Dan LeFebvre

00:01

Hello, and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. If you’re a baseball fan, you’ll love today’s episode because we’re going to learn about the 1976 movie called The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings. Now, in case you’re not familiar with it, or maybe it’s been a little while since you’ve seen it, Let’s get a quick synopsis of the movie.

Dan LeFebvre

00:28

The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings was directed by John Badham with a screenplay by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins. It was based on the 1973 novel of the same name by William Brashler. The movie opens in the late 1930s with Bingo Long, who’s played by Billy Dee Williams.

Dan LeFebvre

00:46

And in the movie, Bingo is a talented Negro League pitcher who grows frustrated with the way team owners treat the players. He decides to break away from the league and put together his own barnstorming team and heads out on the road with players like Leon Carter, Charlie Snow and Esquire Joe. Leon Carter is played by James Earl Jones.

Dan LeFebvre

01:07

Charlie Snow is played by Richard Pryor and Esquire Joe is played by Stan Shaw. At first, the team scrapes by playing local clubs and smaller opponents, but Bingo turns their games into a lively show, mixing baseball with dancing, music and playful antics to draw crowds. As the All-Stars travel from town to town, they run into both competition and trouble.

Dan LeFebvre

01:31

They face racial hostility, pressure from Negro League owners, and constant attempts to shut them down. Charlie keeps trying to find a way into the major leagues, while the team’s success and popularity begin to threaten the owners who want to control them. The tension grows when Bingo and his teammates are forced into a winner-take-all showdown that could decide whether they stay together or return to their old teams.

Dan LeFebvre

01:54

Before that final game, Leon Carter is kidnapped by the owner’s goons, but he escapes and makes it back in time In the end, the All-Stars win the big game, proving they can compete on equal terms Their victory earns Esquire Joe a chance to break into the major leagues While Bingo looks ahead with optimism, determined to keep building a future on his own terms Joining us to separate fact from fiction in the movie is the professor of American Studies at Fitchburg State University, Ben Railton Ben has his own podcast about the history of baseball called Baseball, Bigotry and the Battle for America, which you can find along with more of his work over at black, white and red dot com. That’s not the color red, but red as in you read a book, R.E.A.D. Of course, you can also just click the link in the show notes or find all the links for this episode over at based on a true story podcast dot com slash three hundred and eighty nine.

Dan LeFebvre

02:48

OK, now it’s time to set up our game for today’s episode. Now, if you’re new to the show, since Based on a True Story is all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie. So I’m about to give you three little facts that we’ll talk about in this episode, but two of those are true, and that just means one of them is an all-out lie.

Dan LeFebvre

03:11

Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, Bingo Long was based on Jackie Robinson.

Dan LeFebvre

03:19

Number two, barnstorming teams were tied to labor activism and workers’ rights. Number three, black barnstorming teams often played against white teams. Got them?

Dan LeFebvre

03:31

Okay, now as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope. This has the answer inside, so we’ll open it up at the end of the episode to see how well you did.

Dan LeFebvre

03:45

Okay, now it’s time to connect with Ben Reilton about the historical accuracy of the bingo long traveling all-stars and Motor Kings. Even though no one expects movies to be entirely accurate to history, the way each movie handles history is different. So let’s kick this off by getting an overall ballpark view of how well today’s movie is from a historical perspective.

Dan LeFebvre

04:14

If you were to give the bingo long traveling all-stars and motor kings a letter grade for its historical accuracy, what would it get?

Ben Railton

04:22

First of all, thank you so much for having me, Dan. Really, really happy to be here chatting about this really fun 70s movie on its 50th anniversary and recording anyway, right before the baseball all-star game. So great moment to be thinking about these things.

Ben Railton

04:36

And I would say this is a really strong piece of historical fiction. I think a lot about historical fiction in my work. And the main plot elements that I know we’ll get into in the conversation here are definitely fiction and are sometimes really exaggerated for effect fiction.

Ben Railton

04:53

But on the kind of the world that it creates, the world in which the story is set of 1939 and these places and times, and on a lot of the small details that kind of flesh out that world and that we’ll talk about, the House of David baseball team that we’ll get to, for example, is a really good example. I think it’s really, really strong on both the world and those details around the plot and the characters. So I would give it a strong A minus.

Ben Railton

05:21

And I just there’s a quote that I think sums it up really well that I had found in researching this movie to talk about it with you, which is from a former Negro Leagues player named Birmingham Sam Bryson. He’s in the movie. He plays the kind of clown character who sometimes kind of juggles before the games.

Ben Railton

05:38

And he had played for both the Birmingham Black Barons and then the Indianapolis Clowns in the Negro Leagues. And he said about filming the movie, just making this movie is like doing my life story. This is more truth than anybody ever seen in their life.

Ben Railton

05:53

This picture scares me. And I wasn’t there with Birmingham Sam, but I’m going to say I agree with him. There’s a lot of truth in this, big and small.

Ben Railton

06:00

So I think A- for sure.

Dan LeFebvre

06:03

I mean, that’s fascinating. And I love movies that, I mean, they know they’re a movie and they know there’s the entertainment side of it. So telling a story that, you know, historical fiction, right?

Dan LeFebvre

06:13

So there’s definitely fiction and they know there’s going to be there. But it sounds like they got a lot of the details right to tell this fictional story. And, you know, sometimes that makes for the best type of entertainment movie.

Ben Railton

06:26

I agree. And I think what the really important thing about that with this story is that it is, as we’ll talk about in different ways, there are so many American histories that are part of this. And so that doesn’t mean you have to only represent histories, but again, the setting, the world, kind of where the story takes place as part of those histories, I think makes a big difference in making it not only entertaining, but really something that can open up windows into subjects you could keep researching, keep learning about, as I have, and I hope anybody who sees this might. So I think it really does those things well. Well, you mentioned,

Dan LeFebvre

07:03

one of the characters. And in the movie, there’s kind of an ensemble cast to fill out the baseball team. Feel free to add any more if you’d like. But I would say that there are four main characters in the movie. There’s Bingo Long, played by Billy Dee Williams, Leon Carter, who’s played by James Earl Jones, Charlie Snow, played by Richard Pryor, and then Esquire Joe, who’s played by Stan Shaw.

Dan LeFebvre

07:22

Are the characters that we see in the movie based on real people from history?

Ben Railton

07:25

The only one who I think is definitively pretty one to one, as I understand his story anyway, is Bingo, is Billy DeWayms, excuse me, Bingo Lung, who is pretty close to Satchel Page, the incredibly talented black pitching star from both the Negro Leagues and then actually, and I know we’ll get to the major leagues later in our conversation, Satchel did have a chance to pitch into majors when he was like in his late 40s and still was dominant. He was a truly, truly singular talent. And he did do a lot of barnstorming like this. He organized all-star teams. He barnstormed. He did some of the specific things that we’ll talk about as we go to make it more of a performance and a show. I think Billy’s character, Billy Dee’s character, is pretty close in a lot of ways to Satchel, although maybe more stylish. Nobody could dress like Billy Dee Williams. And I’m not sure that Satchel Paige did. That’s Billy Dee stuff, I would say. So he’s the one-to-one. But the others are interesting parallels, even with people who are actually mentioned in the movie. So James Earl Jones is clearly, I think Josh Gibson, who was a catcher, big guy, huge power hitter, really prominent Negro Leagues player. He’s mentioned at the start of the film, but I think there’s a definite Josh Gibson there.

Ben Railton

08:40

And Esquire Joe, I would say, is really interestingly a Jackie Robinson riff. Jackie, as we’ll talk about, first African-American player to have a chance to try out and make a major league team like we sense Esquire Joe is going to. And even the attempts to kind of woo him along the way by white owners and general managers while the team is still traveling. Those are things that happened with Jackie while he was playing for the Kansas City Monarchs and then for some all-star teams. So I think Esquire Joe has a Jackie Robinson vibe and Leon has a Josh Gibson vibe. But I think the only real close historical

Dan LeFebvre

09:17

parallel is Bingo to Satchel Paige. I remember growing up a huge baseball fan. I remember reading about Satchel Paige. And you mentioned, you know, late 40s. I think he even started, he played in his very early 50s too. And as I’ve started to age, I’m like, how did you play? How were you able to play at that age? It’s just fascinating. I mean, amazing talent to be able

Ben Railton

09:39

to do that. It is. And also, I think another thing that they give to Bingo in this is just this ability to sort of take these situations that are thrown his way and then kind of, you know, turn them into something else, manipulate them. And I think that that served Satchel really well on the diamond as well, even as he lost a little of that talent, like anybody would, he could sort of make the best of his situations in ways that dominated other players, even when they had more talent or youth than him. So I do think that character, Bingo, is a really interesting Satchel Paige riff in a lot of different ways. Well, something that I think is

Dan LeFebvre

10:13

a great thing to go to do is to look at a movie from from the historical context of, you know, the timeline it is. And this the whole concept of this movie kind of revolves around how Bingo Long’s team is is a barnstorming team. And there’s kind of this back and forth tension and outright violence with the owners of the Negro League teams. We’ll talk about that violence in a moment. But these days, we’re familiar with Major League Baseball. So can you set up the historical context giving us an overview of what the Negro League was and how barnstorming teams fit into the picture?

Ben Railton

10:44

Absolutely. And those are some of those histories that we started talking about that this movie does such a good job being in conversation with and that I hope anybody who sees it might keep learning about because they’re so interesting. And I’ve thought a lot about them in the last couple of years because I have a couple of seasons now of a podcast about baseball history called Baseball Bigotry and the Battle for America. I just finished the second season. And so I’ve thought a lot about the late 19th and early 20th centuries in particular. And both of those things, the Negro Leagues and Barnstorming Baseball, kind of emerge in the late 19th century because of the emergence of segregated major leagues, especially. So the major leagues kind of really started in the 1870s into the 1880s in their first forms in the United States. And pretty early, they are pretty explicitly limited to white players or players who are defined or perceived as white anyway.

Ben Railton

11:37

It’s not immediate, but it’s pretty early that that starts to be an unwritten but very definite kind of rule of the owners of these emerging major league teams. But baseball had emerged in local communities and in sort of every part of those local communities. So you’ve got a lot of players who are not then going to be able to make it to that emerging major leagues, but have as much talent and as much community support and sort of legacies that they’re building on.

Ben Railton

12:04

And one way that that evolves is into a second kind of professional league, which is really especially the Negro Leagues as they emerge in the early 20th century in particular, although there are some black baseball teams, professional teams in the 1880s and 90s that are kind of like pre-Negro Leagues on the full level examples of that. But the other way it emerges is things that can exist outside of professional leagues and that can take baseball back to those local communities, build on those local connections, allow players to play against each other who might never otherwise get to and to kind of have all star experiences. And that is the barnstorming history.

Ben Railton

12:39

And that’s the part that I find the most kind of American in me of the story because it is so local and inclusive and breaks down a lot of these boundaries a lot of the time, as we see in this movie. There are huge numbers of Japanese-American barnstorming teams in the early 20th century. There’s a team like the House of David that we’ll talk about.

Ben Railton

12:58

And there are just African-American barnstorming teams throughout the 20s, especially the 30s, continuing a bit into the 40s before the start of integration of the major leagues. And those barnstorming histories to me are just really at the core of what makes baseball America’s pastime, I would say. More than the professional leagues, more than individual players or moments or stories.

Ben Railton

13:20

It’s those local connections. And so I think this film does a good job of highlighting the Negro League side, but especially of leaning into what did barnstorming look like and mean. And that to me is the most under-remembered part of American baseball history.

Ben Railton

13:33

And it, again, was so central from 1860s through at least the 1930s and 40s, the setting of this film. So I really love the barnstorming side in particular.

Dan LeFebvre

13:44

It sounds like, and correct me if I’m wrong, from what you’re saying, it sounds like you have the major leagues is kind of starting from the top down with money and overall area. And then these barnstorming teams are more of a grassroots effort kind of coming up. And then, of course, you know, we know from history at some point they meet in the middle a little bit. But it kind of sounds like that’s how they started. Would that be a pretty good interpretation?

Ben Railton

14:06

It would. And another thing I should mention is up until the early 20th century, most baseball is played on the semi-pro level, where you have sort of players who can make a couple dollars based on things like the gait of their games, as we see with Bingo Long and his team, but who also have day jobs, who are working other jobs to kind of support themselves and their families while they try to play semi-pro baseball. And particularly for Black American players, Japanese American players, these huge communities of baseball players, semi-pro is often kind of where they get their start because they’re not allowed entry to the major leagues in these periods.

Ben Railton

14:43

But semi-pro teams are a little more place limited. So then they can evolve into barnstorming to really connect to other communities and other places. So it’s a really complicated multi-part history.

Ben Railton

14:55

But I do think, yeah, there’s a grassroots communal whole set of teams and histories that are semi-pro, that are barnstorming. And the more we only focus on the professional leagues, even the Negro leagues, really interesting as they were, the harder it is to remember that that’s really where baseball happened, kind of across the country, was those semi-pro and barnstorming leagues and worlds.

Dan LeFebvre

15:17

We talked about some of the characters and their real history. Was Bingo Long’s team in the movie based on a real barnstorming team? Yeah, I think so.

Ben Railton

15:25

I think it’s pretty close to Satchel Paige’s kind of main all-star barnstorming team, which is in the 1930s. I think a little earlier than the 39 setting of this film is when Satchel starts doing that. But yeah, I think Satchel, like Bingo, was getting pretty frustrated with the limits of the Negro Leagues in terms of pay and ownership, but also just, again, kind of location, not being able to showcase his talents and connect to other communities. So he does start an all-star team, I think more than one, but certainly one in the 1930s and recruits a lot of other talented players and takes it on the road. So yeah, I think it is a specific example within that broader barnstorming history.

Dan LeFebvre

16:07

I love that idea of just not being happy with the way things are being done. So I’m just going to do it myself. I want to just start my own team and go off and do it on my own.

Ben Railton

16:15

Yeah. And there’s that great set of lines in the film right toward the start about Du Bois. I’m actually wearing a W.E.B. Du Bois shirt for this interview. I know it’s going to be audio, but I’m wearing it. And owning the means of production. And again, grassroots African-American communities, it’s a couple exchanges between Bingo and Leon, the James Earl Jones character. Leon in particular is the Du Bois fan who passes that along to Bingo. I think that’s telling because that is what these folks are trying to do. They’re trying to kind of create their own circumstances and their own opportunity in that way outside of the limits that their community faces. And I think Du Bois would, I mean, he was alive in the 30s. I hope he was a fan, but I think he would have been proud in the film of what they do on that level. Well, if we go back to the movie, the villains

Dan LeFebvre

17:05

throughout most of it are the goons sent by the Negro League team owners who are constantly harassing Bingo’s team, even to the point of committing some pretty horrific crimes. There’s one scene where the two goons catch Charlie Snow and cut him up badly, and he stumbles out onto the field, bleeding, causing the crowd to scream in horror. Did anything like that really happen?

Ben Railton

17:25

I hope not. I don’t think that specific incident, as I have tried to learn about it anyway, I don’t think it’s based on an incident. But what I would say it’s based on, besides, again, providing some plot drive and narrative for the film in that historical fiction kind of way, boiling down kind of amorphous villains like owners into something more tangible.

Ben Railton

17:48

But the other thing I would say is that in the 19-teens, 20s into the 30s, when ownership was such a dominant force in the major leagues, the professional leagues, both white and Negro leagues, teams definitely would employ hired goons, Pinkertons and the like, particularly when there was labor unrest as a possibility. And that’s really part of what leads, for example, to the Black Sox scandal was an owner like Charlie Comiskey of the White Sox, who was notorious for kind of enforcing his will, even with violence or at least the threat of violence and the threat of kind of hired bodyguards and goons, the Pinkertons, for example, I think get in that story a little bit at some point. So I do think it’s a representation, it’s a symbolism, but it’s a symbolism of the fact that owners in these leagues were, like a lot of these corporate forces, particularly in the 1920s and 30s, very willing and able to sort of make sure their will was done and keep labor strife down through violence.

Ben Railton

18:46

And at its heart, in some ways, again, barnstorming is a form of labor activism, right? It’s taking one’s work outside of that space. And so I think it really represents that set of forces that were opposed to that activism and opposed to these communities.

Ben Railton

19:01

I hope that no one got cut up on the field, but they definitely were. These owners definitely were willing and able to use the threat of violence to try to keep the players in their place. And I think that really does open up those histories.

Ben Railton

19:16

And again, a kind of historical fiction way.

Dan LeFebvre

19:19

Yeah, it sounds like it’s kind of again, being a movie, they’re using maybe creating a scene that specifically may not have happened, but telling kind of the essence of some of this either threat of violence or for all we know, maybe there was some actual violence that happened that we don’t know about. Because you think of, you know, history being written by the winners or those with money, usually. And those are usually the ones it sounds like, you know, if they’re hiring, you mentioned the Pinkerton, you know, I think of that, you know, being back in the old West days and that element of they were hired by the people with money. And yeah, wow, that’s, that’s a fascinating aspect that I hadn’t really thought about.

Ben Railton

19:56

And one of my favorite ways to think about professional sports, besides community and the battle between inclusion and exclusion, things we’ve been talking about already, is that it is a form of labor all along, right? And so you’ve got these alternative labor spaces and these labor activisms and fights for workers’ rights and corporate forces. And it can be hard to see it that way because there’s more money involved and folks playing a game.

Ben Railton

20:22

But even in the 21st century, I think it’s still important to think about it that way. But definitely in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, there are labor histories here. And I think this movie gets at that right away with that means of production thread in the film. And I think the goons are part of that thread as well, for sure.

Dan LeFebvre

20:41

But something that we see throughout the movie is how Bingo’s team enters the town and they’re about to play in and they’re literally dancing in the streets. It’s more than just a baseball game. It’s a performance. And as I was watching that in the movie to prepare for this, I couldn’t help but think of like, you know, the Harlem Goatriders in basketball, even the Savannah Bananas and how it’s it’s not just a baseball game, but it’s more of an entertaining performance. Were barnstorming teams more of a performance show or were they more of the regular baseball game that we’re familiar with in professional leagues today?

Ben Railton

21:12

It was the first to get folks to the second, I would say. These were hugely talented baseball players and teams and they put on a show on the field, but they needed people in the audience and they needed to distinguish themselves, again, from things that already existed, like a stadium you could go to or a professional team you could see even a semi-pro team you could go see at a particular stadium. And so they did very early, again, you can see this in the late 19th century. You can see this with the House of David, who we’ll talk more about, who started in the 19-teens. They did see it as a performance art, I think, that could then draw the audience to the show on the field that was these very talented, successful baseball games. And I think the Harlem Globetrotters are a great parallel. They also start in the 1920s into the 30s and have that similar idea. They continue, of course, to have a show on the court in a lot of ways. That too is part of this barnstorming world, as we’ll keep talking about with certain things like the invite pitch. But I think even more than that, it was about drawing the audience to it. It was about telling people, this is something unique and this is going to be something fun and worth your time and money and getting them onto that diamond into that field. So it was both. It was a performance that drew them to a really high level baseball

Dan LeFebvre

22:30

game at the end of that kind of show. That’s a really great point, too, that even though I mentioned the Globetrotters, too, but, you know, why would you go see a Globetrotters game versus going to see an NBA game? There’s that performance element that gets you there. And once you get there, I mean, the players are amazingly talented to be able to do what they what they do legitimately on the court, but you’re going there for more than just the game too. You’re going there to see that performance because it is something different like you’re talking about. And if there are these other teams, again, going back to you, you have the professional leagues and then you kind of have this grassroots. It makes a lot of sense that why these teams have to do something a little bit different to get people in the stands to come to the game. They do. And just because you mentioned

Ben Railton

23:14

the Savannah Bananas, I’ll say one thing I really appreciate about them. There’s a narrative around them that they’ve kind of invented a new former baseball banana ball. And there are some really interesting new rules, but they really do try to pay tribute to these histories, including the fact that they’ve kind of relaunched a team called the Indianapolis Clowns, who were a little bit of a combo. They were kind of a Negro Leagues team, but they were also very much, again, performative and kind of barnstormy in the way. And the Savannah Bananas and the Clowns are, I think it has not yet happened, but pretty soon they’re going to play an exhibition game in Mile High Stadium.

Ben Railton

23:49

in Denver as a kind of barnstorming like redux as a relaunch of these things. So they are as a 21st century barnstorming team, really, I think, recognizing and paying tribute to these older forms as well.

Dan LeFebvre

24:04

That’s fascinating. Well, you mentioned earlier, and there is something I want to ask you about. Speaking of the performance, there’s Bingo’s invite pitch.

Dan LeFebvre

24:13

And in the movie, the way this happens, you know, the rest of the team stays kind of standing in front of the dugout while he’s on the mound for the pitch, which means nobody is in the field. And then Bingo calls out this cadence to the crowd as he’s inviting someone from the opposing team to hit his pitch when no one else is on the field. Was that a real thing?

Ben Railton

24:33

Yeah, Satchel Paige did that for sure. I don’t know if it was as consistent. I think maybe it was a kind of occasional twist and not that, you know, the movie makes it very much a communal performance, as you say, and one that they expect and kind of lean into. I’m not sure that that was the case with Page, but it could have been. He was that talented. He certainly was that confident in his stuff. And I do think it makes for this really great kind of reflection of what we were just talking about, the bridge between the performance and the game, right? And the recognition that this is not just the team that’s performing, it’s a communal atmosphere. It’s a communal performance.

Ben Railton

25:10

And the clown, played by Birmingham, Sam Bryson as well, the real player who they use as that character, I think also represents that bridge, right? That there are these moments that say, it still was this thing that brought you in, and now you’re getting into this amazing baseball. So I think the invite pitch is an example of historical fiction. It definitely happens sometimes, but the film uses it to really play up that idea of the kind of transition from performance to baseball as well.

Dan LeFebvre

25:38

Yeah, that makes sense. Again, being historical fiction, they’re going to play it up a little bit more for the entertainment factor in the movie, too. Well, you’ve mentioned him a few times throughout, and according to the movie, even though Bingo’s team starts playing other black teams, there were a few times where they play white teams. For example, we see a scene where they’re playing this all-Jewish team called the House of David, and that’s when we see Charlie Snow get cut up that we talked about. But already, considering the racial divide that was in baseball back then, was it common for the black barnstorming teams to play against white teams like we see in the movie?

Ben Railton

26:12

It definitely was. And I want to talk more about the House of David in a sec, because they’re one of my very favorite American histories and stories. So more on them in a moment.

Ben Railton

26:20

But in general, yeah. One of the things that barnstorming did was allow for the crossing of those boundaries really consistently. on practical levels, because there weren’t often teams of exactly identical types in different communities around the country, unlike, say, the Negro Leagues, where you could count on there being this group of professional teams in particular cities. But also, I do think it’s the ethos of barnstorming is that we have a community team, your community team arrives, and we’re going to meet on the field. We’re going to figure it out. And that doesn’t mean there aren’t prejudices and the harder sides of histories.

Ben Railton

26:57

And I know we’ll talk a little about them in a second. But I do think the ethos of barnstorming is that the sport transcends those things. It can cross those things.

Ben Railton

27:06

And I know Satchel Paige’s team definitely played white teams frequently. A lot of the Japanese-American barnstorming teams I mentioned played white teams pretty consistently. There’s a famous game in Fresno where Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig show up in 1927 and take part in a game with Japanese-American barnstorming players and teams.

Ben Railton

27:23

So they did cross those boundaries really frequently. And then the House of David, incredibly fascinating set of histories. They’re actually, despite all appearances, at least as far as I’ve learned about, not Jewish American. They’re part of a cult kind of community in Michigan. It’s a kind of commune founded called the House of David. And they do, they grow out their beards, they grow out their hair.

Ben Railton

27:45

The film, I think, blurs it because they have a guy selling bagels with lox in the audience. It certainly is representing as Jewish American. But my understanding is they were just this really unique, interesting, religiously based commune in Michigan who started a baseball team, become maybe the most famous barnstorming team in the 1920s. They started in 1916. 1920s and 30s, really, really famous.

Ben Railton

28:08

They Satchel Paige actually plays for them for a brief time. Former major leaguers play for them. A young woman named Jackie. I think Wilson is her last name. I’m blanking for sure. Jackie, somebody pitches for them.

Ben Railton

28:22

She’s a superstar, teenage phenom, young woman, incredibly interesting team. And what they do when they travel very frequently is they travel with black teams and they get to their game and then they demand of the local hosts that they are allowed to eat and room with those black teams, breaking down whatever the segregated boundaries were in that particular community, or they won’t play their game. And usually, as I understand it, the hosts acquiesce because they want to see the game.

Ben Railton

28:54

And so they really represent that ethos of barnstorming, breaking down boundaries through these kind of implicit requirements that they have as they barnstorm, often with black players and teams. So I really, really love the House of David story. If I do a third season of my podcast, I might talk about them more because I just think it opens up so much, including even these kind of questions of representation, because they do look like Orthodox Jewish players in a lot of ways.

Ben Railton

29:18

and the film leans into that. I don’t think that they were, but what they definitely were was a representation of the real ethos of barnstorming. And I’m so glad that they’re in this movie.

Ben Railton

29:27

I had forgotten that until I was watching it for this conversation. And I just love that the film finds a way to make them part of it.

Dan LeFebvre

29:35

Well, you mentioned something that I hadn’t even thought about, but with a woman playing on The House of David, were there female players on many of the barnstorming teams? I mean, because we think in professional major leagues today, I mean, there hasn’t really been anybody that’s broken that element.

Ben Railton

29:55

Yeah, there were. And one reason for, I think, the lack of memory of that is that we think of women playing softball, specifically in U.S. sports history.

Ben Railton

30:04

And that’s already starting to be a possibility, particularly in schools, secondary schools and colleges and universities in the 30s and 40s, but not yet the dominant possibility that it would become. And there are lots of women’s baseball players and teams. And we’re familiar with the World War II version of it from A League of Their Own, that wonderful movie from the 90s about that short-lived women’s baseball professional league during World War II.

Ben Railton

30:28

But there’s a much deeper history and a longer history of women playing baseball. Semi-pro, professional, barnstorming, Japanese-American women, for example. There’s a number of really prominent semi-pro and barnstorming teams, all of which continue to be part of the World War II incarceration camps, which was the subject of my recent podcast season, baseball at the incarceration camps, both men’s and women’s. So there’s definitely a through line of women playing baseball in these different settings, barnstorming, semi-pro, even at times professional. And yeah, it wasn’t as ubiquitous as men’s barnstorming teams for sure, but it happened and there were players who crossed those gender lines as well as the racial and ethnic ones that we were talking about a second ago. So it’s another part of what makes it so much an inclusive, communal alternative to the professional leagues and the major leagues. And all those histories

Dan LeFebvre

31:20

are kind of there for us to try to keep learning about for sure. Yeah. And that’s, I mean, that’s fascinating because when I was watching the movie, I definitely did get the con. I mean, of course it focuses on being along being along his team. So that makes sense. But I got the concept that these barnstorming teams were primarily coming out of the Negro League, but it sounds like what you’re saying is there were just so many more from all walks of life throughout the entire country that were coming together.

Dan LeFebvre

31:49

And it wasn’t necessarily just this one story from Bingo Long’s team, kind of ex-Negro League players forming their own team, but there were barnstorming teams all over.

Ben Railton

32:03

There were. And so any one team which has its own amazing story always, whether it’s Satchel Pages or The House of David or this historical fiction one, again, then becomes this window into that. And of course, the heart of that is that these are team sports.

Ben Railton

32:19

And so if you have your barnstorming team, you then need these opponents. And the film does a good job representing that question, I think, and reflecting that there’s always going to then be these other communal connections that you need if you’re going to succeed as a team like this. You can’t just show up at a town and play yourselves.

Ben Railton

32:37

You need that opponent. You need those teammates in a broader sense, teammates in the world of barnstorming. And I think any one team opens that up, and Bingos definitely does.

Dan LeFebvre

32:51

Was it the Washington generals that the Globetrotters always play? Well, one of the plot points in the movie involves Bingo losing one of their cars. So they have to harvest potatoes to earn money to win it back at auction, only to find that the opening bid is way above what they earn.

Dan LeFebvre

33:08

And certainly there’s no coincidence that the auctioneer just happens to own a car lot and he just happens to be the winning bidder himself. So Bingo tries to steal one of the cars from the lot. Can you break down some of the hardships that barnstorming teams actually face compared to what we’re seeing here in the movie?

Ben Railton

33:27

Yeah. And I appreciate that question right now, because I do want to say I was just talking about how, you know, any one barnstorming team is connected to others and teams of black players have these connections to other teams. But that doesn’t mean that the experiences were identical across these different teams and communities. And so, for example, when you learn about Japanese American teams, you read about a lot of the prejudice and limits they often encountered in different communities, in different settings, from different audiences.

Ben Railton

33:56

And that’s definitely the case with black barnstorming teams, as it was for black athletes in so many ways across at least the century of American history from the end of the Civil War through the Civil Rights era, and of course didn’t end there. And so, yeah, there are specific challenges that black barnstorming teams and black players and teams in general faced. And they’re not limited to segregation, although, of course, that was a constant question of accommodations, of food, of all of those aspects of segregation around the country, Baptist and the South.

Ben Railton

34:28

And it’s not limited to the threat of violence, although, again, of course, that was a very real concern. And I know when you read the accounts from people like Satchel Paige, they talk about certain communities that they definitely would never have barnstormed at, right? Places that were known as sundown towns, for example, as communities that had that explicit threat of violence.

Ben Railton

34:48

So both of those things, segregation and the threat of violence on the most sort of broad and crucial historical level were real realities. But I think that sequence in the movie also just captures, A, how much barnstorming was kind of about having to scramble a lot of the time to kind of make things keep working. And B, how much that scramble had a different tone for athletes of color.

Ben Railton

35:12

And I think the potato scene, it’s still played for laughs in a lot of ways. This is a comic movie. It’s a PG rated movie. And I appreciate that tone. But there’s an undercurrent there, right? At least some of these folks, Rainbow, as an example, had been laborers in the fields before they had their chance at baseball. We know that from their story.

Ben Railton

35:32

And when they have to send Randall away, they’re sending him potentially back to work in the fields again. They know that. And so when they have to kind of go back to work in the fields in order to try to pay enough to keep going, to raise enough money to keep going, there’s an undertone there. There’s an undertone that reminds us of some of these challenges.

Ben Railton

35:51

And again, it’s exaggerated. It’s played for effect in a film, but it does get at, as does the need potentially to commit crimes, which, of course, if they get caught by the authorities in the town where they have stolen that car, where Bingo has stolen that car, it’s anybody’s guess, or perhaps it’s not even a guess, what might happen to them. So I think the film, despite its comic side and tones and exaggerated effects, does really nicely remind us barnstorming wasn’t just an equal or inclusive world for these athletes of color and for black athletes like this.

Ben Railton

36:24

There are undercurrents that they’re connected to of the biggest historical traumas and also just of day to day realities of things like work and the limits of their financial situation. So I think that was all in there. I think barnstorming was a way past some of those things a lot of the time, but it also continued to feature those things. And I’m glad the film gets them in there, particularly in that sequence.

Dan LeFebvre

36:47

Yeah, it’s one of those things, too, in my mind, as you’re talking about that, you know, putting yourself in the historical context of that time period compared to today. When we think of today, you know, these these athletes making millions and millions of dollars and off the field, their focus, their focus is training for the next game and training this and this. And it’s so very different from the experiences that these players had on the barnstorming teams to, I mean, the focus is the next game, but it’s also really the focus is surviving to the next game or, you know, whatever that may be. It’s just so very different. And it makes me appreciate the talent that they had on field and being able to put on that performance and being able to do that despite all of these extra hardships that players these days, thankfully, don’t have nearly as much of.

Ben Railton

37:41

Yeah, I agree. And I think the character who maybe best captures that in the film for me is James Earl Jones’ Leon, who is the one who is worried about getting arrested in that sequence, even though Bingo is the one who stole the car. but just in general, I think because of the gravitas that Jones brought to literally any role he ever performed. And my wife pointed out actually that this is a reunion, actually a preceding of The Empire Strikes Back, right? Darth Vader and Lando Calrissian before they were Darth and Lando are in a film together. And any role that Jones played, including the voice of Darth, of course, he brought that gravitas. But in this film, I think it adds that note for sure, that this is a guy who recognizes some of those realities. Bingo is the flashy frontman, but Leon is the kind of more grounded kind of reality on the other side of that coin. And he’s known those experiences and he knows kind of what they’re up against at times, while he also can be having the barnstorming fun of this delightful comic film with Bingo. So I

Dan LeFebvre

38:49

think he’s a great part of it for that reason well if we go back to the movie the climax of the movie surrounds around a game with bingo’s team and sally’s team he’s kind of the villain owner from the negro leagues and and the deal between bingo and sally basically boils down to if bingo’s team wins they’ll be accepted back into the league as their own team but if sally’s team wins then all the players have to go back to their original teams at half salary did this sort of high stakes baseball game ever happened? Not to my knowledge. The closest one I know

Ben Railton

39:23

is actually the one in Fresno involving Japanese American players and Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. There’s some kind of narrative in the write-up of that, that the Japanese American players were sort of auditioning. There was no unspoken rule quite as explicit for Japanese American players not being able to play in the major leagues, although the first ones don’t until the 1960s. so spoken or unspoken, it doesn’t happen for a long, long time. That game is written about sometimes as a kind of audition, though, as a possibility of the stakes being inclusion versus exclusion. I don’t know of one that had the same layer when it came to black players, certainly not in terms of the Negro Leagues themselves. Compared to barnstorming, I think those remained a little more separate and parallel. And somebody like Satchel Paige was still playing, at least officially, in the Negro Leagues while he was also barnstorming.

Ben Railton

40:15

So the division isn’t quite as clear as it is here. I think this is historical fiction kind of using these symbolic moments and symbolic teams. But what I will say is, as we talked a lot about, that what barnstorming was, was a chance for players to create a different space and a different community and a different reality.

Ben Railton

40:33

And the owners did, I think, recognize that that was a potential threat. And so they did have to respond to that. And they did respond, as I understand it, by doing things like raising salaries and making other kinds of accommodations in their corporate mentality for the players and their rights. So I do think barnstorming offered that and kind of allowed that to happen, not in one game or one moment, but it did force the owners to adjust the way that they responded to players and teams to recognize their contributions and their role. So I think it’s a nice symbolic statement of that and of the owner’s perspective and the player’s perspective, but I don’t think it boiled down to one game in that way.

Dan LeFebvre

41:14

I mean that makes a lot of sense too because history is a lot longer than a movie and so for a movie you do have to condense a lot of things down to gather that sort of essence but it sounds like even if it’s not just one game it sounds like the concept of that was still pretty accurate considering for a much bigger picture trying to squeeze years and years where that contacts into a single game for the sake of the movie

Ben Railton

41:41

Yeah. And I know we’re going to talk in a second about the transition moment that the movie ends with. But I think it’s really important to think about this 1939 kind of representative moment as also really capturing sort of like the first half of the 20th century that baseball begins to integrate in the late 40s, as we’ll get to in a second.

Ben Railton

42:03

But up until that point, these are the worlds of baseball for any athletes who are not able or allowed to be part of the major leagues are these levels of Negro Leagues, barnstorming, semi-pro. And so this one 1939 year, which is a kind of evocative year, right? It allows them to talk about World War II happening over there and beginning over there, the end of the Depression kind of coming, right?

Ben Railton

42:28

there’s a lot that 1939 can capture, but I think it’s also a stand in here for like 40 plus years of histories in really powerful ways that historical fiction can achieve as we’ve been talking about.

Dan LeFebvre

42:40

Well, you touched on that. And at the end of the movie, we see Esquire Joe getting recruited by some scouts from the Brooklyn Dodgers, and that couldn’t help but made me think of Jackie Robinson. Meanwhile, Leon tells Bingo that it’s the beginning of the end for the Negro Leagues because everyone will want to watch black players in the white league instead. Now, we know the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the race barrier, but I’ll admit that most of the stories I’ve heard of that tend to be from the official Major League Baseball documents and not so much the history from other black baseball players who might have known that at the time. So can you give us some historical context around what other black baseball players thought of Jackie Robinson’s breaking the racial

Ben Railton

43:21

barrier into the major leagues? I can. And it’s a really complicated moment and a multilayered question. And I think it gets at, again, how much these things are not just black and white in American history, right? Literally or figuratively. And so Robinson in particular, again, he is playing in the Negro Leagues. He’s also at least partly part of that semi-pro period because he’s a He’s in the army for a time while he’s playing.

Ben Railton

43:53

He has multiple kind of connections to the things that we’ve talked about that this movie opens up. But he’s also, like Esquire Joe, is represented to be a singular talent, right? And one who, an owner like a Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers, who’s not mentioned by name in this film, but is kind of pretty clearly implied as present here, sees as beyond those implicit rules and those unspoken segregations. That was true of Jackie, and it was true, it seems, of Esquire Joe in the film. But for quite a while, that, of course, didn’t mean that that was going to be true for many other players or teams. It didn’t mean that the integration was just going to proceed for everybody, and it didn’t, right? It took some years for it to really begin to open up for multiple players. And again, many more years still for, for example, Japanese American players or other players. It’s a very slow process compared to kind of the Jackie moment, powerful as it was. And so I really like that the film has that sort of bittersweet tone. And yeah, my understanding is that for a lot of African American players, it was bittersweet not only in terms of the end of an era, but also in terms of the what ifs in their own careers, in their own teams and stories that remained the case for many years after 1947 as well. I think that’s partly why Satchel Paige demanded the chance to play even into his late 40s and 50s, because he didn’t want those what-ifs to sort of be the only story when it came to the major leagues. But for most players, that wasn’t the case. That was never the case. It remained these sort of sets of bittersweet questions. But the flip side of that coin is that the barnstorming teams, the Negro Leagues teams, the semi-pro teams, to me, again, are not in any way lesser than white-dominated Major League Baseball through 1950 or so, or even after.

Ben Railton

45:51

And they continue for at least a time, both Negro Leagues and barnstorming certainly continue into the 1950s at least, and then again are being rejuvenated these days in their own ways as well. So if we can not think of it as just a hierarchy, as much as that is a part of the story, it then opens up kind of remembering these alternatives and these other opportunities and communities. And I hope that that remained part of what folks felt as they watched those games, as they played in those games, as they took part in those communities.

Ben Railton

46:22

But this is a bittersweet moment. It is. And the film ending on that note, while still featuring the camaraderie between the two of them at the end, as they imagined their own future and the team’s future.

Ben Railton

46:32

I really like that it includes those multiple tones for that really complicated moment for Joe, for the older players, and for kind of these larger communal questions as well.

Dan LeFebvre

46:43

Well, I’m curious, because you’re talking with Bingo Long kind of being Satchel Paige, and then we see Jackie Robinson, his version moving off too. But then as you’re talking about Leon Carter in the movie being more grounded, but him kind of being like Josh Gibson, Did Josh Gibson actually make the transition to the league? I don’t believe he did.

Ben Railton

47:09

I don’t think he had a chance to. I think he was a little older, like Jones is depicted as here. He had been playing for at least 20 years, probably by the time of Jackie’s opportunity, if I’m remembering his career right.

Ben Railton

47:25

And so I don’t think he had a chance. And he is someone who is seen as the Babe Ruth of the Negro League. in terms of his singular talent as a power hitter and a hitter.

Ben Railton

47:34

And he was a catcher, which is an incredibly difficult position to play as well. And so he is an example. And he’s an example of, A, the bittersweet side of this transition moment.

Ben Railton

47:46

But B, as we’ve started to be better at doing over the last few decades, if we get outside of the one frame of, say, the major leagues and this pretty white-dominated story, of just thinking about his career and his story as its own amazing thing. And I would say the same about, like, I’ve got a lot about this guy who was called the Dean of the Diamond in Japanese-American baseball, Kenichi Zenomura, probably the most famous single Japanese-American player of the first half of the 20th century. He also plays semi-pro ball into his 50s and plays really well at an era when Japanese-American players still couldn’t have a chance at the major leagues in the 1950s, post-World War II.

Ben Railton

48:25

And so if we could just think about a Joss Gipson or a Kenichi Zenimura as equally compelling baseball and American stories, kind of full stop, I hope that that then can break down the hierarchy like these teams and communities kind of worked to break down the hierarchy of it.

Dan LeFebvre

48:42

Yeah, I love that. Baseball is much more than Major League Baseball. There was a much bigger story to it, much bigger history to it, for sure.

Ben Railton

48:49

Yeah, and this film is, of the ones I’m familiar with anyway, the one that opens those up the best. Obviously, there are plenty of baseball movies and stories, including ones that are set way outside of just the major leagues. But they’re often either about kids or about sort of like fandom, like, say, Field of Dreams. But this is a story about those other layers of baseball. And there’s lots of other great stories worth telling from those histories, but I’m really glad that we have this one.

Dan LeFebvre

49:19

Yeah. Well, thank you so much for helping us learn more about the true story behind the movie. I know you’ve written a number of different books and articles and you mentioned your podcast as well. So for my audience that wants to learn more about your work, can you share how they can find it and maybe give them a recommendation for where they can start first?

Ben Railton

49:34

I appreciate that. And I do always say my favorite phrase, my sons make fun of me for it all the time. My favorite phrase is keep the conversation going. And I really do think that’s true. Whenever we have a chance to talk about anything, it’s one piece of a much longer conversation. Any writing is, any podcast is, and I really hope people will. My wife and I have a public scholarly website, which is a great place to start. It’s called Black and White and Red, R-E-A-D, all over.

Ben Railton

49:59

The web address is blackwhiteandredred.com, blackwhiteandred.com. Both of our public scholarship is sort of starts there in a lot of ways these days. There’s a page about my podcast, there’s my daily American Studies blog, and then there’s info about a lot of the other work that I’ve had a chance to do. So that’s a great place to start, both for my work overall and for those two seasons of my Baseball in American History podcast, which is linked to on a page on that website as well. And then the other one I’ll just quickly mention because it feels so relevant and not unrelated to this film and this story. My most recent book, which is from 2021, but it’s about the history of patriotism in America and specifically about sort of alternatives to how we often think about patriotism, which I call mythic patriotism, and which can be pretty top-down and pretty exclusionary. I think this film kind of reminds us of those alternative histories, those alternative stories that could be seen as kind of essentially American. So that book is called Of The I Sing, about these different versions of patriotism and American identity.

Ben Railton

51:00

And if people have a chance or are interested, they can shoot me an email. I have an electronic version of it that I’m happy to send. Folks, you don’t have to buy it if you want to check it out.

Ben Railton

51:09

It’s another way to think about how we tell these American stories.

Dan LeFebvre

51:12

Fantastic. I’ll make sure to add those links in the show notes for this as well. Thank you so much for your time, Ben.

Ben Railton

51:16

Thanks so much for chatting, Dan. Really appreciate it.

Dan LeFebvre

51:28

This episode of Based on a True Story was produced by me, Dan LeFebvre. If you want even more baseball history, pull up the podcast app that you’re using to listen to this right now and search for Ben’s baseball history podcast called Baseball, Bigotry, and the Battle for America to queue it up right after we’re done here. And don’t forget, you can find more of Ben’s work at blackwhiteandred.com, that’s R-E-A-D.com, or find those links in the show notes.

Dan LeFebvre

51:54

And of course, everything we talked about today will be linked over at basehuntatruestorypodcast.com slash 389. While you queue up Ben’s podcast in your podcast app, let’s find out the answer to our two trues and a lie game from the beginning of the episode. And as a quick refresher, here are the two trues and one lie again.

Dan LeFebvre

52:11

Number one, Bingo Long was based on Jackie Robinson. Number two, barnstorming teams were tied to labor activism and workers’ rights. Number three, black barnstorming teams often played white teams.

Dan LeFebvre

52:27

Did you figure out which one is a lie? I’ve got the envelope right here. So let’s open that up and find out.

Dan LeFebvre

52:34

And the lie is number one. Ben explained that Bingo Long’s closest real-life match, not Jackie Robinson, but the legendary pitcher Satchel Paige. That’s the closest one-to-one match for Bingo Long and Satchel Paige.

Dan LeFebvre

52:49

But Ben did explain that Jackie Robinson’s influence can be seen in the character of Esquire Joe in the movie. As always, thank you for your continued support listening to. And if you have a baseball fan in your family or friends group, Feel free to share this episode of Based on a True Story so they know a little bit more about the real history of baseball.

Dan LeFebvre

53:10

If you’re watching the video version of this, stick around for the credits. And if you can find out my cat’s name and email it to me, I’ll send you a Based on a True Story sticker. Thanks again for watching, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Dan LeFebvre

53:47

Thank you.

Dan LeFebvre

00:01

Hello, and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. Today, we’re digging into Christopher Nolan’s epic film, The Odyssey. Now, normally, I like to kick off each episode with a synopsis of the movie, but we’re going to skip that today because as of this recording, The Odyssey is still in the theaters, so I don’t want to have any spoilers right off the bat. Instead, I’m going to give you a spoiler alert for the rest of the episode, because when we connect with our guests for today’s episode, we’re covering the historical perspective of the key plot points in the movie.

00:35

And that means there will be spoilers for those key plot points. So if you don’t want any spoilers, I’d highly recommend watching the movie first and then maybe cue this up for the trip home from the theater. In the meantime, if you want a spoiler free episode recommendation, check out my chat with Neil Laird about the 2004 movie Troy. That’s about the Trojan War, and that can be a great to help you get more context around what you’re going to see in the Odyssey as well.

01:00

Hop in the show notes for a link to that episode. And while you’re there, check out Neil’s work because he’s coming back today to talk about the Odyssey. Neil Laird is a TV director and executive producer for over 100 programs and counting for National Geographic, BBC, Discovery, PBS, and more.

01:17

If you’ve ever seen those TV documentaries that take you to the ancient places, there’s a good chance you’ve seen Neil’s work. He’s been to the real places depicted in the movie, and he’s also the author of the Primetime Travelers series, which is about to have a new addition to the series called Primetime Troy. Once again, you can learn more about his books with the links in the show notes or on the show’s home on the web for today’s episode over at basedonatruestorypodcast.com slash 388.

01:44

Okay, now it’s time to set up our game for today’s episode. If you’re new to the show, since Based on a True Story is all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills as separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie. So I’m about to give you three little facts that we’ll talk about in this episode.

02:03

Two of those are true, and one of them is just an all-out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are.

02:10

Number one, Telemachus is Odysseus and Penelope’s son. Number two, Odysseus travels to Hades to speak to the dead. Number three, Menelaus came up with the idea for the Trojan horse.

02:26

Got him? Okay, now as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope.

02:34

This has the answer inside, and we’ll open it at the end of the episode to see if you got it right. And this is your final spoiler alert, because it’s time to connect with Neil Laird about the historical accuracy of the Odyssey.

Dan LeFebvre

02:54

As longtime listeners of Based on a True Story know, I always like to start off with a letter grade for the historical accuracy of a movie. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Homer’s Odyssey wasn’t ever supposed to be a true history of events. I’ve always been under the impression it’s more like what we’d call a historical novel today. Some elements of history mixed with some elements of fact, fiction to tell a good story. So I’d like to start off with a two-part question.

03:19

One, was Homer’s Odyssey supposed to be a telling of actual historical events? And then two, instead of a historical accuracy for the movie, can you give us a letter grade for how well the movie adheres to Homer’s original version of the story?

Neil Laird

03:31

Sure. And it’s two very different questions in a way, because when Homer was writing this, I don’t think people were looking for veracity or historical fiction, or even history was already, you know, woven in with myth and stuff. There was no delineation mark into what was true and what was not, I think.

03:48

The key thing to remember is Homer was writing about the so-called Trojan War four or five hundred years after it supposedly happened. So by the time he was telling this story, it was already intermixed with other people telling it. If Homer was one person or not, we don’t even know.

04:03

But if he did exist, he was just hearing all this stuff that was being retold and retold and retold and added and subtracted over the centuries. So he was already so far from when the events of the Bronze Age Troy happened that he couldn’t have possibly known the truth. And anybody sitting under that tree listening and wouldn’t have known it either.

04:23

They were not going to the museum. They did not have a cheat sheet. They were not Googling it.

04:28

They knew nothing except for what that blind man was telling them. And that was So as long as it’s a good story. It’s a good tale.

04:35

You know, it’s a boring night here in Corinth. You know, let’s gather on the olive tree and hear a story.

Dan LeFebvre

04:42

So what would your letter grade be for how well it adheres to his story then?

Neil Laird

04:46

And I thought about this. It’s interesting because at first, knowing the text so well, of course, having just written a book about it, I was in a rabbit hole for a year. But that surprisingly is faithful.

04:57

He’s made some interesting changes we’ll talk about. But I say in terms of staying close to Homer’s version, I’d give it an A minus. Wow. OK.

05:06

even a B plus somewhere in that vague area. But yeah, he clearly knows and loves his Homer and he didn’t want to lose the important bits. He just condensed and moved things around for a modern audience.

Dan LeFebvre

05:18

Sure, which you would expect in a movie anyway. What Homer was doing. Just following the source.

Neil Laird

05:25

Yeah, exactly.

Dan LeFebvre

05:27

Well, you’re talking about the Trojan War and there are a lot of elements of the Trojan War in the movie. And the last time we talked, we talked about the 2004 Troy movie starring Brad Pitt It’s a fun little fact trick. Christopher Nolan was originally going to direct that movie before it ultimately went to Wolfgang Peterson.

05:43

But we do see some overlap of the characters in both movies. There’s Odysseus. He’s played by Matt Damon in The Odyssey.

05:48

He’s played by Sean Bean in 2004’s Troy. Menelaus is played by Brennan Gleeson in the 2004 movie and then portrayed by Jon Bernthal in this one. There’s also overlap of the story.

05:58

In 2004’s Troy, it kind of focuses on the Trojan War itself. And then The Odyssey has flashbacks of the war, but it’s mostly set after the war is over and the men are trying to return home. So I know we’re really talking about the 2026, the Odyssey today, but can you fill in some historical context that we know around maybe these two tales and how they’re tied together?

06:17

Well, we don’t know.

Neil Laird

06:18

Again, we’re talking so far in history. It’s not like, oh, that was a hit. Let’s do a sequel.

06:22

It’s not quite like today. It’s, but again, Homer, and I always have people cautious. A lot of people do things that was a Homer, but again, he could have just been the name they put on these two epic poems about the Trojan War. The first one, Trojan War, if everyone’s remember the Iliad, which is the first one sequentially, it only takes place over no more than six weeks. It’s just the last six weeks of the war doesn’t include the Trojan horse and it doesn’t end with the fall of Troy. It’s all about characters that are really surprisingly not mentioned at all in this book. While you mentioned the characters are in this one, there’s no mention of Achilles. There’s no mention of Patroclus. There’s no Prime. There’s no Hector. There is no Paris. They’re not mentioned at all. And they, of course, are the principal characters in the emotional core of the Iliad here. And I think Christopher Nolan did this wisely. And we talk about 80s. It’s a very interesting choice he made because Achilles is a big part of that. He doesn’t appear here. So it comes out after sequentially, whether it was something that people told years later because they loved it, we don’t know. But the only overlap is the fact that Odysseus gets his own spinoff. That’s really what it is.

Dan LeFebvre

07:41

So maybe not a sequel as far as the books, but in the movie, it’s kind of like a sequel.

Neil Laird

07:45

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Dan LeFebvre

07:48

Well, you talked about it in one of the overlapping stories in both the 2004 Troy movie and then 2026 as the Odyssey is the concept of the Trojan horse. And in the Odyssey, it’s literally just a wooden horse. There’s no wheels or anything extra. It’s just a horse that’s actually half buried in the sand. As the tides come in, some of the men drown inside before the Trojans find it and then move it into the city. And then, of course, we know what happens there. How well do you think

Neil Laird

08:12

the Odyssey visualizes the story of the Trojan horse? Well, it’s interesting. First of all, the Iliad doesn’t mention it at all because, you know, everything happens.

08:22

You don’t see the fall of Troy at all. It’s only mentioned very, very briefly, even in the Odyssey, which is very interesting. It’s just kind of mentioned in a paragraph.

08:32

You don’t get inside that horse. They talk about Odysseus being clever and being the one to come up with it. But beyond that, it’s almost given this cursory knockoff.

08:42

This is how the war ended. Let’s get on with the adventure home. So it’s fascinating how we spend so much time talking about the Trojan Hors.

08:50

In both the film versions, they talk about it. They give it far more scene work. They give it far more focus than Homer ever did in either epic.

Dan LeFebvre

09:00

Do we know, like, how did it become so popular then? I mean, why do you think we focus on it so much?

Neil Laird

09:05

I think it’s a great story. And the thing about the Odyssey and the Iliad, it’s been retold again and again, which is why we can’t grouse about Christopher Nolan telling his version. You know, we have the Enid, you know, talking about it, Virgil.

09:22

And it’s mentioned in there as well, I believe. That’s the Roman version of how Rome was set up. It’s one of those things that’s so visual.

09:28

I think it just catches on after the fact. I’ve done so many shows when I was a documentary filmmaker about what the Trojan horse could have been. Could have been a battering ram, could have been a ship.

09:39

People love to kind of go back to this well and try to figure it out. Because in the face of it, and something else I mentioned in my book, it’s kind of absurd. It’s hard to imagine anyone falling for this thing.

09:49

One thing that Nolan did, I thought was brilliant, that Wolfgang Peterson did not do, and he probably should have because there’s more time focused on it, is he leaves it as a berry in the sand. The whole thing is rather being a gift, you know, never beware Greeks bearing gifts. That’s, of course, where the phrase comes from.

10:07

In Troy, 2004, it’s offered to King Prime and the Trojans and left behind. It’s sort of like, you know, peace offering because we’ve left and we did it for Athena, but you can have it. But Nolan makes it buried as if it’s abandoned, as if it was never meant to go inside.

10:23

That it’s this thing they didn’t need and they scurried away and left it. So that was a brilliant device to make them think like, well, you know, we might as well take it because obviously it was never meant as anything. Couldn’t possibly be a ruse.

10:37

It was just abandoned by people who fled.

Dan LeFebvre

10:39

Right, right, spoils of war almost.

Neil Laird

10:41

Yeah, exactly, yeah. It spoils of war, yeah, exactly.

Dan LeFebvre

10:44

Yeah. Well, it sounds like the movie version is correct then because in the way it shows Odysseus being the one that comes up with it, would that be correct then?

Neil Laird

10:53

It is, yes. Odysseus in, once again, it’s not mentioned a lot in The Odyssey, not mentioned at all in Iliad. And he is said, you know, he’s sort of the POV character or whoever it was, or those third person.

11:08

And it’s mentioned that he kind of saves the war by creating the horse. So it is attributed to him. And again, we can talk about this whenever, but I think one of the biggest differences between Homer version of the Odyssey and Nolan’s is that the character of Odysseus, he’s much more of this wily character.

11:29

He’s much more of this sort of too clever by half guy. He’s the smartest guy in the room, but he’s also arrogant and makes a lot of mistakes. And I have to think that happened in the Odyssey is because it went to his head and he just made dumb, dumb decisions.

11:41

But he’s the one in the, someone mentioned it in an article, an interview I was reading today or some review, saying he was sort of the hand solo to Luke Skywalker, the first one. He was that wry character on the side that was too smart for the room, but he didn’t really imagine him as being anything more than kind of like the gruff, witty, you know, secondary player. Well, he gravitates toward to become the lead after everybody else is dead in the second one.

12:08

And he’s that character in Homer. But he’s a much more morose, much more thoughtful, much less clever, you know, trickster than he is in the original in Nolan’s version. A very interesting choice.

Dan LeFebvre

12:22

Well, if we head back into the movie after the Trojan War, a majority of the movie that is about the long journey home for Odysseus. That’s why we use the term Odyssey today to refer to a long journey. Along the way, Odysseus and his men need to stop on land to restock provisions.

12:36

And when they do that, they run into a number of challenges. The first time they find land, they follow a sheep into a cave that just so happens to be the home of a huge cyclops. It kills many of the men before they manage to escape.

12:47

Then the next land that they find turns out to be the home of giants and silver armor that slaughter even more of their men. It seems like every time Odysseus and his men make land, they end up running back to their ships just barely in the nick of time. Well, I guess for some of them, each encounter ends up having more and more men dying along the way. And I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that some of those foes were part of the reason why maybe even the ancient Greeks didn’t think that Homer’s Odyssey was entirely factual. But did the movie accurately show us the sort of enemies across various lands that Odysseus encountered on his journey home? It did. I mean, he changes,

Neil Laird

13:24

he condenses a few, changes the order of one or two. But yes, that’s exactly the beast and the trouble. Everything is about preventing Odysseus and his crew from getting home. Everything isn’t just an obstacle. When you get to Circe, when we get to Ecclipsa, they’re all different ways to prevent them from seeing home. So Homer’s creating all kinds of obstacles, be they cyclopses or giants throwing boulders, that prevents them that. I don’t think the audience from Bronze Age, Greece, or wherever, thought these creatures were real. What’s interesting is I did a documentary years ago, series for Discovery Channel called Mythical Beasts. I remember one episode we did where they would find, they were finding dinosaur bones in the 1800s or whatever, triceratops or things like that. And if those were found earlier, people could look at them a couple hundred years later and say, could that have been a cyclox? Because like a triceratops, a big hole for the horn or…

14:21

So, you know, if they’re looking for bones, if people come across it, they may think that people in the past had this. But keep in mind that when they were listening to it, it was already half a millennia later. So it’s like us talking about the Dark Ages, King Arthur and all that stuff.

14:37

Dragons could have existed in 716 AD. We don’t know. They all died off. So it’s highly possible people believed it in a way. That’s the way it was in the olden days, but not anymore.

Dan LeFebvre

14:48

That’s a fascinating aspect that I hadn’t really thought about that. It makes you wonder. I mean, I guess it just makes me wonder, hundreds of years from now, what will people think of things that we believe today?

Neil Laird

15:02

Oh, I love that. There was a wonderful book years ago. You should think it up called Hotel of Mysteries.

15:09

And this is to the side. You can cut this out if you want. But it was the 80s or 90s, and it was written as an archaeologist in the future came across a Motel 6 or some sort of road.

Dan LeFebvre

15:18

Oh, Motel Mystery. I think I’ve seen that. Yeah, I think I’ve read that. Yeah, yeah.

Neil Laird

15:21

And it was just, and everything’s wrong. Everything, everything is a votive thing. I remember the biggest, the toilet bowl seat was supposed to be the crown of the king. And the toilet, of course, was the throne. That’s how we look at the past. We assume everything is more important sometimes than it is. It could have just been a, you know.

Dan LeFebvre

15:39

Everything is this major religious sanctuary that this is the most important part of the.

Neil Laird

15:45

Exactly. And just some dive out there in Route 30.

Dan LeFebvre

15:50

Well, you mentioned briefly one of the places that the men land on in the movie turns out to be inhabited by something other than a fierce army trying to kill them. It’s actually something a little more unsettling. While Odysseus is left behind with the ship to hunt for food in sort of a kind of a mini mutiny by the men over so many deaths that’s happening.

16:07

Odysseus men venture inland when they pass by some big cats. There’s like a lion, a panther, a tiger, all leading up to the home of a single woman living inside named Cersei. She’s played by Samantha Morton.

16:18

And at first, she seems scared by the men entering her home. Understandably, there’s these warriors entering her home, but then they reassure her that they mean no harm and they just need food, so she offers them some food. And then as the men eat, they just can’t seem to stop eating.

16:32

They just keep eating and eating. Meanwhile, down by the ships, Odysseus shoots a deer to approach, and then he approaches the dead body to find that it’s actually a dead man lying there. And Cersei’s food seems to put some sort of a spell on Odysseus’ men.

16:47

she transforms them into the pigs in this really uh kind of a strange scene where she’s like molding them almost like pottery but then when Odysseus realizes that there’s something sinister at play on the island he almost falls into Cersei’s trap before he notices one of the men’s rings and bull and then he says that he’ll kill Cersei’s crow which is actually her sister if she doesn’t turn the men back so she does and that’s it seems crazy but that’s kind of a nutshell of that whole scene and that’s how Odysseus finds out that he needs to get home through Hades at the end Cersei kind of gives him the path back home. How much of this storyline that we see in the movie happening with Cersei happened in Homer’s Odyssey?

Neil Laird

17:24

Just about everything you said actually does. It’s faithful, but he changes the tone where Odysseus doesn’t figure out himself that his men have been turned to pigs by going there. I think one of them escapes and comes down and tells him.

17:39

And then as he’s going up the mountain to save them, I believe it’s Hermes, the god Hermes, god of war, gives him a potion. I think it’s called Polly or something. I don’t know what it could have been.

17:52

Molly. It’s called Molly. That’s what it was.

17:54

Some sort of herb or whatever that prevents him from falling victim to it. So he goes in knowing already. And when he sits down, he instantly draws his sword, which we see in the Nolan version.

18:07

And she quickly capitulates. She also realizes the spell is not going to work. Everything’s going to fall apart.

18:13

And she is the offspring of a god already. It gets very kind of convoluted who’s there, why she’s there. She’s sort of been sent to the side, and she’s not kind of happy.

18:21

But in this case, she instantly restores them. And not only does she restore them, but they stay for a year on the islet. She becomes Odysseus’ lover.

18:34

And the others stay there, and they’re in no rush to get home at this point, I guess. They’re eating well, and they’re hanging out. And she becomes an ally.

18:41

And it’s only when someone comes and says he has to leave and go, I think is when you go once again, he could have stayed there and had a long, happy life with her. I think it’s the men. I think the men finally get itchy and say, OK, it’s time to go after a year.

18:55

They’re waiting for his love to fall off. But so she’s a much less sinister character in that. But the rest of the thing else you mentioned all does happen to turn the pigs and all.

19:05

That’s one of those classic scenes in the book. And Odysseus does sort of save the day. But he has help. It’s not just that he goes in there and he catches himself.

19:16

Thank God the gods intervene. The gods are almost nowhere to be seen in this, which is a very interesting choice, just like Wolfgang Peterson did in Troy. And it’s probably the right choice. But in this case, it looks like he came up with a solution himself when all the way through the Odyssey, he’s getting help.

Dan LeFebvre

19:31

Yeah, which is interesting because, yeah, in Nolan’s version of the Odyssey, like I mentioned, he shoots the deer and then he sees it’s a human body. almost instantly he seems to know that there’s something sinister, which to me kind of tells me that he already has this belief that there could be something magical going on or there could be these elements going on and he can figure it out by himself without any outside help.

Neil Laird

19:54

But I also think, and I don’t mind that, I don’t mind seeing the extra help because you want your hero to be a hero, but I do think the turn is a bit quick. I think it’s a weak moment. She’s quite good in the film, Morton, but she turns very quick.

20:06

Okay, you’re right, I’ll restore them. where before she simply couldn’t fight him because he had the gods on his side and he had a potion that prevented him from turning into whatever animal she wanted. So she knew she was sort of stivy.

Dan LeFebvre

20:21

The movie doesn’t really explain much of Cersei’s story. She’s kind of hanging out on the island by herself.

Neil Laird

20:26

I forget. I’m not the person to talk about that mythology, but I think she’s banished there. She’s a daughter of a god, and forgive me, I didn’t. don’t retain exactly what the backstory was before Homer, but she sort of sent there in exile.

Dan LeFebvre

20:44

Okay.

Neil Laird

20:44

So you can imagine why she’s a bit grumpy.

Dan LeFebvre

20:47

Yeah. I mean, she’s kind of there by herself. It was kind of strange that she’s just there and seems to, uh, because I mean, I’m assuming all the other animals that we see, like with the deer. And then I’m assuming that the big cats that we see, those are all other men that have just happened upon the island.

Neil Laird

21:03

You wonder how many people come looking, but looking for food. I guess it’s kind of like, it’s like, It’s like a truck stop. Let’s pull over here and get some fixings and we’ll move on.

Dan LeFebvre

21:12

Yeah, I think there actually is almost a little nod to that too. If I remember right, when the men, she tells them to take the armor off out in the back. And then you kind of see that there’s other armor that’s laying there.

Neil Laird

21:25

But grass is kind of grown over. This is what she does.

Dan LeFebvre

21:27

Yeah, yeah.

Neil Laird

21:29

Red flag. Right. I’m going to move on.

21:31

You know what? I’m not going to have that stew. I think I’m going to.

21:34

There’s a nice chicken stop up the street. I’m going to hit that.

Dan LeFebvre

21:36

There you go. Well, after they leave Cersei’s island, she tells Odysseus that he must go to Hades. He does, and while he’s there, he speaks to many of the dead men who fought beside him at Troy.

21:47

One of them is Sinon, who was the soldier that they left behind to tell the lie about the Trojan horse being a gift to Athena. And he also learns there that Agamemnon was murdered by his wife upon his return in retaliation for his sacrificing their daughter for favorable win at the start of the war. And then from this encounter, again, is when Sinan asks Odysseus to pay back the disgrace to Antinous, the rich child who Sinan was sent to war and his death in place of.

22:18

And there also Agamemnon warns Odysseus not to make the same mistake that he did by returning as a hero and instead hide himself and assess the situation of his return. Was this scene in Hades close to Homer’s Odyssey?

Neil Laird

22:31

Except for Agamemnon was there and the guy who tells him to avoid eating the the the cattle that was there. But really was the big difference that that that Nolan has made. And it’s an interesting one. It’s not about the hero of the war.

22:49

The biggest person people remember that that he meets in Hades is Achilles, who was there and saying very famous quote saying that I would rather be the pauper. alive today than be the king of the dead now. Don’t follow my lead. Don’t be the glorious hero.

23:08

It’s not worth it. So all these people, his mother comes up to him, who’s not in here, crying, say, I died waiting for you. So a lot of it is the people in his past that come there. But here, I think Nolan wants to make it very much about his own grief about the dead that died on his watch.

23:28

the whole I’m supposed to say Sinon

Dan LeFebvre

23:33

I pronounce it Sinon S-I-N-O-N and it actually comes from Virgil

Neil Laird

23:39

that’s not in Homer at all that character does not exist in Homer that is a Latin Roman edition later on so that whole thing and even then he plays with that idea where he doesn’t trick him at all he doesn’t You know, you see him at the beginning guarding the horse, and he’s very angry in death that you lied to me. But even in the Aeneid, he knows it’s a ruse, and he knows that his part is to convince them that it really is an abandoned gift to it. So he’s in on the roots.

24:15

Here he’s being manipulated, and that whole thing is a creation of Nolan. And as we see as we get towards the end, you see why, because his grief is all about the people that he let die. It’s not about the heroes. It’s no longer about Achilles. It’s no longer about Agamemnon. It really is about the people that he let perish on his watch in his hubris, in his one-time destruction of culture and people and civilization.

Dan LeFebvre

24:44

Yeah, and it kind of seems to be adding a little bit here and there. This is one part of it, but also the element of his decision to be the one to come up with the Trojan horse and that whole element. Right, right. Kind of starting some of this destruction.

Neil Laird

25:00

I mean, he brought down Troy, and that’s why, if we jump to the end, why he feels so terrible about it at the end. There is none of that sense of, I shouldn’t have done this in Hover. In that age, you wouldn’t have even talked about that.

25:14

It wasn’t about feeling sorry for war because it was a very brutal time. They were in constant state of war back then. So that whole strand of his guilt.

25:25

If you look at most of Nolan’s films, it’s all about the guys feeling guilty about what they did or about their remorse or those kind of things looking back. So it was very keeping with his canon, but it’s not from Homer.

Dan LeFebvre

25:37

Okay, okay. Yeah, that’s interesting. As you mentioned, that kind of ties back into with Oppenheimer.

Neil Laird

25:43

that moment of him doing that yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah if he regressed everything you did

Dan LeFebvre

25:48

exactly yeah well earlier we talked about some of the enemies on land but i’d like to shift to the seas now because after the men leave cersei’s place they encounter a series of challenges on the seas first they have to survive the song of the sirens all the men put wax in their ears but odysseus decides to be tied to the mass so he can be the only one to hear the song and survive the movie doesn’t let us hear the song but watching Matt Damon’s version of Odysseus reacting it seems to be quite a torturous song one of the men even takes the wax out of his ears and jumps in the water to swim to where the sirens are and presumably then to his death but then after surviving the Song of Sirens there’s a huge whirlpool Odysseus knows that that will kill all of them but if they avoid it only six of the men will be killed by Scylla the monster on the cliff and that’s exactly what happens we see these huge tentacles coming out of the cliff and taking some of the men from the boat as it passes. Was the movie true to the source material for these challenges that Odysseus faced with his men on the seas?

Neil Laird

26:48

Yeah, I would say 85% absolutely. The sirens were very much calling them to shipwreck and he did want to listen to it. I never thought about it until I watched the film.

27:01

Why does he want to listen to it? I mean, what help is it by hearing it? I didn’t think about that when I read the text, but it was like both arrogant and was also both unnecessary.

27:09

You should have plugged your ears up too and just moved on. Because there were two changes in both the stories. They’re small ones and they’re obviously done for dramatic effect.

27:19

In the siren scene, we have the young guy who, one of the sailors, one plugs his ears and dives in. That doesn’t happen in Homer. No one dies.

27:27

They just, everyone just follows his ear. They watch him and say, I don’t want to hear what he’s hearing or whatever and they move on. So that scene was just added, I guess, to pump up the drama of, how horrible and how you know how much of a laura was and it’s an interesting um change which i don’t quite understand why he did i’m curious what you think um when he has to choose from the world pool and the and the the flesh-eating monster in in nolan’s version in the film version he makes it sound like a second in command overrules him and chooses he says let’s go to the world pool and they don’t believe him anymore say no no we’re gonna go this way instead and then they eat so i don’t but in in homer he’s the one that says no we’re not going to whirlpool he chooses where they’re going no one was questioning his authority at all so it’s interesting why they did that i guess is to show the men are ready to but immediately they don’t know we trust him their faith is in him is

Dan LeFebvre

28:23

starting to dim what did you think about when you saw that well i thought because um when that was in the sequence of events because it was cersei that that kind of told him what was going to happen and in some of those you know like with the war call everybody was going to die so he knew these things but he didn’t tell his men all of these things but also it was on cersei’s island that they kind of had that little meaning mutiny so the impression that i got was he doesn’t think his men will uh do what he says it’s almost like they he had the impression that they’re going to do the opposite of what he says anyway because they don’t trust his leadership anymore i didn’t

Neil Laird

29:00

think that was earned i thought that was a false note because it wasn’t like we were seeing it build up that except for the mutiny scene there yeah we didn’t see his command it wasn’t like a a you know captain bligh thing where everything is moving right it was just suddenly he says i’ll tell the wrong things how do you know he’s going to overrule him i think okay we’ll do the world pull then they’re all going to die so it was just an interesting thing i’m not sure why he did it It’s probably for what we guess, but it wasn’t in Homer, and I’m not sure they needed it.

Dan LeFebvre

29:30

Yeah, that’s interesting. In Homer’s version, did Odysseus know any of those things ahead of time and not tell his men? He knew exactly what was in the film.

Neil Laird

29:40

He knew that they would all die if they went to the World Bowl, and only six would die if they chose the awful critter. So he knew that going in. So he already just chose that as he got there. He saw the difference. He saw which way to go, and he went right instead of left.

Dan LeFebvre

29:53

Did he tell his men that?

Neil Laird

29:55

I don’t think he did, no. I don’t think so.

Dan LeFebvre

29:58

Okay.

Neil Laird

29:58

I don’t even think they know. I don’t think they ever hear in Homer. A classicist might correct me on this. I don’t think he ever says, oh, the gods say you’re all going to die.

Dan LeFebvre

30:08

Yeah. Well, the impression that I got from the movie’s version was because of their, with that little mutiny, even though as small as it was, it was because of the decisions that Odysseus was making was causing so many of them to die. I got the impression that he couldn’t make a decision that he knew would make them die.

30:32

They wouldn’t go along with that in any way. I mean, I don’t know. It was an interesting decision.

Neil Laird

30:37

I mean, it was his choice, and he sort of had the right to make it. I didn’t think they needed it. I didn’t think it was earned, as I say. I didn’t feel like they would mutiny that quickly because everything else he was doing that was being accepted by them was just that one little moment.

Dan LeFebvre

30:53

Yeah, yeah, which maybe would make more sense. Maybe they’ll come out with an extended edition and have a little more explanation of that.

Neil Laird

30:59

There’s 20 minutes on the floor where we see, it’s a mutiny montage. The mutiny montage, there we go. They did some 80s music.

Dan LeFebvre

31:10

The Eye of the Tiger, okay.

Neil Laird

31:11

Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth. There we go.

Dan LeFebvre

31:16

Well, if we go back to the movie, after they’re surviving so much, there’s one last plot of land men find. It’s an island where the sun god Apollo keeps his herds of cattle, and Cersei had warned that Odysseus’s men would kill the cattle, angering the gods and then leading to their death. So at this point, Odysseus actually warns the men and tells them not to kill any of the cows, and they agree not to, but they have to make land to get water and repair their ships, because as they were turning to avoid the whirlpool, like a bunch of their oars broke, and so they have to repair the ship. And that seems to work for a while, but then the winds that brought them into the island never change. And after a somewhat undetermined amount of time, they just talk about how their provisions run out. So it must’ve been a long time. And then the men end up killing a cow, angering the gods anyway. And then the wind finally dies down. And that just kind of turns out to be a trap that lured them into the ocean. So the guy to the sea, Poseidon could kill the men, but Odysseus himself wasn’t involved in that. He didn’t kill the cow. So Zeus won’t let him be killed. Instead, their boat is split in half and Odysseus is sent adrift. Well, we can presume that his men are all killed at sea. How well does the movie depict this whole plot around Apollo’s cattle

Neil Laird

32:25

and the rest of Odysseus’ men dying? That’s pretty spot on. That’s pretty much how it appeared in the epic poem. There’s not too many changes there. So he really just kept to the point of that, kept to the bone of that, because it really is them sort of giving up in a way. That is them finally succumbing to their own fate.

32:45

And Odysseus has no part of it. He also has a protection the Gauze members and they’re whispering his ear where the guys are not. So he always has a bit of help.

32:53

But I don’t think he had protection this time. He just knew not to eat the cattle. But all that comes right from the source.

Dan LeFebvre

32:59

Do we know how long they were on there for?

Neil Laird

33:02

Because the movie is kind of vague about that. I don’t recall. No, I don’t think they do. And they always exaggerate. They always say, like, you know, there were 16 years.

Dan LeFebvre

33:09

It could have been. Well, you’re talking about being on Circe’s Island for over a year. I mean, that’s not anything like what we see in the movie. No, it all happens at 10 minutes.

Neil Laird

33:17

They just leave and they go. They don’t know that they bed down and become lovers, and everyone else goes off and hunts and fishes for a year. So, you know, dates are always loose.

33:27

So you go back to the Elyia, they say the war went on for 10 years, and Odysseus has been gone for 20. That’s a long time. And we even talk about distances because it’s all a bit silly.

33:36

And I do, as you know, I do cruise lectures talking about, among other things, Troy in my books. And I cruise the Aegean all the time. And you can get from Troy to Sicily in a day and a half.

33:48

It ain’t that long. It isn’t that hard to cross the Aegean.

Dan LeFebvre

33:51

But you’re not oaring like that. You’re not rowing like that.

Neil Laird

33:54

Yeah, that’s true. It’s true. I’m on a Holland America.

34:02

But the point is, of course, they were blown off course. But if you look at interactive maps and things of where they think things could have been, and of course, no one can know, what are you talking about? The Aegean, the Greek islands, Sicily and Italy, and maybe down in Malta or something, Crete, it’s not that far.

34:22

So these places are not huge distances. So it’s hard to imagine it took them 10 years to get home, even with all those complications.

Dan LeFebvre

34:30

During that time period, were those areas mapped? Like, would they have known? Oh, sure.

Neil Laird

34:36

Yeah, I mean, look, I think this is, you know, pre-Greek, this is 1000 BC. When it happened, they said that the Trojan War happened as maybe 1100, 1200 BC, right before the collapse of the Bronze Age. And those places were not Greek yet, but you had the Mycenaeans, you had the Phoenicians, you had the, who was on, the Minoans of Crete.

35:02

So you already had these cultures. Egypt was in full soul glory. In fact, Egypt was already 2,000 years old at the time.

35:07

So history was not, the world was not young at that point. Civilization had been around for 2,000 or 3,000 years. So these places were pretty well mapped and pretty well documented at this point.

35:19

They may still have been rough. And they had one very interesting thing they brought up, totally new. And you didn’t have this in your question, but it bears mentioning very briefly.

35:27

It shows that this film was made in 2026. I made so many documentaries and know so many people who are archaeologists and stuff. One of the greatest discussions of the last 20 years is the collapse of the Bronze Age, what happened around 1100.

35:43

And the villains and the foes of the day are the Sea Peoples, which people would even talk about 20 years ago. The Sea Peoples are historically seen to be a band of Sea Peoples who came probably from the rest, maybe from Spain or something. They couldn’t think of a better name.

36:00

And they wrote Roughshod over and brought all these cultures down. And they mentioned the Sea Peoples many times in the Odyssey. And it’s very interesting because, of course, you guarantee you Homer or Virgil knew nothing about them when he was writing their versions of it.

36:14

But I guess it was a bit of contemporary historical nuggets talking about the time, trying to place it in there. because all these cultures were soon, including Mycenae, where Agamemnon had his capital in the Peloponnese, they all collapsed by the Sea People during that time. All of the Bronze Age collapsed.

36:36

They even had a fairly ropey scene, or didn’t somebody say, the age of what we call bronze is about to end, which I thought was a bit too on the nose, because I don’t think they called it the Bronze Age mirror in it. Lord, no, we thought. But it’s interesting, he’s already looking back in history.

36:49

this is the end of our soon we will be we will be placed by an iron aid what is iron yeah

Dan LeFebvre

36:59

well i was a good i mean we were talking about mapping areas i was going to actually ask about the sea people then because that what you’re talking about that it made me think of i think there was a scene with um with penelope and she was they’re talking about the the sea people coming and i kind of got the sense as i was watching the movie that they have no idea what’s beyond their borders. Like they have no idea who these people are. They just need to be ready in case somebody comes and attacks, which almost kind of then leads me to think, you know, these other places where Odysseus lands, like with the giants and the armor and these elements that that’s just another civilization that’s just waiting for somebody to land on their shore and attack them.

Neil Laird

37:37

And they don’t really know what’s beyond their shores. The world’s very small back then. It’s funny, I’m wearing a t-shirt about Gibraltar, which I go to a lot of my cruises. I always do talks about it. And if you know anything about Gibraltar, it was called the Pillars of Hercules.

37:51

And that was because that was considered the end of the known world. And Gibraltar, of course, is the tip of Spain. And it’s the closest point between Africa and Europe. And that’s Gibraltar.

38:03

And people, they call it the Pillars of Hercules because you can see both shores as you came up. Nobody went back there. It’s like, after you go back there, you’re off the map. You know, here be dragons is where you get to when you leave there. So that was the end of civilization. So I think the sea people may have come right from the other side of that on the curve of Spain that went up past the pillars of Hercules.

38:23

But again, we’re not talking about a large. We’re talking about the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was their world.

38:30

So anything beyond that, forget about the Atlantic. That might as well have been deepest, darkest, nowheresville. So they still had the fear of monsters and dragons and whatever leads beyond.

38:41

So to get back to your early question, it’s highly possible some people sitting listening to that still believed in those creatures. But it’s unlikely they thought they were in Crete or Malta or Sicily.

Dan LeFebvre

38:53

This is maybe kind of beyond there’s nothing that we see in the movie necessarily, but just makes me wonder for the peoples then. Would they have used some of these creatures and some of these things as a means of controlling their people and keeping them from venturing out?

Neil Laird

39:10

Oh, absolutely. I mean, a lot of it, of course, was all. Yeah, I mean, the God, the creatures would be out there. I certainly think the pillars of Hercules, because everybody wanted to control the strait, even back then, if you control Gibraltar, you control what came in and out of the Mediterranean.

39:27

So, you know, any ships that come from afar, people were clearly living elsewhere on the coast of Europe and up the coast of northern Europe. So if you if you told people don’t go there, you’re going to die and they won’t, then you control the sea routes. And that’s the key thing. And that’s a different thing. That’s the key reason why the Trojan War probably happened.

39:48

It wasn’t about Ellen. It was about controlling the sea routes going into Turkey and going into the mainland of Asia. So people are already thinking about commerce.

39:56

They’re already thinking about where they can get ahead back then. And if they can terrify people by saying, here’ll be dragons. People never left their small village somewhere in the Peloponnese.

40:06

What would they know about dragons in Spain?

Dan LeFebvre

40:08

Yeah, yeah. So Homer is just disinformation, just selling.

Neil Laird

40:12

He’s just making that shit up as he goes, man. It’s fake news is what it is. Homer’s nothing but fake news.

Dan LeFebvre

40:18

The original fake news. Well, if we go back to the movie, after the shipwreck at sea, Odysseus wakes up on this deserted island with Charlize Theron’s version of Calypso. And we see bits and pieces of this actually happening throughout the movie as she’s kind of nursing Odysseus back to health, and he’s starting to remember what happened. But eventually he finds out that he’s been there for seven years, and Calypso admits that she’s fallen in love with him. What did you think of how the movie interpreted Odysseus on Calypso’s island? Well, what’s interesting, he combines two

Neil Laird

40:52

because she wasn’t the Lotus. She didn’t have the Lotus. There was a Lotus Eaters.

40:56

It was a very small place they stopped at very early in their journey. I think it was Cyclops or something. And they get slowed down for a while and realize, dude, we need to get out.

41:06

We drank too much. Let’s get back. Let’s call an Uber and get out of here.

41:10

And they quickly moved on. But they put the Lotus in her scenes. And in truth, he stops at the island after everybody dies.

41:21

That’s all right. and he is just so grief-stricken about losing everybody that she comforts him and they fall in love. And yet the entire time he doesn’t forget, which is very strange why he doesn’t get on with it.

41:35

And it makes sense why we have to dumb dull his memory with drugs or whatever to make him forget about Penelope and his responsibilities back home. But he is not all looped out and drugged. He’s there and presumably just getting in on with a Charlize Theron character, you know, on a deserted island.

41:53

There could be worse fates, I suppose. So he sticks around a while. But there are a lot of scenes of him on the shore crying.

42:00

Every day he cries, looking towards Ithaca, hoping to get home. So he doesn’t forget. So it’s very curious why he doesn’t do it.

42:08

And she wants to keep him there. She promises him immortal life. Now, the Circe II, you know, the same thing.

42:16

Please stay with me. And he does for a while, for a year. Here, she promises him immortal life.

42:21

I mean, this wife stays for seven years. I don’t know. But eventually the gods come to him, come to her and say he has to move on.

42:28

And so she releases him and says goodbye. And he says goodbye to her. And then he moves on.

42:33

So it’s a very strange sequence where he’s resting and everybody’s gone. And for whatever reason, maybe gives up hope. But he never forgets.

42:42

There are no lotuses on her island.

Dan LeFebvre

42:45

Interesting. And as you’re saying that, it makes me wonder, because in the movie, it’s it is very self-driven. I mean, he kind of forgets, but he is very self-driven to get back home through the whole thing, which is, I would think, something that we can all kind of connect to, you know, the desire to get back home after.

43:04

But as you’re talking about that, you know, the gods saying that he has to get on with it and that element and the gods talking in his ear. It almost sounds like in Homer’s version of the Odyssey, the gods are really the ones that are driving him to get home. And Odysseus is just like, I’m good here.

43:20

Like, I’m just going to hang out here.

Neil Laird

43:21

Yes and no, because the gods are always battling and meddling and always doing them more to piss each other up up in Mount Olympus than they are to help this mortal down below. So some are helping him, some are not. Poseidon’s blowing him off course, and that is all because of Cyclops’ incidents.

43:38

He didn’t have to kill. There’s a very interesting story in the Cyclops, a very famous, one of the most famous quotes there, which Nolan takes out. He’s very chatty.

43:50

The Cyclops is very chatty in the book and they have conversations and they, and he’s there for some time. They’re having talks and playing games. I mean, word games, they’re all this kind of like, they’re, they’re stuck in this and our friends, but they’re stuck here and they have conversations the entire time.

44:06

And one of the questions that, um, the Cyclops ask, uh, just, he says, what is your name? And he says, my name is nobody. So when he finally gets out, the other Cyclopses run to help their poor comrade.

44:22

And they say, who did this to you? Nobody did it. Nobody did it.

44:26

So he gets away with it. But where he screws up is when he gets down to the shore, he yells or somehow mentions his name. I am Odysseus.

44:35

Hear me roar or whatever. And then the cat’s out of the bag. If he only shut up, they wouldn’t have known who did this to him.

44:41

But because he gave his name out loud to the Cyclops, they’re the offspring of Poseidon. And Poseidon now knows his Odysseus did this. So that’s why they get blown off course is because they find out Odysseus did that.

44:55

Had he kept his mouth shut and stuck with his joke name of nobody, he might have been home a fortnight later.

Dan LeFebvre

45:02

That almost sounds, I mean, it’s not the way it happens in the movie, but there are kind of nods to that. I think there’s, even though the Cyclops is not chatty at all, that he does kind of say something once. I think one of the men talks about how he’s like, oh, he mentioned Poseidon.

45:18

He must be Poseidon’s son. He kind of mentioned that. And then when they leave, Matt Damon’s version of Odysseus shoots the Cyclops when, and everybody else is like, why did you do that?

45:29

We could have just left. Why did you have to do that? Now Poseidon’s going to be all mad at us.

Neil Laird

45:33

And I don’t think that happened. And they definitely take his eye out, but they just even do it twice in the film. And I don’t know if that’s the way it was Homer or not.

45:43

I think he said it once and it was all about them just collectively. blinding this guy rather than going back and doing one more jab. I mean, maybe they would have come after him anyways.

45:52

They also get out in a very fun way in Homer. Maybe they pull back because it would have been so hard to stage. But how they get out in Homer is they cling to the bottom of the sheep.

46:06

Each one of them is holding on to the sheep. So as the sheep go out, he’s touching them all, but they’re all holding on underneath. And that’s how they get out one by one.

Dan LeFebvre

46:15

Okay. Yeah, because in the movie, they put on like little patches of grass to kind of be like, oh, we have fur.

Neil Laird

46:20

That doesn’t feel like wool. That’s not going to pull anybody. But it might look pretty cheesy if they’re doing that. They’re big guys, and you had to get some pretty big sheep to pull that off. Even in the original book, it felt a bit far-fetched.

Dan LeFebvre

46:32

Yeah, that’s true. I guess that’s one of those things that’s easier to read and imagine than to put on film. Well, in the movie, if we kind of go back to Odysseus on Calypso’s Island, It doesn’t really explain Calypso that much, but as I was watching this, I couldn’t help attire to another major movie franchise because she’s in the Pirates of the Caribbean, but there she’s like this deity that controls the ocean waters as opposed to Poseidon doing it here in the Odyssey. Who was Calypso in Homer’s Odyssey?

Neil Laird

47:01

Calypso was, yeah, she was not the same one as the one we know there. She was very much, I think she was a goddess. and again, she was a nymph and she lived on the island but she wasn’t seen as an evil villain. She actually loved him. A lot of times you find these nymphs that have pissed off Seuss or whatever and they’re sent to islands forever and I forget, I don’t know the details because I’ve known the mythology before the novel was in front of me, but that’s one of the cases. She was lonely sitting on an island probably because she pissed off one of the bastards up on the hill. This is where she spent her time. But she was half divine. She was a nymph, which means she’s the offspring of a god. So she had some power, but she was not a full-fledged goddess. She couldn’t do anything more than love him and care for him. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that’s a

Dan LeFebvre

47:57

lot. And the movie didn’t really, I mean, she was just kind of there. And it was a super deserted

Neil Laird

48:02

island. I thought they were the slowest sequences. There’s something he does very interesting. And But if you look at Nolan, a big trade of Nolan’s films is story within story.

48:14

He’ll move forward. He’ll move back. All the way back to Memento, you think.

48:18

They’re always telling the story. And it weaves back on itself. And he likes to play with time, which is nice because it doesn’t make it chronological.

48:24

And it fits Homer sort of because at the beginning of much of the story is him telling a story within a story. He starts that. You think Homer start or Nolan starts out with the bard banging his staff and saying, let me tell you about the Trojan War.

48:40

And he’s already telling a story in the past. And then we go to the guy, he did the same story. And Calypso very much.

48:49

Both Calypso and Athena, they’re there more as sort of a plot point for him to tell story to back, I think, to flashback. Sometimes a little awkwardly, I thought. But I thought the scenes with Calypso were the weakest and the slowest.

49:02

Because really nothing happens there other than what happened. Then what happened? Tell me more.

49:07

There was no drama within that scene other than her, which is probably why they gave her the Lotus. They gave some business to her. Otherwise, she’s the beautiful chick on the beach saying, tell me what you did last night.

49:19

There’s not much going on.

Dan LeFebvre

49:20

And because we don’t really see the time distance with Cersei and that element that happens in Homer’s Odyssey, there’s so much time spent on Calypso’s Island. They mentioned seven years.

Neil Laird

49:34

Seven years, and that’s in Homer, too. Seven years he sits there.

Dan LeFebvre

49:38

Yeah, but it sounds like in Homer’s Odyssey, that may have been seven years, which is a long time, but he also spent a long time in a lot of other places, whereas in the movie, he doesn’t really spend that much time in any other place. Calypso’s Island is really where he’s spending a majority of his time.

Neil Laird

49:54

You add it up, and I never really have, but you figure they say it’s going to take some 10 years to get home, So seven of it is on Calypso, a year of it is with Circe. The other eight years, I guess, are spreader among the other places they got stuck. So the lion’s share of that is with Calypso.

50:10

But it does take him a decade to get home. A decade of war and then a decade to get home. So 20 years in total.

Dan LeFebvre

50:17

Okay, okay. Well, in the movie, as Odysseus’ memory returns, he is determined to get home then. But in order to do that, he has to go back out to sea and give up control to Poseidon.

50:28

So he goes out to sea off Calypso’s Island. There’s a storm, presumably from Poseidon, and then he wakes up back on his homeland. And when he gets there, he takes Agamemnon’s approach to assess the situation undercover.

50:41

And things are not the same as when he left. We’ll get to the suitors in a moment, but how well does the movie show what happened when Odysseus returned home undercover as a beggar?

Neil Laird

50:51

Well, first of all, it takes him longer to get home. There’s another, I think he spent six months on another island. He gets picked up by, I forget the name, not the Phoenicians, the Phaeans.

51:02

But it’s an island that picks him up and takes him in. He says, tell me stories and you can stay. And he tells the story of how he got there.

51:11

So a lot of the Trojan horse and that stuff comes in later when he starts going back. And they help him out and they give him food and they say, oh, you’re a disease. We’ll get you to Ithaca, but don’t leave yet.

51:22

We have to vet you first and let you enjoy it. So he stays a very long time. I don’t know how long it is, but a good, good while.

51:29

He’s anxious to get back. But there’s nothing sinister about it. They just want to kind of keep him there because they love the parties and they love giving him gifts.

51:38

They give him all this stuff and they finally they give him ships to to sail back with. They say, we’re going to take you there personally. And the king is good for his word.

51:47

But then Poseidon finds out what they’re doing and he destroys the vessels and everybody on it. So they get destroyed for helping Odysseus. Now he’s on the raft of Lone and washes up his shore in Ithaca.

52:00

So that’s a whole hunk, no doubt, for a time frame, for pacing or whatever, that Nolan took out.

Dan LeFebvre

52:09

Yeah, yeah, there’s none of that. He just kind of washes up.

Neil Laird

52:12

I’m not sure it’s missed. Yeah. It was nice, you know, but yeah.

Dan LeFebvre

52:17

Yeah, more flashback sequences. Exactly. Another stop, another stop.

52:22

Well, I have to ask about one scene in the movie with Odysseus’ dog, Argos. We see him as a puppy earlier in the movie. He’s almost tossed away, but then Odysseus chooses him as a hunting dog.

52:33

And he’s a loyal companion to Odysseus. And then he lives with Don Leguizamo’s version of the blinds, Emenes, after Odysseus goes off to the Trojan War. And Emenes says he’s never seen a dog live for 20 years, but Argos seems to be hanging on to life just long enough to see his master again.

52:49

And then, and it is a scene that made me cry when I saw it. It was Odysseus returns home as a beggar. Not even his own son recognizes him until Odysseus stops to pet Argos one last time.

53:00

He wags his tail at the sight of his old friend and then finally dies. And that’s how Telemachus knows that the old beggar is his father. Did that happen?

Neil Laird

53:09

The first part, yes, is one of the most emotional sequences. Argos, the dog, it all happened. It’s a very emotional.

53:14

You know, I get teary-eyed when I listen to it or read it too. He waits 20 years and as soon as he knows it is his touch, he dies. The only difference is Tamanikis already knows. At that point, if I recall, he’s already been told by Odysseus who he is. So that isn’t the moment where he catches on, but the whole scene with the dog is as it was, even thrown on a pile of refuge or whatever. All that comes from Homer.

Dan LeFebvre

53:39

Wow. Yeah. I mean, that’s a nice little touch there, but yeah, that was definitely a very emotional scene in the movie.

Neil Laird

53:45

No one wants to see a dog die. Thousand guys can get ripped apart by bloodthirsty creatures, but never kill a dog.

Dan LeFebvre

53:52

And that’s the moment where you know that Robert Pattinson’s character is the bad guy because he’s the one that carries him out to put him on the dumb heap.

Neil Laird

53:59

You kick a dog and you toss him on a pile of rubbish, you know you’re going down.

Dan LeFebvre

54:05

Yeah. John Wick, whole series based on that. Well, throughout the movie, we see a lot of scenes of Odysseus’ wife and Hathaway’s version of Penelope.

54:16

She’s waiting for her husband’s return, But as the years tick on, there are more and more suitors who want to marry her for a chance at Ithaca’s throne. And there are a lot of suitors, but Robert Pattinson’s version of Antinus seems to be the ringleader who’s trying to take control by killing Odysseus and Penelope’s son, Telemachus. He’s played by Tom Holland.

54:37

And then at the end of the movie, Odysseus starts off just as the old beggar hiding in the corner, and he ends up facing off with the suitors in this big battle scene to win back Penelope’s hand. Was this fight at the end of the movie a faithful interpretation of what happened in Homer’s Odyssey?

Neil Laird

54:52

No, it was both more dramatic and less dramatic in Homer because they get the help from all the housekeepers and the housemates and the people who recognize them. And they take all the weapons and hide it. And they come out and they help them.

55:08

And Temelechus comes out and does battle with him. They make a little more superhero. The Patterson character isn’t quite nearly the Whipley Snidelash evil guy that he is.

55:18

You know, he’s he’s one of many bad suitors here. They really brought it down to a sort of revenge thing where he takes them out one by one. It becomes sort of a superhero.

55:29

It takes them with just his bare hands. In truth is, he had more people helping him. It’s much more bloody and dramatic.

55:36

There’s a scene where they finally get a hold of all that. The maids that that helped out. They hang them all.

55:42

including the one you see in the film. Everybody goes down. They clean up house.

55:47

Nobody survives. And it is father and son and also those few people who still follow him that do it. So it is a bloodbath.

55:56

In a way, it’s a very dramatic sequence, of course, because you want to see him go after the guy who’s trying to take his wife and take his house. So it makes sense on an emotional level, but it wasn’t quite superhero takedown that it was in the film.

Dan LeFebvre

56:09

Did his son, because in the movie, it makes a point to mention that his son can’t actually attack the suitors because they are from the rich families. And if they do, then they’ll exile him and that sort of approach. So it has to be Odysseus the only one.

Neil Laird

56:20

I don’t think that’s the case there. If that’s said, he certainly doesn’t do it, doesn’t change to the end. They’re all after, they’re all taking him down.

56:26

And he doesn’t really have a scene. There’s also a movie scene where he’s fighting the guy one floor up. That’s also an addition to fighting.

56:33

And you could tell, everybody gets a chance to fight. It’s a classic Marvel movie trope, right? Well, this fight’s taken on.

56:39

This one’s going on next door, right? And it works. It works cinematically, but it didn’t come from Homer.

Dan LeFebvre

56:44

What about the challenge element of having to pull the bow and string the bow? Was that something from Homer’s Odyssey?

Neil Laird

56:51

Yeah, that’s very classic. That comes right from the source. And her weaving it and unweaving it every day, the shroud for her father, him being the beggar who does it and no one else can.

57:02

That’s all classic Homer stuff. But what’s interesting is Penelope doesn’t accept him straight away. In the film verse, and he has a little pin or whatever, and she must recognize right away when he’s strengthened.

57:16

You know, I couldn’t, I just rewatched Excalibur for the first time in years. And I couldn’t help but think of the Excalibur scene. It’s like only who can take it from the stone, who can bow.

57:26

You can see those tropes keep coming back in history. And here, she very quickly assumes it’s him or she’s onto him. But there’s one little scene at the end where she tests him.

57:39

And it’s a scene that it would have been nice to have because it’s a very emotional scene in Homer where when he comes into the bed chamber, she tells her maids and her housekeeper to move the bed, to move it over here, which seemed like a strange thing. And they start picking it up and they’re making a mess of it. And then Odysseus jumps in, you can’t move that bed. You know, you can’t move that bed because one of the legs is actually the trunk of an olive tree that they put there.

58:11

Only they knew about. And they built the bed on top of it. No one would have known that one of those legs was stuck to the ground, except for the guy who slept there.

58:23

So it tells you, A, nobody else knows about it. But then, but it also is finally proof positive in her eyes that this is my husband come home.

Dan LeFebvre

58:30

Which, in my mind, it seems like something that sounds really good on paper. But I think I would notice if part of my bed was actually a tree trunk.

Neil Laird

58:43

Like, even if it trimmed it down, I don’t know. But the argument is how many guys get in there. I guess she was faithful to in those 20 years.

58:50

But yeah, I mean, you didn’t really need it. I don’t think they had the brooch in there. I think, you know, we saw that in, didn’t they do the same thing in Gladiator or other things?

59:00

here’s this this comes from your father or whatever it’s a great thing to kind of say here’s proof of it they do make more in homer of the housemaid it was the older housemate who has who’s also faithful and she sees the scar on his leg it’s very quick in the movie but she knows that only odysseus would have that scar so she knows straight away that’s a bigger scene in in the uh in the uh

Dan LeFebvre

59:23

play or the play in the in the poem than it is in the film okay okay yeah yeah there’s that scene with her and then there was the brooch but there was also just after stringing it the way he kind of plucks the note you know it’s that she kind of turns like oh there’s only one person that does

Neil Laird

59:39

that I mean she you know I thought it was a nice portrayal of Penelope but I like that they have that scene at the end because she’s trying to understand her husband and at that point it’s no longer are you a dissy says why the hell did you leave me for 20 years and what happened so it’s kind of like I get a feeling in my own head she already knows who it is but she wants to hear his story before she allows him back into her life.

Dan LeFebvre

01:00:02

And he’s trying to explain why he stayed with Calypso for seven years and Cersei for a year.

Neil Laird

01:00:07

Exactly. And it was a monster in the world, but you wouldn’t believe it had to go to the 80s. You all wouldn’t believe it. Is that lipstick? Is that lipstick on your two lips?

Dan LeFebvre

01:00:18

Well, back in the movie, after the fight, Odysseus said that the fight at the end, Odysseus is wounded, but he’s not killed. Penelope does recognize him. Everybody realizes who he is.

01:00:27

And with the suitors, that fought back out of the way. It seems like everything is kind of ending happily ever after. While Odysseus and Penelope sail off into the unknown West to honor those who have died under Odysseus’ command in the wars, to rectify those wrongs, their son Telemachus becomes the king in Ithaca.

01:00:44

How well does the movie show the ending of the story?

Neil Laird

01:00:46

Very different. Very, very different. Though you could be argued that the Odyssey has one of the worst endings ever.

01:00:51

It’s almost like the last 20 pages have just been torn out. It just ends. The way it ends in the play, I can say play, sorry.

01:00:59

I’ve been thinking of now some sort of tragic play, some Achilles or something. The way it ends in the epic poem is that he’s going after everybody. I mentioned he kills a dozen housekeepers or whatever it is.

01:01:15

And then he goes after all the other suitors’ families. And he is about to start a war in Ithaca and kill everybody. So he goes and he gathers an army up.

01:01:24

And he goes to one village where a bunch of the suitors and their families are saying, you were gone for 20 years. How could we know? And you killed my son.

01:01:32

And he’s now going after the survivors of the family. And then one of the gods come down, Athena or one of the others. They come down and say, this ends here.

01:01:44

Make up and learn to live with it. And that’s how it ends. Bam.

01:01:48

It’s like two paragraphs. And then she comes at end. Okay.

01:01:51

And so they ended it.

Dan LeFebvre

01:01:53

And the end.

Neil Laird

01:01:54

Okay. So they never go to the West. One big thing that Homer and his time period would never do would be feel guilty about going to war. This was the age of heroes. Remember, this was the age of Hercules and all that stuff. So war itself was not a bad thing because everybody done it.

01:02:13

So there was no sense of him feeling guilty about bringing Troy down. And that is very much a modern convention, very much the guilt, once again, that we talked about, like Oppenheimer, that he feels after the fact that was created in the 21st century sensibility. So that whole idea of him leaving and going to West to honor his men, which isn’t a big thing in Homer, is a creation by Nolan to give his new story, his coming around to helping the dead who died under his watch, the proper burial, the proper send-off.

Dan LeFebvre

01:02:49

Well, that makes sense, too. I mean, if in Homer’s Odyssey, if he comes back to Ithaca and basically starts a new war, like, obviously, he doesn’t feel bad about the Trojan War, then if he’s just coming back to start a new one.

Neil Laird

01:03:00

Good point, which is really history, yeah. They even say something like, our deeds will be remembered until they’re not, and everyone does it again or something at the very end. It’s like, yeah, the beat goes on, you know.

01:03:11

This is before the Romans show up. So you got a lot of blood coming in the future. So it’s not exactly like this is the war to end all wars.

Dan LeFebvre

01:03:20

True, true. Well, thank you so much for coming on to talk about The Odyssey. Is there anything else that we haven’t covered that you want to share about the movie?

Neil Laird

01:03:28

No, I think it’s a great film. I really enjoyed it. And look, I’m just so happy that someone spent a gazillion dollars making a film about the Bronze Age.

01:03:37

In my world, that is like the happiest thing possible. And he did it smartly. It’s a much better film than Troy, which I had a lot of problems with.

01:03:47

It was more comic book-y and more sort of dumbed down. The Odyssey is a much better film, so I’m really glad that it’s doing so well.

Dan LeFebvre

01:03:54

Well, we have been talking about a story that’s like 3,000 years old, but let’s shift gears to a much newer story because you have a brand new addition to your Primetime Travelers series, all about something that we’ve talked about today. Troy, can you share more about your Primetime Troy with my audience? Absolutely. I do know my Troy at this point

Neil Laird

01:04:11

because I spent the last two years in that world. so I think we talked about before I do I was a non-documented filmmaker for 30 years and then I do I transfer a transmute fiction and I do a time travel series based on a tv crew a largely feckless tv crew that travels through time and the first book is about them going to ancient Egypt the second one is them on the eve of Pompeii during the eruption and the third book is them going back to Troy they’re actually visited by Achilles personally and say can you come back to the Trojan War and make me live this time. And if you do, I’ll give you the best film ever.

01:04:44

Because how can you say no? So the whole book is about them going back. Again, the tricky thing about this one, unlike the others, is Pompeii and ancient Egypt, we know, happened.

01:04:55

Can you mess up history when it didn’t happen? Is a myth even real? Are you going to go back there and just find two guys and a push card in a muddy field?

01:05:05

And they go back and they find a lot of it was happening. but a lot of this stuff they have to create, like the horse. The TV executives want a horse, but they tell Achilles and they tell Agamemnon and everybody, we have to create a horse.

01:05:16

They say, that’s the stupidest thing ever. Where did that idea come from? There’s no horse here.

01:05:21

But for the network, the network wants their horse. So I’m using our understanding of the Iliad and the Odyssey as a point to both examine some of the absurdities of how we interpret it, but also to kind of show how we can’t help but meadow in the past even when we shouldn’t. So it really is a comedic take and a very serious subject, and there’s a lot of death and gore and stuff, but it’s my kind of wry way of looking at the Iliad and ancient Troy in a way that only a time-traveling TV crew can.

Dan LeFebvre

01:05:54

I almost think of another Christopher Nolan movie, Inception. Like, they go back and put the idea in Odysseus’ head to have this Trojan horse.

Neil Laird

01:06:03

Exactly, they do. You have to whisper it. exactly what it is it’s kind of can we start a rumor campaign and it’s kind of fun how it all happens because you know once they get the ball rolling and remember disney is has big seaman goes i don’t know how to make a horse i i can make a ship but i have no idea what a horse looks like and of course the horse looks like the one on you know the badger out of monty python’s holy grail whatever it is not quite the classic that we think of when we see the movie it is it is a lot more

Dan LeFebvre

01:06:30

crammed and a lot less inviting. Not as quite picturesque as Jolens’ version.

Neil Laird

01:06:37

So yeah. So the book comes out on Amazon. All three will be available after August. August 1st of 26, Primetime Troy comes out. And I’ll make sure to add all those links in

Dan LeFebvre

01:06:47

the show notes for this episode as well. Thank you again so much for your time, Neil.

Neil Laird

01:06:50

No, it’s always a pleasure. Thanks for having me, man.

Dan LeFebvre

01:07:03

this episode of based on a true story was produced by me dan lefebvre thank you once again to neil laird for coming on to the show to chat about the odyssey if you want to have another wonderful story set around the trojan war check out neil’s latest book called prime time troy i’ve got a link to that in the show notes, as well as links to Neil’s other work so you can catch up on the Primetime Travelers series. And if you are driving home from the theater right now, it’s probably not best to pick up your phone to check out the show notes. So you can always find those links on the shows home on the web at baseonatruestorypodcast.com slash 388. Okay, now it’s time for the answer to our two truths and a lie game from the beginning of the episode. And as a quick refresher, here are the two truths and one lie again. Number one, Telemachus is Odysseus and Penelope’s son.

01:07:50

Number two, Odysseus travels to Hades to speak to the dead. Number three, Menelaus came up with the idea for the Trojan horse. Did you figure out which one is a lie? I’ve got the envelope, let’s open that up. And the lie is number three. As we learned from Neil, it was not Menelaus who came up with the idea for the Trojan horse, but the movie was correct to show Odysseus being the one who came up with that idea, as well as being one of these soldiers who was on the inside.

01:08:19

As always, thank you for your continued support listening to and sharing this episode based on a true story with someone else that you think would enjoy it. If you know someone else going to see The Odyssey, share this episode with them to find out the true story. Now, if you’re watching the video version of this, check around for the credits. And if you can find out my cat’s name and email it to me, I’ll send you a sticker. Thanks again for watching and I hope to hear from you soon.

Dan LeFebvre
00:01
Hello, and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. Today, we’ll uncover the true story of Memphis Belle. Released in 1990, Memphis Belle was directed by Michael Caton Jones with a screenplay by Monty Merrick. And in case it’s been a little while since you’ve seen the movie, let’s kick this off as we always do with a quick synopsis. It’s May 1943, and the crew of the B-17 Flying Fortress named Memphis Bell is one mission away from going home after surviving 24 bombing runs over Nazi-occupied Europe. If they’re successful in their 25th mission, they’ll be the first bomber crew in the 8th Air Force to survive a full tour of duty and return home. Everyone knows this is their last mission, and is that the bad luck that means they don’t return home? The movie opens with the crew on the ground, where we get to learn about each crew member’s personality and see how they deal with the nerves as the tension builds. Once airborne, the crew faces flack, enemy fire, and mechanical trouble. Every man has a job, and every moment matters. Through it all, they have to keep their cool and trust each other if they want a chance to make it back. Returning to the podcast to separate fact from fiction and the movie is military historian Joshua Donahue. You might recognize his name from previous episodes of Based on a True Story, when he’s helped us learn about the true story behind movies like 13 Days, Black Hawk Down, and We Were Soldiers. Joshua is working on a new book, so I’ll be sure to ask him about that, And make sure to hop in the show notes to find links to his previous work too. Before we bring him back on though, let’s set up our game for today’s episode. And if you are new to the show, since Based on a True Story is all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of Two Truths and a Lie. So I’m about to give you three facts that we’re going to talk about in this episode. Only two of those are actually true though. And one of them is just an all-out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, the real Memphis Belle flew more than 25 missions. Number two, the characters in the movie were based on the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Number three, the 25th mission was actually bombing submarine pens in France. Got them? Okay, now as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope. This has the answer inside, so we’ll open that up at the end of the episode to see if you got it right. And now, it’s time to connect with Joshua Donahue about the historical accuracy of 1990s Memphis Belle. I’m excited to jump into some of the details for our movie today, but before we do that, let’s take a 10,000-foot view of the movie. If you were to give the overall movie a letter grade for its historical accuracy,

Joshua Donohue
02:53
what would it get? Memphis Belle I think it’s a B plus and the grade is for just a few historical inaccuracies which we’ll get into I can’t take too many points off because it’s a terrific film with an incredible cast and what I’ve always liked about Memphis Belle is its attention to character development which we’ll also get into you really identify with the members of the crew and their individual personalities which is really one of the main reasons why the film is as good as it is. And if you’ve seen the film, seen all the series by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, Band of Brothers, of course, The Pacific and Masters of the Year most recently, the third series with the two, I found myself often comparing Memphis Belle and Masters of the Year because it kind of represents, you kind of get a bit of an evolution in filmmaking from 1990 all the way till the early 2020s when the series came out. So really for me, Memphis Belle is just has an overall feel to it that you really don’t have in Masters of the Year. And again, not to knock the series, I think they did a terrific job, but in terms of character development, I think that Memphis Belle really drives home what these crews went through during the Second World War. So the soundtrack to the film is also worth mentioning because Michael Caton Jones, the director, focuses and really centers a lot of the music compositions on the song Danny Boy and Amazing Grace. also, you hear that in the film, in different sort of compositions, the men singing, and of course, musically. George Fenton scores this film, and the most famous scene where they have the dance before their last mission, where Bell’s beloved tail gunner, Clay Bigsby, played by Harry Connick Jr., sings that unforgettable version of Danny Boy when he’s at the piano, and it turns into that sort of up-tempo number that’s typical of a 1940s sort of big band sound. So one of the most notable films about B-17 raids over Europe is the film 12 O’Clock High, starring Gregory Peck in 1949. You also have another terrific film in the early 1960s, starring one of my all-time favorite actors, Steve McQueen, called The War Lover, and also another one called The Thousand Plane Raid. That one had some inaccuracies, but most notably, as I’ll get to throughout, you see many scenes from the original Memphis Belle film and the scenes that were shot by him during these missions, shot by William Wyler. And to also clarify, and many of those out there just to sort of alleviate any confusion, another important aspect is that the Belle actually was not the first bomber to complete 25 missions. It was the only one that made it back stateside with its somewhat original crew together. The first bomber actually to reach 25 missions in Europe was a consolidated B-24 Liberator named Hot Stuff. It was actually on its way back to the United States for the tour when it hit bad weather and crashed in Iceland. Piloting that aircraft was General Frank Andrews, who was killed. Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland is named in his honor. So the crew of Hell’s Angels was also considered the first 8th Air Force B-17 to complete 25 combat missions. However, there’s been recent research among the 91st Bombardment Group Memorial Association and the curator of the National Museum of the United States Air Force confirming that the Delta Rebel No. 2, a 91st Bombardment Group, same group as Memphis Belle, had 25 credited missions on May 1, 1943. actually in the European theater, and again, to complete that feat, two weeks before Hell’s Angels. So Delta Rebel No. 2 was shot down during the August 12, 1943 mission over Gleiskirch in Germany when six of its crew were captured as prisoners and four were killed in action. So the bell actually had a bit of PR luck on its side going in its side as well because the name itself, Memphis Bell, was much more appealing than Hell’s Angels. William Wyler even made a comment to the Bell’s pilot, pilot Robert Morgan, that the name Memphis Bell has a mystique to it. He just loved the way it sounded. So really by tragedy and luck, the Bell is the plane that is selected to return to the U.S. in June of 1943. So the Bell’s crew also plays a role here as well, since the majority of the crew members are also credited with being the longest serving crew for one aircraft on 25 missions.

Dan LeFebvre
07:36
Well, that’s fascinating. Mentioning the crew, and that leads right into my next question, because according to the movie, we see the Memphis Belle crew, there’s 10 men, and I’m going to list them off. There’s the pilot, Captain Dennis Dearborn, co-pilot, First Lieutenant Luke Sinclair, bombardier, First Lieutenant Val Kozlowski, which I probably butchered his last name. But he also doubles as the crew’s medic, which we’ll talk about later because that is important to the movie’s story. There’s the navigator, First Lieutenant Phil Lowenthal, engineer, top turret, Staff Sergeant Virgil or Virge, who I also probably butchered. You got it. I think at the beginning of the movie, they’re like, what kind of name is that?

Joshua Donohue
08:12
You’re doing really well. That’s right.

Dan LeFebvre
08:15
There’s the radio operator, Staff Sergeant Danny Daly, tail gunner, Staff Sergeant Clay Busby, waist gunner, Staff Sergeant Eugene or Jeannie McVay, the ball turret gunner, Staff Sergeant Richard or Rascal Moore. And then the 10th, the Waste Gunner, Staff Sergeant Jack Bocce. Was that the real crew of the Memphis Belle?

Joshua Donohue
08:35
It was not. The names and the characters in the film are all fictional. They’re not based on any of the actual, the names and obviously the situations and everything is pretty much about the film is different than the real crew itself. The only character that I would say is loosely based on an actual one is the one played by Captain Dennis Dearborn, the character Captain Dennis Dearborn is played by actor Matthew Modine so he’s loosely based on the pilot of the Memphis Belle who is Captain Robert Morgan who’s later Colonel Robert Morgan Modine actually met with Morgan during the production to get a sort of overall sense and a feel of what it was like and again not only the man who he was going to be portraying but what it was like to be a captain of a B-17 during the Second World War and as I mentioned earlier the film does a great job introducing the audience to each character uh starting with the enlisted men is that scene you were just referring to when uh john lithgow and david strathairn are overlooking you know the enlisted men and you know he’s going one by one and reading off their names and saying where they’re from and sort of what they’re like and their tendencies and things like that so again there’s that great football game that they’re playing at the very beginning of the film And that game itself is great because you really get a sense of the character’s essence, each one of them. And again, the descriptions being read aloud by Army Publicist, Colonel Bruce Derringer, who’s played by actor John Lithgow. That scene is great because you have where he talks about Rascal, the ball turret gunner, he has a reputation of being a ladies’ man. At least that’s what he says. And then you get where he talks about Jeannie McVeigh from Cleveland. There’s always one from Cleveland. Of course. And again, he’s always coming down with something. He shows where he gets tackled on the ground, and he’s kind of laboring to get up, and everyone’s kind of trying to push him back up there. The other one I like is Jack Bochy, the waist gunner. He’s just this fiery, hot-tempered guy, as you see, screaming at everybody in the football game. And he kind of has that rivalry going with Genie, his other waist gunner that’s obviously right behind him there, as you see during the film. So the young men assigned to the Memphis Belle represented a typical Eighth Air Force, again, heavy bomber crew in Europe. They ranged in age from around 19 to 26, and they came from states across the U.S., including New York, Washington, Indiana, Texas, and Connecticut. And like their Eighth Air Force counterparts, and contrary to popular myth, they flew most but not all of their missions together. Some of the crew actually did fly their entire combat tour on the Memphis Belle. Others, including Morgan, would go on to fight and fly more missions in World War II, Morgan’s case in the Pacific Theater, which we’ll get to later on. So during the course of the combat tour, the Memphis Belle crew had three different top turret gunner engineers, Levitas Levi Dillon, Eugene Adkins, and Harold Locke, four waist gunners. Arrowlock would later move up to the top turret position. You had Staff Sergeant Casimir Tony Nostal, who replaced E. Scott Miller on the War Bond Tour because Miller would stay in England. Bill Winchell and E. Scott Miller were also, again, rotating gunners there. Several different pilots, co-pilots, I should say, also flew with the Memphis Belle and their normal crew. The Bell’s navigator captain, Charles Chuck Layton, flew his whole tour with the Memphis Bell. Technical Sergeant Robert Hansen, who was the radio operator, also flew his entire tour with the aircraft, along with the Bell’s tail gunner, J.P. Quinlan. Quinlan actually would be serving the Pacific. He would actually be shot down, be captured as a POW, and later on escape with the help of some, again, friendly Chinese. His tour goes from bad to worse and gets obviously better when he’s able to escape. So from the sixth mission from the Bell onwards, Morgan’s crew and that of the Bell would change each time. Verinis, who acted as the first pilot on a sortie in a submarine installation mission at Lorien on 30th of December 1942, Morgan actually sits out this mission. He was not feeling well. Thereafter, Varinus was given his own ship, nicknamed the Connecticut Yankee. He flew 19 missions in his B-17 and won a plane called Our Gang for a total of 26. So with the departure of his co-pilot, Varinus, neither the Bell nor Morgan seemed to really have a truly regular co-pilot again, none being in the second seat for more than five missions, one fewer than Varinus. So he had a waist gunner, Staff Sergeant Bill Winchell flew his entire combat tour with Memphis Bell. After the Warbond tour, he was then commissioned as a second lieutenant. The other waist gunner, Tony Nostal and Cecil Scott, the ball turret gunner Cecil Scott was, did 16 missions with the Bell and had to stay in England to finish his 25 missions. So the Bell’s crew, obviously different. All the cast there is everyone’s completely different in name. But again, it represents in some way, shape or form what a typical Eighth Air Force crew would look like during that time.

Dan LeFebvre
14:06
Well, it sounds too like, I mean, the movie just, movies do this a lot, you know, to simplify it, have it be the same crew for all the missions, even though in real life it’s a little more complex than that. And it’s not always going to be the same people flying the plane, which makes a lot of sense.

Joshua Donohue
14:19
Yeah. So you have this sort of, there is a core kind of a group of members of the plane, Morgan, Nostal, J.P. Quinlan, Evans, the guys who are in the plane the longest. But you have an interesting point, too, to make is that the Bell flies its last mission on, they say in the film, and in really popular belief, has it on May 17, 1943. The Bell actually flies another mission two days after that with an entirely different crew. And then after that mission, then the original crew, Morgan and company, get in and they fly back to the United States. So some little known facts and figures that people may or may not realize about the Bell’s mission and how fate kind of plays a role there as well. And how actually there was one more mission after that, quote unquote, last war.

Dan LeFebvre
15:12
Well, that, again, leads right into my next question, because the core of the movie’s plot revolves around this 25th mission. And according to the movie, if they complete that, then they’re going to be the first crew in the 8th Air Force to complete their tour of duty, and they get to go back home. And as you were saying, it’s not necessarily the case, but I’m sure this could be an entire episode by itself. But those first 24 missions happened before the event in the movie. So can you give us an overview of the Bell’s missions before the timeline of the movie?

Joshua Donohue
15:44
Yeah. So the Memphis Bell was attached to the 8th Air Force’s 324th Bombardment Squadron, 91st Bomb Group, based out of RAF Basingborn in England. And the Bell’s first mission was on November 7th of 1942, when it participated in a raid against the German U-boat pens over Brest, France. Morgan was at the controls. And the Bell’s second mission was a strike against the U-Boat PENS at St. Nazaire, France, an area in and around the PENS was heavily defended by German anti-aircraft fire, since they knew that this was going to be a prime target of opportunity. And that’s typically what the Germans would do, is they would concentrate their heaviest firepower in and around targets of opportunity they felt that were going to be hit by. Not only, you know, keep in mind that the daylight raids are being, and Lefkow’s character, Derringer, mentions people back home are starting to think daylight bombing is a big mistake. And then he’s corrected by David Strathairn’s character. And he says, no, this is the only way we’re going to win this war. So the RAF was actually bombing at night. So the Germans, again, by once it goes into 1942 and in 1943, those raids are stepped up considerably. So the Germans would bring in extra 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft guns. The RAF raid, again, the RAF, I should say, gave St. Nazare its infamous nickname, Black City. According to Morgan, they counted 63 holes in the plane when they returned. In Robert Morgan’s book entitled The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle, He describes in detail how things, quote unquote, got hairy after their third mission on November 17th, 1942. Once again, they were bombing the submarine pens at Saint-Mazaire, France. A flak burst took off part of the Bell’s left wing, but Morgan was able to wrestle the Flying Fortress back and hold it in formation, which, again, you’re trying to wrestle this giant lumbering four-engine bomber. I mean, it’s easier said than done. They were attacked by a heavy concentration of German fighters, and Morgan mentions in his book that a B-24 squadron, which was also flying with them on a separate part of the mission, was also pretty badly shot up on that particular one. So this is also the first confirmed damage kill by one of Bell’s gunners when J.P. Quinlan makes a kill. And the Bell is actually undergoing repairs and misses the next mission that is conducted by the 91st Bomb Group. Morgan actually comments that he often wondered how the Bell would have fared because this particular mission was particularly brutal. Many of the bombers either did not return home or came back heavily damaged. So on December 6, 1942, Bell’s crew is on its fourth mission over Lille, France, near the French-Belgian border with the railroad marshalling yards as their target. On that mission, Morgan describes seeing a B-17 just simply falling out of the sky right in front of them. And you have that one scene in the film where you have a windy city and it’s on fire, comes right across and just explodes. So those types of things, and you even see in a lot of the film, the footage taken from those missions, bombers are just simply falling out of the sky. And you just wonder, there’s 10 or so crew in there, and you have to wonder if they all got out. So he also remarks, Morgan does, that most of the bombs in these early missions would be missing their targets. These missions were aimed at disrupting Germany’s supply lines, their infrastructure, which were critical to its war industry. And again, this is what exactly they’re trying to aim to stop. The Bell’s fifth mission is a large airfield and factory located at Ramilly-sur-Seine, France. During this raid, the bomber formation faced massive resistance from an estimated 300 German fighters, making it one of the most intense aerial battles that the crew experienced during a tour of duty. Morgan is actually forced to set out the Bell’s sixth mission on, as I mentioned, the December 30th, 1942, when the 91st attacks the submarine Pensate Laurian with co-pilot James Verena’s taking over from Morgan. The Bell’s 7th and Morgan 6th mission is over St. Nazaire once again on January 3rd, 1943. And it’s also important to note that Morgan, and even Morgan makes this point in his book, that the United States was still in a state of mobilization throughout 1942. So the 8th Air Force was more or less operating on a shoestring budget until 1943, where missions were now driving deeper into Germany with larger numbers of planes on missions. So once the United States and Great Britain were able to maximize the performance of their bombers, which are meant to destroy Germany’s capacity to wage war, but especially as we see in 1944 and 45, whole cities by this point are being leveled with the aim of breaking the will of the German civilian population, who, of course, are operating and working in these manufacturing and industrial centers. So you also notice that the majority of the missions are also against German U-boat pens. 1942 proved to be a disastrous year for the Allies operating in the Atlantic. The German submarine menace was wreaking havoc on Allied shipping, and by January of 1942, German submarines had moved into American coastal waters that posed a serious threat to U.S. and three months of 1942, German U-boats sink more than 100 ships off the east coast of North America and the Gulf of Mexico in the Caribbean Sea. Some of those ship losses are literally within sight of land. You can see the smoke columns over the horizon. Over 6 million tons of cargo will be lost in 1942, which marked the most successful year for the German submarine. So following a gap in 10 days. The Memphis Belle then notched its eighth mission over Lille, France on January 13th, Morgan back at the controls with the group commander Colonel Stanley Ray acting as co-pilot. It was the lead ship for the first time, and things proceeded smoothly with no damage, no claims on enemy aircraft, but that would all change with Belle’s second mission in the lead, its ninth in all, which took place on January 23rd, 1943, bringing Morgan’s tally up to eight. So the It was, again, submarine pens at Lorient. The B-17 received moderate damage. And as Morgan was pulling the Memphis Belle out of its bomb run, a German Focke-Wulf 190, shells were intended for the nose, shot the entire tail off the Belle. It was on fire. Chunks of it were falling off. And Morgan mentions it. I actually saw an email that he wrote to a critic of the film that he had to make a 5,000-foot dive to burn out the fire when they were left with the tail almost completely, the whole thing was completely missing. So it brings a little bit of truth to that dive scene that we see later on in the film.

Dan LeFebvre
22:52
Wow. I couldn’t imagine just the terror of any of that, but also seeing your comrades up there getting, like you’re saying, B-17 just falling out of the air. you don’t know when it’s your turn. Like you don’t know when one of those, that anti-aircraft is going to hit you. And I mean, I know you, I’m sure you just try to put it out of your mind, but also it’s going all around you. It’s going to be impossible to put it. I just, it’s one of those, I just can’t wrap my head around what that.

Joshua Donohue
23:26
The one thing that, you know, must’ve been most difficult is, you know, you fly your first mission and you really get the experience of how dangerous and how harrowing these missions are. And guess what? you know, two days later or the next, whenever it comes, you got to be right back up there again, going through an entirely different scenario, whatever, fighters or anti-aircraft. And as you’re pushing into Germany, obviously those missions become more and more dangerous. And they say in the film that, you know, hopefully we’re going to be on a milk run to France and it’s going to be not a big deal. But these early missions over France were, you know, considerably dangerous as well. I really wouldn’t qualify a lot of these French missions over France as quote unquote milk runs, they had their fair share of danger, but obviously as they’re pushing into Germany, you’re getting much stiffer resistance as they’re approaching into the heart of Germany.

Dan LeFebvre
24:19
Yeah, I guess what they consider a milk run is not what I would consider safe by any means, but compared to what they’re also facing in other missions. Wow. Pales in comparison. Yeah. Well, the bulk of the movie’s timeline is the day before and the day of the 25th mission on May 17th, 1943. And according to the movie, the mission is 360 bombers targeting a major factory for the ME-109 fighter planes in Bremen, Germany. We’ll talk about how the mission goes in the movie in a moment, but how accurate was the movie’s version of what the 25th mission was supposed to be?

Joshua Donohue
24:51
Great question. So I vividly recall seeing the 1990 film when I was young and not realizing that the actual events were fictitious, really for the most part. And I thought to myself, man, these guys barely made it back for their 25th mission. they were the last plane. Everyone was starting to turn and walk away thinking that it’s over. And then they hear the distant hum of the low one engine that it’s flying on. And not long after I saw the 1990 film, I just so happened upon the 1944 film that William Wyler shot. And again, this was more of a documentary of the Bell’s final mission. And it was actually meant more so to be a training film for bomber crews to learn from as well. So it kind of had a dual purpose. So it Turned out that the last mission wasn’t nearly as harrowing as the 1990 film depicts that you see. They didn’t have to go into a dive to put out an engine fire, although, as I mentioned, Morgan does have to do this. Not on the last mission. The ball turret wasn’t shot out from under the gunner, and he’s left hanging by his safety strap for over 30,000 feet over Germany. They didn’t have to go around on a bomb run. They didn’t have to crank the landing gear down as they approached the runway at the end. So none of those things happened on the actual last mission. The Bell’s last mission was against the submarine pens at Loriant. But what the film does so well is it gives you a real glimpse of what life was like for an average B-17 crew during missions. And as I just mentioned, the dangers were seemingly everywhere, not just from enemy fighters and anti-aircraft fire, but from mechanical failures, which were pretty common during this time. The engines would have issues. The plane was performing. It was sluggish. Crews often had to, in some cases, many lost their lives due to mechanical failure, not to take away from what those ground crews did during the war. They did a phenomenon. And that’s another great thing that the film shows as well, is the ground crews and how active they are in getting those bombs in the plane, getting the crews, the crew teams, getting the engines all primed and prepped. So the B-17 was one of the toughest and most durable aircraft that’s ever been produced, again, of course, by Boeing. You had to deal, of course, the elements. You’re at 30,000 feet, anywhere from 20 plus and higher to 1,000 feet in the air, and you’re in an unpressurized aircraft. And many crew experienced altitude sickness, like hypoxia. That would be fairly common. He had to wear heavy wool jackets, gloves, goggles, because temperatures, of course, at that altitude reach well below zero. And it’s depicted in the film where he says if you touch your guns, your bare hands are going to freeze right to it. I don’t want anyone losing any fingers up here. And that was frostbite. And again, this was something that did happen fairly often. And of course, he says, don’t take your mask for frozen saliva. Ice gets down there. You can choke. I mean, won’t anyone, you know, when the rascal makes the comment, in short, don’t drool. And he’s correct where he says, in short, check your mask. So another danger also is with a film you see when the mission begins, and there’s that sequence where they’re flying through the clouds, and they nearly collide with another B-17 that’s directly in front of them when they come out of the cloud bank. And, of course, Dearborn pushes the bell directly underneath. They have that scene. So that was also a real danger. Mid-air collisions were fairly, you’re putting sometimes, you know, hundreds and even in some cases, a thousand planes in the air at the same time. You know, you’re going to have those things happen. Sometimes bombers, another danger that crews experience, would inadvertently drift underneath another while bombs were being released. There’s a scene where Colonel Craig Harriman, played by David Strathairn, gets word from his adjutant that John Lithgow’s character, As I mentioned, Army PR man Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Derringer is already preparing the party on base for the Memphis Bells crew before the planes even come back. This is obviously fictitious, but again, it adds more drama and tension between the characters as we see running throughout the film. So you have the tension between Matthew Modine’s character and Lieutenant Sinclair, played by, not D.B. Sweeney, I’ll come back to that. I remember his name. So the pilot and the co-pilot have their rivalry. The two waist gunners, right, Genie and Jack Bochy, are very much rivals. You have the rivalry between Verge Hoogastager, the top turret gunner, and Rascal Moore, the ball turret gunner. They have that rivalry there as well. And, of course, the bombardier and the navigator and that nose together and the tension that’s between, of course, Billy Zane’s character, the bombardier of Kozlowski, and D.B. Sweeney’s. And Tate Donovan, by the way, is the guy I was referring to. Tate Donovan, the co-pilot, of course. And they have those, you know, when they’re pre-flighting, they’re getting all, okay, we’re going to make this our best mission yet. Okay, we’re going to check the brakes. And he goes, yes. And they had a check, yes, no, and the whole thing going on there. So the one scene I was referring to where Harriman finds out that the party’s being planned, and he goes into his office, and he dumps out those letters onto his desk and says, start reading. And then it gets to that serious part where it flashes back, and you see the gun camera footage scenes of those B-17s just absolutely being just shot to pieces by the German fighters. It’s an important part of the film because it shows how deadly these missions were. And as you see one B-17 being shot down after another, after another, you see Lithgow’s face completely just almost turned white when he’s reading these letters. And again, that’s really one of the most important scenes in the film right there because there was so many ways that you could be either injured or killed on these missions over France, Belgium, Germany, and other places.

Dan LeFebvre
30:53
It sounds like, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like the movie itself is kind of a composite overall, and not necessarily telling the story of the actual Memphis Bills 25th mission, or really any of the missions, but perhaps elements of it, like the dive, elements of theirs, but also elements from other B-17 missions and things like that, and throwing them all into this could be how it goes, or this is kind of a composite story.

Joshua Donohue
31:23
Yeah, and that’s a great way to describe it because you literally cover so many different aspects and so many different scenarios of things that could go wrong and things that actually did happen in certain instances. Again, Hollywood takes liberties with all of these things, especially with history films. They all have that part that’s going to be a bit dramatized. But again, it really shows at that point, you know, that, you know, while it didn’t happen in real life, what was funny about it is, is that, you know, these, reading Morgan’s book, you know, he describes how in a lot of ways, the difference between Matthew Modine’s character and the real pilot, Robert Morgan, how different they are as, you know, Matthew Modine’s character, Dennis Dearborn is sort of really strict, straight-laced, wants to do everything, check everything twice. And he makes that joke, and that was one of the funnier parts, where they’re talking about what they want to do after the war, and he still says, hey, I got this furniture company back home. You could all come back home and work for me. And they’re all like, no. It’s just that kind of, how the rest of the crew almost, they respected him, but at the same time, they were pretty well aware that he was the guy in charge. and the one who was going to get them to and from these missions. But Morgan was funny because Morgan, if you kind of get a sense of what he was like, he had a bit of an ego. He had a bit of a wild side to him. He liked to buzz the field. That was one of the things that, you know, similar to Maverick in his F-14 buzzing the tower in Top Gun. And they show in the Wyler film too that he buzzes the field on several occasions. That’s one of the things he’s known for. And he kind of see the smirk on his face in the cockpit. So he was a little bit more ego than Matthew Mordine’s character. But I think there are some similarities between the both of them, which we get to later on as well.

Dan LeFebvre
33:28
I mean, I guess if you’re going through all of that, I know you’re not supposed to buzz the field, you’re not supposed to do that. But give him a break. Let him blow off some steam. Yeah, exactly.

Joshua Donohue
33:38
They need a tension breaker because it’s just losing their friends all the time. You know, that scene in the beginning where the plane explodes on the crash landing and the Memphis Bells crew, they’re prying open their buddies, you know, foot lockers and trying to take out all the stuff they don’t want to send back home. You know, all sorts of stuff. They don’t want their families to be embarrassed and all that. So that was a very real thing that, you know, it was fairly common. You’d be on, you know, hanging with your friends in one night and the next mission, you’d be out there and you come back and they’re gone. And it was, you know, it became more and more difficult. Morale definitely suffered, especially in those early months, especially in 1942 going into 1943. The height of the bomber campaign was still yet to really occur. But again, as I mentioned, once the United States is able to mobilize and send more planes, more trained crews overseas, the tide begins to turn. Well, you might have already answered my next question, but if we go back to the movie, the bomber taking the lead in that 25th mission is Windy City.

Dan LeFebvre
34:39
Unfortunately, they get hit and go down. So another bomber called C-Cup takes over for the lead. And then that bomber gets hit and goes down. And that’s how the Memphis Belle ends up taking over the lead for the mission, which means everyone else is going to drop their bombs when the Belle does. Was that how the Memphis Belle became the lead bomber for the mission after two others went down?

Joshua Donohue
35:00
So it’s somewhat similar, somewhat different. So the Belle was actually the lead plane on her last mission and was often the lead plane over the course of its operational history. As I mentioned, those first two times early on as Morgan flies them, but not really how it’s sort of portrayed in the film. In his book, Robert Morgan talks about the second mission over Brest, France, where the bell is the lead plane and what was known as the lowest of the three groups, which was split apart from two other groups that were both stacked up at 18,000 and 27,000 feet. So the higher groups were meant to be decoys. And if you see in the Weiler film that this is a tactic that is used fairly often to try and throw off German defenses, try and break apart the concentrated German fighters, we’re sending the white forces going here, the green forces going here, the blue forces going here. You have B-24s on this part of the mission. You have B-17s that will split off and they’ll fly out and they’ll back converge again. So there were all sorts of different methods that the 8th Air Force would employ to try and break apart the resistance that they would face on this mission. So the higher groups, as I mentioned, were decoys in order to draw the German fighters and the flak away from the three lower groups. While it was successful in terms of drawing the fighters away, they would encounter a large concentration of flak on that second mission. Morgan made the comment that it must have been flak day in occupied France. Another strategy also would help bomber crews to defend against fighters was the tactical formation known as the combat box. And this was a standard 18 aircraft box that could literally bring over 200 Browning M250 caliber machine guns to bear on German attacking fighters. Gun positions were really designed to cover all approach angles, meaning any German attacking fighter could face a wall of concentrated fire. And these box formations were also effective in terms of overall bombing accuracy, because since the lead group had to drop their payloads on the orders of the lead aircraft. So to make the formation bombing work, really the wings needed well coordination and really in terms of the pilot, the navigator, the bombardier. All of this had to be developed. And to that end, it would be bomber command directing the establishment of special overturned lead crews in each squadron and each station. So squadrons had to identify their best bombardiers and they joined with a specifically selected navigator. And these lead crews alone would be responsible for identifying the target, leading the unit on the bomb run, and locating the release point, giving the orders to release. And then the lead crew pilot was chosen for his ability to fly smoothly, to make changes gradually, to keep the formation together. And only three other planes in each group, the wingmen, the lead plane, and the leaders of the high and low squadrons, carried bomb sights in case the leader was shot down. The mission of the other crews was to stay in tight defensive formations and release their payloads when the leader released. So the lead crews underwent intensive training so they could act as group squad or lead crews on combat missions. So they often carried an additional navigator. Usually the tail gunner’s position was occupied by an officer pilot who advised the pilot of the state of the formation. And finally, lead crews were only to participate in combat as the lead crew in their tour would be shortened by five missions. So in addition to these crews, two very reliable B-17 aircraft in each squadron were designated as lead bombers and equipped with every device for accurate bombing. I should say bombing of a target as it became available.

Dan LeFebvre
38:58
It makes me think when you’re talking about that, it makes me think of like the Blue Angels or something, how they fly in formation like that, except of course, B-17s are a little less maneuverable. Yeah, slightly. But that would just add to the difficulty level of it all too. I mean, you have the benefit of, again, as you were saying that too, I was also thinking of like, you know, the Greek phalanx where they’re kind of getting close together and this formation for defensive purposes. But then when you’re talking about B-17s getting close together, you’re talking about midair collisions, that’s just going to increase that level of difficulty. And it’s like,

Joshua Donohue
39:33
wow. It’s not simply a matter of you’re just taking off, get up to the cruising altitude, and you just hold it there. I mean, you have to deal. And one of the things that the higher up the commanders of the Eighth Air Force, one name I’ll mention too, we’ve talked about when we did 13 days, General Curtis LeMay. He is actually flying missions for the Eighth Air force during World War II in both the European and Pacific theaters during the war. And he is, in a lot of ways, chiefly responsible for creating the morale and the tight-knit group that they need to be. And he is actually telling crews at this time, no evasive action, you’re flying straight through the target. This is the most effective way we’re going to do it. And when he would go to the Pacific can fly in B-29 missions as Robert Morgan would as well. The tactics there, especially when it came to the firebombing raids in 1944 and 45, that would be, you know, LeMay’s, you know, you know, his idea to attack Japanese cities, especially Tokyo at lower levels. So tactics are constantly changing, right? Even right up to the very end of the war. It seems that really strategic bombing is in its infancy still at this point in time. It hadn’t really been perfected during the interwar years between the First and Second World War. So it’s still very much you’re learning on the job and you’re learning from the mistakes. And many of those mistakes oftentimes are fatal ones.

Dan LeFebvre
41:04
Yeah, yeah. Well, that makes me wonder too, because in the movie we see some Allied fighters offering some supports, but they don’t stick around for too long since they can’t fly as far as the bombers. What sort of air support was typical for a mission from UK to Germany in 1943?

Joshua Donohue
41:19
Especially in the early days, it wasn’t uncommon for a lot of these bombers to go unescorted, just to fly missions with no fighter support and come back. And as they found out, this was a deadly proposition. There’s actually, in the film, there’s one of the more glaring historical inaccuracies in the film. And many people, fans of the film, historians, even people who kind of have a casual knowledge of aircraft. the part where Virgil Hoogastegger, the top turret gunner, says, little friends, three o’clock high, and you see a flight of four P-51 Mustangs joining the formation. So in 1943, the Mustang was in service, but it had entered World War II with the British in January of 1942. There wouldn’t have been Mustangs flying S-Core missions in 1943. That would have really fallen to the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, which was a single-seat fighter similar to the Mustang, really in that regard only. You would also have escort missions carried out by the RAF. Spitfires would be used, and Morgan actually talks about that a couple of times too. So the P-47, even with external fuel tanks, really was not able to escort the bomber formations all the way to and from their targets, and that’s really one of the biggest problems that they faced in the war. depending upon where that mission was, you would have seen a much larger presence than just four fighters as well. The P-51B and C models would enter the European theater of operations in December of 1943. They were quite effective as the British Merlin engine was the difference maker, and the P-51D was one of the finest aircraft produced of the entire war. It was the perfect marriage of American and British engineering. And still to this day, many people say that that plane in particular is just still among your favorites. Even I mentioned Top Gun. He had that opening scene where in Top Gun Maverick, Tom Cruise is working on his Mustang. I think that’s actually his actual Mustang in real life that he flies. So that aircraft is still just revered and just cherished, especially by private owners. There are air shows all the time. So for this particular part, you would see not so much the P-51. That would happen a little bit later on, 1944, 1945. So the P-47 and certain numbers, I believe the P-38 Lightning was also used for escort missions as well. But as I mentioned, early on in the war, it would not be uncommon for these bombers to be flying without any escort missions whatsoever.

Dan LeFebvre
44:02
I mean, I know that they’re not able to go the entire way or maybe they’re not able to help, but still like, well, I wouldn’t want to go at all, but I wouldn’t want to go without any support, like any escorts or anything like that because you have this mission you’ve got to focus on and at least get them off my tail for a little bit.

Joshua Donohue
44:22
Yeah, and it’s also, again, a testament to how durable and rugged the B-17 is. I’ll mention as we go a little bit, further in that there are several instances where these bombers that just, just, you wouldn’t think that they’d be flyable. I’ll, I’ll mention a couple of stories as, as we go along, but you know, the, the plane itself brought back countless crew members and were, you know, a lot of other planes simply wouldn’t have been able to make it back, you know, flying on, you know, three engines, two engines, one engine, it wasn’t, you know, a common thing, but it was done, I believe by at least one crew that was able to sort of use, you know, it’s a bit of a stroke of luck and a little bit of, you know, good weather and wind direction to keep that thing airborne otherwise. And like I said, it’s also worth mentioning that it was not also not uncommon if you were getting low on fuel, that crews would take all their guns, whatever was loose and just throw it out of the airplane, the light and the load as best they can. And you see that as they’re flying back over the English channel back to their base at the end of the mission towards the end of the film.

Dan LeFebvre
45:27
The next question that I have, again, might be one that you’ve already answered based on not, this was not really what their 25th mission was. But in the movie, we see that there’s this smoke screen that’s covering the factories that is their target. And so they have a decision to make, drop the bombs anyway, and hope that they’re on target along with everybody else’s bombs because they’re the lead. So everybody else is going to drop theirs at the same time. Or they can circle around for another pass and hope that the smoke screen clears. And the problem with that, of course, is anytime in the air, you’re exposed to anti-aircraft, enemy fighters for even longer. In the movie, Captain Dearborn decides to make another pass. So they circle around, and the target is still covered with smoke until just at the last moment, the smoke clears just enough for the bombardier to see the factories and let the bombs drop. And then all the other bombers follow the bell’s lead, dropping the devastation on the ground below. You just see all these explosions. And as I was watching that, I couldn’t help but think that, you know, the last second smoke clearing a little, maybe a little too much Hollywood timing. But sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. How well does the movie depict the bombing run for Bell’s mission?

Joshua Donohue
46:34
It’s not too far off because just to mention again, the Bell’s last mission, they didn’t have to go around and they weren’t even bombing Germany on their second to last mission. They were in the Bill of Sovn. But again, they were, you know, a laureate on their last mission. So it’s not the way it actually happened. But as I mentioned earlier, The Germans also would use a lot of other defensive methods in addition to aircraft and anti-aircraft fire from below. They would use smoke screens. That was a widely used tactic that the Germans would have. I did a podcast a while back about Hitler’s house at the Berghof in British Garden, and he actually had smoke screen machines in front of his house in case any Allied planes came over. And there’s footage of him walking around. You can see the smoke behind him. So he’s monitoring the tests there. So smoke screens. Again, ships obviously are using them to great effectiveness out to sea. But the Germans would use them to high targets of opportunity. And as you’re seeing through the lens of the Norton bomb site, fog was also an issue at times. In the beginning of the mission, remember, the jeep pulls up and tells them, you’ll be able to night-dense cloud cover the target. It’s a strong chance of the blowover. So fog, really natural weather phenomenon, was also a major. You’re not talking about autonomy. You’re able to effectively bomb with all this sophisticated technology and infrared sensors and laser guidance and all that stuff going on. So when the bombardiers were first on their – it would hit their runs on what was known as the IP or the initial point, they would be through the lens of their Norton bombsite, which was, again, the northern bombsite itself, which I’ll get to in a moment, was really a top-secret technology at this time and was one of the most important technological breakthroughs of the war because it really helped hone accuracy and enabled bombing crews to really strike targets at really high altitudes. It was not a perfect invention. It has plenty of its critics and detractors, But I do like that scene in particular because it gives you a sense of what they were seeing. And many times, bombardiers and even ball turret gunners would be able to see the Germans shooting the rounds up at them. They could see them spiraling up at them in the formations. So you really had a bird’s eye view, literally, of what was coming at you. So the Norton bombshell, as you see Billy Zane’s character, Valentine Kozlowski, has the plane under his control. And that was what would happen when you see Dearborn flips the switches. I’m turning the plane over to you. You’re flying the plane from here to target. And that’s really what it was like. The Norton bomb site was flying the aircraft from there to target. So in a lot of ways, it was kind of like you had autopilot. And when you’re on that bombing run, you simply had to stay on target. There was nothing you can do unless your plane was hit or you had to deviate for some other reason. But yeah, those bombing runs where the planes were really at their most vulnerable.

Dan LeFebvre
49:44
Now, you mentioned the targeting, and that leads into my next question, because one of the reasons that the movie gives for the captain’s decision not to drop the bombs through the smoke was because there were civilians nearby. They had to be as accurate as possible to avoid civilian casualties. And of course, they didn’t have targeting bombs like we do now. But can you share a little bit about the bombing technology and how did they help ensure accuracy to avoid civilian casualties like

Joshua Donohue
50:08
we see in the movie. So as I mentioned, the Norton bomb site was really the deciding factor, and that would really, in this technology, would enable crews to hit the pickle barrel, as they say in the film. So the basic problem with high altitude bombing is a pretty obvious one. You’re flying in a certain plane, you’re flying at a certain speed, you’re at a certain altitude with certain wind conditions, dropping bombs that are certain sizes and shapes and weights. So you need a formula that combines all of these variables and to tell you where exactly the plane needs to be and exactly when to drop the bombs. All of this together, again, there’s so many things that can go wrong, so many variables. So we learned through really enough during the First World War to know that this was a problem that we really needed to figure out. And the technology that I mentioned, the strategic bombing was still very much in its infancy. So we were still very much, by this point in the war, still learning on the job. So World War II was to be a war of industry and bombing of the enemy’s industry capacity to wage war. And as American engineers worked on new bomb sites, German engineers also did the same. They both knew the problems well. Both knew the same basic way to solve them. And they were what was called the gyroscopically stable bomb sites communicating, and if this makes sense, gyroscopically stable autopilot systems for the aircraft. The goal for both sides was to develop a bomb site, which the bombardier could calibrate and then enter in all of these variables into the site itself and then spot the bombing target through this telescopic site. And if all went well, the plane would stay on target, close in, and automatically release the bombs at exactly the right time and place. A lot of things can go wrong, unfortunately. During the bomb run sequences, you see, again, Bombardier Val Kozlowski, played by Billy Zane, looking through his bomb site and his plane is nearing the target. This is, again, improving the overall success of bomb accuracy. You also notice in the film that both bomb run sequences where Captain Dearborn flips those switches and tells the bombardier, because I mentioned, you’re turning on the autopilot, you’re flying, she’s all yours. So this certainly wasn’t perfect by any means, because you’re dealing with a variety of other factors. It did have some early flaws in even some of its detractors, as I mentioned, but you still, really, in most conversations about its overall effectiveness, I believe that the Norton bomb set at the end of the day performed the job that it was meant to do. And again, when you’re dropping bombs with hundreds and sometimes thousand plane raids, and you’re expecting every single bomb to drop right on its target, it’s just not something that’s realistic. So thinking about how strategic bombing evolved since World War II, nowadays a single aircraft can accomplish what took hundreds of B-17s or B-24s or B-29s, multiple missions, as you can see with the 91st Bomb Group, having to hit the same targets with tons of ordnance. They bombed Wilhelmshaven at least three times, Lorient, Brest, St. Nazareth, all at least four or five, sometimes six times. So the bomb group having to hit the same targets with tons of ordnance, you have all these sophisticated guided munitions nowadays, you can achieve all these same results in just one mission and not put nearly as many pilots and crew at risk.

Dan LeFebvre
53:36
It really just, it showcases how different it was back then, you know, putting yourself into a historical context of what it was like then, not aside from everything else that we’ve talked about there too, but even just everything could go perfectly right. and you could still miss. Yes.

Joshua Donohue
53:54
Yeah. I mean, it was, when they show the scene where they unveil the target when they’re going to Bremen and they’re showing the, you know, the pictures of the target and here’s the building. There’s a couple of buildings here. Here’s a school and a playground right next to it. It’s like to have to be able to negotiate it, no pressure at all. Every bomb has to hit this target. Again, That’s what is on Dennis Dearborn’s mind as he’s going through that part where he can’t see it. My scope’s sitting him over the target, but that’s not letting me, I can’t see anything. And then makes that fateful decision to flip the switches, take control of the plane and go back around again. So that was not too common, but there were instances where that did happen. Again, as Lieutenant Sinclair makes the comment, that’s like asking the Nazis to blow us out of the sky.

Dan LeFebvre
54:49
Speaking of Lieutenant Sinclair, there is a moment in the movie while the bell is circling for a second pass on the target. The co-pilot, Sinclair, goes back to the tail gunner to give him more ammo. At least that’s what he tells Captain Dearborn. In reality, he goes back to shoot the gun because they’re going home after this mission and he wants to kill some Nazis before the war is over. And he does. He hits an ME-109, which goes down, and it takes out a nearby B-17 named Mother and Country on the way down. That bomber was manned by a crew that the movie refers to as the rookies. Is there any truth to that whole scenario? Is it mostly just drama for the movie?

Joshua Donohue
55:26
It’s a bit dramatic. That part’s a bit dramatic, you know, where they’re screaming on the radio and you sort of, you know, you see the plane kind of sitting there and the fighter spiraling down. It’s split in half, right? This was not uncommon, though, and from a different sort of reason. there were instances where German Luftwaffe fighters purposely rammed their planes into B-17s. And what was known as the, yeah, and it wasn’t really meant for the pilot to die. It was meant that he was supposed to get his plane to where it damaged the plane enough and then hopefully you bail out. But chances are that may or may not happen. But what was known as the Sonderkommando Elbe, in April of 1945, the Luftwaffe formed this specialized task force for the goal of bringing down heavy allied bombers, such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, by ramming them. In a mid-air collision on February 1st, 1943, between a B-17 and a German fighter over the Tunis dock area became the subject of one of the most famous photographs of World War II. An enemy fighter attacking a 97th Bomb Group formation went out of control, probably with a wounded pilot, and then continued crashing his descent into the rear fuselage of a fortress named All-American, piloted by Lieutenant Kendrick R. Bragg of the 414th Bomb Squadron. When it struck, the fighter broke apart, but it left some pieces in the B-17. The left horizontal stabilizer of the fortress and left elevator were torn away. Two right engines were out. The left had a serious oil pump leak, and the vertical fin in the rudder had been damaged. The fuselage had been almost completely through, only connected by about two fuselage spars on the frame. The radios, the electrical and oxygen systems were all damaged. There was a hole in the top that was over 16 feet long, four feet wide, and its widest split in the fuselage went all the way to the top turret. The tail actually bounced and swayed in the wind and twisted when the plane turned. So with all the control cables severed, except for one single elevator cable that was still working, the aircraft still flew. The tail gunner was trapped because there was no floor connecting the tail to the rest of the plane. The waist and tail gunner used parts of the German fighter and their own parachute harnesses in an attempt to keep the tail from ripping off the two sides of the fuselage. And while the crew was trying to keep the bomber from coming apart, the pilot continued on his bomb run and released the bombs over the target. So when the bomb bay doors opened, the wind turbulence was so great that it blew one of the waste gunners into the broken tail section. And it took several minutes for crew members to pass him ropes and parachutes to haul him back into the forward part of the plane. When they tried to do this for the tail gunner, the tail flapped so hard that it began to break off. So the weight of the tail gunner added some stability to the tail section. They made him stay in his position, and they somehow brought the plane back together. That story, to me, is just one of the most remarkable. And as I mentioned, the B-17 was quite a durable airplane, and you can just do anything to this aircraft. Other than, you know, short of shutting all four of its engines down and still might have somehow means to fly. But that story alone, just I read about that. I was like, this is I have to tell this story. It’s unbelievable.

Dan LeFebvre
59:03
That’s like you think of the ground crew sees that and they’re like, what’d you do? How are we supposed to put this back together?

Joshua Donohue
59:12
And it’s just I could not be just being on a mission like that and having to just make those kinds of decisions. You know, you know what? Stay in the back of the plane. The weight of you is going to keep us, you know, stable from falling apart. And it’s just at any given moment, you know, your life could be over. And whether it be from a direct hit from a flak shell, a fighter or again, whatever, you know, one of the other many things that was dangerous up there at 30 plus thousand feet. But yeah, just remarkable stuff and heroism and courage that’s just unparalleled.

Dan LeFebvre
59:46
Well, I think you mentioned this earlier, but it reminds me, going back to the movie, there’s a point where Rascal’s ball turret at the bottom of the plane gets stuck and he yells to Verge for help. And then an enemy fighter is shooting directly at his gun. And he manages to get there just as the turret gets blown completely off. Rascal is hanging on for his life and he survives, managed to pull him up, but it’s a close call. Did that happen to the Bell?

Joshua Donohue
01:00:10
It did not happen to the Memphis Bell on any of its missions, but it did indeed happen. And this There’s some interesting ball turret stories I’ll share with you. One ball turret gunner named Alan McGee, and this story is almost unbelievable. Staff Sergeant McGee was a 24-year-old ball turret gunner from Plainfield, New Jersey, on the B-17 Flying Fortress, prophetically nicknamed Snap, Crackle, Pop, after the three cartoons of the Rice Krispie cereal. On January 3, 1943, McGee’s B-17 was on a mission over St. Nazare, Also on that same mission was Memphis Belle, its sixth mission. McGee’s plane was hit and was on fire. His ball turret wasn’t shot out from beneath him. He was actually in the process. He was getting out of the ball turret and inside the plane. And when he was doing this, he was thrown from the plane without a parachute and fell 20,000 feet and lived. Ball turret gunners didn’t have a whole lot of room to wear parachutes in the tight confines of the ball turret. That’s why you have that conversation where he talks about parachutes. There’s not enough room to breathe in here. Rascal Moore makes sense. He goes, and Dearborn says, put your safety strap on. Oh, it hurts. Do it. And it saves his life. So most of the parachutes were stored in the fuselage. So they had to physically get out of the ball turret to get the parachute. So McGee’s parachute was either damaged or he simply didn’t have enough time to retrieve it. He ended up crashing through the glass ceiling at the St. Nazare train station. I have actually been there. He was found dangling from the steel girders above the station, and they said that the glass somehow softened the blow and just how his body landed. He was seriously injured, obviously, but he was treated and recovered during his time as a prisoner of war. That story, again, while not being shot out of a ball turret, there were other instances where ball turret gunners found themselves stuck inside the turret. The landing gear is easy. You show if you have to make a belly landing and the ball turret gunner’s in there, it’s over. And also, too, where I’ve seen other instances that ball turret gunners were targeted by German planes. And again, because the ball turret covered the front lower and the entire lower part of the aircraft from front to side to side and to back. So the ball turret had a wide range, again, to shoot at to protect the bomber from below and all sides on either side. So, yeah, it was also a dangerous, and if you were the shortest guy in the group, that was your job.

Dan LeFebvre
01:02:53
Literally the short straw.

Joshua Donohue
01:02:54
Yeah, literally the short straw, yeah.

Dan LeFebvre
01:02:56
Glass does not strike me as something that would soften a – I mean, I guess technically, yeah, but – wow. That’s crazy. Yeah. Crazy story. Yeah.

Joshua Donohue
01:03:07
Many, many, many stories like that. It’s just you think that these guys have been through enough, and there’s another story that just tops them all. And, again, there was just so many – as you see, many times men are just shot from airplanes. They have blown right out of the plane where they’re trying to get out. And it’s one of the directives of the crew. And they make a good mention, you know, don’t yell on the intercom. And they have a specific set of instructions that they have to do. If you see a B-17 going down, you know, which one is it? Do you see any parachutes? So the gunners were always constantly looking for these types of things, in addition to the fighters they’re shooting at and they’re being shot at.

Dan LeFebvre
01:03:44
Well, I know you already mentioned the dive, but we are at the point in the movie where the bombers are trying to make it back and then shot out from all angles. One of the Bell’s engines catches fire. And then we see the two pilots, Dearborn and Sinclair, agree to go into a steep dive to let the wind put out the flames. It’s a gamble, but in the movie, they managed to pull it through. And I know you’d already talked about that. Was there anything else to add to that story? So as far as the diving goes,

Joshua Donohue
01:04:09
that it was not, it didn’t happen to the Bell on her last mission, as I mentioned, but this did happen, as I mentioned, on the January 23rd mission over Lorien. This also did occur with other crews. Diving was indeed a tactic that was used to put out engine fires, but obviously at a tremendous risk. In the high-speed dive, as you see in the film, the massive amount of airflow against the engine would basically, over the passing air, blow out the burning fire and then starve the fire from oxygen with the intention that it was going to blow it out completely. But this was only used as a last resort. A dive, as Lieutenant Luke Sinclair, the co-pilot played by Tate Donovan says, we’re going to lose the wing. You also had to worry about pulling out of the dive if your aircraft sells adequate power and, of course, altitude. Another reason that they would use this tactic as a last resort was for bomber crews in the 8th Air Force due to the fact that a low-flying and a slow-moving B-17 that was damaged in some way was simply a sitting duck to German fighters who might spot it. These bomber crews would often have to watch helplessly as damaged planes and their comrades who are lagging behind would just get pounced on by Luftwaffe aircraft from ME-109s to FW-190s, BF-110s, JU-88s. And of course, towards the end of the war, bomber crews are also introduced to the first German jet-powered fighter planes when they begin to see the ME-262 and the ME-163. So it’s often mentioned that if Germany had these jet-powered aircraft in great numbers at the beginning of the war, the losses would have been catastrophic. But for the Bell and its crew, they never have to experience really this, you know, as far as, you know, fighting against jets would, again, that would have been just an absolute decisive advantage to have especially against slow-moving planes and obviously you’re going to be countering their fighters as well. So again, the diving part of it was indeed used, but again, as a last resort because the stresses of that could literally rip the plane to pieces. I mean,

Dan LeFebvre
01:06:14
but maybe the B-17 would still be able to fly.

Joshua Donohue
01:06:17
It would just be like the frame of it and just the crew inside of it and like nothing else on the plane. And somehow they would just like plop on the ground, like two feet off the ground and they survive. Of course that’s, that’s obviously an exaggeration, but you know, thinking about it, it’s not too far off.

Dan LeFebvre
01:06:36
Wow. Well, after the close call with the dive in the movie, the bell is hit again and Danny is badly injured. The crew calls for the bombardier. Valentine, who’s supposed to be the medic, only to find out he lied about having medical training. He says he only spent two weeks in medical school before enlisting, so he doesn’t really know how to help Danny. He suggests dropping the unconscious Danny from the plane with a parachute so that he will purposely be captured by the Germans so he can get to a hospital. It’s a long shot. He’d survive the fall. It’s survived being captured or even get medical treatment by the Nazis. But there’s a time crunch because they have to do it before they’re over the English channel, as dropping him in the water would be certain death. They decide not to do it in the movie, but it makes for some tense moments on the plane. How much of that happened?

Joshua Donohue
01:07:22
So tales occasionally circulated about crews pushing mortally wounded men out of planes so their parachutes would deploy and they could land in enemy territory with the hope that they would receive life-saving hospital care rather than dying in a burning plane. So while a desperate thought, you know, occasionally considered by airmen under the most horrific circumstances, most military historians in Eighth Air Force Historical Society confirm that this was not standard protocol or really even a practice policy. As with their counterparts on the ground, bomber crews who fought over Europe and Japan also had a no-man-left-behind tradition. So the idea of taking a wounded or unconscious comrade and dropping out of the plane is certainly ludicrous. It’s for argument’s sake that this is based on an actual event. If you’re faced with so many different scenarios or outcomes, you don’t know if they can even deploy the parachute, as we see in the argument between Billy Zane’s character, Valentine, and the Bell’s navigator, Phil Lowenthal, played by D.B. Sweeney. I find that scene particularly striking because it’s that inner conflict that we see Kozlowski dealing with. Since the crew, as you mentioned, thinks he’s a doctor with all this experience and he can somehow snap his fingers and Danny’s going to come back. you know, it’s going to be fine again. That’s sort of what, you know, what the impression is. It’s like, it tells them, you know, what do you want from me? Oh, I have a stupid medical kit. You know, he needs a hospital, right? So when, you know, it’s, when mentioned in this scene, some of the, you know, some often wonder, you know, what happens to the airmen when they bail out over Nazi-occupied territory. The outcomes were different. In many instances, airmen were captured by the townspeople or by the German military or the Gestapo, whatever the case is, and they became prisoners of war, And that experience is also seen in the series Masters of the Air. Others are simply killed outright by angry German citizens who are already enraged about the relentless attacks against their homeland. This happens on quite a few occasions. Not uncommon for 8th Air Force bomber crews to land in a hay bale and a farmer’s pitchfork is going straight through them. So that was fairly common. Other times, crews are luckier. They were able to avoid capture and find their way back to allied lines. And many times with the assistance of resistance groups that are operating on the ground, and that was also something that was fairly common as well. And that really the directive is if you’re captured in a POW camp, one of the things that you should try to do is escape. And many do make it across allied lines. Some simply are captured and brought back to POW camp. And again, the conditions are quite harsh on them, of course. There’s a big difference between the way POWs are treated in Germany as opposed to how they’re being treated by the Japanese. It’s a little bit more harsh in terms of the civic theater of operations. But again, crews, you know, weren’t exactly safe if they got out of the planes on parachutes, if they were conscious or not. Again, oftentimes you would, you know, many crews would fall victim to German civilians on the ground.

Dan LeFebvre
01:10:37
I guess every, I mean, the dive is a last ditch effort. And I mean, everything seems like there’s an element of luck. I mean, you just got to do what you, I mean, and also the time aspect of it too. I mean, because you’re only going to have split seconds to make these decisions that will affect your life.

Joshua Donohue
01:10:57
Yeah, it’s just remarkable, you know, the level of training that these crews had to go through. And especially the early part of the war, which, you know, the bell starts its first missions in November of 1942. And again, at that point, you know, strategic bombing was just starting to get more and more momentum in the early years. And as Morgan talks about in his memoir, they had something like an 82% casualty rate. It was just absolutely astronomical what those crews had to go through. And again, chances are the average maybe was 10 missions, 15 missions at the most, and that was about it. So you really had to have a lot of luck on your side. And Morgan even says this. That one mission that the Bell didn’t fly on, he often said, that could have turned out differently if we were on that mission. And again, seeing planes around him shot down and the Bell’s able to really get through its combat tour relatively unscathed. I mean, bombers suffer damage generally on every mission, but they just simply have a combination also of experience. Morgan is experienced flying him, and he’ll continue to fly missions in the Pacific Theater also. He is actually the first pilot in a B-29 to fly over Japan since General Doolittle did it in 1942 during the Doolittle raid, which was the first air raid over Japan of the war.

Dan LeFebvre
01:12:24
I mean, yeah, there’s the experience element, but you have to have enough luck to survive to get that experience.

Joshua Donohue
01:12:29
Yeah, exactly. That’s why these crews were so revered because the odds were so stacked against them, especially in these early phases of the war. The Germans had just a formidable anti-aircraft system in place with all 88s, 105-millimeter guns, 20-millimeter, 40-millimeter. And they knew how to concentrate their fire over the targets that they were going to be defending. And the German Luftwaffe, again, they had early on in the war, and again, a lot of their pilots, their more experienced pilots, would be lost over the Eastern Front and, of course, over time, over Europe as well, during against the RAF and the United States Army Air Force as well.

Dan LeFebvre
01:13:13
That’s true, I guess, because Germany had been in the war a lot longer than the United States had.

Joshua Donohue
01:13:19
Yeah, and they had already taken considerable losses on the Eastern Front in terms of ground power, manpower, and air powers.

Dan LeFebvre
01:13:28
Well, I have a feeling I know what the answer to my next question is going to be. Because we know that the 25th mission for the Bell is not like what we saw in the movie. But at the end of the movie, everyone is back at base, starting to welcome the surviving B-17s back home. Meanwhile, the Bell is over the English Channel and out of the range of the German fighters. But they’re flying on only two engines, so they ditch their guns, anything else, and weighing them down. You talked about that earlier, throwing all that stuff out. She’s badly crippled, but the Bell and her crew managed to make it safely back to base. Was that really how the 25th and final mission? Well, I guess not final missions. I did another one. But was that really how that mission ended for the Bell?

Joshua Donohue
01:14:06
No. As I mentioned before, the Weiler film is the best piece of footage which accurately shows the Bell’s final mission. Weiler and Morgan actually makes this comment. Weiler used footage from the Wilhelm Sovind mission, which was Bell’s second to last mission on May 15, 1943. because he, and what Morgan suspects, that mission contained a little bit more action, because at that point, they were on, you know, the French missions were probably a little bit more of an actual milk run mission. So the missions over Germany, from a PR perspective, again, you want, you know, the crews to say, this crew flew over Germany in Wilhelm Saab, and again, one of the more heavily defended cities. There was only one slight injury ever to Eddie Bell crewman. That was John Quinlan, who was the tail gunner. He had a slight shrapnel wound on the 28th of March, 1943, after you were in France. He got the Purple Heart. He was actually embarrassed to take it because his wound was so slight. And even a little piece of the Bell’s history that some people might not know about, and again, as I mentioned earlier, is that Bell flies that 26th mission on May 19th, 1943, flown by Lieutenant Clayton Anderson’s crew, successfully attacking the turbo engine and engineering workshop in Kiel, Germany. Morgan and crew then fly the Bell back to the United States for the Warbond tour. And another interesting fact, and people probably just assume that the Memphis Bell, of course you see, is Captain Dearborn’s wife in the film. Margaret Polk is the actual Memphis Bell, who obviously is Captain Morgan’s interest. They never actually get married, as I later found out. During the War Bond tour, she surprises Morgan in Cleveland, Ohio. There’s a picture of them together. Life magazine actually publishes the photo of them together on August 2nd, 1943. But what Morgan kind of describes is all of the publicity and all of that stuff kind of strained their relationship to the point where they just kind of drifted apart and never really found each other again. But they would remain friends and they would reunite from time to time with the Memphis Bell, most notably well after the war. So interestingly enough, as I mentioned, Morgan will fly missions over the Pacific and he will marry his wife Dottie. Dauntless Dottie is the name of his B-29 super fortress that he flies from Saipan to attack targets in Japan. He flies another 25 missions over Japan. In those critical years, in those last remaining months of the war in 1945, where they’re attacking the industrial heart of Japan, really for the first time in mass, once the Mariana Islands, and of course, once Iwo Jima is taken, he actually lands at Iwo Jima with a damaged airplane, he mentions, during his time in Japan as well.

Dan LeFebvre
01:17:13
I’m noticing a trend of the pilots naming the planes, and it just makes me wonder what the guy’s wife was that he named it Hell’s Angels.

Joshua Donohue
01:17:22
Yeah, Hell’s Angels probably was a little bit too edgy for the 1940s. Memphis Belle had a much nicer sounding mystical name to it. So I can see why the American public would kind of gravitate towards the Memphis Belle name more than Hell’s Angels.

Dan LeFebvre
01:17:38
Well, you mentioned the actual footage in that documentary, and I know we’ve talked mostly about the 1990s. dramatized movie today, but there is that documentary called Memphis Belle, A Story of Flying Fortress. And normally, I think we assume that documentaries are always accurate, but this particular documentary was released in 1944 while World War II was still raging. And obviously, a lot of wartime media kind of leans towards some propaganda, maybe instead of being entirely accurate. Was there anything about the 1944 documentary that stood out to you as being inaccurate or was it a pretty accurate telling of the Belle’s true story?

Joshua Donohue
01:18:11
So Hollywood director William Wyler flew on multiple combat missions to film his 1944 documentary, but there were some were aboard Memphis Belle. Robert Morgan says there were about five of the missions he was on the plane with them because Belle was undergoing repairs from battle damage. His first filming mission was aboard the B-17 Jersey Bounce during a February 26, 1943 raid on Wilhelmshaven. So Weiler frequently rode in another B-17 acting as a camera ship, and the B-17 bad penny during an April 5th, 1943 bombing run on Antwerp. There was another interesting thing that happened to Weiler during his time over the skies of Germany and France. Harold J. Tannenbaum was working as a cinematographer for William Weiler. He was making war documentaries with the 8th Air Force Combat Film Unit While working on the Technicolor documentary, the Memphis Belle Story of a Flying Fortress, Tannenbaum’s plane was shot down on April 16, 1943. Several crew members bailed out of the plane, and it was reported that Tannenbaum bailed out but slipped out of his parachute and fell to his death. So the William Wyler film was about as real and honest as it gets, and it does have that sense of drama with all the music and all of that. And again, I like where at the beginning, this is an air front. And the camera shifts from the farm side, and it shows the B-17 on the other side of the head draw there. I love that part. It does have that sense of drama there. And filmmakers like Weiler, John Ford, and even Hollywood celebrities like Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable flew missions over Europe and the Pacific. Stewart flew 20 missions in a B-24 Liberator as a flight commander. Clark Gable flew five missions over Nazi-occupied Europe between May and September of 1943. So another interesting connection between the 1944 Weiler film and the 1990 film Memphis Bell is that Catherine Weiler, William Weiler’s daughter, she worked on the film as a producer. You see her name in the opening credits. She’s kept her father’s legacy alive with appearances, lectures about her father’s work during World War II, keeping the Memphis Belle’s legacy alive. And at the same time, I believe she was also working in a 4K version of her father’s 1944 film. So in Morgan’s book, The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle, and these are the stories that remind me of when Matthew Modine is talking to the Belle after the dance, when he walks out for the dance. And Morgan has these same conversations with the Belle. He would go visit the plane once a year and have these same types of things. you see Modine’s character have where he leaves the party and has that quiet moment with the plane. Morgan has those very same conversations with Bell and was on display for several years at Mud Island River Park in Memphis, Tennessee from 1987 to 2003. Morgan would pass away in 2004. The Bell was then, of course, I sent you the story about that, was brought to the Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. And right before Morgan passes, he’s made aware that the plane is going to be brought back, restored, and put on display at the Air Force Museum. So for Morgan, that’s a full circle moment right there, really from the time he gets in that plane at 22 years old, from the time he passes away, that plane is just a part of his life, and he stays attached to that plane from that time he comes back from the war until the time of his death.

Dan LeFebvre
01:21:52
Wow. Yeah, I know you sent me that. And for anybody watching this, I’ll make sure to add a link to that in the show notes so they can check out as well. I knew that Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable had flown. And obviously nothing in war is safe. But I was kind of always under the impression that one of the reasons they were pilots, other than that’s perhaps their expertise, but it’s a little safer for these Hollywood stars to do that than be infantry. But after our discussion today, I mean, I don’t know about that. I mean, it seems like it’s just nothing. It’s not safe. I mean, not that war, again, nothing in war is safe, but wow. Yeah.

Joshua Donohue
01:22:29
Yeah. I mean, there was just so many things that could go wrong up there. I mean, just not even counting the German fighters or the flack. The plane mechanically could have issues. Or again, you could have bombs being dropped above you and knocks your stabilizer off. You know, you could have, you know, crewmen that are, you know, injured. As you see, the Memphis Belle, most of the crew was, you know, as they show in the film, nicked in some way, shape or form. You know, they show Jack Bochy gets hit a little bit. And you have that scene where he says, you scream it like a stuck pig. And it’s just a scratch and all that stuff. And, you know, you have the interaction between those two. Then, of course, when Danny gets hit as well. So, again, this was a danger that all of these crews faced in some way, shape, or form. And it could be high altitude sickness. It could be someone accidentally loses their hand or their fingers, accidentally touching a piece of metal. And, again, there was just so many things that could possibly go wrong. And that these missions, and when I first started watching the film, I was so taken by it because I had never really known this part of World War II, really was even, you know, that involved. And over time, getting the real story of it, and then about a year or two after seeing the film, seeing the Wyler film, getting the real sort of, you know, insight and introspect on those missions, it just, I couldn’t believe it. And just seeing what these guys had to go through on a day-in-and-day-out basis is just remarkable.

Dan LeFebvre
01:24:09
Wow, yeah. I mean, yeah, it’s, I’m glad I don’t have to do that. I mean, I’m glad they did that for our sake. But man, yeah.

Joshua Donohue
01:24:19
Strategic bombing has come a long way since then, that’s for sure.

Dan LeFebvre
01:24:24
Well, before I let you go, let’s shift gears a little bit away from the movie to another major event from World War II. That’s the topic of your new book, The Baton Death March. Can you share some more information about your book and why you decided to write about The Baton Death March?

Joshua Donohue
01:24:37
So this is a project that’s turning into one of those times in life where the opportunity just literally just falls in your lap. A dear friend of mine and I were talking on the phone a little bit about World War II, and she mentioned that a great uncle of hers had fought at the Battle of Bataan and also at Corigador. Corigador was a small island that was located at the mouth of Manila Bay. And during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, the American and Filipino forces who fight there are, again, are forced to surrender. And then the Baton Death March, this 65-mile march begins where you’re not allowed to stop, you’re not allowed to eat, drink, rest, anything. If you simply fall behind, if you fell down, chances are you’re going to be beaten severely or in most cases killed. So this immediately piqued my interest. And now that I’ve written three articles and my third is coming out hopefully by the end of this year, I’ve also contributed to two books as well. I started to think about what’s next. I kind of want to keep pushing the bar a little bit higher. So once this story dropped into my lap and in the form of literally his diary, and he kept a meticulous record of every single thing he did, not even just during the war, but also before the war, during the Depression years, where he was just bouncing from one job to the next, when he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps, when he went to college at Washington State University. from his time working in Alaska, working in mines, and just trying to find his way through. And then he eventually joins the Army and becomes a second lieutenant with the 194th Tank Battalion. So when I read the story, it was just one of those things where I just, I said, I have to do this. This is a story I have to tell. So it’s the story of the second lieutenant named John Hummel, as I mentioned, who’s with the 194th Tank Battalion in the Philippines. They’re an outfit that is from Brainerd, Minnesota. And he describes, as I mentioned, as I’m reading his diaries, and I’m not even fully through it yet, describes his life during the war and also certain things that he had to do that literally traumatized him for the rest of his life and things that he had come down with malaria and just dysentery and just seeing his friends die all around him and And being able to actually, one of the coincidences that I found was that he was interned at a POW camp in Japan called Zensuji. Now, Zensuji was also another pilot who fought at Wake Island named Paul Putnam. So they were in the same POW camp together. So when I saw that, I was like, okay, now I really have to write this story because it’s just too good to be true. And I just started kind of writing it on maybe about 50 or 60 pages or so into it. I still got quite a bit ways to go. It’s my first ever foray into the book publishing world. But so far, it’s going well. I’m really, really excited to see the finished product.

Dan LeFebvre
01:27:42
Yeah, well, I’m excited to read it when it does come out. And not out by the time this episode will be, but if you’re watching this in the future, be sure to check the show notes anyway, because it’ll be there. I’ll make sure to add a link to that as soon as it’s available. and in the meantime, I’ll add a link to all your current articles as well. So you can check all of those out. Thank you again so much for your time, Josh.

Joshua Donohue
01:28:02
Appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me back.

Dan LeFebvre
01:28:15
This episode of Based on a True Story was produced by me, Dan Lefebvre. Hop in the show notes or head on over to basedonatruestorypodcast.com slash 387 to find a link to Joshua’s latest work. And while you do that, let’s find the answer to our two truths and a lie game from the beginning of the episode. And as a quick refresher, here are the two truths and one lie again. Number one, the real Memphis Belle flew more than 25 missions. Number two, the characters in the movie were based on the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Number three, the 25th mission was actually bombing submarine pens in France. Did you figure out which one is a lie? I’ve got the envelope with the answer, so let’s open that up. And the lie is number two. As we learned, the characters in the movie weren’t really based on the Bell’s actual crew, with the exception of the captain, as Joshua pointed out. As always, thank you for your continued support listening to, and if you know someone who you think would enjoy this episode, share it with them and let me know what they think. If you’re watching the video version of this, stick around for the credits. If you can find out my cat’s name and email it to me, I’ll send you a sticker. Thanks again for watching, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Dan LeFebvre

00:01

Hello and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies and TV shows with history. Today we’ll be learning about AMC’s The Terror, which is one of those TV shows that covers a different topic with each season. So for today, we’ll be covering the first season all about Captain Sir John Franklin’s lost expedition to the Arctic. The first season came out in 2018, so let’s start by refreshing our memory with a quick synopsis. The story unfolds in 1845 when the Royal Navy sends HMS Erebus and HMS Terror into the Arctic in search of the Northwest Passage. What begins as a proud Imperial mission slowly turns into a trapped, desperate fight for survival when the ships become locked in ice and the men realize they may not make at home. As the months pass, the crew faces freezing temperatures, shrinking supplies, and worsening morale. At the center of the story is Sir John Franklin, the expedition leader, who remains committed to the original plan even as conditions grow worse. His second-in-command, Francis Crozier, is more skeptical and increasingly sees how dangerous their situation has become. Around them, the crew wrestles with cold, hunger, illness, and the psychological strain of isolation while tensions rise between officers and ordinary sailors. Search parties, injuries, deaths, and mounting paranoia among the men is fueled by a mysterious and supernatural creature that seems to be stalking the men. Joining me today to separate fact from fiction in the series is Rich Napolitano, the host of an excellent podcast all about maritime history called Shipwrecks and Sea Dogs, which you can find at shipwrecksandseadogs.com. Before we chat with Rich, though, let’s set up our game for today’s episode. Now, if you’re new to the show, since Based on a True Story is all about separating fact from fiction in the movies and TV shows, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie. So I’m about to give you three facts that we’ll talk about in this episode. Two of those are actually true, and that means one of them is just an all-out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, the two ships were provisioned for three years. Number two, we don’t know if Sir John Franklin actually died during the expedition. Number three, the crew wintered at Beachy Island. Got him? Okay, now as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is the lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope. The answer is inside this envelope, and we’ll open it up at the end of the episode to see how well you did. All right, now it’s time to connect with Rich Napolitano about the historical accuracy of the first season of AMC’s The Terror. There are 10 episodes in season one of AMC’s The Terror, so we’ll be going through the key plot points in the whole season. But before we do that, I always like to start with a ballpark idea of how well a TV show depicts history. And that’s especially true for a show like we’re talking about today because the TV series The Terror is based on a 2007 historical novel, also called The Terror, by Dan Simmons. So you have the TV series based on a historical novel, which is then based loosely on history being a novel still, historical novel. But with that in mind, if you were to give just the TV series a lot of grade for how well it depicts the history, what would it get?

Rich Napolitano

03:35

Well, you know, like many of your guests, probably this is a tough question to answer, but I will answer it. If all things considered, I would probably give it a D. Now, that’s not a bad thing because this is not intended to be purely a historical depiction of what actually happened. Obviously, there’s a lot of supernatural kind of sci-fi things going on in the story of the terror, season one. and it wasn’t intended to be perfectly accurate. It is really wrapping up an interesting story with a dramatic portrayal of some kind of supernatural creature. So I think that’s really well done, actually. It’s a fantastic series. I love it. I really do. I’ve watched it several times.

Dan LeFebvre

04:25

I mean, I wasn’t aware of it until you had mentioned it and going and watching that to prepare for this. If nothing else, The cinematography of it, it’s just beautiful. Like you get the vastness of where they are and the loneliness, the emptiness, there’s all of that element that I’m sure we’ll talk about throughout this episode, but it’s just, they did an amazing job bringing it to screen.

Rich Napolitano

04:52

And what’s really impressive about it, and if I had to give it a, if we could ignore all the supernatural stuff and just focus on the story of the Franklin Expedition, I would probably give it a B because the ships, the HMS Aerebus and Terra, are fantastically recreated. Very painstaking detail goes into those ships. The uniforms, the life on board the ships, the overall environment they’re in, everything’s accurate. It’s really well done in that regard. And there’s a lot of details in the story as well that match up or at least would be plausible since a lot of the story. We really don’t know, to be honest. And, of course, we’ll get into that. So there’s a lot of details that really match up well to the story. So that’s why if we could ignore the obvious supernatural stuff, I’d probably give it a B or B+.

Dan LeFebvre

05:49

Okay. I mean, that’s really good to know, too, because I think that’s something that it tells me that the show creators made this conscious decision to add something to it. But the parts where they’re focusing on just the history side of what we do know about the ships, they did a good job. They did their research.

Rich Napolitano

06:08

Absolutely, they did. Yes.

Dan LeFebvre

06:10

The first episode introduces us to the overall storyline throughout the first season. I like to start with the quote at the beginning of the first episode of the first season. And this is a quote from the series. In 1845, two Royal Navy ships left England in an attempt to finally discover a navigable passage through the Arctic. They were the most technologically advanced ships of their day. They were last seen by European whalers in Baffin Bay, awaiting good conditions to enter the Arctic labyrinth. Both ships then vanished. And that’s the end of the quote in the series. And while the text doesn’t say their names, we learned pretty quickly that those two ships are called HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, hence the name of the series. But because it says both ships vanished, that immediately makes me think everything in the series is just going to be made up, since it implies no one knows what really happened. So can you set up the expedition, and how do we know how much really happened to the expedition if they simply vanished, like the series says happened?

Rich Napolitano

07:09

So, yeah, you’re right. The ships absolutely were the most technologically advanced of the time. And I’ll get into the description of those ships. But just in general, that time, this was the Victorian era. This was a time of gentlemanly pursuits, honor, integrity, adventure, bravery, courage, all of these kind of chivalric characteristics that men should exhibit, especially aristocratic gentlemen. And most naval officers were highborn, as you would say. So this was really a noble effort. And this was also a time when the wars, there were no wars going on. The Napoleonic Wars were over. So the Royal Navy had been kind of not sitting around, but they didn’t have a lot to do. So they were really engaged in a lot of scientific pursuits, venturing into the poles, trying to map areas that had never been mapped before, and take magnetic readings and those kind of things. celestial observations. It was really a time of curiosity and adventure and discovery. So that really leads up to what’s happening now, is that, yes, there was a Northwest Passage that had been fabled for centuries at this point. It would be economically advantageous to be able to sail through the Canadian Arctic archipelago to Asia, a very lucrative tea trade. And up to that point, in order to get there, you know, the Panama Canal and Suez Canal had not yet been constructed. So they either had to go east around Africa, all the way to China, or west around South America and through the Pacific Ocean, and both of them took many, many, many months. It was a very dangerous journey, so finding a shorter passage was economically desirable. They also wanted to take some magnetic readings of the magnetic North Pole, and that was kind of a global effort that was going on at the time, too, that everybody was collecting this data to try to understand Earth’s magnetism. So that was part of the expedition as well. But by 1845, much of the Canadian coast had been mapped, the northern Canadian mainland coast, but not all of it. They had entered from the east around Greenland and through Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, and they had entered through the west, through the Bering Strait around Alaska. So they had charted a lot of the coastline from the west. They had charted a lot of coastline from the east, but that middle section was still a bit of an unknown. There was a kind of a blob right in the middle around what is today called Nunavut, and that’s where this takes place, this whole Franklin expedition takes place, or at least the bulk of it. So much of that had not been mapped yet, so there was a lot of conjecture or not really sure what to make of it or how to get through there. And at this point, they were hoping that this was going to be it, that Franklin was going to be able to get it, to be able to go through and finally sail through a navigable passage to the Pacific Ocean. Sir John Barrow of the Admiralty was one of the champions of this effort, and he really wished this to happen. So he put forth this expedition to happen in 1845. He himself was 82 years old, so he wasn’t going to lead it himself. He turned to Sir William Edward Perry, who was a veteran explorer, had actually been to the Arctic before. But he was also kind of exhausted and burnt out, so he declined. And then they chose Sir James Clark Ross, who was very popular at the time, had just finished an Antarctic expedition with HMS Terror and Erebus, as a matter of fact, with Francis Crozier. But he also was exhausted, and he promised his wife he was done, that he was no longer going to do any polar expeditions. Then they turned to James Fitzjames, and it was determined he was too young and too inexperienced. Then George Back was considered, but he was too argumentative for Sir John Barrow’s tastes. Then Francis Crozier was considered, but he declined, believing that Ross should probably have command or possibly Sir John Franklin. And in fact, that’s who was chosen. Finally, not the first choice or second choice or third choice or even fourth or fourth choice, but somewhere down the line choice. Now, he was 59 years old at this time, a bit out of shape as well, but he was highly respected and absolutely a veteran of Arctic expeditions and naval experience as well. He was at the Battle of New Orleans. He was at the Battle of Trafalgar. He was very experienced and highly respected. He had already done two Arctic expeditions, 1819 and again in 1827. One of them went well and one of them didn’t. We can talk more about that later. But he was no slouch, but he was just kind of, he was getting a little bit long in the tooth, and he wasn’t in great physical condition for such a hefty journey. So he wasn’t really the first choice. So that kind of explains how the expedition was, how it came about and why they were doing it. Now, as far as the ships themselves, the Erebus and Terror, these were excellent choices for Arctic expedition because they were former bomb ships. Now, basically, these were vessels with a flat platform, essentially with mortars, you know, artillery attached to them. They were meant for launching high arcing artillery onto shore. And because of that, they were really well constructed, very sturdy, very strong to withstand that kickback from the mortars. Erebus was built in 1813, served at the Battle of Baltimore, actually, during the bombing of Fort McHenry, when the American National Anthem was written by Francis Scott Key. The Star Spangled Banner. So it was there. And Erebus and Terror both served in the Antarctic expedition with Sir James Clark Ross. Erebus was built in 1826, also a bomb vessel. But both of these ships were refitted, strengthened, reinforced with iron plates on its hull. And given some of the most technologically advanced equipment, they even had locomotives, like train locomotives, to provide power for their steam engines. So they had a single screw or propeller as well as sails. So that gave them some extra power to try to break through the ice if needed. And it also had this ingenious system for heating. The locomotives generated this power to produce the steam, which was then kind of the excess steam was used to heat the ship internally. Yeah, so these were really well built ships and ready for action. Really well provisioned. It was a very well planned out expedition. They were given three years of provisions, food, water, tons and tons of food. We could go on and on about all the lists of things. But libraries, 1,200 volume library on the Terror and 1,700 or so on the Erebus. This expedition was ready to rock, fully prepared, excellent crew, experienced captain, experienced officers. It just didn’t work out.

Dan LeFebvre

15:56

well as you’re going through the the list of people that they picked or some maybe didn’t want to or the admiralty thought they weren’t right it kind of made me wonder was this uh maybe not just this expedition but in general an expedition um to the unknown like that what was it something that they wanted to do or was it more they were ordered to do and maybe not that excited get into the morale that’ll come into play later, but this is kind of making me lead that. Think about that is with Franklin being so low in the list of choices, it’s kind of like, I really don’t want to be here. I mean, that could lead to that sort of mentality, I would imagine, but maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.

Rich Napolitano

16:45

Generally speaking, they all wanted to be there, at least the officers. This was a really excellent opportunity to advance. And it was a very high profile expedition. And it was a chance to get excellent experience, earn a lot of money, they were well paid. And if everything went well, a lot of times, when they got back, they were given some kind of reward monetarily from the government or from the Admiralty. Sometimes some of the more higher performing members would be given awards by, made a fellow of the Royal Society, those kind of things. So it really was a great opportunity, especially for the officers. Captain James Fitzjames of the Erebus was young at the time. He didn’t have any Arctic expedition experience. So he was really keen on learning. He was going to, he was actually put in charge of all the magnetic readings. And Crozier was meant to teach him. Crozier was an expert at the magnetic observations. And Franklin wanted Crozier to teach Fitz James, which is an important detail for something that we’re going to talk about later. But, yeah, this was definitely something that they were looking forward to. Crozier had just also returned from the Antarctic like Sir James Clark Ross. So he was a little bit exhausted, probably a lot exhausted, maybe not too terribly keen on going. But there were some other factors involved that will be pertinent later that I’ll talk about.

Dan LeFebvre

18:33

Okay, well, now that we have a better idea of the expedition, if we head back to the series, we start to get a foreboding sense of danger with the concept in the first episode. highlighted by the title of the episode called go for broke and we learn what that means when the expedition’s flagship HMS Erebus sustains ice damage causing her to run a lot slower and then the expedition’s second in command captain Francis Crozier from terror proposes to the expedition’s leader captain sir John Franklin on Erebus that they abandon the damaged Erebus and concentrate all their resources on taking terror through the open channels in the ice while they’re still there since it’s kind of a race against time before the ice freezes around them. So this go for broke idea is what the series proposes. But then, according to the series, it’s rejected by Franklin, who insists that they’re going to stick to the original plan, both ships trying to get through the icy waters together. And of course, we find out what happens in the expedition as the series goes on. But we do know that there was this idea to leave the damaged Erebus behind. Do we know if that was actually something, this go for broke concept, leaving the Arabs behind and just going with the terror instead? Was that something that actually happened?

Rich Napolitano

19:42

Well, the short answer is we have no idea. But I think a little bit of backstory is needed here before I answer that more fully. They left England and went to Orkney first to resupply, then around Greenland, and that’s the last time they were seen, and that would have been June of 1845. That is actually the last anybody really knew of them. It was the last time they were seen. After that point, after June of 1845, we really don’t know much except for one very important document. And that document is called the Victory Point Note. It was found in 1859 by Sir Francis Leopold McClintock. And it tells us what happened before this point that we’re talking about in the series, because the series, well, like I said before, I love it. It’s really well done. It doesn’t talk about any of this in the series, and it’s pretty pertinent. Before that point where they got stuck in the ice, they had that first winter, they sailed through Baffin Bay, through Lancaster Sound, reached a point in the winter of 1845 where it wasn’t going to be feasible anymore because obviously in the winter everything freezes up. So they do most of their journeying in the summer months. So they spent the winter at a tiny spit of land called Beachy Island. This is the winter of 1845 to 1846. And we know that because of this victory point note that was found by McClintock much later, obviously, in 1859. This note was found in a cairn, a stone structure, basically, on King William Island far to the south. But it says, 28th of May, 1847, HMS ships Erebus and Tear wintered in the ice at Beachy Island, and he provides the latitude, after having ascended Wellington Channel to latitude 77 and returned to the west side of Cornwallis Island. Sir John commanding Allwell, party consisting of two officers and six men left the ships on Monday, 24th May, 1847, signed Graham Gore, Lieutenant, and Charles F. DeVoe, mate. Now, this is going to be a really important document, but from this document, we know everything that happened, not everything, but we know their general route before they got stuck in the ice, that they overwintered at Beachy Island. And interestingly, this note says they wintered in 1846 to 1847. That was wrong. They were just wrong. They just got the date wrong. It was definitely 1845 to 1846. And we know that because of a subsequent note that we’ll talk about, the second part of this note that we’ll talk about later. So we know that they were stuck on Beachy Island for the winter. And when spring came, came they started heading south they they headed south through Peel Sound which is a you know the Arctic the Canadian Arctic archipelago is just this vast maze of little islands and channels and straits so I won’t get too too caught up in the weeds with that but just just picture them navigating through all these little channels and things until they finally come out in front of King William Island this is where they get stuck in the ice but there’s a really important factor in why they got stuck in the ice, because at that time, like I said, most of this area had been charted, but not all of it. And that portion of King William Island is right adjacent to a peninsula called Boothia. And the admiralty at that time believed that King William Island was connected, that it was a peninsula, and they actually just called it King William Land on their maps. So Franklin didn’t think he could turn to the east side of the island because he thought it wasn’t an island that he would be blocked. So he turned to the west into the much larger Victoria Strait. This happens to be a place where really large ice flows get blown down from polar winds from the north down into this kind of natural collecting point as kind of a dead end for all of this ice. And it just stacks up and stacks up into these huge ice ridges. And it’s really thick sea ice, not just flat ice like on a pond in Pennsylvania or something. It’s really crazy thick ice and stacked up ridges. So that’s where they get stuck. But it was because he didn’t think that he could get through to the east side of King William, King William Land, as he called it. So that’s where they get stuck. So this idea of going for broke, back to your question. We don’t know if Crozier said that or wanted to do that. He may have, but we simply don’t know. We don’t have any of the ship’s logs. We don’t know any of the conversations that happen. However, this is where I think it’s plausible, where I think the writers did a really good job in weaving in things that actually did happen, some other circumstances that make this plausible. For example, Crozier wasn’t entirely in a great mood on this expedition, so I think they do a good job of showing him as a little bit surly. He is in this series, sure. He is. He’s very, he’s certainly among other things, but, um, he, he had, he, like I said before, he was exhausted already. He, he, he had not been long since he got back from the Antarctic. So he was, he was pretty worn out. He also really wasn’t terribly sociable. Um, he wrote in a letter before they left Greenland, before the last time they were seen, he sent back, uh, some letters on the supply ship, HMS Rattler. He says, I cannot bear going on board Erebus. Sir John is very kind and would have me there dining every day if I would go. He has Fitzjames and two officers every day. This is shown in the series of Franklin being a little unhappy that Crozier won’t come have dinner with him because Crozier just kind of grew tired of it. He didn’t like having to go back and forth on the boats and the cold and the ice. He was a little bit tired of hearing John Franklin’s stories about how he was mistreated in Van Diemen’s land. That’s modern day Tasmania. John Franklin happened to be governor of Van Diemen’s land prior to this expedition, and it didn’t go well for him, and he felt like he was shafted and all this stuff. So he was always talking about that, and I think Crozier was a little bit just like, oh god, okay, right already about this. You have the same story again. And we know this. Yeah, same story again, every night at dinner. And we know this because we have some of Crozier’s letters that he wrote back home before they disappeared, before they left Greenland. He also questioned some of Franklin’s decisions. He wrote a letter to Sir James Clark Ross, and he says, what I fear is that we’re leaving so late, we’ll have no time to look around and judge for ourselves, but we’ll blunder into the ice and make a second 1824 of it. James, I wish you were here. I would have no doubt as to our pursuing the proper course. Like I said, he really thought James Clark Ross should have been in charge of this expedition. And he’s referring to 1824 because that was Franklin’s second Arctic expedition. Or yeah, that was the beginning of his second Arctic expedition. But his first one, Franklin’s first one was a total disaster. They had 11 of 22 men died. There was definitely cannibalism. One man was murdered to be eaten, and then that man was murdered by an officer for the cannibalism. There’s so many stories within this story. So Crozier had a little bit of, let’s say, not animosity. He really did respect John Franklin, but I think he was just a little bit done with all of the drama.

Dan LeFebvre

28:23

And happening so early on, too. I could imagine that would only grow and grow and grow, and you’re stuck together. And, I mean, they have separate ships, but still confined spaces.

Rich Napolitano

28:34

Very confined. In this series, too, when he’s talking to Crozier, when Crozier is talking to Franklin about abandoning the Erebus and everybody getting on the terror and getting out of there, he’s also at odds with James Fitzjames quite a bit. Now, we also know from Crozier’s letters that he was a little bit maybe jealous or at least had some animosity because Franklin put Fitzjames in charge of all the magnetic observations. Crozier was miffed by that. He had so much more experience. He wrote again to James Clark Ross, I find by the instructions that Fitzjames is appointed to superintend the magnetic observations. I will therefore take just so much bother them as may amuse without considering myself as one of the staff. So a little bit of Victorian era snark there, I think. So he was a little bit miffed about that. plus he had been this is another little bit of drama uh that’s portrayed in the show uh crozier was pining for his love sophia craycroft and they do show miss craycroft in the in the show she was john franklin’s niece and they had met in van diemen’s land tasmania and Crozier proposed to her and she rejected him for being too low-born and just a mariner and with not much potential. He proposed to her again later and she rejected him again. And Crozier kind of thought, well, if I do this expedition with her uncle, Sir John Franklin, and maybe I can win her back. Maybe I can win her heart by showing her my bravery. So that’s probably the reason why he really, or at least a good part of the reason why he went on this expedition.

Dan LeFebvre

30:39

I think they alluded to that in the series a little bit too. Yeah.

Rich Napolitano

30:43

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, he was definitely grumpy and that’s very plausible. We don’t know, obviously, but it is very plausible that he was not in a great mood. They show him as an alcoholic as well. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. He may have drank just as much as any other officer on the ship, I suppose. But there’s no historical evidence that he was a drunk. But it certainly adds to the drama. And I really like, actually, that they make him this kind of brilliant that he’s bitter about Fitzjames, a little bit at odds with Franklin, and just this lovesick, mopey, sad sack. Anyway, so we don’t know if he wanted to go for broke or not, but I think it’s a really useful literary device to throw in there to add some interest to the story.

Dan LeFebvre

31:42

You mentioned his name with Graham Gore. And if we move to episode two, the ships are stuck in the ice. So they send out search parties to look for leads in the ice. One of the officers and one of the parties, Lieutenant Graham Gore, is killed by a bear. Or at least they think it’s a bear. It’s a massive creature. They don’t really get a good look at it in the series. But what they do is shoot at it. And instead of hitting that, they end up hitting someone else out there on the ice with them. It turns out to be a net select shaman. They take him back to the ships along with his daughter, but he succumbs to his injuries. And then the shaman’s daughter is obviously upset, but through it all, the men are trying to figure out what this creature was that killed Lieutenant Gore. And the next woman calls the creature a Toonbuck and says that she has to control it now that her father has died, which seems to imply that there’s this supernatural element on the horizon here. We’ll circle back to some of that supernatural plot point later on. But I’m curious about how all of this started with the ships getting stuck in the ice, probably because they couldn’t move fast enough due to the damaged Erebus slowing them down. We talked about a little bit in the first episode. And then now that Lieutenant Gore is dead, there’s potentially something worse on the horizon with this supernatural element. But can you unravel how much this sequence of unfortunate events actually happened?

Rich Napolitano

33:02

Yeah, obviously, there’s the whole creature shaman lady silence thing. That didn’t happen. Well, maybe it did. I mean, obviously, that’s part of the supernatural lore to the drama. But as far as what actually did happen, Lieutenant Graham Gore did lead a search party of eight men with mate Charles DeVoe. And they walked from the beset ships in the ice, just sitting there trapped in Victoria Strait. They walked, you know, 10 miles or 15 miles or however it was about that much, across the ice to King William Island, to the very northwest tip of it. And it was there that they left the victory point note that I read to you earlier. They jot it. It’s like a standard admiralty form. It’s basically like a form letter that has a lot of standard information and then a place for a customized message, which they hand wrote. And that’s where they say, we wintered at Beachy Island. All is well. John Franklin in command. Basically, really important information, actually, because they give specific latitude and longitude, which is useful later to know where they were. so they did actually do that they did they did go out in search of open water possibly game seal something that they could shoot and eat but they didn’t find anything but they left they left this note in a cairn and then they traveled a bit further south down king william Island on the West Coast, and they left an identical note with the same exact message at a point that’s now aptly named Gore Point. So we know that they did that for sure, but they traveled several days, didn’t see anything, and after that we really don’t know specifically what happened to them. Most likely they returned to the ship. you know, no, no attack by a creature or polar bear or anything. It’s possible they could have died on the way back. We don’t really know, but we know they died eventually. But that actually did happen as far as what they, they did venture out onto the ice and leave that note. And, you know, what happened to those men specifically, hopefully they didn’t get eaten, but that’s, but that note’s really important because that’s really, That’s the only firsthand account that we have of what may have happened to them. Everything else is just kind of conjecture.

Dan LeFebvre

35:55

But they left a second note you said, too, that was identical, which even being identical, the information might be different. But that, to me, tells me that they made it back from the first expedition, venturing out on the ice successfully. So at least what we saw in the series didn’t happen. Yeah, right.

Rich Napolitano

36:12

I mean, the obvious creature attack was part of the fictional element. But at this point, they had not abandoned the ships yet. It’s May of 1847. They were still hoping to break free in the summer and sail south to Simpson Strait and get out of there. But two summers in a row, the ice was still too thick and they were trapped. So, you know, 19 months in total, they were trapped on these ships. Even the – it’s crazy. The amount of misery and just not only uncomfortable, but, you know, just it’s hard to keep up morale. And, you know, I think we’ll probably talk about that, too. But, yeah, stuck in the ice for 19 months.

Dan LeFebvre

37:22

Yeah, I mean, it’s a form of prison. I mean, basically, you know, I mean, you it’s we think of, you know, isolation is a form of torture, too. And so you have a mixture of these two things going on at the same time, not even to mention the the weather and the cold and, you know. And yeah, that’s. I couldn’t imagine. I’m happy here. Central heat and air. Scurvy free. Scurvy free. Well, I have a feeling that as we continue through the series, we’re going to lead further and further into the probably didn’t happen. And a great example of that is in the third episode, because we see the crew unceremoniously throwing the shaman’s body down this fire hole in the ice and, and then set up a trap to try to kill this Toonbok creature. And as if in response, the creature attacks the men and drags the leader of the expedition, Captain Franklin across the ice and throws his body down that same fire hole that they threw the shaman down. Do we know if that’s how Sir John Franklin actually died?

Rich Napolitano

38:29

Most certainly not. That’s not how he died. A really cool scene, though. I have to say. I mean, yeah.

Dan LeFebvre

38:37

It’s fitting for the scene. Well done.

Rich Napolitano

38:40

It was pretty exciting. Terrifying watching him slide down that hole into the abyss. But no, here’s what we know about the death of John Franklin. It is from the second portion of the Victory Point Note, which we will, I think it would be better to talk about it in detail in a bit, but we know that John Franklin died on the 11th of June, 1847. That’s all we know, that he died. No information about how he died, where he died, or where he was buried, or if he was buried. That’s it. That’s all we know, is that he died on the 11th of June, 1847.

Dan LeFebvre

39:22

I feel like if he died the way the series showed, they probably would have written that. A little more detail about what happened.

Rich Napolitano

39:29

Yeah, right. Much more exciting in the show. Chances are he died in his bed or on a surgeon’s table or something, you know. So that’s really all we know about Sir John Franklin’s death.

Dan LeFebvre

39:41

If we go back to the series, we’re up to episode four. It’s November of 1847 in the series, and it shows us back in England. We see Lady Jane Franklin, so John’s wife, or I guess now widow, although she doesn’t know that in the series. But that’s all happening a thousand mile away. So there’s no way that she would know. The lack of word from her husband, though, leads Lady Jane in the series to try to organize a search party. But the admiralty isn’t concerned yet. They tell her that if they haven’t heard anything by 1850, that’s when they’re going to search. This is one of those moments as I was watching it. really have to put ourselves in that historical context because these days you wouldn’t wait three years before even organizing a search party. But then of course they didn’t have the means of instant global communication like we do now. So can you help us get into that historical context? Was it normal for explorers to go years without any word at all? And for Sir John Franklin’s expedition specifically, was there any communication back home more or less was considered normal at

Rich Napolitano

40:38

the time? Communication was virtually impossible for these expeditions. So yes, it was normal to go two, three, four years even not knowing anything, having no communication. It was very common. This expedition was expected to last at least two years, probably three. They were provisioned for three years. And just for example, Franklin’s first Arctic expedition was from 1919 to 1922. And that went horribly wrong, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, they resorted to eating their leather boots. So he actually earned the nickname, the man who ate his boots. That was in the series too. That actually is true. His second expedition was almost three years, about two and a half years. The Ross Antarctic expedition was four years, 1839 to 1843. And so this expedition certainly was expected to take two years at least, three years most likely. So hearing nothing in two years, the Admiralty was nonplussed, we should say. They didn’t think anything of it. Like, this is normal because the only way they would get any information is if they happened to pass another ship pass on some letters that they would then take off, take on to England. But in that part of the world, there were no other ships. The only ships that would be there would be from the Admiralty, and they knew they didn’t have any other ships there. So there was no way to communicate. They would have to reach an outpost like Fort Resolution or, you know, from the Hudson’s Bay Company. And that was well to the south. So there was no way to get any word back. So obviously, Lady Jane Franklin, she wants some news. She’s worried. Totally understandable. Yeah, Admiralty wasn’t having it. And Lady Jane Franklin had a lot of influence. She was a very respected noblewoman. And so it wasn’t that they were just dismissing her out of hand. Even the fact that she had their attention was pretty impressive. But they weren’t worried. By 1848, they were worried. So that’s really when they agreed, okay, we’ll send some ships, but not until three years had passed.

Dan LeFebvre

43:13

That makes me wonder. You’re talking about some of these other expeditions that were taking three or even four years in Ross’s case. um but they were this expedition franklin’s being provisioned for three years that sounds to me like they didn’t add any buffer room at all like everything has to go according to plan because we expect this to take three years and we’re giving you three years worth of uh uh provisions like there’s no extra well you know if it takes three and a half or four years you know you it just seems like i don’t know for something like that it again it’s that historical context of, you know, I’m thinking now, um, I take a trip somewhere. I’m going to bring extra batteries for my phone. Like, you know, it’s the little things like that. Cause I might not need it, but I want to bring it just in case, you know, I want to have that little buffer, but I don’t know. It’s just, again, and something that’s really hard to wrap my mind around of just, this is a three-year expedition. You’re going to have three years worth of provisions. Good luck.

Rich Napolitano

44:09

Well, I’ll tell you what the backup plan is. The way that they, uh, provided a buffer, as you said, is a, they just stretched rations. Oh, just don’t eat. Yeah, basically you eat less. That’s what they did. So if necessary, they would reduce rations to three-quarter rations, then half rations, and on down the line until they ran out.

Dan LeFebvre

44:32

I guess we do see that some in this series. They start provisioning some of that a little bit more too. So I guess maybe that was standard protocol.

Rich Napolitano

44:40

It was. In fact, they said if they stretch the rations, they could make it five years.

Dan LeFebvre

44:46

Oh, wow. Okay.

Rich Napolitano

44:47

and there’s always the uh the chance of uh hunting some some animals or catching fish and they did to some degree uh do that but um that part of of the canadian arctic is pretty bare of wildlife there’s there’s really nothing there um fish but you know they weren’t experienced ice fishermen um so there really wasn’t a whole lot of fresh food for them they had to rely on what they had

Dan LeFebvre

45:16

there was something else that stood out to me in episode four with captain crozier he orders one of the crew to be well it’s the title of the episode punished as a boy basically that means being lashed across his naked butt for arguing but that’s that’s a punishment that i would assume to be done during normal times and even though there’s nothing about this situation that really seems normal to me the mere fact that they’re doing punishments like this tells me that perhaps the crew also doesn’t think that they’re in such dire straits yet maybe you know they have one and in England apparently isn’t too worried about it seems like maybe the crew isn’t either was there a point around here whether the expedition itself started to feel like maybe we’re in need of rescue like there’s it’s been a couple years and we’ve got a year left of provisions maybe we need to start

Rich Napolitano

46:00

doing something yeah I think that the by the winter of 1846 to our uh yeah the winter of 1846 47 their their first winter stuck down in Victoria street. I would assume that the crew, the, the lower level crew were probably getting a little worried, uncomfortable, cold, hungry. Uh, you know, even, even though these ships were, were extremely advanced for the time, they were still ships and the quarters are cramped and, you know, the, the, the regular crewmen didn’t have great accommodations. They slept mostly in hammocks, possibly a berth on the side of the ship, you know, a tiny, basically the size of your body, if you’re lucky. So they were probably getting pretty worried at this point. The officers, on the other hand, even if they were worried, were probably keeping it to themselves that because remember, this was really a time of honor and integrity, and you had to act like a gentleman. The attitude at that time of a Royal Navy officer was that they believed that they needed to understand the men, the crew, provide for them, keep them safe, protect them, and bring them home alive, almost like a parental obligation. In exchange for that, they demanded 100% obedience. So it was a kind of a different way of thinking about it than we would think of a military operation now. Obedience, sure, but in a different way. So these officers had to keep a good show of it. They had to show the men that they were staying positive and that everything would be okay, even if in the back of their mind they were worried too. Chances are there was a little bit of trouble here and there, but as there would be on any ship. Franklin, before he died anyway, would have had a pretty good command of the men because he was well-respected, even if Crozier was getting a little bit tired of him. Generally speaking, the men loved John Franklin. He was good to them. He was respectful of them. He did not believe in corporal punishment, so he was not somebody that was just going to hand out floggings, you know, for tiny minor offenses. Crozier, not so much. He was okay with it. Not that he was a sadist or anything, but Crozier is the one that ordered Hickey to be flogged. And of course, we don’t even know if that really happened, of course. But if it did, it would have been because Crozier was, he was okay with issuing corporal punishment.

Dan LeFebvre

49:08

Which, again, tells me, again, going back to the historical context, Because, you know, think of, I’m going to, for the crew to like their captain because this is the one that doesn’t flog me. Like, it’s like, I mean, yeah, it makes sense. But it’s like, okay, well, I feel like that’s a pretty low bar these days.

Rich Napolitano

49:30

Well, floggings were on the decline at that time. Certainly a century before they were much more common. But they still happened. And, you know, that really could be a thing. that they loved Franklin because they knew they weren’t going to get flogged. That’s very possible. But in general, he was well-respected. And especially by that, there’s a really good description of a ship getting crushed by ice when you look into Ernest Shackleton’s endurance expedition to Antarctica. You know, they describe the ominous, eerie sound of the ice crushing in on the boat every night, hour after hour, minute after minute. It’s creaking, it’s cracking, it’s groaning. Even the ice outside of the ship grinding past each other. It’s really loud when the ice flows smash into each other. It’s like an earthquake. So this is what they were enduring day after day. trying to get some rest, but knowing that any moment this ice could crush the ship. It’s very eerie and very stressful. So the amount of mental stress they were going through, I can’t even imagine. Certainly by that second winter of 1847 to 1848, they must have been getting low on food, and the quality of that food may have been in question, as we’ll discuss, I’m sure. This is one of the most remote places on earth. Zero chance of being rescued. Nobody was coming. And even if they did come, they probably couldn’t get there because it was all iced in. Excuse me. Because it was all iced in. So the officers are probably just trying to do their best to keep everybody happy. As happy as they possibly could.

Dan LeFebvre

51:36

Considering the circumstances, yeah. Right. Well, you’re talking about the food in episode five. We start to get the idea of the provisions that they have maybe being a problem. One of the cook notices that some of the food is starting to go bad thanks to the way the canned food is soldered together. I guess it’s not holding up to the cold. And in the show, we see one of the doctors, Good Sir, he tests this theory. he feeds Sir John’s pet monkey some food. And the answer doesn’t come in episode five. It comes actually, I think, in the next episode. But sure enough, the monkey starts to get violent and ends up dying. And this convinces good sir that the food stores that they have are going bad, which obviously is not a good thing. You’re stuck in the ice, thousands of miles from civilization. You just mentioned, you know, nobody’s coming to rescue you. Was the TV show correct to suggest that on top of everything else that we’ve talked about, now the expeditions food stores are going bad?

Rich Napolitano

52:32

You know, this is one of the most enduring topics of discussion about the Franklin Expedition. And the answer is yes, it’s entirely plausible and likely that there was problems with the tin food. And we actually do have some evidence to go on here. We know that for this expedition, they chose a new provisioner that was relatively new to the Admiralty. Goldner’s, it was called. Thomas Goldner, I think the guy’s name was. And he undercut everybody else like their usual suppliers. And he also filled their order in kind of a rush. That much we absolutely know. And 1984, so fast forward 140 years, a professor, Owen Beatty, of the University of Alberta, led a team to Beachy Island, where if you remember, they overwintered for 1845 to 1846. Three men died there during that winter, John Torrington, John Hartnell, and William Brain. And he studied, he actually got permission to exhume their bodies. And he did so. And he found that those three men died of pneumonia, and they also had tuberculosis. So it was pneumonia caused by tuberculosis, essentially. Their lung tissue was almost entirely obliterated by the tuberculosis. So that was a major contribution to understanding, or at least it added some questions, because why did these three young men, they were all young, die so early, you know, within not even a year of the expedition? Did they have tuberculosis when they left? Did they get it on the ship? We don’t know. But they definitely had tuberculosis, and that’s going to be important. He also found on Beachy Island, because they had a winter camp there, there were some remnants of structures, like a work shed and a storehouse and these kind of things. And he also found a pile of rubbish debris, like where they would just throw their empty tin cans from their food. And there’s a great video, there’s a great documentary about this. He’s actually holding the can, and he says, look at this. And he’s pointing to the solder. There’s a big glob of lead right there on the, you can see it. He said, you know, this is certainly a problem, that this definitely would have interacted with the food and contributed in some degree to lead poisoning. So overall, yes, there were definitely problems with the food. It’s very likely that some of those solders were not very secure, which could lead to botulism. We don’t have proof of anybody having botulism. But is it likely? Probably. is it plausible? Certainly plausible. So lead poisoning was also found in those three men on Beach Island, 10 to 20 times what would be normal. The problem is the average person that lived in England at the time would have had roughly the same level of lead. They just had a lot of lead exposure at that time. Lead drinking mugs, lead plates, lead vessels to hold water, these kind of things. And the ship actually had lead-lined water tanks. And they had a desalination plant on the board too with lead pipes. So all of these things contribute to lead poisoning being a factor. But the food was certainly a problem. In the TV series, they definitely show that the food had been spoiled. I think there was a scene where one man opened a can. And that monkey, by the way, was real. There really was a monkey named Jocko on board. So that was kind of interesting to see. They didn’t make that up. I don’t know if they poisoned the monkey. So did the food contribute to their deaths? Likely. We don’t know, but my personal opinion is it’s likely. That being said, lead poisoning doesn’t usually kill somebody. It takes a tremendous amount of lead exposure to actually kill a human being. And really, it’s not believed now that lead poisoning led to their deaths. not directly. But lead poisoning can really cause a lot of problems. You know, it can be lethal, but at really high doses. But in general, it just causes confusion, nausea, vomiting, mental cognition problems. All of those things can definitely contribute to all of the other things that they were going through. And if that came from the food, it probably did, at least to some degree. It contributed to the lead that they were maybe exposed to from the water tanks. So the answer to your question is yes, it’s extremely likely that the provision-tinned

Dan LeFebvre

58:11

foods were a problem. I feel like it’s like they’re sent out there and it’s just like everything around you is going to try to kill you. Good luck. It’s like from the environment to, you know, the, the, the ice freezing into even the food and the perfect, like there’s nothing here that’s

Rich Napolitano

58:32

on your side. You’re just, man, that’s crazy. And think about this too. Like you said, everything’s trying to kill you. So they, they have some lead exposure, certainly maybe botulism. Scurvy would have started to become an issue as their food store, because they have very little fresh food. If you have fresh food, fresh meat, fresh vegetables, you’re not going to get scurvy. But they didn’t have any of that. That had long since run out. And their lemon juice supplies, you know, especially if it, if lemon juice freezes and then thaws and freezes and thaws now three winters, it’s going to lose a lot of its anti-scurbutic properties. So scurvy was probably an issue. And again, I’m going to go back to those three men that died on Beachy Island. Tuberculosis. Those men were on the ship. Tuberculosis is highly infectious. And they didn’t know at the time that TB was spread through respiratory droplets. They didn’t know it was airborne. Germ theory was still not a thing. They didn’t know about bacteria or other pathogens, microorganisms. So all of the men on both ships were exposed to tuberculosis. Combination of a lot of things trying to kill.

Dan LeFebvre

59:54

Even your colleagues are trying to kill you. They don’t know it, but they are.

Rich Napolitano

59:57

Absolutely.

Dan LeFebvre

59:59

Wow. Speaking of things that are trying to kill him in the series, and go back to the Toonbok, there was something rather unsettling because in that episode, we find out that it’s not just a regular polar bear. It’s chasing Blanky up the mast, and it looks like it has this human-like face. And when I saw this part, I couldn’t help but think of stories of creatures from sailors like krakens and mermaids and all sorts of real-world creatures. Now, we know mermaids have been misidentified and perhaps the result of hallucinations, maybe due to lead poisoning, things like that. But in your mind, where does the tombock fit with some of these other mythical sea creatures

Rich Napolitano

01:00:41

reported by sailors throughout history? You know, that’s a really interesting question. Mariners are terribly superstitious. Everything’s trying to kill them, of course. Yeah. Well, and I think that’s wise because it’s such a dangerous job, especially back then, you know, and even now. You know, the red sky at night, sailors delight, red sky in morning, Sailors take warning. Setting sail on a Friday is a bad idea. Killing an albatross is bad luck. Even having bananas on board, bad luck. Having a woman on board is bad luck. There’s all these things that are bad luck. And, you know, so I think Thunbach represents fear of the unknown, to put it simply. It symbolizes all of the things that are out there working against you when you’re in such an environment. And especially in an Arctic expedition like this. And, you know, you mentioned mermaids and kraken and things like that. I was thinking about how in Greek mythology they had, you know, Scylla and Charybdis and sirens. And all of these things that were dangers of traveling the world’s oceans or going on adventures, going into places where it was unknown. You didn’t know what was there. So if you don’t know what’s there, there must be monsters. So I think that kind of fits in here with Thunbach. Now, as far as I know, Thunbach is not a real Inuit legend. I had to do a little bit of research on this, not exactly my area of expertise, but I found that there is a similar legend called Tirarnak, probably brutalizing the pronunciation here, so forgive me, or Tagayakpak, sorry, from Alaska. And those words generally translate to weasel bear. So, Weasel Bear, that kind of fits in with how the Thunbach looks. Really creepy-looking creature. Narrow-bodied, really large, moves fast, like a demon, supposedly. But also, there’s one from Greenland called the Torn Garsuk. And this kind of fits in more with the Thunbach of how it was used in the series. That it was summoned by a shaman. to punish your enemies. And that’s kind of what the Thunbach was, at least as far as I could tell. The shaman summoned the Thunbach somehow and bound himself to the Thunbach to maybe prevent these white men, or kabloonas as they call them, from coming into their territory. So I think Dan Simmons really did a good job coming up with a legend. you know, some oral history from the Inuit to represent real legend of other Native Americans that have similar, you know, lore. You know, but I think the Thunbach really just represents the unknown, fear of exploration, not knowing what’s out there, kind of a symbol of all the things out there trying to kill you. That’s kind of how, that’s kind of my take on it, I think.

Dan LeFebvre

01:04:25

Yeah, no, I mean, that’s great. I think that’s a great take. I would agree that it’s, you know, if everything is trying to kill you and there’s the unknown, you don’t know what’s out there. The human mind is going to come up with the worst fear, the worst of the worst. And if you’re out there for months and months and months on your own, getting lead poisoning and all these other things too, like I can only imagine what sort of horrors and what sort of terrible creatures and things your mind might imagine are out there. Or like what you’re talking about before with the ice and the noise of the ice and all these, you know, creaking noises and all these other things that you hear, you know, you might just start to hear other things too. and what’s out there you don’t know i mean it’s not like there’s lights out there that you can look and see you know what’s out there it’s gonna be pitch black yeah like if you if uh you know

Rich Napolitano

01:05:23

especially when we were kids if you stare in the corner of your bedroom long enough that shadow

Dan LeFebvre

01:05:27

becomes a monster yeah yeah yeah or under the bed yeah monsters on the bed yeah exactly yeah yeah

Rich Napolitano

01:05:32

um and and you know something else that i was thinking about is that in the show toon bach was kind of this mysterious creature a nebulous i never knew where it was or where it was coming from. And as you were talking, I was thinking about all of the things that actually were trying to kill them are also kind of just out there and unknown. So the Thunbach was a killer that you can’t really run from, but same scurvy and tuberculosis and lead poisoning are things you can’t run from as well. So there’s kind of a connection there too, I think.

Dan LeFebvre

01:06:08

That they also didn’t really understand. You’re talking about everything being lead-lined because they didn’t know that that’s where that came from or the tuberculosis, not knowing how that spread. It’s just this curse or the supernatural or something that’s happening. I don’t know why

Rich Napolitano

01:06:23

it’s happening, but it’s happening. Yeah, no, it makes sense. Yeah, good point.

Dan LeFebvre

01:06:28

Well, if we move on to episode number six, in that episode, we finally see the decision to abandon ship coming from the new Erebus captain, James Fitzjames. But first, Fitzjames decides to hold a carnival to celebrate the first sunrise of 1848 as a way of boosting morale for the men. He does this because of a conversation with one of the men, Blankey, who recounts his time working under Captain John Ross. You talked about him before, but he talks about how they nearly died because of the decisions that Ross made, and Ross didn’t seem to care about his men. So, as Blankey put it, he had thoughts of killing Ross, and so Fitzjames obviously doesn’t want his men to have ideas of killing him, which is another thing to kill him. Everything else seems to be too. But so Fitzjames asks if he’s seen that same kind of darkness in the minds of his men here and Blankey says, I don’t have to have seen it to know it’s there. And then according to the show, the carnival that they hold does seem to help the men’s morale at least up until Dr. Stanley douses himself and sets tents and on fire, kills himself and several men and destroying even more of their provisions. Do we know what the morale was like for the men on the expedition?

Rich Napolitano

01:07:33

Well, not directly, because like I said, we don’t we don’t have any records about that. However, I think that this scene in the show is really well done and extremely likely that something like this actually did happen. Because we know from other expeditions that it did happen this way. For example, the Sir Sir William Edward Perry used to carry theatrical costumes like, you know, like they showed in the in the show. you’d have trunks full of this stuff so the men could perform skits and little impromptu plays for each other not only on board the ship but if they were if they had to overwinter somewhere they could make camp on the ice and perform these you know theatrical stage presentations basically there’s of course the time-honored tradition of King Neptune’s court when when you cross the equator. Anybody that’s never crossed the equator before, they put on this elaborate kind of hazing event for those people. So this was normal. Performing skits and musical presentations, singing songs. This was very normal on ships. Amundsen did it on his. He learned from Adrian de Gerlache during the Belgica expedition. Back when that was Amundsen’s first expedition, actually, he was second in command. That was an Antarctic expedition. But he learned from that expedition, Amundsen did, that you have to keep the men occupied. You have to keep their minds off of the misery. You have to keep them active because boredom is death. He saw men on that ship, the Belgica, going crazy, literally losing their minds, getting violent, getting, you know, hallucinating. And it’s all because of, you know, not only the physical exhaustion, but the boredom, the lack of mental stimulation. So it’s very likely that something like this happened. You know, did they have a huge carnival on the ice and did it burn down? Nobody knows. but did they do something similar? Almost certainly. They almost certainly did something. Some kind of musical thing, some kind of performances. Almost certainly this happened, yes.

Dan LeFebvre

01:10:07

I mean, it makes idle hands are the devil’s playground, I think, as the saying goes, that sort of thing. But then again, I think it’s an example of putting yourself in the historical context of you mentioned you know the the libraries that they had um to read but they were not going to have movies or tv shows to watch themselves or you know that sort of entertainment or even music to listen to or things like that and so um and being out there in isolation for that long and having to hear franklin’s story over and over again you know brochures already getting tired of that even before they, before the execution really got sorted.

Rich Napolitano

01:10:45

I really got a raw deal in Van Diemen’s land, you know. Well, Ernest Shackleton wrote quite a bit about what he had to do to keep his men sane. You know, he kept regular, regular schedules, mandatory exercise. They would have educational sessions where he would have them read something or they would discuss some literature. And some of the men obviously couldn’t read or write. And this is definitely true aboard Erebus and Terror. In fact, we know that they had books on board to help teach the men how to read and write for those who couldn’t. So that was probably going on too, some education of some of the lesser educated men. I guess you’re out there by yourself for

Dan LeFebvre

01:11:35

that long. Might as well learn how to read and write. Exactly. Make yourself useful. yeah well if we go back to the series in episode seven they finally abandon ship and start the march across land they do leave a few men on terror in case there’s a thaw but the rest of the men have this 800 mile walk ahead of them to get to the hudson bay company’s fort resolution i believe you mentioned that uh earlier uh only 18 miles into that walk they discover the bodies of this rescue party that was sent out a year earlier we saw them leave i think it was back in episode three, and they were supposed to find help and bring it back, but obviously that didn’t happen. How well does the series do explaining this long march?

Rich Napolitano

01:12:18

Pretty well, in general. The conditions that they exhibit in the show are pretty spot on. They’re hauling these incredibly heavy boats. These are the lifeboats or whale boats, basically, that were attached to the ship, they packed these boats full of supplies. And then they put them on these iron sledges. And they had to haul them. They didn’t have any dogs, no sled dogs. They had to haul them themselves. These boats were 30 feet long, give or take. And they had provisions on there, but they also took a lot of other stuff that later when McClintock found evidence of these, you know, artifacts of these boats and everything, they had ammunition, knives, axes, things that you probably would expect, some spare clothes, that kind of thing. But they also had, you know, a bunch of stuff that he described as quite useless, like rolls of sheet lead, empty pemmican tins, scarves linen scarves you know like why are they hauling this stuff in countless other items they’re just they were they were loaded with stuff um and so why did they take all that stuff we don’t know maybe they thought they could trade some of it with the inuit um maybe they were trying to preserve some sort of normalcy and have some luxury items on board the sledges. But something that’s pretty interesting about this is that, first of all, they mentioned that they left some people on board. Now, we’re not sure that that happened. And in fact, there’s some evidence that it didn’t. But there is Inuit testimony that has maintained to this day oral history, that they went to the boats and went on board, and they saw men on board the ships. So that’s interesting that the series included that in there, because by the Inuit testimony, there were men that stayed on the ships.

Dan LeFebvre

01:14:37

So that would have been after the parties left, the Inuits had that timeline that would have been after. Okay, interesting.

Rich Napolitano

01:14:43

Yeah, and it could have been much later after, but we just don’t know. But according to the Inuit, there were men on the ships. But that leads us to back to this victory point note, because Crozier orders that they’re abandoning ship. So they all set out on the ice. They all walk to King William Island across the ice. And when Crozier and Fitz James reach the cairn that Graham Gore left the original note in, remember the note where we overwintered in Beachy Island, etc. Well, they find this note and they add to it. They take it out and there’s no room left on the pre-printed form area. So they write it all along in the margins, kind of like you would do in school if you ran out of space. That’s basically what it looks like. You can still see this document today if you Google it. And this message says, in part, that HM ships, Terra, and Erebus were deserted on 22nd of April, leagues north-northwest of this, having been beset since 12th September 1846. Again, almost two years on the ice. Captain FRM Crozier landed here, three officers and crew consisting of 105 souls. Sir John Franklin died on 11th of June 1847, and the total loss by deaths in the expedition has been to this date, nine officers and 15 men. Signed FRM Crozier, captain and senior officer, and start on tomorrow 26th for Baxfish River. Also signed James Fitzjames, captain HMS Erebus. So this is that second portion of the victory point note that is so important. This tells us a lot. This tells us that Crozier and Fitzjames were still alive by this point, that only nine officers and 15 men had died at this point. Interesting, though, there were 24 officers and nine of them had died already. So why is that? It’s totally up to speculation, but almost, you know, roughly, you know, not close to, let’s say, 40% or so of the officers are already dead. Don’t know why.

Dan LeFebvre

01:17:03

Yeah, that’s interesting, because I would imagine that they, at least in the series, when you see the officers, they have much better accommodations. They have much better provisions. They have, you know, they’re having the meal around the table, you know. So I would assume that they would have better chances for arrival.

Rich Napolitano

01:17:23

And you would expect that. I heard one historian postulating that perhaps they used more, you know, maybe they had lead-lined drinking mugs or something to that effect. You know, who knows? It’s just an interesting, as far as the ratio goes, only 15 of the men, but 40% or so of the officers were already dead. So that’s interesting. It really is. But this portion of the victory point note is really important. And it’s the last firsthand evidence we have of what happened to them. They abandoned the ship, and here they are. They added to the victory point note, hoping someday some rescue ship comes and finds it. But they’re on their way. They’re hauling these really heavy sledges through this barren wasteland. That’s another really good thing about the series. When they show them on King William Island, it’s flat. There’s nothing there. It’s desolate. Almost zero wildlife. This land had all been ground down by glaciers, you know, millions of years ago. So there’s nothing there. They’re in dire straits. That’s why they’re heading south.

Dan LeFebvre

01:18:48

You were talking about the note earlier. I think it was, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was on Beachy Island you mentioned when they stayed there for the winter, you mentioned that they got the year wrong. Do we know or is there speculation perhaps that all of these dates maybe are incorrect? Like maybe they just were they were counting the dates wrong or something like that? If they if they got it wrong on Beachy Island now. Would they be incorrect in their calculations for time, maybe? I mean, there’s no way for us to know. I don’t know.

Rich Napolitano

01:19:17

No, I don’t think so, because in this second portion of the note. They I believe it was Fitz James that wrote it. He said specifically they had been beset since 12th, September 1846. so that would have been the fall of 1846 so they couldn’t possibly have still been in beachy island

Dan LeFebvre

01:19:39

in 18 by that time okay so it’s just a one-time thing that they just happened okay okay yeah

Rich Napolitano

01:19:45

gram gram gore just it was just a mistake on his part okay okay well i was thinking too it’s it’s

Dan LeFebvre

01:19:52

be easy i’m imagining you know again kind of going back to a prison thing like chalking off the days right oh you miss one count it’s all gonna run together It’d be easy to do, I would imagine.

Rich Napolitano

01:20:04

But what was really cool about the series is they show Fitz, James, and Crozier finding, you know, they take it out of the cairn, they roll it out, it looks in the show exactly like it really looks. And they show them writing with the fountain pen, you know, Franklin died on this date. So that was really cool to see because they reenacted that perfectly according to what that

Dan LeFebvre

01:20:26

document actually looks like. In episode seven, we see one of the men, Hickey, he murders two other men, Irving and Farr, and he murders them in cold blood. They come across a friendly group of Netslick, and then we find out in a flashback that he killed the real Hickey to take his name and place on the ship. Do we know if there are any infiltrators on the expedition like Hickey

Rich Napolitano

01:20:50

is in the show? We don’t know, but it would be highly unlikely. I would say definitely not. We have letters from before they left Greenland from many of the men and all of the officers. There’s no mention of anything like this. So had anybody stowed away, they probably would have known by then because it took them a month to get from Orkney to the west side of Greenland at disco bay so in that month they probably would have known if there was somebody that had stowed away and we also know that hickey cornelius hickey was his name he was a caulkers mate he was an actual crewman and he did exist uh he was not an imposter that was actually cornelius hickey on board um so the show took some liberties there with that interest really good of course of excellent drama. But unlikely that there was actually any stowaways. It would have been really dangerous because back in those days, stowaways would have quite likely been executed.

Dan LeFebvre

01:22:00

If everything else didn’t kill many.

Rich Napolitano

01:22:03

Yeah. They were going to die anyway. But, you know, my opinion, take it for what it’s worth. I don’t think so. I think it’s highly unlikely there were any stowaways.

Dan LeFebvre

01:22:15

well that might answer my next question then because if we move on to episode number eight called terror camp clear because back at the camp mr hickey then claims that it was the netzalik who killed the two men as he’s starting to gather supporters for a mutiny against crozier and the other hand crozier suspects hickey of killing irving and far and that is confirmed when dr good sir cuts open irving’s stomach to reveal seal meat that he was fed by the netzalik just before hickey killed Do we know if there was a mutiny happening like we see in the series?

Rich Napolitano

01:22:50

Once again, no, we don’t know for sure. There’d be a blanket across all of them. Well, yeah, really. I mean, I’m sorry about that, but.

Dan LeFebvre

01:22:58

No, no, no. I mean, that makes perfect sense. But that’s one of those things too of like, we don’t know, we don’t know, but they kind of make it up for the series.

Rich Napolitano

01:23:06

But what we do know comes from other, what was normal at the time and what happened on other expeditions. Again, unlikely, because we know that those officers were well-respected among the men. So it’s doubtful that there would have been a mutiny. But, you know, on the devil’s advocate side, the amount of stress and fear and desperation they were going through was considerable at that point in time. So is it possible that maybe a faction of men broke off and said, we’re going to go this way and do this instead, and we’re not listening to you anymore? Maybe. In fairness, it may be as likely as not, but my personal opinion is no, because I just feel like they would have stuck together or tried to support each other as best as they could. I think we know that eventually they did separate into different groups based on where the artifacts are, where their camps were. hard to say. I mean, that’s a really good question. It’s certainly plausible. I guess just my own personal opinion is that it probably didn’t happen.

Dan LeFebvre

01:24:39

Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, for an expedition like this, too, even before you leave, I would assume you kind of have an idea what you’re getting into. Like, you’re going to the middle of nowhere for years, and there’s probably going to be a chance that you’re not going to come back but the flip side of that too is i could also understand it being plausible as you’re saying because um you might from the safety of england you might be like yeah i kind of know what i’m getting into and then when you get out there it’s like okay this is this is very very this sucks you know and it just continues on everything’s trying to kill you and every all this stuff so i could see how you know what you think at the beginning of a mission versus you know when you get into the expedition. Yeah, I could see it as being plausible too. Yeah.

Rich Napolitano

01:25:31

And when they’re hauling those sledges, which weighed thousands of pounds each, across this desolate wasteland of King William Island, a good number of them probably were thinking, I didn’t sign up for this. So maybe, I guess is the best answer I can give you.

Dan LeFebvre

01:25:54

Well, here’s another kind of out there question about the way this series shows something too, because at the end of episode eight, as Crozier has Hickey arrested for his deeds, the Toombok attacks the camp as a form of retribution for killing the Netzlik family. Hickey and his men escape. We find out in the next episode that 32 are killed. We actually see one of those deaths close up where it almost looks like something supernatural is going on. The Toombok is eating one of the men. It kind of looks like, or I think it’s even talked about, I don’t remember if it’s in this episode or the next one, it talks about how the Toombok is eating the souls of its victims. and earlier we were talking about how Humbach fit in with other mythological beasts reported by sailors but were any of those reports or was it more, were there any of them that were kind of supernatural in this way in the series it’s eating the soul or were they more just like you’re talking about fear of the unknown or was there supernatural element to it or

Rich Napolitano

01:26:45

I think it was mostly not supernatural per se but probably just a a fear of the unknown, like we talked about before, and possibly some extrapolation, almost like a game of telephone where a giant sturgeon, you tell one guy, then that guy tells another guy, and by 10 guys down the road, it’s a mermaid. Or they see a giant squid, and that turns into some kind of dragon. So I think that’s probably how those things happen over time and and especially back you know when when humans really first started traveling the oceans you know hundreds of years ago i mean you’ve seen those maps where there’s the sea monsters and all kinds of things out in the water or some maps where they still thought the earth was flat you were going to fall off you’re going to fall yeah this you know and and again it just comes back to you don’t know what’s out there so they make things up um But I also think, you know, tell me what you think about this. And I’m no great, like, literary analyst or anything, but I was trying to think of why Dan Simmons wrote it this way, of having a Thunbach, this creature, terrorizing the crew, other than that it’s just a great story. But I was thinking that maybe the Thunbach is somehow Simmons was trying to communicate that almost like a modern day apology for, you know, white men interfering with the natives of the Canadian Arctic or, you know, I don’t know, some kind of, I don’t know if that’s the case. But, you know, what do you think? Is that something that you think he might have meant by the Thunbach?

Dan LeFebvre

01:28:39

Yeah, I mean, I’m speculating because I don’t know what his intentions were in writing it that way, but I could definitely see that where it’s, because it does seem to be, the Tombok is all about restoring the natural order of things. And this crew, or these two ships, are upsetting that natural order. They’re not supposed to be there, basically, is kind of the, you know, and everything’s trying to kill them. know nature’s trying to kill him but um the tumbac is almost you know it seems to be a bringing to life what you know mother nature’s is trying to kill like a visualization of all these things that it’s hard to on screen or on on paper it’s hard to um make tuberculosis interesting because you know you can’t see it transferring right but you can see this this creature attacking and that sort of element or lead poisoning is not fun to watch on tv but you know this sort of action and and um i could see that almost you know um impersonation of a lot of these natural elements bringing which kind of in my mind goes back to um the supernatural element of it too where uh it’s all these natural elements but then bringing them all together into that fear of the known too, where there are things that we don’t know, talking about the lead poisoning and the tuberculosis, as we mentioned before, they didn’t know why these things were happening. There’s a lot of stuff they don’t know why these things are happening. We just know that there’s terrible things happening. And how do you visualize that? How do you show that? Other than having it be something where it’s completely in their mind, where they’re all just, you know, it was all a dream or they’re all flat, you know, nightmares and you know, that sort of thing. I don’t know how

Rich Napolitano

01:30:35

you do that without doing something supernatural like the tomb bar. Yeah, that’s an excellent point. I mean, it certainly adds a lot of interest to a story where, first of all, we don’t know what happened. And second, watching people die of disease isn’t that interesting or exciting. So yeah, that’s a good point. Sorry, I turned the tables. I asked you a question.

Dan LeFebvre

01:31:00

No, that’s a great question. I mean, and that’s something too that I think leads to, how do you take a story like this of something where we don’t know a lot about talking about every question well you don’t really know but trying to connect some of those dots and tell a story you still have to do that to make it a TV show that’s interesting to watch

Rich Napolitano

01:31:22

yeah and it is

Dan LeFebvre

01:31:25

yeah yeah well we are up to episode 9 of the TV series speaking of and as if things aren’t bad enough things are going from bad to worse. Fitz James Scurvy is so bad that he asked Crozier to euthanize him. Crozier is captured by Hickey’s group in a confrontation that leaves Hartnell dead. Blanky’s not doing well, so he decides to make himself bait for the Toon Buck. He covers himself in forks in hopes of being eaten and killing Toon Buck in the process. That’s what he hopes, at least. Meanwhile, Hickey’s starving men resort to cannibalism. But there is a slight silver lining because Blanky happens to stumble upon what they’ve been looking for this whole time. the Northwest Passage. Of course, he dies a few minutes later in the episode, so it’s unlikely that anybody’s ever going to know that he was the first person to see the passage. But that kind of makes me wonder, something we kind of alluded to with this, but these hardships and tribulations that we’re seeing, and I know we talked about every episode, we don’t really know, but how do we, is the only way that we know that these things happened, or are there other things that we know how some of these things we’re seeing in the series actually happen?

Rich Napolitano

01:32:32

Well, the victory point note is one of the main sources we have for knowing at least where the men were at any given time, or at least at those specific times. But we do have other evidence. We have a lot of artifacts that have been discovered mostly along the west side of King William Island and the southern shores of King William Island as they were trying to sledge down the west coast and then get south. They were trying to cross the Simpson Strait and get across to the mainland Adelaide Peninsula. And so we can kind of follow that trail. There’s a couple of spots. There’s what’s called the boat place that McClintock found where there were some skeletons and a whole bunch of those useless items that we talked about earlier. and there’s two main camps there’s one on the west coast of the island at Erebus Bay that seemed to be a stopping point of some kind where they camped and then another one on the southern shore of Terror Bay and quite a bit has been found there but interestingly you mentioned Lieutenant John Irving earlier that in the show is depicted as being murdered by Hickey. Really interesting that his grave site was found, or at least it’s reasonably certain it’s his skeleton. It was found alone with no others around, quite a distance from where any other remains were found. DNA analysis has shown that it’s very likely him, but everything that was found with him were items that belonged to him. So it’s almost certain that those remains are Irving’s. So it’s interesting to me that that matches up in the series where Hickey murders Irving. They were kind of off by themselves on a sand dune, basically, or gravel dune, whatever that was. So they did a good job portraying that. You know, I’m sure that Hickey didn’t really kill Irving, but where his grave was found was kind of in an isolated spot like that where he died in the show. So I thought that was pretty well done. And they show Blankey overlooking what he says, oh, this is the last link of the Northwest Passage. And he was overlooking a body of water, which is now called the Ray Strait, between King William Island and Boothia Peninsula. Of course, we don’t know if he actually did that. But that waterway was later found by John Ray in 1854, who was a vastly underrated man. I did an episode about him as well. So that was interesting that they mentioned that. They didn’t call it the Ray Strait because it wasn’t called that yet. In fact, that waterway is what I was referring to earlier that they felt didn’t exist, that it was all connected by land. Something else that they portrayed well as far as the trials and tribulations they were facing. Just hearkening back to episode one, David Young is the young man, the cabin boy that dies on the surgeon’s table. Dr. Harry Goodsar was tending to him. He dies of tuberculosis. David Young was an actual member of the crew. He didn’t die on the ship. He actually was found. His remains, interestingly, were just found, along with William Orin. He is the man portrayed in the series that falls overboard and dies in the frigid water. They can’t get him out and he drowns. So those two men were real members of the expedition. And just recently, I mean, weeks ago or last month of May of 2026, their remains were positively identified using DNA analysis by a University of Waterloo researcher and his team, Douglas Stenton. They compared DNA against known family members of members of the crew, and they were able to match it, those two men, as well as Harry Peglar, who McClintock found Harry Peglar’s skeleton. And they identified the jawbone of James Fitzjames. Yeah, really, really interesting stuff. So all of those people were real that they showed in the show. That’s not how they died, but still, great job in depicting the actual names of the men that were on the ship.

Dan LeFebvre

01:37:44

Well, were they, do we know, did they die close together? Because we mentioned the one guy being kind of further away. Does that imply that these others were found next to each other?

Rich Napolitano

01:38:01

Harry Peglar was found at the boat place. There were two skeletons there. I’m not certain where exactly they found David Young and William Orin, but it was definitely on King William Island and not in the water. Okay.

Dan LeFebvre

01:38:19

Not the way they showed it. Right.

Rich Napolitano

01:38:21

So it wasn’t exactly how they showed it. But if you remember, I mentioned they didn’t depict any of the overwintering on Beachy Island. So I think what they were doing in the series was using the death of David Young of tuberculosis kind of as a representative of the deaths of the three men on Beachy, John Torrington, John Hartnell, and William Brain, of dying of tuberculosis. So just kind of maybe trying to fill in the gaps there a little bit with that sequence being cut out.

Dan LeFebvre

01:38:55

Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense.

Rich Napolitano

01:38:58

Yeah. So the artifacts they found, though, really do help us know, as you were asking about the evidence, that really helps us know where they went. Did they go south and then start heading back? Maybe, but we don’t know. But we do know where they were at least at one time.

Dan LeFebvre

01:39:20

Was there anything from the analysis of those that would lead to determining cause of death?

Rich Napolitano

01:39:30

yes and no uh no evidence of tuberculosis or anything like that however the jawbone of james fitz james was found with knife marks on it specifically cut marks not you know

Dan LeFebvre

01:39:48

not damage that might be from an attack but like cannibalism like we see in the series

Rich Napolitano

01:39:53

Yeah, so it very strongly suggests that cannibalism took place with his body. It doesn’t definitively prove it, but it highly suggests it. And there are other remains that they found of bones of men that have not been identified that have similar marks that indicate some kind of butchering process of removing the flesh from the bones, which is exactly what the Inuit reported to John Ray in 1854. So the evidence is backing up that oral history from the Inuit people.

Dan LeFebvre

01:40:37

Yeah. Well, too, like you’ve mentioned before with, I think it was the 1824 expedition, I think you said, of Franklin where there was cannibalism there too?

Rich Napolitano

01:40:48

Well, it was actually his first, his 1819 to 1822 expedition, what’s called the Copper Mine Expedition. That’s the one that went horribly wrong. And there was some cannibalism during that expedition as well.

Dan LeFebvre

01:41:03

Well, there’s something that maybe might be a little more documented. Happens back in England in this episode when you see Lady Jane getting help from Charles Dickens to fund rescue for her husband’s expedition. Was Charles Dickens actually involved like that?

Rich Napolitano

01:41:18

He was. Yeah. I’m maybe a little bit biased here, but if there’s a villain in this story, it’s Charles Dickens. Really? Yeah. Okay. And I’ll tell you why. Okay. And he absolutely refused to believe any of the reports of John Ray. Just in short, John Ray was a renowned explorer, surveyor of the Arctic, Canadian Arctic, really an incredible man. But in 1854, it was his third expedition. He wasn’t even searching for Franklin. He was just mapping coastline. He was trying to find, he was trying to chart the last unknown coastline in that area. It was up there near Boothia for the Hudson’s Bay Company. He wasn’t part of the Admiralty. He was on foot. He didn’t even have a ship. But he encountered some Inuit folks that, and he had a translator, a man named Ulikbuk, translate for him. And these Inuit people produced artifacts. They had silverware, spoons, forks, knives engraved with the initials of officers of the ship, FRM Crozier. They had Sir John Franklin’s Royal Order of Merit, the big metal, big shiny metal with his initials on it. They had a silver plate that said Sir John Franklin on the back, inscribed. One of them was wearing a cap with a gold cap band wrapped around it, and he, Ray, recognized that that cap band was from a Royal Navy cap. So he traded with them to take all these artifacts, and there were a lot. There were just miscellaneous things, eyeglasses, silverware plates, all kinds of just small personal items. And they told him their own oral history of what they found. that they saw these men, kabloonas, the white men, dragging these boats down the coast, and that they all looked terrible. They were starving, and they had black sunken eyes and black mouths. So that all indicates scurvy, you know, very starvation and scurvy, very clearly. They say they were headed back. They were headed south. They communicated only with gestures, he told John Ray, but they determined that the white men were trying to get down, cross over the street, cross over the strait, and get to the river, which would be Bax Fish River, or it’s just called Bax River today. And that’s what the white men had communicated to them. But then the next winter, they returned and the men were all gone and they found that they actually did cross the street. There was a small group of men that had made it across to the mainland to Hadalei Peninsula, but they were all dead. They found an overturned boat and a bunch of corpses and some metal artifacts and various things scattered around, but they didn’t make it. But they actually did make it to the mainland, but they couldn’t quite make it to the river. So that was their oral testimony, among other things. They said that they saw the boats. One of the boats was south, had drifted south of the island, and the only amassed were sticking up. They said, like I mentioned before, they went onto the ships and there were men on board. So John Ray takes all these artifacts and goes back to England and relays all of the oral testimony from the Inuit folks. And Lady Jane Franklin and Charles Dickens were having none of it. Oh, I left out the important part, that the Inuits said that they were absolutely evidence of cannibalism, that they saw bones in pots. in that the men had just human legs in the sledge that they were hauling, things like that. So there was definitely testimony of cannibalism, and Ray and Lady Franklin were not having it, and just went on this attack. Not so much of John Ray. He was careful not to do that, but he called the Inuits, to paraphrase, he called them basically savages. they’re liars, untrustworthy. How could we possibly believe anything these savages ever say? They probably attacked the men themselves and killed them. And it went back and forth. He published this in his publication, a journal, basically, a magazine, kind of. It was called Household Words. And it went back and forth between Dickens and Ray was trying to defend his evidence and testimony in the Inuit people, and Dickens just kept up with the attack, so much so that Ray really became discredited. People just didn’t believe it. They didn’t want to believe that these noble members of the Royal Navy, these gentlemen, these officers, and other, you know, dignified Englishmen could possibly resort to cannibalism. And in one of Ray’s letters, he wrote, from the mutilated state of many of the bodies and the contents of the kettles, it is evident that our wretched countrymen had been driven to the last dread alternative as a means of sustaining life. And that just didn’t sit well with the people of the time. Again, it’s a Victorian era. They just didn’t want to believe it. And Ray was vastly discredited and just kind of continued on with his surveying career. And it really hasn’t been until the last couple of decades that his reputation has been restored. He’s really starting to earn a lot more respect. And it’s all because of Charles Dickens, mostly. So that’s why I said he’s kind of the villain of this episode.

Dan LeFebvre

01:48:01

Yeah, I mean, it kind of goes back to what you’re talking about at the very beginning. He’s talking, you know, the Victorian area and being all about honor and, you know, gaining this, the honor of the expedition and all of that. And so I could see how back in England, you’re in the comforts of home. You’re not going to imagine that, well, Lady Jane, his wife, I imagine would be like, you know, there’s no way he would resort to this or his men would resort to this sort of thing. and almost having a slight against the name, you know, and holding that. Again, I’m just speculating, but I could see how that would be something that would hurt her reputation. And if she was respected, maybe that would hurt her some. And, yeah, it’s just, it’s sad that, you know, shoot the messenger approach of, you know, Ray’s just, this is what happened.

Rich Napolitano

01:49:02

And what’s interesting, too, is the beginning portions of all of that back and forth in Dickens’ publication, we didn’t know yet about the Victory Point Note. That wasn’t found until 1859. So they didn’t know that Franklin had died, for sure, although he had been declared dead. They didn’t know, because the Victory Point Note says exactly when he died. So following that, we do know that had cannibalism took place, Franklin wouldn’t have been involved because he was already dead. That doesn’t mean others didn’t resort to it, but he would not have.

Dan LeFebvre

01:49:45

Yeah, but they wouldn’t have known that. Yeah, like you said, they wouldn’t have known that at the time. And so they’re operating off of, I mean, we don’t even know everything now, but back then they knew even less.

Rich Napolitano

01:49:56

That’s an excellent point. That’s right.

Dan LeFebvre

01:50:00

well we are up to the final episode of the season everything comes to an end as nearly everybody dies including the tomb block who chokes on hickey’s body that leaves only one left from the expedition crozier although at the very end it fast forwards to you two years in 1850 when some other white men arrive at the net select village and crozier himself hides but he tells them or he tells the nisse like to tell the white men that all of the men are dead and gone and there’s no way to the passage. So even though Crozier doesn’t die at the end of the series, he does leave his former life behind and seems to stay with the Nitzlik. Did the series accurately show us how the story of the Men of the Erebus and Terror came to an end?

Rich Napolitano

01:50:41

Well, mostly yes. Except for Crozier surviving, it actually is pretty well done. They struggled mightily through the ice and snow, and a lot of them just fell from exhaustion or succumbed to their diseases right where they stood. So, you know, Crozier may have been one of the last to survive. I think that’s kind of an interesting take by the series because he was very experienced. He was used to the conditions of, you know, such frigid weather. had been on several polar expeditions. So, you know, and he was a pretty strong guy. So I’d like to think that he was one of the last few to survive. But yeah, I think it wraps up pretty well in those terms that they all died of, you know, a combination of starvation, scurvy, tuberculosis, perhaps botulism, exposure, and other maladies perhaps. So I think it’s interesting, especially given how we found them. We found these camps and the overturned boats, and the fact that the boats were overturned tells me they were using them for or trying to use them for a shelter of some kind, which means they had more or less given up trying to continue on the march. At least some of them. My opinion is some of them probably stopped at Erebus Bay and tried to make a camp there and hope that somebody came along. Some more probably camped at Terror Bay, and then a handful continued on and actually made it across to the Adelaide Peninsula before they died at Starvation Cove, is what that point is called, aptly.

Dan LeFebvre

01:52:41

It’s a horrible name for a place, but understandable why it would be called that.

Rich Napolitano

01:52:45

Yeah. And there’s artifacts found there too along the way. So we do know that they made a pretty long march. At least some of them did. And left behind not only their bones, but the boats and all the things that belonged in, that they were carrying in the boats, along with some useless things like metal hoops and lines of silver or lines of lead sheets. they found books and all kinds of personal items that really do help us understand at least where they were going or at least where they were trying to go. So that, you know, that plus the victory point note, plus the oral history of the Native people there, that’s really what we have to go on as far as what we understand to have happened.

Dan LeFebvre

01:53:42

Well, we have covered a lot, but of course, there’s so much more to the story we could ever cover on a single episode. So is there anything about the true story we haven’t had a chance to chat about yet that you want to make sure gets included?

Rich Napolitano

01:53:55

Yeah, you know, in the story, in the show, they call Francis Crozier a gluca. And that’s the very first shot of the whole series in episode one. They show Sir James Clark Ross talking to the Inuit folks in the tent, and they point to a photo of Francis Crozier and they say a gluca. That almost certainly didn’t happen. A gluca was a real term that they used in it kind of broadly for many of the white men. It meant one with long strides. They called Dr. John Ray a gluca as well. So that was interesting. James Clark Ross did go search for Franklin, but he never made it to where they were. He got blocked off north of there at Somerset Island and had to overwinter. He got stuck as well. And he never even published an account. He didn’t find anything. So he didn’t publish anything about his search because he didn’t find anything. um now the long term that a lot of searches happened for the franklin expedition i mentioned the first couple james clark ross john ray although he john ray specifically set out on his second expedition to search for franklin with uh richardson but they didn’t find anything there as well but uh certainly uphold mcclintock charles francis hall frederick all of them found evidence, talked to Inuit folks, got oral testimony, and it all backed up what John Ray was told before, and it all backed up the evidence they were finding. So, you know, those really help fill in the gaps of the things that we don’t know. And interestingly, just to maybe wrap up, they did find the ships. Erebus was found in 2014, right where the native people said that it would be, about 10 miles or so off the northwest coast of the Adelaide Peninsula to the south. So it was about, I don’t know, roughly 100 miles or so from where they got stuck in the ice. So somehow it drifted or was sailed there. It’s kind of a mystery that people like to debate. It was found in pretty good shape, actually. They identified the ship. They’ve got some artifacts off of it. No logbooks, unfortunately. And the Terror was found off the southwest coast at Terror Bay. It was in a little bit more beat up shape. It was kind of on its keel a little bit or tilted over. Um, but it was also found where it was said to be that, you know, all of these facts are lining up with what the oral history says. So Parks Canada has control of those wrecks and they, they, uh, you can, you can look that up on their website. They’ve got some great videos and, uh, photographs of the things that they’ve uncovered. I don’t think there’s any plans to raise the ships, but they have excavated it.

Dan LeFebvre

01:57:27

It makes me wonder if only Charles Dickens and Lady Jane had listened to what Ray had said about the oral history. Maybe it would have been found in time. I don’t know. Maybe to save some, obviously not all, but maybe there would be a different ending to the story.

Rich Napolitano

01:57:48

yeah uh you know i don’t think anything would have saved them frankly sorry for the bad pun unintended i think they were doomed as soon as uh as soon as franklin decided to turn west into victoria strait instead of heading around the east side of king william land as he called it that pretty much doomed them from there. They had some pretty unusually cold winters and it just didn’t melt in the summer. Couldn’t get through and they were stuck. And that pretty much sealed

Dan LeFebvre

01:58:27

it for them. Thank you so much for coming on the show to chat about the terror. For anyone in my audience who wants to hear more maritime tales, you have a great podcast called Shipwrecks and Seadogs. So before I let you go, can you give my audience a recommendation for an episode that they can queue up in their podcast app to listen to right after we wrap up? Absolutely. The whole

Rich Napolitano

01:58:48

story of the Franklin Expedition is in episode 115, and that is an update that I made from an older episode that I did years ago. But I included all this new information about the DNA analysis and that they found William Orrin and David Young and linked Fitz James’ jawbone. So I included all of that in this updated version. That’s episode 115. And episode 116 that I did as a follow-up about Dr. John Ray, who was really important in terms of the Franklin Expedition. And also just a really great man, underrated. I highly recommend listening to those. And that’s at Shipwrecks and Seadogs on all major platforms. Listen to them on any podcast app. texandseadogs.com or YouTube.

Dan LeFebvre

01:59:43

And of course, I’ll add those links in the show notes as well. Thank you again so much for your time, Rich.

Rich Napolitano

01:59:48

Dan, thank you so much. It was absolutely a pleasure to be here on your show. Thanks so much.

Dan LeFebvre

02:00:03

This episode of Based on a True Story was produced by me, Dan Lefebvre. Hop in the show notes or head on over to basedonatruestorypodcast.com slash 386 to find a link to Rich’s podcast so you can queue up an episode to listen to as soon as we’re done here. And while you do that, let’s find the answer to our two truths and a lie game from the beginning of the episode. As a quick refresher, here are the two truths and one lie again. Number one, the ships were provisioned for three years. Number two, we don’t know if Sir John Franklin actually died during the expedition. Number three, the crew wintered at Beachy Island. Did you figure out which one is a lie? I’ve got the envelope right here, so let’s open that up. And the lie is number two. Rich told us about the note left at the cairn, which told us that Sir John Franklin died on June 11, 1847. So even if we don’t know how he died, we do know when he died, thanks to that note. As always, thank you for your continued support, listening to and sharing this episode based on a true story with someone that you think would enjoy it. And if you are watching the video version of this, stick around for the credits. If you can find out my cat’s name and email it to me, I’ll send you a free sticker. Thanks again for watching, and I hope to hear from you soon. *music*

Dan LeFebvre
00:01
Hello, and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. Today, we’ll be learning about 2000’s The Legend of Bagger Vance. And as we always do, just in case it’s been a while since you’ve seen the movie, let’s get a refresher by kicking this off with a quick synopsis. The Legend of Bagger Vance is directed by Robert Redford, and it unfolds in Depression-era Savannah, Georgia. Matt Damon’s character, Ranulf Juna, is a talented golfer and a warrior traumatized by World War I. He returns home, a broken man, haunted by comrades, and his golfing career is all but gone. His former love, Charlize Theron’s version of Adele Invergordon, inherits her family’s failing golf resort, and in an attempt to save it, she organizes a high-stakes exhibition match between golfing legends Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen. And then to help gain hometown support, she insists on including Juna as a third player. Reluctantly agreeing, Juna practices alone at night until a mysterious caddy named Bagger Vance appears, offering enigmatic wisdom drawn from ancient truths. Bagger Vance is played by Will Smith in the movie. With young admirer Hardy Greaves assisting, Bagger coaches Juna to rediscover his swing amid flashbacks and personal demons. As the match unfolds over two days, Juna surges from last place and has a rekindled romance with Adele. There’s a critical error that triggers war horrors for Juna, but Bagger’s guidance prevails. And then Bagger vanishes mysteriously as Juna finds redemption. And at the end of the movie, the kid who was helping out, Hardy Greaves, is now an elderly man who suffers a heart attack on the course when an ageless Bagger beckons him onward. Helping us unravel the true story behind the movie, I’m super excited to be joined by none other than Steven Pressfield himself. Back in 1995, Steven Pressfield published the historical novel called The Legend of Bagger Vance, and that was adapted into the 2000 movie we’re talking about today. So we’ll get to go behind the scenes, not only on the historical accuracy of the movie, but also his thought process on writing historical novels and how authors can use history to help tell stories. Speaking of historical novels, Stephen’s latest book is called The Arcadian. It was just published a couple days ago. I got to read an advanced copy, and while I’m sure many of you listening right now are already familiar with Stephen’s work, For anyone who hasn’t read Stephen’s historical novels, you’re missing out. He is a legend when it comes to historical novels, and The Arcadian is just as good as you would expect it to be. I’ve got a link to that in the show notes for you to pick up your own copy right now. Okay, let’s set up our game for today. Now, if you’re new to the show, since Based on a True Story is all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie. So I’m about to give you three little facts that we’ll talk about in this episode. Two of those are true, and one of them is just an all-out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, Stephen also served as the historical consultant throughout the film’s production. Number two, the storyline is based on the Bhagavad Gita. Number three, Morgan Freeman was an early casting idea for Bagger Vance. Got him? Okay, now as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope. This has the answer inside, so we’ll open that up at the end of the episode to see if you got it right. And now, it’s time to connect with Steven Pressfield about the 2000 movie, The Legend of Bagger Vance. As longtime fans of Based on a True Story know, I normally like to kick off each episode with a historical letter grade to get a sense for how well a movie adheres to history. But I’d like to change the letter grade a little bit today because today we’re talking about 2000’s The Legend of Bagger Vance. That movie was based on your historical novel of the same name from 1995. And I think we’ve all read a book and then we watched the movie adaptation and maybe that one location look different than you imagined, or maybe that character’s personality isn’t quite like you thought it would be when you read the book. And I’m sure you also had a picture in your mind while you were researching and writing the book years before it was ever turned into a movie. So if you were to give the movie a letter grade for how well it captured what you had in your mind

Steven Pressfield
04:30
while you were writing The Legend of Bagger Vance, what would it get? C plus. C plus. Yeah. Okay. That being said, Dan, let me say one thing. If you’re a writer and you write a book and it gets made into a book and you catch the check, you have no basis for complaint. We’re all very lucky to get anything made as a movie. So I’m not complaining. I’m just trying to answer your question as suitably as I can.

Dan LeFebvre
04:59
Well, let’s start digging into some of the different elements of the movie. First up, we have the characters. Will Smith plays the character, the title, Bagger Vance. And according to the movie, Vance seems to just appear one night. He caddies for Captain Ronalph Juna, who we will talk about in a moment. And then at the end of the movie, Vance disappears just as mysteriously as he appeared. Was the character of Bagger Vance based on anyone from history?

Steven Pressfield
05:28
The whole story, The Legend of Bagger Vance, is based on the Hindu scripture, Bhagavad Gita, which tells the story of the troubled warrior Arjuna, who received spiritual instruction from his charioteer, who is Krishna, i.e. God in human form. So I just kind of lifted that structure and made it instead of a troubled warrior, a troubled golf champion, And instead of his charioteer, it’s his caddy. So that’s the sort of historical background of that. So the actual Bagger Vance character in the movie was quite different from a Will Smith character. I mean, the Bagger Vance character in the book was quite different from Will Smith. That became sort of a casting decision. Like the original thought was someone like Morgan Freeman that was an older, wiser, you know, he’s played God in a couple of other books. But the way it turned out apparently was Morgan Freeman didn’t have enough box office horsepower according to the, you know, whatever that score they give you. And at that time, Will Smith was the number one box office star in the world, coming off of Bad Boys and a few other things. And I think Men in Black had come down. I’m not sure. Maybe not. In any event, it was a casting decision based on box office predictions. And it really was, in my view, fatal to the movie with this really wrong casting. and but in any event that’s that’s how that’s that’s that’s part of the store yeah no that’s

Dan LeFebvre
07:20
that’s fascinating and it tells that’s that’s a one reason why i ask about the kind of the ballpark to begin with because there’s decisions like that in the movie that you’re not going to have in the book and so there’s these differences and how much it can change the outcome of a movie just

Steven Pressfield
07:35
yeah through who plays the characters yeah based on things like budget and casting changes everything

Dan LeFebvre
07:40
Yeah. Well, speaking of Juna, that’s Matt Damon’s character in the movie. And in contrast to Bagger Vance, the movie shows a little bit more backstory for him. He’s a golfer turned World War I vet from Savannah, who then is tapped to play in this huge exhibition game as kind of the hometown hero by the Savannah residents. Was Juna based on any real World War I vets from Savannah? No, no. I mean,

Steven Pressfield
08:05
he was based on the great warrior Arjuna in the Bhagavad Bia. And the movie was quite faithful to the book in that opening setup. You know, that, yeah. I’m probably going to jump ahead. But speaking of based on a true story, there was two other contesters in the golf match or the movie were Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, who are true historical characters. Bobby Jones being one of the greatest, both of them being two of the greatest golfers ever. True to that era, that was their era. And they actually did play, the two of them, not Uta Juna. They played an exhibition match in that same period of time. Actually, a 72-hole match of two different places in Florida. And it was a big event at the time. And so I borrowed that from True Life. and it inserted the third character from Savannah. And that was how that whole concept of that match turned up.

Dan LeFebvre
09:13
Okay. Okay, so when you’re trying to integrate Juna from the Bhagavad Gita into this actual part of history, where did being a World War I vet and that element of that come into it? Was that something that was just because of the timeline?

Steven Pressfield
09:31
No, that’s a great question. And here’s the story. In the Bhagavad Gita, in the scripture, it takes place at an ancient battlefield. And the two armies are lined up across from each other, chariots and all that sort of thing. And the great warrior Arjunic was here in his chariot, witness charioteer Krishna. And he looks across to the other side of the battlefield, and he sees men that he knows, other warriors that he knows and that he respects. And he says to his charioteer, I don’t want to fight this battle. In fact, he says, drive my chariot out between the two armies and stop. And at that point, he lays down his wetness and he says, I’m not going to take part in this bat. So he’s kind of a warrior that’s sort of seeing too much of killing Vessere. So in the book, I’m going to be sure if this was in the movie, in the book, the day of the golf match, Juna, the Matt Damon character, says, drive my car out in between the two where the battle to, and he takes his golf clubs and he throws them down and he says, I’m not going to play in this match. this magical bogus you know exhibition it’s not true to spirit i’m not going to play it anymore and uh so that’s so i just basically lifted that from a bhagavad-vidha translated into that in the gita our krishna i.e god in human form starts to lecture arjuna the warrior and he says pick up your sword, pick up your bow, you’re going to get out there and fight. And he tells him this is his role as a warrior. And then from there, he gets into deeper spiritual concepts like karma, previous lives, past lives, duality, non-duality, yoga, all kinds of stuff. So I was hoping, that was my hope in the book that the caddy bagger vance would kind of give the troubled warrior uh a lesson in spirituality so that was what the uh one of my complaints for the bookie i know i’m not like i said not allowed to complain was the book really got into some uh spiritual concepts that the movie had to clap and i think they made they made a decision that it was i don’t know too wrong or maybe they thought that the audience wouldn’t follow them into those areas but i thought when i saw the movie oh boy they really missed you know a big element of the store so anyway i hope did they i know there’s a lot of times you know there’s historical consultants and they’ll

Dan LeFebvre
12:29
reach out to the author was that something that you tried to get across to them that was it sounds like an extremely pivotal part of the story for them to leave out i tried but it but it

Steven Pressfield
12:41
I mean, the way, as you know how the moody business works, once a director comes on board, in this case, by the redshirt, it becomes his movie. And he, like the first thing that happened was they fired me as any kind of a writer or screenwriter. And Redford brought a Jeremy Levin as a screenwriter, who was a really good writer, wrote Don Juan DeMarco movie with Johnny Depp and a lot of others. And he wrote the script really too, because it’s now Redford’s movie. So he’s going to decide what he’s going to cut and et cetera, et cetera. So, yeah, so that became, you know, for reasons of the director’s choosing, which is his story, he’s been ashamed of it the way he wants it. And, you know, if you’re the original writer, you just have to accept that that’s the reality of the business. If I go tell you that very well, we’re talking about it. The producer of the movie was Jake Evers, who also produced The Mission, Driving Miss Daisy, Gandhi. I think he won at least three Best Picture Ostrichs before Beggarman. So really a wonderful guy. And before the movie started, he called me up and told me that I was being fired. Then Redford wanted to bring out an end. And I started laughing because I said, I said, Jake, this is the first time I’d ever get fired where anybody had the decency to actually tell me. Which usually, you get fired, and then you read about it in the trays. You know, we replaced, in fact, one time I got fired, and I bought a movie that was my original concept. I was in place by another writer who had the same agent. We had the same agent, and my agent didn’t tell me. I had to read about it in the trades. So I was very grateful to Jake as a great gentleman that he actually called me up and told me I was fired.

Dan LeFebvre
14:50
Wow. Yeah, I mean, you’re going to find out eventually. Might as well. Wow. And your own agent.

Steven Pressfield
14:55
Yeah, he was such a sweet guy. He felt so bad. Oh, I’m so sorry to tell you. I said, oh, don’t worry about it, Jake. I’m so grateful that you actually are telling me.

Dan LeFebvre
15:05
Well, speaking of World War I, I’m curious with the way the movie portrays this. It opens with June and World War I, and then it jumps to about a decade later, 1928. And we know from history, of course, World War I ended in 1918. And that kind of leaves this gap that they just don’t really explain much of in the movie. And I think this brings up a great point about audience expectations for particularly historical stories in movies compared to entirely fictional ones because when you have this kind of a gap, I think audiences will think, oh, this is just even more inaccurate as far as it’s portraying history because there’s this big gap between the earlier event and then this, and they start to fill in those details and usually with fictional things. How did you navigate this decision or was this a decision you made or was this strictly in the movie to skip this decade between Juna and

Steven Pressfield
16:00
World War I and then this big golf match? It’s another great question, Darren. In the book, we do talk, I do talk about that period. I describe that Julian went through many, had a nervous breakdown, was hospitalized, had alcohol problems, all the things like PTSD that veterans deal with along the way. And that during this period in the book, Dagger Rance appeared in his life and became a kind of a companion to it and was with him and got him kind of back into golf a little bit. And so that that period kind of was described in the book. But the filmmakers, I guess, for whatever reason, maybe for time, they was decided, you know, to eliminate that. It’s a great question because you do miss that period and you wonder what happened to the guy. So he was really like a modern-day vet that’s been struggling with drug diffuse or homelessness or anything like that. And then hopefully the golf match was what pulled him out of there, right? That long day of what he learned from Muscat.

Dan LeFebvre
17:14
Well, that will answer my next question then because the way that the movie portrays Bagger Vance showing up, Juna is already practicing, so he’s already kind of getting back into golf. He’s agreed to do this match, and he’s practicing at night. And Will Smith’s version of Bagger Vance just walks up and they start kind of working together. But it sounds like that might have been more of a movie decision of having him just kind of show up here where he’s already, or Juna is already interested in golf rather than in the book.

Steven Pressfield
17:41
Yeah, definitely movie decision. Yeah, not that way in the book.

Dan LeFebvre
17:46
Well, a central theme to the story in the movie is this concept of seeing the field with Bagger helping Juna break through his mental blocks to find what’s called his authentic swing. And there’s this powerful scene in the woods where the sounds of war come flooding back to Juna, and we see how deeply his trauma runs and how the game is kind of a form of therapy for him. During your research, did you come across any real stories of World War I vets using sports or physical activities to work through what we now call PTSD?

Steven Pressfield
18:21
I did not. I didn’t even try, really, because it seemed sort of a common experience, you know, that they would, you know, you find a way out of that nightmare through one medium or not sports or maybe art, something of that nature. No, that was total fiction.

Dan LeFebvre
18:43
Okay. Yeah, no, that makes sense. And it is something that we see a lot of people turning to in the real world. So it’s entirely believable. Yeah.

Steven Pressfield
18:51
In the Bhagavad Gita, there’s a scene where the troubled warrior Arjuna asks his charioteer, who’s God, to show me who you really are. Show me yourself in all your dimensions. And Krishna does that. And he warns them, you know, he says, I’m going to give you to protect your vision and your hope. It’s going to blow your mind what I’m about to show you. So I’m going to protect them. And then there’s a scene where he kind of shows this kind of cosmic destroyer of worlds, destroyer and recreator of universes. You know, just and that obviously they put in the boot. But sort of that was one of the scenes in the Vita that really brings Arjuna back to reverence and to devotion and to respect for the greater forces in them. So they couldn’t really do that in the movie. So that World War I scene was sort of a substitute for you. I thought it worked pretty good, actually. But like you say, because it didn’t have that 10-year period in there, it kind of came a little bit out of Noah.

Dan LeFebvre
20:09
Yeah, yeah. And again, I think it might go back to that 10-year period. But in the movie’s version of events, we see Bagger Vance teaching Juna about finding his authentic swing. And then there are times in the movie where Will Smith’s version of Bagger Vance doesn’t really seem to know which golf club to use and but he’s supposed to be this caddy helping him and was he it just made me wonder like was he supposed to be this genuine golf expert meant to be more of a spiritual guide but it sounds like a lot of that would be answered if they had that

Steven Pressfield
20:40
10-year period yeah yeah i mean i hope the the concept where he and both would be an abut i think was that he was an all-knowing you know uh personage whatever avatar who knew golf like he baseball or anything else. I don’t know if it came off exactly that way. I mean, what they tried to do, which I thought was really nice in Moody at the end, was after Jack Lemmon, as the older Hardy Greaves, the older boy, has a fifth heart attack or something at Pebble Beach or wherever it was supposed to be, then Bagger Vance, Will Smith, and he reappears as this sort of mysterious, So he now becomes an angel or something of that nature. He certainly becomes a divine personage of some time to kind of welcome the Jack Lemmon fan for the young more to heaven, which I felt was actually a very nice way of doing.

Dan LeFebvre
21:41
Yeah, yeah, I liked that. And it was interesting too because speaking of time, he hasn’t aged at the end. Yeah. version he has an age which adds another element of there’s something supernatural here yeah yeah well you talked about it a little bit earlier but as the match gets underway in the film we see these massive diverse crowds gathering to watch this game based on the research that you did for the book i’m guessing you had a picture of what this real event between bobby jones and walter Hagen hat or would have looked like. Do you think the movie did a good job capturing the image that you had in your head when you were writing the book?

Steven Pressfield
22:21
I do. I think they really did well enough. You know, it’s there’s never really been a great golf movie other than Caddyshack, which was like I played it for a farce. But it’s because there really are no actors that could really swing a golf club in a believable way. You know, if you watch Rory McIlroy playing in the Masters or any, or Tiger Woods or anybody like that, you immediately get that they’re fantastic athletes. And, you know, this swing is a work of art and everything. But how many actors, Matt Damon had never even played Bob when he was cast. And so that, so it’s very hard in movies to recreate golf. I mean, I think movies do a great job recreating boxing. And we think about Rocky or Raging Bull or any of those great boxing movies. You believe it when you see them fighting, you know, in the ring. And they do a great job with horse racing. Think about Secretariat or other things like that. Or baseball. If you think about the natural or so on, great baseball movies where actors are quite believable. You know, hitting home runs and stuff. I mean, he was super believable about that. But golf, you know, they’re never, it’s like as soon as the actor picks up a club, if you’re a real golfer, you look at that and you go, oh, you know, this is pretty bullies, you know, which is a shame. But that’s sort of the nature of the reality that there aren’t any people that can swing and make it look believable at that level.

Dan LeFebvre
24:02
Well, that makes me wonder, you know, when you obviously decided to turn it, you know, have it be golf instead of one of these other sports. So when they just started to talk to you about turning it into a movie and you’re thinking, were you thinking there’s really no good golf movies? How is this going to turn into a good movie?

Steven Pressfield
24:21
Yeah. I mean, I wasn’t really, when I was writing the book, I wasn’t thinking about movies at all. You know, it’s been a happy surprise that it came about. I’m thinking also, I’m thinking about the movie Slap Shop that was about Pofke. That was another that really made it believable, at least to me. I go, wow, these are just like real occupiers. Even seeing Paul Newman skating back and forth, I think, wow, that guy’s really good. Or Downhill Racer, think about Redford again and his steering. That was very big.

Dan LeFebvre
24:52
Well, one of the most memorable choices in the film for me is how Beggar Vance just disappears as mysteriously as he arrives. He doesn’t even wait for the final hole in the big match. What was the thought process behind having him leave before the match concludes? Or I guess, as I should probably add to every question, was that strictly for the movie?

Steven Pressfield
25:17
No, that was in the book. And the whole point of it was, and I forgot how the boobie treated this, actually, to tell you the truth. But in the book, the little boy, he’s telling a story, Artie, is rucking along with Bagger Vance and Juna. And what happens, I think they did this, and I’m sure they did this in the booty, was Bagger Vance turns over the bag to the little boy. He says, you take the man in in the last couple of holes. You be, you know, be, you be a scat. And that, I’m not sure why I did that, but it may be a total sense that it was really now up to the character of Juna to enact on his own what Bagger Vance had been trying to teach him. So, so Bagger Vance were sort of saying, okay, you’re, you know, get on the horse here and ride it in. And also, I think it was a gift to the young board, at least in the board. It changed his life, too, that he acted as a bandit. That actually came from real life. There was the famous—it actually did a movie about this, the Francis Wienert story. Are you familiar with this at all? Anyway, this was like the 1908 U.S. Open. I think that was the year. Maybe it was 1980. and it was the first time an American golfer actually won the U.S. Open. It was a guy, a young caddy named Francis Wienet as a golfer. And he and his caddy was a 10-year-old boy named Eddie Lowry who caddy-fled the whole way. And so I thought, I’m going to steal that too. And so that was how the little boy came.

Dan LeFebvre
27:08
Well, speaking of the real golfers that we talked about with Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen, I’m curious, what made you decide to go with that exhibition match between Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, and Savannah in that era? What was your thought process for that decision?

Steven Pressfield
27:24
Oh, that’s another really good question. As I was thinking about when, just what near set this story, and I sort of was flashing back and I thought, should we go back to like Jack Nicklaus, Autumn Palmer era? And I thought, because supernatural things were going to happen in the short, we were going to have to believe, you know, holes in one and blah, blah, and all kinds of things like that. I thought time period has to be distant enough from the present and kind of romantic enough that we can believe that, you know, superhuman things could happen, but not so far in the past that it’s completely unrecognized. So I thought, should we go back to the Ben Hogan, Sam Snead era? No, that’s still too post-present. But I thought 1920s, the era of the jazz age, of Scott Fitzgerald, of Jack Dempsey, and Charles Lindbergh flying the Atlantic, you know, when there were many heroic things happening. And, of course, Bobby Jones and Maupo Aiden were towering figures who transcended their sport, even in that era. You know, when Bobby Jones won a couple of days at a ticker-tickery down Godway in New York for a long time. So I thought, that’s far enough into the past that we can believe that crazy things could happen. But yet it’s still recognizable as golf. It’s still dramatic. And also I love the clothes that they had, those plus fours, the knickers, you know, and the great shoes they had. And they’ve all been played wearing neckties. I thought, oh, this is going to be, you know, it’ll really look great, you know. So that was why I deliberately chose that here.

Dan LeFebvre
29:09
So it sounds like you chose that it was going to be centered around golf and then sent the era around that instead of the other way around. Because in my mind, I would have thought it would have been, oh, I’m going to pick this era and then, okay, what was happening in this era? But I guess I tend to think of things from a historical perspective first. Why I’m not a storyteller.

Steven Pressfield
29:27
No, that’s exactly, but that’s exactly right. It was golf first meant to be right.

Dan LeFebvre
29:32
Was there a particular reason why you chose golf instead of one of those other sports?

Steven Pressfield
29:36
Yeah, because I was stealing from the Bhagavad Gita, and the gist of the story was a troubled champion getting instruction from his servant, From his charioteer, right? Which I think is like, and Jesus came to earth. He came as a man of sorrows, you know? And so I thought that Caddy is a perfect person. That is a servant, but is really God, is really bringing great vision to the champion that he serves. So that was why I was back.

Dan LeFebvre
30:13
Well, I’m curious, for those of us who watch the movie, we’re going to watch it with different eyes than you will, of course. So when you first watched that movie, was there anything that you thought that might surprise someone like me who just watches it but doesn’t have the background that you do writing the book?

Steven Pressfield
30:35
I do think they captured the era pretty well, you know, as good as I could poker. Like the era of Savannah, that it was in depression, that people were, you know, up against it, and his father lost his job, et cetera, et cetera. And then at the same time, the sort of glamour of the super rich who were untouched by the Depression, how they were still, you know, doing their thing, the big dance that they had with Charlize Theron and stuff like that. So I think they did a really good job with that. Yeah. One thing that was interpreted just as a sidebar was it was shot at Tiawa Island, South Carolina, which is a real place, a real fancy resort, seaside, exactly like, you know, the story. But it was shot in the winter. And so when, but it was winter or summer. And so as they would, like when they had spectators gathered around at Greed between the shops, they were all huddled up in lunar coats. And then when the canvas started to roll, it was like, okay, we’ll take off your coats, you know. And then they pretended that it was hot and, you know, a summertime event. So that was kind of interesting.

Dan LeFebvre
31:52
Well, it sounds like when you were on set, do you have a favorite story from being on set with the characters?

Steven Pressfield
32:01
But after, like I say, I was fired for day one, and nobody would ask my opinion. But they did give me like one day that I could visit the location, you know. And it was like, well, here’s a cup of coffee. There’s the band taking you back to the airport. But so, you know, it was just kind of a fly in, fly out type of thing of courtesy to the original writer, which I appreciate.

Dan LeFebvre
32:28
Well, we have talked a lot about your first historical novel with The Legend of Bagger Vance back in 1995. And you have The Arcadian, brand new book. This is a 30-year journey in historical fiction. I know a lot of my audience are actually historical fiction authors. So before I let you go, can you share one or two tips for how authors can better use history in their novels?

Steven Pressfield
32:54
Ah, I mean, to me, okay, I’ll tell you a minute. One thing I did want to say just before that offending was that meeting the characters, the actors in Dagger Vance, Matt Damon was a terrific guy. Well, not stuck on himself. Wonderful. Friendly. Great. See ya. I have a friend, Brandy Wallace, who wrote Braveheart. So that was a very much a historical piece, right? where he had to really do research and find out exactly what Scotland was like and what he and Wallace says. And I asked him one time, I said, you know, really, how do you do your research? And he said, I do it last. He said, the most important thing, he says, is the story. He says, get the story. Obviously, you have to know a little bit about the story. But he says, get the story right that you want to tell. What’s the climax? You know, what’s middle of act two? What’s the setup? And then go back and make sure that the research judges that as much as you can. But he was definitely a believer, and I agree that we’re not trying to tell the true historical story. We’re trying to tell, like, if you and I are going to write a story about the Knights of the Rante, we would sit down and we’d ask ourselves, what is this about? Is it a love story with Guinevere and Lancelot? And is it a story of two brothers, let’s say King Arthur and Lancelot, who clash over there? Or is it a story about the concept of the round table of warriors that expand up for the vulnerable and the oppressed? Is that what, first you figure out what story we want to touch. And then when we know that, then, okay, let’s go back and read all of the material. Of course, we’ll be reading it all along with Ehiar. And then see how can we make it work with this story. But I’m certainly a believer like that. I think that we can, was it the, a man shot Liberty Valance where there was a lot.

Dan LeFebvre
35:00
Oh yeah, classic John Wayne. Yeah.

Steven Pressfield
35:02
Oh yeah. The choice between the fact and the legend, print the legend, right? Yeah. I’m a believer in that. But it’s a choice between true historical reality and the story you want to tell. Your job is to tell a story. Because other people may write about the same historical event. And if you know the 50 books, let them do their version of it. Like, you do the one that’s coming from your heart, what you want to do. But one thing I will say about research, we’re talking to writers here, is to me the real point of research is to sell the story to the reader by putting enough true details in it that the reader says, oh, wow, this is really, this is the real deal, right? If we go back, we’re doing something about Knights of the Round Table, and the reality is that the stirrup had only been invented a few decades ago, so for the first time, a man in heavy armor could ride on the back of a horse. We’ve got to put that in there somewhere, you know? And when the reader or the moviegoer sees that, they go, oh, wow, that’s really believable, you know? So then when we have a dragon or something appear, hopefully which obviously is not true hopefully the reader will buy into it no so research to me was a way of of we’re going to ask the audience or the reader to believe something crazy right any any story is like that right we’re always going after the week’s summer that there is such a thing as previous lives or there’s such a thing as dragons or whatever so the research to is is is a way of layering detail on detail on detail that are true. So the audience or believer goes, oh, I believe it, I believe it, I believe it. And then when we have a dragon, they go, oh, I believe that too because everything else was true. So that’s the way I looked at music.

Dan LeFebvre
37:08
I love that. And it makes a lot of sense picking golf first and then picking the historical time period. But I’m curious, have you ever come across a time where you’re doing the research and you find something out that kind of, if you put it in there, it’s going to maybe ruin the story or force you to go back and change a bunch of the story based on what you did in the research?

Steven Pressfield
37:32
Yes. And then until you’re so full, I ignore that.

Dan LeFebvre
37:37
That’s a creative decision to keep it.

Steven Pressfield
37:40
No. I actually have two books. The one you held up, The Arcadia, that’s coming out at the end of May. and another book that has the same character. And the time periods cross in the sense that if one is true, the other could not be true. So I ignore that. And I’m hoping that nobody notices it. There’ll always be one guy that does have a scene. I’ll get one email saying, hey, wait a minute. Like, it never happened, you know. And I go, oh, you caught me.

Dan LeFebvre
38:17
Well, if they see this, then you’ll know that it was a creative decision to tell the story.

Steven Pressfield
38:24
Like I remember there was something that Alfred Hitchcock said. A lot of his movies turn on a detail that’s a little dubious, you know. And he says, if the moviegoer gets home and while they’re opening the refrigerator and getting a snack, a midnight snack, they say to themselves, wait a minute. How could Jane Stewart really see across if so? He says, that’s okay. as long as while they’re in the movie and they’re under the spell of the movie, they don’t get that, you know? So I’m a believer in that too.

Dan LeFebvre
38:57
And in some cases, I mean, that can be beneficial because you’d be like, wait a minute, could that, and you go back and watch it again and be like, oh, wait, oh, I was right about that. And then it sparks this conversation that.

Steven Pressfield
39:08
Yeah, at least they’re thinking about it enough to find out something wrong, yeah.

Dan LeFebvre
39:12
Well, speaking of the characters in your new book, arcadian as you mentioned the main character there i might mispronounce it but tell him on all right tell him who would you cast as tell him on if this turned into a movie

Steven Pressfield
39:28
who would i cast yeah uh well actually if you look at the cover one of the things when they were asking me the publisher was asking me how to give i said make him look like vigo mortensen make him look like arablon and you know that the two cowards 11 you know that it’s And so that’s kind of, or, you know, he’s a kind of a warrior that’s been through a lot of the war. So he should have a lot of age and experience, a lot of mileage on him, but without being too old. So that’s why I love that Alagorn guy. I thought he looked great.

Dan LeFebvre
40:07
I love that. And that goes back to, I talked with John Garth about J.R. Tolkien. And with Lord of the Rings, he’s got his Samwise Gamgee, his caddy, as it were. Almost that same sort of story of a companion that helps him through these difficult times. Great stories, great stories. Yeah, yeah, true. Yeah. Well, thank you again so much for your time, Stephen. before I let you go one last time, The Arcadian, where can people find their own copy?

Steven Pressfield
40:41
That would be on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, anywhere. Or check out my website, which is just my name, Steven Bresby of Batman.

Dan LeFebvre
40:50
And I’ll make sure to add a link to all those in the show notes. Thanks again so much for your time, Steven.

Steven Pressfield
40:54
Thanks a lot, Gabe, for your deep thinking about this subject and watching. But one thing I would say to everybody, if they’re at all interested in the Bagler Dents, read the book. You know, I’m sure you’ve all seen the movie or you would be watching the show. Read the book. It’s a really interesting way to see what the story is told one way and then what they had to cut to make it a movie.

Dan LeFebvre
41:19
I love that. I’ll add a link to that in the show notes as well so people can pick up a copy of that book too. Wow. Thank you again, Stephen.

Steven Pressfield
41:26
All right. Thanks, Dan.

Dan LeFebvre
41:37
this episode of based on a true story was produced by me dan lefebvre as steven mentioned if you enjoyed the movie you really should read the book even if it’s just to learn about that 10-year gap that the movie cut out of the story i’ve got a link in the show notes to the legend of bagger vance the novel and while you’re in there why not get a copy of steven’s latest novel too The Arcadian is about a mercenary in 1500s medieval Spain, and it’s just packed with the masterful blend of historical fiction that only Steven Pressfield can deliver. As always, I’ve got all those links in the show notes, as well as on the shows home on the web over at basedonatruestorypodcast.com slash 385. Okay, now it’s time for the answer to our two truths and a lie game from the beginning of the episode. And as a quick refresher, here are the two truths and one lie again. Number one. Stephen also served as the historical consultant throughout the film’s production. Number two, the storyline is based on the Bhagavad Gita. Number three, Morgan Freeman was an early casting idea for Bagger Vance. Did you figure out which one is a lie? Got the answer here. Let’s open that up. And the lie is number one. As Stephen mentioned, he was fired on day one. So even though the movie was based on Stephen’s book, he didn’t have a lot of input on how the movie’s version of his book story was told. It’s a great reminder of how it’s always a good idea to read the book. And speaking of which, I’ve got a link to both The Legend of Bagger Vance as well as Stephen’s new book, The Arcadian, in the show notes for this episode. So go pick up your copies right now. As always, thank you for your continued support listening to and sharing this episode of Based on a True Story with someone that you think would enjoy it. If you are watching the video version of this, stick around for the credits. If you can find out my cat’s name and email it to me, I’ll send you a sticker. Thanks again for watching, and I hope to hear from you soon.

00:00:00:15 – 00:00:20:09
Dan LeFebvre
Since every movie takes different creative liberties portraying historical events. Let’s start today by getting an overall bar park idea of how accurate today’s movie is. So if you were to give Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, letter grade for its historical accuracy, what would it get?

00:00:20:12 – 00:00:39:05
John Barker
Well, I would give it a C. I think, not a great score. It sounds like. But that’s not a criticism, really. And I might say that’s even intentional. And to the film’s credit, because while I think Tarantino is doing isn’t really a history lesson, I mean, the clues, they’re kind of in the title. It’s called Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

00:00:39:09 – 00:00:58:06
John Barker
He tells us from the very start that this is a fairy tale. It’s set in real time and the real place with some real people. Those characters. But it’s very much a re-imagining, like an alternate history built on top of real events, which are the Hollywood of the late 60s, the counterculture of that time, the cultural shift. The Manson Family enchanted the course.

00:00:58:11 – 00:01:19:25
John Barker
All that’s real, and lots of it is depicted by Tarantino with lots of care. But the big dramatic moments, things like the mansons going to the wrong house and the movie star frying one of them with a flamethrower at the end, but didn’t happen as far as the right way. So yes, absolutely. But I think Tarantino might even take that as a compliment with what he’s kind of going for in the film.

00:01:19:27 – 00:01:36:21
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, no, that makes perfect sense. I mean, it’s I got that impression from it just watching it. Okay. This is probably an alternative again. You know, another Quentin Tarantino movie we’re not talking about today, but, you know, like, Inglorious Bastard. I think he kind of did a similar sort of concept where obviously World War Two was a real thing.

00:01:36:24 – 00:01:40:23
Dan LeFebvre
But then layering this story, that is kind of an alternative type history, like you mentioned.

00:01:40:23 – 00:01:56:28
John Barker
But has very much a fantastical ending as well. I think personally, it works a lot better in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood than it does in Inglourious Basterds. I think maybe in Inglourious Basterds, what he’s doing with kind of World War Two, the Nazis. I think that might just be too big to kind of play with reality a bit.

00:01:57:00 – 00:01:59:09
John Barker
I watch how I feel about it.

00:01:59:12 – 00:02:14:20
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, I can’t see that. I think one of the one of the reasons I use that example, I think, is because it’s it’s obviously fantastical, because people are familiar with how World War Two ended, a lot more so than I think. I mean, obviously, a lot of people know about, Sharon Tate and the murders and all that happened.

00:02:14:20 – 00:02:20:21
Dan LeFebvre
But maybe not on the same scale as World War Two. In my mind, at least, maybe that’s just me.

00:02:20:23 – 00:02:35:21
John Barker
No. Certainly not. It’s just about everyone knows World War Two. It’s it’s one of the biggest events of the last 150 years. And you can’t you can’t still, you can’t really escape it. It feels like maybe being a little bit flippant, if that’s the right word. When it doesn’t just fit, it doesn’t just sit right. I think with a lot of people.

00:02:35:23 – 00:03:00:28
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. Well, let’s get back into Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. And one of the more common creative liberties that we see in historical movies are when the filmmakers, well, change names or just create composite characters, or sometimes just make up entirely fictional characters. And for today’s movie, there are three main characters I think. Feel free to add more if you want, but I think the the main characters are the actor Rick Dalton, who’s played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

00:03:01:00 – 00:03:21:06
Dan LeFebvre
Then his stunt double, I should say Rick Dalton’s stunt double and assistant in the movie named Cliff Booth. He’s played by Brad Pitt. And then the actress named Sharon Tate, who’s played by another actress, Margot Robbie. And while he is a smaller character, Tate is married to Roman Polanski. When the couple become Dalton and Bruce neighbors. Are any of those based on real people?

00:03:21:09 – 00:03:39:24
John Barker
Yes. So I agree. Those are the three main characters for sure. Of those three, only Sharon Tate is the real person. She was a real actress. She was married to Roman Polanski, who was a director and was killed by members of the Manson family in 1969. I think Tarantino did take two with a lot of warmth in respect.

00:03:39:27 – 00:03:58:29
John Barker
I think he’s quite deliberately saying, kind of look at what we lost in Sharon Tate and Margot Robbie plays a brilliantly. I think I know that out of respect for the family, Tarantino got in touch with Sharon’s younger sister Deborah before filming, and Deborah Tate ended up on set quite a lot, and she even lent them sort of Sharon’s jewelry for, like, the Playboy Mansion scene where we see Sharon dancing.

00:03:59:02 – 00:04:24:12
John Barker
Margot Robbie’s wearing some of Sharon Tate real jewelry. I forget that to Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. They are fictional, but even they’re not made up totally from scratch because Tarantino drew pretty heavily on Steve McQueen for Rick. Rick’s arc mirrors McQueen’s own career quite a bit, because Steve McQueen goes brick on a 50s TV western about a bounty hunter called Wanted Dead or Alive, which becomes Bounty Law in the film that Rick’s in.

00:04:24:12 – 00:04:45:11
John Barker
And the first time we see Rick in Bounty Law, you’re actually tearing down a poster that says Wanted Dead or Alive, which is obviously a little nod back to that and that whole dynamic between Rick and Cliff, the stunt man best friend dynamic that comes from real relationships as well. Steve McQueen had that with his own stunt man, but Deakins, and Burt Reynolds, he had a very similar relationship with his stunt man, Hal Needham.

00:04:45:11 – 00:04:57:22
John Barker
So that’s kind of where Cliff comes from. He’s not a real person, but he’s rooted in reality. So, yeah, so one real person of the three and two fictional characters who are kind of built from real foundations, if you like.

00:04:57:25 – 00:05:14:24
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. It sounds like, with Tarantino, you expect a lot of those little details anyway, but it sounds like. Yeah, for sure. He’s got these little details in there, based on Steve McQueen, which we’ll get to you a little bit later, too, because there is a scene in the movie I want to talk to you about with Steve McQueen, for sure.

00:05:14:27 – 00:05:43:11
Dan LeFebvre
Well, if we go back to the movie’s timeline, it is 1969, and Rick Dalton’s career doesn’t really seem to be going well in the movie. So he and Cliff Booth head to Italy for six months to make some spaghetti Westerns. And this just kind of seems like one of those moments where maybe they’re they’re looking at moviemaking from the current day, you know, as a moviegoer, we’re looking at this from a current day because right now we think of movies, let me call it, you know, Hollywood and such, but it’s not necessarily just one city.

00:05:43:11 – 00:06:05:06
Dan LeFebvre
Movies these days are made everywhere. And so when you see, you know, in the movie and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the impression I got in the movie there was that going to Europe to make movies is going to be a death sentence for Dalton’s already declining career. So can you kind of take us back to Hollywood in the late 1960s, when this is taking place in this movie?

00:06:05:06 – 00:06:09:04
Dan LeFebvre
And how common was it for actors to go to Europe to make movies?

00:06:09:07 – 00:06:29:12
John Barker
Yeah, well, I mean, you’re right with the modern day globalization, the world’s a smaller place, isn’t it’s always a big idea for somebody to go to Europe from America to carry on whatever career was. But what we’re talking about was the actors going there in the late 60s, it was pretty common at the time. I think the film captures why it did feel like a step down really well, because obviously Tarantino knows his film history inside out.

00:06:29:14 – 00:06:51:02
John Barker
So in late 60s in America, New Hollywood was arriving. The old Hollywood system studio system was kind of crumbling. This new generation of filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, William Friedkin, Francis Ford Coppola, others were all coming through, and they were making much more grounded, more raw films. And the one that younger actors, people like Robert De Niro or Dustin Hoffman, had just done, The Graduate.

00:06:51:06 – 00:07:18:13
John Barker
So the game was changing in Hollywood, and actors like Rick, these TV western guys like your classic square jawed leading men types. They were suddenly a bit old hat, a bit yesterday’s news, and then tied in with that is that spaghetti Western boom of the films it touches on as well, that had been going on since the mid 60s, where things like Sergio Leone’s Dollars trilogy like The Good, the Bad and the ugly with Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and a lot of American actors will go to Europe to kind of cash in on that chick.

00:07:18:16 – 00:07:39:21
John Barker
And Tarantino, actually talking of Lee Van Cleef, took a lot of inspiration from him for Rick’s house in the film because when he was scouting locations, he visited one police widow and said that her house was still like a 1960s time capsule because Van Cleef had a huge painting of his own face in the garage. So that is why Rick has a huge picture of his own face on his driveway, which is a nice detail.

00:07:39:23 – 00:07:59:10
John Barker
But yeah, like like see in Europe was a real option for actors, especially Italy, and it was the kind of movie that a lot of people saw as a sort of admission that you couldn’t have in Hollywood anymore, which is exactly how Rick feels about it. So again, that’s not a real story. Ron McDonald. And it’s very much based in the reality of some actors careers at the time.

00:07:59:12 – 00:07:59:24
John Barker
Yeah.

00:07:59:27 – 00:08:21:17
Dan LeFebvre
When you were I mean, you mentioned that the the shift he’s going from TV to movies. I didn’t think about this when I was watching it, but, that back then I’m thinking of, you know, like in the golden age of Hollywood, there was this, correct me if I’m wrong, but the impression I get is that, there was this stigma around going from film to TV.

00:08:21:18 – 00:08:42:05
Dan LeFebvre
Once, you know, TV started to become a thing. Like there was movie stars didn’t want to do TV was during this. The timeline of what we’re seeing in the movie in the late 1960s, was there a stigma of TV stars like Rick Dalton making a shift to the movies? Like maybe it was tough for him to break into movies?

00:08:42:08 – 00:08:56:23
John Barker
I think back then there was definitely much more of a line between TV and film than what there is now, because now with Netflix and all of that, they can pay big, big bucks. So you see the biggest stars in the world getting their own TV shows. Gabe. Okay, winter’s on the and lots of them have done it.

00:08:56:25 – 00:09:15:25
John Barker
Back then it wasn’t such a big thing. It was much more of a line, I think, between TV star and film star. Some of them did make that crossover, like Steve McQueen. You mentioned Jodie Foster. She started on Gunsmoke, the TV western, when she was 12 years old. She that’s actually why, Julia character here, the girl who talks to DiCaprio’s character.

00:09:15:25 – 00:09:35:00
John Barker
Who why she’s in the film. She’s a nod back to Jodie Foster. It’s not only the 12 year old, so lots of them were making the crossover. We got to be, I think, got out the talent and probably do the right look as well. And some people like Rick Dalton in this who were kind of mid 40s pushing on beyond that Hollywood, you didn’t really, really know them, so they didn’t really have a chance.

00:09:35:00 – 00:09:43:05
John Barker
But they’re always trying to push for it. So the end up I want to make a movie I love you. So let’s let’s head off over there.

00:09:43:08 – 00:09:48:15
Dan LeFebvre
And it’s a nice little, additional touch. Again, it goes back to Quentin Tarantino knowing the hits.

00:09:48:15 – 00:09:52:16
John Barker
There’s so many of them. Yeah, so many. You know.

00:09:52:18 – 00:09:54:29
Dan LeFebvre
You mentioned Steve McQueen. Sorry. Go ahead.

00:09:55:01 – 00:10:11:05
John Barker
So I was going to say yeah. Because with this film as well, it’s not just happened to you writing about this time and place. He’s writing about a time and place that not only does he love, he grew up in, so he knows it inside out. It’s very much a love letter to Hollywood, specifically the Hollywood that he grew up with, I think, and he knows it inside out.

00:10:11:05 – 00:10:17:29
John Barker
So that that kind of is in every single frame of the film. I think you guys, I think this is the most personal film he’s ever done.

00:10:18:01 – 00:10:24:18
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. No, that’s a that’s a good take on that. I hadn’t, hadn’t considered that before. Yeah. It’s you know a love letter to Hollywood almost. And.

00:10:24:22 – 00:10:27:11
John Barker
Yeah it is. Yeah. Nice.

00:10:27:13 – 00:10:52:05
Dan LeFebvre
Well you did mention Steve McQueen and I want to ask about this part because in the movie we see an alternate version of another movie where Rick Dalton, he’s talking about, the time that he’s almost got cast is Steve McQueen’s part as the American pilot, Captain Virgil Hilts. In 1963, the great Escape was the role of Captain Hilts, almost given to someone other than Steve McQueen?

00:10:52:07 – 00:11:06:15
John Barker
Well, I mean, the casting of The Great Escape, that’s kind of a story of its own. We’ve actually done an episode on that one as well, because it was full of big stars, and there was a lot of conflict going on behind the scenes with egos and that kind of thing. But no, it doesn’t seem that anyone else was really in contention to play Captain Hilts.

00:11:06:18 – 00:11:26:14
John Barker
I know that The Great Escape director John Sturges, because he had a British cast, it was very much a British story. You wanted a way to kind of Americanize that for the American audience. And he saw Steve McQueen, Mr. America kind of as a perfect person to do it. So I think he kind of always wanted him. But what you might be interested in is that I know that hilts was kind of based on a real person as well.

00:11:26:16 – 00:11:45:27
John Barker
So there was an R.A.F. World War Two pilot called William Ash. He was shot down over France in 1942, and he attempted to escape prisoner of war camps like 13 times or something. And he ended up being put in solitary. So that’s where the idea of the cooler King in solitary came from. But no, nobody else was nearly cast as hilts, and certainly not Rick Dalton.

00:11:45:27 – 00:11:47:13
John Barker
Obviously.

00:11:47:15 – 00:12:07:19
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, well, he’s fictional anyway, so yeah, exactly. But I love what they did in the movie. I thought it was a nice take that you actually get to see Leonardo DiCaprio edited into actual scenes from The Great Escape, which it was. I looked it up and, it was the Great Escape was released like 11 years before DiCaprio was even born.

00:12:07:22 – 00:12:31:26
Dan LeFebvre
But that made me wonder, let’s just random. Okay, let’s say you could recast any role from a classic film with a current actor or actress, similar to the way that we see Leonardo DiCaprio from 2019, when Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was released, playing Steve McQueen’s role from 1963, Great Escape, who would it be and what role would they play?

00:12:31:28 – 00:12:50:25
John Barker
It’s a good question, and I’ve thought about it. And the film I go for is a Bonnie and Clyde from 1967, so that I think, is ripe for a remake. It’s based on a true story, obviously, so wouldn’t even be a remake really more of a different version of those real events, the kind of folk anti-heroes they’ve become.

00:12:51:01 – 00:12:58:06
John Barker
I mean, I find the real Bonnie and Clyde a pretty fascinating story. I think a lot of people do, which is why they kind of prevail. Have you done that? One of you covered that one?

00:12:58:08 – 00:13:06:23
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah, I have. I’ve actually talked to the, historical consultant on The Highwaymen. I don’t know if you saw that, the Netflix movie.

00:13:06:26 – 00:13:07:03
John Barker
Yeah.

00:13:07:11 – 00:13:12:03
Dan LeFebvre
And they took him down. Yeah, yeah, it’s on new Phillips was the consultant on that, so. Yeah.

00:13:12:06 – 00:13:29:12
John Barker
I’ll check that one out. But obviously in 1967 they were played by Faye Dunaway. And Warren Beatty. And for another one I would go with Austin Butler as Clyde, and Margaret Qualley as Bonnie. I think Austin Butler is great. I think he’s a great actor. He’s charismatic, he’s got a bit of intensity, so that would work well.

00:13:29:12 – 00:13:47:14
John Barker
As Clyde Barrow on Margaret Qualley. I see her be electric in films, and she’s got a bit of, like, unpredictability about, what you like on this movie star quality. That would work really well as Bonnie Parker. So I think they’d be great on the tie or back together. Both Austin Butler and Margaret Qualley are in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Butler.

00:13:47:14 – 00:13:56:13
John Barker
Please tell us what’s in one of the Manson killers. And Margaret Qualley is Pussycat, one of the Manson girls. But yeah, I’d love to see them two in those two roles. That’d be great.

00:13:56:15 – 00:14:01:19
Dan LeFebvre
That would be, that would be fantastic to see a Quentin Tarantino version of that, too.

00:14:01:19 – 00:14:13:23
John Barker
Oh, I would, yeah, yeah. Oh, that film came out, which was the diary by author Penn in the final scene where the get kind of killed was really controversial of how graphic it was. So I think we’ve run that’ll be even more probably.

00:14:13:25 – 00:14:19:06
Dan LeFebvre
Oh, yeah. Oh yeah. He would you think.

00:14:19:08 – 00:14:24:02
Dan LeFebvre
He’d find a way to do that. You did shoot the car it explode or something like that. Yeah, yeah. No reason.

00:14:24:08 – 00:14:28:07
John Barker
Yeah. People eating burgers, drinking milkshakes. Yeah.

00:14:28:09 – 00:14:46:05
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. If we go back to it, once upon a time in Hollywood, there is a scene that we see with another famous actor, Bruce Lee. Cliff Booth gets into a fight with him while he is shooting The Green Hornet. And in the movie, Booth has no trouble beating Lee. And I’m just I’m assuming that particular fight didn’t happen again.

00:14:46:05 – 00:14:52:12
Dan LeFebvre
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do we know if Bruce Lee got into any fights with other actors during his time in Hollywood?

00:14:52:15 – 00:15:11:04
John Barker
Well, there’s no official action now about where of of Bruce Lee actually getting into a proper fight with the doctor on set. I know that Shannon Lee Bruce’s daughter, she was massively critical of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood when it came out, because she said that her dad would always avoid confrontation in real life. But again, it does seem like Tarantino was not totally pulled this thing out within a either.

00:15:11:06 – 00:15:40:11
John Barker
So in the film, Cliff fight with Bruce Lee is on the set of The Green Hornet, the TV series that Bruce Lee started on on that show. Apparently, Lee had a bit of a reputation for not pulling his punches with stunt performers, which didn’t go down well with the stunt team, obviously. And there’s a story about the stunt coordinator on The Green Hornet called Benny Dobbins bringing in another stunt man called Gene LaBelle to kind of bring Lee down a peg or two, because Gina Ballard was a judo expert, and apparently he scooped Lee up on the set and ran around with him in a fireman’s lift.

00:15:40:14 – 00:15:56:16
John Barker
I mean, that story when I came across it, it was told by Gene LaBelle himself. So make of it what you will. But I think it sounds like it’s almost certainly the seed for what Tarantino was doing with Cliff and Bruce Lee. So yet again, it’s a fictional scene, but based in something real. That’s kind of what he’s doing all the way through.

00:15:56:16 – 00:15:57:27
John Barker
I think.

00:15:57:29 – 00:16:16:03
Dan LeFebvre
Wow, wow. Yeah, yeah. I mean, in the movie you’re watching, I’m like, okay, there’s no way he’s going to be Bruce Lee. I mean, come on. But he makes he does it like like there’s nothing. And so I could see that almost, again coming from him, you know, putting it on his shoulders. So who knows if that’s actually true?

00:16:16:03 – 00:16:29:22
John Barker
I think it’s one of the I think one of the main reasons it gets criticized is because people don’t like the fact that the cliff seems to be able to beat Bruce Lee. And when the novelization of the book came out of the film came out, was written by Tarantino, maybe a few months a few years later in not.

00:16:29:22 – 00:16:40:28
John Barker
Apparently I’m not ready to, but apparently does make very clear in that scene that Bruce Lee is better than Cliff in the in the novelization version, whereas in the film it looks like Cliff get in the bedroom, doesn’t it?

00:16:41:01 – 00:16:46:04
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah it does. Yeah. Speaking of alternative histories, I guess.

00:16:46:10 – 00:16:49:03
John Barker
Yeah, yeah, let’s know the history of the old in the history.

00:16:49:06 – 00:17:13:15
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Well, speaking of actors, Margot Robbie, as we talk about her, her version of Sharon Tate is an actress in the movie. And at one point in the movie, we actually see her going to the Berman movie theater in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles to watch her own movie. That movie’s called The Wrecking Crew, and she really seems to just enjoy the audiences reaction to it.

00:17:13:17 – 00:17:18:02
Dan LeFebvre
Do we know if the real Sharon Tate went to go see her own movies like that?

00:17:18:04 – 00:17:35:19
John Barker
Again? There’s no definite records around Sharon doing exactly what we’re seeing. The film go into a cinema to watch yourself. So this is a scene where the film definitely isn’t like some documentary. It’s definitely a it’s definitely a reconstruction. It’s basically, I think, a nice day in the life of Sharon Tate. I think that’s what it’s meant to be, and I think it’s the nicest moment in the film.

00:17:35:19 – 00:17:53:27
John Barker
I really like it, but I know that Tarantino and Margot Robbie have both talked about how proud Sharon Tate was of her performance in that film, The Wrecking Crew. So it does come from that. I think, the Wrecking Crew footage on the screen, rather than replacing Sharon Tate with Robbie like you does. Oh yeah. In The Great Escape, Tarantino shows us the actual Wrecking Crew footage, the film.

00:17:53:27 – 00:18:13:27
John Barker
So I think that’s quite a classy touch to kind of see Sharon doing a thing. But something else interesting in that scene, actually based on reality, is when Sharon’s watching herself, she takes her shoes off and puts her feet up on the chair in front of her. The soles of the feet are really dirty. So Deborah Teach, Sharon’s sister that I mentioned, she said that the real Sharon would go barefoot everywhere she could.

00:18:14:00 – 00:18:33:29
John Barker
Like she never wore shoes at home and she go to restaurants barefoot as well. So her dirty feet in the film, that kind of comes from not in real life. Sharon Tate’s feet are probably washed quite a lot, so I think it’s a really subtle nod to that. I mean, as well, Tarantino has a bit of a reputation for liking the sure women in his films as well, so that might have been a bonus as far as he was concerned.

00:18:34:01 – 00:19:02:08
Dan LeFebvre
Well, again, because of the level of detail, a little things like that, like I would have never have known that without knowing that little detail about the real Sharon Tate and throwing that in or even, you know, using that, that footage in the film. I think when you’re mentioning that, you know, just a nice day in the life of Sharon Tate, I think that’s it’s a great way from you think of from a filmmaker’s perspective to you want to have this person be somebody that to foreshadow the coming events.

00:19:02:08 – 00:19:23:15
Dan LeFebvre
We know what’s going to happen to her. And so there’s got to be some sort of connection to her as a human being. And she’s also not one of the main characters, like we’re talking about Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth and movies, you know, focused on their story a lot. And so I can definitely see that this is a great, great way for Quentin Tarantino to humanize Sharon Tate on, on screen, give her her own.

00:19:23:18 – 00:19:36:23
John Barker
And that’s a big part of what he’s doing. Yeah. I mean, like, you see, with the events happening as it did in real life, when you first watch the film, you think you know what’s going to happen at the end. You think you know what’s coming all the way through, and you know, if it does happen, it’s going to be horrific.

00:19:36:26 – 00:19:52:15
John Barker
And that kind of dread is kind of vague with you all the time. I think Tarantino fully aware of that, and he plays with that all the way through. So when it comes at the end, he flips the expectation on its head. It’s really effective, and one of the ways he does that is to make us like Sharon a lot in this scene does that perfectly, I think.

00:19:52:17 – 00:20:10:07
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Yeah. Well, well we’ll talk about some of that way. The movie ends here in a little bit. But if we go back to the movie’s timeline, Cliff Booth knows a guy named George Spawn from when he works as Rick Dalton stunt double on the TV show we talked about a little bit ago called Bounty Law. They shot that TV show at Spawns Ranch course.

00:20:10:12 – 00:20:31:18
Dan LeFebvre
This is all according to the movie. And. But that was before the timeline of the movie. We don’t actually see much of that actually happening. But then in the movie, we see members of the Manson family living at Spahn Ranch, and spawn himself doesn’t really seem to remember Cliff Booth. It’s really kind of a funny scene there.

00:20:31:20 – 00:20:50:01
Dan LeFebvre
But then still, Booth thinks that spawn is being taken advantage of with the Manson Family members there. He doesn’t really know them as the Manson Family, but that’s what I’m referring them to. And maybe he is, but also, spawn seems to be blind. He’s an older man, and he kind of seems to be okay with the company.

00:20:50:03 – 00:21:05:24
Dan LeFebvre
We see. We hear names like, squeaky, Sadie, Tex, and of course, Charlie referring to Charles Manson. But then the movie just kind of assumes that you know who the real people were. So can you unravel this connection between the Manson Family and the Spahn Ranch?

00:21:05:26 – 00:21:24:14
John Barker
Yeah. So Spahn Ranch was a real place. It was a working ranch that had been used as a movie set for Westerns in the 40s, in the 50s, and it was owned by George Osborne. And by the late 60s, films weren’t being shot there anymore. And it was pretty rundown. And from what we know, Charles Manson arranged for the family to move in around 1968.

00:21:24:21 – 00:21:46:07
John Barker
So basically, in exchange for labor on the ranch and from George’s perspective, some companionship. I mean, how far that went, we don’t know. The one thing I want to know, to be honest, because George, he was about 80, he was going blindly with seeing the film as well. But yes, the Mansons did use Spahn Ranch as a base, basically on the name you mentioned there that we hear in the film, they are all real people, so squeaky.

00:21:46:09 – 00:22:07:09
John Barker
But the net from who in real life later attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford as well. So there’s there’s a spin off. She’s played by Dakota Fanning, Texas Charles Watson, played by Austin Butler. Sadie. Her real name was Susan Atkins. She’s played by Mickey Madsen. Pussycats. But Margaret Qualley is kind of you mentioned she’s based on two people called Ruthanne Moorehouse and Catherine, lead singer Catherine.

00:22:07:09 – 00:22:29:02
John Barker
Shooting. I was nicknamed Kitty cats, and that became Pussycats. Leslie Van Houten is played by Victoria Pedretti. Lena Dunham plays Catherine Scheer, known as Gypsy, and Sydney Sweeney is in there as Diane Lake. She was the youngest Manson to 2014 when she joined, and they’re not in this scene. But later on we see Patricia Krenwinkel, played by Madison Beatty, and Linda Kasabian, played by Maya Hawke.

00:22:29:08 – 00:22:53:08
John Barker
The daughter of Uma Thurman, Ethan Hawke. And then, yeah, you mentioned Charlie, of course, as Charles Manson self. He’s played by Damon Herriman. He’d already played it. Charles Manson actually in Mindhunter. If you’ve seen that the TV series. Yeah, he played him in that. So of all the rules he got typecast in Charles Manson. I think what’s crazy, looking back at it now, is that most of these actors at the time were pretty much unknown, but now Lloyd’s I’m a Big Star is like Austin Butler.

00:22:53:08 – 00:23:16:28
John Barker
Mikey Madison is one of Oscar Margaret Qualley, Sydney Sweeney, Victoria Pedretti as well. I mean the casting director, Victoria Thomas. I think she had a bit of an eye for talent. But in terms of Spahn Ranch, by the time Tarantino came to me, the film, the real Spahn Ranch was gone. A fire destroyed it in like 1970, so the production designer was Barbara Ling, and she found the location about 20 minutes away from where the real ranch had been.

00:23:17:01 – 00:23:25:22
John Barker
And she and her team, like, reconstructed the whole thing from all four. The graphs. So it’s very accurate, apparently. I mean, it’s an incredible set.

00:23:25:24 – 00:23:48:12
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. That’s fascinating. It’s it’s it’s always crazy to me the extent that they’ll go like, here’s, a ranch, like, it’s it’s another movie, inception. It’s like it’s like movie ception, right? I mean, it’s, make, you know, this scene in this, TV show was on this ranch that then burned down, and now they’re making a movie about recreating the shit.

00:23:48:18 – 00:23:51:14
Dan LeFebvre
It’s just. Yeah, it’s just crazy. It’s. Yeah.

00:23:51:17 – 00:24:07:17
John Barker
It’s very media and all the time to about it quite heavily into The Texas Chainsaw Massacre when he was creating this, the whole set, just because he wanted to have that like wooden, ramshackle, eerie kind of feel that you get in Texas Chainsaw, which I think it very much does, because when Cliff, they’re looking for George, it’s very tense, isn’t it?

00:24:07:17 – 00:24:10:29
John Barker
And you can see the house in the distance and that kind of thing. It’s great.

00:24:11:02 – 00:24:22:00
Dan LeFebvre
Well, like you’re, you’re talking about, you know, Tarantino knows what we know about the history of this. And he’s using and playing with that because you know that okay. There’s something tense. There’s something off.

00:24:22:03 – 00:24:38:23
John Barker
But yeah. Exactly. It’s the first thing. Where would you say the mansons as soon as he gets to Spahn Ranch, you know, that’s where the mansons are. Straight away. The hairs in the in that go up because we know what they are. I’m gonna know what’s going to happen. So it’s like, what’s going to happen? Yeah. You I think when I first watched it, I’m assuming something’s going to happen here that leads the Mansons back to Cielo Drive.

00:24:38:23 – 00:24:45:04
John Barker
It doesn’t, but it’s it’s just got that ominous dread all the way into the film because you think you know what’s coming.

00:24:45:07 – 00:24:49:15
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. You just. Yeah. You’re just waiting for it to jump out at you. But you don’t know when it’s going to be.

00:24:49:22 – 00:24:51:20
John Barker
Exactly, exactly. Yeah.

00:24:51:22 – 00:25:10:16
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Well, if there is a point in the movie where I think it was specifically shifting away from historical events, it would be when, as the movie puts it, Charles Manson told his followers to quote, Go to Terry’s old house and kill everybody in there. And the house that they’re referring to in the movie is now owned by Sharon Tate and her husband, Roman Polanski.

00:25:10:18 – 00:25:30:15
Dan LeFebvre
But here’s where I think it changed from history, because once the Manson family members get there, Rick Dalton gets annoyed at their car being too loud. Is just idling on a private road. He comes out, start yelling at them to get out and leave. They recognize Dalton as an actor on Bounty Law, and then they decide to kill the actor who taught them how to kill.

00:25:30:18 – 00:25:42:24
Dan LeFebvre
So they end up going next door to kill Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth instead. And we’ll get to that scene next door in a moment. But in the true story was Polanski and Tate’s house the target for the Manson Family’s murders plans?

00:25:42:27 – 00:26:08:09
John Barker
Yes. It was 10050. Cielo drive was the address and that was the targets. So not Sharon Tate specifically. So Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian, then the Kasabian, by the way, that’s where the band got their name from Kasabian. So they drove it on that nice 8th of August 1969. And the reason that specific address was chosen, according to many accounts, goes back to Terry Melcher, who had previously lived there.

00:26:08:16 – 00:26:23:28
John Barker
So Terry Melcher was a music producer who would consider signing Charles Manson as a musician. Because Manson finds himself at a bit of a fork singer songwriter. We actually had one of his songs in the film. It’s sung by the Manson girls in the first act, when they’re walking down the street. But Terry Melcher eventually passed on him and said no.

00:26:24:00 – 00:26:45:03
John Barker
And that rejection, some people say, was one of the things that kind of tipped Manson over the edge. And even stranger, Terry Melcher was the son of Doris Day, of all people. So that’s why, though, when Manson tend to beat Sharon’s, he says, Does Terry live here? He’s talking about Terry Melcher, and there’s other links as well, because one of the bands, Terry Melcher produced was Paul Revere and the Raiders, like 60s rock band.

00:26:45:06 – 00:27:03:00
John Barker
So that’s why Sharon mentions them in the film. And they also on the soundtrack, like five times. They’re all over it. And but yeah, the film has the mansons redirected to Rick’s house after they recognize him like the sea, but in reality they just went to Sharon’s and did what they did. Although they weren’t targeting Sharon Tate specifically, it was the house very much.

00:27:03:02 – 00:27:19:01
Dan LeFebvre
It was the okay, so it was that. So that kind of alludes to that in the movie when he talks about going to Terry’s old house. You talking about Terry Melcher? And that sounds like, again, another little detail that if you don’t know the history of it, you know, I mean, you might know the grand scale, but, you know, the details of like, who is Terry?

00:27:19:04 – 00:27:32:06
John Barker
Yeah. Well, exactly. You just mentioned Terry. But then when you look into that, it opens up this whole kind of, kind of worms of what Charles Manson relationship with Terry Melcher was and how there was this sort of contentions between them. Going back to the fact he didn’t sign he was a record producer. That’s what was all about.

00:27:32:06 – 00:27:35:26
John Barker
But I mentioned to all in the film, well, that’s kind of the reality of it.

00:27:35:29 – 00:27:54:00
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. So that was the the motive, because in the movie it makes it kind of sound like the motive for the murders. Again, they’re going next door and we’ll talk about that. But, you know, being next door, they recognize Rick as somebody who taught them how to kill. So there’s almost seems like this violence and these murders are kind of a form of retribution against the violence in TV.

00:27:54:00 – 00:28:02:05
Dan LeFebvre
So but it sounds like the motive then was more just Charles Manson not liking that he didn’t get signed by a record producer.

00:28:02:07 – 00:28:24:03
John Barker
Yeah, well, Manson’s motives are still very much debated because he never revealed them. He died in 2017, I think, and never actually said what the whole point of it all was. The most commonly believe version is that he wanted to create what he referred to as Helter Skelter, which was a race war that he believed to bring around the end of society in America with the Manson family surviving it and kind of taking power to an extent and the mood as a Cielo drive.

00:28:24:06 – 00:28:35:23
John Barker
The plan was they were going to blame those on black militants and kind of spark that race war and that conflict. So that was the overall motive for the murders. The reason they chose that house was Terry Melcher.

00:28:35:25 – 00:28:40:18
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Okay. So the motive was something completely different than it was just, oh, this is,

00:28:40:20 – 00:28:42:07
John Barker
Yeah. Basically the more an.

00:28:42:07 – 00:28:43:11
Dan LeFebvre
Excuse to kick started.

00:28:43:16 – 00:28:59:22
John Barker
The wanted to cause chaos and murder people, like, on a killing spree. He had no one to kill. So we thought, well, let’s go to tumultuous house and Sharon and her friends were the people who were kind of there. They didn’t they didn’t know them at all. There was no connection whatsoever between Sharon Tate and the people there and the people who turned up that night.

00:28:59:24 – 00:29:01:08
John Barker
It was strangers.

00:29:01:10 – 00:29:04:26
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. That’s it. I mean, just horrific. And it.

00:29:04:26 – 00:29:10:28
John Barker
Is. It’s horrendous. Yeah. It’s true. I mean, I’m, I imagine just a shock of like, who are you? Who are you? What you’re doing here? It’s crazy.

00:29:11:03 – 00:29:33:19
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s there’s no connection there. And thinking of again we we get a lot from movies and TV shows and things like that. But we think of, you know, one of the in every movie or TV show, every detective, they’re always trying to piece together to find the motive. They’re trying to find, you know, what reason would somebody have to to kill this person?

00:29:33:19 – 00:29:42:09
Dan LeFebvre
And for people like Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate, who correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming they were pretty successful, kind of at the height of their careers.

00:29:42:12 – 00:29:43:18
John Barker
Oh yeah. Yeah.

00:29:43:21 – 00:29:46:25
Dan LeFebvre
So they would have a lot of motive, I would assume.

00:29:46:29 – 00:30:00:23
John Barker
Yeah. Well, what the motive was so thin and so sketchy that if not for some of the things that happened in which I think we might talk about a little bit, that would never have been caught because there was no reason. I mean, the different Morton’s and motive, the motive the Charles Manson had, he just didn’t seem to have one other witness head.

00:30:00:23 – 00:30:08:06
John Barker
He did, because he wasn’t quite a normal person. But there was nothing at all that would connect them to to Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski.

00:30:08:08 – 00:30:18:18
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Which makes it seem like, you know, from a detective’s point of view, that just has to be. It’s trying to wrap your head, trying to wrap your head around it when there’s no logical thing to wrap your head around it.

00:30:18:18 – 00:30:28:26
John Barker
Yeah, yeah. Well, when we we did when we did this episode a few months ago, I was in that position for about six months. Just like, what? What’s going on? How this all happened. It’s just crazy.

00:30:28:28 – 00:30:47:13
Dan LeFebvre
Speaking of crazy, before we go back to the movie, when the Manson family does attack, they attack Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth at their home, and there’s almost a comedic level of ultra violence. We get, Brad Pitt’s version of Booth again. He he had no problem handling Bruce Lee. He had no problem handling these. The home invaders.

00:30:47:15 – 00:31:08:10
Dan LeFebvre
Dalton’s in his pool listening music so he doesn’t hear the fighting going on until one of the women breaks through the glass, falls into the pool. Fortunately, Dalton just happens to have a fully functioning flamethrower that he used in the movie, so he uses that as you do. So he uses that against the attacker. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like I see that a lot.

00:31:08:17 – 00:31:15:22
Dan LeFebvre
But I’m just assuming that none of this happened like what we see in the movie. So can you share what really happened when the Manson family attacked?

00:31:15:25 – 00:31:35:20
John Barker
Yeah. Well, yeah. No flamethrowers. Unfortunately. No acid cigarets or Brandy Cliff’s dog. But you know what really happened that night? I mean, it is genuinely horrifying. After we did our episode and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, certain things in my head for weeks afterwards, that stuff’s out there. If people want to go and look for it. But maybe we shouldn’t go into that in detail because it is that bad.

00:31:35:22 – 00:31:55:25
John Barker
But there are some less graphic details based on the reality of that night I can talk about. So the people in Sharon’s house that night were Sharon. She was eight and a half months pregnant. Gina Sebring, who was a celebrity hairdresser. Abigail Folger. She was heiress of the Folger Coffee Company, and Voytek Frykowski. It was Abigail’s boyfriend, so they were all in the film.

00:31:55:27 – 00:32:14:06
John Barker
But there was also a fifth victim, so an 18 year old called Steven Parent was sitting outside Sharon’s house in his car when the Mansons arrived, and Charles Watson shot him dead. But Steven Parent, he’s not in the film at all. And the film threw on the film. No, that didn’t happen. I think that’s very much Tarantino living out the fairytale that he kind of wishes would go out.

00:32:14:10 – 00:32:16:12
John Barker
And maybe we all do to an extent.

00:32:16:15 – 00:32:31:08
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. It’s again, it reminds me of, Inglourious Basterds with the way that ended, just like this is when I. When I watch both of those Tarantino movies, I’m like, okay, this is what Tarantino wanted to happen. This is his alternative version of of how.

00:32:31:08 – 00:32:43:21
John Barker
This is exactly what it is. Yeah, that’s exactly what it is. I mean, a very clever thing that he called a Once Upon a Time in Hollywood because he’s telling us before you even see the film, this is a fairy tale if I’m going to be real. But you would. So you’re telling your friend that the flips are going to come.

00:32:43:21 – 00:32:49:01
John Barker
But like I said earlier, I think it works a lot better here than it does in Inglorious Bastards.

00:32:49:04 – 00:33:11:09
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. Well, you you mentioned some of the names and, something that we see near the end of the movie is it follows a very pregnant Sharon Tate kind of follows her routine. On the evening of August 8th, 1969, her husband, Roman Polanski, is preparing movie in London. So he’s not in the picture, but, she’s with, one of his old friends from Poland, Voytek Rakowski.

00:33:11:09 – 00:33:29:14
Dan LeFebvre
You mentioned, along with his girlfriend Abigail Folger and Jay Sebring, and the movie’s showing his time. So at 7 p.m., the group goes to a Mexican restaurant called El Coyote. At 10:16 p.m., they leave the restaurant to go back home to where they hang out at home until a little after midnight, when the Manson Family members attack Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth next door.

00:33:29:16 – 00:33:49:06
Dan LeFebvre
We already talked about that, but the way the movie outlines this with Sharon Tate’s evening, it’s showing a specific time. Jul ten, 16 p.m.. It makes me think that perhaps you’re following what really happened with Sharon Tate and her friends on August 8th, 1969. How closely did the movie follow the actual timeline for Tate and her friends?

00:33:49:08 – 00:34:06:12
John Barker
Yeah, you’re right, it’s very, very close. The group she was with, or you mentioned they’re the people she was with that night. El coyote was a real restaurant in L.A. that they went to for dinner that evening. It’s still there, actually. And the times in the film, 7 p.m. dinner, leaving just after ten. They’re taken from accounts from the time.

00:34:06:14 – 00:34:22:25
John Barker
And then also in the film, we see Abigail Folger at the piano and Sharon singing Straight Shooter by the Mamas and the Papas. That’s in there because when the police arrived the next day, they found the sheet music to that song on the piano like it had just been used. And also in the film we see Voytek Frykowski go to sleep on the couch.

00:34:23:02 – 00:34:40:01
John Barker
Creer also mentions that in the narration, that did really happen because he was woken up by Charles Watson pointing a gun in his face, and Watson said to him, I’m the devil and I’m here to do the devil’s business. And that lines in the film as well. But Tex says it to Cliff instead. So yeah, lots of things in there based on reality catering to you.

00:34:40:04 – 00:34:46:15
John Barker
I’d done the history, not the research from not just the film history, but the whole murder side of it as well.

00:34:46:17 – 00:34:47:15
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah.

00:34:47:17 – 00:35:03:04
John Barker
Yeah. But that whole sequence that you’re talking about, where that kind of montage sequence where Claire whistles, narrating the events and you’ve got, baby, you’re out of Time by the Rolling Stones playing in the background. Baby, you’re out of time with pictures of Sharon on the screen. And with that narration. This happened at 6 p.m.. This happened at 7 p.m..

00:35:03:04 – 00:35:13:03
John Barker
You sitting there thinking, oh my God, it’s coming, it’s coming. Yeah. So that’s how you feel first time you see it and but now obviously doesn’t. And talking to you another he’s like he’s like oh you’re in the palm of his hand. He’s great.

00:35:13:05 – 00:35:24:03
Dan LeFebvre
What was there anything in the movie that we haven’t talked about yet that suits you is either being historically inaccurate or maybe the exact opposite. Was there anything that stood out to you is accurate the way they depicted it in the movie?

00:35:24:10 – 00:35:42:23
John Barker
Yeah, a couple of things. There’s a few things around Sharon we haven’t talked about. There’s a scene where she goes to a bookstore and buys Tess of the d’Urbervilles. That’s in there, because the last interaction in real life that Sharon ever had with a Roman Polanski was she gave him Tess of the d’Urbervilles as a gift. So that’s a nice little nod to their kind of relationship.

00:35:42:26 – 00:35:58:07
John Barker
There’s another ones in the first, like their own showing as well. The first thing would probably say her in the film. She’s on the way to that party, the Playboy Mansion with Roman Polanski, and she’s wearing a snakeskin coat that’s based on a cord that the real Sharon wore to the premiere of Rosemary’s Baby. What a Polanski’s most famous films.

00:35:58:09 – 00:36:15:18
John Barker
Pictures from that. On the inaccurate side in that scene, actually, the Playboy Mansion. Hugh Hefner didn’t actually buy that place until 1971, so two years after the film says so, the timing doesn’t work. But yeah, it’s there for the atmosphere. So. And it’s cool. So kind of a good kind of find to forgive it. And we mentioned Spahn Ranch as well earlier on.

00:36:15:24 – 00:36:40:19
John Barker
But there’s more great production design as well, because Barbara Ling and her team basically recreated Hollywood Boulevard as it was in 1969. We see a wedding cliff drives down in the first ox, and then Sharon walks down the later on the way to the theater. So what they did was it. Tarantino’s production team approached businesses based on Hollywood Boulevard at the time, and asked if they would let them change their facades to show how they would have looked in 1969 for free.

00:36:40:22 – 00:36:51:12
John Barker
And after filming, most of the stores apparently said, no, just keep it as it is. I don’t want change it back because I prefer the oh look. So like a free Hollywood makeover for your shop. That’s not a bad deal.

00:36:51:14 – 00:36:55:04
Dan LeFebvre
Probably have a lot of tourists coming to and expecting to see it the way it is in the movie, right?

00:36:55:05 – 00:37:00:11
John Barker
Exactly. I’d much prefer that. Yeah, it looks great. It was shot some incredible.

00:37:00:13 – 00:37:02:17
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Free. Yeah. Free makeover.

00:37:02:20 – 00:37:04:07
John Barker
Exactly.

00:37:04:09 – 00:37:29:16
Dan LeFebvre
Well, as we wrap up our discussion today for my audience that loves to learn about the true story behind movies, your podcast is perfect place for them to learn more of the true story from the movie making side of thing. I’ve got a link to your show called All the Right Movies in the show notes. I encourage anyone listening to this to cue it up right next, before I let you go, can you share a bit more about your podcast and do you have an episode that you would recommend someone check out first?

00:37:29:19 – 00:37:44:02
John Barker
Yeah, thanks. On the episode, like you say, the show is called All the Right Movies. We have an episode of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. If anyone wants to dive deeper on that, it’s not just me on the show, it’s the four of us in total. And our tagline is the story of Hollywood, one film at a time.

00:37:44:02 – 00:38:03:09
John Barker
So the idea behind it is that every episode we take one like significant film until the complete story of it. So like how it was made, whether it works as a piece of filmmaking and why it matters in the overall story of Hollywood. I mean, we go really deep. I might have a laugh or two as we go as well, so hopefully it’s entertaining, but it’s typically around 2.5 hours per episode.

00:38:03:09 – 00:38:19:17
John Barker
So like real long form stuff and we put about a hundred of hours working between us as a team as well. So it’s a big old task making an episode. So yeah, we’ve done Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a popular one recently with Lord of the rings, the first roll of the rings film that was like three hours in length because the production of it is so massive.

00:38:19:17 – 00:38:36:20
John Barker
So. And that’s a very popular film, might be a good place to start. We’re also in process of writing a book, actually. That’s called All the Right Movies and Tell the Making of Stories Behind 25 Classic Films of Joe in September, and it will be on preorder very soon. So if anyone’s interested, keep an eye on this for us.

00:38:36:22 – 00:38:51:29
John Barker
And I mean, yeah, we’d love for your audience to check us out. You can find us wherever you get podcasts or the normal places Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube or websites with all the why movies.com, and we’re across all the social channels as well. We’re very big on next. So yeah, we’d love to see people coming along and joining in with the community.

00:38:51:29 – 00:38:53:24
John Barker
We’re growing.

00:38:53:26 – 00:38:56:27
Dan LeFebvre
I’ll have all those links in the show notes. So yeah, nice for people to check it out.

00:38:57:00 – 00:38:57:09
John Barker
Thank you.

00:38:57:09 – 00:38:58:15
Dan LeFebvre
Thanks again so much for your time, John.

00:38:58:22 – 00:39:00:10
John Barker
No problem. Thanks, Dunn. Nice speaking to you.

00:00:00:26 – 00:00:21:27
Dan LeFebvre
Let’s kick this off by getting an overall look at the Manhattan Project. Because if I were to try to summarize the movie’s depiction, basically it seems like a top secret program by the US military at the end of World War two to create an atomic bomb. Can you give us an overall explanation of what the Manhattan Project actually was?

00:00:21:29 – 00:00:55:27
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, it was a project, as you say, during World War Two, to build an atomic bomb. And this is work that, played out mostly in the United States, but it involves scientists from Britain and from Canada as well. As well as is this is something we see really clearly in Oppenheimer, many, many European scientists in exile in the United States who are working on the project, who had been, you know, involved in, nuclear physics, who were bassists or chemists, you know, before they fled the United States and who were involved in the project, you know, working at places like University of Chicago, working at Los Alamos, etc..

00:00:55:29 – 00:01:23:02
Alice Lovejoy
And the basic idea behind the bomb is something that Oppenheimer details well, which is the idea, the discovery, really, that if you could split the nucleus of an atom of uranium atom, nuclear fission, you could create a chain reaction, a great amount of energy that would create a chain reaction that would split other atoms. And so this could be the basis for an extremely powerful weapon, really more powerful than any weapon that existed before.

00:01:23:04 – 00:01:51:26
Alice Lovejoy
So that’s the kind of science behind it. But the, the actual project itself, was huge for the size of atoms. Atoms are really, really small. And on a scale large enough to make enough fissionable material for a bomb, you needed, government and scientific cooperation and investment across multiple factories and multiple places. And so in Oppenheimer, we are focused on Los Alamos for the most part in New Mexico, which is where, our Oppenheimer worked.

00:01:51:28 – 00:02:22:04
Alice Lovejoy
It’s where a lot of the physicists were. But there was a huge amount of production work happening in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in Hanford, Washington, which were cities that were built for the Manhattan Project. But they didn’t exist before, as well as in Washington and then in university centers like Berkeley, which we do see in the film, and the University of Chicago, which we see briefly as well, underneath the football field, and in New York, places like Columbia and here at places like the University of Minnesota, it really was really across the, across the country and, universities.

00:02:22:04 – 00:02:24:19
Alice Lovejoy
But there were some that were more involved than others.

00:02:24:21 – 00:02:41:20
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, it definitely in the movie, it definitely focuses on Los Alamos, which is, I mean, it’s Oppenheimer, so it’s mostly focus on him. There is a scene in the movie, I think it’s a madman’s version of General Leslie Groves. He talks about buying like 1200 tons of uranium and how it’s being processed in a facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

00:02:41:27 – 00:03:00:21
Dan LeFebvre
But we don’t ever see Oak Ridge in the movie. It just kind of shows like two glass bowls. One of them is supposed to be Oak Ridge. One of them, I think, is Hanford. And one of them is the uranium in Oak Ridge. And then the other one is plutonium in Hanford. So they’re talking about making a fission bomb and a hydrogen bomb.

00:03:00:23 – 00:03:10:27
Dan LeFebvre
And so the impression I got from the movie, it sounds like not only are they doing something that’s never been done before and building an atomic bomb, but they’re trying two different ways to do it. Is that true?

00:03:10:29 – 00:03:35:12
Alice Lovejoy
So yes, I think there’s some nuance there. I think the the film gets that scene in the film is great because it gets at not just the scale. Right? How small the this the amount of materials that Hanford and Oak Ridge are able to breathe are so small. And yet they’re so hard to make. Yeah. And the scene gets at the fact that the Manhattan Project was working on two different kinds of fissionable materials for the bomb, so uranium and plutonium.

00:03:35:19 – 00:03:51:29
Alice Lovejoy
And this is all for the same kind of bomb, which is efficient bomb, and Oak Ridge, and Hanford were the places where this was happening. But because this was a project that was happening at such speed, because the war was ongoing, they were afraid the Germans would get the bomb, which is something that the film shows very well.

00:03:52:01 – 00:04:15:06
Alice Lovejoy
There was there were numerous ways of creating this material that were happening at the same time. So in Oak Ridge there were three plants. One of them was using the electromagnetic separation process, to separate fissionable uranium 2005 from uranium 2008. And then there was a gaseous diffusion process at another plant at Oak Ridge and at Oak Ridge.

00:04:15:06 – 00:04:38:03
Alice Lovejoy
There was also another plant that was transforming, spent uranium fuel slugs into plutonium. And then Hanford was working fully on plutonium. So we see a little bit of the electromagnetic separation process in Berkeley and an early scene in the film where, Josh Hartnett, who is playing Ernest Lawrence, shows us that machine. And that is what was operating a large scale at Oak Ridge.

00:04:38:03 – 00:04:57:25
Alice Lovejoy
And the electron and the white, all the electromagnetic separation plant. But the hydrogen bomb is something different. And this is a thermonuclear weapon. This is something that comes up in the film because, Edward Teller, the, physicist who kind of is at odds with Oppenheimer, throughout their time. And Los Alamos is really invested in this.

00:04:57:25 – 00:05:18:24
Alice Lovejoy
And hydrogen bombs work through, through fusion and not through fission. So thermonuclear bombs, hydrogen bombs, where something that became a reality in the 50s, and they were very, very dangerous. They’re much more powerful. They are much more powerful than the kinds of bombs that were being worked on at Los Alamos. And so I think this is part of the moral story.

00:05:18:27 – 00:05:37:00
Alice Lovejoy
Right, that’s operating in Oppenheimer at the same time as sort of scientific and industrial story, which is about what are the costs of working on a bomb this powerful. And so Teller’s character is there and to sort of, show what he would do later, which is accurate, right. Working on the hydrogen bomb really being responsible for a lot of that science.

00:05:37:02 – 00:05:54:18
Alice Lovejoy
But also to, to set up the, the, the ways in which this project would evolve and in, unforeseeable ways, right in the future that these bombs that they were making in Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, and Hanford would lead the way for things that couldn’t be seen at that point.

00:05:54:20 – 00:06:15:00
Dan LeFebvre
So because, yeah, they kind of they kind of talk a little bit about that. You know, I think the concept of the bomb just becoming a never ending explosion and that sort of thing is, is that kind of what you were referring to is, you know, some of the, the moral elements of it more than just, you know, World War Two, we want to end the war.

00:06:15:02 – 00:06:18:15
Dan LeFebvre
But what’s going to happen after that and that, that whole concept.

00:06:18:18 – 00:06:43:25
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, I think that’s part of it. One of the the key parts of this film for me is that, is Oppenheimer is grappling with the the intersection between the scientific work he’s doing and the politics of this work and the real world consequences of this work. And we see that, as something that’s shared with the scientists as well, when they have a meeting, at Los Alamos and they say, hey, Germany has capitulated, why are we still making this bomb?

00:06:43:27 – 00:07:03:25
Alice Lovejoy
Right? You know how many people are going to be killed? And what does this mean for the future of humanity? That’s something that Niels Bohr, the, who the physicist who comes in earlier in a later in the film says, like who? What is going to happen with this? Are you going to destroy humanity with this? So it’s not just about the possibility that the film deals with, which is an uncontrolled chain reaction which could really destroy the world.

00:07:04:00 – 00:07:21:13
Alice Lovejoy
It’s also about, thinking forward to the arms race and to whether this would be used. And this is sort of one of the key debates of the Cold War, whether the existence of nuclear weapons would prevent countries from going to war or whether they would just create, more and more danger for the world.

00:07:21:16 – 00:07:50:00
Dan LeFebvre
You mentioned with Germany, the other the possibility of Germany doing it, too. And this is outside the scope of anything that we see in Oppenheimer. But it would they have the thought of, well, if somebody is going to do it, it might as well be us first, right? I mean, I know that’s a simplification, perhaps, but, you know, if they were afraid that Nazi Germany is going to be building this, then I could see how they’d be like, well, we want to do it first.

00:07:50:03 – 00:08:11:14
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. And that is the logic right in there. And there was a logic behind this too, that, you know, there were people that this could end the war, it could end all war. And that we don’t want the Nazis to have, to be the ones to get there first, because it could be quite dangerous. And as we learn in the film and this is accurate, they were the Germans were not as advanced as people had feared, even though they had their Heisenberg.

00:08:11:14 – 00:08:30:09
Alice Lovejoy
And they had these, you know, great scientific minds working on the project. The allies were much more advanced with it. So it wasn’t, as much of a threat as had been feared. But there was a breakdown in scientific communication at this moment, too. Right. So people weren’t publishing in these international journals, as much there wasn’t as much circulation of knowledge.

00:08:30:09 – 00:08:48:18
Alice Lovejoy
And this is a real question, you know, in the history of 20th century weapons, it goes back to poison gas, right? Then the question of whether in poison gas for World War One was really the most destructive weapon. It was the thing that raised the most moral, qualms as well. Right? Because it’s a weapon of mass destruction.

00:08:48:20 – 00:09:05:25
Alice Lovejoy
And so there were discussions about whether this is, a weapon whose, development and circulation should be known about widely, so nobody else would develop it. Right, so the world could be protected. But those kinds of networks of scientific communication, which built up after World War One and after poison gas had really broken down by this point.

00:09:05:28 – 00:09:25:07
Dan LeFebvre
When you’re talking about how much goes into creating, you know, going back to the glass bowls and those being filled up, can you fill a little bit more? I mean, I, I don’t know much about what actually goes into creating those, but, I mean, it’s one thing that we see in the movie I it’s called Oppenheimer. Right?

00:09:25:07 – 00:09:45:09
Dan LeFebvre
So he’s he’s the main character, but it does kind of talk a little bit about what you’re, talking about before with what it takes to create these materials. You know, even at Los Alamos, which the movie focuses on, they talk about building a town, churches and schools and building this whole thing. You talked about, you know, Oakridge and Hanford being towns that they built in other areas.

00:09:45:09 – 00:09:50:18
Dan LeFebvre
So can you share some more historical context around the size of the Manhattan Project?

00:09:50:21 – 00:10:12:28
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, it’s a great question because it was huge. And we see this, early in the film when I think, it’s a scene between when Leslie, our Groves, meets Oppenheimer for the first time, and Oppenheimer says, well, if we’re going to do this, we need to have these four spaces, and they need to be coordinated. And the the difference in scale between the number of marbles, you know, these tiny little marbles that you need to make enough charge material for a bomb.

00:10:12:28 – 00:10:36:09
Alice Lovejoy
And the the scope of the project across the United States is really a good way to look at it. So let’s just think about Y-12, the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, which is the one that I know the most about my my recent book, deals and in in detail with the history of Y-12. And it was run by the Tennessee Eastman Company, which was the main chemical subsidiary of the Eastman Kodak Company, the photographic and film company.

00:10:36:11 – 00:11:07:07
Alice Lovejoy
And at its height, there were 22,000 employees working for Y-12, 22,000, and this plant was only one of three at Oak Ridge. The plant itself was, at the time, I think, around 800 acres in size, which is, if we’re going to go by a football field, around 600 football fields, I think. And so there were multiple buildings within it, multiple calutrons, which are these, machines that separate, uranium 235 from uranium 238.

00:11:07:09 – 00:11:33:29
Alice Lovejoy
And all of these huge factories were what was needed to make this very small amounts of fissionable material. But that’s only part of it. Right? So it’s an engineering project. It’s a factory project. It’s a chemical engineering project. And you have major U.S. companies and, and, Canadian companies involved in this. Right? So not just Eastman Kodak, but DuPont, Stone and Webster Engineering for many, many other well known companies.

00:11:34:01 – 00:11:57:03
Alice Lovejoy
And, so this is a good example of the big science of World War two. And, and you bring up towns and that’s part of it too, right? Because big science and big industry is, something that, as they say, we can’t attract top scientists without bringing their families. So we need to make whole cities, that kind of company that can accommodate, these families, you know, these, civilians, really.

00:11:57:09 – 00:12:17:15
Alice Lovejoy
And so overnight, these cities are built and, since this is a podcast about movies, I can give you a statistic that at Oak Ridge there were seven cinemas plus a film society that were built to accommodate the 75,000 people who lived there at the town’s peak. And so the film society was showing all sorts of things.

00:12:17:15 – 00:12:48:02
Alice Lovejoy
They were showing 39 stops. They were showing Sergei Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, there. And this is just part of the leisure offerings that the town, offered at the time. So bowling alleys, baseball leagues, etc. people were working 24 hour, the factories were working 24 hours a day. There was a patchwork of shifts. So you see these towns built very, very quickly out of nowhere, really, to accommodate these massive industrial projects, which is where I think Oppenheimer doesn’t quite get this right.

00:12:48:02 – 00:12:54:21
Alice Lovejoy
It doesn’t quite get at the massive industrial scale of what’s happening because it it really is a film about, about Oppenheimer himself.

00:12:54:24 – 00:12:57:24
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. It’s it’s not called Manhattan Project. Right, exactly.

00:12:58:01 – 00:12:59:10
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah.

00:12:59:12 – 00:13:31:00
Dan LeFebvre
I mean, that’s it’s mind boggling the amount of work and effort to create, like you said, just this tiny little that you splitting atoms literally, like, and and the amount of effort. And then on top of that, being top secret, I mean, I can’t imagine you have you said there’s 22,000 people working and then 75,000 overall. So all these, all these families, were they essentially locked in?

00:13:31:00 – 00:13:44:28
Dan LeFebvre
They’re like locked it. I’m thinking of like a military base. You know, there’s there’s housing on base. But, I used to work in a military base and you could go in and out. You had to have credentials, obviously, but you can go in and out. It’s not like you’re you’re stuck in there. But base wasn’t top secret.

00:13:44:28 – 00:13:54:26
Dan LeFebvre
And dealing with this top secret things in the middle of a world war. And so what was it? I mean, again, this is way outside the scope of acting either, but it’s just fascinating how much goes into it.

00:13:54:28 – 00:14:14:01
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. And I think they were closed me people came to work from outside Oak Ridge as well. And, you know, there were busses that went long distances and, and, you know, labor was a huge issue because you have to remember, this is the draft is happening. They’re relying primarily on to a large degree on female labor because that’s what’s available.

00:14:14:03 – 00:14:31:03
Alice Lovejoy
And so, people are, you know, coming in and out, the secrecy works in part through something that comes up a lot in the film, which is called compartmentalization. Right? The idea that one area doesn’t know what the other area is doing and very, very few people have a sense of what the whole is of the project.

00:14:31:10 – 00:14:40:03
Alice Lovejoy
And so, that was really important. And, you know, many, many people who worked at places like Oak Ridge didn’t know what they were involved with until the bomb was dropped.

00:14:40:06 – 00:14:49:14
Dan LeFebvre
Oh, okay. Okay. Would that be why they had Los Alamos and Oak Ridge and Hanford? I mean, they’re not close to each other geographically at all.

00:14:49:16 – 00:15:07:19
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, that’s a great question. I don’t know the answer to that. I think part of it was about available space and proximity to and really remote spaces, right? Was what they were looking for. And so, in Oppenheimer and I don’t know exactly the story behind this, he, he has a personal relationship to this area near Los Alamos.

00:15:07:19 – 00:15:13:17
Alice Lovejoy
And so they they put the project there. In the case of Oak Ridge, it was, through farmland and towns.

00:15:13:19 – 00:15:28:00
Dan LeFebvre
One of the other famous people that we see in the movie is Albert Einstein. And from the movie’s depiction, it doesn’t really seem like Einstein is involved in the Manhattan Project itself. But he does help Oppenheimer with some calculations. When we were talking about earlier, you know, the thought of triggering a chain reaction that destroys the world.

00:15:28:03 – 00:15:37:24
Dan LeFebvre
But in the movie, it almost seems like Einstein is just someone that everybody’s going to know. And so they just kind of throw him in there. Was Einstein involved in the Manhattan Project at all?

00:15:37:26 – 00:15:56:07
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, I agree with you that it seems like he’s put in there just because, you know, we know his face, we know his hair, we know what it looks like. But he didn’t play a direct role in the Manhattan Project. But he did, however, and this comes up in the film, he famously signed a letter written to President Roosevelt by the physicist, Leo Szilard.

00:15:56:07 – 00:16:13:16
Alice Lovejoy
Edward Teller, who we see in the film and at Zealand as well, we see in the film, and Eugene and Victor, who are all, Hungarian scientists, I believe, in exile, warning Roosevelt that it was possible that the Germans would create an atomic bomb and explaining what that kind of a weapon might be and what its dangers were.

00:16:13:18 – 00:16:41:23
Alice Lovejoy
I think as a film scholar, my reading of Einstein’s role in the film, goes beyond the fact that he is so well known. I think, you know, in my reading, Oppenheimer is a great man film great. It’s not a Tatian of the biography. American Prometheus, about Robert Oppenheimer, and one of the key dramatic arcs in the film, beyond this kind of story of the bomb and how it’s created, is the tension between Louis Strouse and Robin Robert Robert Oppenheimer.

00:16:41:25 – 00:17:04:20
Alice Lovejoy
Right. And so to give some background here, for those who might not have seen the film recently, the film cuts back and forth between the story of Oppenheimer’s education, how he comes to the Manhattan Project, the process of creating the bomb, and then, what happens afterwards when the Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss, attempts to discredit Oppenheimer?

00:17:04:23 – 00:17:27:26
Alice Lovejoy
Who has since the bomb was dropped, develops very strong moral qualms about, the potential of this weapon and what and what it represents. And so, you know, Oppenheimer wrote this for this point has developed cloud. He’s developed a certain amount of power. And Strauss, I think, finds this threatening. And Strauss also has different political, you know, idea of what bombs can do than Oppenheimer.

00:17:27:26 – 00:18:05:00
Alice Lovejoy
Right? He’s he’s more conservative. He’s a Republican. And again, party, the party questions don’t work exactly like they do now. But, that he was, somebody who advocated for, building up the U.S. nuclear arsenal and for using weapons like the hydrogen bomb, which were quite destructive. So the film intercuts between these two stories, and it ends at the end of the film when Strauss loses his bid to become secretary of commerce, and Congress, because it comes out that he has orchestrated this, essentially a closed door show trial against Oppenheimer that’s designed to discredit him and show to prove that he was a communist.

00:18:05:00 – 00:18:30:10
Alice Lovejoy
And remember, this is McCarthy, and this is the moment of McCarthyism. It’s a second red scare, etc.. So this brings us back to Einstein, because there’s a key moment in the film at the very beginning where Oppenheimer and Einstein have a conversation on the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Strauss is working there at the time, and Strauss has invited Oppenheimer to consider coming to work as well, which he eventually does.

00:18:30:12 – 00:18:56:03
Alice Lovejoy
So Strauss doesn’t hear what the two physicists say to one another. But, as we learn at the end of the film, he’s paranoid that they’re talking about him. And, it turns out they’re not talking about him. They’re talking about something entirely different. And what they’re talking about is that Eisenstein. I like Eisenstein to me, Einstein, is offering Oppenheimer a warning about what happens when you reach such achievement as he has.

00:18:56:03 – 00:19:23:06
Alice Lovejoy
Right. He says that this kind of achievement is followed by great punishment, public punishment, which we’ve just seen him endure in the film. And so there’s a frame right at the end of film where we see the three men, Strauss and Einstein, and often hammer together right in against the same background. And we can see how much this is a story about power, about the costs of ambition and about the idea of the great man, which is something that this film was playing with a lot.

00:19:23:09 – 00:19:43:18
Alice Lovejoy
And how it’s sort of, created in contexts that are complicated, right, that do have to do with power and other people’s ambition. And so Einstein, I think, is kind of a foil to these two men, Strauss and, Oppenheimer, who has relationships to what we might think of as greatness are very different. Right. Oppenheimer is a very ambivalent.

00:19:43:18 – 00:19:54:03
Alice Lovejoy
At least the film shows it to the idea of being kind of a great man, whereas Strauss, wants that, right? He wants power. He he is very, very ambitious. And ultimately it’s not about him.

00:19:54:05 – 00:20:06:15
Dan LeFebvre
It’s the mere fact that he thought that they were talking about him when I, when I when he said that in the movie, I was like, oh, this is one of those guys that thinks the world revolves around him. Everything is about him. So they must be talking about him.

00:20:06:18 – 00:20:20:12
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. And so I think that’s I think that’s one of the, the key points of why Einstein is there. Because he is a great man, right? He is sort of somebody that everybody recognizes and knows. And it’s sort of yeah, puts that into relief and interesting ways.

00:20:20:14 – 00:20:42:20
Dan LeFebvre
Well, if you have back to the movie’s timeline, there is immense pressure to use an atomic bomb to end World War two. And in the movie, we see that the movie, their military has a list of like, love and Japanese cities. They want to drop bombs on two of those cities. And there’s a tight deadline. So first, they need to detonate an atomic bomb for the first time ever to make sure it works one and then gather data about it.

00:20:42:20 – 00:20:52:01
Dan LeFebvre
And that’s how we get in the movie. The Trinity test. And quite in the movie, at least, it seems to be a massive success. How well do you think the movie did depicting the Trinity test?

00:20:52:04 – 00:21:13:09
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, I think what is effective about the way Oppenheimer depicts the Trinity test is that it really drills down on two things. The first, that no one there knew what they were doing or if it would work. Right. So this is a scientific experiment, much like a laboratory experiment. But but it’s operating on a huge scale with huge consequences.

00:21:13:12 – 00:21:49:28
Alice Lovejoy
And so that’s the second thing really, that perhaps somewhat unusually for these kinds of laboratory experiments, this lack of knowledge meant a lot. Right? So the film has already shown us again, that at this point, Germany has already capitulated. So there’s this question of whether it makes sense to use the weapon. And then, and I don’t know the accuracy of this timeline right before the test, General Leslie R Groves, played by Matt Damon, speaks with Oppenheimer about the non-zero chance that this explosion is will set off a chain reaction that will destroy the world and, I think that’s a moment where it’s a little too late, right, for those consequences

00:21:49:28 – 00:22:13:11
Alice Lovejoy
to become clear. And so, in a cinematic sense, it really makes sense to shoot this scene in a very stark, dark way, right? Because it’s, it’s all shot in at night. I mean, it was happening very early in the morning. The sound, is taken away. There’s no sound or very little sound. In the moments around the explosion, it goes into slow motion.

00:22:13:11 – 00:22:37:22
Alice Lovejoy
So it’s really telescoping. The moments around the explosion into a longer period. There’s low contrast until we get to the explosion, which is very, very bright. So I think what the film so that the film shows us a depiction of the Trinity test that is about Oppenheimer and his own experience of it and these sort of like these moral accompaniments to the scientific questions.

00:22:37:24 – 00:22:53:28
Alice Lovejoy
But, you know, in fact, this this test had been planned for over a year. The planning was meticulous. You know, the film shows us, a moment where they say, oh, we have to hurry. We have to get this thing tested in time for the Potsdam Conference. But in fact, it’s been in the works for for a while.

00:22:54:00 – 00:23:18:29
Alice Lovejoy
And so part of the goal here was not just to see if it worked, but also to document its effects and to study it. Right. This is a scientific, feat as well as a military, endeavor. And so part of this documentation involved cameras. There were 55 cameras, at the tests. Most of them motion picture cameras, which were designed to be started by the same mechanism that trip the bomb.

00:23:19:01 – 00:23:47:01
Alice Lovejoy
And so they were recording what happened. And so we don’t see a lot of that right in the scene. It really you just go into the, the, the, the moral, ethical, psychological questions that surround it. And I think it does a very good job of that. And I think this is also why we get that quote from the Bhagavad which, Bhagavad Gita coming up at the end, that Oppenheimer first encounters with Jean Tatlock earlier in the film.

00:23:47:03 – 00:24:01:03
Alice Lovejoy
Now I am become death. The destroyer of worlds. Right. So in reality, this is a much more planned, you know, carefully documented event. Even if it does have all this moral significance.

00:24:01:06 – 00:24:24:11
Dan LeFebvre
It sounds like, again, I mean, kind of what we were talking about with the Manhattan Project. There’s a lot more than what we see in the movie. But again, the movie is called Oppenheimer. It’s also not called Trinity Test, you know? So, you know, it’s showing it. But, from, I’m gonna say from his perspective, but more from his perspective than from anybody else’s or from, you know, the test itself or any of that.

00:24:24:13 – 00:24:44:29
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Well, during the Trinity test, the movie does show everyone’s watching the explosion using glasses to shield their eyes. Some of them take their glasses off, watch huge ball of flame. A moment later, the shockwave hits. And as I was watching this in the movie, I was thinking, what about the radiation? The movie doesn’t really talk about that that much.

00:24:44:29 – 00:25:04:03
Dan LeFebvre
And, you know, we think of the knowledge that we have now, you know, knowing that the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more recently, like Chernobyl or Fukushima, you know, these disasters on nuclear scale that, you know, the radiation is a huge thing. Was radiation a concern for the scientists working on the Manhattan Project?

00:25:04:06 – 00:25:27:09
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, the radiation, dangers of radiation were known. There was something that the Manhattan Project had studied. The historian Kate Brown has written about this in her work on Hanford, showing that the project studied, what radiation could do to animals, even in a very small doses. But there was a prevailing sense that there was a level under which radiation was essentially harmless.

00:25:27:09 – 00:25:48:02
Alice Lovejoy
And this is known as the tolerance dose, at the time. So, you know, we do see them talking about the dangers of radiation earlier in the film where the scientist Lilli Hornick, who is, a woman working on Oppenheimer’s team, is sort of told you shouldn’t be working on this. It’s dangerous to your reproductive system. And she says to one of the men most equally dangerous to yours.

00:25:48:04 – 00:26:05:26
Alice Lovejoy
Which is true. And, and this might be why, in the scene of the Trinity test, we see most of the project scientists just lying out in the open, right? That there was the idea that there was a tolerance dose might explain this. You know, they’re lying down, so they’re not knocked over by the shockwave.

00:26:05:29 – 00:26:30:00
Alice Lovejoy
And they have welder’s glass to hold up against, the the explosion, which is the same thing that we used to look at eclipses now, but, and then there’s one person, I think it’s Edward Teller who puts on what looks like sunscreen against the explosion. But, you know, this also gives a sense of just how little was known about, they knew it was dangerous, but but they didn’t have a sense of what the explosion would bring.

00:26:30:02 – 00:26:49:20
Alice Lovejoy
But there’s something else here. Which is the scene ends as the sun comes up. The sun comes up, it’s in the desert. They’re all celebrating, or most of them are celebrating, and, the wind is coming up. All right. So, this is something that’s, crucial here, but it’s not discussed, because even though the wind just seems like atmosphere at this moment.

00:26:49:20 – 00:27:22:25
Alice Lovejoy
Right? It’s the desert. There’s wind. That wind is really crucial because, as the project would find out later, the same wind was carrying radioactive fallout from the test site across the country. So the effects of this, were, of course, particularly stark near the test site. And this is something that, especially as testing moves in about in a desert, we know the really horrible cases of who were called the people called the Downwinders, who developed really terrible cancers and other health issues from being, in proximity to radioactive fallout.

00:27:22:27 – 00:27:44:02
Alice Lovejoy
But one of the things that I talk about in my book is that the radiation from these tests and from Trinity tests, the Trinity test as well, the radiation traveled much farther than the test sites themselves, even though the AEC and the Manhattan Project thought that they couldn’t. Right. So they were found, in Indiana. They were eventually found in the East Coast and beyond.

00:27:44:04 – 00:27:58:19
Alice Lovejoy
And it was traveling the fall. It was traveling on the same wind that we see start up there. So I see that as a really important kind of moment in showing the the effects of these weapons that went well beyond what anybody had imagined just from the explosion.

00:27:58:22 – 00:28:06:07
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. Yeah. You don’t really think about I mean, that’s one of those things. It’s a.

00:28:06:09 – 00:28:42:09
Dan LeFebvre
You don’t see it. So you don’t think that it’s something that will that will do. And I could see how, you know, back then this is one of those moments in the movie where it’s, it’s difficult to put myself back in the historical context of what it was like then, because we know so much. I don’t know a lot about the nuclear world, but, you know, things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, you know, hearing about that and learning about those, you hear about things like, I think with Chernobyl, if I remember right, you know, one of the reasons they learned about it was because other countries in Europe were detecting these things from the radiation

00:28:42:09 – 00:28:57:17
Dan LeFebvre
on the wind, you know, stuff like that, that obviously they knew more about then. But we’re talking, you know, in the 1940s, first, first time, I can’t imagine how much there was that. They weren’t they weren’t tracking it. So they would know basically. Right.

00:28:57:19 – 00:29:21:26
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, exactly. And this is where Kodak comes in an interesting ways because, in after the Trinity test, Kodak realizes that there are spots of black spots or spots of radiation that are showing up on unexposed film. So film that’s been sitting packaged for a while, and they trace it back to, microscopic particles of radiation in the packaging material that’s containing the film.

00:29:22:02 – 00:29:38:05
Alice Lovejoy
And they realize that that material is from Indiana, and that it must have been harvested, it was made of straw, or it’s kind of straw bore that they had turn to after, cardboard waste paper during the war ended up having a lot of radium in it. Right. So they couldn’t use that either because it would expose the film.

00:29:38:05 – 00:30:01:08
Alice Lovejoy
So they started making the straw board and then the straw has radiation in it. And that is coming. They trace it back to the Trinity test. So that happens, in the late 1940s and then and the early 1950s, Kodak becomes really the first industrial site to alert the Atomic Energy Commission to just how far radiation is traveling, because our film factories are so attentive to radiation to begin with.

00:30:01:10 – 00:30:11:20
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. I mean, so that wasn’t even the you just mentioned. There were a lot of cameras there at Los Alamos. That wasn’t even the film that was there that was filmed. That was thousands of miles away anyway.

00:30:11:22 – 00:30:29:03
Alice Lovejoy
That’s right. Yeah. The film that was there was singed. It was burned. And so it definitely was affected by it. And they were doing everything they could to protect the film, you know, whether that was through glass or led led, cases for cameras. But this is something different where it shows up, really, as you say, invisibly.

00:30:29:05 – 00:30:33:01
Alice Lovejoy
And film becomes a way to, to track it that they didn’t, they weren’t expecting.

00:30:33:03 – 00:30:51:03
Dan LeFebvre
In the movie, the very next scene, after the successful military test, we see some military guys, saying with respect, Doctor Oppenheimer will take it from here. And then with that, they just pack up a bombs and drive away. It happened. So quickly in the movie. It’s almost as if, okay, we had this successful test and now Manhattan Project is over.

00:30:51:06 – 00:31:05:13
Dan LeFebvre
We don’t really see what happens to the town. Of course, we didn’t really see a lot of the town anyway, so we don’t really see what happens. We don’t see anything about what happened with Oak Ridge or Hanford. So can you fill in some more history around how the Manhattan Project actually came to an end?

00:31:05:15 – 00:31:20:08
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, I think that’s I think you’re right that this is a moment that seems abrupt because it I think that’s what it feels like to Oppenheimer. Right. He’s all of a sudden this is a political thing. It’s a government thing. It’s no longer a scientific thing. And that’s really one of the tensions in the film, right, between Strauss and Oppenheimer as well.

00:31:20:11 – 00:31:46:01
Alice Lovejoy
But the, you know, all of the moral and scientific complexity that goes into this is kind of flattened by politics, right? You know, you have Germans saying, this is my weapon. You know, it’s my it’s mine now. And, and, you know, one of the thought things that film does, I think very well is to show us all of the sophistication of Oppenheimer’s thinking and how he was working within a context that had to do with modernist art, and that had to do with reading in multiple languages.

00:31:46:01 – 00:32:04:11
Alice Lovejoy
That had to do with poetry. That was really drawing on, multiple ways of thinking about the world. Whereas the world of politics is much more about power. Right. And Oppenheimer is not part of that world. So, we see that moment. I really think that’s a great scene because it just the weapon goes away and all of a sudden, it’s out of his hands.

00:32:04:11 – 00:32:23:16
Alice Lovejoy
It’s not his anymore. So the successor to the Manhattan Project was the Atomic Energy Commission, which Strauss was the commissioner of between 53 and 58. And the impression that we get from the film is that the AC was more directly politicized in the Manhattan Project, and I think that was true. Right. This is, again, the context of the Cold War.

00:32:23:16 – 00:32:43:22
Alice Lovejoy
The early 50s is the moment when, you know, the Soviets have the bomb. And so there’s the arms race. There is the anti-communist hysteria with McCarthyism in the US. And this really, changed, the context, right, for the kind of work that the Manhattan Project had been doing, which wasn’t about the Soviet Union, really at the time.

00:32:43:24 – 00:33:05:26
Alice Lovejoy
And so at the end of the film, we see this kind of abrupt ending, but it isn’t quite it wasn’t quite that abrupt. The Manhattan Project continue to work, continue to exist for a while. The AEC was founded on August 1st, 1946 with the Atomic Energy Act, and by 1947, the Manhattan Project’s work had been fully absorbed by the AEC.

00:33:05:29 – 00:33:30:29
Alice Lovejoy
But the Manhattan Project, was involved, for instance, with the atomic test Bikini Atoll in 1946, the operations crossroads tests, and eventually all of the infrastructure that the Manhattan Project had built. So at Oak Ridge, at Hanford, at Los Alamos was transferred to the AEC. And those installations still exist. And they’re a really important legacy of World War Two’s big science.

00:33:31:01 – 00:33:52:11
Dan LeFebvre
So it’s not like the the Manhattan Project name went away, mostly. But the technology or obviously the technology still exists. But, you know, a lot of even the facilities and things like that were just essentially transferred to, oh, now we had this new technology. Would it make sense? They wouldn’t have an EEC. There’s no Atomic Energy Commission prior to atomic energy not even being a thing.

00:33:52:11 – 00:33:56:10
Dan LeFebvre
So having that set up, I guess that makes sense. It just transitioned into that.

00:33:56:16 – 00:34:19:16
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. So it’s really a governmental I mean, it’s it’s a it’s a movement from a wartime exigency. And an agency that is built really swiftly during the war by the Army Corps of Engineers, among others. And that’s coordinating things through this question of how do we institutionalize this now that we know we have this technology that’s both for weapons and for energy, and that’s the other part of the story that, you know, is crucial to how the AEC evolves.

00:34:19:18 – 00:34:48:06
Dan LeFebvre
Obviously, my audience is made up of a bunch of film lovers, and as I’m sure film lovers are aware, Christopher Nolan used Kodak’s 65 millimeter large format film to shoot Oppenheimer, and it was released and various other Kodak film formats for Imax in theaters around the world. So from a historical perspective, though, I found that kind of ironic that they used Kodak film to tell the story of how America entered the atomic age using technology from a company that was so closely tied to it all, Kodak.

00:34:48:13 – 00:34:58:24
Dan LeFebvre
And that’s something that you talk about in your book. Is it true that the actual Kodak film company was involved in the chemical production of weapons grade uranium back in the 1940s?

00:34:58:26 – 00:35:18:08
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, yeah. And this is really at the heart of, of my my new book, Tales of Mines and Chemistry, which talks about how Kodak and specifically the Tennessee Eastman Company, which was its main chemical subsidiary. So how those two companies really one company, but two branches of one company came to run the Whitehall plant at Oak Ridge.

00:35:18:10 – 00:35:35:19
Alice Lovejoy
So again, Y-12 is a huge part of Oak Ridge. It has many, many buildings. It’s running the electromagnetic separation process. So why this Kodak, which is a company that we know for its film and for its cameras, is really the key figure in the history of photography, maybe globally. How does this come to play such a crucial role?

00:35:35:19 – 00:36:00:09
Alice Lovejoy
And the Manhattan Project and what’s interesting is that the answer to this stretches back to, the history of safety film. So the less flammable cellulose acetate film that has been basically universally used since the early 1950s and as a successor to cellulose nitrate film, which is, basically the same thing as nitrocellulose and was used in the first part of the 20th century, to make film based.

00:36:00:09 – 00:36:24:26
Alice Lovejoy
So the plastic that goes under film emulsion and what I point to in the book is that, so again, as you say, Oppenheimer, which is a story about one of the men behind the Manhattan Project, was shot on 65 millimeter, which is the Kodak format, on cellulose acetate that’s used, do one up to 70 millimeter production prints and 65 millimeter is the film that requires the largest amount of cellulose acetate.

00:36:24:26 – 00:36:48:07
Alice Lovejoy
And that’s the material that brought Kodak to the bomb. So there’s an industrial connection here that goes very quickly through weapons. Because safety film is made using cellulose acetate, safety film is made using the chemicals acetic acid and acetic and hydride. Those chemicals brought Tennessee Eastman from safety film to making the anti-submarine explosive RDX during World War two.

00:36:48:09 – 00:37:08:28
Alice Lovejoy
And this was happening at the Holston Ordnance Works in Tennessee, the world’s largest ammunition plant at the time, again operated by the world’s largest film manufacturer. And this is a project that was run by Leslie R Groves and the Army Corps of Engineers. And so Groves sees how well Tennessee Eastman is able to sort of build and operate the Holston Ordnance Works at the same time.

00:37:08:28 – 00:37:20:18
Alice Lovejoy
And he says, okay, this is a company that’s going to do a good job, running Y-12. They know how to put these projects together. They know how to operate factories. So let’s ask them to do it.

00:37:20:21 – 00:37:43:15
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. Yeah. So it wasn’t completely random at all. It was they were already doing something beforehand. And then. Yeah, Groves comes in and asks him, wow, it’s fascinating. Well, after everything we’ve learned today, it seems obvious that Oppenheimer is just giving us a small peek at the true story surrounding the Manhattan Project. So let’s say you’re put in charge of making a movie all about the Manhattan Project.

00:37:43:15 – 00:37:49:12
Dan LeFebvre
It’s not called just Oppenheimer. What’s one approach that you would take to telling the story on screen?

00:37:49:15 – 00:38:08:29
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, and it’s a great question because I would take a different approach in the great man approach, which I think Oppenheimer does really well. I think it goes into this all these questions, as I’ve said with Einstein, with Strauss as the foil, etc. it’s a really good adaptation of the biography, but I think the smaller stories are stories of smaller or less famous people are equally important.

00:38:09:01 – 00:38:37:03
Alice Lovejoy
Because these are stories that were crucial to shaping the Manhattan Project and making it what it was. So one of the characters that I follow in my book is a man, named Alfred Dean, who is, known as the Kodak Spy. So slack was an employee of Kodak who, started in the Rochester, New York factory, moved down to the Tennessee Eastman factories in Kingsport, Tennessee, eventually moved to the Holston Ordnance Works, and then works at Y-12.

00:38:37:06 – 00:39:03:09
Alice Lovejoy
And from his time in Rochester onward, he was spying for the Soviet Union. While he was at Kodak, whether that was giving the Soviets color film technology formulas or whether it was, in the case of Holston Ordnance Works actually giving them samples of RDX, this explosive. So slack was not a spy, though, in a way, we might want to show a spy, if you’re like a the genre of the spy film, right?

00:39:03:09 – 00:39:20:07
Alice Lovejoy
He wasn’t in it for the politics. He was in it for the money. He really didn’t want to be doing it. He was kind of like stuck in this relationship. He wasn’t a very good spy. He kind of like, talk too much. And there are these, you know, things said about him at the plant where he would, you know, he would chat about the atomic bomb even though you were supposed to be doing that.

00:39:20:10 – 00:39:50:01
Alice Lovejoy
And I think that story is interesting because he paid for this. I mean, he went to prison in 1915, again at the height of the Red scare. And his story doesn’t really neatly fit into Cold War narratives because, again, his betrayal was pretty mild compared with people like class folks who we do see in Oppenheimer, who was a Soviet spy who was there, or David Greenglass, who was also at Los Alamos, and who worked for the same Soviet handler as Alfred Dean slack.

00:39:50:03 – 00:40:08:01
Alice Lovejoy
And he’s also slack is also interesting because he’s one of those many, many thousands of people who are working on the industrial processes of the Manhattan Project who don’t have these kinds of big names, but were equally important. And there’s been some wonderful work done to by historians on the women who worked on the Manhattan Project, whose roles were were absolutely crucial.

00:40:08:07 – 00:40:16:26
Alice Lovejoy
But I think the smaller story is the stories of people like slack are, interesting. And they tell us they tell us a lot about the nuances of that period.

00:40:16:28 – 00:40:37:07
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. That’s fascinating. I guess. You know, there’s always there’s always people that, don’t love their jobs. But you can I think of, you know, as spies. You don’t think of a spy as somebody that. Why would you be a spy if you don’t want to? If you don’t love what you’re doing? It’s such a high risk. But I guess the reward, if the reward is there and it’s monetary and that’s what you want, then.

00:40:37:09 – 00:40:52:28
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. And I think he was persuaded. Right. I think there was there was persuasion. And that happened by convincing handlers and so yeah, it’s it is one of those odd stories. And he really gets stuck in jail for quite a while. His life is and is ruined by this. And, you know, to be fair, he did spy right?

00:40:53:02 – 00:41:02:24
Alice Lovejoy
He he did it. But it is, in the context of early 50s, where everything is so heightened as we see in Oppenheimer, it can have these consequences that might not have occurred at a different moment.

00:41:02:26 – 00:41:24:21
Dan LeFebvre
That would be a fascinating movie. Speaking of other movies, is it all right if I shift the conversation away from the Oppenheimer movie for a moment? Yeah. I’d like to get your take on current events that I’m sure will be a movie in the future. As a history podcast, it talks about movies and TV shows. We have covered a lot of political events in history, from the Watergate scandal in all the president men to the more recent Nuremberg movie.

00:41:24:23 – 00:41:41:04
Dan LeFebvre
And even with today’s topic, as we talked about Oppenheimer, his political views impacted not only his own life and career, but also impacted how we view his part in history. And all of that is to say, this is not a political podcast, but I think the current events of today will end up in the movies at some point in the future.

00:41:41:09 – 00:41:57:19
Dan LeFebvre
And when it does, I’m sure the events that took place in Minneapolis will play a big part. So as a film historian who lives in Minneapolis, what do you want the filmmakers of the future to know about the true story right now that they should make sure to include in their movies?

00:41:57:21 – 00:42:20:20
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. Thanks. That’s a great and a really important question because I think, there is a widespread sense, among those of us who live in Minneapolis, in the Twin Cities, and Minnesota, that we are living through history in a way that is, very pronounced right away. That’s not too different from what happened in 2020 after George Floyd was murdered.

00:42:20:22 – 00:42:47:04
Alice Lovejoy
In a lot. It’s playing out in the same area of Minneapolis, in south Minneapolis. So I think what’s interesting about this moment, watching it from the inside, is that there’s so much documentation, there’s so many cameras everywhere showing what’s happening, whether these are, observers, legal observers, with cameras, whether these are, body cameras on federal officers, whether these are drones coming out with their photojournalists.

00:42:47:06 – 00:43:09:28
Alice Lovejoy
And there’s also a lot of national and international media coming here, right, flying in to document what’s happening. And what a lot of what we see in the media is pictures of, physical brutality. We see a lot of pictures of, tear gas, federal forces, use of tear gas and pepper spray, chemical munitions, and all this is happening.

00:43:09:28 – 00:43:33:09
Alice Lovejoy
It’s as accurate, but it also leads to the war zone comparisons that are made by, many media outlets, which are not incorrect. Those are those are correct in many ways, but they’re, the media isn’t able to get, to aspects of what’s happening that I think are fundamental but are less, less, attractive as subjects of documentation of filming.

00:43:33:11 – 00:43:55:25
Alice Lovejoy
One is and I will say, some journalists have done a very good job with this. One is the experiences of people who are in hiding, who cannot go to school or cannot go to work, can’t buy groceries, can’t seek medical care because, they’re afraid of being detained, many simply for the color of their skin. And so this is a less again, it’s a less, it’s a harder thing to document, right?

00:43:55:25 – 00:44:28:22
Alice Lovejoy
When you’re on the streets, when you’re when you’re somewhere that you haven’t been before. Because these are stories of isolation and fear and often deep need. And they’re playing out, you know, in the space of a house or an apartment. They’re one of the central stories of this moment. The second thing is, I think the deep and really extraordinarily, supportive and enthusiastic networks of people who are just there supporting their neighbors and their communities, whether that’s through helping people with rent, helping people with food, and so on.

00:44:28:24 – 00:44:48:17
Alice Lovejoy
There’s a lot of solidarity and, cooperation that’s just about taking care of your neighbors. That’s less dramatic. And it’s also quieter. But I think it’s also an essential story to the moment. So I would hope that future filmmakers, can see that the war like aspects of what’s happening here are one part of the story.

00:44:48:18 – 00:45:10:07
Alice Lovejoy
It’s real. It’s happening. But, I would encourage them to have the courage to make a film that can be quieter and less dramatic. And that would also see all of what’s happening with and longer histories of racial injustice and of community organizing, in Minnesota that are really informing what’s happening here. And we’re not that far off from 2020.

00:45:10:09 – 00:45:30:21
Alice Lovejoy
And I say courage because. Right. More films sell. They sell better. They’re, you know, they’re easy to picture. It’s easy to to, you know, to make these kinds of dramatic images. But it’s harder to make a film that is quieter, right, that is playing out inside a house or an apartment or that’s about neighbors just working together.

00:45:30:23 – 00:45:46:27
Alice Lovejoy
I will say this film could still be made on 70 millimeter. I would love to see a quiet film about, a changed everyday life made on 70 millimeter because you can include so much detail, even everyday detail. But would it be a great man story? It would not be a great man story. And I think that’s the point, right?

00:45:46:27 – 00:45:50:29
Alice Lovejoy
That this is a story that’s holding out, in everyday life in many ways.

00:45:51:01 – 00:46:15:27
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. Yeah, it’s it is easier to throw up, you know, action movies and explosions and, and big things that you see in war movies and, get an audience that way, as opposed to not saying the films can’t tell good stories, but it is difficult to tell a good story. And when you can just make big explosions, you know.

00:46:16:01 – 00:46:35:21
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah. I think there’s a commercial, right. There’s a, there’s a, you know, how do you make money making movies, too, is one of the questions. And I think, what happens if we make a movie that’s less dramatic but no less, urgent? Right. In terms of what’s actually happening? So I think it’s a great question, and it’s a question about and an accurate portrayal of reality that is many things at once.

00:46:35:21 – 00:46:37:21
Alice Lovejoy
And that’s hard to do in a film.

00:46:37:24 – 00:47:01:05
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. I’m just curious because something that we see in a lot of, historical movies especially, you know, talking about something like Oppenheimer, that’s, during World War II, you know, many decades ago is they use a lot of documentation. And for something, it’s I think it’s easier to do, like in a military film where the military documents everything.

00:47:01:07 – 00:47:21:14
Dan LeFebvre
So would you have a recommendation for what people now can do to help document some of those lesser known stories that aren’t going to get documented by, the military or the, you know, like in Oppenheimer. You know, they have documents of everything that happened there that filmmakers can then go back to, what do you think?

00:47:21:14 – 00:47:26:09
Dan LeFebvre
What would you recommend as being able to document some of those smaller stories for feature filmmakers?

00:47:26:12 – 00:47:48:27
Alice Lovejoy
Yeah, and I think part of this is about communities documenting their own work and individuals documenting their own work. We know that diaries have played a huge role. Written diaries have played a huge role in this over time. And Frank’s diary being sort of the most famous example of this. And, I think that the amount of, footage that’s being made every day will be crucial as well.

00:47:48:29 – 00:48:07:18
Alice Lovejoy
I think that, you know, the way we use images has changed a great deal, right? Images are being I as a huge part of this. But also the way images are being slowed down and analyzed forensically and used for identification and all sorts of things, you know, that law enforcement wears them too, like there’s all sorts of different ways that images are being used now.

00:48:07:25 – 00:48:21:24
Alice Lovejoy
And I think that’s part of the truth of the moment to the reality of the moment is that there are so many different ways it’s being, shown and represented. And the more that can be done to preserve them and to sort the I from the rest, I think that’s crucial too.

00:48:21:27 – 00:48:57:04
Dan LeFebvre
Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about the movie Oppenheimer. Even though we’ve mostly talked about one movie today, it’s worth remembering that the entire cinema industry exists because of the chemistry and technology that made motion pictures possible. And when we’re watching a movie, a war movie like Oppenheimer, I think most people don’t really think about how the technology that made the movie itself possible intersected with war time weapon development, but that’s a connection that you’ve explored in your book called Tales of Militant Chemistry The Film Factory in a Century of War, and I’ve got a link to that in the show notes for everyone to pick up their own copy.

00:48:57:11 – 00:49:04:16
Dan LeFebvre
And while they do that, can you share something that you came across in your research that would come as a surprise to the average moviegoer?

00:49:04:23 – 00:49:30:22
Alice Lovejoy
Great question. I think beyond the fact that the Manhattan Project was so closely tied to Eastman Kodak and to film manufacturing, I think we can go back a little bit and think about George Eastman again, the founder of Kodak, somebody who was closely involved in, the the way that cinema evolved in the way it developed, that he, you know, he grew cotton, on a kind of gentleman’s farm in North Carolina.

00:49:30:22 – 00:49:54:20
Alice Lovejoy
Now, cotton as as many of your listeners will know, is a crucial ingredient in film. It’s, source of the cellulose that goes into much motion. Picture film. And it’s a it’s a material with a very, dark history, racialist history in the United States that goes back to, to, chattel slavery and, and to, to many, many other, you know, plantations, etc., and the United States.

00:49:54:20 – 00:50:20:12
Alice Lovejoy
And so thinking about those connections that, that existed between the, really the founder of film, somebody who made it into the mass of industrial products that became in the 20th century. And these materials is something that I wasn’t expecting to find. But that underscores for me just how, closely tied this material is to events in the 20th century that go beyond cinema.

00:50:20:12 – 00:50:34:06
Alice Lovejoy
Right? Which is something we see in Oppenheimer, to which we see, you know, the links between nuclear weapons and film is not something that we necessarily think of, but in my view, they are two of the most important technologies of the 20th century atomic weapons and film.

00:50:34:08 – 00:50:37:13
Dan LeFebvre
Well, I’ll make sure to add a link to that in the show notes. Thanks again so much for your time, Alice.

00:50:37:15 – 00:50:38:23
Alice Lovejoy
Thanks for having me. It was a pleasure.

The Movie

The movie fades up to the sounds of rain pattering as Cillian Murphy’s version of a young J. Robert Oppenheimer watches. Then, with a cut to a massive explosion, we get some text on the screen that reads:

“Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity.”

Then, just as quickly as it cuts to the quote, it cuts back to an older J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The True Story

As you can probably guess, that comes from Greek mythology. It’s not really a direct quote of anything, though, but rather it’s more of a paraphrased synopsis of the Prometheus myth.

The whole story is thousands of lines of text, so I won’t include the whole thing here either, but I’ll add a link to it in the show notes if you want to read it all. The movie’s summary is pretty good, though, considering they’re breaking it all down into just a couple lines.

Prometheus was a Titan who was bound by Zeus’s servants Hephaestus, Power, and Force as punishment for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to the humans. That’s how humans were able to progress to a more civilized society with technology thanks to harnessing fire. When he was bound, Prometheus’s torture was basically being exposed to the scorching sun by the day, freezing at night, and then an eagle would eat his liver. The next day, the liver would regenerate and the cycle repeated itself.

The Movie

Back in the movie, we see Oppenheimer going to Europe to study under Patrick Blackett in Cambridge. He’s played by James D’Arcy in the movie. While Oppenheimer is there, the movie focuses on a rather curious moment when Oppenheimer injects Blackett’s apple with potassium cyanide. Then, the next day, he seems to have a change of heart and when he rushes back to the classroom while Neils Bohr is talking to Blackett, and Oppenheimer knocks the apple down just in time, claiming there was a wormhole in the apple.

The True Story

While the movie doesn’t really focus on Oppenheimer’s time as a student in the United States as it does in Europe, it is correct to mention him going to Europe to study under Patrick Blackett at Cambridge.

To back up for a moment, though, what we don’t see much of in the movie is Oppenheimer’s time at Harvard. He went there in 1922 when he was 18 years old and majored in chemistry. That’s how he got interested in physics, when one of his professors named Percy Bridgman taught a course on thermodynamics that interested Oppenheimer. And so, after graduating summa cum laude in 1925 after only three years, Oppenheimer went to Christ’s College, Cambridge, to study physics.

More specifically, that was at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Physics. Oppenheimer was there for about a year from 1925 to 1926.

And that scene with the poisoned apple? That really happened!

The movie implies that Oppenheimer was rather clumsy in the lab, and that’s a bit of truth that frustrated Oppenheimer. On top of that, Professor Blackett was an incredibly demanding teacher. This grew into a resentment for Blackett and by the time the autumn of 1925 rolled around, the then-22-year-old Oppenheimer was struggling badly and feeling incompetent with his lab work.

So, Oppenheimer used chemicals from the lab and injected them into an apple on Blackett’s desk. There’s some debate around exactly what he used and how much—after all, it’s not like this is the kind of thing that gets documented—but we know it happened because he confessed what he’d done to one of his friends. It was most likely cyanide, and probably wasn’t enough to kill him, just to make him sick.

But, that’s irrelevant, because just like we see in the movie, Blackett never ate the apple. Although the movie shows Oppenheimer having a change of mind and rushing back to toss the apple before Blackett can eat it, and that part of the movie seems to be a bit of dramatic license.

The sources I saw merely mentioned that Professor Blackett simply tossed the apple without ever knowing it had been poisoned. There’s nothing I could find that suggested Oppenheimer had a change of mind and rushed back, or that he was even there when the apple was discarded.

The Movie

Going back to the movie, during the apple scene we also see Oppenheimer talking to the visiting lecturer Neils Bohr. In that conversation and due to Oppenheimer’s lack of skills in the lab, Bohr recommends Oppenheimer go to Germany to study theoretical physics under Max Born because there’s no lab work required for that.

The True Story

Since we already learned the poisoned apple story didn’t happen exactly like that in the movie, it’s probably not a surprise to learn this other side of it didn’t happen the same way either.

What is accurate, though, is that the Oppenheimer did meet the Danish physicist Neils Bohr. While the movie doesn’t really mention much about who he was other than to suggest Oppenheimer was looking forward to hearing him speak. He won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922, so when he visited Cambridge just a few years later, I can only imagine how excited Oppenheimer must’ve been to meet one of the most respected minds in his field.

Unlike what we see in the movie, though, it wasn’t Neils Bohr who recommended Oppenheimer go to Germany to study under Max Born.

As you might expect, Max Born was a German physicist and he was also highly respected in the 1920s, and after World War II went on to become one of the people who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

So, probably the biggest change is the movie simplified the events.

In the true story, Oppenheimer actually met both Neils Bohr and Max Born while he was at Cambridge. Not necessarily at the same time, though, so it makes sense why the movie simplified it all. But amidst Oppenheimer’s depression from his poor lab work, and I’m sure the whole apple debacle didn’t help, but Oppenheimer decided to leave Cambridge to go to the University of GURT-in-en (Göttingen) in Germany so he could study theoretical physics under Max Born.

GURT-ing-en

Unlike his time in Cambridge, Oppenheimer flourished in his theoretical studies. Just six months after moving to Germany, Oppenheimer graduated with his PhD and co-authored the Born-Oppenheimer approximation with Max Born. He was making a name for himself.

The Movie

After studying in Germany, the movie talks about Oppenheimer returning to the United States where he sets up the theoretical physics department at the University of California, Berkley. Then after all of this setup of Oppenheimer’s education and early career are taking place while we see black and white sequences with Robert Downey Jr.’s version of Lewis Strauss hiring Oppenheimer to work at what the movie only calls “the Institute.”

The True Story

This is where we really start to see the movie bouncing around in the timeline, because Oppenheimer wasn’t appointed as the director of the Institute for Advanced Study until 1947. That’s clearly after World War II and the Manhattan Project. Since we’re following the movie’s timeline of events, we’ll be bouncing around a bit as well, but here is a quick overview of Oppenheimer’s timeline in the true story.

After graduating with his doctorate from the University of Göttingen in Germany in March of 1927, Oppenheimer stayed in Europe for post-doc studies where he spent time in Leiden and Zurich studying under the great minds of the day.

In the fall of 1929, he returned to the U.S. and accepted a position as an associate professor at UC Berkley. He stayed there, but in the spring of 1930, he also started teaching at Caltech. For the next twelve years he went back and forth, splitting time teaching as a full professor at UC Berkley while also being a full professor at Caltech, although he had a special agreement with UC Berkley to release him for six weeks out of the year to teach at Caltech for a term.

This is the time that he built UC Berkley’s theoretical physics program into something of renown that we hear Robert Downey Jr.’s version of Lewis Strauss mention in the movie. But that was in 1947 when Oppenheimer joined the Institute, as we talked about before.

So, from 1930 until 1942, he was splitting time at UC Berkley and Caltech. In 1942, he was given leave to work on the Manhattan Project, and then he returned to Caltech in 1946. He resigned both Caltech and UC Berkley in 1947 to take the job of director at the Institute for Advanced Study.

The Movie

Speaking of the Institute for Advanced Study, in the movie that’s where we see another famous scientist: Albert Einstein. If we’re to believe the movie’s version of history, Oppenheimer seems to think Einstein is a has-been. For example, there’s a line of dialogue early in the movie when Strauss tells Oppenheimer that Einstein is the “greatest scientific mind of our time.” Oppenheimer replies by saying, “Of his time.”

The True Story

While I couldn’t find anything in my research to indicate this exact line of dialogue about Einstein being the greatest scientific mind of “his” time, but the movie is correctly capturing the essence of the relationship between Einstein and Oppenheimer. Before he worked at the Institute, Oppenheimer visited Princeton in 1935. After that, he wrote a letter to his brother where he said, “Princeton is a madhouse: its solipsistic luminaries shining in separate & helpless desolation. Einstein is completely cuckoo.”

About ten years later, Einstein said of the theory Oppenheimer was primarily focusing on, “The quantum theory is without a doubt a useful theory, but it does not reach to the bottom of things. I never believed that it constitutes the true conception of nature.”

Despite these differences, they still had a mutual respect and were cordial with each other. After Einstein passed away in 1955, Oppenheimer wrote publicly that, “…physicists lost their greatest colleague…”

The Movie

Heading back to the movie’s timeline, there’s a line of dialogue from Lewis Strauss as he’s showing Oppenheimer around the Institute when he says the position comes with a house for his family: His wife and two children.

And that introduces us to the next major plot point, because the movie doesn’t focus on Robert Oppenheimer’s personal life a lot, but we do see two relationships that he has…and according to the movie they overlap. First, he has a girlfriend named Jean Tatlock, but then he gets a married woman named Kitty Harrison pregnant. Since Kitty is pregnant, Robert leaves Jean while Kitty leaves her husband to marry Robert. But then, later in the movie, we see Robert having an affair with Jean again.

The True Story

This back-and-forth sort of relationship that we see in the movie does a pretty good job capturing what J. Robert Oppenheimer’s personal life was really like. The key thing the movie does, though, is to mess with the timeline because once again it’s jumping around.

Remember, Oppenheimer’s job at the Institute was in 1947. So, his wife at that time was the woman we see in the movie: Kitty Harrison. She’s played by Emily Blunt.

Kitty’s surname in the movie is actually from one of her husbands before Oppenheimer. Her maiden name was Vissering. She married Frank Ramseyer in 1932, then had that annulled in 1933. The next year, she married Joe Dallet. That lasted until he died in 1937, and then in 1938 she married Richard Harrison. They were divorced in 1940 when she married J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The two children Robert and Kitty had together, Peter and Toni, were the only kids either of them had.

The Movie

In the movie, we see Robert having an girlfriend in Jean Tatlock. But he sleeps with Kitty Harrison, who was a married woman as we just learned, and gets her pregnant. So, Kitty divorces her husband, Robert breaks things off with Jean, and then Robert and Kitty get married.

The True Story

Once again, the movie gets the essence of the story correct, but the timeline was sped up and changed from history.

So, here’s a quick rundown to unravel the historical timeline.

Robert Oppenheimer met Jean Tatlock in the Spring of 1936 when he was teaching at UC Berkley. She was a student there, and it didn’t take long for a romance to blossom. And if you’re wondering, since he was a teacher and she was a student, he was 32 and she was 22. Their relationship developed quickly and Jean had a big influence on shaping Robert’s left-leaning political views. Robert proposed to Jean twice, both of which she rejected, and then in the Spring of 1939, she broke it off with him.

A few months later, in August of 1939, Robert met Kitty Harrison at a party hosted by another physicist. At that time, she was 29 and he was 35. Almost immediately, an affair started. They didn’t hide it, either, as there were reports of Robert and Kitty driving around together in the open.

In the summer of 1940, there was a notable event when Robert Oppenheimer invited Richard and Kitty Harrison to his ranch in New Mexico. Richard Harrison declined the invitation saying he was too busy with work, but Kitty accepted. So, another physicist named Robert Serber along with his wife Charlotte, picked up Kitty in Pasadena and drove her to Oppenheimer’s ranch in New Mexico where they found Robert’s brother, Frank, and Frank’s wife Jackie there.

So, again, the affair wasn’t really a secret. Oh, and at that time, Kitty was pregnant with Robert’s child…who would be Peter, their firstborn.

Well, you can probably see where this is going.

On November 1^st, 1940, Kitty divorced her husband. The very next day, on November 2^nd, 1940, she married Robert Oppenheimer.

But…things weren’t all sunshine and rainbows, because only a couple months after marrying Kitty, who should show back up in Robert’s life? Jean. She reconnected with him and the historical record shows that Robert’s first New Years celebration as a married man, he spent it not with his wife Kitty, but Jean Tatlock.

For the next few years, Robert and Jean maintained contact a couple times a year. While we don’t know the specifics of what happened each time, it’s probably safe to say they were romantic connections.

Despite this, from what we can tell, Kitty knew about Robert’s affair with Jean, and she seemed to tolerate it. Although, to be fair, some have debated just how much she knew. Maybe she only knew them to be friends at first. We don’t really know for sure where that line was crossed, but we know from the FBI tapping their lines in 1943 that Oppenheimer himself said he told Kitty about the affair with Jean, so we can assume she at least knew by then.

The Movie

Speaking of Jean, I’ll throw out a quick content warning here, because something else we see in the movie is a suicide. It happens when Oppenheimer tells Jean that he can’t do the affair anymore, she gets depressed and takes her own life. Robert is shaken by this, but Kitty tells him that he doesn’t get to commit the sin and then make other people feel sorry for him.

The True Story

Unfortunately, that’s true. That was in January of 1944 when Jean was discovered in her bathtub in San Francisco. There was an unsigned note that suggested suicide, and officially it was ruled to be the result of ingesting sedatives and alcohol.

The movie makes it seem like she did it because Robert broke off their affair, but there’s been a lot of controversies surrounding her death.

For example, the note was unsigned. An autopsy suggested she’d eaten a full meal before she died, which the doctor at the time found curious since it’d slow down the effect of the drugs she’d ingested. Her body was discovered by her father, John Tatlock, who moved it from the bathtub to the sofa and then burned a bunch of her letters in the fireplace before calling the funeral parlor—it was the parlor that contacted the police some four hours after she’d died.

Curious things, perhaps, and to be fair as with many debated events in history, not all of those are documented as well as others. But, if there was a conspiracy around her death, that begs the question: Why?

Well, to go down that road, we’d have to remember the timeline. January of 1944. At this point, Robert Oppenheimer was working at the top-secret Manhattan Project. Jean Tatlock was a known member of the Communist Party. If you recall, a moment ago I mentioned the FBI tapped Oppenheimer’s line in 1943 and those revealed that he talked to Kitty about the affair with Jean. The whole reason the FBI was tapping his lines to begin with was because of his association with the Communist Party. They started that in March of 1941, even before he was recruited into the Manhattan Project. Of course, it didn’t stop once he was heading up the top-secret project, so that’s why some think perhaps there was a government coverup to kill Jean Tatlock to keep atomic secrets from getting into the hands of the Soviets.

Then again, Oppenheimer himself believed Jean committed suicide. She was clinically depressed, and she worked as a psychiatrist, so she had access to sedatives pretty easily.

What do you think? If you have any other details or research you’ve done, let me know!

The Movie

For now, if we head back into the movie for the next major plot point, it’s Oppenheimer being recruited into the Manhattan Project by Matt Damon’s version of General Leslie Groves.

But the way we see this happening in the movie, Groves tells Oppenheimer that his name didn’t even come up in the search for a project director even though it was Oppenheimer who brought quantum physics to America. So, the impression I got from the movie was basically if it wasn’t for Groves then Oppenheimer wouldn’t be involved in the Manhattan Project at all.

The True Story

In the true story, that’s not really how it happened. To know what really happened, let’s go back to around the time of Oppenheimer marrying Kitty in late 1940, and then Peter being born in May of 1941. While that was going on in his personal life, in his professional life, Oppenheimer was collaborating on a radiation lab with Ernest Lawrence, who won the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics. That lab was where Lawrence had invented the cyclotron, a particle accelerator he’d patented back in 1932.

After the United States entered World War II, Lawrence recruited Oppenheimer to work on fission and fast neutron experiments at the UC Berkley lab. As you recall, he’d built the theoretical physics program there, so from July to September of 1942, Oppenheimer assembled a group of theoretical physicists to come up with the principles of a bomb design. Seeing as Oppenheimer was the one who built the theoretical physics program at UC Berkley anyway, over those few short months he became a leader of that group.

So, all of that is to say:

That is why U.S. Army General Leslie R. Groves recruited Oppenheimer on October 15^th, 1942 to head up something called Project Y. About a month later, the two men visited Los Alamos, New Mexico for what they called Site Y.

The Movie

And that leads us into something else about the movie, because for a movie called Oppenheimer, it makes sense to focus on him as the main character. We do see a few others, like Isidor Rabi and at one point Robert brings his brother Frank in on the project, but the movie also mentions having to build a town with churches and schools and such, so it’s obviously not showing us the full scale.

The True Story

Now would be a good time to clarify the term “Manhattan Project” and why I’m referring to something in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This project was a lot bigger scale than what we see in the movie.

So, General Groves was from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and in August of 1942, they created something they called the Manhattan Engineer District, or MED. On the surface, it was routine construction in New York City. The true purpose was to cover up the work required for the atomic bomb project.

Over time, that name morphed from the Manhattan Engineer District to the Manhattan Project even though the project itself had sites around the country. As we just learned, Los Alamos, New Mexico was considered “Site Y,” while Oak Ridge, Tennessee was “Site X” and Hanover, Washington was “Site W.”

The Los Alamos location was where the primary work for the bomb design. That’s where Oppenheimer was at, along with about 6,000 workers. The other sites, Oak Ridge and Hanover, were more for providing the materials needed and they were much larger in scale than Los Alamos. There were about 50,000 people working in Hanover that focused primarily on producing plutonium, while Oak Ridge had another 75,000 people focusing on enriching uranium.

So, all in all, the Manhattan Project was a lot larger than what we see in the movie. But again, it’s called “Oppenheimer” and not “Manhattan Project.”

Actually, if you want to learn more about this, I’ve got another companion episode to this one with historian Alice Lovejoy that focuses more on the movie’s portrayal of the Manhattan Project. You can find that over at basedonatruestorypodcast.com/oppenheimer.

The Movie

Back to the movie now, and something that’s very easy to do when we’re watching a historical movie is to look at it from today’s perspective with the knowledge we have today. With that in mind, I thought Oppenheimer did a good job doing was helping us get a sense for what it was like before the nuclear age, because we see Oppenheimer having a major concern that an atomic bomb might start a chain reaction that would just keep going and going until the entire atmosphere has been destroyed and, by extension, everyone and everything on the planet would die.

The True Story

While the movie dramatizes the specifics of it, it’s very true that Oppenheimer and other scientists working on the Manhattan Project considered the possibility that detonating a nuclear device might start an unstoppable chain reaction that’d basically ignite the Earth’s atmosphere and end the world.

Although, as scary as that sounds, it’s often described as more of a “nonzero” risk. So, technically it’s not zero percent chance, but a miniscule chance that from a practical perspective is basically zero.

Except, we’re talking about the end of the world here, so you can understand why even a “nonzero” risk is still worth making sure it doesn’t happen.

The fear was mostly from the physicist Edward Teller, who was worried that a fission bomb would ignite the nitrogen in the atmosphere, or perhaps the hydrogen in the ocean, and just keep using that as fuel to burn. That was as early as 1942.

So, they did the math.

It wasn’t until 1946 that two other physicists at Los Alamos named Hans Bethe and Emil Konopinski formally published a paper that proved the reaction couldn’t continue on forever due to dropping air density and temperature thresholds. That was after the Trinity Test in 1945, but they’d obviously been working on it before then and from what we can tell, they had the math figured out by the time of the test, just hadn’t published the formal paper before it.

The Movie

Speaking of the Trinity Test, let’s head back to the movie because we’re at the point of the test itself. According to the movie, there’s an immense pressure to just use the atomic bomb to end World War II. The military has a list of 11 Japanese cities, and they want to drop two bombs on two of those cities. With a tight deadline, they need to detonate an atomic bomb to make sure it works and gather data like what’s a safe operating distance.

That’s how we get the test. In the movie, Groves asks Oppenheimer what they should call the test, and Oppenheimer says, “Batter my heart, three-person’d god.” Groves replies, “What?” to which Oppenheimer replies, “Trinity.”

It’s the first time an atomic bomb has been detonated and according to the movie, the test appears to be a massive success. As he’s watching this is when we see Oppenheimer use the now-famous quote, “I am become death. The destroyer of worlds.”

The True Story

In the true story, there wasn’t really a list of 11 Japanese cities like we see in the movie. There was actually about 16 cities that were considered by what the U.S. called the “Target Committee,” which was made up of 12 people at its height. Oppenheimer was the chair of the committee, along with members of the military and other scientists in the Manhattan Project.

By the spring of 1945, the 16 Japanese cities were narrowed down to five cities: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, and Niigata. They were chosen for size, military value, surrounding terrain to help amplify the bomb’s effects, as well as minimal previous bombing so they could see what effect the atomic bomb would have compared to other bombings.

Then came Monday, July 16^th, 1945. The day of the Trinity Test.

The name itself is something the movie alludes to when we see Oppenheimer say, “Batter my heart, three person’d God.” That’s a line from the 17^th-century poem from John Donne called Holy Sonnet XIV, which refers to the Christian Trinity. Much later when Groves asked him about the name, Oppenheimer said he wasn’t entirely sure why he picked it other than to think that “Trinity” might fit in with common Western-style names like “Three Rivers,” “Three Peaks,” and so on.

So, he must’ve thought the name “Trinity” wouldn’t attract much attention. Until it exploded, of course.

And the way see the Trinity Test itself happening in the movie is a pretty good re-enactment of what really happened that weekend. There were about 425 people at the Trinity Test site, which was roughly 210 miles south of Los Alamos, New Mexico. That broke down into about 250 scientists and engineers running the test, another 150 or so military as security, and between 20 to 30 VIPs. That included General Leslie Groves, who joined Oppenheimer at the primary command bunker that they called S-10,000 because it was 10,000 yards south of ground zero. That’s about 5.7 miles.

There were also scientists at N-10,000, and W-10,000, but there were mountains to the east so there wasn’t an E-10,000 post.

As for the goggles we see in the movie, those were real as well. The standard gear was dark lenses that filtered UV, and people were ordered to lie face-down, backs turned and put your arms over your eyes. Of course, not everyone did that. Most famously, Richard Feynman chose not to wear goggles and instead watched through the windshield of a truck.

At exactly 5:29 a.m. Mountain Time, the “Gadget” as they called it, detonated on a 100-foot tower. To say the blast exceeded all expectations was an understatement.

Radiation was higher than expected and people at the posts some 5.7 miles away were knocked over by the blast’s shockwave, although there weren’t any major injuries.

That brings us to the line, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

That’s a line from the Bhagavad Gita, a 700-verse Hindu scripture that Oppenheimer paraphrased into that now-famous quote. Chapter 11, Verse 32 says, “I am Time, the destroyer of worlds, grown great, come to consume the worlds.”

Oppenheimer never uttered those words aloud, but in a 1965 documentary for NBC, Oppenheimer recalled that seeing how successful the Trinity Test was, he recounted that he remembered the Bhagavad Gita verse.

The Movie

Heading back to the movie’s version of events, the very next scene after the successful Trinity Test is some military guys saying, “With respect, Dr. Oppenheimer, we’ll take it from here.” And with that, they pack up a bomb and drive away. It happens so quickly in the movie, it’s almost as if that seems to be that they had a successful test, so that’s immediately the end of the Manhattan Project overall.

The True Story

That’s not really what happened. At least not nearly as fast as the movie makes it seem. So, once again, let’s unravel the true story’s timeline.

The Trinity Test was July 16^th, 1945.

About three weeks later, on August 6^th, the uranium gun-type bomb called “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima, resulting in between 70,000 and 80,000 deaths instantly. The movie shows Oppenheimer finding out about the bombs through the radio, but he still worked at Los Alamos, where he found out that evening along with everyone else. Cheers erupted among the teams at Los Alamos on hearing the news, and Oppenheimer joined in the champagne toasts. Although, despite the celebrations, he also had moral qualms with the news.

Three days later, more news. The plutonium bomb “Fat Man” was dropped Nagasaki, with between 35,000 to 40,000 deaths instantly. Back in Los Alamos, there weren’t the same kind of celebrations. Oppenheimer was reported to say, “No, this is too much.”

On August 14^th, 1945, Japan announced their intent to surrender. That’s U.S. time, in Japan it was August 15^th. This effectively ended World War II, although the official surrender document wasn’t signed until September 2^nd.

Then, on October 16^th, exactly three months after the Trinity Test, Oppenheimer resigned from his position in Los Alamos. The Manhattan Project continued on without him, though, until it was disbanded on August 15^th, 1947. As for Oppenheimer, he returned to Caltech where he resumed teaching, but quickly realized his heart wasn’t in it anymore.

The Movie

That leads us right up to Oppenheimer’s meeting with President Truman that we see in the movie. You know, the one where Oppenheimer says, “I feel that I have blood on my hands.” Truman replies with, “You think anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki gives a shit about who built the bomb? They care who dropped it. I did.”

Then, as Oppenheimer is shown out of the Oval Office, we can hear Truman in the background saying, “Don’t let that crybaby back in here.”

The True Story

That was a real meeting that took place on October 25^th, 1945, not long after Oppenheimer resigned from Los Alamos. And the movie is correct to show that Oppenheimer told President Truman that he feels like he has blood on his hands. Truman’s reply was a little different than the movie, albeit with the same effect. Ray Month’s book called Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center quotes Truman as saying, “Blood on his hands; damn it, he hasn’t half as much blood on his hands as I have. You just don’t go around bellyaching about it.”

Then, he called Oppenheimer a crybaby and said, “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”

Except, unlike what we see in the movie, all of that supposedly happened after Oppenheimer had already left so it’s not like it was something he heard as he was leaving like the movie shows.

The Movie

After leaving the Manhattan Project, the movie circles back to something it shows throughout with Lewis Strauss answering to Congress about hiring Oppenheimer for the Institute.

While I was watching that play out in the movie, it gave me the impression that despite Oppenheimer’s contributions to the war effort, his reputation was almost immediately tarnished after the war because of what the movie calls “left-wing associations” and being tied to communism. The movie also seems to imply that Strauss was orchestrating it all, which is quite a turn for the guy who hired Oppenheimer at the Institute.

The True Story

For the most part, the way the movie shows this happening is pretty accurate. It’s dramatized, naturally, but the core elements are there.

What the movie skips are a few years between that meeting with President Truman at the end of 1945 and Oppenheimer’s 1946, when he consulted in Washington on atomic policy and was appointed to the Atomic Energy Commission, or AEC. That leads us up to 1947, which actually takes us back to the beginning of the movie when we learned that Lewis Strauss recruited Oppenheimer to be the director of the Institute for Advanced Study.

What started out as a good relationship turned sour mainly due to Oppenheimer’s Communist ties, such as his wife Kitty and his brother, Frank, who was a confirmed member of the Communist Party USA from 1937 until around 1940.

After World War II, Oppenheimer was famous, but as the Cold War sparked what we now know as the Red Scare, people started to grow suspicious of him. Rumors spread, and anyone with top secret clearance like Oppenheimer had for the Manhattan Project was called into question.

As for Lewis Strauss, that relationship started to sour a couple years after he recruited Oppenheimer. In fact, now that the Manhattan Project is a National Park, here’s a quote from the National Park Services’ website to explain the exact moment Strauss stopped liking Oppenheimer:

Robert Oppenheimer, testifying before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy including Lewis Strauss in 1949 on the military usefulness of Iron 59 said in part, “You can use a shovel for atomic energy. In fact you do. You can use a bottle of beer for atomic energy. In fact you do.” These and other comments by Oppenheimer, who was known for making biting remarks, caused people to laugh. Strauss looked foolish and was furious. “There was a look of hatred there [on Strauss’ face] you don’t see very often…” said one observer.

It wasn’t just that one comment, though, as you’ll notice that article talks about “other comments.” The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s website has another article that discusses another comment from Oppenheimer in that same hearing:

Strauss believed that radioactive isotopes had military value and argued against exporting them. However, with little patience for those he considered intellectually inferior, Oppenheimer publicly humiliated Strauss by saying, “My own rating of the importance of isotopes . . . is that they are far less important than electronic devices, but far more important than, let us say, vitamins.”

In response, Strauss didn’t hide his look of hatred. Oppenheimer had publicly revealed that Strauss knew little about physics, particularly nuclear science.

After that hearing, Lewis Strauss held a grudge against Oppenheimer. So, as Oppenheimer’s public image started to deteriorate into the Cold War era of the early 1950s, Strauss certainly didn’t want to do Oppenheimer any favors. Quite the opposite, actually, because Strauss asked the FBI to track Oppenheimer in 1953. They did, and delivered a report to Strauss on November 20^th, 1953, which Strauss sent directly to President Eisenhower. Upon reviewing the report, Eisenhower decided to revoke Oppenheimer’s security clearance. That happened on December 21^st, 1953, and Oppenheimer was given the choice to resign or appeal. He appealed the decision, which was heard by a three-man panel. They voted two-to-one not to reinstate the security clearance.

And with that, Oppenheimer’s government career was effectively over. But even though the movie doesn’t talk much about the rest of Oppenheimer’s life, let’s fill out the rest of the true story.

Despite his government career effectively coming to an end when his security clearance was revoked, Oppenheimer was still the director at the Institute for Advanced Study, but in 1954 he started taking vacations with his wife and daughter to the small island of Saint John in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They enjoyed sailing together, and they must’ve loved it there because in 1957, Oppenheimer bought some land and built a vacation home there.

He continued working for the Institute for Advanced Study and in March of 1963 he was awarded the Enrico Fermi Award. That’s kind of a lifetime achievement award for scientists with the medal physically given by the President of the United States. Oppenheimer winning that award was a big deal considering how he’d been shunned by the scientific community.

Unfortunately, though, JFK was assassinated before he was able to give the award to Oppenheimer, so President Lyndon B. Johnson formally gave him the award in December of 1963. Jackie Kennedy attended the ceremony and told Oppenheimer how much her husband wanted him to have the medal.

Oppenheimer was diagnosed with throat cancer in 1965. He tried radiation treatment, but it was unsuccessful, so he resigned from the Institute for Advanced Study in 1966 due to his health. Then, on February 18^th, 1967, J. Robert Oppenheimer passed away in his sleep at home in Princeton at the age of 67.

I thought I’d end our story today with more recent news from just before the movie’s release in 2023. Because in 2022, the U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm issued this press release:

Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer occupies a central role in our history for leading the nation’s atomic efforts during World War II and planting the seeds for the Department of Energy’s national laboratories—the crown jewels of the American research and innovation ecosystem.

In 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission revoked Dr. Oppenheimer’s security clearance through a flawed process that violated the Commission’s own regulations. As time has passed, more evidence has come to light of the bias and unfairness of the process that Dr. Oppenheimer was subjected to while the evidence of his loyalty and love of country have only been further affirmed. The Atomic Energy Commission even selected Dr. Oppenheimer in 1963 for its prestigious Enrico Fermi Award citing his “scientific and administrative leadership not only in the development of the atomic bomb, but also in establishing the groundwork for the many peaceful applications of atomic energy.”

The Department of Energy has previously recognized J. Robert Oppenheimer in other ways including the creation of the Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program in 2017 to support early and mid-career scientists and engineers to “carry on [Dr. Oppenheimer’s] legacy of science serving society.”

As a successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Energy has been entrusted with the responsibility to correct the historical record and honor Dr. Oppenheimer’s profound contributions to our national defense and the scientific enterprise at large. Today, I am pleased to announce the Department of Energy has vacated the Atomic Energy Commission’s 1954 decision In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

00:00:02:01 – 00:00:23:08
Dan LeFebvre
Hello and welcome to based on a True Story. The podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. The new Year is upon us, and this is my first time talking to you in 2026, so I thought it would be appropriate to go back into the vault for a classic episode about the topic that got me interested in history to begin with, The Legend of King Arthur.

00:00:23:11 – 00:00:40:22
Dan LeFebvre
Now, I’ll share a little bit more about how that tale got me interested in history, as well as an update for 2026 at the end of the episode, if you want to hear about that. But let’s jump into today’s movie. And there are a lot of King Arthur movies out there, but one of them marketed itself as being a more historically accurate adaptation of the story.

00:00:40:24 – 00:00:59:26
Dan LeFebvre
So that’s why today we’re going to be learning about the 2004 movie starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. And let’s start by refreshing our memory of the movie with a quick synopsis. As the movie starts, we quickly learn why this is a little different than other King Arthur movies because Clive Owen’s version of Arthur isn’t a king at the legendary Camelot.

00:01:00:00 – 00:01:28:11
Dan LeFebvre
Instead, he is a Roman trained commander leading a band of some marching warriors stationed in Britain near the end of Rome’s occupation. Their years of service are supposed to be over, and they’re eager to finally earn their freedom papers and go home. The twist comes when Rome orders them on one last mission ride north of Hadrian’s Wall into dangerous territory to rescue a Roman family before a ruthless Saxon army sweeps down and destroys everything in its path.

00:01:28:14 – 00:01:54:20
Dan LeFebvre
That decision pulls Arthur and his men straight into the collision between Rome’s empire, invading Saxons and the native Britons caught in the middle. Arthur’s soldiers in the movie are many names that we’re familiar with from the legends Lancelot, Gwyn, Galahad, Bors and Tristan. They reluctantly accept the mission, knowing that it might be a suicide run. And in the movie, we see them battling brutal weather, ambushes and the constant pressure of the advancing Saxon forces.

00:01:54:22 – 00:02:16:29
Dan LeFebvre
Along the way, they encounter two other familiar characters from the legend Guinevere and Merlin. In this version of the story, Guinevere is a world warrior rather than the courtly queen that we might expect, and Merlin appears to be more of a tribal leader than a wizard. As alliances shift, Arthur is forced to choose between his duty to Rome and his growing sense that Rome has abandoned Britain.

00:02:17:02 – 00:02:38:18
Dan LeFebvre
The story builds to a large scale showdown when Arthur and his soldiers decide to make a stand alongside the Britons instead of retreating with the Romans. The Saxons launch a fierce assault, and the battle claims the lives of some of Arthur’s closest companions, but the defenders ultimately repel the invaders. And in the aftermath, Arthur marries Gwen and steps into the role of King.

00:02:38:24 – 00:03:04:09
Dan LeFebvre
Not by divine sword or mystical prophecy, but by leading the people who chose to stand and fight with him. So you can start to get a sense of how 2004 is King Arthur is trying to be a more realistic version of the Arthurian legend, but how well does it do from a historical perspective? Today’s episode is with Dorsey Armstrong, a medieval literature professor at Purdue University who specializes in Arthurian legend.

00:03:04:12 – 00:03:35:15
Dan LeFebvre
And you might recognize her name from her great Courses lectures, like one of my personal favorites called King Arthur History and Legend. She’s also the editor of the official quarterly journal of the International Arthurian Society called Arthurian. Before we start uncovering the true story behind King Arthur, though, let’s set up our game for today’s episode. Now, if you’re new to the show since based on a true story, it’s all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie.

00:03:35:18 – 00:04:02:23
Dan LeFebvre
So I’m about to give you three things that we’ll talk about in this episode. Two of those are true. And one of them, well, one of them is just an all out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, the famous Round Table appears in early fifth century Arthurian stories. Number two. Merlin was not associated with Arthur until the 12th century.

00:04:02:25 – 00:04:22:10
Dan LeFebvre
Number three. No Romans lived in villas north of Hadrian’s Wall. Got them. Okay, now, as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you can see I’m holding up an envelope. This has the answer inside, and we’ll open this at the end of the episode to see if you got it right.

00:04:22:13 – 00:04:35:29
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Now it’s time to connect with Dorsey Armstrong. All about the historical accuracy of 2004 King Arthur.

00:04:36:01 – 00:04:54:09
Dan LeFebvre
As longtime listeners of based on a true story. No, I always like to kick things off with an overall historical letter grade just to get a sense of how accurate a movie is from a ballpark perspective. So with that in mind, today we are looking at the 2004 King Arthur movie. What letter grade does it get.

00:04:54:11 – 00:05:08:09
Dorsey Armstrong
As far as a letter grade for its historical accuracy? I think that you would have to break it into sections, and some parts would get an A, and many parts would get an F.

00:05:08:12 – 00:05:10:17
Dan LeFebvre
That’s quite a gap.

00:05:10:19 – 00:05:39:14
Dorsey Armstrong
So yes, it it’s there are moments that, are so carefully, scrupulously paying attention to what would have been going on in the fifth century and what we know about early chronicle accounts of who King Arthur was, that pay attention to details and then others. There are other moments where they’ve just thrown everything out the window and they’ve, you know, done something kind of crazy with the story.

00:05:39:14 – 00:06:15:02
Dorsey Armstrong
And so but I will say this, what is great about this film, the further away I get from it in time, the more I like it, because despite what it gets wrong, it gets the idea of Arthur right. So even if it’s not an accurate historical representation of King Arthur, the character who is noble, good, beloved by his men, willing to sacrifice himself, all of those are the elements that we find in the Arthurian legend that have made it so popular.

00:06:15:04 – 00:06:32:17
Dan LeFebvre
It sounds like the movie is more about capturing the essence of the character instead of specific historical events, which we see a lot in movies. So that gap makes a lot of sense. But as a movie, it still has to pull details from somewhere for us to watch. So let’s start digging into those exactly the same way the movie does.

00:06:32:21 – 00:07:01:03
Dan LeFebvre
I’m going to quote the movie. This is a direct quote from the movie quote. Historians agree that the classical 15th century tale of King Arthur and his knights rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier, in a period often called the Dark Ages. Recently discovered archeological evidence sheds light on his true identity and, quote, so the movie specifically says historians agree instead of some historians or even most historians.

00:07:01:06 – 00:07:14:06
Dan LeFebvre
And that to me implies that the movie is suggesting this is just accepted fact. So having the chance to talk to a historian about this movie, I have to ask, do you agree with the movie’s opening statement?

00:07:14:08 – 00:07:47:14
Dorsey Armstrong
Again, it’s like my grade that I gave the movie parts of it. Get, any parts of it get enough. So yes, absolutely. The 15th century hero that we know probably has his origins in a real person, possibly persons who lived during the fifth century. And I will say as much as medievalist, hate the phrase dark ages if there ever was a Dark Age, fifth century Britain after the Romans have withdrawn, is it?

00:07:47:15 – 00:08:23:06
Dorsey Armstrong
It really does count as a dark age. So that part is true. The idea that recent archeological discoveries have located the Arthurian legend, in the north. That’s a little less plausible. I will say that every time a fifth century or thereabouts. Archeological discoveries made, no matter where it is in the British Isles, people attempt to connect it to King Arthur or the Arthur type figure on which he was based.

00:08:23:08 – 00:08:34:18
Dorsey Armstrong
But generally speaking, as far as the legend goes, most of Arthur’s exploits and tales and stories and legends are focused much more towards the South in the southwest.

00:08:34:20 – 00:08:56:08
Dan LeFebvre
Something that stood out to me in that opening statement was the mention of recently discovered archeological evidence. Of course, we have to keep in mind that the movie came out in 2004, so was there some sort of discovery around the 2004 time frame that sort of broke open? Who the real King Arthur was that the movie’s referring to?

00:08:56:11 – 00:09:25:07
Dorsey Armstrong
I what I believe happened in the years before that. Is that up near Hadrian’s Wall, there had been some archeological discoveries, that indicated that a local leader had remained in power and had consolidated a base of power there. After the Romans had withdrawn. But you can say the same about other parts of Britain as well. There are there are several people, understandably, who tried to step into that vacuum of power.

00:09:25:09 – 00:09:36:03
Dorsey Armstrong
And we don’t know much about them, which is why almost every one of them could be considered a candidate for the historical Arthur or, as I like to call him, an Arthur type figure.

00:09:36:06 – 00:09:59:29
Dan LeFebvre
Going back to the movie, we also get an explanation for another of the famous characters from the Arthurian legend, Lancelot. And according to the movie, in 300 A.D., the Romans were expanding their empire to the east. And that’s where the Samaritans live. The Romans defeated them, but they were so impressed with the bravery of the cavalry that they let them live in exchange for each generation of Somalian boys joining the Roman military as knights for 15 years.

00:10:00:01 – 00:10:18:12
Dan LeFebvre
And then fast forward to the year 452 A.D. then we see a young Lancelot being taken from his home to join the Roman military, and he is stationed under Arthur in Britain to defend what you just mentioned, Hadrian’s Wall. The movie describes that as being a 73 mile wall that’s separating the native fighters in the north, where Roman controlled Britain to the south.

00:10:18:14 – 00:10:35:13
Dan LeFebvre
And then, of course, the movie fast forwards 15 years after that to 467 A.D. and that’s kind of the timeline for the rest of the movie. So that’s how the movie sets up everything that we see in the movie itself. How well does the movie establish the timeline prior to the events that we see in the movie?

00:10:35:15 – 00:11:01:04
Dorsey Armstrong
So that’s an interesting question, because on the one hand, yes, wherever the Romans went, they did tend to try and co-opt or bring into the empire, or I’ll just say it, exploit, people who had skills that they thought were valuable and especially useful in fighting. And it is true that at one point very early on that included the formations to the east.

00:11:01:06 – 00:11:29:11
Dorsey Armstrong
But what’s really interesting about this film is that the summation theory, as far as King Arthur goes, is a theory, put forward by Linda melker and C Scott Littleton. And they wrote a book called From Scythian to Camelot. And in that book, they posit that there was no historical Arthur figure, that what happened is the summations are conscripted into the Roman army, which which we know happened.

00:11:29:13 – 00:12:01:27
Dorsey Armstrong
They ended up in Britain so that also did happen. But then their theory is that they’re there in the second century, serving under a Roman leader named Lucius Sartorius. Cassius, and that it is a mix of summation mythology with the reputation and the idealized figure of this leader that, centuries later, would get mushed together to create Arthur and many of the legends, that are associated with him.

00:12:02:03 – 00:12:23:21
Dorsey Armstrong
So it’s interesting that the movie says this is true, whereas the book argues that what a study of the summation question proves is that there was no Arthur and that he wasn’t a real person who lived in the fifth century. And so it puts those two things together in sort of uncomfortable juxtaposition. It makes for a good film.

00:12:23:23 – 00:12:42:01
Dorsey Armstrong
Absolutely. So part is partially true that there were summations, they were incorporated into the Empire. They did make it all the way to Britain, most likely. And they did serve in the second century under someone named Lucius. Our Tory is Cassius, where we get that Arthur name and his middle name.

00:12:42:03 – 00:12:48:15
Dan LeFebvre
That sounds like a perfect example of the contrast between the A and the F letter grade that you gave the overall movie.

00:12:48:18 – 00:13:10:00
Dorsey Armstrong
So I will say this again. The further away I get from the original screen of that film, the more I like it and the more I like what it does in how it encapsulates the essence of why Arthur has become such an important figure for, 1500 years.

00:13:10:03 – 00:13:34:22
Dan LeFebvre
One of the characters from the Arthurian legend that we see in the movie is Merlin. He is not the stereotypical wizard character from a lot of the other Arthurian legend, but in this movie, Merlin is set up as being a world leader. The first interaction that he has with Arthur’s soldiers is actually a fight against them. Although there is a line of dialog they call my year, I think it was Lancelot describing Merlin as a quote unquote dark magician.

00:13:34:24 – 00:13:40:15
Dan LeFebvre
Can you fill in a little more historical context around what we know about Merlin?

00:13:40:17 – 00:14:10:14
Dorsey Armstrong
So this is a really interesting question, because the Merlin character does not get associated with the Arthurian legend, until the 12th century, when a guy called Geoffrey of Monmouth, takes what he knows about one or possibly two figures upon which he bases his Merlin and decides to put it together with the Arthurian legend. Now, we do think that there are possibly two historical figures upon which this Merlin figure is based.

00:14:10:16 – 00:14:34:25
Dorsey Armstrong
One is Merlin Caledonia’s, who was a warrior who went mad and lived in the woods, and the other, is Merlin Ambrosius, who in some of the texts, fought by Arthur’s side early on and had skills maybe not necessarily of magic, but he was a great builder, a great engineer. And so what he did kind of looked like magic.

00:14:34:25 – 00:15:09:20
Dorsey Armstrong
And it appears that Geoffrey of Monmouth, riding around 1136 or so, puts what he knows of this Welsh bard slash warrior wandering through the forest and creates a merlin character, and then moves that Merlin character into the Arthurian legend. So before the 12th century, Merlin is not a wizard who’s in any way associated, with King Arthur and his story, which bums my students out so much every time I tell them that because they really want to believe that at least these two figures are true.

00:15:09:20 – 00:15:19:11
Dorsey Armstrong
And I say, you know what? They’re both probably fifth or sixth century. So they’re they both exist at the right time, but we don’t see them together until the 12th.

00:15:19:14 – 00:15:30:19
Dan LeFebvre
I suppose when it comes to a movie called King Arthur, people are going to expect to see Merlin in a movie about King Arthur. So maybe that’s why the filmmakers decided to add a merlin character.

00:15:30:21 – 00:15:51:25
Dorsey Armstrong
What I would say is that anyone who’s trying to make an historical King Arthur movie is going to run into the huge problem of audience expectations. If you hear Arthur, you’re going to expect that there better be a merlin, there better be a Lancelot. And as far as we know, Lancelot seems to appear fully formed in the 12th century.

00:15:51:27 – 00:16:18:04
Dorsey Armstrong
He’s not there in the original fifth century. If you’re going to have an historical Arthur film set in the fifth century, you can have an Arthur, you can have a Guinevere, you can have a bit of ear, a K, and an early version of Sir Gawain. Walk me. But that’s it. You can’t have a Lancelot. You can’t have a Bors.

00:16:18:04 – 00:16:39:11
Dorsey Armstrong
You can’t have a Galahad. You can’t have Merlin. So you can imagine that if you’re trying to tell the historical story of Arthur in the fifth century and people come to see this film, if there’s not a Lancelot, I think people are going to be very upset. So I sympathize with all movie makers who are trying to wrestle with that question, because it’s a hard one.

00:16:39:13 – 00:16:56:29
Dorsey Armstrong
Because for hundreds of years now, we have come to associate figures like Merlin and Lancelot with King Arthur. To such an extent that they’re really inextricable from each other right now. And you would disappoint your audience if you didn’t have them in the movie.

00:16:57:01 – 00:17:11:03
Dan LeFebvre
One of the concepts I gathered as I watched the movie was that Merlin’s people, the worlds, are a nomadic people who are fighting against the Roman occupation of Britain. Can you share a little more historical context around the words from the movie?

00:17:11:05 – 00:17:44:06
Dorsey Armstrong
So the worlds are based on, a real people, called the pick’s Picts, and their name comes from Picardy, which means painted because they did paint themselves blue before they went into battle. And the dye that they used is called woad. And so I think that’s where the movie gets that word. The reason that Hadrian’s Wall is built in the first place is because there are some really scary blue people up beyond it, and the Romans have said, no, thank you.

00:17:44:08 – 00:18:08:18
Dorsey Armstrong
South of here is good. We’re not going to mess with that up there at all. And so another way that the movie stumbles is that if they’re so scary that there’s a wall keeping them out of the South, why is there a Roman senator living in his lovely summer estate north of the wall, in the most dangerous territory in Britain at the time?

00:18:08:21 – 00:18:11:18
Dan LeFebvre
That’s a really good point. I don’t think they really even talk about that in the movie.

00:18:11:22 – 00:18:14:06
Dorsey Armstrong
What is he doing up there?

00:18:14:08 – 00:18:34:08
Dan LeFebvre
Just a summer home, right? Apparently heading back to the movie’s version of events, let’s shift focus from some of the legendary characters that we talked about so far. Instead, focus on an object that the movie shows from the Arthurian legend the Round Table, according to the way the movie shows the Round Table. Of course, we talked about Lancelot.

00:18:34:08 – 00:18:52:16
Dan LeFebvre
You mentioned Gwyn and Galahad and Tristan and all of these other knights from the legends. And there’s this scene in the movie where Bishop Germanus makes a big deal about needing to sit at the head of the table, to which the Knights reply with something like, of course you can sit wherever you want. And then he enters the room and there’s a round table there.

00:18:52:16 – 00:19:00:15
Dan LeFebvre
There is no head of the table, which obviously doesn’t make him happy. Do we know if the round table that we see in the movie was an actual thing?

00:19:00:18 – 00:19:23:26
Dorsey Armstrong
So it is when the legend starts to pick up in the 12th century. But again, as you may have noticed, there’s a theme here. A lot of what we think of as the foundational elements show up in the 12th century. Now, that does not mean that they weren’t present, perhaps in some form in earlier texts or stories that have been lost.

00:19:23:29 – 00:19:49:17
Dorsey Armstrong
It is just that we only have evidence for their existence in the 12th century. What’s interesting is, that this idea comes from somewhere, and that’s pretty early in the legend, this idea that Arthur, it’s a 12th century writer named Wass who says Arthur sat at a table. He was first among equals, but it was a round table, so no one was above anyone else.

00:19:49:19 – 00:20:15:02
Dorsey Armstrong
And that’s a remarkable idea for the 12th century. So I would like to imagine, that there might be some basis, or it might be an ancient memory of when this Arthur type figure gathered with his warband, because that’s what they would have been. They weren’t knights in the fifth century. They would have been his, his warband that they gathered in, a circle to discuss.

00:20:15:02 – 00:20:29:10
Dorsey Armstrong
And so it really it could have an origin there that they’re gathered around a fire or a half. But as far as a physical table, we don’t have any evidence of that. For sure before the 12th century.

00:20:29:12 – 00:20:46:21
Dan LeFebvre
That makes a lot of sense. I mean, thinking of whether or not a physical object would have survived that long. It’s it’s hard to know. But other than the physical object, there’s just a concept of it. I think we’re all familiar with, you know, the concept of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. We’re familiar with that in the legend and in this movie.

00:20:46:21 – 00:21:02:15
Dan LeFebvre
The impression that I got for how it presents that scene with the Bishop is basically kind of saying that Arthur sees everyone as equals. Nobody is above anyone else. Do we know if the historical Arthur had that concept of equality?

00:21:02:18 – 00:21:42:02
Dorsey Armstrong
So in the fifth century? That’s a really hard question to answer. If we’re talking about sub Roman Britain and the historical Arthur figure, would have been, as far as we can tell, if he existed. I think someone who was the basis for this figure, who had a name similar to Arthur, did exist. He might not have been all on board with the idea of equality, but whoever this person was based on archeological evidence that shows a Celtic warband led by a leader in the right time and the right place for the historical Arthur, this person must have been an amazing warrior.

00:21:42:04 – 00:22:09:06
Dorsey Armstrong
He must have been charismatic, and he must have just been a really good guy. Given how clear it is that in the wake of Rome pulling out, he was able to rally to his side. Something like a community of over 700 people. It’s estimated, when the average warband at that time. And so say the historians who know such things would have been more like 35 people.

00:22:09:09 – 00:22:35:19
Dorsey Armstrong
So he must have been a great leader, a great warrior, a good ruler, a just person. And I imagine that if you’re going to achieve that measure of success and maintain that level of leadership when the rest of the world is in chaos, that making people feel as if they are valued, even if it’s not actually that they’re being treated as equal with you, would have been important.

00:22:35:21 – 00:22:41:18
Dorsey Armstrong
So I think that there’s a little bit of truth hiding in there.

00:22:41:21 – 00:23:02:00
Dan LeFebvre
Speaking of the bishop, that makes me wonder about another plot point that we see in the movie regarding the Knights and their religion. The movie seems to say that the Knights are following the faith of their forefathers. In other words, they are pagans and not Christians as the Romans are. But they’re still fighting for Rome and the Roman Church, historically speaking.

00:23:02:03 – 00:23:07:17
Dan LeFebvre
Was there a tie between Arthur and the Roman Church like we see in the movie?

00:23:07:19 – 00:23:37:02
Dorsey Armstrong
So probably, most certainly since the Romans had firmly conquered most of what we think of as Britain or England today by the middle of the first century. And they were in power there until 410. So as the Empire went, so went all of the outposts within the Empire. So when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, all Roman citizens would have been expected to do the same.

00:23:37:05 – 00:24:08:04
Dorsey Armstrong
And so by the time we get to Arthur’s lifetime, Rome had been Christianized for well over a century. And so we think that that’s the case, he certainly would have been a Christian as far as the tolerance for other faiths. It’s doubtful it is. It is doubtful, that as a Christian leader, anyone would have been tolerant of what they believed to be blasphemy or anathema.

00:24:08:04 – 00:24:32:28
Dorsey Armstrong
But at the same time, we have to remember that this is the early days of Christianity. So many of its rules, its regulations, its orthodoxy, they don’t exist. Yet. We see a great example of this. What I really liked was the use of, Pelagius. And Pelagius was, for a time he was he was a British monk in the sixth century.

00:24:32:28 – 00:24:59:11
Dorsey Armstrong
So he’s a little later than than Arthur would have been. And he was ousted, from the ranks of the church and declared a heretic because he believed and he preached, what came to be called the Palladian heresy, which was essentially do good works, and you’ll get to go to heaven on the face of it, that seems to make sense.

00:24:59:13 – 00:25:21:17
Dorsey Armstrong
But ultimately, when the church had to decide, they declared this a heresy because in the end, humans cannot earn their way into heaven by doing good. The final decision rests with God. Only God gets to decide who gets in and who doesn’t. So it doesn’t matter what you’ve done yourself during your lifetime, it’s God who makes the final call.

00:25:21:23 – 00:25:49:22
Dorsey Armstrong
But anything that’s a heresy we have to remember only gets called the heresy because a lot of people are believing in it and following it. So for quite some time, people would have believed in the message of Pelagius and, and striven to adhere to it and, and thought, I will do good works to get into heaven. And it’s only when the church decides, no, we can’t have this, this, this is contrary to our doctrine that he becomes a heretic.

00:25:49:22 – 00:26:07:09
Dorsey Armstrong
And so the idea that Arthur is a Palladian Christian is a great idea. I think that makes total sense. And that he is so upset when he discovers that Pelagius had been executed when he returned to Rome. Also makes sense.

00:26:07:12 – 00:26:17:18
Dan LeFebvre
Since you mentioned Pelagius near the end of the movie, I seem to recall that we find out Bishop Germanus is the one who had Plagueis executed. Is there truth to that, then?

00:26:17:21 – 00:26:42:12
Dorsey Armstrong
Yes. Palladio was declared a heretic. Any who believed in the pillage and heresy were, declared heretics. He might be subject to execution or torture and all kinds of nasty ways. And we know that this is a problem, for centuries afterward, because it’s such a popular idea that even in the 14th century, we have the church still trying to root out the Palladian heresy, in all kinds of places.

00:26:42:15 – 00:26:50:27
Dorsey Armstrong
Because who wouldn’t want to believe that if one does good, one gets rewarded. So, it’s an ongoing problem.

00:26:51:00 – 00:27:11:08
Dan LeFebvre
Maybe you already answered this question earlier, but we’re at the point in the movie’s timeline where it makes a big deal out of this final order from Rome to Arthur and his knights. And it’s the final order, because the movie’s concept is they will be done with their service to Rome after this mission. And the mission is for them to go north of Hadrian’s Wall to rescue a Roman named Marius.

00:27:11:11 – 00:27:30:01
Dan LeFebvre
As the movie explains it, one of the reasons that this mission is a big deal beyond just rescuing a Roman citizen is that Marius, his son Leto, is supposedly the Pope’s favorite godson. And then to top it off, there’s a timeline to it because there’s an approaching Saxon army, so Arthur and his knights have to rescue Marius, elected and his household before it’s too late.

00:27:30:03 – 00:27:36:13
Dan LeFebvre
Is there any truth to the scenario set up by the movie for Arthur’s final order?

00:27:36:16 – 00:27:43:00
Dorsey Armstrong
This is where I the the history goes off the rails.

00:27:43:02 – 00:27:46:28
Dan LeFebvre
This is the part of the historical let a great house.

00:27:47:00 – 00:28:10:15
Dorsey Armstrong
Yeah, yeah, the f. So first of all, there are no Romans in their luxurious villas north of Hadrian’s Wall. Also, when the Saxons invade, they are not invading up there. They’re invading much further south, in what’s England? So they wouldn’t have been up there to begin with. And so the movie is, is moving people around and creating a conflict.

00:28:10:17 – 00:28:32:00
Dorsey Armstrong
So there’s a family in distress. They just create a scenario which causes them to be in distress, which is the most implausible scenario, that I can think of. And then we have to add an extra, enemy in the form of the Saxons. Who? These were the people that the historical Arthur figure did rally against.

00:28:32:00 – 00:28:56:15
Dorsey Armstrong
Did fight against. Seems to have stopped and pushed back. And their encroachment across southern Britain from the east to the west. But they’re not up north. Threatening romance that that’s not happening at all. So, yes, Arthur versus the Saxons, but the geographic location is absolutely incorrect.

00:28:56:17 – 00:28:59:28
Dan LeFebvre
So not at all the way the movie portrays it.

00:29:00:00 – 00:29:02:15
Dorsey Armstrong
Right. Sorry.

00:29:02:18 – 00:29:21:22
Dan LeFebvre
There’s another element of Arthur’s mission I wanted to touch on, because in the movie, when Arthur finally gets to Marius is a state, we can see that Marius is using his position as a Roman to subjugate the people of the town. He’s telling you he’s a spokesman for God and it’s a sin to defy him. And then Arthur comes in and he tells the people that they are all free from their first breath.

00:29:21:24 – 00:29:43:15
Dan LeFebvre
And he goes on to try to rescue as many of the townspeople as he can, not just Marius, his family. That was the core of his mission. So in my mind, as I was watching this, it kind of goes back to the movie’s portrayal of the round table concept that we talked about earlier. Work. Arthur seems to favor equality because Arthur gets there and he kind of puts his money where his mouth is, so to speak.

00:29:43:15 – 00:29:58:07
Dan LeFebvre
It’s a stark contrast to the way that the Roman Marius is acting. So would it be fair to assume that Arthur was much more honorable as a person than most others were in that time period of history?

00:29:58:09 – 00:30:26:01
Dorsey Armstrong
I mean, I think yes, he as I said before, given the extent of what we think was his following in the number of people who flocked to his side and the length of time, he was able to rule and restore peace for a couple generations. He must have been a very just person at the same time, another area in which this film gets an F is this idea of all men are born free.

00:30:26:03 – 00:31:07:14
Dorsey Armstrong
No, in the Middle Ages, if you went back in time to the Middle Ages and you asked anybody, would you like to be free, or would you like to be beholden to this Lord, or and subject to him? The first question that anyone would ask would probably be how much land comes with either of those options? And generally speaking, everyone would usually have chosen to be not free because this society depended upon a hierarchy in which lords ruled over people.

00:31:07:14 – 00:31:34:21
Dorsey Armstrong
The people served their lords, and in return for that, they got the Lords protection. They were part of a social network. There was a safety net. So, for example, in times of famine, it would be expected that the Lord would find a way to help his people, to keep them from starving in times of warfare, in exchange for working his land, the Lord would take everyone he could into his fortress or stronghold or castle to protect them.

00:31:34:24 – 00:32:02:10
Dorsey Armstrong
If you are free and you are cut loose from this structure, who’s going to help you? You are alone in the world. How do you farm your land? Because much of farming was cooperative back then. So the villagers would come together to plants, to harvest. And so being all on your own. Well, what’s not impossible would not have been considered a desirable situation to be in at all.

00:32:02:12 – 00:32:35:22
Dorsey Armstrong
In fact, we have accounts, from some parts of the Middle Ages in which during a time of famine, people approached a particular lord and made themselves his slaves, on purpose, because in exchange, they would get fed. They would be clothed, they would be housed. And the seemed to have been a temporary arrangement, but they were happy to to give, you know, their lives up into the service of the Lord and be obedient to him as long as it meant protection for them and their family.

00:32:35:24 – 00:33:00:08
Dorsey Armstrong
So the idea that I am a free man, is absolutely incorrect. As far as the Middle Ages would go. But every age, I like to say makes an Arthur that that age needs. So in 2004, that’s that’s what we wanted to hear, that it’s all about freedom. It’s all about individual freedom. And that’s just it’s not the case.

00:33:00:08 – 00:33:02:02
Dorsey Armstrong
It’s historically inaccurate.

00:33:02:04 – 00:33:15:27
Dan LeFebvre
Speaking of freedom, that’s almost like what I mentioned a moment ago. With this being Arthur’s final mission, it’s his final mission because they were going to be given their own freedom afterward. But it sounds like maybe that wasn’t the case.

00:33:15:29 – 00:33:39:08
Dorsey Armstrong
That that would not have been something they wanted. They would not have wanted. First of all, no one gets papers of safe conduct to go through the Roman Empire in the fifth century. That’s not a thing. There are not checkpoints everywhere. There aren’t even enough people who can read to, you know, to tell you what this thing says that you’re carrying, that says you have the right to move throughout the Roman Empire.

00:33:39:10 – 00:34:02:24
Dorsey Armstrong
And so while they may have if we’re going with the summation theory, they may have wanted to go back to their homeland. They would not have wanted to be cut loose, from the Roman bureaucracy. In fact, the sack of Rome, which started around 410, and then the Empire sort of staggered to its final collapse around 476.

00:34:02:27 – 00:34:27:07
Dorsey Armstrong
The people who attacked Rome were, first of all, attacking, not because they wanted to conquer Rome, but because they wanted to get in. They said, yeah, give us some of that. So many of these people, these were, what we think of as the Germanic peoples that lived north of Rome. Many of them had already been fighting for the Romans as mercenaries.

00:34:27:09 – 00:34:55:25
Dorsey Armstrong
And they saw all the benefits that Roman citizens got. And they said, well, we don’t want to just be your hired hands. We would we would like roads and baths and, you know, reliable food and a functioning government. And so I doubt that many people would have wanted to move away from Rome or felt like Rome was somehow oppressive.

00:34:55:27 – 00:35:20:13
Dorsey Armstrong
And that’s one reason why the Arthur type figure, from what we know from many of the texts, is that apparently his parents had been Romans of some rank in Britain. And then after the Empire collapsed and the legions are withdrawn and called back to Rome, it is someone who has claims to Rome who can rise up and rally the people.

00:35:20:13 – 00:35:27:11
Dorsey Armstrong
And that’s what they were looking for, some sort of vestige of what Rome had done for that.

00:35:27:13 – 00:35:48:26
Dan LeFebvre
So I guess maybe the idea of Marius being the one that is oppressive to his people. I mean, I’m sure there were some leaders that were oppressive like that, but it seems like, historically speaking, that dynamic would have been very different because it’s beneficial to the Lords to have their people doing well.

00:35:48:28 – 00:36:15:11
Dorsey Armstrong
You are exactly correct. So I have no doubt that there, and history shows us that there were some terrible lords and that especially in the 14th century, much later, when there’s, a population crisis and, there’s no more land to be worked. And the Lords are trying, in this case, trying to oppress the people, to keep them on their land, to keep them beholden to them.

00:36:15:13 – 00:36:42:07
Dorsey Armstrong
We have the Peasants Revolt in England in 1381. And part of this is because after the black Death, the first wave of the Black Death swept through and killed up to half of the European population. What had been the land crunch suddenly became, a land free for all. And so there was plenty of land for the taking, so people didn’t need to remain on their particular plot of land.

00:36:42:07 – 00:37:00:18
Dorsey Armstrong
They weren’t so bounded by tradition, and history, because the world had changed overnight, practically. But up until that point, yes. For, for most, it would be considered a mutually, a mutually beneficial situation.

00:37:00:20 – 00:37:20:25
Dan LeFebvre
If we go back to the movie, there’s another character from the Arthurian legend that shows up at the village where Marius is at. I’m speaking, of course, about Guinevere. When she’s first shown in the movie, she’s actually a prisoner who must be sacrificed along with any of the, quote unquote, sinners. Again, going back to Marius, basically saying that anyone who defies him is defying God.

00:37:20:28 – 00:37:36:13
Dan LeFebvre
So in the movie, there’s actually two prisoners that Arthur and his men save. One is a little boy, and then Guinevere, who in the movie is a world woman. Is there any historical truth to the way that we see Arthur and Guinevere meeting in the movie?

00:37:36:16 – 00:38:05:27
Dorsey Armstrong
And a lot of that is really, really, lost in the mists of time. But there have been some suggestions that certainly the Arthur Gwenn of Year marriage, would have been, at that point, politically motivated, even if there, there was affection at the same time. And there seems to be, a situation that suggests that he married more than one woman named Guinevere.

00:38:06:00 – 00:38:10:27
Dorsey Armstrong
That was a very popular name. It’s the early version of Jennifer.

00:38:11:00 – 00:38:12:26
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Okay.

00:38:12:28 – 00:38:42:12
Dorsey Armstrong
So, so. And Gwen avere, in some instances, appears to possibly have come from north of where Arthur was. So closer to Scotland, probably northern Wales. She has a Welsh name. But as far as her being a pagan who lives north of the wall and is a Pict probably not.

00:38:42:14 – 00:39:02:18
Dan LeFebvre
Well, with that in mind, I’m just going to guess that the movie’s connection tying Guinevere to Arthur and Merlin is not correct. Remember, the movie shows Merlin as a world leader, so then Arthur and Guinevere start to kind of fall for each other. And then the movie strong suggests that that is why Arthur starts to ally with Merlin’s people instead of Rome.

00:39:02:24 – 00:39:17:27
Dan LeFebvre
After all, he’s about to be freed by Rome anyway, so might as well ally with Guinevere as people. At least that’s how the movie tells the story. But is there any connection between Guinevere, Arthur, and Merlin in the historical record?

00:39:18:00 – 00:39:41:06
Dorsey Armstrong
No, there is not. But I think we can safely say that, whomever the Arthur type figure married, that would have been a marriage that brought together, peoples, united them, and created, you know, a larger, network of support against the invading Saxons. So I think it would be safe to assume that.

00:39:41:08 – 00:40:07:07
Dan LeFebvre
Well, you mentioned the Saxons. And if we go back to the movie’s version of events, the first confrontation that we see with Arthur and his knights in the advancing Saxon army takes place on an ice covered light. Arthur and his knights decide they’re tired of running, so they’re going to stay behind and hold off the Saxons while all the civilians that they’re rescuing remember they’re going beyond just Marius and his family trying to rescue as many of the townspeople as they could.

00:40:07:09 – 00:40:28:04
Dan LeFebvre
So all these people, they’re going to try to give them a head start and hold off the advancing Saxon army. I call it a head start because the movie says that it’s seven knights against like 200. Well, I guess there’s eight of them because Guinevere joins the fight. But you have eight people against 200 Saxons in this battle, so they don’t really expect to win.

00:40:28:06 – 00:40:42:10
Dan LeFebvre
Except it’s a movie, so they find a way. But the way that this happened in the movie is by breaking the ice. So the Saxons fall into the icy waters. Is there any sort of historical truth to this battle on the like that we see in the movie?

00:40:42:12 – 00:41:05:20
Dorsey Armstrong
No. And in fact, that fight scene owes a lot to an earlier medieval film called Alexander Nevsky, which had a very similar scene. And I actually wasn’t aware of that film until after I saw the King Arthur film. And I was commenting to someone about how much I enjoyed that fight scene and how clever it was.

00:41:05:20 – 00:41:29:16
Dorsey Armstrong
And, people who know medieval film better than I do said, oh, no, that that’s lifted straight from Alexander Nevsky. That fight scene. And so then I went and checked and. Yes, indeed, it’s still a great scene. But no, there’s no historical basis for that, except for, in the sense that another movie did it before this one.

00:41:29:19 – 00:41:49:00
Dan LeFebvre
Earlier in our chat, we were talking about the kind of person that Arthur was, and we see this again in action during the lake battle, there’s a scene where Arthur is willing to sacrifice himself for one of his injured men. Arthur rushes out and breaks the ice under the Saxons, and then, as he’s exposed to enemy fire, he pulls the injured knight away from the icy waters.

00:41:49:02 – 00:41:54:24
Dan LeFebvre
Do we know if he would have sacrificed himself for his men like we see happening in the movie?

00:41:54:27 – 00:42:04:00
Dorsey Armstrong
We can only surmise. But again, my guess would be anyone who was able to,

00:42:04:03 – 00:42:29:24
Dorsey Armstrong
Arouse so much loyalty, from his people. Must have been someone who made clear that he was willing to fight and die alongside his men. And that is another thing the movie does get right is that in the Middle Ages, kings and leaders are not like modern day generals who are back looking at maps and plotting strategy.

00:42:29:27 – 00:42:36:08
Dorsey Armstrong
You’re right, they’re at the front lines with your men. Otherwise they wouldn’t have considered you, a leader worth following.

00:42:36:10 – 00:43:03:12
Dan LeFebvre
At the very end of the movie, Arthur is freed from his commitment to Rome. Guinevere convinces Arthur that her people are his people, so Arthur decides to stay and fight the main force of Saxons. After initially leaving with the Romans and the rest of the knights come back and decide to stay and fight with Arthur. So that’s how we end up having this big battle at the end between Arthur’s knights alongside Guinevere and Merlin’s woad army against the full Saxon army.

00:43:03:14 – 00:43:18:13
Dan LeFebvre
What’s interesting about this battle is that the movie actually mentioned it by name. It’s called the Battle of Baden Hill, and since it mentions it by name, I have to ask, was that a real battle and how well did the movie do showing what happened?

00:43:18:16 – 00:43:48:00
Dorsey Armstrong
The Battle of Baden Hill comes from a ninth century chronicle in. And we do believe it was a real fight. But at the same time, it wouldn’t have been at Hadrian’s Wall. People have been trying to find Baden for a while. And we think it’s in the south of, of Britain, somewhere in the south. And this supposedly was one of the key battles in which Arthur, the leader, pushed the Saxons back.

00:43:48:02 – 00:44:14:12
Dorsey Armstrong
But also the same text tells us that there were 12 battles. And he’s victorious at this one. In the final battle, which is at Hamlin. And no one can find Camelot. Exactly. There have been lots of theories, people trying to pinpoint it. That is where he is finally killed and defeated at the end. But, as far as the Arthurian legend goes, the Battle of Mount Baden.

00:44:14:12 – 00:44:34:04
Dorsey Armstrong
Yes, was attested very, very early on in the chronicles. Now, where it was exactly not so clear, but but it does show up. So naming that final battle after the battle in the Chronicles makes sense.

00:44:34:06 – 00:44:49:14
Dan LeFebvre
If we’re to believe the movie’s version of this battle, we see Arthur’s men die. Namely, Tristan and Lancelot are the main characters who die in that battle in the movie. And then that leaves Arthur with just four knights along with the World Army. Do we know what happened with his men?

00:44:49:16 – 00:45:16:17
Dorsey Armstrong
No. I mean, we know almost nothing about him from contemporary documents. That would be, you know, from the fifth century or, you know, even a century or two later. That’s as close as we can get. So, we can assume, though, that when Arthur passes away, certainly along the way, some of his men would have also been killed.

00:45:16:19 – 00:45:39:17
Dorsey Armstrong
But again, remember, they’re not knights. They’re warriors. He wouldn’t even have been called king. Probably. And tell maybe the end of his reign. If then. But earlier on, he would have been called either by a Roman title, like a Duke’s Balaram, a war leader. Or you might have been called, comas count. And not early on.

00:45:39:17 – 00:45:52:13
Dorsey Armstrong
Would he have been called King Arthur. And so one thing the movie does get right is that if he’s going to be called King, it wouldn’t happen until very, very late in his life if it ever happened at all.

00:45:52:15 – 00:46:19:17
Dan LeFebvre
That’s a great catch on my using the term knights. I’m so used to the legend of King Arthur and his knights, I just refer to them as his knights, even if they’re not actually that. But switching gears a little bit to another piece of the Arthurian legend from the movie, it’s about this point in the timeline that we see the legendary sword in the Stone, and in the movie, it’s shown in a flashback to Arthur’s childhood, when his mom is killed by Merlin’s people attacking their village, which is initially why the movie explains why Arthur didn’t like the world.

00:46:19:24 – 00:46:38:00
Dan LeFebvre
But in the flashback, Arthur pulls the sword from the stone so he can go and kill Merlin to have revenge for his mother’s death. And then the movie. Merlin says that it was Arthur’s love for his mother that allowed Arthur to pull the sword from the stone. In other words, it was not the hatred for Merlin, but it was love.

00:46:38:03 – 00:46:42:28
Dan LeFebvre
How well do you think the movie does telling the story of the sword in the Stone?

00:46:43:00 – 00:47:06:08
Dorsey Armstrong
So if we if we go to the 15th century and Sir Thomas Malory, which is my main area of study, what we learn then, and that’s sort of where the, the stamp is put on this part of the legend is that there is a sword in the stone, and it appears by magic, and Merlin helps to set it up and the stones in an anvil that says, who?

00:47:06:09 – 00:47:39:00
Dorsey Armstrong
Whosoever shall pull up the sword from the stone is right, wise, born king of all England. But that’s not Excalibur. Excalibur is a sword of Arthur’s very, very early on as well, especially in early Welsh legends. But it comes from the lady of the lake, so it comes out of the water. So she emerges from the water with the sword for him, and he is considered worthy of the sword, because she deems it so.

00:47:39:07 – 00:48:06:24
Dorsey Armstrong
So there are two swords, and later on they get conflated into one that Excalibur is the sword in the stone, but the idea of a sword being pulled out of a stone. I’ve seen a documentary on Arthur. I’ve seen several, actually historical Arthur. And one theory is that in early metalworking, you would use a stone mold and you would pour the metal into it to make, a sword.

00:48:07:01 – 00:48:35:25
Dorsey Armstrong
And that perhaps the legend comes from it being stuck in the stone mold and someone of great strength pulling it out, intact. So that could be the origin of the legend. But the magical sword Excalibur, it’s called Caliban. Or in Welsh or Caleb Burness, which means, cut steel. And, that shows up early on. There’s no mention of it being pulled out of a stone.

00:48:35:25 – 00:49:06:21
Dorsey Armstrong
If anything, it is gifted to Arthur by this mysterious faerie woman who has otherworldly power. And so that is how Arthur is sort of threading this needle between the real and the supernatural. And he has this sort of ordination, that he is meant to rule because he’s favored by people in the, in the fairy world. And he’s also, lauded and praised and held up to be a leader by real human beings.

00:49:06:24 – 00:49:13:04
Dan LeFebvre
So it sounds like, once again, the movie is mixing together a lot of different things to tell this story.

00:49:13:06 – 00:49:36:23
Dorsey Armstrong
Well, what I would say is that if you were doing an Arthur movie, you better have a sword in the stone or the audience is terrible. And so I thought that making it the marker on the grave, made a lot of sense that he is still withdrawing it from, you know, something that could be considered partially stone from the earth.

00:49:36:26 – 00:49:46:27
Dorsey Armstrong
And so that made that made a lot of sense to me to try and figure out how to represent this motif, the theme that is so important in the Arthurian legend.

00:49:46:29 – 00:50:08:15
Dan LeFebvre
At the very end of the movie, there’s a wedding ceremony that we see. Merlin is officiating the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere, uniting the people, and everyone is happy. It’s kind of a happily ever after. And in the movie, that’s when he is proclaimed to be King Arthur. Is there any truth to this single marriage ceremony proclaiming the leader?

00:50:08:18 – 00:50:13:23
Dorsey Armstrong
No. That is. And in fact, that wasn’t even supposed to be the original end of the movie.

00:50:13:26 – 00:50:15:21
Dan LeFebvre
Oh really? How was it supposed to end?

00:50:15:24 – 00:50:46:19
Dorsey Armstrong
That is an alternate ending. Originally, the movie ended with the death of his dies, and it ended on a much more down note. Which I think would be much more true to the legend. And I guess in test screenings the audience said, well, this is not how we want this to end. And so, they did what movie makers have done in order to bump up the happy factor for their audience and close with a wedding.

00:50:46:19 – 00:51:00:18
Dorsey Armstrong
And better yet, let’s have it out a fake Stonehenge, right? So all of that, all of that is, is made up. I understand why it’s there, but it is a it’s a bit over the top.

00:51:00:20 – 00:51:21:16
Dan LeFebvre
It sounds like kind of what we were talking about throughout our chat today, how a King Arthur movie has to have Merlin in it and has to have the sword in the stone. It has to have the round Table. Well, it’s King Arthur and he hasn’t been a king throughout the whole movie. So the movie audiences expect there to be an explanation why it’s King Arthur instead of just Arthur.

00:51:21:18 – 00:51:45:12
Dorsey Armstrong
And I don’t think you have any choice if you’re going to make a successful Arthurian movie, unless you choose to just go completely dark and historical, and it wouldn’t be a happy movie, I don’t think, and I don’t know that anyone would want to go see it. It’d be more like an art film, rather than any sort of popular blockbuster film.

00:51:45:15 – 00:52:06:22
Dan LeFebvre
Speaking of things that audiences expect, I’ll do a variation of what the movie did for my own audience, because even though we talked about the 2004 movie today, there’s been so many stories about King Arthur throughout history in all sorts of mediums, movies and TV, of course, but obviously plenty of books and writings long before movies and TV even existed.

00:52:06:25 – 00:52:17:23
Dan LeFebvre
What’s something that most people might think they know about the theory and legend, but when they learn the true story, it’ll surprise him.

00:52:17:25 – 00:52:40:11
Dorsey Armstrong
Well, I can tell you, what I tell my students every time I teach Arthurian literature. And what’s fascinating is I ask them to tell me on the first day of class, and many of them have not encountered the Arthurian legend in any sort of systematic way. So they haven’t read the early texts. They’d maybe have seen a film or read a story.

00:52:40:18 – 00:53:01:00
Dorsey Armstrong
And so I asked them to tell me everything they know about the legend. And I write it all up on the board. And so they’re telling me, Merlin, and he’s married to Gwen Vivier, and Guinevere commits adultery with Lancelot, and Arthur has knights, and they sit at a round table and they go on quests, including for the Holy Grail.

00:53:01:03 – 00:53:26:27
Dorsey Armstrong
And he lives in a big stone castle called Camelot. And then I have to tell them it’s the fifth century and Rome has left. So unless they’re occupying Roman structures, no big stone castles that smoky little huts. Although it’s possible that, you know, Roman buildings that were left behind could have been reused, reoccupied. That’s possible. We’re not sure where Camelot was.

00:53:27:00 – 00:53:49:24
Dorsey Armstrong
As I’ve said earlier, there’s no Merlin. There is a a vere, but there’s also no Lancelot. The idea of the Round table comes much later. The sword in the stone comes much later. Although he does have a sword with a name like Excalibur from very early on. And the Holy Grail shows up in the 12th and 13th centuries.

00:53:49:26 – 00:54:09:27
Dorsey Armstrong
And that’s another, it’s actually a French writer who says this is a great idea. Arthur’s knights need to go on a quest. What’s the best thing, like a quest for the Holy Grail? And so that wasn’t part of the original legend either. And so I usually have a student yell from the back of the room. Stop it!

00:54:09:27 – 00:54:39:17
Dorsey Armstrong
You’re ruining it. But then by the end of the semester, I think that they have learned to have a deeper appreciation for how and why the legend accreted, to it. All of these elements. Because I say the Arthurian legend is like a magnet. And as time goes by, is there a hero over here who’s fantastic? For example, sir Tristan Tristan had a long history as, a legendary figure all his own.

00:54:39:19 – 00:55:00:19
Dorsey Armstrong
But at some point late in the Middle Ages, someone said, you know what would be great? Let’s make him a knight of the Round Table. And then all of his adventures are connected to Arthur. And so he’s brought in. Same with the Holy Grail. It becomes a quest for the Knights. So you’re three legends like a giant magnet that attracts to it all the cool stuff.

00:55:00:21 – 00:55:20:12
Dan LeFebvre
And it makes some great stories along the way. Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about King Arthur. I’m such a huge fan of your work. It’s an honor to get to talk to you. One of my favorites is King Arthur History and Legend. I picked that up from one of the audiobook services, so I’ll be sure to include a link to that one in particular in the show notes for my audience to learn even more about the true story.

00:55:20:14 – 00:55:26:15
Dan LeFebvre
But before I let you go, can you share a bit more about that one, as well as where they can find more of your work?

00:55:26:18 – 00:55:53:00
Dorsey Armstrong
So, the King Arthur, history or legend is a series of lectures I did for the Teaching Company, which is now part of Wondrium. And you can get those lectures. There’s 24 lectures. It’s about the evolution of the Arthurian legend from its origins to the modern period. It’s available on DVD. You can also download it online or you can purchase the book that goes along with the lectures.

00:55:53:00 – 00:56:24:12
Dorsey Armstrong
It gives some detail and bibliography. So that’s the easiest way to access that. My other books tend to be, more for a scholarly academic audience. They have lots of footnotes, if you like footnotes. Great. But one thing that I have done is I translated Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte d’Arthur into modern English, because every time I taught that text, I was not happy with the translations that were available to me, that I was sharing with my students.

00:56:24:12 – 00:56:54:02
Dorsey Armstrong
And I finally decided, well, I’ll just do my own. And it’s Malory’s text more than any other at the end of the 15th century, that gives us the shape of the legend that sort of codifies it, puts the template down for everything that comes after. And so that’s now available in a modern English translation. And, my goal was to make it as accessible as possible so that people could enjoy the, this huge book.

00:56:54:04 – 00:57:19:03
Dorsey Armstrong
It’s a massive work that took years for Malory to write, and in fact, it took me longer to translate it, I realized, than it took him to write it, which is a moment that when I hit that point, I realized, oh, well, I’m a little bummed out right now, but, I’m really proud of it. And I think that it conveys, the sense of the time and the culture while still maintaining, accessible language that anyone can read.

00:57:19:06 – 00:57:21:22
Dan LeFebvre
Thank you again so much for your time.

00:57:21:25 – 00:57:28:18
Dorsey Armstrong
Is my pleasure. I’m always happy to talk about King Arthur. Invite me back any time. Next time a movie comes out, invite me back.

00:57:28:20 – 00:57:33:09
Dan LeFebvre
We’ll have to make that happen.

00:57:33:11 – 00:57:43:22
Dorsey Armstrong
It was a pleasure chatting with you.

00:57:43:24 – 00:58:01:24
Dan LeFebvre
This episode of based On a True Story was produced by me, Dan Lapham. If you want to learn more about the legends of King Arthur and the true story behind them, I cannot recommend Doctor Armstrong’s work enough. I have links to that in the show notes so you can check it out. And actually, that leads me right into my own history that I was talking about at the beginning of this episode.

00:58:01:24 – 00:58:27:12
Dan LeFebvre
So the interview that you just heard with Doctor Armstrong was originally published in January of 2023 on based on a true story, and it’s obviously been remastered. I actually rerecorded my entire site to update both the audio and video quality for today’s version, but the origin of how this episode came to be started long before that. When I was in middle school, my mom used to take my siblings and me to the local library to help with researching for our homework.

00:58:27:14 – 00:58:44:24
Dan LeFebvre
One day we were at the library. I can’t remember the specific homework assignment that I had, but I remember going through my usual routine. I would look up the book and at the computer, well, whatever the topic was that I needed, and then I would write down the Dewey Decimal number so I could find the book in the aisle that it’s in.

00:58:44:26 – 00:59:02:19
Dan LeFebvre
Well, this particular day, as I was looking for the number, I happened to see a book about Camelot and the legends of King Arthur. You know the old adage, don’t judge a book by its cover, but obviously something about this book stood out to me. So I grabbed it. And then I continued to find the book that I actually needed for my homework.

00:59:02:21 – 00:59:16:28
Dan LeFebvre
Well, I ended up spending more time reading that book on King Arthur than whatever the book was for my homework assignment. Obviously, I can’t even remember what the book was for my homework assignment, but I do remember being fascinated by the legend of King Arthur, and that was the first day that I was.

00:59:16:28 – 00:59:17:14
Dorsey Armstrong
Actually.

00:59:17:14 – 00:59:36:27
Dan LeFebvre
Interested in something historical. I mean, I had done other homework assignments that required me to read history. It wasn’t my first time reading anything in history, but it was the first time that I remember doing it just for the fun of it. And over the years, that fascination grew into a love of medieval history. Overall, I used to spend countless hours as a child.

00:59:36:27 – 00:59:56:27
Dan LeFebvre
I would sketch out castle designs or mapping fictional land and coming up with various countries. Before long, that love of medieval history blossomed into a love for other historical time periods ancient Egypt, World War Two, Classical Greece and the Roman Empire, and so on and so on. So that’s why the legend of King Arthur has always held a special place for me.

00:59:56:27 – 01:00:17:12
Dan LeFebvre
It was the spark that started my love of stories from history at a young age. And this actually ties into today’s episode even more, because many years before I started, based on a true story, I picked up a few of Doctor Armstrong’s great courses over on audible, and I absolutely love them. I love learning about King Arthur and the real history behind the legend of King Arthur.

01:00:17:14 – 01:00:39:05
Dan LeFebvre
So after I started based on a true story, Doctor Armstrong was on my short list of people that would love to talk to, and it was an absolute honor to get to pick her brain about one of my favorite historical subjects. And I hope you had as much fun learning from her as I did. I’ll add a link to some of my favorite work from Doctor Armstrong in the show notes, so you can learn even more about the historical King Arthur.

01:00:39:08 – 01:00:55:02
Dan LeFebvre
And of course, as always, all of those links will be on the show. His home on the web over at. Based on a True Story podcast.com/381. Okay, now it’s time for the answer to our two truth and a lot game from the beginning of the episode, and it’s a quick refresher. Here are the two truths and one lie again.

01:00:55:05 – 01:01:21:12
Dan LeFebvre
Number one, the famous Round Table appears in early fifth century Arthurian stories. Number two Merlin was not associated with Arthur until the 12th century. Number three no Romans lived in villas north of Hadrian’s Wall. Did you figure out which one is a lie? I’ve got the answer in the envelope here. Let’s open it up. And the lie is number one.

01:01:21:15 – 01:01:39:07
Dan LeFebvre
As we learned from Doctor Armstrong, the legend of the Round Table actually starts around the 12th century, along the same time as Merlin enters the picture. At least as far as we know. As always, when you’re talking about history and legends that are that old, there’s a very good chance that there are some things that have been lost to time, or we just don’t have documentation of yet.

01:01:39:09 – 01:02:01:09
Dan LeFebvre
But that wraps up our look at the historical accuracy of the King Arthur movie before I let you go, though, since this is the first episode of 2026, I thought I would throw out an update on what my release schedule will be for the new year, and well, there isn’t one. If you are a long time listener based on a true story, you’ll know that there has not been a defined release schedule for many years now.

01:02:01:12 – 01:02:28:21
Dan LeFebvre
When I first started the podcast, I used to release every other week. That was back in 2016 when I first started the show, and then I went to a weekly release schedule, and then I think it was in 2019 that I officially announced the schedule would be when I get an episode completed, that’s when it gets released. And since then, I have had times where I’ve been fortunate enough to work on the podcast full time to crank out 1 or 2 episodes a week, and then other times it’s been 1 or 2 episodes a month.

01:02:28:24 – 01:02:47:25
Dan LeFebvre
But in 2026, I am sticking with the release schedule of as soon as I get an episode completed, that’s when it will be released. The biggest change this year from last year that I’ve gotten a new day job this year, so I can’t work on, based on a true story, full time anymore. But the podcast is not going anywhere, and I’ll keep releasing episodes as soon as I get to complete it.

01:02:47:28 – 01:03:04:24
Dan LeFebvre
Actually, I’ve already got some fun episode planned for 2026, so I’m excited for what this year will bring. And as always, you can reach out to me at Dan at based on a True Story podcast.com if you have any questions or comments. Thanks again for your continued support. Listening to based on a true story. Now chat with you again really soon.

00:00:02:01 – 00:00:23:27
Dan LeFebvre
Hello and welcome to Based on a True Story, the podcast that compares your favorite Hollywood movies with history. Today, we’ll be learning about the 2013 movie directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Tom Hanks, that simply called Captain Phillips. I’m sure you’ve seen it, but the movie did come out a while ago, so let’s refresh our memory with a quick synopsis.

00:00:24:00 – 00:00:50:02
Dan LeFebvre
The movie is named after Captain Richard Phillips, who was the commander of a container ship called the Maersk Alabama. It was on a typical route along the coast of Africa in 2009. The catch, though, was that route also included traveling through pirate infested waters near the country of Somalia. Despite receiving warnings of heightened pirate activity, Captain Phillips decides to take a shortcut closer to the Somali coast to save time and fuel.

00:00:50:04 – 00:01:15:26
Dan LeFebvre
This decision proves fateful. Two skiffs carrying Somali pirates attack the Maersk Alabama, and the crew executes security protocols by attempting to repel the attackers using fire hoses and evasive maneuvers. And at first it works, but then the pirates return in a stronger boat and they manage to successfully board the vessel. Phillips remains on the bridge and is captured while the crew retreats to the engine room.

00:01:15:28 – 00:01:41:25
Dan LeFebvre
Eventually, the pirates evacuate to a small lifeboat and take Captain Phillips hostage, along with $30,000 in ransom money. The U.S. Navy intercedes with multiple warships, including USS Bainbridge and Navy Seal teams. After intense negotiations and tactical positioning, Navy Seals execute a precise rescue operation, convincing one of the pirates to board their ship and then eliminating the three remaining pirates and freeing Captain Phillips.

00:01:41:28 – 00:02:02:24
Dan LeFebvre
The movie ends with Phillips being rescued and receiving medical treatment aboard the Navy destroyer. How much of that really happened? Today we’ll be joined by none other than Bryan Beckham, the trial lawyer who represented the crew of the Maersk Alabama. In the wake of the events that we see in the movie. So through his work on the trial, he knows the ins and outs of exactly what happened.

00:02:02:28 – 00:02:25:28
Dan LeFebvre
And he’s here today to help us separate fact from fiction in the movie. Bryan is also a podcaster whose wonderful podcast shares insights from a wide range of inspiring leaders. So just do a search for Brian’s podcast called lessons from Leaders with Bryan Beckham, or hop in the show notes for a direct link. Before we get started with Bryan’s breakdown of Captain Phillips, though, let’s set up our game for today’s episode.

00:02:26:01 – 00:02:41:13
Dan LeFebvre
Now, if you’re new to the show since based on a true story, it’s all about separating fact from fiction in the movies, you’ll get to practice your skills at separating fact from fiction in this podcast episode with a game of two truths and a lie. So I’m about to give you three things that we’re going to talk about in this episode.

00:02:41:15 – 00:03:09:12
Dan LeFebvre
Two of those are true, and that means one of them is just an all out lie. Are you ready? Okay, here they are. Number one, Maersk Alabama sailed within the range of known Somali pirates. Number two, the $30,000 on Maersk Alabama was intended as ransom money. Number three, Captain Phillips tried to escape from the pirates at the first chance he got.

00:03:09:15 – 00:03:23:07
Dan LeFebvre
Got him. Okay, now, as you’re listening to our story today, see if you can figure out which one of those is a lie. And if you’re watching the video version of this, you’ll see I’m holding up now. This has the answer inside. We’re going to open this up at the end to see if you got the answer right.

00:03:23:10 – 00:03:38:05
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Now it’s time to connect with Bryan Beckham about the true story behind Captain Phillips.

00:03:38:07 – 00:03:55:13
Dan LeFebvre
Even though no one expects movies to be entirely accurate, each movie takes different creative liberties to tell the story. So before we dig into some of the details, if you were to take a step back and give Captain Phillips an overall letter grade for its historical accuracy, what would it get?

00:03:55:15 – 00:03:56:14
Brian Beckcom
C minus.

00:03:56:14 – 00:03:59:14
Dan LeFebvre
C minus.

00:03:59:16 – 00:04:18:16
Brian Beckcom
You know, it’s funny Dan here people. When the movie premiered, people were asking me like, what did you think of the movie? What did you think of the movie? I mean, I went I was there opening night. I mean, it was packed. And I said, just like Forrest Gump, it’s a fantastic movie starring Tom Hanks. But none of it’s true.

00:04:18:18 – 00:04:36:14
Brian Beckcom
It is actually so. And in reality, here’s what’s true about the movie. There was an American ship called the Maersk Alabama. It was attacked by Somali pirates. The captain’s name was Captain Phillips. And everything after that is basically made up.

00:04:36:17 – 00:04:59:26
Dan LeFebvre
Okay, well, we’re going to dig into some of the details. According to the movie, at least, and at the beginning of the movie, we’re introduced to Tom Hanks version of Captain Richard Phillips as he takes command of a container ship named Maersk Alabama. And in the movie, his job is to sail it from Oman to Mombasa, Kenya. And for some geographical context, that path takes it around the east coast of Africa, past Yemen and Somalia before reaching Kenya.

00:04:59:29 – 00:05:19:21
Dan LeFebvre
And even though Captain Phillips receives warning of pirate activity in the waters off Somalia, he decides to save time by going like 350. I’m sorry, 250 or 300 miles instead of the recommended 600 miles. This is all according to the movie. How well does the movie do? Setting up the situation with Captain Phillips and the Marshall, Alabama.

00:05:19:24 – 00:05:45:13
Brian Beckcom
Fairly good. Fairly good job of that. And you know what? The movie. What I wish the movie did a little better job of at the beginning in terms of the setup, is putting in context how dangerous these waters were at the time. I mean, we’re talking about I don’t know the exact number, but I want to say like tens and tens, if not hundreds of pirate attacks on both commercial and noncommercial vessels.

00:05:45:13 – 00:06:02:27
Brian Beckcom
In fact, I think there was a naval vessel from Yemen or something that was attacked by pirates. And, you know, the other thing is we got to I don’t know if the movie does a good job of this or not, but this is at the at the time we’re dealing with Somalia or off the east coast of Africa.

00:06:03:03 – 00:06:30:28
Brian Beckcom
Somalia, for all intents and purposes, is a failed country. They have no economy that, you know, they have no really functioning government, and they have a bunch of people there have to eat. And so the people that were, going out and taking these people off of these, ships, either taking them, for ransom, taking them back to Somalia or a lot of these ships carried cash specifically to pay off, quote, pirates.

00:06:31:00 – 00:07:10:21
Brian Beckcom
What what we got to keep in mind is these are not, like, highly trained military style pirates. These are fishermen. I mean, these are Somali fishermen that some of whom are teenagers, who realized that if these commercial ships got within a certain range of the Somalian coast, they had no self-defense and they were easy pickings. And so if you were in that situation, I mean, I don’t blame these Somalians in many respects, like if you are in a failed country and you had to feed your family and you have the choice of going out catching fish all day long and selling them for nothing, or you could go out and make a quick score off

00:07:10:21 – 00:07:34:28
Brian Beckcom
an unprotected American vessel where they basically carry money specifically to pay you. I mean, what would you do? So and that was what, in my opinion, kind of made it worse is not only did they know that at the time this these were literally the most dangerous waters in the world. I mean, maybe 1 or 2 other areas you could compare two, but certainly top 2 or 3.

00:07:35:01 – 00:07:54:03
Brian Beckcom
And everybody knew nobody had any weapons. Right? Nobody had, you know, nobody had any self-defense and everybody knew it. So it’s kind of like, you know, you walk into a really crappy part of town and you hold up your $20,000 Rolex and you start waving at everybody. I mean, what do you expect going to happen? Right?

00:07:54:05 – 00:08:18:00
Dan LeFebvre
I mean, knowing that the movie focuses more on the ship itself, it doesn’t really talk much about what’s going on in Somalia at the time. But I like that context that you gave because it’s it makes a lot more sense why it was happening. But also like even in the beginning of the movie when before the pirates go out, it almost looks I mean, there’s a bunch of them around, almost like, you know, they’re looking for a job for that day.

00:08:18:06 – 00:08:23:01
Dan LeFebvre
And, you know, they’re they’re wanting to feed their families.

00:08:23:03 – 00:08:46:10
Brian Beckcom
Absolutely. Like it’s like in America, sometimes you go to Home Depot and there’s a bunch people outside waiting to get hired, like, do you blame them? Do you blame, where do you fall politically on the immigration issue? If you lived in Mexico and your family was getting threatened by drug cartels, if you were in that violent circumstance, what would you do?

00:08:46:13 – 00:09:12:18
Brian Beckcom
Like, you know, so so in a way, it’s really hard to blame these poor fishermen from Somalia for doing what they do, for doing what they did, especially when we were just basically kind of you know, attempting them, just tempting them to do it, just saying, here’s a bunch of money, here’s a ship with that carries $30,000 in petty cash for every one of these trips that they’ll just give to you.

00:09:12:21 – 00:09:38:12
Brian Beckcom
What do you expect? And by the way, after this case, one of the things that I’m most proud about this case is there hasn’t been a single successful pirate attack on an American, commercial vessel since my case. And there’s a good reason for that. All of the ships are armed. Now, I don’t know if you’re curious to know why they weren’t armed before, and they’re arm now, but there’s a there’s actually a pretty simple explanation for this.

00:09:38:14 – 00:09:45:24
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. I mean, I am curious because there was going to be one of my question too, because they, there’s they don’t have any weapons on the ship.

00:09:45:24 – 00:10:16:22
Brian Beckcom
None. Zero. Like no, no weapons at all. And now they do by the way. But the so when I filed this case, one of the things I said was, if you are going to require these sailors to go into these pirate infested waters, you should let them defend themselves with weapons. All these ships, for the most part, are insured by, London based insurance companies or insurance syndicates or similar type of insurance syndicates.

00:10:16:24 – 00:10:45:23
Brian Beckcom
And they went the insurance syndicates went crazy when I filed this case and said, you need to arm these guys because what they’re worried about, guess what? Big surprise. They worried about sailors. They’re worried about what’s on the ships making the money. Right. And what they were saying was they were saying, look, if we provide seamen with pistols or other sorts of weapons to protect, to protect themselves, they might kill each other or they might blow up our cargo.

00:10:45:26 – 00:11:07:20
Brian Beckcom
That was their excuse. Okay, I know it’s hard to believe and I was like, I just don’t think that’s true. And have you seen a single report of a U.S. ship blowing up because they had pistols on the ship? Or have you seen any of those reports? Of course you haven’t. And because it was a bad it was a really bad idea.

00:11:07:20 – 00:11:32:27
Brian Beckcom
So anyway, it was a it was interesting to see because at the time, again, remember the context. I mean, we’re talking about pirate attack after pirate attack. I mean, we’re talking about almost on a weekly basis. And so it was super dangerous. And we also knew by the way, you know, these nautical miles staying a certain number of nautical miles off the coast of Somalia, that was extremely specific.

00:11:32:27 – 00:12:09:27
Brian Beckcom
There’s a very specific reason for that. And that is, by and large, these fishermen are fishing boats, and they cannot go out past a certain, distance. And so, like there’s it would be impossible for any of these ships to have gotten attacked past a certain distance by these fishing vessels because they can’t get out that far. What Phillips decided to do, literally, in the face of countless international security warnings, was he basically decided to take a shortcut and go twice as close as he was told to go to save fuel.

00:12:10:04 – 00:12:12:14
Brian Beckcom
That was basically what happened.

00:12:12:17 – 00:12:17:09
Dan LeFebvre
So it was to save time. And money basically was the reason for it, despite the obvious risks.

00:12:17:12 – 00:12:42:26
Brian Beckcom
That’s exactly what it was. That’s, absolutely, exactly what it was. And, you know, people often ask me, how do you get this case back? I’m like, like, how does a lawyer even get this case? And there’s real specific reason for that, too. So this is long before anybody this was international news when it happened. But at the at the beginning, nobody had any idea there was going to be a movie starring Tom Hanks.

00:12:42:28 – 00:13:09:03
Brian Beckcom
So Phillips basically causes the problem. He’s the captain. He’s in charge. He makes the decisions that lead to his crew getting captured. And then what happens afterwards? They all come back to America. The crew gets together with Phillips and says, we want to write a book and maybe do a story about our experience. And Captain Phillips tells tells them, I don’t want to have anything to do with you.

00:13:09:03 – 00:13:28:10
Brian Beckcom
I’m going to write my own book. And they were like, well, hold on a second. You were the one that caught your it was your fault that we did this. So they were like, if he’s going to write a book trying to whitewash all the screw ups that he made, we need to make sure people really know about it.

00:13:28:13 – 00:13:50:22
Brian Beckcom
And so that’s what generated initially, at least the desire of the crew to make sure the true story got out. And, you know, I’ll give you an idea. I can give you an example after example. But there were four pirates. Three of them got killed by Navy Seals. One of them was captured. That pirate is now Fort Wayne, Indiana federal prison.

00:13:50:24 – 00:14:16:17
Brian Beckcom
As the only prisoner in the United States that’s been convicted of piracy in the last 100 years, there’s a question about whether, when he was convicted, whether he was even an adult, because, not surprisingly, the birth records in Somalia are horrible. So it was really hard to figure out his age. But some of your listeners may remember the perp walk when the prisoner was walking down the stairs of federal courthouse.

00:14:16:17 – 00:14:44:04
Brian Beckcom
He had a big eyepatch on like a medical eyepatch, and that was because my unarmed crew took utensils out of the kitchen, and one of my clients stabbed one of that pirate in the eye with a spoon. And so it really, truly was, the crew that was heroic. And the Catholic captain that was the numskull that kind of led these guys into this situation to begin with.

00:14:44:06 – 00:14:55:24
Dan LeFebvre
I can understand, I guess, from his perspective, from the captain’s perspective, then why he would want to write the book that told his version of, you know, to kind of make himself seem better.

00:14:55:26 – 00:15:13:16
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. I, you know, that’s human nature. I think we’ve seen that so many, you know, throughout history, we see that again and again. You know, Winston Churchill, one of my heroes, has a great saying. They said one time they said, what do you think history’s going to say about you, Mr. Churchill? He said, history is going to treat me well because I’m going to write it.

00:15:13:23 – 00:15:15:17
Brian Beckcom
Yeah.

00:15:15:19 – 00:15:17:14
Dan LeFebvre
And I’ll say whatever I want it to say.

00:15:17:16 – 00:15:25:18
Brian Beckcom
Right. History, like history is a story of the victors perspective. Yeah. Pretty much. Right. Yeah.

00:15:25:20 – 00:15:45:11
Dan LeFebvre
So one thing we see in the movie, after Captain Phillips gets the warnings of pirate activity, he runs the crew through some security drills that include exercises for what to do if they encounter pirates. That drills like attaching fire hoses to shoot high pressure water, the attackers making sure cages and doors to sensitive areas are locked, things like that.

00:15:45:13 – 00:16:03:18
Dan LeFebvre
But then, while they’re running through the drills, Tom Hanks version of Captain Phillips notices something approaching on the radar. And they’re actually two small boats approaching not to get too far ahead of the movie’s timeline, but we all know what happens in the movie. So obviously those security drills didn’t seem to work. Can you unravel the security drills on Maersk Alabama?

00:16:03:18 – 00:16:08:02
Dan LeFebvre
What were they supposed to be, and did the movie accurately show it to us?

00:16:08:04 – 00:16:44:16
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. So every single ship that sails internationally like that is supposed to have something called a VSP. VSP Victor, I forget what SS VSP stands for Vessel Security Protocol, and in fact they have to file that with certain international agencies. And those are top secret. And I’m not going to get into the details of any of those, because when I have cases with vessel security plans, I usually have an agreement with the vessel owner that we’re going to keep this confidential because it’s important for the safety of the sailors.

00:16:44:19 – 00:17:08:14
Brian Beckcom
We wouldn’t want that information getting that public. But every single I can talk about it in general terms, every single vessel then and now has a VSP, and they have to execute and practice that VSP on a regular basis. The problem was at the time the security protocols were basically worthless. I mean, like those water cannons you saw on the movie, not they didn’t exist.

00:17:08:16 – 00:17:29:29
Brian Beckcom
There was. And there are a lot of different. I mean, again, think about what we’re talking about. These are these are fishermen, okay? They’re not highly trained pirates. I did a pirate case off the coast of West Africa, where an American marine who was retired, but he was captaining a bow, got got kidnaped by mercenaries from Boko Haram.

00:17:30:06 – 00:17:57:28
Brian Beckcom
Those guys are dead. Those guys are bad news. Like you could be armed and the Boko Haram guys could still get you one weapon. One pistol against these fishermen is enough to make them go to the next vessel because they’re they’re looking at they’re looking for targets of opportunity. They’re looking for the softest targets. But they certainly, in every vessel, including this one, had security practices, security protocols.

00:17:57:28 – 00:18:07:29
Brian Beckcom
They have security drills. The problem is, when you’re drilling something that doesn’t stop anybody, you’re just wasting your time, if that makes sense.

00:18:08:02 – 00:18:15:17
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. No, that that makes a lot of sense. And it goes back to would really help if they were armed.

00:18:15:19 – 00:18:37:15
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. Well they are now like I said like I said they are now. And it’s really made a dramatic difference. I mean have you seen any story you remember back then there were Italian ships, you know, ships from all these different kind of German cruise ships, all these ships getting attacked and boarded, and that just doesn’t happen anymore, at least off the coast of East Africa.

00:18:37:17 – 00:18:57:20
Dan LeFebvre
Well, if we go back to the movies version of events, the security drills turn into real world. When the crew on Maersk Alabama see those boats approaching, and they know there’s no way that a huge container ship can outrun the two smaller pirates skiffs. So Captain Phillips tries a few tactics to try to discourage the pirates. At first he tries the US maritime emergency line, but there’s no answer there.

00:18:57:27 – 00:19:15:16
Dan LeFebvre
He reaches out to the UK maritime trade operations to let them know what’s going on. They think, yeah, it’s probably just some fishermen so they’re not really much help. So then Captain Phillips pretends like he’s talking to the US Navy on the radio, requesting air support, knowing that the pirates are close enough to be listening to their radio traffic.

00:19:15:18 – 00:19:34:02
Dan LeFebvre
And that seems to work according to the movie. It movie shows one of the two boats turning around because of the radio communications, but then the other boat keeps coming and so Captain Phillips orders the limit on the engine was removed, and the huge ship starts kind of zigzagging so that they can make big waves for the tiny pirate boat to try to overcome.

00:19:34:05 – 00:19:42:00
Dan LeFebvre
And then after a while, that seems to work too, because the single engine on the tiny pirate skiff just loses power and dies. How much of that actually happened?

00:19:42:02 – 00:20:10:25
Brian Beckcom
Not much. Not much. I mean, it is. It is. That movie is highly dramatized. And, you know, to be clear, I’m not complaining about that. Like, that’s what Hollywood does. I mean, they tell stories and sometimes actually all the time they dramatize those stories. So, most of that stuff is either never happened in real life or it happened, but it’s but it’s highly, highly dramatized.

00:20:10:25 – 00:20:33:14
Brian Beckcom
Like, I don’t know if you remember that scene in the movie where Captain Phillips basically gives himself up to the kidnapers that didn’t happen. That. I mean, you like like he he basically went kicking and screaming, like in the movie, they make it sound like he’s heroic and he’s like, I’m giving myself up for the crew. It was actually the opposite.

00:20:33:14 – 00:20:52:11
Brian Beckcom
The crew was the one who was fighting back. He was hiding, trying to figure out a way to get out of this and save his skin. And the pirates just took him. And I tell you something else, it’s really strange about this. And if any of your listeners know the answer to this, please call me, because I still haven’t figured this out.

00:20:52:14 – 00:20:58:05
Brian Beckcom
The $30,000 in bounty money that was on that ship has never been found.

00:20:58:07 – 00:21:06:27
Dan LeFebvre
Did they? I mean, in the movie, I think they give it to the pirates. Did they not do that or do we not know what happened to it? Just kind of disappeared.

00:21:06:29 – 00:21:25:18
Brian Beckcom
We don’t know that there were theories that the Navy Seals took it. There were there were theories that, the pirates got it. There were theories. Maybe Captain Phillips knows what happens to it, but I don’t know. That’s the point. Like nobody ever figured that out. Quite frankly, if the Navy Seals took it, I’m like, I don’t care.

00:21:25:18 – 00:21:45:12
Brian Beckcom
I hope those guys spend it on fun stuff because of what I mean, what they did was, was remarkable. The, the scene where they show, like, as I recall the movie, it’s like boom, boom, boom and the pirates are dead kind of thing. It was more like.

00:21:45:15 – 00:21:46:17
Brian Beckcom
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:21:46:19 – 00:22:10:06
Brian Beckcom
You mean it was more like there was a lot more? It wasn’t quite as precise as it’s depicted in the movie, but but again, you’re not going to the movie, to learn history. You going to movie to be entertained. So I’m not faulting Hollywood or Tom Hanks or anybody for dramatizing a dramatic movie. But when you’re in the courthouse, in fact, I’ll tell you a good story about that stand.

00:22:10:06 – 00:22:31:00
Brian Beckcom
Once I found out there was a movie, then Tom Hanks was going to play. Captain Phillips immediately went to the court. I went to the judge. I said, hey, judge, this is a real problem. Everybody loves Tom Hanks. Like, and it’s going to prejudice my clients because truly, the person that made the most mistakes in this case was Phillips.

00:22:31:02 – 00:22:51:00
Brian Beckcom
Everybody’s going to associate him with Tom Hanks and it’s going to really hurt my client. So would it be okay, judge, if we went to trial before the movie came out? So Maersk lawyers come up. Oh no, no, no, we can be told we can make sure that we get fair jurors and they won’t let any of that stuff influence their decision.

00:22:51:00 – 00:23:14:28
Brian Beckcom
And we need a lot of time. So anyway, the point is that the judge listened to the defense lawyers and not me, and he didn’t let me go to trial early. And then the movie comes out and all of a sudden I got 5 to $10 million of free marketing publicity. And I still get it. I mean, even today I’m on a podcast 15 plus years later talking about this case.

00:23:15:00 – 00:23:38:06
Brian Beckcom
I get something like 16,000 website views a month, 15 years after the fact. And I tell people I’m like, sometimes it’s good not to get what you want, because the fact that I lost that request ended up being way better for my clients and my firm.

00:23:38:09 – 00:23:53:08
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, I mean, everybody loves Tom Hanks, though, so I understand that that I mean, I don’t know how you not be have some a little bit of bias, I guess, if you never even saw it. But I mean, it’s a Tom Hanks movie. He’s he’s not going to want to see that.

00:23:53:11 – 00:23:54:05
Brian Beckcom
He doesn’t like Tom.

00:23:54:05 – 00:23:55:08
Brian Beckcom
Hanks.

00:23:55:10 – 00:24:10:00
Brian Beckcom
And I and I by the way, I took Captain Phillips deposition for two days and up in the northeast, that’s it’s confidential, sealed and stuff like that. But let me just let me just put it this way. He ain’t Tom Hanks.

00:24:10:02 – 00:24:10:27
Brian Beckcom
Well.

00:24:11:00 – 00:24:14:01
Dan LeFebvre
To be fair, none of us are. There’s only one Tom Hanks.

00:24:14:03 – 00:24:25:04
Brian Beckcom
That’s true, that’s true. But but but again, I don’t think any of us are comparing our. So if true Tom Hanks maybe playing me in a movie. He ain’t playing you in a movie.

00:24:25:06 – 00:24:43:27
Dan LeFebvre
Fair point, fair point. Well, if we go back to the movie, speaking of, despite failing the first time around, the next day the Pirates try again and the leader of Douala, Musa, returns with a more powerful boat. This time the crew on Maersk Alabama. They try basically the same thing. They try increasing the engine power, doing the hard turns.

00:24:43:27 – 00:25:01:05
Dan LeFebvre
That seemed to work last time, but this time it doesn’t because the Pirates have a slightly bigger boat the movie focuses on. It has two engines instead of one, and then the only other manner of defense are the fire hoses that we talked about earlier, that the crew on Alabama run around the whole ship, making it hard for the pirates to get close.

00:25:01:05 – 00:25:21:08
Dan LeFebvre
You have the water shooting out, but then one of the hoses slips. So we see, I think his name was Shane Murphy. Going to fix it. One of the crew and the Pirates start shooting at him. So then Phillips orders him to get to safety. And that’s how the Pirates managed to attach a ladder to the side of the ship, climb up, and then take over the boat.

00:25:21:10 – 00:25:36:24
Dan LeFebvre
And from Captain Phillips perspective, according to the movie, he knows that his men don’t have the firepower to defend against the pirates. Again, no guns on the ship, so he orders Shane to go down to the engine room with most of the crew to hide where they can lock themselves in, and then cut the power to the ship so the pirates can’t move it.

00:25:36:27 – 00:25:47:14
Dan LeFebvre
And then Captain Phillips and two other crew members stay on the bridge, where they’re captured by the four Somali pirates. Was that ultimately how the pirates were able to take control of Maersk Alabama?

00:25:47:16 – 00:25:50:29
Brian Beckcom
No. No. And,

00:25:51:02 – 00:25:52:24
Dan LeFebvre
I had a feeling it would be something like that.

00:25:53:00 – 00:26:06:12
Brian Beckcom
Yeah, yeah, unfortunately, that’s not really what happened. Although I will say this, one of the ways that the Pirates figured out how to get some more distance from the coast is to use kind of a bigger mothership.

00:26:06:15 – 00:26:07:26
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. We see that in the movie. Yeah.

00:26:07:28 – 00:26:34:21
Brian Beckcom
Right. Yeah. They would have these, they would have these larger fishing vessels that could actually get out farther and then they would deploy smaller vessels once they got out to where they wanted to go. So that part of it’s true. And again, it’s, it’s like I don’t know how to put this, but it’s like there’s enough truth in the movie for it not to be like a completely fictional story, but everything is.

00:26:34:21 – 00:27:08:22
Brian Beckcom
So, I keep saying the word dramatized, exaggerated as to as to basically be not true, if that makes sense. Like the idea they were, you know, they’re doing. So I mean, it reminds me of Star Wars when like, Luke Skywalker is being chased and an X-Wing fighter and he’s doing all these crazy dodges and he’s, you know, the idea that they were around, they had this giant fishing or this giant commercial vessel in the middle of the ocean doing these, crazy evasive maneuvers while they’re shooting water cannons out the back.

00:27:08:22 – 00:27:44:03
Brian Beckcom
And Captain Phillips is standing there like George Washington crossing the, what was the river? He crossed the Brandywine or whatever on the front of the boat is. I mean, it’s just it’s Hollywood. That’s what it is. And, enough of that happened to where you can say, well, they didn’t totally make it up. But the timing, the sequence, the substance, the procedure is, is, is, by and large, so, so overly exaggerated and overly dramatized as you could, it is to say that that that’s not the way it happened.

00:27:44:07 – 00:27:47:19
Brian Beckcom
I mean, you could probably confidently say that.

00:27:47:21 – 00:27:57:06
Dan LeFebvre
Did they end up, splitting like the movie shows where there were some in the bridge and then some of the crew in the engine room kind of separated like that?

00:27:57:09 – 00:28:20:21
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. You know, that’s an interesting piece of the case. So the crew actually, evacuated as, as they were supposed to to it’s essentially a safe room and, and bolted themselves. And that was one of the, and this didn’t apply just to Maersk Alabama. But generally speaking, in the maritime world, there are rooms that you can seal.

00:28:20:21 – 00:28:53:11
Brian Beckcom
And like if you’re getting attacked, you can use them as safe rooms. In fact, that’s what happened in my marine west coast of Africa case. He went into a room with his crew, bolted themselves. And the problem is that those pirates had, saws that could, like, literally cut through the steel. And then once they made a little hole, they stuck their machine guns through the hole and said, we’re going to start firing this thing into this room, and bullets are going, I mean, everybody’s going to be dead within 10s, right?

00:28:53:13 – 00:29:11:09
Brian Beckcom
Well, so my crew ended up evacuating and they, they they stayed in that room. The pirates locked them in this room for like 18 hours. I think it was 120 degrees the whole time. They had no water and food. So it was it was a it was a pretty bad situation.

00:29:11:12 – 00:29:12:27
Dan LeFebvre
Wow. Wow. Yeah.

00:29:12:27 – 00:29:36:17
Brian Beckcom
That’s they do have safe rooms is the point though. Like on these boats, one of the things I’ll often do is say everybody because think about it. On these boats you’ve seen these like they have doors that they can and seal shed. Like if you’re in super bad weather and you need to make the ship at least parts of the parts of the ship watertight, you can go into these rooms that you can you can really, really seal tight.

00:29:36:17 – 00:30:02:24
Brian Beckcom
So that that is a pretty common, defense mechanism. And then what you do is the idea is you get in there and you buy enough time to where the posse can come get you, right? Like you don’t have to stay in there for a week. You just get in there, you send out a distress signal, you get in that room, you seal yourself in, and you hope that the posse will be there within two, three, 4 or 5 hours, something like that.

00:30:02:27 – 00:30:18:21
Dan LeFebvre
Well, if we go back to the movie, the pirates start searching the ship to try to find the rest of the crew, and Captain Phillips is trying to get the pirates to look in the cargo deck. But the Pirates leader, Musa knows that there’s a problem with the ship’s power, so he wants to go to the engine room.

00:30:18:24 – 00:30:37:09
Dan LeFebvre
Meanwhile, the crew’s hiding away in the engine room and they devise a plan to fight back against the pirates. As Phillips is leading the pirates around the ship, he’s kind of giving little hints here and there. He’d say things like, well, we better hope the emergency power stays on, because if it won’t, then we’re not gonna be able to see anything if it goes off.

00:30:37:11 – 00:30:54:03
Dan LeFebvre
And things like be careful in here with bare feet because you can climb on almost anything. And then over the radio, the crew kind of picks up on some of these. They break some glass to lay a trap for the barefooted pirates. And that works when one of the pirates, a guy named Bilal, I believe it gets badly cut.

00:30:54:05 – 00:30:58:22
Dan LeFebvre
Did the Maersk Alabama crew try to fight back against the pirates like the movie shows?

00:30:58:24 – 00:31:24:19
Brian Beckcom
Absolutely they did. In fact, what I was mentioning earlier is they grabbed utensils and were using those as weapons. And in fact, the one pirate that survived got stabbed in the eye with a spoon. And that’s why he had an eyepatch on. That was one of my clients that did that. I would actually, the way I would say, if you want to be as close to the truth as possible, once the pirates got on the ship, the crew pretty much did exactly what they were trained to do.

00:31:24:21 – 00:31:47:19
Brian Beckcom
Captain Phillips, on the other hand, did not get to where he was supposed to get to, and what ended up happening? It ended up causing the entire security protocol to get thrown off kilter, because now all of a sudden, the Pirates have access to Phillips and all his knowledge, plus the money, and they can use that to leverage what they want to leverage against the crew.

00:31:47:20 – 00:32:10:15
Brian Beckcom
Had the captain come in there like he was supposed to and executed a security plan. You don’t have all these other, outstanding issues that the Pirates can basically use a captain as a as a negotiating, piece. Like, you don’t want to do that like my cam and my, like, again, my, it’s funny because in this case, not funny how it funny ironic.

00:32:10:15 – 00:32:41:10
Brian Beckcom
It’s funny because in this case, the the the person that screwed up was the captain like Phillips, there is no question at all that the reason that these men got kidnaped and taken hostage and put in a room there was 120 plus degrees for more than 18 hours, no food and water. The reason is Captain Phillips and then also the company for letting him deviate so, so wildly from the recommendations.

00:32:41:12 – 00:33:04:28
Brian Beckcom
But in my in my West Coast pirate case, I represented the captain like the captain did everything he was supposed to do. Like, you know, just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom made the distress call that Boko Haram pirates coming, highly trained, highly armed, gets all his crew into the safe room, locks it up, does everything precisely right. And, and he’s.

00:33:05:00 – 00:33:29:23
Brian Beckcom
And by the way, like I said, they drilled a hole to the steel door, put the gun in there and so that he basically he had to say, look, I’m coming out, leave my crew alone, I’ll come out. And so he actually came out, gave himself up to the pirates and was taken into the jungles of West Africa for 18 days and then ultimately released after some really bad stuff happened to them.

00:33:29:25 – 00:33:40:21
Brian Beckcom
But my point is, he did everything right. He still got taken, but he did everything he was supposed to do. Captain Phillips basically didn’t do anything he was supposed to do.

00:33:40:24 – 00:33:52:15
Dan LeFebvre
If he had followed protocol, if Phillips had followed protocol instead of staying up on the bridge, he should have gone down in the room, basically with the rest of the crucial. The entire crew was in there after sending out the signal. Is that right?

00:33:52:17 – 00:34:02:03
Brian Beckcom
Pretty much. Yeah, pretty much. I mean, and there was multiple different areas on the ship where you could use as a secure location. He should have been in one of those.

00:34:02:11 – 00:34:05:08
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. So not necessarily with the crew depending on what he could get to.

00:34:05:08 – 00:34:10:10
Brian Beckcom
But yeah, depending on where he was at the time. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah okay okay.

00:34:10:13 – 00:34:29:03
Dan LeFebvre
Well in the movie Musa gets captured by the crew down below. And in particular the movie focuses on, I think it’s the chief engineer, Mike Perry, who subdues him with a pocket knife. So the movie kind of sets up this tension of the pirates holding crew hostage on the bridge, including Captain Phillips. And then they have their own injured leader held hostage down below.

00:34:29:05 – 00:34:52:05
Dan LeFebvre
And that’s when we see Tom Hanks version of Captain Phillips offer the Pirates $30,000 in the ship’s chief in exchange for them leaving on one of the Maersk Alabama lifeboats. And ultimately, that’s what they agree on. So the plan is for the crew to get Captain Phillips back while the Pirates get their leader back. Musa. So then they can leave with the money, and we’ll talk about what happens with that deal in a moment.

00:34:52:05 – 00:34:58:09
Dan LeFebvre
But was the movie correct to show that there was this deal between the Pirates and the crew.

00:34:58:12 – 00:35:20:13
Brian Beckcom
Now and again? Like I said, nobody knows what happened to that money. Like like nobody knows. I mean, I’d love for somebody to call me up and say, I figured out what happened. In fact, there was something really strange that happened a few years afterwards. Two Navy Seals were on, as I recall, was the same vessel and died of a drug overdose.

00:35:20:13 – 00:35:39:13
Brian Beckcom
And there was all sorts of questions about, first of all, why were there two Navy Seals on that vessel? Why was there heroin on that? There was some really weird stuff going on. Where was the where was the ransom money? My period, a name I haven’t heard in quite some time. So he was one of the few crew members that decided not to join the case.

00:35:39:13 – 00:35:46:10
Brian Beckcom
So he was aligned with Captain Phillips. He is, as I recall, was he the first mate?

00:35:46:13 – 00:35:50:00
Dan LeFebvre
I think they mentioned him being the, word chief engineer.

00:35:50:00 – 00:36:07:04
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. So chief engineer is a is a high ranking position on those ships that would put you, you know, depending on how it staff that would that that was certainly put you in that chain of command at least. I mean you’re probably the number one guy on most ships in the engine room. Plus you’re usually an officer.

00:36:07:04 – 00:36:21:27
Brian Beckcom
So he was a real high ranking person. What I found then, and I think most of your listeners that this won’t surprise him is when when company management screws up, company management circles the wagons.

00:36:21:27 – 00:36:26:15
Brian Beckcom
Yeah, you know what I mean? So, yeah, I mean.

00:36:26:17 – 00:36:44:10
Brian Beckcom
What I, when I like when I want to know the truth about what happened. I’m not asking the CEO or the CEO like I want to ask the line level workers. Hey, guys. What happened there? So Perry Perry was one of the he was very vocal in not wanting to join the case. Totally his decision. And totally, totally fine with that.

00:36:44:10 – 00:37:13:09
Brian Beckcom
But not surprising considering he was he was at the at the level, the managerial level where where you might be able to start saying, well, what were you doing, Mike? Like I what why, why, why did he why didn’t you stop, captain? I mean, again, a lot of this stuff is confidential, but there’s internal communications from Phillips and other people that talk about the decision to go to to go more than twice as close as was recommended.

00:37:13:11 – 00:37:19:20
Brian Beckcom
And I’ll just I’ll just put it this way. There’s a reason that Mercer doesn’t want this released.

00:37:19:23 – 00:37:21:11
Brian Beckcom
I mean, that’s fair.

00:37:21:13 – 00:37:22:08
Brian Beckcom
Yeah.

00:37:22:10 – 00:37:33:08
Dan LeFebvre
Well, you talked about the the 30,000. Was that something that they had as specifically for pirates like you were talking about earlier on Alabama? That was specifically for pirates?

00:37:33:11 – 00:38:12:28
Brian Beckcom
Yeah, absolutely. And that, that that is that is and I actually I don’t know if that’s true or not, I, I have a strong suspicion that they carry that kind of money on ships. Now, the back at the time, it was why that was a widespread practice. And, you know, it’s it’s interesting because it’s really there’s something called a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in America which prohibits, among other things, American companies from negotiating, ransoms like or paying bribes or, you know, things like that.

00:38:12:28 – 00:38:41:24
Brian Beckcom
So it’s really close to the line when you’re talking about and of course, the idea is, you know, the whole we don’t negotiate with terrorists idea like, because that’ll encourage more terrorism. That’s the idea. Like, we don’t want companies paying bribes because encourage more bribery. We don’t want ransoms because paying ransoms is going to encourage more kidnapings. And so it’s you got to be super careful as an American company about how you deal with those situations.

00:38:41:24 – 00:39:17:27
Brian Beckcom
In fact, like in my West Coast case, you date the the captain was ransomed from the pirates, but he was not ransom by the American company like, they go through, intermediaries usually located in the UK in places like that, that then go through intermediaries that then take care of what they need to take care of. There’s in fact, there was a movie, I think, called Proof of Life or something like that, which kind of depicts some of these specialist kidnaping, a ransom, companies that will go in and take care.

00:39:18:00 – 00:39:41:18
Brian Beckcom
But the problem is, is like Exxon, let’s say they have an employee off the coast of, West Africa that gets kidnaped. Exxon can’t they’re it’s illegal for them to pay ransoms. It’s a legal for them to negotiate with terrorists like that. That is explicitly illegal under United States also. So they got to be real careful about how they do it, you know?

00:39:41:21 – 00:39:56:09
Brian Beckcom
But on the other hand, they want take care of their employees if they can like and good for that. I hope they figure out a way to do that. I mean, if you got billions of dollars, you should you should spend some of that on your on your people.

00:39:56:12 – 00:40:13:10
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah. I mean, in, in that context, you know, you know, in this particular case, you know, like $30,000 for the Alabama and the crew, I mean, it’s it’s worth 30,000. Like, I mean, to for their safety.

00:40:13:13 – 00:40:14:23
Brian Beckcom
Yeah.

00:40:14:25 – 00:40:35:01
Dan LeFebvre
Well, you mentioned the ransom. And if we head back into the movie, the exchange of, Captain Phillips and Mousa doesn’t go as well. It doesn’t go as planned. I should say. And instead, as the pirates are leaving the ship, they don’t let Phillips leave the lifeboat. He was in there kind of showing them how it works. And then the lifeboat is launched from Maersk Alabama with all the pirates inside and Captain Phillips as their hostage.

00:40:35:03 – 00:40:44:10
Dan LeFebvre
And the movie suggests that the pirates weren’t happy with the $30,000 from the safe, so they wanted to ransom Phillips for even more money. Did that happen the way the movie shows it?

00:40:44:12 – 00:41:10:02
Brian Beckcom
Not really. And again, there was some really strange questions about. So the money, far as everybody knows, that the cash went on to that, lifeboat with Phillips and with the, with the pirates. Now the pirate that didn’t get killed wasn’t on the lifeboat. He stayed on board. But that money was on that lifeboat and was has never been found.

00:41:10:02 – 00:41:40:11
Brian Beckcom
There’s there’s theories that the Navy Seals did something with it. The precision of the operation that’s depicted in the movie was not how quite as precise as that in real life. Like there was a lot more stuff going on, but but look, I mean, again, Phillips was taken out alive, but he didn’t give himself up. He was taken against his will, basically kicking and screaming for all practical purposes.

00:41:40:14 – 00:42:01:29
Brian Beckcom
And the Navy Seals did come in there and the Navy Seals did it. Badass job getting them back. So all that stuff is true. But again, the details are. So I’m just kind of like, what’s the movie? Saving Private Ryan? Remember, the beginning scene is Saving Private Ryan. Like, how intense that was. That is so highly dramatized.

00:42:01:29 – 00:42:22:24
Brian Beckcom
It’s ridiculous. All that stuff. Like, there were men that stormed the beaches that were men. They got killed. All that stuff happened, but they have to compress like that event into something that you can digest on a movie screen in about five minutes, or however long that scene took, ten minutes or whatever it was in the Maersk Alabama.

00:42:22:24 – 00:42:47:24
Brian Beckcom
I think that scene takes five minutes, and then you’ve got Tom Hanks afterwards doing the Tom Hanks thing where he’s breaking down all that stuff. But I’m talking about the actual operation of rescuing him was significantly longer, and they got to compress the time and they got to make it interesting and stuff like that. So, the basically the details of the movie are, are all made up.

00:42:47:29 – 00:43:00:02
Brian Beckcom
That large picture of what happened is true, but the details are just and I’m not again, I’m not criticizing Hollywood or anybody like that, that that’s what they have to do.

00:43:00:04 – 00:43:22:00
Dan LeFebvre
Yeah, yeah. Again, movies are for entertainment. Well, you talked about the the Navy, and we’re at the point in the movie’s timeline where the Navy starts to, come into the picture after all of this escalation. We see the US Navy getting involved. They send multiple ships to deal with the hostage situation with Captain Phillips. The primary ship in the movie is a destroyer called USS Bainbridge.

00:43:22:03 – 00:43:41:06
Dan LeFebvre
In the movie, the US Navy has identified the Somali mothership that we talked about briefly earlier. It’s a they say it’s a Taiwanese fishing ship that was hijacked by pirates a year earlier under a Somali warlord named Garrard. And then we kind of get a little bit of a little, almost a little backstory that captain, the captain of Bainbridge, recognizes Garrett’s name.

00:43:41:12 – 00:43:59:29
Dan LeFebvre
He’s somebody who apparently just wants money. So they think they can negotiate for Captain Phillips. But the clock is ticking because the Pirates are trying to reach the Somali coast. There’s two more Navy ships that are coming, USS boxer and USS Halliburton. They’re sent with the Navy Seals. And the way the movie sets this up, basically, Bainbridge is their first.

00:44:00:04 – 00:44:10:09
Dan LeFebvre
And if they can’t resolve the situation before the Seals get there, the Navy Seals are going to take care of it. Can you share what the situation was like as the Navy entered the picture?

00:44:10:12 – 00:44:46:08
Brian Beckcom
Yeah, that the the Maersk Alabama was actually lucky in a way. I mean, I had to I had to say lucky given what happened. But they were lucky that there were American naval ships that were so close by. That’s that’s almost never the case. And so at that point, there really is nobody and I mean, Captain Phillips, at some point loses command of the vessel, like the most famous saying, you know, maybe if I’m the captain now, I mean, how many times that there’s basically a that’s a, that’s a meme now.

00:44:46:08 – 00:45:10:21
Brian Beckcom
And by the way, I’ll tell you a cool story about that. That was completely ad libbed. And that actor, it was not a professionally trained actor. Like he’s Somalian, but they, they they did a casting call in Milwaukee where there was a huge Somali community, and they picked those four guys and they’re not actors. They had no training at all.

00:45:10:21 – 00:45:32:04
Brian Beckcom
When he comes up there and he says, I’m the captain now, that’s completely ad libbed. And that’s the most famous line in the movie, and probably the most famous line of any movie, or at least top five over the last 15 years. Right. I’m the captain now. But in any event, once the. So there are and I got to be a little bit cautious about.

00:45:32:05 – 00:46:00:11
Brian Beckcom
I don’t want to give up any confidentiality, but there are people in Africa who, serve as conduits between commercial and governmental interest. And these pirates or terrorists or whatever you want to call them. And it’s like, I like we were talking about just a few minutes ago, there’s a foreign corrupt practices that got me super duper careful about running afoul of that.

00:46:00:13 – 00:46:28:22
Brian Beckcom
But like, there are local, warlords and chieftains, there are people like Russell Crowe on the movie Proof of Life who specialize in dealing with those people. There are back channels that oftentimes you can utilize to get stuff done. But on the flip side, the more you do this, the more you encourage more attacks. I mean, the more to, the more ransoms that are paid, the more kidnaping.

00:46:28:22 – 00:46:51:14
Brian Beckcom
And so it’s a really, really tough problem. I mean, if it was your family or a family member that was kidnaped, you would God wouldn’t care how much you pay him or whatever they want. I want my family member back. But the policymakers have to look beyond just the one individual events. They have to look at, kind of a broader.

00:46:51:17 – 00:47:09:19
Brian Beckcom
And so, boy, it’s a it’s a tough call. But then once you’ve once you’ve got once you’ve engaged the United States military, they’re in charge like that, that at that point you’ve lost, you’ve lost control. Like once you send them in, they’re going to they’re going to do what they’re going to do. And there’s not anything anybody can do to stop it.

00:47:09:19 – 00:47:11:07
Brian Beckcom
Quite frankly.

00:47:11:10 – 00:47:13:00
Dan LeFebvre
They’re the captain now okay.

00:47:13:02 – 00:47:16:15
Brian Beckcom
Yeah. Yeah, exactly.

00:47:16:17 – 00:47:17:20
Brian Beckcom
And perfect.

00:47:17:20 – 00:47:40:27
Dan LeFebvre
Love it. Well, the movie kind of it focuses then kind of shifts to talking about, you know, with Captain Phillips and that hostage situation. But we do see a brief scene where the Navy, there’s some Navy who go on the Alabama, and there’s there to escort it to Mombasa. Did they actually did that happen? Did they get a Navy escort basically to make sure they made it there safely the rest of the way?

00:47:40:27 – 00:47:41:12
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Yeah.

00:47:41:12 – 00:48:05:24
Brian Beckcom
Oh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. And again, it was kind of luck as I recall. And you can fact ship me on this. The reason that we were able to, use Navy Seals to rescue these guys is because they were in close proximity. And the reason they were in close proximity is I think we were doing some aggressive military exercises over there, and they were able to divert some assets and take care of this pretty quickly.

00:48:05:28 – 00:48:25:06
Brian Beckcom
So people criticize Obama all the time for not going to war with Syria and a lot of other things he did. But I’ll tell you what, he made some tough calls like that Navy Seal thing could have gone sideways. And I like they could captain Phillips could have been killed. The crew could have been killed. That thing could have gone sideways in a heartbeat.

00:48:25:08 – 00:48:43:11
Brian Beckcom
He made the call. Well, let’s go in there and get him that. You know, that stuff is the way that all that Special Forces stuff is depicted in movies is super clean and almost antiseptic, that it is not like that in real life, like it’s nasty. I mean, when they went in, got bin laden and one of the Black Hawk helicopters crashed, right?

00:48:43:11 – 00:49:02:24
Brian Beckcom
It was a mess like it was did did not go the way they planned at all. But but it was fortunate as I recall again, people can fact check me. The military was doing some sort of exercise, some sort of joint exercises over there, and so they were able to get over there quickly where that’s that’s usually not the case, unfortunately.

00:49:02:27 – 00:49:26:23
Dan LeFebvre
That. Yeah, that makes sense. And in the movie they show the the other ship start arriving with, with Bainbridge. But we see Captain Phillips, he tells his captors that he has to pee, and they let him go outside and then Phillips pushes that one of the pirates is watching him below. He pushes him into the water, and then he jumps into trying to escape, and he starts swimming towards the Navy ships.

00:49:26:23 – 00:49:44:06
Dan LeFebvre
But then the pirates turn around the lifeboat. They start shooting at him in the water, and so they bring him back and bring Captain Phillips back into the lifeboat, and they start beating him pretty severely. Pretty much at that point you get the impression from the movie that he tried to escape, and because they beat him so badly, he’s not going to try to escape again.

00:49:44:08 – 00:49:47:15
Dan LeFebvre
Is it true that Captain Phillips tried to escape like we see in the movie?

00:49:47:18 – 00:50:07:28
Brian Beckcom
No, that is complete. That is this. So again, that that’s that was it. And that was part of the I was that was what that’s the kind of stuff that worried me the most because it basically inverted the real story. The real story was Captain Phillips screwed up, Mer screwed up, and the crew made the best of it.

00:50:08:03 – 00:50:32:08
Brian Beckcom
I mean, that’s really what the crew was heroic, and I could tell story after story. But we already told you about Spann against AK 47. That was not Phillips. That was the crew. And and the way the the part of the movie that you’re talking about is the part that I think bothered my clients the most because it really was the opposite of what actually happened.

00:50:32:15 – 00:50:55:21
Brian Beckcom
Phillips he wasn’t beat up. He didn’t jump in the water and try to escape. None of that happened. I mean, that is completely and totally not what happened. And it makes it look like the crew was a bunch of idiots and Captain Phillips is some sort of heroic figure, and it was like it was the complete opposite, like I said.

00:50:55:21 – 00:51:00:23
Brian Beckcom
And so that that part is definitively not true.

00:51:00:26 – 00:51:13:07
Dan LeFebvre
Okay. Yeah, it definitely does make him seem more heroic when, you know, he’s trying to escape. He’s doing doing these things and taking this. But I guess that’s Tom. You have Tom Hanks in a movie. You gotta be Tom Hanks sometimes. Yeah, yeah.

00:51:13:07 – 00:51:34:01
Brian Beckcom
Well yeah, that that’s exactly right. And again, they’re not trying to win a lawsuit in this movie. They’re trying to entertain people who have come to sit in a seat for two hours and be entertained. And so I don’t blame Hollywood for doing any of this stuff. What I had to be careful about and what my job was and still is, is to protect my client’s interests.

00:51:34:01 – 00:52:01:12
Brian Beckcom
And so what I was concerned about, and I’m very proud, quite frankly, the fact we’re able to do this, I’m normally not taken on $1 billion, international corporation with multiple billion dollar insurance companies behind them. I do that all the time. But then what I don’t do is have Hollywood and the Hollywood publicity machine on top of that talent, a narrative that hurts my case.

00:52:01:12 – 00:52:37:29
Brian Beckcom
That was the hard part of it. Right? So I had to I mean, going against these big insurance companies, these big corporations. That’s a Tuesday for me. Going against Hollywood in their publicity machine was a completely new experience. Fortunately, I was we did a fantastic job of like, everybody basically knows, I think that that movie was a good movie, but there’s questions about the accuracy of it, and that was because we were able to go on, you know, nowadays you can get on social media, you can go websites, you can put up videos, you can put up all this information even 15 years ago.

00:52:38:02 – 00:52:59:23
Brian Beckcom
You know, I have a degree in computer science. I’m a technically pretty competent. I was able to use that to get our news out there to get on Nightline, Dateline, London’s Daily Telegraph, you know, New York Times, when you looked up Captain Phillips The Movie to two lengths below, it would say the truth about Captain phillips.com. That would take you to my website.

00:52:59:23 – 00:53:23:06
Brian Beckcom
So that was really the the most difficult, part of the case. I mean, like proving what happened. That’s right. In my wheelhouse. I do that on a daily basis, proving what happened without letting Hollywood and all the publicity completely hijack the narrative. That was that was a little bit more challenging.

00:53:23:08 – 00:53:49:28
Dan LeFebvre
While the movie ends with a whirlwind of events, the Seal team arrives. They take over command and communication with the pirates, and immediately they confuse the Pirates by listing off all of their names and where they’re from. They go on to say that they’ve spoken to their tribal elders, and the elders are being flown in to negotiate and exchange Captain Phillips for the money, and while that happens, they need someone to go aboard Bainbridge to negotiate the deal with the elders, and they’re going to tow the lifeboat to the exchange spot.

00:53:50:01 – 00:54:12:20
Dan LeFebvre
Moussaoui agrees to do this. The tow line is attached and to attach the lifeboat, I should say. And then Musa goes to Bainbridge for the meeting with the elders. And that leaves the other three pirates with Captain Phillips on the boat. Meanwhile, the Navy ship turns on these really bright lights because I think it was like, oh, 400 so early in the morning, dark out, and they tell the pirates that’s just for towing them to the exchange spot.

00:54:12:20 – 00:54:30:04
Dan LeFebvre
But really what they’re doing is they’re getting the snipers into position. We see Phillips start fighting against his captors. They subdue him, tie him up, blindfold him, and then that moment that you talked about before, you see the three Navy Seals, just perfectly timed shot, you know, three shots to kill the remaining pirates at the exact same time.

00:54:30:07 – 00:54:50:28
Dan LeFebvre
And then back on Bainbridge. Moussaoui is taken into custody. There’s no elders, no negotiation. And then, as the only pirate left alive, he’s going to face trial for piracy in America. Captain Phillips returned safely in Bainbridge. And that’s where the movie ends as he’s getting medical treatment. How well does the movie do showing the way the whole situation came to an end.

00:54:51:00 – 00:55:24:12
Brian Beckcom
It does a decent job of that. I mean, the way Tom Hanks depicts Captain Phillips breaking down is all Tom Hanks. That is nothing at all like captain. I mean, that is Tom Hanks at his best. Okay, the Navy Seals would never allow Hollywood to show their trade secrets. So some of the stuff that they basically it was like a bait and switch is what’s depicted in the movie.

00:55:24:12 – 00:55:48:18
Brian Beckcom
We’re going to put the pirates are going to be looking this way, and we’re going to be doing stuff over here. They do that kind of stuff all the time. The actual operational details, are not same because again, there’s all sorts of different security issues involved in this. I mean, people probably don’t appreciate. I went on an inspection at Los Angeles Harbor two weeks ago.

00:55:48:18 – 00:56:13:06
Brian Beckcom
I brought a friend of mine, and she could not believe how dangerous we were on huge commercial cargo ship doing an inspection with 18 wheelers trains. It was raining. We have these cargos, you know, going over. I couldn’t believe how dangerous it was. What what people don’t realize is how every time one of these huge ship comes into a port, it’s like an enormous bomb.

00:56:13:06 – 00:56:42:03
Brian Beckcom
Like those things are so, tempting. These big commercial ships for bad actors that the security plans and the security protocols are, like, extra critical. And we don’t want people knowing about them publicly. So a lot of the stuff that the military does or that the companies do, they won’t talk about publicly, but she can talk about it on or on the edges.

00:56:42:03 – 00:57:10:14
Brian Beckcom
So, yes, the Navy Seals did a fantastic job. Yes, they ended up rescuing Captain Phillips. But the surgical nature of this depicted in the movie is nothing. Nothing like it actually happened. In the movie, there’s three shots, right? But they did a, they did a, naval investigation afterwards. And that there was at least 20 rounds fired.

00:57:10:16 – 00:57:30:28
Dan LeFebvre
A little more, a little not as a surgical precision as you know. Yes. As a VC in the movie. Yeah. No. Wow. Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat about the movie Captain Phillips. Aside from being a trial lawyer who represented some of the Maersk Alabama crew, after the events we see in the movie, you’ve got a fascinating podcast of your own called lessons from Leaders with Bryan Beckham.

00:57:31:00 – 00:57:40:27
Dan LeFebvre
Now, if you’re listening to this, check the show notes for a link to Brian’s podcast so you can cued up after we’re done here. And while they do that, and before I let you go, Brian, can you give us an overview of your podcast and where they can learn more about you?

00:57:41:00 – 00:58:07:05
Brian Beckcom
Yeah, lessons from later started and started in middle quarantine features. People that are positive leaders that maybe, a lot of people don’t know about, mainly military sports. That’s so New York Times bestselling authors, and it’s a focus on people that are doing really, really cool things that maybe not, maybe don’t get quite the publicity that they deserve.

00:58:07:05 – 00:58:26:20
Brian Beckcom
So, it’s a great show, and I think you’re you’re it kind of ties in a little bit with this. Like, you’re getting a true story of, like, leadership on the ground. So, you know, we have all these leaders on TV or so-called leaders on the we see all these all the time. But my theory is the real leaders, you don’t really hear much about them.

00:58:26:20 – 00:58:29:09
Brian Beckcom
And those are kind of people I try to feature on my show.

00:58:29:12 – 00:58:31:27
Dan LeFebvre
Fantastic. Well, thanks again so much for your time, Brian.

00:58:32:00 – 00:58:43:26
Brian Beckcom
Thank you. It’s been a it’s been a real, real joy. A lot of fun.

00:58:43:28 – 00:59:03:18
Dan LeFebvre
This episode of based On a True Story was produced by me, Dan the Fan. Thank you once again to Bryan Beckham for sharing his time and expertise to help us separate fact from fiction in the movie Captain Phillips. As you’ve seen from Brian today, he has a ton of knowledge that he’s happy to share, and beyond that, he’s also a podcaster who’s great at harnessing the knowledge of his guests.

00:59:03:23 – 00:59:20:17
Dan LeFebvre
So go subscribe to Brian’s podcast called lessons from leaders. I’ve got a link to that in the show notes as well as on the shows home on the web at based on a True Story podcast.com/380. Okay, now it’s time for the answer to our two tours and a live game from the beginning of the episode. And there’s a quick refresher.

00:59:20:19 – 00:59:45:08
Dan LeFebvre
Here are the two truths and one lie again. Number one, Maersk Alabama sailed within the range of known Somali pirates. Number two the $30,000 on Maersk Alabama was intended as ransom money. Number three, Captain Phillips tried to escape from the pirates at the first chance he got. Did you figure out which one is a lie? Got the answer right here in the envelope.

00:59:45:08 – 01:00:05:13
Dan LeFebvre
So let’s open that up. And the lie is number three. Brian, explain how the scene in the movie where we see Tom Hanks version of Captain Phillips jumping to the water, trying to escape from the pirates was completely fictional. Thank you so much for sticking around to the end. If you’re watching the video version here, in a moment, you’ll see the credits roll.

01:00:05:20 – 01:00:25:26
Dan LeFebvre
If you want to get your name in the credits for the next video and on the website at. Based on a True Story podcast.com/credits, you can learn how to become a based on a true story producer using the link in the description or at based on a true Story podcast.com/support. Once again, that’s based on a true story podcast.com/support.

01:00:25:28 – 01:00:31:18
Dan LeFebvre
Until next time. Thanks so much for spending your time with Brian and I today, and I’ll chat with you again really soon.