The Hound of the Baskervilles and Peter Cushing

I am visiting the hallowed ground of Sherlock Holmes once again thanks to my good friend Mangus. Not only did he hit me with the weekly question: "What you going to blog about?" But he also let me know that the A&E network had released the BBC series of Sherlock Holmes that starred Peter Cushing as Holmes. Most people now probably remember Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin from the original Star Wars: A New Hope… when it was just Star Wars. He also portrayed such notable characters as Abraham Van Helsing and Victor Frankenstein in the wonderfully atmospheric Hammer films.


I had seen Cushing portray Holmes in the Hammer version of "The Hound" with Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville. Well, thanks to Mangus I got to enjoy him again in the BBC version.

The basic plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles is that Sir Henry Baskerville has inherited his family estates after the death of his uncle. His uncle apparently died from fright because the spectral hound that has cursed the family line for two hundred years or more was chasing him. Holmes is brought in, not necessarily to solve the crime, but rather to protect Sir Henry from the curse and perhaps persuade him to not take up the family residence. Holmes of course does not believe in any supernatural agent and sends Watson to guard Sir Henry. The investigation is pursued and the ending is a climax of gun fire and the villain doing himself in.

This is one of my favorite Holmes stories, mostly because it is the first one I read as a boy (read 10 or 12 years old), coupled with the super natural elements it left an impression that started my love of the character and the Victorian mystery. My only complaint, like all the Holmes "novels" is that Holmes is off stage most of the time. The movies are no different. But it is still a great Holmes story with its intrigues and subtle clues.

I found myself pleasantly surprised when I watched Peter Cushing's portrayal of Holmes. He was lively, energetic, and, above all, convincing. He was wonderful actor. I had forgotten how much so.

Holmes was personable, warm, and entertaining. His gestures were those of a stage performer making his point; as much as Holmes is want to do as his experience upon the boards left him with the desire to create a sense of showmanship with his own performances. The character WAS Sherlock Holmes, an engaging and charismatic individual, not just a reasoning machine. His affection for Watson was heart felt and warm, as true friends would share and perfectly in line with the dialogue Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself wrote. What also struck me was how Peter Cushing looked like Sherlock Holmes as he was illustrated in the Strand magazine and how he was envisioned in so many other incarnations. His hawkish, sharp features and harsh profile is Holmes. He was even tall enough for the role, being almost six foot himself. (When standing next to Darth Vader, aka David Prowes he looked short).

After watching Cushing's performance in this dramatization I look forward to the rest. My regret is that of the BBC series, apparently only five of these classics survived.

Outside Cushing's performance the BBC production was interesting in its own right. Nigel Stock played Dr. John Watson, which broke away from the Nigel Bruce portrayal of Watson as the bumbling side-kick…. a portrayal I always detested. This Watson is as Doyle intended, he is a man of action, ready to bring a villain to immediate justice.

The production had definite 1960s feel to it, as programs like The Avengers and Dark Shadows did. So there is a little television nostalgia thrown into the mix for me.

If you are a Sherlock fan and you have not seen Peter Cushing as the Master Detective you would do worse then to look for the DVD collection of his work.

Leviathan-Pulp Fiction for Kids!

Leviathan is a novel by Scott Westerfeld with illustrations by Keith Thompson is described thus by one book selling blurb:


It is the cusp of World War I, and all the European powers are arming up. The Austro-Hungarians and Germans have their Clankers, steam-driven iron machines loaded with guns and ammunition. The British Darwinists employ fabricated animals as their weaponry. Their Leviathan is a whale airship, and the most masterful beast in the British fleet. Aleksandar Ferdinand, prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is on the run. His own people have turned on him. His title is worthless. All he has is a battle-torn Stormwalker and a loyal crew of men. Deryn Sharp is a commoner, a girl disguised as a boy in the British Air Service. She's a brilliant airman. But her secret is in constant danger of being discovered. With the Great War brewing, Alek's and Deryn's paths cross in the most unexpected way...taking them both aboard the Leviathan on a fantastical, around-the-world adventure. One that will change both their lives forever.

I read this book because of the pulp implications, steam-punk walkers and genetic splicing out of the Edwardian age? Not to mention World War One through the prism of alternate history. I also picked this book up for its lavish production value. It even has a video trailer!

This is a good book regardless of its intended audience. The premise was unique and well executed, the story, while not deeply complex, was engaging. For the younger reader some of the tropes are standard: a young woman passing herself as a boy, and a prince on the run. That doesn't matter, because both characters are well drawn and fleshed out and not stick figures in the tale.

Alex is a boy coming into manhood who has been relatively sheltered by his parents until their assassinations spark the beginning of the Great War. Fortunately he has four men loyal to him: his fencing master Wild¬count Volger and Otto Klopp, his master of mechanics, and the two soldiers that help pilot the Stormwalker clank that they take in their escape. Young Alex is the true heir to Austrian Empire and his enemies would make sure that he never sees the throne. Throughout the story Alex grows as a man and as a warrior with a compassionate heart.

Deryn Sharp is common true, but uncommon in her courage and practical sense. She is a midshipman aboard Leviathan. Deryn is adventurous and loyal; straightforward and earthy. She is, of course, an excellent foil for Alex.

The supporting characters are well drawn themselves, the Austrians and the Brits. The setting is almost a character to itself, with the Darwinist using gene spliced creatures as transport and weapon delivery systems.

The production value of this book cannot be overstated. The outer cover is high quality metallic, colorful, meant to catch the eye. The inside covers are detailed illustration of Europe's map, but with the countries stylized as Clanker tech or Darwinist creatures. Through out the book pen and ink illustrations show cases the characters and the creations from a Huxly, think an octopus-jelly fish highbred filled with hydrogen, to the Hercules, a massive war machine.

This the first book in a series and I am looking forward to the rest of the books. There are secrets and plots that are tantalizingly held out to bring readers to the rest of the series.

I would recommend this book to anyone who has a love of steam punk or adventure. The young people this is targeted to might actually become curious about the real history this novel diverts from and learn something as engaging as the fiction spawned by it.

Spartacus: Blood and Sand Pornographic History

STARZ network has just launched a new series Spartacus: Blood and Sand, starring Andy Whitfield in the title role. This show is as close to pornography that I have seen on any network, and I have watched Deadwood and Rome. No let me rephrase that, this Spartacus IS porn. Just softcore porn. (So much for my family friendly rating for the blog)

First: I was really looking forward to this series, I was excited. I was expecting something that would emulate HBOs' Rome and the movie 300. And it does….badly…. it takes the elements that made both such wonderful adult entertainment and visually stunning production so over the top that it crashes spectacularly under its own weight!

Now, just a little back ground so one might put what is to be harsh critique into perspective. I grew up on the epics of the 50s' and 60s': Spartacus from 1960 starring Kirk Douglas and Ben Hur, 1959, with Charlton Heston. I am a product of simpler and more prudish mind set, if one would define it that way. I still prefer Errol Flynn's Robin Hood above all others. I don’t need graphic violence or sex but I do need story and acting, even cheesy well intentioned acting. Unfortunately this Spartacus is so lacking in many key areas and overdone in others I could hardly watch the first episode all the way through.
Quick back-story: Spartacus was a slave in Rome that would lead a slave revolt that caused the empire to shudder at the implications. While Spartacus led his rebels, the Senate and generals played politics. This is the stuff of awesome fiction and it is history!

Now I was not expecting anything remotely like a documentary on Rome and its gladiators, but what I saw had me reaching for the remote. The story opens in Thrace with the barbarians looking to repel their enemies and willing to align with Rome to do it. The Romans play politics and decide to pursue the Greeks to the south rather than pursue the enemies of Thrace that are circling to attack the Thracians' unprotected villages. Spartacus, though he is given this name later, smacks around the Roman leader and takes his men to save their villages, and his wife. He arrives in time to save her, but the village is lost. They spend the night entwined to be captured by the Romans in the morning. Spartacus' wife is dragged off and he is sent to the gladiator pits.

Sounds good right? Nice set up for the series. Well, let's look at how we get there: first BLOOD!!!!!!! Oh the blood, sprays, fountains, geysers, splatters, splotches, and gouts! Now, for battle scenes and people getting run through with pointy things you would expect this. Like 300, this show slows it down so you can enjoy every gory second. It worked in 300 stylistically; in Spartacus: B&S it becomes annoying. Maybe because EVERY blow is slowed down so the carnage can be fully savored. Even when Spartacus is in a fist fight, a good clip to his opponent's jaw sends splatter into a spectator's eyes. Now, I love good fight scenes, mass combat or single duels, its visceral and gets the blood up when well done, Spartacus bored me by the time we got to the above mentioned fist fight.

The blood, like the majority of sets seems to be green screen animation in the 300 style, on this point I can understand artistically and on a budget that this is not a bad move. This actually works for the story they wish to tell. It is one of the few things that do work for this series.

The acting: if Spartacus isn't mooning over his wife's thighs someone is using language you wouldn't hear in a brothel. Now, this is sad because there are several good actors in the production, and I am not referring to Lucy Lawless. Craig Parker, who played Haldir in Lord of the Rings and John Hannah of The Mummy franchise, are both in the series in pivotal roles, at least initially. The fake British accents that ancient Romans apparently had becomes annoying when actors can't do them well. Viva Bianca as the vapid, though ambitious Ilithyia comes to mind. The dialogue goes from well thought out and flowing to someone yelling "You ****** sucker!". This language gets worse as if the characters try to outdo each other in vulgarity. Even in casual conversation reference to anatomical impossibilities abound. Do people talk this way? Yeah if they have Tourette's.

Language and nudity is to expected and actually effective story telling devices in a program. Spartacus: B&S has taken the idea from Deadwood and Rome in that if they could shock and be successful with excessive nudity and language, then we should do MORE!

When I call Spartacus: B&S softcore porn, I do not exaggerate. Male and female nudity is thrown out there almost like backdrop, as a side note I read that prosthetics were used in male enhancement. Not sure if this is true, but if it is COME ON!!!!!! That borders on the ludicrous. The sex scenes leave nothing to the imagination, but rather, slow it down so that the voyeur can enjoy ever moment. Like bad slasher flicks something is lost when the actual act is shown fully, not allowing the audience to provide their own emotional response to the scene.

I really wanted to enjoy this show, I found Rome great and engaging, 300 was visually awesome with a basic but gut-kicking story. I had hoped that the blend produced by STARZ would at least be entertaining. It was not. Others might find it so, and they are welcome to it, I will put in my copy of Stanly Kubrick's epic, (still on VHS for me) and enjoy the story and drama to be found there.

Benedict Arnold: Tragic Hero

Much has been written about Benedict Arnold over the years, and recently movies. Mostly they had been unflattering, so much so, that “Benedict Arnold” is synonymous with treachery and betrayal, much as “Judas Iscariot” was to the generations before Arnold’s plan to surrender West Point during the American Revolution.


With revisionist trends in history which seem to tear down our heroes in the pursuit of “truth” the investigation into Arnold’s actions do not justify them, but explains and offers a more balanced view. After two hundred and more years after his death a more complete Benedict Arnold emerges, one that was a hero, a tragic hero that on the outset, loved and fought fiercely for his country.

Born in 1741 to what would be considered well to do family, the family fortunes changed rapidly over the years, with poor business practices, his father’s drinking, and eventually the passing of both parents. The reversal of fortunes over time left Arnold with his own drive for personal wealth and financial security. He had apprenticed as an apothecary to a family member, taking time away from the business to fight in the French and Indian War. Eventually he purchased wares in Europe and opened his own shop in New Haven.

With the Crown restricting trade and increasing taxation Arnold earned extra income through smuggling. This would foreshadow the practices he would be accused of during the revolution.

He entered the fight for independence as a captain when he heard of the battles of Lexington and Concord. Eager for battle, he proposed an attack on Fort Ticonderoga. On his march he encountered Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, a group of rough, free booting rangers. As a commissioned soldier Arnold felt Allen should be subordinate to him, but had no way to enforce it, the rangers simply went about as they liked including celebrating the taking of the fort with the British stock of rum.

During the invasion of Canada Arnold showed his determination as well as his temper, especially when feeling slighted. He and Ethan Allen once more could not work well together, but they cobbled together a navy of small gun boats to challenge the British on Lake Champlain, these were to be the first naval engagement between the rebels and the Crown.

During this fighting, Colonel Easton, serving under Arnold had returned to Massachusetts, diminishing Arnold's contributions, while trying to highlight his own. Eventually Arnold's temper would force him to challenge Easton to a duel, which the other refused. With the violence pending, Allen and Easton left and Arnold was ordered to serve under another commander. Arnold refused, resigning his commission and writing Congress over the affronts.

Arnold had also attempted to regain his expenses from the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, which only paid him a fraction of what he was owed. During the Revolution, soldiers, officers especially, paid out of pocket, even outfitting their men. Arnold was not rich but affluent, and he wanted to stay that way, he would go to Congress to recoup the rest of the amount. This constant struggle to receive his monies as well as addressing congress with grievances was a pattern Arnold would continue throughout the war.

Awarding Connecticut the lion's share of the plunder from Fort Ticonderoga over Arnold's Massachusetts further incensed the soldier. The above is an example of events through out Arnold's career. Benedict Arnold lived for glory and recognition; he was a brilliant warrior and wished to be recognized as such. He vied against many others that also chased such accolades but he lacked others' political savvy.

One ally Arnold had been George Washington. The General proposed Arnold to the Continental Congress to join the expedition into Canada under General Schuyler. Schuyler gave Arnold free rein and the soldier conducted an incredible march into Quebec; earning him accolades as a Hannibal for the Revolution. Weather, desertions, and lack of supplies plagued Arnold, but he held his company together to reach the St. Lawrence. December 1775 saw battle and small pox decimating Arnold's troops. Arnold took a bullet to the leg, shouting orders even when he was laid up wounded. Montreal could not be held, the battle was lost, but for his efforts he was made Brigadier General.

The Battle of Saratoga in the fall of 1777 once more showed Benedict Arnold's importance as a leader of men and a general that was vital to the revolution. Arnold was under the command of Horatio Gates. Arnold was eager for battle but Gates held him back, actually relieving him of his command for insubordination. The battle was engaged and Arnold, tiring of sitting it out took his horse and led a body of men into the center of the British forces, causing a collapse that allowed the American forces to capitalize to victory. During this battle Arnold had his mount shot out from under him, reinjuring the leg that was wounded in Canada.

The result of the American victory convinced France to throw its full support behind the fledgling nation. Horatio Gates, who had been hesitant and arguable an overly cautious if not out and out bad general, took credit for what was really Arnold's victory. Gates was vying to take Washington's position as Commander and Chief of the Army, and went so far as to send his reports directly to Congress rather than to Washington as commander of the army.

Benedict Arnold was now crippled, joining Washington at Valley Forge for the infamous winter, his seniority restored by Congress though the damage had been done and the stage set. Washington appointed Arnold as commandant of Philadelphia after the British abandoned it. It was there that Arnold met his second wife Peggy Shippen.

Shippen, twenty years Arnold's junior, came from an affluent family, giving Arnold the status he craved, but his income could not afford it. He engaged in inappropriate shipping practices, using his position as commandant. He was court-maritaled on the charges, and was convicted of improperly using government property and speculation. It should be noted that, like today, it was an atmosphere of "do as I say not as I do" Congress members were speculators in their own fight for freedom, back room deals for supplies and bankrolling their own privateers which put them at odds with the fledgling Navy. The attacks on Arnold were politically motivated, as much as Arnold had few supporters. The attacks were likely aimed at Washington as well as Arnold's friend and ally.

Benedict Arnold would war with Congress, defending his good name, seeking redress for financial losses, and protesting the slights he was given in promotion and responsibility. Time and again he was hailed a hero but those junior to him would be promoted over him, many because of patronage within Congress.

Arnold, through his wife, a Tory from her time with the occupying British in Philadelphia offered to turn coat to them. The prize was West Point, and some speculate, Washington himself. The price: 10,000 pounds and a commission as a provincial Brigadier General. During the negotiations Major John Andre served as the go between (a friend of Peggy Shippen and possibly former lover) Andre was captured and a missive between Arnold and General Clinton was discovered. Andre was tried and hanged as a spy. Arnold escaped down river on the British sloop Vulture. It is speculated that Arnold actually offered to trade himself to win Andre's freedom.

Arnold would not be entrusted by the British with anything important; he served in command during a couple of raid like battles in Virginia. He would attempt to serve his new country as well as restart his shipping business, but he had earned the reputation of being untrustworthy, having betrayed one country might he not do so again? He died in London in 1801.

Benedict Arnold was a great general, brilliant leader of men, and a patriot. Had he the patronage that men like Gates enjoyed, or the charisma and wealth of Washington his story might have been different.

He was also a tragic hero. Arnold had personality flaws that led to his downfall. He could not control his temper; he took slight easily, making him a political sitting duck. He did not have the resources or networks that Washington had to keep him informed or whisper in the right ear in Congress. He had the patronage of Washington, but the General was trying to win a nation. He also had the misfortune of marrying into a moneyed Tory family. Had he not married Peggy Shippen, he might have taken the battle-command offered to him by Washington instead of West Point.

Benedict Arnold was the tragic hero of fiction, but on the stage of History. He was the dark mirror of George Washington. Washington was of the South, Arnold the North, both men were moneyed, yet Washington was able to magnanimously serve his country without pay, where Arnold struggled to receive recompense. Both men were seekers of glory and adventure, yet Washington was understated, almost humble in his pursuit. Both had a love of their fledgling country, Washington was able to stay the course and Arnold fell.

A clever writer would have been fortunate to write such characters! Through the lens of history, as a person might read a novel, we see the speeding freight train that is Benedict Arnold's hurtling career. We see time and again he is looked over, abused, and ignored. He suffers indignities despite his valiant efforts in the cause of freedom. One could see what was coming for Arnold and wish they could look away because of the tragedy unfolding. The reader knows Arnold is doomed, they see what is driving him to his end, through his own choices he is damned, yet one could almost sympathize with him.

What glory might he have known then? Would his name be revered with the other great generals like Greene? Or would his debts and temper have led him to obscurity instead of infamy? Is it better to be a villain than to be forgotten? But such is the speculation of fiction. What we have is history. Arnold was an unfortunate man who made a fateful decision that resonates to this day.

Sherlock Holmes 2009!

The new movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law opened Christmas Day and I was only able to get to see it today. Now I will be giving a run down on the film, but I will do my best to leave out spoilers. But, dear reader, you have been warned!

Sherlock Holmes of course is the creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The character of Holmes originally appeared in The Strand Magazine, then novelizations of those serials and short stories. Later he would appear on the stage, screen, radio, and cartoons. Countless pastiche have been written about Holmes, and it is said that the character holds the record for appearing in the most films.

Doyle himself did not like the detective, feeling that his historical fiction should have garnered the lion’s share of praise and royalties. Even his attempt to kill off Holmes was met with black arm bands as Londoners mourned the fictional hero. The all mighty need for cash kept Doyle writing the pipe smoking sleuth.

Sherlock Holmes, the world's first consulting detective, not to be confused with a private detective; a cerebral hero, so great was his deductive reasoning he could solve crimes and mysteries from his sitting room at 221B Baker St. His adventures great and small were chronicled by his Boswell, Dr. John Watson, formerly a captain in Her Majesty’s army in the Afghanistan wars.

In the canon of Doyle’s work Holmes and Watson protected the honor of royalty, brought murderers to justice, and even let some go. They worked as agents of the Empire, averting war, or keeping military secrets out of enemy hands, even facing ghostly hounds upon dark moors.

Sherlock Holmes, the new Guy Richie film, brings these two characters to a new audience, with Downey standing beside a long and distinguished line of men to have played Holmes. Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Roger Moore, Jeremy Brett, and the immortal Basil Rathbone are only a small sampling of well known actors to wear the deer stalker.

The new film takes a fresh look at Holmes and Watson, as each incarnation adds something to the detective. The movie takes place in the late 1880’s based on the character’s ages, and Watson leaving the Baker Street flat to start his marriage. Such events are noted in cannon, as Watson appears to have been married two or three times, having only lived with Holmes early in their friendship.

Events in the film lead Holmes and Watson across a lavishly produced London with its coal smoke and industrial age grime, hansoms clattering along the cobbles. It is a beautiful movie, the period coming to vivid life. The story itself revolves around ritual murder, resurrection, black magic, and an allusion to the Masons.

I found the story engaging, from the mystery to the interpersonal relationships between Holmes, Watson, Irene Adler, and Mary, Watson’s fiancée. Fast paced and action oriented, this is a Guy Richie film! The action stays within the Victorian realm to me. Holmes martial prowess was noted by Watson in Doyle’s stories, as well as Watson’s own fighting ability. This movie shows the action that Doyle did not think were important elements in his stories. Downey’s Holmes is a methodical fighter tearing his enemy down with well timed blows that are thought out like chess moves. Watson is also a brawler that any military company would like to have in a hand to hand confrontation.

Downey’s Holmes is eccentric and quirky but not distracting or overly comical, many idiosyncrasies falling in line with Doyle’s own work. Jude Law’s Watson is long suffering, but like any true friend he is there through thick and thin, drawn by his own love of the chase and mystery as well as his friendship with Holmes. The story, as action oriented as it is, does not slight Holmes’ investigative ability or his deductive reasoning. The mystery is one Doyle himself might have conceived. (A side note, Jude Law actually had a part in an episode of the Grenada made for TV Sherlock Holmes series starring Jeremy Brett.)

The only element that I could nit pick, and I think it would be a heated debate among Holmes fans, is Irene Adler’s place in the film. Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams only appeared in one Holmes story: A Scandal in Bohemia. In the film she is the femme fatale, Cat Woman to Holmes’ Batman. I would have to re-read this particular story, but this was not how Adler struck me. She is Holmes’ love interest in the film. In the Doyle story Adler beats Holmes at his own game, earning the detective’s respect. As Watson was to say she was always the Woman. I never took this that Holmes had a romantic inclination toward Adler , but rather one of professional admiration. But McAdams plays an interesting character, and the chemistry between Adler and Holmes is great, so I am willing to let that one slide without too much effort.

This is a great film that is overshadowed by the technological wonder that is Avatar. Having not seen that film yet I could not comment further. I will say a Holmes fan will find plenty of Easter Eggs in the film to make them giddy. Despite reviewers comments this was a great film, not Shakespeare, but I was not looking for that. I got what I wanted, a great escape with one of my all time favorite heroes, Mr. Sherlock Holmes.

10,000 B.C. Fang and Spear on the Big Screen

I have been on a pulp movie kick here lately. See my Time Forgotten post. So among the films that I love for the pulp style goodness is 10,000 B.C. from 2008 starring Steven Strait and Camilla Belle; written and directed by Roland Emmerich.

Set in a nebulous pre-history, the story centers around the hero journey of D’Leh, a young hunter who lives under the stigma of being the son of a man that had been the head warrior yet abandoned his people. He is guided by Tic Tic, his father’s friend and the village’s leader. After a mammoth hunt D’Leh kills one of the great beasts by himself, earning the white spear, the mark of the lead hunter, from Tic Tic. But the mammoth’s death was an accident of opportunity, so D’Leh does not feel that he has earned neither the spear nor the hand of his love Evolet.

Raiders come on horses, with iron/steel weapons, and take Evolet and many others as slaves. D’Leh and Tic Tic set off in pursuit, guided mystically by the Old Mother, the village’s shaman. The adventure takes the heroes through the lowlands and encounter giant flightless birds that attack the raiders and pursuers alike. Meanwhile the leader of the raiders falls in lust with Evolet, singling her out for special treatment after a slashing with a whip leaves her with a telling mark.

D’Leh passes a hero test by freeing and friending a saber-tooth cat the indigenous people call Long Spear. Through this friending D’Leah makes allies of the savannah tribes that are encountered. He discovers his father did not abandon his people but rather left to find a better way for the tribe. But he too was taken by the raiders to a great city beyond the desert.

D’Leh gathers warriors to him from the surrounding tribes to pursue the raiders, missing the villains as they board the “red birds” which are red sailed ships that pass up the river. So the gathered warriors pursue their quarry across the vast desert, following what I take to be the planet Venus on the horizon, the Morning Star.

At the head of the river the primitive army discovers a society of advanced builders similar to ancient Egypt, where slave labor and mammoths used as beasts of burden to build what appear to be pyramids. Through stealth and guile D’Leh enters the city and learns of his father’s fate and plans a slave revolt to free his friends and over throw the enemy. Meanwhile the leader of the raiders attempts to take Evolet for his own and is taken by the priests for his treachery. The marks from the whip upon Evolet are noticed by the priests of the city and taken before the leader, for such a mark is prophesized to be the god-like leader’s end. Of course it is her presence that causes his down fall as D’Leh leads the revolt causing massive destruction and ruin to save her.

The adventure ends with the hero’s journey completed, D’Leh returns with Evolet and a bag of seeds provided by his new friends. The seeds will provide a new way of life for D’Leh’s people and fulfilling his father’s quest.

This movie was panned by critics, but in reality, this was a great story and the stuff of the serials. 10,000 B.C. is a fantasy story in the vein of Robert E. Howard’s Spear and Fang and many others. You have primitive man, savage yet, noble, and the decadent advanced culture that tries to dominate and enslave them. There is magic and ritual, great action, and the classic hero’s journey as I noted above. It was not supposed to be an accurate depiction of pre-history; it is a fantasy in a fictional past as much as Howard’s Hyboria. The movie succeeded in telling the tale with an underlying complexity.

The city of the builders, who are not really named in the film, seem to be its own architecture, but meant to evoke Egypt or Babylon. To me, it made me think: is this supposed to Atlantis, a remnant of that society after its fall? Regardless, that was the image it created to my mind and took me back into those other stories by Howard, Lovecraft, Burroughs, and Moorcock.

The story has elements seen time and again, but it is presented in such a setting that the hero quest is fresh and engaging to me. This movie should not be looked at as prehistory… Clan of the Cave Bear attempted to bring that epoch to life with varied success. 10, 000 B.C. should be viewed with an eye toward fantasy and the enjoyment of a story that unfolds in the best tradition of heroes.

Buck Rogers: Science Fantasy Before Star Wars

I have a list of swash buckling space heroes and none of them ever flew an Apollo mission. Not that these men weren’t heroes, but would they have become those heroes without the inspiration of those that came before them? Just as many scientists and space explorers now give credit to Star Wars and Star Trek for their pursuits, how many were influenced by Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers?

Buck Rogers was given life back in the 1920’s in a pair of stories Armageddon 2419 A.D. and The Airlords of Han by Philip Francis Nowlan in Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine that focused on science fiction. 1929 saw John Flint Dille reinventing William “Buck” Rogers for a serialized comic strip and the Saturday Serial soon followed.

Buck Rogers was originally conceived as a fighter ace from the Great War named Anthony Rogers, who was trapped in a mine on Earth, overcome by a gas that put him in suspended animation. He awakens five hundred years later to help save what is left of America from the Han, an Asian aggressor with disintegration rays and anti-gravity technology. His military experience is crucial to the victories over the Han. Only later would he be the scourge of space pirates and fifty years beyond that to make his appearance against Princess Ardala and the Draconian Empire.

Buck Rogers saw many incarnations in radio, comics, movies and television, back in the 1950’s and again in 1980. The constants seemed to be Buck and his lady friend Wilma Deering. Dr. Huer would make his appearance when Buck Rogers was reinvented after Nowlan’s stories. The version of Buck Rogers I grew up with was the one created by Gil Gerard in 1979. This was swash and buckle stuff at its best. The series that followed was of course hugely influenced by the fashions and styles of the disco era and the adventure fun that seemed to be the formula of the 1980’s T.V. programing. Watching the series on DVD now is a guilty pleasure.

Now there is another incarnation of the hero that was so lovingly parodied by Warner Brothers and Daffy Duck; Cawley Entertainment Company is working on a retro-envisioning of the Buck Rogers for the newest media outlet the internet. The teaser has been getting some buzz, showing a sepia sky filled with mocha clouds, a sleek rocket-ship ducks and weaves among the nebulous fluff, the golden tail fins flashing in the defused light. The ship slides into the foreground, giving the viewer a close up of the nose art and the pilot’s name: Buck Rogers!

The beautiful marriage of the Net and the technology to create a series like Buck Rogers with the science fantasy of eighty years ago is not lost on me. A lot of folks on the web are all ready prejudging the series, or claiming that is a fake. I don’t care! If all I get is the teaser trailer, then I am happy. Because the teaser gets it, the promise of space travel before it was even thought possibly. This series, should it come to fruition, is an expression of the imagination from an era lost on most people today. The serials of that bygone era were Star Wars and Star Trek, they were the expression of “imagine if” the rocket ships, the ray guns, and the giant robots. These guys didn’t care about science, they were telling an adventure story. Without those adventure stories to inspire them, how many kids that applied themselves to science never would have?


The speculative fiction of every generation is a reflection of the times: the original stories of Anthony Rogers’ war on the Han to the serials that followed. The social questions raised in Star Trek and the speculation of George Lucas’ message when he created the Star Wars prequels. From a historical stand point these works from the 20’s and even the 80’s hold significant meaning for us. As adventures they are a rollicking good time. I think as long as we need heroic icons like Buck Rogers someone will breathe new life into him.