James DiEugenio

Remember, the whole book includes the CD. Which is about another thousand pages. One of the really bad experiences of my life.

LOL 😀 His book on JFK is an argument made through length and insult. The shocking thing about it is how little there was that was new in it. Considering he had a million dollar budget and two assistant writers and took like 15 years to write it. BTW, I am working on my review of O'Neill's book, Chaos, right now. And I previewed that review for Len Osanic on BOR which will be on tomorrow night.

But do not forget how Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign. At the Neshoba County Fair, in Mississippi. Seven miles from the site where Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman's bodies were found. (https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/44535) It was never any secret about Reagan. The guy was an actor, he knew how to put up a front.

I imagine that is probably the main reason. But your essay is sure educating people stateside.

This is now the number two article at K and K.

Ron: If you chained me to a pole and started whipping me, after a few lashes I would have to agree. BTW, in that picture Dave linked to, God the make up job they did on DeNiro. They made him look 20 years younger.

(BTW, David's comments above fit in with what I am about to say.) In my review of Spielberg's The Post, I praised his direction of the film with specific examples. You will not see me do that with QT. Spielberg could take this guy to school in that regard. I was also clear about my problems with The Post, in script and dramatic license. That is not my beef with OUATIH. When Dwight MacDonald--in my view one of the four best American film critics who ever wrote--signed off on his career, it was with his long review of Morgan! Some think it drove him into retirement. He began that review quite pointedly. He said if the film was a comedy, he forgot to laugh. If it was supposed to be a drama or wring pathos, he was unmoved. If it was a satire, Reisz failed again, since satire had to have a point. He then said, the film's defenders will reply that he was doing all three and molding it into a fantasy--I mean, my God Dwight, you aren't really taking this seriously are you? He then compared what people who liked the film were doing to what the European members of the in crowd did in the 18th century; they visited sanitariums to be cool. And that was the problem with the film, people thought it was cool to like this mess of a movie--which he then tore apart on every level. Exposing the likes of Bosley Crowther as poseurs. Ok, say its a fantasy. So is Beatty's Heaven Can Wait. But that film was funny and had qualities of pathos and sentimental charm to it. This has none of that. QT is above that, right, since he is post modern. And therefore, a la Susan Sontag, there are no rules. Therefore Brad Pitt can take a girl from the Manson gang and ram her face into the top of a fireplace three times as we watch in bloody and bloodier and bloodiest close up as her face gets cracked in more and more and more. Pretty artistic right? Eisenstein's Potemkin? Maybe David will say that later he realized that is what the audience wanted to see . No. Its what QT wanted to depict since he has no artistic sensibility or aesthetic imagination. The success of this guy, along with Jordan Peele, is really an indication of how bad Hollywood has become. I thought I could not see anything worse than Us. Then I saw this. I mean on the one hand you have the Marvel takeover, then these guys are the alternative? Ouch. Spielberg is beginning to look like Kubrick in his heyday against that backdrop.

Where is the Russ Baker column on this? Andrew talks about it but there is no link to it.

Late sixties Hollywood was shattered by the Tate/LaBianca murders? That era was wrecked by the destruction of the studio system. And the growing might of the independent producers who stepped into the breach e.g. Jospeh E. Levine. (I am just waiting for David to now say, "Well Jim, they did play Mrs Robinson from The Graduate at the beginning, and Levine produced that film. So there!") Wayne Maunder, James Stacy? Does anyone really give a GD about these guys today? I mean besides Tarantino? How about a film about Richard Speck built around Charles Napier? An Asian American member of the Family. That really takes the cake, And what about that little girl that DiCaprio/Reynolds talks to before his western scene. What the heck was that about? QT later said she was based on Meryl Streep? When did Streep ever play in that era of TV? She debuted on TV when she was 27. And this is the problem I have with this guy. Its the same one the late, great Dwight MacDonald had when he announced he was quitting film criticism. In reviewing the successful film Morgan! he said that the problem with that fantasy comedy/drama was one of point of view. Just what was Reisz trying to say, and how was he saying it? He compared people going to the film with 18th century Europeans visiting an insane asylum for their amusement. That is the way I feel about this guy. He turns the Third Reich into a comic book, slavery into a spaghetti western, and now Tate/LaBianca into a fantasy about Reynolds and Needham. And people try and bail him out by saying, oh it is really about the end of the Hollywood studio system. Oh please. Stop making excuses for this guy. He is the worst excuse for a real director since David Lynch. And the worst thing about that is the sorry and corrupt state of film criticism allows Lynch's pretentious pastiche, Mulholland Drive, to be called the best film of the new millenium. Which shows you that Dwight MacDonald is dead and buried. And the closest thing we had to him, Stanley Kauffmann, is also gone. And there is no point in quoting Ebert. He is also dead, they are just keeping up his site.

Dave: I appreciate the humor, but no I did not know the ending going in, as there was a debate about that. And I did not see the trailer. And although the Bounty Killer does resemble Wanted Dead or Alive, there is no doubt the character is modeled on Reynolds. I mean just look at the Spaghetti Western poster in the film, and how he actually used the director of the spaghetti western Reynolds made, Sergio Corbucci, in the film. I guess we have a disagreement about the value of Tarantino and his treatment of serious subjects. I think its better no one deals with these matters than films like this.

Tarantino said that his film really deals with changes going on in the film business and America at the time. What a pile of BS that is. Tarantino has about as much interest in those subjects as I have in the science of astrophysics. The guy is quite simply ahistorical and anti intellectual. Its true his film is not about what happened those two nights, or with the Family. In fact, it even makes up stuff in that regard. For instance, it was not Tate who talked to Manson at her door when he went there after Melcher moved out. The truth is the film is not really about anything. Except maybe people driving around Los Angeles. I mean, the time he takes filming those scenes is ridiculous. When Godard did that in Breathless, there was a point to it. There is no point to it here except Tarantino likes filming those scenes--I mean we all know what he did with Uma Thurman on that score. But the worst part of the film is it is so shallow in its characterizations. No actor can be good because there isn't anything for him to be good about. Except maybe Reynolds' frustration with his career. Therefore, if anyone wanted to see a movie about Reynolds and Needham on their tough way up in Hollywood, then just get the DVD and edit out all the Family stuff. I would have rather watched a documentary about that.

Lansdale did not tell him about the assignment that week, it was prior to that. But the assignment itself was real. Its been documented with pictures.

How does it succeed on its own terms David? I mean in what terms is an "Asian" member of the Family screaming homicidally in Burt Reynolds' pool with a knife in her hand dispersing blood all over the water, only to be literally extinguished by Reynolds bringing out a flame thrower and torching her? How is that "successful"? Were people waiting for that? I sure as heck was not. Neither was the person I went with. Not one person applauded after the film was over. In fact, they largely dispersed very quickly. (Maybe this was an adjunct to Pitt throwing Lee, since people wants Asians to get their comeuppance? If so I think the audience missed it.) BTW, in case you don't know, DiCaprio is modeled on Burt Reynolds and Pitt is modeled on his pal Hal Needham, who Tarantino once gave an award to. BTW, Needham was one of the worst film directors to ever take the helm. If you see this film, you will understand why Tarantino still belongs at that video store down in Manhattan Beach where Jane Hamsher discovered him.

John Barbour was actually being kind. This film shows just how bankrupt Tarantino's imagination is in every way: visually, dramatically, and storywise. That scene he describes with Pitt at Spahn Ranch was so overdirected, it reminded me of Psycho and the build up to Balsam's slaughter. Except all Pitt does is go into Spahn's bedroom and talk to him. What happened afterward is even dumber. This was the wrong film at the right time.

I saw "Once upon a time in Hollywood Tonight". Yech. I will be reviewing this rubbish along with Tom's book.

I really wish he had given me that part of the book to proofread. Because obviously, someone at Little Brown dropped the ball. He's got Hale Boggs testifying to the HSCA, the guy died before it was formed. Blakey did not write his book "years" later. He wrote it less than two years after the HSCA dissolved. The stuff about West was pretty interesting though. But Tom admitted he could not get him connected to the Family, let alone Manson.

It worked.

Just for the record, on the 23rd, the DPD was still writing reports saying Oswald was arrested in the balcony. (Harvey and Lee, p. 871)

david: I assume you finished the book. I am about 3/4 done. I agree with you. I was surprised that Tom was apparently unacquainted with the RFK case. Especially because of the path he chose to follow near the end. Also, because he was in Los Angeles for the last 15-20 years. To him, the fact that police departments cooperated and had ties to CIA was something he discovered. In fact Turner and Christian were specific about this back in 1978 in regards to the RFK case. I also agree about his lack of insight into the whole MK Ultra thing with Sirhan. I wish he had confided in me more as I could have informed him about those matters.

Rob's article is now number three at Kennedys and King. I fully expect it to go to number one. Willan has now taken notice of it. I hope he gets interviews with both Genser and Willan for us. Utterly fascinating subject. I like what he exposed about Aginter Press. Very few people know that Kennedy did everything he could to free Angola and Mozambique from Portugal. When they refused, he sent aid to the rebels. Therefore it was not just the OAS who were after him.

He told me this in a phone conversation. John lives in Hawaii.

He told me this in a phone conversation.

Not the same person Paul.

I am about halfway through O'Neil's book, Chaos. Its really two books. The first is his take on what he thinks happened. The second is his assault on Bugliosi. So far, he is much more effective on the latter than the former. In fact, I will go this far: Bugliosi should have been disbarred for what he did in that case. Off his pitiful work on JFK I went back and reviewed Tate/LaBianca. After my review, I suspected some unethical behavior and some attempt to pollute the jury pool. But since Tom spent so much more time on this, he takes it the final mile in that regard. The book is so convincing in that regard that, to people like Von Pein, who tried to form a fan club around this guy, and Dale Myers, who worked with him, they should be ashamed of themselves for falling for him without doing due diligence. To use one example, there is little or no doubt now that Melcher was more involved with the Family than he testified to. Bugliosi was aware of this, and in a secret deal, he agreed to cover it up. IMO, this is why Candy Bergen has never said anything about this subject. And believe me, that is not all. Not by a long shot. Bugliosi was very worried with what Tom was uncovering about what he really did. In that regard, it is fortunate that VB has passed on. I will be doing a combo review of this book with Once Upon a Time In Hollywood at K and K.

God is that interesting. Thanks.