: Below The Line – Cinematographer, Costumer, Production dsigner

(l-r) cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, costume designer Joanna Johnston, production designer Rick Carter, make-up designer Lois Burwell

Lincoln – Movie Review

Persons of the Week: Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis of New ‘Lincoln’

Film History: Columnists and Historians Assess Spielberg’s “Lincoln”

by Kelly Candaele

“…ONE OF THE MOST gratifying aspects of Steven Spielberg’s movie Lincoln has been the debate that its release has generated among historians and journalists, a debate more important than the movie itself. What were the complex dilemmas that Lincoln faced as President? What were the political realities and conduct of the time? How should we interpret the decisions that Lincoln and others made? What role did slaves and free blacks play in their own liberation?

Despite the fact that the film focuses on a short period of time in Lincoln’s presidency and deals primarily with the political cut and thrust associated with the passage of the 13th Amendment, there is a real sense in which the film can be described as deeply philosophical. Lincoln is portrayed as a man of discipline, concentration, and energy, all characteristics that sociologist Max Weber defined as part of the serious politician’s vocation. By forging an effective and realized political character — one aspect of Weber’s definition of charismatic authority — an astute politician can change the nature of power in society. By controlling his all-too-human vanity, he can avoid the two deadly political sins of lack of objectivity and irresponsibility. For Weber, a certain “distance to things and men” was required to abide by an “ethic of responsibility” for the weighty decisions that leaders are often required to make.

Lincoln has always been a man for all political seasons. There is Lincoln the principled politician, who believed that war was a necessary and legitimate means to sustain the Union; Lincoln the timid compromiser, who as late as 16 months into the war declared that if he “could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it”; and Lincoln the reconciling healer of “With malice toward none, with charity for all,” of the Second Inaugural.

Conservative New York Times writer David Brooks argued in a November 22 column that it was Lincoln’s internal strength and ability to compromise that allowed for the possibility of public good. For Brooks, the temptations of fame and ideological rigidity are what undermine the average politician’s ability to compromise. Weber called the losers in that wrestling match with fame, political “windbags.”

But for liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, it was Lincoln’s principled stand on the 13th Amendment and the need to ban slavery that accounts for his iconic status as one of our greatest Presidents. In an October 19 piece, Dionne encouraged Obama to “follow Lincoln’s example” by refusing to compromise with current economic and financial injustice.

While most political journalists have viewed the film with an eye on the current political stalemate, our most prominent historians have looked for accuracy and context.

Columbia University Professor Eric Foner, one of the most eminent historians of the Civil War and Reconstruction, sees the film as an “inside the beltway” rendition of the period. In a recent interview on Jon Wiener’s KPFK radio show, Foner points out that during the period that the movie covers, General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Union Army was marching through South Carolina. Slaves, in full-scale rebellion, were seizing plantations and “occupying” the land that they had worked. Slavery was “dying on the ground,” Foner insisted, not just in the House of Representatives. In Lincoln, “We are back to the old idea of Lincoln freeing the slaves by himself,” Foner says, reinforcing a one-dimensional view of a complicated historical process. The problem is not what the movie shows but what it doesn’t show. Additionally, as Foner points out in his Pulitzer Prize wining book, The Fiery Trial, Lincoln was “non-committal” during the failed 1864 attempt by Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. This was at a time when abolitionists, including the Women’s National Loyal League headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were delivering “monster” petitions to congress urging them to pass the amendment. They had gathered 400,000 signatures by mid 1864, but Lincoln was pushing for state-enacted emancipation in the border-states and occupied south.

Lincoln was also a “passive observer” of Senator Charles Sumner’s “crusade” to pass legislation that would allow blacks to carry mail, ride on streetcars, and testify in Federal courts in the District of Columbia, although he signed the bills that managed to pass in Congress. It was not until John C. Fremont was nominated for President in May 1864 — as a challenge to Lincoln — that Lincoln encouraged his party to embrace a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.

Foner also challenges the “race against time” plot of the movie, whereby recalcitrant Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats stall the work of Congress while a Confederate peace initiative threatens to undermine the amendment’s only chance at passage. In reality, Lincoln had told the lame-duck congress that if they did not pass the amendment he would call a special session of the new Congress in March of 1865, made up of enough Republicans (elected that November) to easily pass the amendment.

Historian James Oakes, in his book Freedom National — The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, published in early December, suggests that Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner might have that part of the history right. Oakes points out that a large number of Republicans felt that the amendment abolishing slavery was a “civil” rather than “military” measure, and that the basis for changing the constitution was thus linked to the winning of the war. As the war’s end drew closer, the justification for the 13th Amendment was potentially undermined.

In an email exchange with me about his book and the movie, Oakes speculates that Lincoln and his Republican allies were worried that public support for the passage of the amendment would dissipate as the exigencies of war diminished. “If abolition were imposed AFTER [Oakes’s caps] the South surrendered it might seem vindictive to northern voters, or voters might think Republicans were liars or were disingenuous for having claimed that abolition was a war measure,” Oakes wrote. Although this argument does not appear in the film, it was a central theme for New York Congressman Fernando Wood, the Democratic attack dog in Congress and in the film.

What Oakes finds more troubling in terms of historical accuracy is the scenario set up by Kushner, whereby conservative Republicans (represented in the film by Montgomery Blair) and Radical Republicans had to be brought in line to defeat the Democrats and pass the amendment. Oakes points out that the Republicans were united all along, as demonstrated by the House vote to pass the 13th Amendment that took place the previous July. There was only one Republican “no” vote at that time, cast by Ohio Republican James M. Ashley. Ashley was a strong supporter of the amendment, but realizing the amendment was about to lose, he voted no as a procedural maneuver that would allow him to call for reconsideration of the amendment when Congress returned in December.

Blair, who had represented Dred Scott in the famous Supreme Court case, was Lincoln’s Postmaster General until he was replaced in late 1864. Blair had influence in Maryland and Missouri and was called upon to secure Border State Unionist votes, not to cajole conservative Republicans. Between July 1864 — when Democrats and Border State congressman had defeated the amendment — and January 1865, both Maryland and Missouri had abolished slavery. So Congressmen who had represented slave states the previous July were representing free states in January. They were the Congressmen that Blair went after.

Historians and journalists will and should continue debating the historical accuracy and limited context of the film, especially the invisibility of blacks as central participants in their own liberation.

In his blog, Brooklyn College Professor Corey Robin quotes from the 1992 book Slaves No More (by Ira Berlin et.al.), making it clear that despite Lincoln’s great accomplishment, historians overturned long ago a Lincoln-centered view of emancipation. The destruction of slavery was:

[A] process by which slavery collapsed under the pressure of federal arms and the slaves’ determination to place their own liberty on the wartime agenda. In documenting the transformation of a war for the Union into a war against slavery, it shifts the focus from the halls of power in Washington and Richmond to the plantations, farms, and battlefields of the South and demonstrates how slaves accomplished their own liberation and shaped the destiny of a nation.

The relegating of African Americans to secondary roles, even in films where black civil rights is the central topic (2011’s The Help is a recent example) is unfortunately the rule rather than the exception. But on the positive side, Lincoln has accomplished something that historian and literary critic Irving Howe suggested is very rare for American artists: the ability to portray politics as “a distinctive mode of social existence with manners and values of its own.”

The history of slavery, its origins, extirpation, and consequences, becomes more fascinating and illuminating once the context is expanded. Robin Blackburn’s new book The American Crucible — Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights argues that the success of anti-slavery movements involved some combination of class struggle, war, and a re-casting of the state’s relationship to the claims of property — New York Congressman Fernando Wood, for instance, spoke against the 13th Amendment as a “tyrannical destruction of individual property.” Wood was pointing to the broader underpinnings of both the Constitution and state law.

For Blackburn, who writes in a Marxist vein, dominant economic interests, both North and South, needed a “different type of state.” In the South, slaves, who were legally property, could run away, while northern manufacturing demanded state regulation of finance, funding for internal transportation and communications infrastructure, and tariff protection. These Unionist and Confederate “rival nationalisms” were both expansionist, the Union looking to overtake the continent and the Confederacy eyeing new slave territory in the West, the South and in Cuba. The clash, according to Blackburn, “was thus one of rival empires, as well as competing nationalisms.”

Foner also places the state in the center of Civil War and Reconstruction history, focusing on how shifting political dynamics shaped the economic and social relations that followed the abolition of slavery. Slavery was a mode of racial domination but also a system of labor that a “distinctive ruling class” was fighting to retain. The “labor question,” and what role the state would play in re-constituting a disciplined and docile labor force after the Civil War became central to the battle between former master and former slave.

It was Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens (portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln), Foner points out, who recognized the “hollow victory” that liberation would bring unless accompanied by the “destruction of the land-based political power” of the agrarian ruling classes. In Nothing but Freedom — Emancipation and Its Legacy, Foner reveals some striking similarities between post-emancipation southern politics and similar developments in the Caribbean and Africa. Struggles over immigration, labor laws, taxation, fiscal policy and the definition of property rights “reveal how much of post-emancipation politics was defined by the ‘labor problem.’ In the southern United States, sharecropping became the common solution to an economic struggle whereby resilient planters and large landowners where eventually (after Radical Reconstruction) able to deny blacks access to productive land, capital, and political power.

If this seems a bit far afield from the central focus of Lincoln, it shows how difficult — how impossible — it is to present complex historical “moments” through film. History is not a series of “moments” but is, as the recently deceased historian E.J. Hobsbawn reminded us, something that surrounds us. “We swim in the past as fish do in water, and cannot escape from it,” Hobsbawm wrote in On History. The historian’s role — from Hobsbawn’s (and Marx’s) point of view — is the examination of how societies transform themselves and how social structures factor in that process.

Getting history wrong, as Ernest Renan noted over a century ago, is an essential element in the formation of a nation. Historians will continue to inform us about whether Spielberg and Kushner got Lincoln wrong in the service of polishing a national myth. Perhaps it is an unfair criticism to direct at a two and-a-half-hour movie on one of our most important political figures, but this story of emancipation is woefully incomplete. How could it be otherwise?

Tragedy very often accompanies politics practiced a high level. Has any American President avoided making decisions about the life and death of others? Lincoln was a man able to control his vanity by casting a cold eye upon both the virtues and the corruptions of human beings. He was able to reject cynicism, that reliable psychological shield for feelings of political impotence, and this the movie demonstrates clearly.

The film succeeds in portraying Lincoln as a political man in Weber’s sense, a man of ambition who was willing to be held responsible for the results of his decisions.

Moving away from the sterile debate over whether he was a “compromiser” or a man of “principle,” the film shows he accepted the fact that, in his political life at least, there would be a constant tension between the two. …”

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=1251&fulltext=1&media=#article-text-cutpoint

Spielberg’s Lincoln: A Historian’s Review

By Nicholas Roland

“… Steven Spielberg’s latest historical drama chronicles the 16th president’s final months and his struggle for passage of the 13th Amendment by the House of Representatives in 1865. Lincoln’s enduring popularity means that this film will be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate by historians, movie reviewers, and culture warriors alike.

Fortunately, Lincoln is blessed with a remarkably accomplished cast. Daniel Day Lewis is Abraham Lincoln. Having supposedly read over 100 books on Lincoln in preparation for the role, he manages to convincingly replicate many aspects of Lincoln’s persona and physical aura: Lincoln’s purportedly high voice, his wry sense of humor and knack for storytelling, his slouched posture and awkward gait, and the overwhelming weariness incurred by the “fiery trial” of war all ring true.

Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Fields) is portrayed as a more or less sympathetic character, in accordance with more recent scholarship rejecting long-standing depictions of Mrs. Lincoln as a shrew, possibly suffering from a mental illness. Fields plays a First Lady who is grief-stricken over the loss of her son Willie and weary from the stress of a wartime presidential marriage. During a scene at a White House reception, she draws on her social training as a daughter of the Kentucky elite to skillfully defend against political critics.

Secretary of State William H. Seward (David Strathairn) also appears as an important source of support for Lincoln. Seward cuts patronage deals with lame duck Democratic Congressmen in order to help secure the passage of the 13th Amendment and acts as a sort of political muse to Lincoln. Seward harangues and cajoles Lincoln on policy and political strategy but ultimately serves as a loyal ally in carrying out Lincoln’s intent, a depiction born out in the historical record.

Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) is also a convincing secondary character, albeit with some historical problems. A leader of the radical wing of the Republican Party, Stevens is accurately portrayed as an advocate of racial equality and a vehement opponent of secessionists. However, a scene revealing the purported relationship between Stevens and his African-American housekeeper risks conveying the sense that this relationship was the primary motivation for Stevens’ crusade for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Despite the excellent performances turned in by the star-studded cast, Lincoln has a number of shortcomings from a historian’s point of view. Based on Doris Kearns-Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, the film is at times a taut political thriller and at times the inspirational story of the final abolition of American slavery. The choice to focus on the last few months of Lincoln’s presidency is appropriate given the ultimate outcome of the American Civil War: the defeat of the Confederacy and the end of legal slavery. However, this narrow focus glosses over Lincoln’s famously ambiguous views on slavery and racial equality.

Spielberg’s Lincoln appears committed to rapidly ending slavery and even suggests that suffrage might eventually be extended to black men. In his lifetime, Lincoln was consistently criticized by radical Republicans and African-American leaders such as Frederick Douglass for his equivocation on slavery and lenient plans for Reconstruction. Lincoln seems to have held a lifelong commitment to the free-soil ideology that every man, white or black, has the right to earn for himself by the sweat of his brow. Despite this conviction, Lincoln repeatedly stated that he wished to preserve the Union, either with or without slavery. Lincoln viewed the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of black troops as a wartime expedient to preserve the Union.

To its credit, Lincoln does make some references to contradictory statements Lincoln made earlier in his presidency about slavery.

Despite this nod toward the complexity of Lincoln’s political career, Spielberg risks reviving the Great Emancipator myth. The best evidence suggests that Abraham Lincoln personally abhorred slavery as an institution while simultaneously denying the concept of racial equality.

Some historians have argued that Lincoln’s personal beliefs underwent a significant change during the last year of the Civil War, and Lincoln did in fact suggest to the reconstructed government of Louisiana in 1864 that “very intelligent” black men and “those who have fought gallantly in our ranks” might be given access to the ballot box. As depicted by the film, during the 1864 Presidential campaign Lincoln threw his support behind passage of the 13th Amendment and was active in securing its passage in 1865. But he never became a radical abolitionist like Thaddeus Stevens, or an outright advocate of racial equality. Lincoln continued to put forth plans for the resettlement of freedmen to the Caribbean even after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and possibly even after the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Too narrow of a focus on the actions of Lincoln and other white politicians unfortunately downplays the role played by both enslaved and free African Americans in the Civil War-era struggle for freedom. Black characters largely appear passive in Spielberg’s account. Kate Masur points out that White House servants Elizabeth Keckley and William Slade were deeply involved in the free black activist community of Washington, D.C. Instead of appearing as dynamic characters within the President’s household, they are relegated to cardboard roles as domestics. The most assertive black character in the movie is a soldier who confronts the President about past ill-treatment and future aspirations. Lincoln artfully deflects the soldier’s concerns and the scene ends with the soldier quoting the Gettysburg Address. The one-dimensional black characters in Lincoln are unrecognizable as depictions of African Americans during the Civil War.

Early in the war, when Lincoln strenuously wished to avoid confronting slavery, black enslaved workers fled to federal lines and congregated around federal camps such as Fortress Monroe, Va. Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861 in reaction to this development, marking the first movement by the federal government to separate rebellious slaveholders from their enslaved workers. While Lincoln continued to insist that the war was a struggle to preserve the Union, African Americans did not wait for the Emancipation Proclamation to turn the war into much more than a sectional conflict. Slavery was destroyed as much by their individual actions as by the political workings of white politicians.

The film also has a number of smaller inaccuracies and stylistic issues. For example, Alexander H. Coffroth is depicted as a nervous Pennsylvania Democrat pressured into voting for the 13th Amendment. Coffroth actually served as a pallbearer at Lincoln’s funeral, indicating that he was more than a simple political pawn of the White House. And in a scene supposedly taking place after the fall of Richmond and Petersburg, Lincoln solemnly rides through a horrific battlefield heaped with hundreds of bodies. A battlefield such as this would likely represent one of the worst instances of combat in the Civil War. Richmond and Petersburg fell primarily due to General Ulysses S. Grant’s maneuvering to cut Confederate supply lines rather than through bloody fighting on the scale Spielberg depicts. Lincoln did in fact visit Richmond after it had fallen and was greeted there by hundreds of jubilant freed slaves in the streets of the former Confederate capital. The chance to depict such a poignant scene is not taken up by the filmmakers in favor of a continued focus on the political and military struggle waged by white Americans.

Perhaps most inexplicably, the movie does a poor job of identifying the various cabinet officials and Congressmen central to the plot. The average moviegoer is likely to be somewhat unsure of the exact role or importance of several characters. This is especially curious given the fact that obscure members of a Confederate peace delegation such as Confederate Senator R.M.T. Hunter and Assistant Secretary of War John A. Campbell are explicitly identified onscreen.

On the whole, Spielberg’s Lincoln is a masterful politician and a dynamic character, able to carefully mediate between his own evolving beliefs and the political realities of his age. This interpretation falls solidly in line with the mainstream of Lincoln scholarship. For an incredibly complex, sphinxlike figure such as Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we shouldn’t expect a more thorough interpretation from Hollywood.

http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/11/spielbergs-lincoln-a-historians-review/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Argo — Takes Off — Videos

Silver Linings Playbook — Crazy Love — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Meet John Doe–Video

Posted on January 19, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Fiscal Policy, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Meet John Doe: Gary Cooper, Barbara Stanwyck, Walter Brennan, Gene Lockhart (1941 Movie)

Meet John Doe 

“…Meet John Doe is a 1941 American comedy drama film directed and produced by Frank Capra, and starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. The film is about a “grassroots” political campaign created unwittingly by a newspaper columnist and pursued by a wealthy businessman. It became a box office hit and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Story. Though the film is less well known than other Frank Capra classics, it remains highly regarded today. It was ranked #49 in AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Cheers. In 1969, the film entered the public domain (in the USA) due to the claimants’ failure to renew its copyright registration in the 28th year after release.[1]

Plot

Infuriated at being told to write one final column after being laid off from her newspaper job, Ann Mitchell (Barbara Stanwyck) prints a letter from a fictional unemployed “John Doe” threatening suicide on Christmas Eve in protest of society’s ills. When the note causes a sensation and the paper’s competition suspects a fraud and starts to investigate, the newspaper editor rehires Mitchell who comes up with a scheme of hiding the fictional nature of “John Doe” while exploiting the sensation caused by the fake letter to boost the newspaper’s sales, for which she demands a bonus equal to 8 months’ pay. After reviewing a number of derelicts who have shown up at the paper claiming to have penned the original suicide letter, Mitchell and editor Henry Connell (James Gleason) hire John Willoughby (Gary Cooper), a former baseball player and tramp who is in need of money to repair his injured arm, to play John Doe. Mitchell now starts to pen an article series in Doe’s name, elaborating on the letter’s ideas of society’s disregard of people in need.

Willoughby gets $50, a new suit of clothes, and a plush hotel suite with his tramp friend (Walter Brennan), who launches into an extended diatribe against “the heelots”, lots of heels who incessantly focus on getting money from others. Willoughby is hired to give radio speeches, guided by Mitchell who is promised $100 a week to writes his speeches, paid by the newspaper’s publisher, D.B. Norton (Edward Arnold). Willoughby turns down a $5,000 bribe to admit the whole thing was a publicity stunt, gives Mitchell’s speech, and dashes off to the countryside with “The Colonel”. They ride the rails, playing the harmonica and ocarina until they show up in Millsville, where John Doe is recognized at a diner. He’s brought to City Hall, where he’s met by Hanson, who gives a five-minute monologue about how he was inspired to start a local John Doe club.

The John Doe philosophy spreads across the country, developing into a broad grassroots movement whose simple slogan is, “Be a better neighbor”. Far from being an altruistic philanthropist, however, Norton plans to channel the support for Doe into support for his own national political ambitions. As a culmination of this plan, Norton has instructed Mitchell to write a speech for Willoughby in which he announces the foundation of a new political party and endorses Norton as its presidential candidate.

When Willoughby, who has come to believe in the John Doe philosophy himself, realizes that he is being used, he tries to expose the plot, but is first stymied in his attempts to talk his own mind to a nationwide radio audience at the rally instead of reading the prepared speech, and then exposed as a fake by Norton, who claims to have been deceived, like everyone else, by the staff of the newspaper. Frustrated by his failure, Willoughby intends to commit suicide by jumping from the roof of the City Hall on Christmas Eve, as indicated in the original John Doe letter. Only the intervention of Mitchell and followers of the John Doe clubs persuades him to renege on his threat to kill himself. At this point in the movie, a reference to Jesus Christ is made, that a historical “John Doe” has already died for the sake of humanity. The film ends with Connell turning to Norton and saying, “There you are, Norton! The people! Try and lick that!”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_John_Doe

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Iron Jawed Angels — Alice Paul — Videos

Posted on December 21, 2011. Filed under: American History, Books, College, Communications, Education, Federal Government, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

UPDATED October 29, 2013

Alice Stokes Paul: the Women’s Suffrage Movement

“Alice Paul was the architect of some of the most outstanding political achievements on behalf of women in the 20th century. Born on January 11, 1885 to Quaker parents in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, Alice Paul dedicated her life to the single cause of securing equal rights for all women. Few individuals have had as much impact on American history as has Alice Paul. Her life symbolizes the long struggle for justice in the United States and around the world. Her vision was the ordinary notion that women and men should be equal partners in society. She played an important role in the woman’s suffrage movement picketing the White House, going to prison, and even enduring forced feeding during the struggle to get the 19th amendment passed, which secured voting rights for women in America.”

Alice Paul and the Battle for the Ballot

Mary Walton talks about her new book, A Woman’s Crusade: Alice Paul and the Battle for the Ballot. Alice Paul was one of the most important civil rights activists of the 20th century and a pioneer of nonviolent resistance. Her tactics and leadership were crucial to winning passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Alice Paul presented by The Alice Paul Institute

Alice Paul: Working Towards Equality for the 51% Minority

National History Day Documentary Finalist 2009

Alice Paul vs President Woodrow Wilson

Iron Jawed Angels Trailer

Iron Jawed Angels Edited

Iron Jawed Angels Part 1/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 2/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 3/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 4/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 5/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 6/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 7/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 8/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 9/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 10/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 11/12

Iron Jawed Angels Part 12/12

Background Articles and Videos

Alice Paul

Alice Paul vs President Woodrow Wilson

Who Was Alice Paul? Pt 1 

Who Was Alice Paul? Pt 2

Who Was Alice Paul? Pt 3

Alice Paul

“…Alice Paul received her undergraduate education from Swarthmore College, and then earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. Paul received her LL.B from the Washington College of Law at American University in 1922.[2] In 1927, she earned an LL.M, and in 1928, a Doctorate in Civil Laws from American University.[3] Since the Washington College of Law merged with American University more than twenty years after Paul’s graduation in 1949, she had the distinction of receiving law degrees from both schools.[4]

Women’s Suffrage and the Nineteenth Amendment

After her graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, Paul joined the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) and was appointed Chairwoman of their Congressional Committee in Washington, DC.[3] After months of fundraising and raising awareness for the cause, membership numbers went up in 1913. Their focus was lobbying for a constitutional amendment to secure the right to vote for women. Such an amendment had originally been sought by suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who tried securing the vote on a state-by-state basis.

Paul’s methods began to create tension between her and the leader of NAWSA, who felt that a constitutional amendment was not practical for the times. When her lobbying efforts proved fruitless, Paul and her colleagues formed the National Woman’s Party (NWP) in 1916 and began introducing some of the methods used by the suffrage movement in Britain. The National Woman’s Party was funded by Alva Belmont who was a multi-millionaire socialite at the time. The NWP was accompanied by press coverage and the publication of the weekly Suffragist.[3]

In the US presidential election of 1916, Paul and the NWP campaigned against the continuing refusal of President Woodrow Wilson and other incumbent Democrats to support the Suffrage Amendment actively. In January 1917, the NWP staged the first political protest to picket the White House. The picketers, known as “Silent Sentinels,” held banners demanding the right to vote. This was an example of a non-violent civil disobedience campaign. In July 1917, picketers were arrested on charges of “obstructing traffic.” Many, including Paul, were convicted and incarcerated at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia (later the Lorton Correctional Complex) and the District of Columbia Jail.[3]

In a protest of the conditions in Occoquan, Paul commenced a hunger strike, which led to her being moved to the prison’s psychiatric ward and force-fed raw eggs through a feeding tube. This, combined with the continuing demonstrations and attendant press coverage, kept pressure on the Wilson administration.[3] In January, 1918, Wilson announced that women’s suffrage was urgently needed as a “war measure”, and strongly urged Congress to pass the legislation. In 1920, after coming down to one vote in the state of Tennessee, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secured the vote for women.[5]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Paul

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“…The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The Constitution allows states to determine the qualifications for voting, and until the 1910s most states disenfranchised women. The amendment was the culmination of the women’s suffrage movement, which fought at both state and national levels to achieve the vote.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment and first introduced it in 1878; it was forty-one years later, in 1919, when the Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. A year later, it was ratified by the requisite number of states, with Tennessee’s ratification being the final vote needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.

The Nineteenth Amendment was unsuccessfully challenged in Leser v. Garnett (1922). In that case, the Supreme Court rejected claims that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted. …”

The United States Constitution, adopted in 1789, left the boundaries of suffrage undefined. This authority was implicitly delegated to the individual states, all of which denied the right to women (with the exception of New Jersey, which initially carried women’s suffrage but revoked it in 1807).

While scattered movements and organizations dedicated to women’s rights existed previously, the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention in New York is traditionally held as the start of the American women’s rights movement. Suffrage was not a focus of the convention, however, and its advancement was minimal in the decades preceding the Civil War. While suffrage bills were introduced into most state legislatures during this period, they were generally disregarded and few came to a vote.[1]

The women’s suffrage movement took hold after the war, during the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). During this period, women’s rights leaders advocated for inclusion of universal suffrage as a civil right in the Reconstruction amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments). Despite their efforts, these amendments did nothing to promote women’s suffrage.[2][3]

“…Continued settlement of the western frontier, along with the establishment of territorial constitutions, allowed the issue to be raised continually at the state level. Through the activism of suffrage organizations and independent political parties, women’s suffrage was established in the newly formed constitutions of Wyoming Territory (1869), Utah (1870), and Washington Territory (1883).[3] Existing state legislatures began to consider suffrage bills, and several even held voter referenda, but they were unsuccessful.[6] Efforts at the national level persisted through a strategy of congressional testimony, petitioning, and lobbying.[7]

Two rival organizations, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), were formed in 1869.[2] The NWSA, led by suffrage leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, attempted several unsuccessful court challenges in the mid-1870s.[6] Their legal case, known as the New Departure strategy, was that the Fourteenth Amendment (granting universal citizenship) and Fifteenth Amendment (granting the vote irrespective of race) together served to guarantee voting rights to women. Three Supreme Court decisions from 1873 to 1875 rejected this argument, so these groups shifted to advocating for a new constitutional amendment.[8]

The Nineteenth Amendment’s text was drafted by Susan B. Anthony with the assistance of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.[9] The proposed amendment was first introduced in the U.S. Senate colloquially as the “Anthony Amendment”, by Senator Aaron A. Sargent of California. Sargent, who had met and befriended Anthony on a train ride in 1872, was a dedicated women’s suffrage advocate. He had frequently attempted to insert women’s suffrage provisions into unrelated bills, but did not formally introduce a constitutional amendment until January 1878.[10] Stanton and other women testified before the Senate in support of the amendment.[11] The proposal sat in a committee until it was considered by the full Senate and rejected in a 16 to 34 vote in 1887.[9]

A three-decade period known as “the doldrums” followed, during which the amendment was not considered by Congress and the women’s suffrage movement achieved few victories.[12][13] During this period, the suffragists pressed for the right to vote in the laws of individual states and territories while retaining the goal of federal recognition.[9] A flurry of activity began in 1910 and 1911 with surprise successes in Washington and California.[12] Over the next few years, most western states passed legislation or voter referenda enacting full or partial suffrage for women.[14] These successes were linked to the 1912 election, which saw the rise of the Progressive and Socialist parties, as well as the election of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.[12][13] Not until 1914 was the constitutional amendment again considered by the Senate, where it was again rejected.[9]

On January 12, 1915, a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for women’s suffrage was brought before the House of Representatives, but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote.

There was considerable desire among politicians of both parties to have the proposal made part of the Constitution before the 1920 general elections, so the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after a long discussion, it was passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays. Within a few days, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan ratified the amendment, their legislatures being in session. Other states followed suit at a regular pace, until the amendment had been ratified by 35 of the necessary 36 state legislatures. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee narrowly approved the Nineteenth Amendment, with 50 of 99 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives voting yes.[15] This provided the final ratification necessary to enact the amendment.[16]

The Congress proposed the Nineteenth Amendment on June 4, 1919, and the following states ratified the amendment.[17][18]

  1. Wisconsin (June 10, 1919)
  2. Illinois (June 10, 1919, reaffirmed on June 17, 1919)
  3. Michigan (June 10, 1919)
  4. Kansas (June 16, 1919)
  5. New York (June 16, 1919)
  6. Ohio (June 16, 1919)
  7. Pennsylvania (June 24, 1919)
  8. Massachusetts (June 25, 1919)
  9. Texas (June 28, 1919)
  10. Iowa (July 2, 1919)[note 1]
  11. Missouri (July 3, 1919)
  12. Arkansas (July 28, 1919)
  13. Montana (August 2, 1919)[note 1]
  14. Nebraska (August 2, 1919)
  15. Minnesota (September 8, 1919)
  16. New Hampshire (September 10, 1919)[note 1]
  17. Utah (October 2, 1919)
  18. California (November 1, 1919)
  19. Maine (November 5, 1919)
  20. North Dakota (December 1, 1919)
  21. South Dakota (December 4, 1919)
  22. Colorado (December 15, 1919)[note 1]
  23. Kentucky (January 6, 1920)
  24. Rhode Island (January 6, 1920)
  25. Oregon (January 13, 1920)
  26. Indiana (January 16, 1920)
  27. Wyoming (January 27, 1920)
  28. Nevada (February 7, 1920)
  29. New Jersey (February 9, 1920)
  30. Idaho (February 11, 1920)
  31. Arizona (February 12, 1920)
  32. New Mexico (February 21, 1920)
  33. Oklahoma (February 28, 1920)
  34. West Virginia (March 10, 1920, confirmed on September 21, 1920)
  35. Washington (March 22, 1920)
  36. Tennessee (August 18, 1920)

Ratification was completed on August 18, 1920, and the following states subsequently ratified the amendment:

  1. Connecticut (September 14, 1920, reaffirmed on September 21, 1920)
  2. Vermont (February 8, 1921)
  3. Delaware (March 6, 1923, after being rejected on June 2, 1920)
  4. Maryland (March 29, 1941 after being rejected on February 24, 1920; not certified until February 25, 1958)
  5. Virginia (February 21, 1952, after being rejected on February 12, 1920)
  6. Alabama (September 8, 1953, after being rejected on September 22, 1919)
  7. Florida (May 13, 1969)[19]
  8. South Carolina (July 1, 1969, after being rejected on January 28, 1920; not certified until August 22, 1973)
  9. Georgia (February 20, 1970, after being rejected on July 24, 1919)
  10. Louisiana (June 11, 1970, after being rejected on July 1, 1920)
  11. North Carolina (May 6, 1971)
  12. Mississippi (March 22, 1984, after being rejected on March 29, 1920)

Alaska and Hawaii were not states when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tea With Mrs. Barham on Remembrance Day–Video

Posted on November 11, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Americanization of Emily

 

WAR IS A RACKET! Ron Paul

Ron Paul – Imagine – Kinetic Typography

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul’s Advice To Herman Cain In Handling A Setup–Get Out Quick–Videos

Posted on November 8, 2011. Filed under: Art, Babies, Blogroll, College, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Films, Language, Law, liberty, Life, media, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul on ABC Radio talks about his role in new upcoming movie Bruno

Sneak Peek: Sacha Baron Cohen’s New BRUNO Movie PRANKS Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul & Sasha Baron Cohen (Bruno)

Bruno pranks Pete Rose: Deleted scene from the DVD & Blu-ray release

 

 

Ron Paul calls Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen) a “queer!”

Bruno-Gayby Funny ass part

 

Background Articles and Videos

Bruno Official Movie Trailer

Bruno on TODAY Show with Matt Lauer

[HD] BRUNO – Top ten list on Late Show David Letterman – 7/9/2009

 

The Best Of Borat

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Prince of the City–Videos

Posted on April 11, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Culture, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, Music, People, Philosophy, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Prince of the City (Part 1)

 

Prince of the City (Part 2)

 

Prince of the City (Part 3)

 

Prince of the City (Part 4)

 

Prince of the City (Part 5)

 

Prince of the City (Part 6)

 

 

Prince of the City (Part 7)

 

Prince of the City (Part 8)

 

Prince of the City (Part 9)

 

Prince of the City (Part 10)

 

Prince of the City (Part 11)

 

Prince of the City (Part 12)

 

Prince of the City (Part 13)

 

Prince of the City (Part 14)

 

Prince of the City (Part 15)

 

Prince of the City (Part 16)

 

Prince of the City (Part 17)

 

Prince of the City (Part 18)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Lawrence of Arabia–Videos

Posted on November 8, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Climate, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Entertainment, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Movies, Music, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

UPDATED October 15, 2013

Lawrence of Arabia part 1

Lawrence of Arabia : part 2

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 1 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 2 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 3 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 4 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 5 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 6 of 7

T E Lawrence and Arabia. BBC documentary pt 7 of 7

T.E. Lawrence

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 1 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part2 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 3 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 4 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 5 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part6 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 7 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 8 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part9 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 10 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 11 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 12 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 13 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 14 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 15 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 16 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 17 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part  18 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 19 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 20 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 21 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 22 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 23 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 24 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 25 of 26

Lawrence of Arabia – Part 26 of 26

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Serendipity–Videos

Posted on September 22, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

SERENDIPITY PART 1

SERENDIPITY PART 2

SERENDIPITY PART 3

SERENDIPITY PART 4

SERENDIPITY PART 5

SERENDIPITY PART 6

SERENDIPITY PART 7

SERENDIPITY PART 8

SERENDIPITY PART 9

Background Articles and Videos

Serendipity

“…Serendipity is a propensity for making fortunate discoveries while looking for something unrelated. The word has been voted as one of the ten English words that were hardest to translate in June 2004 by a British translation company.[1] However, due to its sociological use, the word has been imported into many other languages.[2]

Etymology

The first noted use of this word was by Horace Walpole (1717-92). In a letter to Mann (dated Jan. 28) he said he formed it from the Persian fairy tale “The Three Princes of Serendip,” whose heroes “were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of.” The name stems either from Serendip, an old name for Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka),or from Arabic Sarandib, or from Skt. Simhaladvipa which literally translates to “Dwelling-Place-of-Lions Island.” [3]

Role in science and technology

One aspect of Walpole’s original definition of serendipity that is often missed in modern discussions of the word is the “sagacity” of being able to link together apparently innocuous facts to come to a valuable conclusion. Thus, while some scientists and inventors are reluctant about reporting accidental discoveries, others openly admit its role; in fact serendipity is a major component of scientific discoveries and inventions. According to M.K. Stoskopf[4] “it should be recognized that serendipitous discoveries are of significant value in the advancement of science and often present the foundation for important intellectual leaps of understanding”.

The amount of benefit contributed by serendipitous discoveries varies extensively among the several scientific disciplines. Pharmacology and chemistry are probably the fields where serendipity is more common.

Most authors who have studied scientific serendipity both in a historical, as well as in an epistemological point of view, agree that a prepared and open mind is required on the part of the scientist or inventor to detect the importance of information revealed accidentally. This is the reason why most of the related accidental discoveries occur in the field of specialization of the scientist. About this, Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who discovered LSD properties by unintentionally ingesting it at his lab, wrote

It is true that my discovery of LSD was a chance discovery, but it was the outcome of planned experiments and these experiments took place in the framework of systematic pharmaceutical, chemical research. It could better be described as serendipity.

The French scientist Louis Pasteur also famously said: “In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.”[5] This is often rendered as “Chance favors the prepared mind.” William Shakespeare expressed the same sentiment 250 years earlier in act 4 of his play Henry V: “All things are ready if our minds be so.”

History, of course, does not record accidental exposures of information which could have resulted in a new discovery, and we are justified in suspecting that they are many. There are several examples of this, however, and prejudice of preformed concepts is probably the largest obstacle. See for example [6] for a case where this happened (the rejection of an accidental discovery in the field of self-stimulation of the limbic system in humans).

Role in economics

M. E. Graebner describes serendipitous value in the context of the acquisition of a business as “windfalls that were not anticipated by the buyer prior to the deal”: i.e., unexpected advantages or benefits incurred due to positive synergy effects of the merger.[citation needed] Ikujiro Nonaka (1991,p. 94 November-December issue of HBR) points out that the serendipitous quality of innovation is highly recognized by managers and links the success of Japanese enterprises to their ability to create knowledge not by processing information but rather by “tapping the tacit and often highly subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches of individual employees and making those insights available for testing and use by the company as a whole”.

Serendipity is a key concept in Competitive Intelligence because it is one of the tools for avoiding Blind Spots (seeBlindspots analysis)[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity

Serendipity

“…Serendipity is a 2001 romantic comedy, starring John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale. It was written by Marc Klein and directed by Peter Chelsom. The original music score is composed by Alan Silvestri. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity_%28film%29

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Movies

1984-Videos

A Brave New World–Videos

Battle of Waterloo–Videos

Before The Fall or Napola–Videos

The Chronicles of Narnia–Videos

The Chronicles Of Narnia – Prince Caspian–Videos

Dr. Strangelove–Videos

Ghostbusters–Videos

Ghostbusters 2–Videos

Rain Drops Keep Falling Upon My Head–40th Anniversity of The Release of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

Gattaca–Videos

Hitler: The Rise of Evil–Videos

Me and The Colonel–Videos

Outer Limits – Dead Man’s Switch –Videos

Pleasantville–Videos

Richard The Lionheart–Videos

Saving Private Ryan–Video

The Hitler Gang–Videos

The Patriot–Videos

The Wave–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Playing for Change–Stand By Me–Videos

Posted on May 4, 2009. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Comedy, Links, Music, People, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Playing for Change

 

Ben E. King – Stand by me

 

For the kids

 

Background Articles and Videos

Stand By Me

“..Stand by Me is a 1986 adventuredrama film directed by Rob Reiner. The title comes from a song with the same title by Ben E. King (which plays during the closing credits) and is based on the novella The Body by Stephen King.  …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_by_Me_(film)

Robbie’s Great moments in Movie History 6, Stand by me Lardass Pie eating contest

Stand by me part 1/8

Stand by me part 2/8

Stand by me part 3/8

Stand by me part 4/8

Stand by me part 5/8

Stand by me part 6/8

Stand by me part 7/8

Stand by me part 8/8

Stand by me part 10

Stand by me – Finale

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...