DAVID ROBBINS

DEXTER: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2012-01-08T16:44:00.000-08:00

David Robbins
c 2012

You might be more perceptive than I am and be surprised to hear that it used to surprise me that more people don’t realize a lot of movies are based on books, short stories, you-name-it.

With some movies it should be obvious. I mean, THE BIBLE? Unless in the great forest of life you’re the mental equivalent of a tree stump, how can you not know? With others, granted, it’s not so apparent.

The number of movies inspired by written works runs into the scores. Consider just a few of the more recent. TWILIGHT. The HARRY POTTER books. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

What surprises me even more is that many of those who are aware that a given movie is based on a certain story don’t bother to read the source. Why not? Especially if you like the movie, why deprive yourself of reading its wellspring? Sure, often the story and the movie diverge. Hollywood being Hollywood, a lot of movies bear no resemblance whatsoever to the literary muse that birthed them.

Even so, for those who are avid readers ‘and’ avid moviegoers, tasting the treats of both should be a no-brainer.

I mention all this because at the moment one of the most popular series on TV and on DVD is based on a series of books. And both the book version and the TV version are as entertaining as a TV series and a book series can be.

Doubly remarkable, both are about a serial killer’s gruesome and hilarious headtrip through life.

What does it say about a culture that idolizes a delightfully warped rogue who takes great pleasure in cutting other people into bits and pieces?

[The first novel in the enthralling series based on the misadventures of everyone's favorite serial killer.]

The name of our warped rogue is Dexter. As a personal aside, and appropo of nothing but me, my in-laws once had a dog by that name, and canine Dexter once bit me on the butt. Bit me so hard, the hairy bastich drew blood. Ever after, many a time when I looked at him, I imagined running him over or maybe using his head for sledgehammer practice. Oh, gross! you say. But there’s a point to this demented digression. We all of us have instances like that in our lives, where for one reason or another we yearn to do harm to something or someone who has done us an injustice. And therein lies a lot of the book-and-TV Dexter’s appeal. Through him, we vicariously unleash inner urges we wouldn’t give free reign in real life.

[The second book in the series. I found it even more hilarious than the first.]

Our lovable serial killer first saw the light of cultural interface in a novel by Jeff Lindsay that came out in 2004. In case you don’t know, Lindsay uses a pen name. His real last name is Freundlich. And in case you don’t know #2, he has a writing partner in the form of his wife, Hillary. Who, in case you don’t know #3, happens to be the niece of none other than Ernest Hemingway.

Which brings me---sorry---to another personal digression. About a decade ago I read another collaboration of Jeff’s and Hillary’s, HUNTING WITH HEMINGWAY. It’s a wonderful romp about Ernest and Hillary’s father, Leicester, and I mention it to give Jeff and Hillary a free plug.

[Jeff Lindsay, the author of the remarkable DEXTER novels. His warped sense of humor is contagious.]

Now back to blood and mayhem.

So far there have been six DEXTER novels: DARKLY DREAMING DEXTER, DEARLY DEVOTED DEXTER, DEXTER IN THE DARK, DEXTER BY DESIGN, DEXTER IS DELICIOUS and DOUBLE DEXTER.

How good are they? Run right out and buy them. Or find an on-line site and buy them. Then settle back for some of the most fun reading you will ever experience.

You might be thinking, How can a serial killer be entertaining? Two words: Hannibal Lecter. But where Hannibal filled us with morbid fascination, Dexter fills us with belly-laughs. If they were comedians, Dexter would be Jon Stewart to Hannibal’s Dick Cheney. It’s no contest.

Linday’s Dexter is as appealing a character as ever drew literary breath. Yes, even though he kills---and kills and kills. Yes, even though by Dexter’s own admission he’s a ‘monster’. Being privy to the inner workings of Dexter’s mind through Lindsay’s captivating prose is like being privy to the mental processes of a bloodletting Michelangelo.

Hollywood took notice.

Two years after Dexter’s debut novel, SHOWTIME aired a series based on his macabre exploits. Called simply DEXTER, it’s been going strong for six seasons and is adding new viewers all the time thanks to the release of five seasons on DVD.

[The first season DVD of DEXTER. Five seasons have been released so far, singly and in a set.]

A lot of the show’s appeal derives from the star. Michael C. Hall is pitch-perfect in the role. If you never thought you would root for a serial killer, you’re wrong. After watching Hall as Dexter, you want to take him home to meet mom.

[Michael C. Hall is perfection incarnate as DEXTER. Watch only one episode and you will see why.]

The first season sticks fairly closely to the first novel. Hollywood (again) being Hollywood, they take a few liberties with the plot, and by the second season, wing off on excursions of their own while managing to maintain the essence of Lindsay’s creation.

Which adds to the treat. Because essentially we have two storylines unfolding---the printed page and the filmed version---with the same lovable psycho. Although we never see him chewing gum, we get double the Dexter and double the fun.

[Adorable and lethal Dexter about to go off and stalk new prey. Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone.]

Seriously, on a scale of 1 to 10, both rate the top end. Treat yourself. And maybe Dexter will get into your blood as he has so many others, and the next time a dog bites you on the butt……..:)

BLADE RUNNER: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2012-01-07T13:48:00.000-08:00

David Robbins
c 2012

Of all the books, novellas and short stories adapted to the big screen, few have as original a title as the book that eventually brought us one of the finest sci-fi films of all time.

DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP is one of many books and short stories by Philip K. Dick. To sum Dick and his writing up in a few words is impossible. Suffice it to say that he was hugely talented, tremendously influential, and possessed as fertile an imagination as you will find anywhere.

To read a Dick story is to explore the dark dimensions of the human experience in avenues you might never have conceived.

[Philip K. Dick. Other works of his converted to the big screen include TOTAL RECALL and MINORITY REPORT.]

DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP is a sterling example. First published in 1968, the plot revolves around a bounty hunter who is given the task of hunting down six rogue androids. Sounds pretty basic but there is nothing basic about the twists and turns the story takes, or Dick’s characterizations.

Make no mistake. This isn’t a pure ‘action’ book. It’s an exploration of the emotional dimensions of the human condition, specifically our capacity for empathy, and especially as it applies to the lack thereof.

It’s a riveting read. Dick goes off on what at first appear to be tangents but they resolve seamlessly into the thematic whole.

[One of the many book versions of the story on which the movie is based.]

DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP is considered one of the top 100 science fiction novels ever penned. Eventually Hollywood took notice and in 1982 a movie version hit the screen, directed by Ridley Scott.

The question naturally arises, how faithfully does the Hollywood version portray the Dick novel? Normally, this would be easy to answer. In most cases, Hollywood’s efforts bear little if any resemblance to the books that inspire them. There are exceptions, as we’ve talked about before. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, for instance, is a flawless book-to-film translation.

To be honest, calling BLADE RUNNER an 'adaptation' of the novel is misleading. Why? Because neither Scott nor the guy who wrote the screenplay read the novel.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that something unusual occurred. The makers of the movie dropped a lot of Dick’s elements and tweaked some of the characters, yet they managed to produce a movie that essentially captures its empathetic essence.

That said, the making of this movie is so convoluted, it gets downright weird.

For starters, they changed the title. DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP became BLADE RUNNER. Why? you ask. Are there ‘blade runners’ in the book? No. Is there a character called Blade Runner in the book? No. Is the term ‘blade runner’ mentioned even once in the book? No. Then why did they change the title?

Because Ridley Scott had optioned the title to another book entitled THE BLADERUNNER by Alan Nourse, and liked it so much, he made it the title of the Dick adaptation. What do the Nourse novel and the Dick novel have in common? you might wonder. Absolutely nothing.

Scott didn't like 'androids', either. Evidently he thought it a tad trite or corny so they came up with a new term for artificial constructs; replicants.

By now you might be shaking your head and wondering, What the hell?

It gets better. Because there’s not just one version of BLADE RUNNER out there, or two or three. There are seven. Yes, you read that right. There are seven versions of BLADE RUNNER. We’ll cut right to the chase and mention that if you want the ‘definitive’ one---which some say isn’t necessarily ‘better’ than the other six---you should look for the 117 minute Director’s Cut.

[Harrison Ford as the replicant bounty hunter Deckard in the Ridley Scott movie BLADE RUNNER.]

Despite the many versions, the basic story is the same as the Dick book; a bounty hunter goes after renegade replicants. Harrison Ford has the title role and is supported by a superb cast that includes Daryl Hanna.
Of special note is Rutger Hauer as the replicant leader. His performance is exceptional.

[Rutger Hauer. If his performance doesn't evoke a spark of empathy, you're an android. Oops. Sorry. You're a replicant.]

The film has been criticized for its ‘slow pacing’. The critics don’t seem to realize it’s deliberate. This is science fiction film noir, not an action fest.

Mention must also be made of the sets. The cinematography, the special effects, the very ‘feel’ immerse you in the movie to where the experience becomes intensely personal, evoking many of the same emotional responses the novel does.

So which is better, the book or the movie? They’re both excellent in their own right. If you love thought-compelling stories, you will love the book. If you love visual feasts, you will love the movie. Read one or watch the other or read ‘and’ watch and then look in the mirror and ask yourself the question both pose: Where does your heart end and your head begin?

CONAN: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-11-30T18:46:00.000-08:00

[Conan as painted by the legendary Frank Frazetta. For many, his masterpieces are the quintessential Cimmerian.]

David Robbins
c 2011

Conan the Barbarian. His name conjures images of muscles, monsters and maidens. He’s been featured in films, a live-action and an animated TV series, and other mediums.

Conan got his start on the written page in some of the best stories ever penned. Not just the best sword and sorcery tales, as the genre has become known. The best of any kind.

Who achieved this remarkable feat? His creator was Robert E. Howard, as fine a writer as has ever drawn breath. His storytelling ability was superb, and his pulp fiction encompassed a wide range; Horror, Westerns, Adventure and more.

[Robert E. Howard, wordsmith extraordinary, and creator of the ultimate barbarian.]

But this is about Conan, and who better to describe the indomitable Cimmerian than his creator. This is from BEYOND THE BLACK RIVER, which many fans place at the apex of REH’s Conan stories:

“Crouching behind a thick stem, his sword quivering in his fingers, he saw the bushes part, and a tall figure stepped leisurely into the trail. The traveler stared in surprise. The stranger was clad like himself in regard to boots and breeks, though the latter were of silk instead of leather. But he wore a sleeveless hauberk of dark mesh-mail in place of a tunic, and a helmet perched on his black mane. That helmet held the other’s gaze; it was without a crest, but adorned by short bull’s horns. No civilized hand ever forged that head-piece. Nor was the face below it that of a civilized man: dark, scarred, with smoldering blue eyes, it was a face untamed as the primordial forest which formed its background. The man held a broadsword in his right hand, and the edge was smeared with crimson.
‘Come on out,’ he called in an accent unfamiliar to the wayfarer. ‘All’s safe now. There was only one of the dogs. Come on out.’
The other emerged dubiously and stared at the stranger. He felt curiously helpless and futile as he gazed on the proportions of the forest man---the massive iron-clad breast, and the arm that bore the reddened sword, burned dark by the sun and ridged and corded with muscles. He moved with the dangerous ease of a panther; he was too fiercely supple to be a product of civilization, even of that fringe of civilization which composed the outer frontiers.”

If those words fired your imagination, welcome to the wonderful world of Robert E. Howard.

[Frazetta again. This is 'the' iconic Conan. It surpasses all others.]

Even if you’re an avid reader, there’s a chance you might not have read him. You might have thought that sword and sorcery is childish, or that Conan is a muscle-bound oaf, and hardly worth your bother.

Nothing could be further from the true and the real.

Thanks to REH’s masterful craftsmanship, Conan is one of the most richly vivid characters in all of fiction. He ranks up there with Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond and a few others.

When you steep yourself in Conan, it’s akin to immersing yourself in the fantasy of Tolkien or the exotic Africa of Burroughs; you’re transported into a time and a place so brilliantly constructed, you feel as if you’re there.

[Not many know that Conan got his start in the Pulps. WEIRD TALES published many of the early stories.]

There’s a reason Howard has a legion of fans. His prose is in the same rarefied stratosphere as that of London, Lovecraft and Poe.

It’s no wonder, then, that Hollywood became interested. In 1982, CONAN THE BARBARIAN was released, starring none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger in his breakout role. It proved successful enough to spawn a sequel two years later, CONAN THE DESTROYER.

[Arnold as Conan in CONAN THE BARBARIAN. His acting and accent notwithstanding, he certainly had the 'look'.]

How well do the two movies hold up to the original? you might wonder. While the films in their own right are entertaining, and while Arnold certainly had enough muscle to fit the physical bill, you don’t get a sense of the innate ferocity and inherent complexity that distinguishes REH’s creation.

[Arnold once more, in CONAN THE DESTROYER. A mishmash of elements, it was the last screen Conan for a while.]

When compared to the live-action TV series that came to the small screen in 1997, however, Arnold’s Conan is positively brilliant. The makers took everything Howard---everything that makes his Conan stories great and memorable---and turned all that greatness on its head. The series only lasted 22 episodes, with good reason; it sucked. If you’re a Howard aficionado, watching these is enough to make you ill.

[CONAN THE ADVENTURER, the live-action TV series. Any similarity to Robert E. Howard's creation was accidental.]

There was also a CONAN THE ADVENTURER animated series that came out five years before the live-action and lasted for 65 episodes. The two are not in any way connected, thank Crom. REH’s Conan is watered down, but the series was intended mainly for younger viewers. And in that light, it’s well done.

[If you have a choice between buying the live-action and the animated, for Crom's sake---and your own sanity---buy the animated.]

Let’s jump forward to 2011. A new CONAN THE BARBARIAN, starring Jason Momoa, was released. It brought in close to 50 million dollars worldwide. Unfortunately, it cost nearly twice that to produce so it’s considered a flop. While ‘average’ moviegoers said it wasn’t half-bad, the critics were nearly universal in panning it. ROTTEN TOMATOES mentioned that ‘while its relentless, gory action is more faithful to the Robert E. Howard books….’---and let’s hold the phone right there.

That’s bogus. I’ve read REH’s Conan stories, all of them at least twice and some several times and in the case of BEYOND THE BLACK RIVER, more than that. And while, yes, his tales do sometimes include gory elements, they’re not ‘relentlessly’ so. Far from it. Some have hardly any gore at all.

[CONAN THE BARBARIAN, the 2011 version, starring Jason Momoa. It's not nearly as bad as some would have you believe. With more forethought and less stupid it could have been great.]

I can’t stress enough the excellence of Howard’s craft. His stories aren’t just for kids or muscle nuts or fantasy geeks or whatever derogatory term is used. Anyone who enjoys good literature will appreciate them.

There’s a treasure trove of Howard’s stuff out there. From the original pulps to recent collections, his Conan stories, in particular, have seen numerous printings by an array of publishers.

That includes comics. In 1970, Marvel came out with a highly celebrated take on everyone’s favorite barbarian. Written by Roy Thomas and initially penned by Barry Windsor Smith, it eventually ran for almost 300 issues and spawned spin-offs like THE SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN, itself a long-running series in a more adult vein.

[The first issue of Marvel Comics CONAN THE BARBARIAN. It became a huge seller and ran for hundreds of issues.]

More recently, Dark Horse launched a Conan line and has been reprinting many of the early Marvel’s.

In the years between the era of the Pulps and the launch of the comics and the movies, Conan saw a cultural revival thanks to a series of paperbacks put out by Lancer/ACE starting in the late 1960's. With art by the incomparable Frank Frazetta, it effectively reintroduced the Cimmerian to a whole new generation.

[One of the Lancer/ACE printings that was largely responsible for raising the Cimmerian out of literary limbo.]

The series was so hugely successful that Frazetta’s Conan is considered the definitive version.

Other publishers have produced other collections. One of the latest is an outstanding multi-volume set by Del Rey.

[One of the Del Rey volumes. They're quite excellent, and include collections of REH characters and stories other than Conan.]

There have been Conan novels by writers other than Howard. There have been Conan trading cards, Conan statues, Conan busts, Conan toys.

I’ve barely scraped the surface. But if I’ve piqued your interest, read Howard’s Conan stories and see for yourself what all the admiration is about.

To further whet your appetite, here’s REH again, from THE GOD IN THE BOWL:
“Conan stared in wonder at the cold, classic beauty of that countenance, whose like he had never seen among the sons of men. Neither weakness nor mercy nor cruelty nor kindness, nor any other human emotion was in those features. They might have been the marble mask of a god, carved by a master hand, except for the unmistakable life in them---life cold and strange, such as the Cimmerian had never known and could not understand. He thought fleetingly of the marble perfection of the body which the screen concealed---it must be perfect, he thought, since the face was inhumanly beautiful. But he could see only the god-like face, the finely molded head which swayed curiously from side to side. The full lips opened and spoke a single word, in a rich vibrant tone that was like the golden chimes that ring in the jungle-lost temples of Khitai. It was in an unknown tongue, forgotten before the kingdoms of man arose, but Conan knew that it meant, ‘Come.’
And the Cimmerian came, with a desperate leap and a humming slash of his sword.”

Exquisite prose, and yours to enjoy.
Robert E. Howard. There are none better.

[Want all your REH Conan in one volume? Here's a recent edition that does just that.]

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN? FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-11-15T17:27:00.000-08:00

[Two versions of the cover for the collected trade paperback of WATCHMEN.]

David Robbins
c 2011

Excellence in any area of human endeavor is inspiring. To mention just a few examples, there’s the excellence of Cormac McCarthy in literature, the excellence of Elton John in music, the excellence of the Coen brothers in moviemaking.

And then there’s the excellence of Alan Moore in the craft of writing comic books. In a previous blog, about FROM HELL starring Johnny Depp based on a graphic novel by Moore, I mentioned that to comic fans, Moore is the equivalent of a demigod. To use the pet phrase of a certain mutant berserker, Moore is the best there is at what he does.

It’s a shame more people don’t know that.

[The smiley face button with blood that has become the iconic symbol of the novel and the movie. And some would say of life.]

Moore has been doing comics for years and has a resume as long as your arm. As with any writer, some of his stuff is considered a bit better than some of his other stuff, and at least one of his works has been elevated to the rarified atmosphere of genius. His three greatest are the aforementioned FROM HELL, V FOR VENDETTA and WATCHMEN.

If you’re a moviegoer, all three might ring a mental bell since they’ve been made into movies within the past decade or so. We’ve already talked about the first and might talk about the second later. For now, let’s focus on what some have described as the greatest graphic novel of all time, namely WATCHMEN.

[The main characters from WATCHMEN, the novel. From left to right, back to front: Ozymandias, Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl II, Rorschach and the Comedian.]

If your knowledge of comic books stems from having read, say, SUPERMAN or SPIDER-MAN when you were a kid, you might wonder what the adulation is all about. To put it in perspective, WATCHMEN is the most ‘adult’ comic ever created. No, not porno adult, although some people were upset that there’s that ‘naked blue guy’ in it. WATCHMEN is adult in the sense that its themes and subtexts deal with the real and true of human existence to a degree that comics never did before, and even books and movies rarely achieve.

The story is set in an ‘alternate timeline’ where there are ‘real’ superheroes. The only thing is, they’ve been outlawed. When one of them is murdered, a mystery unfolds as to who did it, and why. And therein lies a tale to enthrall.

[The 'blue naked guy' from the novel. Like the Spartans in 300, when he goes to war he wears his Speedo.]

In WATCHMEN Moore weaves a rich tapestry of past, present and future, of good and evil and all the shades in-between. It’s a veritable feast of ironies. There’s that naked blue guy with the power of a god, who can’t see what is right in front of his nose. There’s the smartest man in the world, who doesn’t realize that imposing his will on everyone else doesn’t make them as smart as he thinks he is. There’s the superhero who sees life as one big joke, and doesn’t realize the joke is on him. And on and on it goes, until you realize that when you get right down to it, when you strip away the costumes and the powers, superheroes are as human as everyone else.

With superb art by Dave Gibbons and exceptional coloring by John Higgins, the WATCHMEN graphic novel is a continual best-seller on Amazon. TIME magazine included it in their top 100 novels of all time. THE COMIC JOURNAL ranked it among the top 100 comics of the 20th century.

[WATCHMEN, the movie. In an all too rare confluence of creative muses, the movie is as excellent as the book.]

In 2009, nearly 25 years after the first issue hit the shelves, WATCHMEN was made into a movie. Directed brilliantly by Zack Snyder, the film is remarkable in its own right in that unlike so many based on novels, Snyder didn’t succumb to the temptation to try and ‘improve’ it. He stuck to Moore’s story as superbly as the Coen brothers did to Cormac McCarthy’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. (Yes, there are a few minor tweaks and one---and only one---change of any significance, but the change makes the movie that much more consistent.)

[The main characters from the movie. From left to right; the Comedian, Nite Owl II, Dr. Manhattan looming above Rorschach, Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias.]

The film was a proverbial labor of love for Synder and many of the cast and crew. They knew they were working with excellence and did their best to translate that onto the screen. To their credit, they succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations.

[An action scene from the movie. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II kick some serious ass.]

WATCHMEN, the movie, is as grand as its source. Many of the scenes match perfectly with panels in the novel. The dialogue is verbatim.

[The 'naked blue guy', the movie version. Note the Speedo. Zach Snyder's attention to detail is incredible.]

To add spice to the feast, the acting is exceptional. The cast includes Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach, a vigilante with the sweetest mask ever; Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II, who has the sweetest superhero vehicle ever; Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II, who just plain has a way sweet bod; Billy Crudup as that naked blue guy---determine his sweetness for yourself; Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian, who has the sweetest button ever; and Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, whose sweetness is only skin deep.

[Rorschach in action. A fan favorite of both the graphic novel and the movie, he makes a nice blood blot.]

Remember I mentioned the adult themes? There’s a dark underbelly to the story highlighted by brutal bloodletting. And yes, there’s ‘whoopie’ and that pesky ‘naked blue guy’ hovering around. So be forewarned. It’s not for the squeamish.

If you’re up to the challenge, I literally can’t recommend either highly enough. The graphic novel or the movie, both are well worth your time.

Oh. Before I forget. That question I posed at the beginning: WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN? It comes from the Roman poet, Juvenal. If you know me, you know my love for Latin. Juvenal once posed this query: quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Which more accurately translates as ‘who will guard the guardians’ but has become known as 'who will watch the watchmen'.

In WATCHMEN the answer is as frightening as if it came straight FROM HELL.

[A whole line of WATCHMEN action figures was released in conjunction with the movie. Yes, it includes the 'naked blue guy'.]

Addendum: I was asked about the animated sequence.

Alan Moore used the 'story-within-a-story' plot device in the original version to tell the tale of a shipwrecked man who desperately tries to save his family and town from the deadly crew of the Black Freighter.
The story is told through the eyes of a young man who is reading the comic TALES OF THE BLACK FREIGHTER at a newstand. It's a jarring sequence, especially since at first it seems to have nothing to do with the superheroes. But as the story goes on, the reader realizes that it's a reflection of the motive and mindset of the 'supervillain'.

For the movie, Zach Snyder filmed an animated version. It was decided, though, that including it in the movie would make the movie much too long. So a separate DVD was released. Here it is below.

Later, they came out with an ULTIMATE cut of WATCHMEN, which restored the animated sequence.

So you can take your pick. Watch it without, watch it with. Either way, take note of some of the last lines the man utters: 'I was a horror--amongst horrors must I dwell.'

WILDERNESS: THE NEWEST

2011-11-12T01:30:00.000-08:00

Just out, under my pen name of David Thompson.

The two latest entries in the WILDERNESS saga, in one book.

SEED OF EVIL
Nate King and his family live deep in the Rockies. They like having their valley all to themselves. They like that civilization is a thousand miles away. From time to time they venture to Bent's Fort for supplies, and are content. But over the years more and more settlers have come to the plains and the foothills, and now the first general store has opened. Some of those involved have a secret agenda that involves forcing young Indian women into the oldest profession on earth---and Nate and his son Zach will be damned if they'll stand for that. Suspense and action galore as the Kings fight for their friends and for their honor.

GARDEN OF EDEN
An old acquaintance of Shakespeare McNair's shows up in King Valley. He regales Shakespeare with a tale about another valley, deeper in the mountains, which he claims is as pristine as the Garden of Eden. The streams are thick with beaver, and there is wildlife in abundance. Shakespeare has to see for himself, and his wife and Nate and Winona tag along. Little do they realize that the man has an ulterior motive---and their paradise harbors a terror that craves their flesh and their blood,
an Indian legend that is all too real.

Great reads, published by Dorchester Publishing. Buy a copy, print or ebook, and treat yourself.

:)

HALLOWEEN: THE FILMS

2011-10-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

[Michael Myers.......................aka........................the Shape.]

David Robbins
c 2011

In the mood for some goose bumps?
How about a slasher flick.

The big three slasher film franchises are Freddy, Jason and Michael. For those not into the genre, they’re better known as the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, FRIDAY THE 13TH and HALLOWEEN series.

Everyone has their favorite. Up front I’ll admit that mine is HALLOWEEN. It’s a matter of personal taste along the lines of which is better, M & M’s, REESES PIECES or SKITTLES? (M & M’s, obviously, but we digress.)

The HALLOWEEN franchise kicked off in spectacular fashion. None other than John Carpenter (with Debra Hill) wrote and directed ‘and’ composed the score. Therein lies a tale in itself, and another digression.

It’s been said that the music to the original HALLOWEEN is some of the scariest music ‘ever’. Hear it once and you can’t get it out of your head. A case could be made that the music ‘makes’ the movie. Watch it sometime with the sound turned down and then watch it again with the sound cranked to the max. The music increases the fear factor tenfold.

Not to diminish the visuals. Carpenter’s flair for evoking fear is extraordinary. His camera angles, his use of dark and light, his trick of having you ‘see’ through Michael’s eyes, sucks you in and fillets you in the same way the Shape slashes and stabs his victims.

The who? you ask. Although his name is Michael Myers, he’s also known as ‘the Shape’. The name alludes to the fact that in the best of the series he isn’t so much a person as an unstoppable force of evil.

(The Shape. A little known secret: the iconic mask is one of William Shatner of STAR TREK fame.)

In fact, if you’re pressed for time I’ll save you reading further and let you know which are the best now; HALLOWEEN, HALLOWEEN II, and the seventh, HALLOWEEN: 20 YEARS LATER. The three form a story arc in and of themselves. They’re further enhanced by relying more on Carpenter’s spooky theme than the others.

As an aside, yes, HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION takes up where 20 YEARS LATER leaves off, but once Jamie Lee Curtis’s character meets her fate, it devolves into a spate of silliness that leaves you saying, ‘Spare me.’ Which is too bad because it has a unique premise.

Anyway, on to the movies, chronologically.

HALLOWEEN. As already mentioned, it’s a masterful frightfest. Jamie Lee Curtis is superb as the ‘girl next door’ babysitter the Shape stalks. And in what will become a tradition, it has a kickass ending that compels you to come back for more.

HALLOWEEN II. Written by Carpenter and Hill but directed by Rick Rosenthal, it takes up where the first leaves off. Along the way a bombshell is dropped as to why Michael is after Curtis. It also makes liberal use of the score. The movie ends with Michael’s death. It also ends Carpenter’s direct involvement, except for the score for the next one, which is a shame.

HALLOWEEN III. About ten minutes into this one you’re thinking, WTH? Because it has nothing to do with Michael Myers. Since they killed him off in the last one, they decided to explore another horrific aspect of Halloween. And what better aspect than----‘humanoids’. As if that wasn’t enough of a jump-the-shark stroke of non-genius, they also threw in ‘witches’. In fact, the subtitle is SEASON OF THE WITCH. But the witches are really Celts and the main baddie isn’t a witch so much as a warlock and he’s the one who has created the humanoids to replace the human race. Is your brain spinning yet?
When all is said and done, this movie is ridiculous. They tried to wed SciFi to Horror and came up with THE STEPFORD WIVES meet DUMB AND DUMBER. Yeah, it’s as disconnected as it sounds. And we won’t even touch on how the bad guys managed to smuggle a ten ton piece of Stonehenge all the way from the British Isles to the U.S.
All this criticism aside, you might be shocked to learn I like it a lot. If you can suspend belief for the major doses of stupid, it’s a fun little thriller.

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS. Thank God. It turns out that Michael didn’t die at the end of II. He’s been in a coma for ten years. When he learns that his sister had a daughter, it’s slice-and-dice city. They use the theme a fair amount. And there are some good thrills.
One of the best elements in this movie is Danielle Harris. She plays the niece and she's marvelous. Have I mentioned the ending? It’s ‘the’ most gripping in the whole series, which makes the fact that they didn’t follow through all the more disappointing.

HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS. Danielle Harris is back and she does another outstanding job. Unfortunately, instead of continuing with the mind-blowing development at the end of the previous movie, they abandon it entirely and give us another film where Michael goes after Danielle. They try to spice things up by establishing a ‘telepathic link’ between the two but it doesn’t add much to the suspense. They also do something………strange. Several times throughout the movie we see a mysterious man in black. They never explain who he is or what he is up to. So at the end, when Michael has been taken into custody and the man in black invades the police station to free him, you’re left with a lingering sense of, ‘Hello? Was whoever wrote this on crack?’

I just had to include a pic of Danielle Harris from 4 and 5. She's a big part of why the two movies work so well.

HALLOWEEN 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS. Can you spell s-u-c-k-y? This is the low point of the series. Watch it drunk and maybe you’ll enjoy it. Watch it sober and you’ll wish you were drunk. It’s almost as convoluted as III. Try to follow me on this, and if your head explodes, I’m sorry.
It turns out that the man in black from the previous movie is the leader of a cult of Druids. (Or is he?} It also turns out that the reason Michael has killed a zillion people is because he’s under a curse. Yes, you read that right. The Curse of Thorn, as they call it, compels him to slay his entire family to save civilization as we know it. Are you laughing? You’re not alone. And as if this wasn’t enough, they then reveal that the ‘Druids’ are really scientists trying to tap into the ‘power’ of Michael’s evil.
This baby goes astray on so many levels. Watch it if you have to and then go take a shower.

HALLOWEEN: 20 YEARS LATER. Now that you’re refreshed, you can sit back and enjoy one of the very best. It ignores everything that happened in 6 (thank God again) and essentially takes up where II leaves off. Jamie Lee Curtis’s character is alive. She’s living under an assumed name and has a son. (Josh Hartnett, no less, for all you hunk lovers.) When Michael finds out, guess what? The thrills are nonstop. Curtis is terrific. And Michael is as Michael should be; the scariest mother on the planet. The movie ends on an upbeat note that brings a fitting end to the series. But hold the phone.

HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION. Not content with upbeat, they decided to go with a major downer. We say goodbye to Jamie Lee Curtis and they introduce a bunch of college kids who are going to spend the night in Michael Myers’s house for a reality TV show. Guess what #2? The idea of having cameras stationed throughout the house and Michael picking the students off one-by-one is pretty cool but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Plus there are those silly moments.

And there you go. The eight HALLOWEEN films directly or indirectly tied to the original. (With the exception of III, and at least Carpenter did the score.) With the real Halloween just around the weekend, treat yourself.

Footnote: Yes, Rob Zombie came out with a remake in 2007 and a sequel in 2009. But they are, as it were, separate entities with no ties to Carpenter’s version beyond the title and some plot points and the use of his theme in the first one but not the second. And although I like Tyler Mane---he was great as Sabertooth in X-MEN and great again as Ajax in TROY---thanks to Zombie having to ‘explain’ why Michael is the way he is, Michael becomes just another serial killer instead of the pure essence of evil the Shape was intended to be. Still, let's take a quick look at each.

HALLOWEEN (2007) Unfortunately, Zombie spends nearly half the film establishing backstory for Michael. When Mane finally does cut loose wearing the iconic mask, there are some genuine thrills. And it was great to see Danielle Harris again in a supporting role. The Laurie Strode character played by Scout Taylor-Compton isn't so great. She's no Jamie Lee Curtis. Jamie's Laurie was strong, tough, resourceful. Scout's Laurie is a whimpering, mewing twit who shrilly screams 'Somebody, PLEASE, help me!' so many fricking times, you want Michael to kill her just to shut her up. Still, it drew enough fans of the old series and new ones to earn over eightly million dollars worldwide.

[Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN remake. Check out the Special Features on the DVD. They include an alternate ending that's better than the theatrical version.]

HALLOWEEN II. (2009) Remember what I said about HALLOWEEN 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS being the low point in the franchise? I stand corrected. Compared to this, H6 was Shakespeare. An artsy-fartsy slasher flick---from Rob Zombie? The mind boggles. It boggles even more that Zombie has Mane go around for so long without the mask. But what really brings this puppy down are the endless---and incredibly lame---scenes involing Michael's dead mom and Michael as a kid. Slasher fans go to slasher films for a good slash. Preferrably, they like a really good scare to precede the good slash. Here, the narrative is bogged down again and again and again by mommy and kiddie popping out of limbo for no seeming purpose other than a reminder---as if we need one---that Michael is psycho. Apparently I'm not the only one who thought this was ape stupid. It didn't do even half as well at the box office.

Hopefully, it doesn't kill the franchise. If they can find a writer and director who 'get' that the Shape as unstoppable evil is far more terrifying than Michael as a serial killer, they can easily restore the series to the heights it once attained.

ROBERT B. PARKER: EVOLUTIONS

2011-10-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

[The late Robert B. Parker. His books are enormously entertaining.]

David Robbins
c 2011

I’ve been asked to do a series on writers and the craft. To start, we’ll answer a question someone asked just this week. Namely, does a writer ever change their style?

The short and the true of it is ‘yep’.

With some writers you can read their first published book and then read a book they wrote twenty years later and their style is exactly the same. They never change. Perhaps they write so well, they don’t need to. Perhaps that's the only style they can write. Whatever the reason, maintaining a consistent style can have great appeal to readers. They know what to expect, and if they like it, will often buy everything the writer does.

With other writers you notice changes. Some vary their style from book to book, depending on the genre and the POV and other factors. Others change because they regard their new style to be better than their old style. Some writers constantly hone their craft. From book to book they tweak and polish.

A good example of a writer who evolved is Robert B. Parker. You might be familiar with his work. I am. I love his stuff, and was saddened by his passing. I have every book he ever published. He’s most famous for his Spenser series. He also wrote a Jesse Stone series and a Sunny Ranndall series, a number of Westerns and others.

But it’s in Spenser that his evolution is most obvious. He changes his style so drastically from the first Spenser novel to the later ones that the reader can’t help but notice.

To illustrate, below are two scans. The first was scanned at random from THE GODWULF MANUSCRIPT, the first Spenser. The second scan is from ROUGH WEATHER, a later entry. Take a look. Notice anything?

[Random pages from THE GODWULF MANUSCRIPT by Robert B. Parker.]

[Random pages from ROUGH WEATHER by Robert B. Parker. My apology for the quality. If it's any consolation, I shot my scanner.]

The first thing that leaps out at you is that the paragraphs are a ‘lot’ shorter in the later book. The second thing is that he relies much more on dialogue than descriptive narrative. A case could be made that he depends on dialogue almost exclusively.

This isn’t a criticism. From the first book to the last, Parker is as good as writing gets.

Why did he evolve the way he did? I never met the man so I can’t say. Maybe ease of execution had something to do with it. It’s easier to carry a story with dialogue than to delve into detail about a character’s surroundings.

There’s a trap you have to watch out for. When you rely almost solely on dialogue, unless you possess the ability to dispense insights and humor in pithy flashes, as Parker did, you tend to repeat yourself. Some critics have said Parker started to do that in his later books.

The point of all this? If you’re a writer, your style isn’t set in concrete unless you want it to be. You can write the same each and every book or you can do as Robert B. Parker did and pare your prose to its essence or some other variation.

The important thing, the really important thing, is to write. Just do it. Get it out and get it down. In the final analysis it’s not the style so much as the story.

JASON X: BUM RAP CITY

2011-10-02T00:15:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

I’m about to do a new series on writers and various aspects of the craft. But first I’d like to point you at a movie you probably haven’t seen but that you might like as much as I do. It's perfect for Halloween viewing.

[Jason doing what Jason does best in JASON X. You can't keep a regenerating killing machine down.]

First, though, we should take a look at the reasons some people have never given it a try. It’s gotten a lot of negative feedback. And you know what? Most of criticism is bum rap city.

If you’re a Horror fan like me, you might be into the HALLOWEEN flicks and the Freddy films and, yes, the JASON outings. The latter two spawned a crossover in which the two icons waged war.

[Freddy vs Jason. A tradition started way back when with FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN.]

JASON X is the tenth in the Jason franchise. Critics and fans jumped down its throat. The makers and the cast were harshly criticized and it received generally negative ratings. But let’s take a look at some of their gripes.

One of the biggies was that it broke the mold and takes place in outer space. Hello? How many Jason---and similar---movies have involved a camp in the woods or a college or an urban setting? We’re talking dozens. So many, that when a new one comes along, we’re like, been there, done that. So instead of getting on JASON X for doing something different, we should give the makers kudos for trying to be unique. Think about it. Jason---in space. Totally freakin’ cool.

[One of the spaceships in JASON X. The ships and many of the sets are well done.]

Another gripe has been directed at the cast. Hello, again? Since when do the Jason movies---or a lot of others in the genre---involve Academy Award performances? Besides which, except for a few, the cast here does a more than credible job. Lisa Ryder (you might know her from the series ANDROMEDA) as the android? She’s superb. Peter Mensah as the badass sergeant? His name might not ring a bell but you’ve seen him in a lot of movies and he always does a great job. Jonathan Potts as the kinky, greedy professor? Another believable performance. Melyssa Ade as the smartmouth? Super fine job, including the most outstanding line in the whole movie.

[Melyssa Ade has a line that succinctly sums up a lot of what life throws at us.]

Finally we get to the biggest complaint. JASON X, some say, isn’t scary enough. Here the complaint is marginally legit, only because the makers apparently did something unintentional. Instead of making a kickass Horror movie, they've made a kickass Action flick. Seriously, there’s more action in this one than most three Jason movies combined. In addition to the usual Jason-slices-and-dices-sexcrazed-college-kids, he also takes on a space grunt unit in pitched combat. And in the best scene in the film, he goes one-on-one with the coolest babe android this side of anywhere.

[Lisa Ryder as the android Kay-Em 14 or KM-14 as she is sometimes called.]

[Another pic of Kay. If you are a shooter her fight with Jason is terrific.]

Here’s the plot in a nutshell. Jason is put into cryogenic freeze. Over four hundred years into the future he’s salvaged by a college class doing field research on what’s left of Terra Firma. They take him on board their spaceship and he revives. Cue the bloodletting and battles.

[Yet another pic of Kay, the hottest android ever. Excuse the drool.]

It was made less than ten years ago and the SFX hold up pretty well. At the time, it was cutting edge, as you’ll see for yourself if you watch the Special Features documentary detailing all they did.

So hey, we’ve got action, we have gobs of gore, there are more than a few scares, a couple of sex scenes, and a lot of humor. Sound like your kind of movie?

UPDATE 9/27/11

2011-09-28T01:46:00.000-07:00

For those who like my stuff, I’m going to start posting updates here as well as at the Asylum. Why? Because the visitor stats shows that some people visit here but not there, and vice versa.

What’s the Asylum? you wonder. It’s one of the fan sites. The most active and the most fun. Look on the left and you'll see a 'Spooky David' photo of me that serves as a link.

First, the huge news. The domain is finally up and running: davidrobbinsauthor.com. Look on the right at the top. Click on the pic of 'Introspective David' and it will take you to the site.

Within, hopefully, a few more months I’ll have six new books coming out in additon to more WILDERNESS and TRAILSMAN. They are, in no particular order:
a secret project
a werewolf book
a zombie book (that's also an ENDWORLD prequel)
a new ENDWORLD
a Mafia book
a Western.

Yes, the ENDWORLD is a continuation of the regular series.
And yes, it will have Blade, Hickok and Geronimo.

The new Western is a sequel to BLOOD FEUD.

And there's more on the way.

Yeah, I’ve been a busy ‘busy’ bee’.
But there are never enough hours in the day.
:)
David

THE LOST WORLD: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-09-22T22:24:00.000-07:00

[One of the 'many' book versions of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle classic.]

David Robbins
c 2011

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is world famous for his creation of one of the most fascinating literary characters of all time, none other than Sherlock Holmes.

What a lot of people don’t know is that Doyle created another character he featured in three novels and two short stories. This second brain child, Professor Challenger, would be largely forgotten today except that he was involved in what is arguably Doyle’s second most famous work, THE LOST WORLD.

Published in 1912, the novel tells the tale of the professor and others who venture to a plateau deep in the jungles of South America where they encounter ferocious dinosaurs and fierce ape-men.

Naturally, Hollywood saw this as ripe for cinematic treatment. We’ll take a look at some of the movies but first the book.

THE LOST WORLD still holds up today. Doyle is a gifted storyteller and he brings the same flair to Challenger’s adventures that he does to Sherlock’s. Unfortunately, the former doesn’t have the latter’s engaging personality. It’s Lord Roxton, the big game hunter, who elicits more interest. Another quibble is that by modern sensibilities Doyle takes much too long to get to the ‘good stuff’, the dinosaurs and the ape-men. Once he does, the story is riveting.

[A poster for the silent film version of Doyle's THE LOST WORLD.]

Moviegoers who saw the first film version thought it was riveting, too. Released in 1925, it boasts special effects by Willis O’Brian, who later went on to do the original KING KONG. He did the dinosaurs so well, in fact, that---amazingly enough---some who saw the movie at the time thought they were real. It sticks fairly well to the book. One glaring difference is at the end. Instead of bringing a pterodactyl back to London, he brings a brontosaurus, which makes the most spectacular getaway this side of GORGO.

[A scene from the silent version. Do they look real to you?]

Thirty-five years went by before Hollywood made another LOST WORLD. This time, instead of using models or guys in suits, they had a brainstorm. They decided to glue spikes and horns on an iguana, a monitor lizard and an alligator, and bingo, instant dinosaurs. If it sounds ridiculous, it was. Any kid over six knew that they weren’t anything like real dinos, but hey, that didn’t stop Irwin Allen, who produced the movie, from using the footage in practically every TV series he made, from VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA to LOST IN SPACE. You just can’t keep a good iguana down.

[The 1960 version introduced a new concept in dinosaur special effects.]

[An iguana with glued horns. Don't laugh. Iguanas are sensitive.]

Fast forward to 1992. Yet another version, this time starring the wonderful John Rhys-Davies. That’s where the wonderfulness ends. Instead of using iguanas, they decided to go Irwin Allen one better and used---puppets. They also tamed down the action to where your grandmother could watch it and not be traumatized. Incredibly, they even made a sequel in 1997. Which shows that you can’t keep a good puppet down, either.

[If you want a LOST WORLD with fewer scares than a visit to the dentist, this is it.]

Not a year later a new LOST WORLD was released. To show how little they stuck to Doyle, they moved the plateau to Mongolia. (!) They also turned Lord Roxton into a bad guy who planned to turn the plateau into a hunting preserve. On the plus side, they didn’t use puppets.

[The Lost World was in Mongolia the whole time. Who would have guessed?]

Finally we get to the best film take on THE LOST WORLD, ‘ever’. It came out in 2001 and was produced under the auspices of the BBC. Yeah, it takes liberties with Doyle, but it’s head and shoulders above everything that went before. The CGI dinos are really well done. Bob Hoskins is a delightful Professor Challenger. The other actors also shine. But what sets this so far apart is its depiction of Lord Roxton. For once they get it right. Tom Ward is terrific. When he goes berserk and starts gunning down the ape-men in a scene reminiscent of the book, it’s spectacular. If you see no other THE LOST WORLD, see this one.

[The very best film treatment of the THE LOST WORLD. Fine acting and superb special effects.]

[Tom Ward as Lord Roxton. For shooters, he is Roxton as Roxton should be.]

There’s also been a TV series. It includes some of the elements from Doyle and expands on them in an entertaining fashion. And you know what? It’s a lot of fun. Did I mention the smokin' hot babes?

[The TV series lasted for three seasons and was hardly ever dull.]

[Can you guess a big part of the appeal for the TV series?]

[Can you guess 'now'? If not, you should turn yourself into the nearest morgue. You're obviously dead.]

To say that KING OF THE LOST WORLD (2005) is fun is true only if you are blitzed when you watch it. To call this a loose adaptation of Doyle is being charitable. It’s more a mix of THE LOST WORLD and KING KONG. On the Stink-O meter this baby rates a 1. We’d give it a 0, but hey, we like giant apes.

[That sound you hear is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rolling over in his grave.]

And yes, there was another movie called THE LOST WORLD. But it was based on a book by Michael Crichton and has no connection to Doyle’s.

[A scene from the Crichton-based movie. Have dino effects come a long way or what?]

There have also been radio versions and comic books, natch.

[A Dell comic based on the 1960 film version of THE LOST WORLD.]

So if you can’t get enough of Lost Worlds, dig in.

ANGELS: YEA OR NAY?

2011-08-31T23:50:00.000-07:00

[One of Gustave Dore's many fine renderings of angels. This one is called THE EMPYREAN.]

David Robbins
c 2011

What’s this? you wonder. A blog that doesn’t have anything to do with a book or a movie?

Am I sick?
No.
I’m waxing angelic.

Do you believe in angels? Or do you believe angels exist? (Which isn’t necessarily the same thing.)

I ask because I’ve been working on a special project for over a year and it’s on the cusp of fruition. And yes, it has to do with angels.

[Another of Dore's many masterpieces. THE HEAVEN OF THE FIXED STARS.]

I don’t really need to mention that angels have reputedly interacted with humans since our inception. And as with everything else, people can't agree on exactly what an angel is.

Some say angels have wings. Some say they don’t. Some say angels are ministering spirits. Some say they’re messengers. Some say angels are warriors. Some say angels are all of that, and more.

Given the spectacular cultural success of humanism’s adherents and atheists in belittling anything and everything that has to do with religion, it might come as a surprise to learn that their efforts have failed equally spectacularly in regards to angels. For unlike religious belief, per se, which has reportedly witnessed a (slight) decline, the belief in angels has actually grown.

[One of Dore's many illustrations for PARADISE LOST. This depicts Michael and the loyal angels defeating Satan and his minions.]

We can’t rely entirely on polls. For instance, a survey in 2009 claimed that only 55% of Americans believe angels exist. Yet in 2007 another survey asserted that nearly 70% think angels and demons are real. So which is it? A survey in Canada came out with a similar total to the latter.

Interestingly, the polls seem to be more accurate in reflecting the beliefs of the young. And that belief has definitely risen. Back in 1978 about 65% of young people said they believed in angels. Fast forward to 2000 and the total rises to 80%. Why are so many of the young more accepting than their cynical older peers? The question answers itself.

It goes without the proverbial saying that churchgoers believe in angels in large numbers. We’re not talking ‘just’ Christians. At least eleven major religions incorporate angels, in one guise or another, into their theologies. Even Aristotle postulated that they exist.

[Yes, Dore again. An angel with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.]

So do they?
What’s your take?
Yea or nay?
More, anon.

THE WILDERNESS SERIES: PULP RACK PRAISE

2011-08-13T18:58:00.000-07:00

[Duane Spurlock at The Pulp Rack has kindly let me repost two of his blogs that deal with the WILDERNESS series. Here is the first. And if you scroll down on the left you will find a link to his blog.]

The Wilderness Series by David Thompson
by Duane Spurlock

Series Launch: #1 King of the Mountain; #2 Lure of the Wild; #3 Savage Rendezvous; #4 Blood Fury; #5 Tomahawk Revenge; #6 Black Powder Justice

I remember how thrilling and wonderful I thought the Robert Redford film, Jeremiah Johnson, was when I saw it in the theatre many moons ago. (And I suspect that fictionalized account about Liver-Eating Johnson was cleaned up by Hollywood.) But mountain man books never appealed to me, even when a coworker recommended the William Johnstone series to me about 10 years back.

But for some reason -- I can’t even remember why -- I decided to try David Robbins’ Wilderness series. (Robbins writes it under the David Thompson pseudonym.) It is a series, so if I liked one or two volumes, I knew I’d have several other entries to read (the series is up to #64 as of this writing). It isn’t written as an adult western series, so I wouldn’t have to worry about my kids getting an indecent eyeful if I left a copy lying around the house. And I was interested in varying my western reading.

I was quite pleased with the first book in the series, King of the Mountain. Robbins writes a clean, smooth prose for a quick-moving tale about a New York City youngster drawn to the Colorado Rockies by his black-sheep uncle. Robbins handles Nate King’s trepidations and worries quite well, quite believably.

Each additional volume in the series builds nicely upon the previous, as Robbins traces Nate’s growing confidence and body of wilderness survival knowledge. Robbins does a fine job of providing details about this wilderness lifestyle without derailing his narrative pace or seeming intrusive.

In some ways, the Wilderness series harks back to some of the finer pulp adventure tales set in historical realities. Robbins provides details of contemporary life -- both for the white trappers and the various Indian tribes they encounter -- and information about armaments and whatnot that recalls the way accomplished pulp authors would insert bits of learning into their tales.

Likewise, I think Robbins learned a few tricks from reading Edgar Rice Burroughs on how to end a chapter with a cliff hanger. And Robbins’ writing style never gets in the way of his storytelling. He works in the tradition of plain-language American writers that grew out of the pulps -- Dashiell Hammett (the Continental Op, The Maltese Falcon), George F. Worts (the Peter the Brazen stories that appeared in Argosy), innumerable PBO (paperback original) authors for Gold Medal and other publishers (John D. MacDonald, Charles Williams, Dan Marlowe, Edward S. Aarons, Donald Hamilton), to Charles McCarry (Old Boys and other espionage novels) and several others I can’t think of at the moment.

This ability serves Robbins well as he charts Nate King’s course through expansive landscapes. He never trips up his storytelling with overly poetic descriptions of scenery. Even though to readers soaking up Wilderness novels in armchairs, commuting busses, or elsewhere, the setting of Robbins’ novels is seemingly exotic, the author presents his descriptions in passages that fit the story, that don’t overwhelm the narrative moment.

This is another trait I think Robbins picked up from E.R. Burroughs -- over the course of eight Barsoom novels, two dozen Tarzan stories, and loads of other adventures, Burroughs knew how to insert necessary landscape details to bring out the exotic without sacrificing the pacing of his story. This is rather different from the way another western author, Zane Grey, used landscapes in his novels. Grey would commonly roll out passage upon passage of description devoted to the landscape. While he pointed to the psychological impact the titanic settings had on his characters -- for example, Jean Isbel is greatly startled by the vast beauty of the Tonto Rim in To the Last Man (whose restored version was recently published under the title Tonto Basin) -- Grey also intended his landscapes to act as the verbal equivalent of the expansive landscapes painted by the Hudson River School (for example, Thomas Cole and Albert Bierstadt, the latter well-known for his paintings of western scenes), to reflect the glory and vastness and transcendent nature of Nature.

Robbins works at a different scale. The wonder is there -- Nate King frequently marvels at the natural beauty surrounding him and compares his life in the wild to his days trapped in the smoky, noisy, and crowded New York metropolis -- but the interruption of the reader’s enjoyment of the adventure is minimal, if at all existent.

Robbins considers the Wilderness series to be a generational saga -- and the pacing of the series follows this reasoning: by the sixth book in the series, Nate has been away from the city only eight months. Yet the pacing of the individual books is rapid and action filled. By the end of the first book, Nate has earned an Indian name -- Grizzly Killer -- and taken his first scalp (although this is a practice he’s very reluctant to follow, even though it is accepted and expected behavior in the culture in which he’s trying to live). There are various fights and killings and battles in each book, and Nate kills at least four grizzlies by the time the reader reaches the sixth book (maybe five? I’m a touch foggy on this detail, what with all the gun battles and hand-to-hand fights with evil whites and savage Indians and ravenous wolves and, and...) -- a grizzly usually shows up by Chapter 4 in any of these books. I wonder how many grizzly bears an actual mountain man might have encountered during his life in the wild?

But the action and excitement that are required for a continuing genre series like this are present in each volume. Robbins’ expertise is evident in his ability to get the reader to suspend his disbelief while moving with Nate through this essentially exotic landscape from roughly 150 years ago. When you think about it, that’s not so long ago, really.

The first book introduces Nate to the wilderness at the invitation of his uncle, and he slowly sheds his city ways, but hangs on to his beliefs in civilization. The second through fifth books chart Nate’s apprenticeship in the wild to Shakespeare McNair, a wily mountain man who helps Nate embrace the wilderness life, understand the way of the Indian, and slowly release his illusions about civilized life. During this period Nate’s reputation grows among the scattered mountain men who gather for an annual rendezvous and the various Indian tribes who live and battle in the region. He marries a Shoshone woman, Winona, and he befriends a chief of the Utes -- Two Owls -- despite the fierce hatred that most Utes have for the encroaching whites.

By the beginning of the sixth book, Black Powder Justice, Winona is pregnant, and Nate is looking forward to teaching his son the lessons he’s learned about living in the wild. During the course of this novel, he encounters wolves, unscrupulous trappers who kidnap his wife, another grizzly, a Ute warrior, and an Arapahoe war party. Just a few routine days in the snowy Rocky Mountain wilderness.

This brief summary of the first six books in the Wilderness series doesn’t do Robbins’ work justice. He’s writing a very entertaining series of books, and he’s doing it very well. That the series began publishing at the end of the 1980s and that the early volumes have had multiple printings prove that Robbins has a growing audience and is providing the sort of reading enjoyment that a loyal readership expects.

THE WILDERNESS SERIES: MORE INSIGHTS

2011-08-13T18:35:00.000-07:00

[Duane Spurlock at the Pulp Rack has kindly let me repost two of his blogs that deal with the WILDERNESS series. Here is the second. And if you scroll down on the left you will find a link to his blog.]

Edgar Rice Burroughs' Influence on the Wilderness Series
By Duane Spurlock

Vengeance Trail: Wilderness # 7; Death Hunt: Wilderness # 8; Mountain Devil: Wilderness # 9; Blackfoot Massacre: Wilderness # 10; Northwest Passage: Wilderness # 11; Apache Blood: Wilderness # 12 by David Thompson (New York: Leisure Books, various years).

In "The Wilderness Series Launch," a brief review of the first six novels in the Wilderness series by David Thompson (aka David Robbins) elsewhere on The Pulp Rack, I mentioned that I think Robbins learned a few tricks from Edgar Rice Burroughs on how to end a chapter with a cliffhanger. This time around, let's take a look at some other points Robbins picked up from Burroughs.

Burroughs' books sometimes offered scathing social comment disguised as adventure fiction. For instance, anytime Tarzan met up with people from civilized nations such as Britain or the United States, the characteristics and foibles of the civilized life frequently ended up appearing less attractive and less honest than the primal lifestyle of Tarzan and the other jungle dwellers. In Tarzan and the Lion Man, Burroughs lampoons the Hollywood industry that helped make his creation a worldwide sensation. In books of his other series – Pellucidar, Barsoom, Caspak, and so forth – Burroughs pokes at political systems, religious hierarchies, and similar cultural and social infrastructures.

Robbins' social comparisons are usually less scathing than Burroughs' skewering, but his hero, Nate King, frequently perceives – and points out –how out of step with the natural world, with family, and with simple humanness are the lives of people from the civilized East who venture into the frontier. Greenhorns not only are a danger to themselves in the deadly wilderness that existed east of the Mississippi in the first half of the 19th Century, they pose dangers to those around them, including the savvy mountain man who tries to help them.

For instance, in Mountain Devil, the eastern trappers who King agrees to help refuse to consider the dangers that their quest creates for the entire party – their greed and vanity blinds them to the notion that their very egos are creating more dangers than the usual ones an experienced mountain man might encounter.

In another book, Northwest Passage, King agrees to guide a party of pioneers to Oregon. The headstrong leaders of the group who have hired Nate continually disagree with King's decisions, which are based on his years of experience on the frontier and on getting the group safely through the wilderness to its destination. The civilized crew's stiff-necked refusal to divest itself of its civilized ways in the face of a world based on completely different rules creates dissension and deadly crises that King must face and fight through time and again.

To lend excitement to the many-volumed Tarzan series, Burroughs had his character continually encounter new societies (usually in the form of a lost race or city for each volume) whose unfamiliarity to his hero creates new dilemmas. Burroughs did the same for John Carter in the Barsoom series – particularly the first three books in the series – and Carson Napier in the Venus series.

Robbins does something similar in the Wilderness series. While most frequently King must contend with murderous warriors from the Blackfoot, Piegan, Blood, or Utes tribes, he sometimes encounters other tribes for the first time. For instance, in Apache Blood, he travels to Santa Fe for the first time – encountering the Mexican society there – and must deal with Apache raiding parties, who steal his son and wife as well as the wives of friends. Like John Carter's first trip to Barsoom in A Princess of Mars, King's tracking the Apaches in their territory is full of new types of landscape and difficulties for him.

Burroughs' heroes sometimes must battle monsters. Barsoom is full of monsters, as is Carson Napier's Venus. Tarzan frequently deals with creatures whose strength and ferocity seem greater than his own – his battle as a youth with the enraged ape king Kerchak in Tarzan of the Apes is but the first of many such fights. So Robbins' King must deal with monsters.

From the first book in the Wilderness series, Nate King seems fated to encounter and battle giant-sized grizzlies on occasion. It is from the first such encounter that he earns his nickname Grizzly Killer from a traveling Cheyenne warrior who witnesses the uneven fight.

In a manner closer to what Burroughs did with John Carter on Mars, Robbins pits King against a deadly and very mysterious threat in Mountain Devil. Here King learns from his wily old mentor Shakespeare McNair and from an aged Indian warrior about a part of the Rocky Mountain range that is shunned by all the tribes – even the most belligerent – because of the deadly Dweller who lives there. No one knows who or what that Dweller might be, but everyone knows that the Dweller is dangerous – few visitors to the valley have ever returned alive. Robbins manages his tale with a fine hand that doesn't stretch the credibility of his historical series beyond reasonable limits.

The volumes in Robbins' Wilderness series already number in the 60s (at this writing). Carrying a series that far means a writer must rely on creativity and freshness to keep readers following its new entries. In the first dozen Wilderness novels, Robbins does a good job of keeping things new and interesting for his characters and his readers. Clearly he's learned his writer's lessons well.

THE 300 SPARTANS: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-08-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

[Leonidas and the Spartan phalanx in the movie THE 300 SPARTANS.]

David Robbins
c 2011

In an earlier blog we poked fun at Hollywood for making endless movies about, say, vampires or the Caped Crusader or apple pie but ignoring literary classics that have endured for centuries.

This time around we’re going to take a look at an event that many historians consider pivotal in the advance of civilization.

In 480 B.C. King Xerxes of Persia invaded Greece with one of the largest armies ever recorded. At a narrow pass known as Thermopylae, a small contingent of Spartans and detachments from other city-states sought to stop the Persians. When a traitor showed the Persians a way to flank the defenders, King Leonidas of Sparta sent most of his allies away. He and the 300 Spartans in his personal bodyguard, along with some Thespians, stayed and fought to the last man.

It is arguably one of the most famous last stands in all of human history. A prime candidate, you might think, for Hollywood to depict on screen.

Not so. You can count the number of movies made on one hand and have fingers left over. There have been two---count ‘em---films, and a documentary.

[The book that introduced me to Herodotus and the Spartans when I was nine.]

Before we get to them, a look at the source. The Greek historian Herodotus claims that honor. His version has passed down the millennia to enthrall us today. Here’s his account of the first day of combat.

‘But Xerxes was not persuaded any the more. Four whole days he suffered to go by, expecting that the Greeks would run away. When, however, he found on the fifth that they were not gone, thinking that their firm stand was mere impudence and recklessness, he grew wroth, and sent against them the Medes and Cissians, with orders to take them alive and bring them into his presence. Then the Medes rushed forward and charged the Greeks but fell in vast numbers; others, however, took the place of the slain, and would not be beaten off, though they suffered terrible loses. In this way it became clear to all, and especially to the king, that though he had plenty of combatants, he had but very few warriors.’

Xerxes was ticked. Herodotus relates that at various points during the clashes, Xerxes leaped to feet, livid with fury. As well he might be, especially after he had the bright idea to send in his A-Team. The Immortals, as they were known, were the kickass elite of his army. The only thing was, the Spartans were the kickass warriors of the known world. So what happened? Here’s Herodotus again:

‘But when they joined battle with the Greeks, it was with no better success than the Median detachment---things went much as before---the two armies fighting in a narrow space, and the barbarians using shorter spears than the Greeks, and having no advantage in their numbers. The Lacedaemonians fought in a way worthy of note, and showed themselves far more skillful in fight than their adversaries, often turning their backs and making as if they were all flying away, on which the barbarians would rush after them with much noise and shouting, when the Spartans at their approach would wheel around and face their pursuers, in this way destroying vast numbers of the enemy.’

[A statue dedicated to Leonidas as part of a monument in Sparta, Greece.]

How many did the Spartans kill? Most estimates peg the total somewhere around twenty thousand. Yes, you read that right.

Imagine the scenario on the last day. The pass had been flanked. Leonidas had sent all his allies except the Thespians and Thebans off to safety. (The Thebans against their will. They surrendered as soon as the Spartans were slain.) Leonidas had the main Persian army advancing from the front. He had the Immortals coming up on his rear. He was outnumbered by a gazillion to one. So what did he do? He attacked. He moved out of the narrow part of the pass and took it to the Persians. And in the heat of the fight he was slain. Here’s Herodotus again:

‘Now there arose a fierce struggle between the Persians and the Lacedaemonians over the body of Leonidas, in which the Greeks four times drove back the enemy, and at last by their great bravery succeeded in bearing off the body. This combat was scarcely ended when the Persians with Ephialtes approached; and the Greeks, informed that they drew nigh, made a change in the manner of their fighting. Drawing back into the narrowest part of the pass, and retreating even behind the cross wall, they posted themselves upon a hillock, where they stood all drawn up together in one close body, except only the Thebans. The hillock whereof I speak is at the entrance to the straits, where the stone lion now stands that was set up in honor of Leonidas. Here they defended themselves to the last, such as still had swords using them, and the others resisting with their hands and teeth; till the barbarians, who in part had pulled down the wall and attacked them in front, in part had gone around and now encircled them on every side, overwhelmed and buried the remnant which was left beneath a shower of missiles.’

This, then, is what is commonly known as the last stand of the 300. No, they don’t call it ‘the last stand of the Spartans and the Thespians’ because hardly anyone knows that the Thespians were even there.

[DVD for THE 300 SPARTANS, one of only two movies on Thermopylae.}

In 1962 Hollywood finally got around to making a movie about it. Originally entitled LION OF SPARTA, the title was changed to THE 300 SPARTANS right before the theatrical release. Directed by Rudolph Mate and starring Richard Egan as Leonidas, it was actually filmed in Greece with the cooperation and assistance of the Greek government. Way before CGI came along, it nonetheless dazzles with literally thousands and thousands of extras. They didn’t film it at Thermopylae but at another spot that matched the real site fairly well. (The pass, however, isn’t nearly as narrow as the real one was at the time of the famous battle.)

[The Spartans arrayed for battle in the movie THE 300 SPARTANS.]

With dialogue taken straight from Herodotus, and with great attention to historical detail---they even include the Thespians---this comes as close to the real deal as you could ask for. Since this is also before slowmo, you have to look quick or you will miss a lot of the more brutal aspects of the action. Blink, and you will miss Leonidas opening a Persian’s chest, or hacking a Persian’s hands. The fighting is swift, and for 1962, vicious. Take a look at the Spartans as they prepare for the third day. Their bodies, their shields, their spears and swords, are smeared with blood.

[The original poster for the movie THE 300 SPARTANS.]

Since this is Hollywood, they throw in a romance and a young Spartan who must redeem his honor. Critics have lambasted the romantic angle but it highlights the freedom and independence of Spartan women and helps carry along the first half of the movie until they get to the combat.

Yes, there are some inconsistencies, but they are minor compared to all the things they get right.

The same can’t be said of the next film. Inconsistencies abound, and yet, in an artistic sense, it works. More as an emotional statement than history.

[The DVD for the movie 300 based on the comic mini-series by Frank Miller.]

Directed by Zach Snyder, who can’t be blamed for the many jump-the-shark moments, it’s based on a comic book mini-series by the legendary Frank Miller. Miller has gone on record as saying he saw THE 300 SPARTANS when he was young and it had a profound impact. Essentially, he retells the earlier movie---and throws in a hunchback and a rhino and an Xerxes who does more for the piercing industry than any on-screen persona ‘ever’. Gerard Butler as Leonidas chews his scenes with gusto.

[The Spartans in their phalanx in the movie 300.]

Where the first movie used thousands of extras, this one relies on CGI. Where the first one went at the battles fast and furious, this one relies on slowmo up the wazoo.

Have I mentioned the rhino? At Thermopylae. Or the elephants? At Thermopylae. Or the giants? At Thermopylae. While they present visually stunning images, it’s so ape-stupid ridiculous that you sit there thinking, WTH?

But what really lets the shark loose---and we’re talking the mother of all great whites, not a measly mako---is that Miller opted to show his Spartans without the edge that enabled them to hold out for so long and kill so many Persians; their armor. It has been said that war is decided by technology, and in this instance, the Spartans had the superior tech.

But no. Frank Miller puts them in---Speedos. If you know anything about history, or anything about the Spartans, the moment you see this, the movie takes on a quasi-comedic element that is heightened by the rhino and the elephants and the freak show.

[Hey, we're Spartans, we don't need armor when we have our Speedos.]

Did I mention it’s visually stunning? And despite all the
inconsistencies, it does capture the essential aspects of the last stand.

Speaking of which. If you’d like to see a recreation of what really happened, the History Channel has a DVD out, THE LAST STAND OF THE 300. It’s excellent. It covers the antecedents, the Spartan and Persian cultures, and much more.

[If you want the real and the true, then this is the one for you.]

At for tie-in’s, DELL came out with a comic version of THE 300 SPARTANS. But since the title of the movie was changed at the last minute, the title of the comic is LION OF SPARTA. The inside cover has scenes from the movie, the back cover a capsule summary of the Spartan warrior ethos, and the art is about what you would expect for ’62.

[The comic adaptation of the screenplay for the movie THE 300 SPARTANS.]

There was also a book version. Written by John Burke, THE 300 SPARTANS adapts the screenplay. It’s interesting for the scenes it includes that the movie doesn’t. It’s also unusual in that while much of the story is typical third person, Burke includes chapters related by Megistias, the seer, in first-person narrative.

[The book adaptation of the screenplay for the movie THE 300 SPARTANS.]

As for 300, the mini the movie is based on is a five-part comic series. There’s a TPB, natch, and a hardcover with some extras.

[The hardcover version of Frank Miller's 300.]

There are also action figures and statues.

[Four of the action figures based on the movie 300.]

As for related material, so much has been written about the Spartans and Thermopylae that to include it all here would run the blog to many pages. Mention should be made, though, of GATES OF FIRE by Steven Pressfield, a retelling of the Last Stand.

[GATES OF FIRE by Steven Pressfield, one of the few fictional accounts of the one of the greatest battles ever.]

So there you go. Buy or rent the movies and the documentary, don your red cloak, and get to enjoying.

Postscript: I've been asked which of the nonfiction accounts of Thermopylae I'd recommend.

Surprisingly, as with movies, there's not a lot out there. Oh, it's mentioned prominently in books about Greece and the Spartans. But if you do an Amazon search specifically on Thermopylae you'll find four---once again, count 'em---that deal with the battle.

One is an Osprey book. If you don't know what that means, the Osprey line is a series about famous battles throughout history. THERMOPYLAE 480 B.C.: LAST STAND OF THE 300 is extremely well researched.

Another is THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE: A CAMPAIGN IN CONTEXT by Rupert Matthews. He actually went to Thermoplylae and offers some interesting thoughts on the Greek strategies.

THERMOPYLAE: THE BATTLE THAT CHANGED THE WORLD is by Paul Cartledge. He is a recognized Spartan authority who also has a book out called simply THE SPARTANS, which examines their culture from various aspects. As for his Thermopylae account, his scope of knowledge is impressive. He does, however, go off on academic tangents, as when he---incredibly---compares the Spartan warrior ethic to the mindsets of the 9/11 terrorists.

My personal favorite---and this is in part because because I read it long before I read any of the others---is THERMOPYLAE: THE BATTLE FOR THE WEST by Ernle Bradford. He covers not only the epic fight of Leonidas but the naval aspects, as well, and details the later defeat of the Persian fleet at Salamis and the payback the Spartans and their allies gave the Persians at Plataea.

So there you go, again. If the movies weren't enough, get hold of one or all of these books and learn all there is to know about one of the most important conflicts in all of human history.

TARZAN: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-07-27T21:44:00.000-07:00

[TARZAN OF THE APES, Grosset and Dunlap. Cover art by Gerald McCann. A childhood fave.]

David Robbijns
c 2011

At first glance you might think this will run as long as WAR AND PEACE. There have been ‘so’ many Tarzan films. But here’s the deal. None---that’s right, ‘none’-----portray the Ape-Man as Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote him. The real and the true of it is that most screen adaptations are bogus. That’s not Tarzan up there. It’s a dimbulb in a loincloth. And John Clayton, Lord Greystoke, was anything but dumb.

[Another Grosset and Dunlap. Another childhood fave. The cover is by C. Edmond Monroe, Jr.]

Everyone is familiar with the basic story. A baby is raised by great apes. He grows to manhood, finds out he’s a peer of the realm, marries a smokin’ hot lady, they have a kid, and go back to the jungle and live happily ever after. Well, sort of.

[Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan, one of the most famous fictional characters of all time.]

If all you have to go by are the movies, you probably think that Tarzan---ape talk for ‘white skin’---never learned a lick of English and only knew how to grunt and pound his chest when he met Jane. Not so.

For the truth is, when in civilized society, Tarzan could be every bit as cultured as the cream of the social crop. Not only that, he was a polyglot. He learned new languages as easily as you learned to use the Velcro straps on your shoes. And we’re not talking two or three. A conservative estimate is about twenty.

Here’s the breakdown: the language of the Mangani, the great apes (duh), English, French, Arabic, German, Latin, Dutch, the language of the Ant Men, the language used in the lost world of Pal-ul-don, Mayan (I kid you not), the language at the earth’s core, the language of the city of gold and the city of ivory, and on top of all these, he spoke fluent Swahili and other dialects.

Now I ask you. In all the Tarzan movies you’ve seen, and no doubt you’ve watched a few, how many languages could he speak? Ten? No, you say? How about five or six? No, again? Well, how about two? What’s that? His verbiage was pretty much reduced to ‘Me Tarzan, me sniff you’?

I rest my case.

[A cultured Ape-Man in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF TARZAN starring Herman Brix.]

Although, to be fair, in a few movies Tarzan was presented as more than the sum of his apish parts. They are so few we can list them.
THE NEW ADVENTURES OF TARZAN starring Herman Brix (or Bruce Bennett, as he became known). Of all the Tarzan films, this comes the closest to ERB’s vision. But even then something crucial is missing, and we’ll get to that in a bit.
TARZAN’S GREATEST ADVENTURE and TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT. Physically, Gordon Scott was about the most impressive Tarzan ever. And they actually let him do more than grunt.
TARZAN GOES TO INDIA and TARZAN’S THREE CHALLENGES. Jock Mahoney got to talk like you and me. Would wonders never cease.
So did Mike Henry in his Tarzan films: TARZAN AND THE VALLEY OF GOLD,
TARZAN AND THE GREAT RIVER and TARZAN AND THE JUNGLE BOY.
Which brings us to the first TV Tarzan, Ron Ely. He was literate as could be.
Joe Lara, too, got to do more than the ‘See Spot Run’ riff in TARZAN: THE EPIC ADVENTURES.
Unfortunately, as with Brix, the Ely and Lara versions lacked an important element. We only got half of ERB’s Tarzan.

So what was missing?

Permit an elaboration.

The Tarzan novels are exquisite. ERB’s characterization of Tarzan is brilliant. The Lord of the Jungle is raised as an A-P-E but learns he is a M-A-N, and forever after he isn’t just one or the other but both at one and the same time. In the novels he is cultured, and speaks languages up the wazoo---but that’s only half of him. The ape half, the animal half, is always there, always as much a fabric of his being as the rest. And it’s in this regard that every filmmaker has failed to capture the ‘real’ Tarzan.

[The beast in Tarzan comes out in THE NEW ADVENTURES OF TARZAN with Herman Brix.]

Here’s an analogy. When he wants to, Tarzan can be as cultured as, say, James Bond. But when he’s mad, when he’s insulted or affronted, when someone he cares for is in danger, then the beast in him comes out. He turns from James Bond into a berserker Wolverine. We’re not talking chest-thumping and a yodel. In the novels, Tarzan growls, he snarls, he roars. He sinks his teeth into his foes. In short, he is every bit the beast he was raised.

So now I will ask you again. When was the last time you saw a Tarzan movie where Tarzan roared and growled? Where he ripped an adversary’s throat out with his bare teeth? Where he went from M-A-N to A-P-E with the throwing of an inner switch?

You haven’t.
And that’s the pity of it. Because Tarzan, as conceived by ERB, is the living pinnacle of human nature.

Just once it would be nice if a moviemaker got it right.

[Yes, yet another Grosset and Dunlap. And yes, yet another childhood fave.]

TROY: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-07-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

[A new translation of Homer's epic by Robert Fagles. Winner of the Academy of American Poets 1991 London translation award.]

David Robbins
c 2011

Imagine a culture where fluff is valued more than verities, a culture where literature is trivialized, a culture where the best languishes from lack of interest while infantile amusements are all the rage.

Oh.
Wait.
You don’t need to imagine it.

It’s instructive that comic book superheroes are turned into movies again and again---Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc---but some of the greatest heroes of literature never or rarely ever make it to the silver screen.

Take THE ILIAD. If you’ve never heard of it, it begs the question: What planet are you from? Of all the stories in any language on the planet, THE ILIAD is one of the best known everywhere. Homer’s titanic tale of men and gods embroiled in battle over the fate of fabled Troy still sells so well---thousands of years after its creation---that a version is currently #4 in sales in one category and #20 in another on Amazon.

[The E. V. Rieu translation. I read it when I was ten and it has been a favorite of mine ever since.]

Yet despite its excellence, you can count the number of times THE ILIAD has been made into a movie on one hand and have fingers left over.

Often called THE SONG OF ILIUM, Homer’s story takes place over a number of weeks in the ten-year long siege of Troy by the invading Greeks. Much is related about events both prior to the tale and what will come after. The main focus is on a quarrel between Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks, and Achilles, their most formidable warrior.

[Yet another fine translation by W.H.D. House. There are others besides those mentioned here.]

Replete with battles and blood-letting and the dealings of the gods with men, THE ILIAD has entertained for ages. You would think it’s a no-brainer to be made into a movie. But not so.

The plain truth is that THE ILIAD ‘as’ THE ILIAD has never been made into a movie. Oh, there are several versions out there, but their titles have to do with Troy or the fair Helen and not one has the same title as Homer’s epic.

It’s even more strange when you consider that Homer’s other epic---THE ODYSSEY---has seen film treatments half a dozen times.

Why not THE ILIAD? Part of the reason might have to do with the sheer scope. The war takes place over a decade and involves scores of characters. There are countless battles, to say nothing of the legendary ‘thousand ships’. Translating all that to the screen requires huge sums of money.

Attempts have been made, though, in one guise or another, and we’ll talk about them beginning with the most recent.

It would have been enlightening to listen in on the pitch the writer made to the studio head. Imagine it going something like this:

Studio Guy: ‘So what’s this great idea you’ve come up with?’

Writer: ‘A film about the Trojan War.’

Studio Guy: ‘I don’t know. There are a couple in the works. One is going to be called JARHEAD, I think.’

Writer: ‘They’re about the war in Iraq.’

Studio Guy: ‘What’s this one again?’

Writer: ‘The Trojan War.’

Studio Guy: ‘Refresh my memory. Does it have something to do with condoms?’

Writer: ‘Uh, no. It has to do with the Greeks and the Trojans. Remember the Trojan horse?’

Studio Guy: ‘Oh. Right. I had that in history class. You want to do a movie about history? People will be bored out of their skulls.’

Writer: ‘Not if you get some A-listers attached. And we can make it a metaphor for the war in Iraq.’

Studio Guy: ‘Oh god. Not an artsy-fartsy film.’

Writer: ‘No. It’ll be an action flick. The real war went on for ten years but we’ll cut that down to save costs.’

Studio Guy: ‘Cut it down how? From ten years to five? Or maybe three?’

Writer: “I was thinking two weeks.’

Studio Guy: ‘Wait. We’re going to take a war that lasted ten years and have it last fourteen days?’

Writer: ‘The Greeks need twelve days to build the wooden horse. The other three days can be fighting and crud.’

Studio Guy: ‘You know, it’s starting to interest me. We can save a lot of bucks by using CGI for the battle scenes instead of extras. Who cares if all the soldiers look the same?’

Writer: ‘And we can cut the cast of Homer’s story, which has a score of major characters, down to six or seven.’

Studio Guy: ‘So how much of this Homer dude’s stuff will we actually use?’

Writer: ‘Pretty much nothing.’

Studio Guy: ‘You know, if this catches on, we could do other history things. Like maybe redo GONE WITH THE WIND.’

Writer: ‘That’s not….’

Studio Guy: ‘What?’

Writer: ‘Never mind.’

The above is a fabrication but it illustrates the point we’re about to make that TROY deviates wildly from its source. To say that the blockbuster is loosely based on Homer’s version is to be charitable. And yet it works.

TROY (2004) was directed by Wolfgang Petersen and stars Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and a bunch of other big-name stars in what might be called THE CLIFFSNOTES ILIAD, or maybe THE ILIAD FOR DUMMIES.

Homer’s masterpiece is chopped to ribbons. Countless characters aren’t even mentioned. The gods are absent. One of the longest wars in human history becomes a blip on the war radar. Even worse, the rationale in the poem for the Trojans bringing the wooden horse into their city----namely, they were bone-weary of the conflict and elated that after ten long years it was over---is absent. In TROY the war doesn’t last a month, and it makes them seem like morons.

That aside, the film still captures the essence of Homer. Brad Pitt is a fierce Achilles. Eric Bana a noble Hector. Orlando Bloom plays Paris as pretty much a wimp. The dignity of Priam, the power-mongering of Agamemnon, all are excellently portrayed.

As for the ladies, Diane Kruger is so exquisitely beautiful that you can understand why wimpy-boy wants to run off with her. She also projects a dignity and intelligence that makes you wonder why she would. Saffron Burrows as Hector's wife, Andromache, is superb. Then there is Rose Byrne as Briseis. She is such a sweet little mouse that you wonder what Achilles sees in her until you remember that he is a lion. Opposites do indeed attract.

[Brad Pitt as the indominitable Achilles in the truncated TROY.]

The battle scenes, especially those involving Brad Pitt, are exceptional. The choreography they used to convey the impression that yes, indeed, Achilles had no peer in combat, is brilliant.

Where the movie fails grievously---dramatically and thematically---is in the fates of the principals. Yeah, we realize why the writer and director played things out as they did, but they do Homer, and us, an injustice. The audience should have been shown the truth, if only in a few paragraphs of text at the end.

Here are some of the main differences:
In the movie Menelaus is killed by Hector during a duel with Paris. In THE ILIAD he survives. Not only that, he is reconciled with Helen. Yes, you read that right. After all the suffering and hardship she caused, after she runs off with another man and many thousands die on her behalf, she goes back to her husband and back to Sparta.

In the movie Agamemnon is killed by Briseis. In the epic he returned to Greece, only to be murdered by his consort and the man she took up with while he was away.

In the movie Paris escapes with Briseis. Actually, he was wounded and died in disgrace. The movie never mentions that Paris already had a wife when he snatched Helen. He deserted her just as she did Menelaus.

[The wussy Paris and the flighty Helen. Their liplocks brought about the ruin of Troy.]

Then there’s Achilles. In the movie he is included in the warriors inside the wooden horse and is slain by Paris. In Homer’s tale, he is slain well before the horse is built. It’s his son, Neoptolemus, who is in the horse. And it is Neoptolemus who kills Priam, not Agamemnon.

If these discrepancies have whetted your curiosity, you might track down the book THE WAR AT TROY by Quintus of Smyrna. It takes up where Homer leaves off and is outstanding in its own right.

In 1956 there was another notable effort to realize THE ILIAD on screen. HELEN OF TROY was one of those legendary blockbusters that included, literally, a cast of many thousands, and magnificent sets.

Once again Hollywood mucked with the storyline but this time they let the war run its ten-year course and stuck slightly truer to the original.

The main focus is on the ill-fated lovers. The Greeks are presented as largely despicable plunderers, the Trojans as largely heroic.

Stanley Baker plays Achilles. You might know him from ZULU. His Achilles is a ruthless killer who glories in combat and whose ego is the size of Mount Olympus. When he dies you’re almost glad he’s dead, unlike Brad Pitt in TROY, whose demise tugs at the heartstrings.

[Stanley Baker as Achilles in HELEN OF TROY. He likes to blow his own horn.]

Harry Andrews is Hector. His death doesn’t elicit the same degree of pathos as that of Bana, but then the movie doesn’t concentrate on Hector nearly as much as TROY does.

The sacking of the city is a highlight of pure Hollywood spectacle. Much more so than in TROY. As is the orgy scene that leads up to the sacking.

In 2003 a TV version of HELEN OF TROY came out. It has some good moments but in terms of Homeric consistency you would be better off watching Scooby Doo. Or so some critics would have us believe.

But let's be fair. The real and the true is that this new HELEN OF TROY, historically, is no more absurb than the others. In some respects it's more true. It shows, for instance, Agamemnon being murdered by his wife. And it ends with Helen and Menelaus reconciled.

We also see scenes involving the gods or their machinations, which, for Homer purists, TROY and the earlier HELEN OF TROY sorely lacked.

Also unlike the movie version of '56, the miniseries actually focuses on Helen. The first half is primarily about her. Paris, too, as he becomes her star-crossed lover.

[Michael Marsden as a handsome Paris in the new HELEN OF TROY.]

There isn't a lot of action in the first half. Paris has a few fight scenes. And Stellan Skarsgard has a superb turn as Theseus, Helen's true father.

The second half is all about the Trojan War. The battle scenes are nicely done. No, they're not as spectacular as TROY and the first HELEN, but they didn't have the same budget.

Sienna Guillory plays a temptuous heroine. Michael Marsden is an honorable Paris. Rufus Sewell is superb as Agamemnon. And need I even have to say that John Rhys-Davies (you might know him from THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and many others) is absolutely wonderful as Priam?

Then there is James Callis as Menelaus. He gives a terrific performance. So much so, you find it credible when he reconciles with Helen. He also has some cool fight scenes. For once in these Troy movies, a Spartan king lives up to the Spartan reputation as warriors.

[James Callis in a finely nuanced performance as King Menelaus of Sparta in HELEN OF TROY.]

And finally we come to a surprise.

Special note must be made of a sword-and-sandal film out of Italy. Branded a typical B-movie upon its release in 1962, it’s a genuine gem that comes closer than any of the films mentioned above to capturing the true flavor of THE ILIAD.

THE FURY OF ACHILLES stars little-known Gordon Mitchell in the title role. His Achilles is an indestructible engine of destruction. Imagine the Incredible Hulk in armor. No, he’s not Laurence Olivier but his acting is credible and he brings a raw brute presence to the role that no other actor ever has.

[Gordon Mitchell driving a chariot as Achilles in THE FURY OF ACHILLES. Compare him to the scene of Brad Pitt driving a chariot above.]

Jacques Bergerac plays Hector. If you’re going, ‘Who?’, be advised he does a great job. He knows he is fated by prophecy to die at Achilles’ hands, and yet he meets his doom with courage.

[Hector and Achilles in their brutal final fight in THE FURY OF ACHILLES.]

The movie covers the scope of the war, including scenes of the Greeks sacking surrounding towns. It ends, as does THE ILIAD, before the actual sacking of Troy.

There are plenty of battles, realistic and bloody. The movie also includes the Greek games, and the gods. The scene where Apollo lays the Greeks low with disease is particularly striking.

[Various scenes from THE FURY OF ACHILLES. For a sword-and-sandal it is exceptionally well done.]

Interestingly, there are some parallels between THE FURY OF ACHILLES and TROY. Remember the scene where Brad Pitt is outside Troy, bellowing for Hector to come out and fight? Gordon Mitchell has a similar scene. And remember the ‘impossible’ spear cast Achilles makes in TROY? Achilles does the same here, more than once.

Unfortunately, the only versions available in the U.S. are older prints that don’t do the film justice. It deserves to be remastered.

So there you go. If you’re an ILIAD buff, some movies to whet your interest. Break out the whetstone and sharpen your sword.

After the fact:
Today I was asked if I had to buy just one movie based on THE ILIAD, which would it be? It's no contest. The historical inconsistencies aside, the very best is TROY. A heads up, though. You don't want to buy the theatrical version. The movie we saw in theatres has been so ridiculously edited, it doesn't just compromise the director's artistic vision, it mutilates it. If you want the full experience, buy the Director's Cut. There are two versions of the DC; the differences are the packaging and the extras. The box set is seriously sweet.

If you're in doubt which is the DC and which is chopped, check the length. The theater version is 162 minutes long. The Director's Cut is 196 minutes. That's right. You get over a half hour of extra footage. And it makes 'all' the difference.

Here is one of the covers for the theatrical DVD. Be advised there are several.

Here is the cover for the Director's Cut DVD. This is the one you want.

Or, better yet, track down the boxed set. Here it is.

This is the one I like best. In addition to the movie you get oodles of goodness, including a book on the art of Troy with scenes from the movie, a book with selected pages from the script, and a portfolio that contains ten movie cards.

From the 'Tick me off, why don't you?' Department:
If you're a soundtrack geek like I am, I have a tip that can save you a ton of time.

This gets convoluted but follow me.
Originally, the makers of TROY hired a gent by the name of Yared to do the score. He worked on it for a year or so---and they decided it didn't fit their concept of how the music should be. So they hired James Horner to do another score. The theatrical version has some from both composers but mostly Horner.

Then came time for the Director's Cut, and Wolfgang Petersen apparently decided some of the Horner music didn't fit, either. So he added in music from other soundtracks. He threw in music from STARSHIP TROOPERS, from THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, and even PLANET OF THE APES. (The remake, not the original.)

The change is particularly noticeable during the fight to the death between Achilles and Hector. A lot of on-line sites say that the music is from STARSHIP TROOPERS. Bullpuke. I listened to the entire STARSHIP TROOPERS soundtrack, and no match.

Subsequent digging unearthed the fact that the music for the fight scene is, in fact, from PLANET OF THE APES, from the Main Titles sequence.
If you like it enough to want to listen to it again, now you know where to find it. :)

THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-06-28T09:12:00.000-07:00

[A fairly recent anthology that includes the excellent WHO GOES THERE?]

David Robbins
c 2011

In the 1938 issue of ASTOUNDING STORIES, a story appeared that was eventually to be made into three movies. Much like the short story in the previous blog, where FAREWELL TO THE MASTER became two versions of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, a story called WHO GOES THERE? became THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD and later a movie called simply THE THING and now a third film, a prequel to the previous THE THING, entitled---yet again--- THE THING. Evidently their philosophy is that if a title works, stick with it.

[The issue of ASTOUNDING STORIES in which WHO GOES THERE? first appeared.]

John W. Campbell, Jr. was the author. Generally recognized for his literary prose, he was hugely influential in the early days of the science fiction field. His WHO GOES THERE?, technically a novella and not a short story, has been extolled as one of the best science fiction stories ‘ever’ by the Science Fiction Writers of America.

[John W. Campbell Jr. in his later years. His imagination and talent were exceptional.]

The plot involves researchers at a science station in Antarctica who discover an alien spacecraft buried in the ice. They try to burn it out with thermite and the whole ship goes up. They also find the pilot or an occupant frozen solid and bring it back. And that’s when things start to go horribly wrong. Because the alien isn’t dead. Not only that, it has the ability to assimilate other organisms and ‘become’ them so perfectly that no one can tell the difference. It doesn’t just become them physically; the story makes it clear that it also mimics their thoughts and personalities.

[The cover to one of the many book versions that includes the story.]

Many times Campbell refers to the alien as ‘the Thing’, which explains the three movie titles.

He also describes the Thing in precise detail in its ‘natural’ form. Here is how it looks:

‘It was face up there on the plain, greasy planks of the table. The broken haft of the bronze ice-axe was still buried in the queer skull. Three mad, hate-filled eyes blazed up with a living fire, bright as fresh-spilled blood, from a face ringed with a writhing, loathsome nest of worms, blue, mobile worms that crawled where hair should grow---.

The Thing is blue. It has ‘four tentacle-like arms’ and ‘seven-tentacled’ hands. It has ‘line-thin lips’ and ‘snake-fangs’ for teeth.

[Pete Von Sholly has a wonderful site where he's done a number of covers for CLASSICS ILLUSTRATED that never were but should have been. His cover for WHO GOES THERE?, apparently using the Dark Horse figure (see below), is the truest depiction of the Thing in Campbell's story. You can find it at: http://vonshollywood.blogspot.com/2009/02/classics-not-illustrated.html

Neither THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD nor THE THING nor the prequel THE THING portray the creature as Campbell describes it.

In the novella, the Thing takes over dogs and cows and people with the intent of eventually spreading to the entire world.

How do you stop a creature that can become any acquaintance? That can become your best friend? That can become ‘you’? Therein lies the crux of the horror. Paranoia spreads like wildfire, and it isn’t long before no one trusts anyone else.

Campbell keeps the reader guessing until the very end as to who is ‘real’ and who is ‘alien’.

If there’s a hero of the piece, it’s MacReady, who in the story is second-in-command and the camp’s meteorologist. Campbell’s description of him is unusual. It’s remarkably similar to a famous character that Lester Dent fans will be familiar with. Here it is:

‘Moving from the smoke-filled background, MacReady was a figure from some forgotten myth, a looming bronze statue that held life, and walked. Six foot four inches he stood as he halted beside the table, and with a characteristic glance upward to assure himself room under the low ceiling beams, straightened. His rough, clashingly orange windproof jacket he still had on, yet on his huge frame it did not seem displaced. Even here, four feet below the drift-wind that droned across the Antarctic waste above the ceiling, the cold of the frozen continent leaked in, and gave meaning to the harshness of the man. And he was bronze---his great red-bronze beard, the heavy hair that matched it. The gnarled, corded hands gripping, relaxing, gripping and relaxing on the table planks were bronze. Even the deep-sunken eyes beneath heavy brows were bronzed’.

A giant with bronze skin and even bronze eyes? Maybe he is related to Doc Savage.

This is a fantastic, gripping tale. If you love Science Fiction and/or Horror and you haven’t read it yet, you might want to track it down.

In 1951 Howard Hawks came out with THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. It takes considerable liberties with the story. The research station is in the Arctic, not the Antarctic. In the movie the spacecraft hasn't been under the ice for ages; it only recently crashed. It's still buried, and the scientists and an Air Force crew try to use thermite to get it out, with the same result as the novella. The creature is nothing like the one Campbell gave us, yet even so, it is terrifying.

Imagine if vegetable life, and not animal life, evolved to dominate a planet. Imagine if these creatures could build spaceships and fly to the farthest star. And imagine that their sustenance is blood.

[The famous seedling scene from the film THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD.]

Despite all the differences this is a sensational movie. The scares build as the Thing revives and begins a systematic campaign to turn everyone at the research station into plant food.

To demonstrate its place in the pantheon of science fiction films, it’s been selected as ‘culturally significant’ by the Library of Congress.

Ironically, it came out the same year as the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL---and beat it at the box office.

[James Arness as THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. He later went on to wear a badge as Matt Dillon in GUNSMOKE.]

That the movie has done so well on its own merits is due in no small measure to the intelligent script. In its way, it is as brilliant as Campbell’s novella.

The brilliance has been contagious. In 1982 none other than John Carpenter came out with another film version. Called only THE THING, it stays much more true to Campbell’s vision. It’s set in the Antarctic, where Norwegian scientists stumble on the buried spaceship. The creature they unwittingly unleash on the world has the ability to transform itself into any living organism it wants.

[The 'You've got to be kidding me' scene from John Carpenter's THE THING.]

As with ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, THE THING originally did poorly at the box office. Only later was its brilliance recognized, and like ASSAULT, it has become a cult classic.

Kurt Russell heads a fine cast who all become afflicted by the same paranoia as the scientists in the novella.

THE THING is a horrific movie in every sense of the word. Much more so than THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. You could say the first movie projects sheer terror while this projects sheer horror. Weak stomachs have a hard time with the grisly transformations.

[One of the many horrific moments in John Carpenter's THE THING.]

Not only did Carpenter stick closely to Campbell’s story, he gives many of the characters the same names Campbell does. He also includes homage scenes to the original movie. One was deleted from the final cut; a scene involving seedling plants. It’s not generally known that Carpenter also filmed an alternate ending. In it, Kurt Russell’s character is rescued and shown to be human.

Carpenter reportedly has a story for a sequel he'd like to make involving the Kurt Russell character and another named Childs but so far it has not come to fruition.

The Carpenter version doesn't spend a lot of time with the Norwegians. When the Americans go to their facility, they find it destroyed and everyone dead. Which hardly seems fair to that intrepid band of hardy, fun-loving Norwegians. So someone decided to remedy the oversight. They've come out with a prequel.

Entitled simply THE THING, it details the events that lead up to the start of Carpenter's film. It shows how the Norwegians find the spacecraft and the terrible aftermath And it's as seamless a prequel as you could hope for.

Here's a poster.

Matthijs van Heijningen Jr is the director. Mary Elizbeth Winstead plays the main character, Kate Lloyd. The direction, her acting, the other actors, are as good as movies get. The brilliance has been contagious yet again.

Here's how the Norwegian Antarctic station looks in the new movie.

Here's a scene from the new THE THING.

Here's another.

I've seen it, and I give it my highest recommendation. If you're a THING fan, treat yourself. And be sure to stay for the closing credits. They includes scenes that flawlessly seque into the John Carpenter version.

ADDENDUM #2:
Fans of the story and the movies might be interested to know that figures
and busts are available of the Campbell, Hawks and Carpenter versions of the creature.

Dark Horse came out with a figure based on the original Thing in the Campbell novella. Here it is:

There's also a bust and a figure of the James Arness creature in THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. Both are rare and hard to come by. This is the bust.

This is the figure.

Finally, McFarlane Toys came out with a great line of figures and creatures based on Carpenter's THE THING. Below are several:

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-06-27T09:56:00.000-07:00

[The cover to an audio version of a short story that resulted in two movies.]

David Robbins
c 2011

Ever wonder why they make the movies they do?

Consider: Out of the many thousands of short stories and novels published, only a small number have made it to the big screen.

What sets them apart? you might wonder. After all, many fine stories have never seen a screen treatment.

FAREWELL TO THE MASTER by Harry Bates is one of the lucky ones. It’s been made into a movie not once but twice. Both movies, though vastly different in theme, have more in common with each other than they do with the Bates story. If the title of the short story isn’t familiar, there’s a good chance the titles of the two movies are: THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. The first was made in 1951. A remake came out in 2008.

[The issue of ASTOUNDING in which FAREWELL TO THE MASTER first appeared.]

You might be wondering if there are elements all three share. The answer is yes. All three involve a ‘robot’. And all three have an alien entity by the name of Klaatu.

In the ‘51 movie, Klaatu and the robot arrive in a flying saucer. In the ‘08 movie they come to earth in a flying sphere. In Bates’ story, however, the pair ‘materialize’ in a ‘time-space machine’. They literally pop out of nowhere. Here is how Bates put it.

‘The ship appeared and just sat here. No one emerged, and there was no sign that it contained life of any kind. That, as much as any single thing, caused excitement to skyrocket. Who, or what, was inside? Were the visitors hostile or friendly? Where did the ship come from? How did it arrive so suddenly right on this spot without dropping from the sky?’

All three share a dramatic moment. Shortly after Klaatu appears, he’s shot. In the short story it’s by a lunatic. In the ’51 movie it’s a scared soldier. In the ’08 film they never show the shooter but it’s implied that it’s either a soldier or a policeman.

In the short story Klaatu and an eight-foot tall green ‘robot’ called Gnut come out of the machine at the same time. In the movies, Gnut’s name has been changed to Gort and he appears after Klaatu is shot and starts kicking ass. It should be noted that in the earlier movie Gort kicks more ass than in the later film, and more spectacularly.
The scene is a defining moment in science fiction cinema.

In the story and the movies, Gnut/Gort take up a position near the machine/saucer/sphere. The military then tries everything under the sun in an attempt to penetrate and contain him, to no avail. In the story and the first movie, they finally imprison him in a form of ‘plastic steel’, and in both he burns his way free. In the ’08 remake, they enclose Gort in a container and take him underground to examine him.

And that’s about it as far as similarities go. In the short story a photographer notices that Gnut moves at night, and is determined to find out why. The story details his attempts and the astounding results.

The story came out in 1940. Some stories of yesteryear come across as dated but it’s a tribute to Bates that this doesn’t. It’s set in the future where there are flying cars and ray guns and the solar system is inhabited. Bates even goes so far as to include the concept of cloning. But not your ordinary grown-in-a-test-tube clones. His are made by taking the sounds a creature makes and using them to replicate the creature.

Bates also throws in a ‘trick ending’. I don’t want to spoil your reading experience and give it away. But I will mention that Bates provides a clue in his initial description of Gnut. Here it is.

‘For Gnut had almost exactly the shape of a man---a giant, but a man---with greenish metal for man’s covering flesh, and greenish metal for man’s bulging muscles. Except for a loincloth he was nude. He stood like the powerful god or machine of some-undreamt of scientific civilization, on his face a look of sullen, brooding thought.’

Now let’s jump ahead to the ’51 film. Directed by Robert Wise and starring Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal, it’s considered to be one of the best science fiction movies ever made, if not ‘the’ best. Everything about this movie is outstanding, from the theme to the acting to the music to the special effects, which at the time were groundbreaking. They are so well done that the movie holds up today.

In the movie, Klaatu comes to earth to warn that unless we rein in our destructive impulses the earth will be destroyed. We can do what we want to ourselves but once we arm satellites and interplanetary missiles with nuclear weapons, we become a danger to other planets, and that they ‘will not allow’. To demonstrate that the federation he represents has the power to make good on their threat, he brings the earth to a standstill by disrupting nearly all the power on the planet for half an hour.

[Klaatu and Gort and their flying saucer in the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.]

The ’51 movie has a global feel about it. There are dozens of scenes from around the world, of other countries, other cultures, and of how people all over react to the initial appearance of the flying saucer and to that awful half an hour when everything stops.

The power that will be brought to bear to destroy the earth if humankind doesn’t change its ways is Gort. Or, rather, an entire ‘police force’ of similar robots. Gort is so powerful he can reduce the earth to a cinder.

[The totally awesome Gort from the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Not to be confused with bug Gort from the remake.]

As much as the ‘message’ and Rennie’s superbly appealing performance as Klaatu, Gort ‘makes’ the movie. The robot elicits such awe and fear that it has become an archetype in itself.

It is in regards to Gort that what is deemed the most famous line in science fiction filmdom is uttered: ‘Gort, Klaatu barada nikto.’ Whole articles have been written about it. Philosophy professors have analyzed its meaning. It has appeared in dozens of cultural contexts, from other movies to comics to books.

[If Patricia Neal doesn't get the line right, she will be disintegrated.]

The excellence of the 1951 THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL can’t be stressed enough.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the 2008 remake. It has received universally lower ratings than its predecessor. A look at why might be revealing.

The ’08 version was directed by Scott Derrickson and stars Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly. It’s based on the original movie and not the short story.

Where the first film has a subtext involving the need for unity and peace, the remake projects an environmental message that degenerates into the ridiculous. In the original, ‘energy’ isn’t an enemy; it can be harnessed to enhance and enrich civilization. In the remake, they’d have it that we need to go back to the days of the horse and the messenger pigeon.

In the remake it isn’t until the very end of the movie that it lives up to its title by Klaatu turning off all the power on the planet. The sphere flies off leaving earth literally in the dark.

[Klaatu and the flying sphere from the remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.]

Reeves has been criticized for his wooden Klaatu. His performance is a far cry from Michael Rennie’s, whose Klaatu is often more ‘human’ than the humans he mingles with.

The makers have also been criticized for downplaying Gort. The robot is one of the most important elements in the original---and in the remake we hardly see him. It doesn’t help that in what they must have thought was creative brilliance but the audience saw as a ‘Give us a break’ moment, they have Gort disintegrate into a cloud of flying nanobugs.

[The new Gort from the second film version of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.]

To illustrate the difference, fans are so fond of the original Gort that to this day you can buy action figures and models and all sorts of items with Gort’s image. You won’t find the same fondness for the new Gort. He’s reduced to so trivial a level that no one cares.

If any one factor brought the remake down, it’s pretension. They wanted to make their movie meaningful, to impart the Green Manifesto under the guise of art, and seem to have forgotten the most important movie element of all; the movie must entertain. There’s a reason people fall asleep in class or in church or think a movie is bogus.

The ending sums up everything that is disheartening about this film. Only a moron would think that killing all the power is a good thing. Yeah, sure, energy has been used at times for bad ends. It’s also used for many marvelous and beneficial ends; international travel, space exploration, the quality of life, etc. Stopping all pacemakers is majorly dumbass.

[The two Gorts side by side. One has become a cultural icon. The other is a poster boy for RAID.]

So there you go. From FAREWELL TO THE MASTER to THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Track down the story and read it and then watch the original movie and revel in its brilliance and watch the remake and try not to cringe.

CLINT EASTWOOD: 3 MOVIES TO BOOKS

2011-06-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

[Clint Eastwood. If you don't know which movie this is from, you should stop claiming to be a Western fan and go watch Sesame Street.]

David Robbins
c 2011

In previous blogs we’ve talked about a number of novels and short stories that were made into movies.

This time around we’re going to reverse it. We’re going to take a look at three books based on Clint Eastwood movies.

You might be thinking, ‘Why bother with the book when I’ve already seen the movie?’

Novelizations of scripts often contain scenes deleted from the final cuts of the films. And, too, they sometimes flesh out the characters and the dialogue so you have a better understanding of the dynamics involved. Then there is a third reason; the books make fine reads in and of themselves.

[HANG 'EM HIGH...................................................The Movie]

HANG ‘EM HIGH by Leonard Freeman and Mel Goldberg. Like the movie, it tells the tale of a man wrongfully hanged who survives and seeks vengeance on the nine men who hung him. Jeb Cooper becomes a U.S. Marshal and tracks each and every one down. The book takes us into Cooper’s head, and we also learn more about Marshal Bliss and other characters.
The prose is crisp. Here’s an example:

‘But the man was terrified, reacting purely out of fear. He fumbled for his gun. It never cleared the holster. Jeb drew with split-second speed and fanned off six shots that slammed into Reno, sending him hurtling puppet-like to the end of the bar, where he pitched to the floor and lay, face down.’

[HANG 'EM HIGH....................................................The Book]

The drama is heightened by the fact that as much as Jeb wants revenge, he’s too honorable to come right out and kill them. He must abide by the justice of the badge he wears.

At only 126 pages, HANG ‘EM HIGH makes for a good, quick read.

[HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER.............................................The Movie]

Our second book is HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER by Ernest Tidyman. Tidyman wrote the script for the movie and then did the novelization. What makes this particularly interesting is that he tweaked the book so that a lot of the events are different than those we see on screen.

Here’s an example. In the movie, Clint goes into a barbershop and three toughs confront him. He blows all three away with his revolver. In the book, the stranger goes into a saloon, and when the toughs get in his face, he shoots one with a derringer and then resorts to his six-shooter.

Tidyman could write. The very first paragraph lets the reader know that he’s a superb wordsmith.

‘He was a tall man on a tired horse and he rode into Lago at the tag end of a burning day. The sun that had turned the sky to brass was inching behind the distant peaks of the Dragoon Range, but the heat remained. It sent shimmering curtains of haze dancing across the broad valley, distorting plumes of red dust and causing the foothills to float on the horizon like masses of dun-colored cloud.’

[HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER.............................................The Book]

HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER is famous for being a ‘supernatural’ Western. There is more to the protagonist than meets the eye. Strangely, in the book, Tidyman tones down the supernatural aspect to a degree.

That aside, it’s always a delight when a book not only complements the movie from which it’s derived, but expands the story and entertains on a whole new level. HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER does both. If you think you know the story from the movie, think again and treat yourself to the book.

[THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY..................................The Movie]

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is a genuine classic of not just the Western film genre, but films, period. It has been praised and extolled endlessly.

The novelization, by Joe Millard, hasn’t received nearly as much attention, as is so often the case, and that’s too bad, because Mr. Millard tells a good story and includes incidents that we don’t see in the movie. We learn a lot more about the Man With No Name, Tuco, and Sentenza.

To give an example of Millard’s writing style, here’s a gunfight.

‘Everything happened so fast that Tuco was never afterward certain of the sequence. The three gunmen were no amateurs at their trade. Their hands slapped down in practiced unison. The tall stranger’s gun simply appeared in his hand, pressed tight against his hip and spewing sound, smoke and bullets. After the first shot the heel of his left hand fanned the hammer, getting off two more shots so close together that the sound was continuous and single.’

A cliched scene, and yet Millard tells it well.

[THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY...................................The Book]

Tuco comes across as just as hilarious as in the movie, and Sentenza as deadlier.

In keeping with the mystery of the Man With No Name on screen, Millard never once takes us into his head. From beginning to end, Whitey is as much the enigma as he is in the movie. Other writers might have revealed more but Millard wisely maintains the allure.

So there you go. Three novelizations based on Clint Eastwood movies. All three are well worth a read.

JOHNNY DEPP in FROM HELL: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-06-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

This is the third in a series about Johnny Depp movies you might not have seen, and should.

FROM HELL came out in 2001. It had its inception in the wonderfully warped mind of Alan Moore. If his name isn't familiar, you must not read comics. To the comic-buying fraternity Alan Moore is a demigod.

[The master crafstman of the macabre, the marvelous Alan Moore.]

You might have already seen some of his work on screen. Both the fairly recent WATCHMEN and V FOR VENDETTA were based on Moore graphic novels. THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMAN, starring Sean Connery, was another adaptation. So is FROM HELL.

[The cover to the graphic novel FROM HELL. Words by Alan Moore. Pencils by Eddie Campbell.]

The graphic novel launches the reader on a roller-coaster ride of intrigue and gore.

[Jack the Ripper at his grisly work in the graphic novel FROM HELL.]

The story involves a police inspector who is trying to unravel the mystery of the Jack the Ripper slayings. Quintessential Moore, it involves diabolical schemes, the perversion of power, and flat-out twisted minds.

Alan Moore stories are never dull or predictable or even linear. His tales, like his imagination, know no boundaries, immersing the reader in a wealth of intellectual delights.

You might surmise that FROM HELL sounds like an ideal movie vehicle for an outstanding actor.

Enter Johnny Depp.

[Johnny Depp as police inspector Abberline in the movie FROM HELL.]

The movie version was directed by the Hughes brothers. Rather than follow the graphic novel, they opted for a loose adaptation that retains crucial elements but takes a lot of liberties with Moore’s storytelling.

Take Depp’s character, for instance. He plays the inspector, Frederick Abberline. In the graphic novel Abberline is a middle-aged married guy. In the movie he’s single, considerably younger, and a drug addict, besides. (His drug-induced visions aid him in solving crimes.)

[Johnny Depp taking a visionary bath in the thriller FROM HELL.]

In the graphic novel the lead female character, prostitute Mary Kelly, is a lesbian. In the movie she falls in love with Depp.

In the novel, the prostitutes bring about their destruction by trying to blackmail the powers that be. In the movie, the powers that be are psychopaths and there’s no mention of the blackmail.

These and other changes alter the tone of Moore’s story considerably. His FROM HELL, like much of his work, is deeply psychological. The Hughes brothers turn it into a murder mystery with psychic undertones.

Still, it’s Johnny Depp, and as usual, he’s a delight to behold.

Heather Graham plays Mary Kelly, the prostitute he falls in love with.

[Heather Graham as Mary Kelly in FROM HELL. Hubba, hubba, baby.]

By virtue of being about the Ripper, the murders are the meat of the tale. They’re quite gory. Not on a par with, say, SAW, but there’s enough blood and splatter to satisfy horror purists.

The mystery seems intricate at first but is revealed to be nothing more than an attempt to cover up a royal indiscretion. How many times have we seen those nasty royals up to no good? It would be ho-hum if not for the performances of Depp, Graham and others, who add depth to the mundane rationale.

[Depp and Graham share one of the few tender moments in FROM HELL.]

The main thrust of the critics has been that the movie is disjointed. It never really reaches out and grabs the viewer in a mesmerizing hold.

Still, our pleasure comes in watching Depp solve the murders despite entanglements from on-high. There are a number of small but delicious ironies, not the least of which is that Depp’s character unwittingly seeks the advice of the Ripper himself in his effort to solve the killings.

[Johnny Depp at the scene of one of the Ripper's many butcheries.]

That the movie ends on a downer might also have something to do with why it is one of the least-seen of Depp’s films; he dies of a drug overdose.

It made about $31 million domestically and another $40 million overseas. Compare that to the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, which earned $305 million in the U.S. and almost $350 million in other markets. Quite the difference.

FROM HELL. Read the graphic novel or watch the movie. Or better yet, read the first and watch the second and compare the two. And be wary of dark alleys.

JOHNNY DEPP in SLEEPY HOLLOW: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

2011-05-27T21:18:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

Of the many fine and fun movies the fabulous Johnny Depp has made, few provoke as many laughs ‘and’ scares as SLEEPY HOLLOW.

Based on the classic short story of American literature, the movie cleverly expands on the original.

[One of the many---'many'---book versions of THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW.]

This is how that story begins:

‘Found among the papers of the late Diedrich Knickbocker

A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye,
And of gay castles in the clouds that pass,
For ever flushing around a summer day.’

Washington Irving then goes on to relate the tale of Ichabod Crane, a schoolteacher who gets the hots for the daughter of a rich landowner. Or, rather, who lusts after the land, and sees her as his means to acquire it.

Irving had a flair for comedy as well as horror. Consider this passage in which he describes how Ichabod rides a horse:

‘He rode with short stirrups, which brought his knees nearly up to the pommel of the saddle; his sharp elbows stuck out like grasshoppers’; he carried his whip perpendicular in his hand, like a scepter, and, as his horse jogged on, the motion of his arms was not unlike the flapping of a pair of wings.’

Unfortunately for Ichabod, someone else has the hots for the young lady. And so it is that late one night, as our stalwart hero makes his way home, he comes on a horseman lurking by the wayside.

‘In the dark shadow of the grove, on the margin of the brook, he beheld something huge, misshapen, black and towering. It stirred not, but seemed gathered up in the gloom, like some gigantic monster ready to spring upon the traveler.’

The outcome, as they say, is literary history.

[Another poster for the movie version. Horror + Action + Comedy + Romance + Johnny Depp. What more could you ask for?]

In the Tim Burton movie version, Ichabod becomes a police constable. He’s sent to a remote valley to investigate mysterious deaths allegedly committed by a Headless Horseman. Only in this instance, the Horseman isn’t a jealous rival; it’s ‘real’.

Johnny Depp is delightful in the role of Ichabod. He plays the police inspector in much the bumbling fashion that Washington Irving portrays the schoolteacher. His antics provoke a lot of laughter.

[Johnny Depp as Ichabod Crane in the Tim Burton film, SLEEPY HOLLOW.]

The Headless Horseman provokes a lot of fear. Christopher Walken is the demonic slayer when he has his head, and it goes without saying that he’s outstanding in the role.

[Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman when he has his head. Would you want to get this guy mad at you?]

As in the story, there’s a wealthy landowner with a beautiful daughter. Also as in the story, there’s a jealous rival in the form of Casper Van Dien. In an interesting plot twist, Van Dien doesn’t just try to scare Depp off, he goes after the Horseman and has an incredible fight that’s one of the movie’s highlights.

[Casper Van Dien has a kickass fight with the Headless Horseman.]

On the off-chance that you haven’t seen this movie yet---it came out a dozen years ago, about five years before Johnny Depp hit it big in the original PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN---I won’t give anything away except to say that dastardly deeds are afoot and Depp’s bumbling policeman is determined to get to the bottom of them even if it kills him.

The action scenes, and there are a lot, are well-handled, especially those involving the Horseman. He comes across as an unstoppable force whose only weakness is that he can’t set foot---or hoof---on holy ground.

[A loping he will go. 'Heads will roll!' And do they ever.]

There’s another interesting twist thrown in late in the movie. In most ‘monster’ movies, the audience roots for the creature to die. Viewers start out doing the same here---and then, surprise, surprise, things aren’t at all as they seem.

With its unique visual design, over 150 special effects, and a riveting mystery injected into the horror mix, SLEEPY HOLLOW is terrific. If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing one of Johnny Depp’s best.

As a footnote, and to demonstrate just how excellent the movie is, it won an Academy Award for Best Art Direction; it won British Academy Film Awards for Best Costume Design and Best Production Design; and Christina Ricci, who plays the daughter of the landowner, and Danny Elfman, who did the score, won Saturn Awards.

Naturally, it’s available on DVD in various versions.

Treat yourself to some goose bumps. Read the Washington Irving story, THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW, or watch the marvelous Johnny Depp in SLEEPY HOLLOW, or do both.

It's time spookily spent.

[McFarlane Toys came out with action figures based on the movie.]

GARGOYLES

2011-05-21T01:52:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

Some TV movies of yesteryear left vivid impressions; the stark suspense of Spielberg’s DUEL, the terror of the original THE NIGHT STALKER with Darren McGavin, the tug at the heartstrings of BRIAN’S SONG.

In 1972 a Horror gem was aired. GARGOYLES, like the movies mentioned above, is more than your common TV fare. For starters, it stars Cornel Wilde of NAKED PREY and other hit movies. The supporting cast includes Jennifer Salt as his hottie daughter---she later went on to star in SOAP.

[Jennifer Salt as the hottie. She gets abducted, she gets fondled, she even gets sniffed.]

Scott Glenn makes an appearance as a dirt biker---you might remember him from SILVERADO or saw him recently in SUCKER PUNCH.

And then there’s Bernie Casey as the leader of the gargoyles.

Directed by Bill Norton, with costume designs by Tom Dawson and special effects by Stan Winston, this little movie is terrific. The creatures are 'so' superbly done that Winston won an Emmy. The effect is enhanced by Norton’s smart directing. His use of the dark and shadows, combined with the unique way in which he films the gargoyles moving, lends the illusion they are what they seem to be. A jarring score adds to the atmosphere.

[The leader of the gargoyles and his mate. They plan to breed humankind into extinction.]

This movie might well be called a Gustave Dore illustration come to life. Consider the next image and the birth chamber scene below.

The movie begins with photographs of stone gargoyles from around the world. It turns out that Satan created them to dominate humankind, and like oversized cicadas, they burst out of their eggs every five to six hundred years to try anew to conquer us.

Fast forward to the present. An old coot living out in the desert invites Dr. Mercer Boley to come see an unusual skeleton he dug up. Mercer thinks it’s a prank at first. Then a living example shows up and literally brings the roof crashing down. Mercer and his daughter flee with part of the skeleton in their station wagon and barely survive an attack. They’re forced to stop at a motel so their vehicle can be repaired. And that’s when things go from bad to kill-or-be-killed.

[The old coot who thought his find would make him rich and famous.]

For a TV movie it has a few cool gory scenes; the death of the old coot, a blood-spattered pickup, and a sequence where a biker is torn apart. But mainly it’s the visuals that carry the suspense along.

[A biker learns the hard way that if you want to take down gargoyles, use a shotgun.]

The gargoyles, incredibly, come across as having personalities of their own. Of particular note is the lead female gargoyle, who, disappointingly enough, isn’t listed in the movie’s credits. Which is a serious lapse, since her jealously when her mate starts to lust after the hottie is a key plot element.

['Hi there. I want your bod. I want your bod really, really bad.']

The climax comes when Mercer and the sheriff and some of the bikers take on the gargoyles in a pitched battle. To rescue his daughter, Mercer has to descend into an underground cavern that brings to mind the Dore engravings of Hell.

The ending isn’t what you’d think. I won’t give it away except to say watch the skies in another five hundred years.

GARGOYLES finally became available on DVD. If you’re in for some scares and some great imagery, you might snag a copy.

ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13

2011-05-17T18:39:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

A personal note. I’m a huge John Carpenter fan, his music as much as his movies. His scores are great to write to. Have an action scene you’re writing and you need to get pumped up? Put on ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. Writing a Horror story and you need to get in the mood? Listen to HALLOWEEN.

I’m ‘such’ a Carpenter fan that as an homage to JC and the star of ESCAPE, I named the founder of the survivalist compound in my SciFi series ENDWORLD ‘Kurt Carpenter’.

I mention all this because I’m about to share some info on a genuine gem of a movie that a lot of people haven’t seen, and should. It’s an action thriller, the original ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13. Note the distinction. There was a 2005 remake that, while a good film, doesn’t begin to compare to the gripping original.

Released in 1976, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 is considered by some to be Carpenter’s best movie ‘ever’. It certainly ranks up there with those previously mentioned.

At the time, nothing like it had been done. Gang violence was just beginning to regularly make news headlines. As in a recent drive-by shooting of a rapper, gang bloodshed is often presented as impersonal and almost inhuman. Carpenter vividly captures those qualities in ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 in a unique way.

[A gang member taking aim as they drive around looking for people to kill.]

The plot goes like this. An L.A. gang has stolen a bunch of automatic weapons and suppressors. When the police corner some of the gang and blow them to bits with shotguns, the gang declares all-out war. They separate into groups and one of the groups, in a particularly brutal scene that the ratings board wanted cut but which Carpenter wisely left in, guns down a young girl. When the father goes after them and shoots one of their own, the gang closes in and corners him in a police station.

[A young Kim Richards---yes, 'the' Kim Richards from REAL HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS---doesn't leave well enough alone and takes one through the chest.]

But wait. Unknown to the father and the gang, the police station has been shut down and only a skeleton staff is on hand to oversee the closure.

A special officer on a prison bus doesn’t know the station has been closed, either, and when one of his charges becomes sick, he stops to put his prisoners in jail cells while he phones for a doctor.

That’s when the gang closes in, and a bloodbath ensues. The last half of the movie is action-plus as the few surviving defenders fight off wave after wave of savage attacks.

Carpenter lucked out with the cast. The three principals were largely unheard of at the time, and give stellar performances.

Austin Stoker plays a police lieutenant who on his first day on the job is given the assignment of overseeing the closure. Laurie Zimmer is one of the staff, and in a beautifully understated performance, comes across as about as real a woman---and one tough momma---as you will find anywhere.

[Laurie Zimmer. Watch her face. Seriously. She does some fine acting.]

Which bring us to Darwin Joston. He positively shines in the role of Napoleon Wilson, a stone cold killer on his way to Death Row. His characterization is brilliant. He doesn’t take anything off of anyone. For a while he seems to be just another badass who is high on himself. Then Joston begins to peel away the layers. We see how he uses a simple question to gauge the character of others. We see the yearning bloom between him and Zimmer. We learn that he has a personal code of honor that he never, ever compromises, and we realize how much more there is to this man than we thought. He isn’t just a stone cold killer. He could be you. He could be me.

[Darwin Joston cuts loose. A man born out of time, a slayer with a soul.]

Carpenter builds the suspense masterfully. He heightens the effect by dehumanizing the gang members. They’re more like ghouls than human beings. They know only one rule; blood for blood. And they will not be stopped.

Carpenter has gone on record as saying that his inspirations for the film were in part derived from RIO BRAVO and also from George A. Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. It lends ASSAULT a ‘Western’ feel in a modern setting, and the ghoulish gang members might as well be zombies for all the emotion they show.

[She's been shot and can't use one arm but Laurie Zimmer puts the hurt on some gang members.]

Then there is the score. As with most Carpenter movies, his music is integral to the story. Hear this once and you will hum it in the shower. It sticks in the head, as do the images.

When ASSAULT was first released, it didn’t do extraordinarily well at the American box office. A lot of that had to do with the critics, who universally didn’t ‘get it’, and wrote negative reviews. In Britain and in Europe, though, it became an instant hit and did booming business. So much so that American critics took another look and voiced a collective, “Oops”. Now it is rightfully regarded as a classic.

So if you’re looking for a movie to watch, you can’t do better than the original ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13. Snag the DVD and enjoy.

JOHNNY RINGO: PART ONE

2011-05-16T18:35:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

Western lore has its share of controversies and disputes. Did Pat Garrett really kill Billy the Kid or did Billy secretly survive and live to a ripe old age? Was Jesse James really shot in the back by 'that coward Bob Ford’? Did Butch and Sundance both die in Bolivia or did Butch escape and eventually return to the U.S.? Did John Wesley Hardin really get the drop on Wild Bill Hickok? Was Wyatt Earp a law-abiding saint or a confidence man and calculating killer?

That last has a bearing on a shadowy figure who ranks as one of the most controversial ‘gunfighters’ of all time, namely, John Ringo, or Johnny Ringo, as he is so often called in film and song, or John Ringgold, as he was mistakenly referred to in press accounts during his lifetime.

Was Johnny Ringo ‘the deadliest pistoleer since Wild Bill’, as TOMBSTONE would have it? No. Was he an alcoholic simpleton who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if he was standing in front of it, as some Earp boosters would have it? No.

Make no mistake. The issue of Ringo’s character is highly partisan. So much so, the bias has spilled over into books and articles about Ringo and Tombstone. It’s a challenge to separate the real and the true from the spiteful and the bogus but we’re going to try.

One fact is self-evident. No matter what the real John Ringo was like, no matter how many men he did or didn’t shoot, there is no denying his name is one of the most recognized of all Western gunfighters. Thanks to books, films and songs, as many people have heard about Ringo as have heard about Wild Bill. It’s even safe to say that his name is more widely recognized than those of John Wesley Hardin or Harvey Logan or Bill Longley, shooters with verifiably higher body counts.

It begs the question: Why? What did John Ringo do to earn so much notoriety? The answer is surprising.

[A painting of John Ringo by Lea Franklyn McCarty included in his book THE GUNFIGHTERS.]

‘The facts, ma’am, and just the facts’.

First, the basics of the man’s life, as far as can be somewhat accurately determined.

John Peters Ringo was born in 1850 in Indiana. When he was 14 his family headed west as part of a wagon train. The train was plagued by Indian trouble. The men kept constant guard, and kept their guns loaded. Ringo’s father was climbing out of their wagon when his shotgun apparently became caught in his boot strap and blew the top of his head off. A witness reported that his hat flew twenty feet into the air.

The mother, Mary Ringo, took the family on to San Jose, California. For a while they stayed at the home of Coleman Younger, who was married to Mary’s sister. Coleman was an uncle of the Younger brothers who rode with Frank and Jesse James.

[John Ringo's mother, Mary Ringo. She held the family together after the death of her husband.]

Mary Ringo ran a boarding house, and the family was doing well. About the time he turned 21, John Ringo left for Missouri. From there he drifted into Texas. Little is known about his activities for the next four to five years. Then, on Christmas day of 1874, Ringo was arrested for disturbing the peace for firing a pistol in the public square in Burnet, Texas. There is no mention of why.

Before another year was out, Ringo became a leading participant in the ‘Hoodoo War’. He rode with Scott Cooley, a former Texas Ranger on a vendetta. The ‘War’ became personal for Ringo when two close friends of his were ambushed and one of them was killed. Ringo went to the house of the man who apparently set up the ambush and shot him dead.

An account of the shooting referred to Ringo as 'Ringgold'. In subsequent newspaper articles that is how he was sometimes known.

[Texan feudist Scott Cooley. He shot and scalped the deputy who killed his friend. Newspaper accounts mention Ringo as having a hand in the killing.]

The Texas Rangers set out to quell the ‘Cooley gang’, but it was the sheriff of Burnet County who arrested Ringo on the disturbing the peace charge. Ringo was released but evidently threatened to kill the sheriff, and was arrested for that.

By then Cooley was also behind bars, and the two were granted a change of venue. Friends busted Ringo and Cooley out of jail. One of those friends, Joe Olney, figures prominently in Ringo’s later activities.

Then, out of the blue, Cooley died. Some said it was ‘brain disease’, others that he was poisoned. His death left John Ringo as the de facto head of the ‘outlaw element’. It was alleged that Ringo was involved with cattle rustling. Others came forward and said that he was not. Whether he was or he wasn’t, one newspaper account described him as one of the most notorious desperados on the frontier.

The Texas Rangers set out after him, and got their man. This time Ringo was sent to jail in Austin. The infamous John Wesley Hardin spent time in the same jail. Years later in his autobiography, Hardin wrote that he ‘met some noted men’ while there, and he specifically mentioned Ringo by name.

For more than a year Ringo was bounced back and forth between jails and jurisdictions. Finally, he was released on bond, but less than two months later he was arrested yet again for disturbing the peace.

[Another painting of John Ringo, this time by artist Larry Willis. http://larrywillis.mosaicglobe.com/gallery/4615]

In May of 1878 Ringo’s luck changed. The charges against him were dropped. The sheriff who had arrested him was himself arrested and put in prison.

Then, in an incredible turn of events, John Ringo ran for the office of constable. Even more incredibly, he won by a landslide, taking two-thirds of the vote. It appears he was ready to settle down. He went so far as to register his own cattle brand. Which makes his next act even more mystifying; Ringo left Texas.

No one knows why. It has been speculated that he went to find his friend Joe Olney, who had left the state, and let him know that Olney’s brothers had been arrested. Ringo and Joe then supposedly returned to Texas, busted the brothers out, and headed west again.

It is interesting that Ringo and Olney might have joined a wagon train in which there was a young lady by the name of Jennie Parks Ringgold.

Ringo ended up in Arizona, where he associated with what were known as the ‘notorious cowboys’. In December of 1879 he made the newspapers again when he shot a man in a saloon, allegedly for refusing to drink whiskey with him.

Ringo was arrested and let out on bond. He was to appear in court but he wrote a letter explaining that he couldn’t be there because he had been shot in the foot. In the letter he stressed that he wished to settle down, and was anxious to avoid any ‘unnecessary trouble’.

An acquaintance who knew Ringo from Texas wrote that Ringo was regarded as a man of his word, and extremely dangerous. The man claimed that Ringo was an expert at shooting from the hip. Ringo reportedly would demonstrate his skill by setting up beer bottles with the open ends facing him, and then break both bottles at once using two pistols. If true, it suggests Ringo was a rarity; a genuine ‘two-gun’ shooter.

As a corollary to this, a New Mexico newspaper reported that Ringo put on ‘shooting exhibitions’ in Shakespeare.

It was in Shakespeare that Ringo and Ike Clanton recorded a joint claim to a 320-acre ranch.

[The real Ike Clanton. Friend to John Ringo. Not a friend of Wyatt Earp]

But it was in Arizona that Ringo’s next notable act occurred. In yet another incredible turn of events, John Ringo and some other cowboys were appointed as election delegates, and rigged the election.

Little else concrete is known about his activities. It’s alleged he was involved in rustling. It’s alleged he went on border raids. We do know he visited his family in California and that he went to Texas where he was arrested by Ben Thompson for once again disturbing the peace after Ringo drew his pistol on four men Ringo thought had stolen his purse.

Back in Arizona, Ringo became regarded as a leader of the Cowboys, along with Curly Bill Brocius. Newspaper accounts have it that the border raids resulted in the Cowboys and the Mexicans ambushing and killing one another.

[The real Curly Bill Brocius. Some say Wyatt Earp killed him. Others claim that he left Arizona and lived to old age.]

Most of Ringo’s activities were centered around Galeyville. He rarely got into Tombstone, the town with which he became so widely associated.

Enter Wyatt Earp and company. For various reasons, Earp and his brothers were soon at odds with the Cowboy element, resulting in the famous shootout near the O.K. Corral.

Ringo had no part in the shootout. But he did do something that elevated his notoriety. At the height of the feud, Ringo walked up to Wyatt and Doc Holliday in the middle of the street and reportedly challenged them to shoot it out, then and there. Wyatt refused but Doc was game. Unfortunately, what might have been one of the most famous gunfights in Western history was nipped in the trigger by the chief of police, who arrested Ringo, Doc and Wyatt for carrying concealed weapons.

The feud has been cited as the reason Ringo and Doc almost went at it. But there might have been another reason. Ringo had been visiting Big-Nose Kate, Doc’s woman. Not many people know that Kate wrote an account of her Tombstone experiences, and her description of Ringo is worth retelling: ‘Ringo was a fine man any way you look at him. Physically, intellectually, morally.’ She went on to say that he ‘was six-feet tall, rather slim in build, although broad-shouldered, medium fair as to complexion with gray-blue eyes and light brown hair’. She said that ‘Toward all women his attitude was gentlemanly’. That ‘He was always neat, clean, well dressed’. And that ‘he was noble, for he never fought anyone except face to face’.

[Doc Holliday's gal, Big-Nose Kate. She thought Ringo was quite the charmer.]

The Earps might have disagreed with her. It was alleged Ringo had a hand in the shooting of Virgil and possibly the murder of Morgan.

A man who knew Ringo fairly well, Billy Breakenridge, shed more light on Ringo’s character. In HELLDORADO, Breakenridge mentions that Ringo kept a cabin near Galeyville and that Ringo liked to do something unusual; Ringo liked to read. Apparently, Ringo had a collection of books, and often, while his Cowboy cronies were drinking and gambling in the local saloons, Ringo was holed up in his cabin, reading.

By now the complexity of assessing Ringo should be apparent. On the one hand we have those who say he was nothing but a drunk and a killer. On the other we have those who spoke glowingly of his loyalty and intelligence.

Fact and myth blurred into legend. The Ringo who spent a year at the home of an uncle of the Younger brothers was transformed into a relative of the Youngers. The Ringo who liked to collect books and read became a college graduate who loved to quote Shakespeare and knew Latin.

So much of the historical record is allegation and innuendo. So much is distorted and second-or-third-hand. It doesn’t help that Ringo’s death has taken on near-epic elements of mystery itself.

In the next part, we’ll take a look at the many books and articles that have to do with Johnny Ringo, the King of the Cowboys.

JOHNNY RINGO: PART TWO

2011-05-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

David Robbins
c 2011

Before we delve into the cultural representations of Johnny Ringo, we need to put them in perspective. And to do that, we need to put Tombstone in perspective.

The clash between the Earps and the Cowboys has been described as ‘lawmen versus the lawless’. It has been dubbed ‘city killers versus country killers’. Political connotations have entered into it in that the Earps were Republicans and the Cowboys were Democrats.

It doesn’t help clarify the historical record that the two newspapers in Tombstone were partisan. One was pro-Earp, the other favored the Cowboys.

That partisanship has spilled over into modern times. Many of the books and articles about Ringo and Tombstone are tainted by the same pro-or-anti Earp bias that marked the two newspapers.

BOOKS:
The best are by the ultimate Ringo authority, Steve Gatto. In JOHNNY RINGO and JOHN RINGO: THE REPUTATION OF A DEADLY GUNMAN, he tries to get at the real and true. It should be noted that Mr. Gatto later coauthored a book that is decidedly anti-Earp, but in his two books on Ringo he keeps bias to a minimum.

JOHN RINGO by David Johnson. This has seen two editions. The second has the subtitle, KING OF THE COWBOYS, and expands on the first by adding a lot of material that, curiously, contains little about Ringo. You’ll learn more about the Ringo family genealogy than you perhaps wanted to know. And in a strange tangent, Johnson asserts that there is a reason Ringo liked to drink and why he became so quarrelsome when he did: Ringo was suffering from ‘post traumatic stress syndrome’ over the killings he committed in Texas. Another explanation, based on comments Ringo made to Breakenridge and others, is that if Ringo suffered from anything, it was regret over the fact that his family in California wasn’t pleased by his notoriety. A plus with this book is all the information it has about Ringo. It should be noted that Johnson is another of the anti-Earp persuasion.

JOHN RINGO: THE GUNFIGHTER WHO NEVER WAS, is the opposite extreme. Jack Burrows is blatantly pro-Earp. He spends a lot of the book criticizing the works of other authors. What we end up with is a relentless assault on Ringo and his reputation from an ardent Earp booster.

HELLDORADO by Billy Breakenridge. Written by someone ‘who was there’, HELLDORADO has the distinction of being a first-person account of the events and the people. Breakenridge makes no secret of the fact that he did ‘not’ like the Earps. He writes favorably of Ringo and Curly Bill and the other Cowboys. Detractors have noted that he takes factual liberties, but overall, this is a crucial read for anyone interested in Ringo.

Factual liberties are even more abundant in WYATT EARP: FRONTIER MARSHAL by Stuart N. Lake. But it does include pages on Ringo and describes him as ‘fearless’. It also relates the incident in which Ringo walked up to Doc and Wyatt and challenged them, as filtered through Earp’s eyes. It’s noteworthy that neither Earp nor Breakenridge claim Ringo was drunk, as some of the anti-Cowboy crowd have maintained.

TOMBSTONE by Walter Noble Burns. If any one book is to be singled out as largely responsible for the Ringo legend, it would be this one. Yes, we are again confronted by factual errors regarding Ringo, but Burns did a lot of research and got a lot of the details of the clash right. And lordy, the man could write. Consider the beginning of his chapter on Ringo: ‘John Ringo stalks through the stories of old Tombstone days like a Hamlet among outlaws, an introspective, tragic figure, darkly handsome, splendidly brave, a man born for better things, who, having thrown his life recklessly away, drowned his memories in cards and drink and drifted without definite purpose or destination.’

Ray Hogan wrote a book on Ringo that came out in 1964. The hardback version is JOHNNY RINGO: GENTLEMAN OUTLAW. The paperback is entitled THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JOHNNY RINGO. Hogan did his research. He wasn’t able to learn where and when Ringo was born, but he did establish that Ringo’s name was in fact Ringo and not Ringgold, that Ringo did not go to college, that Ringo was not a direct relative of the Youngers, and that Ringo did not ride with Quantrill’s raiders. The hardback includes maps of Tombstone. This isn’t a biography so much as a melding of fact and fictional dialogue to present a sort of ‘it might have happened like this’. There are factual errors, but to Hogan’s credit, he’s not anti-Earp and overall his narrative is well-balanced.

The same can’t be said of a booklet entitled JOHN PETERS RINGO: MYTHICAL GUNFIGHTER by Ben Traywick. He adopts a mocking tone throughout the 40 or so pages of his anti-Ringo tract.

THE SOUTHEST OF JOHN HORTON SLAUGHTER by Allen A. Erwin doesn’t include a lot on Ringo but what it does have to say contributes to the Ringo reputation.

DOC HOLLIDAY (1955) by John Myers Myers presents the ‘mythic’ Ringo, but as Myers acknowledges, he does so only because at the time he wrote DOC HOLLIDAY, ‘No one has yet lifted Ringo out of his setting of myth to allow a good look at him, so legend will have to go unchallenged’.

JOHNNY RINGO by Geoff Aggeler is a fictional account of Ringo’s life and times. It has him saying that his real name is Ringgold and that he rode with Quantrill and that the Youngers were his cousins. In the novel, when Ringo confronts Wyatt, Doc steps out of the shadows with the remark that, “I’m your huckleberry”. A good read but its connection to the real John Ringo is tenuous.

More recently, JOHN RINGO: UNKNOWN DESTINY came out, by Jason McCord. It, too, is highly fictional.

More Fiction:
TOMBSTONE by Matt Braun. Has some pages on Ringo.
TOMBSTONE by Richard S. Wheeler. Not much on Ringo at all.
GUNMANS’ RHAPSODY by Robert B. Parker. Ditto.

TOMBSTONE, a novelization of the movie, which we'll talk about in Part Three. It includes scenes that weren't in the film. Since writers are often given early scripts to work with so they'll have the book done by the time the movie comes out, it could be that the scenes in the novel were in an early draft but subsequently dropped from the final version.

Magazine Articles:
There have been a number of articles about Ringo over the years. A list would run half a page or more. A lot of them recycled the legend.

One that didn’t is the February 2000 issue of WILD WEST in a fine piece called JOHN RINGO: TOMBSTONE’S LEGENDARY GUNFIGHTER, by Casey Tefertiller. It’s fair and balanced and includes a lot of the latest research.

And there you go. I haven’t been able to include everything but this should give you some idea of the amazing amount of published material on John Ringo. This is just the tip of his cultural impact. In the next installment, we’ll take a look at the movies, TV shows, and more.