The 7th Voyage of Sinbad

 The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) directed by Nathan Juran, stars Kerwin Mathews as Sinbad, Kathryn Grant as Princess Parisa, and Torin Thatcher as Sokurah the Sorcerer. Don't forget Richard Eyer as the Genie. After watching the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and The Eye of the Tiger, I knew there was another old Sinbad movie I remembered watching as a kid. I knew there was one with a kid as a genie and a cyclops fighting a dragon - this was it.

Above is the picture of the genie and the princess inside his lamp. The sorcerer did an Alice in Wonderland number on her while she was sleeping, shrinking her to a few inches in height. Sinbad is especially bummed by deal as they were to be married the next day. Conveniently for Sokurah the sorcerer, he knows how to change Parisa back to normal size but he requires a piece of shell from a roc (mythical two-headed bird of the giant variety), which can only be found on the island of the cyclops--and where the magic lamp with the genie is. Sokurah wants the lamp more than a Klondike Bar and there are no ends to which he will not go to obtain it. 

Sinbad finally agrees to take him and Parisa to the island, after Sokurah produces a diagram for a huge crossbow with which to slay the cyclops. All does not go well. Some of Sinbad's sailors have close encounters of the cyclops kind and others get roc-ed to their detriment.

 

Although Parisa becomes restored from fun-size, Sokurah insists on having the lamp. Sinbad has already seen him refuse to help against the cyclops and the roc. The sorcerer responds with a fantasy favorite:

Fortunately, only the one bony swordsman shows for the party and Sinbad eventually defeats him. The princess tosses the lamp into the molten rock (creating the first lava lamp) to free the genie from his servitude, leaving them without supernatural aid for the rest of the escape.

Never fear, Sinbad's resourcefulness lets him loose Sokurah's captive dragon on the cyclops so he and the princess can escape.

The dragon prevails and Sokurah then sics the monster on Sinbad and the remaining sailors. Luckily for Sinbad, they have the huge crossbow Sokurah designed--or maybe it was someone else who designed it, I don't remember--and they load it up just in time for the dragon to come through the tunnel toward it. The shot is successful, and the monster manages to crush Sokurah in its collapse.

Cut to the ship, and the genie, now a regular boy, has become Sinbad's cabin boy. Back at Baghdad, Sinbad and Parisa marry.

That's the nutshell version. It's not bad. Kathryn Grant makes a great little princess. Note that she married Bing Crosby in 1957 and remained married to until his death in 1977. She passed away in 2024. Kerwin Mathews does a passable job as Sinbad, but he wasn't given much to work with. The real stars are the Harryhausen special effects in the form of cyclops, the snake woman, the rocs, the dragon, the skeleton, and probably something else I've forgotten. The tales follows the same format as the other two Sinbad movies. I should say they follow the format set by 7th Voyage, because it predates both of those other two--although, I suspect there's an even older movie tale that I haven't seen.

In ranking it against the other two, 7th Voyage comes in a close third, riding on the charm of Kathryn Grant and the special effects.

You may want to check out: Part III of Forging Unforgettable Stories - Compelling the Reader to Turn the Page.

 

 

Killing Napoleon

 It's a fun fact with a book review:

 December 24, 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul of France and victor of the Battle of Marengo, had decided not to go to the theater to hear Haydn's The Creation oratorio. He changed his mind under pressure from Josephine and her daughter Horsense. After all, it was expected that the Bonaparte's would attend the premiere. In addition to Napoleon's aide-de-camp, Jean Rapp, Ann-Charles Lebrun, General Jean Lannes, Caroline Murat, and General Bessieres accompanied the Bonaparte family. Napoleon left first with Lannes and Bessieres. Rapp attended to the ladies in a second coach, delaying it as he spent time adjusting Josephine's beautiful shawl from Constantinople for best effect. 

Napoleon's coach had already sped away for the theater before Rapp had completed the arranging of the shawl. A detachment of 12 mounted grenadiers of the Consular Guard preceded his coach. In the Rue Saint-Nicaise, one of the grenadiers noted a cart blocking half the street as well as a carriage coming through the gap. The grenadier pushed his horse between the cart and carriage. The mare on the cart was startled and recoiled, unbalancing a conspirator who was lighting the fuse of the infernal machine contained in the cart. The fuse did get lit, but the act was delayed by the unbalancing as well as the fact that another conspirator had failed to give a timely signal. 

The First Consul's coach, which had slowed, sped up to rush by the cart. The coach turned off to Rue Marceau at the moment the bomb blew. The explosion shattered windows, lifted the grenadiers from their seats, toppled chimneys, and damaged walls and roofs, wreaking havoc and carnage on the Paris street. The poor girl who had been paid a few coins to hold the mare may have been the first victim of the blast. Even the horse was utterly destroyed, leaving only a shod hindquarter near the scene.

Napoleon's coach tipped on two wheels and a window broke. Lannes tried to kick open the door, believing someone had fired a cannon at them.

The ladies' coach was approaching when the blast rocked the street. The coach was lifted from the ground and windows broke, wounding Hortense's hand.  The horses reared amid the cloud of noxious dust and ran back toward the Tuileries. After learning that Napoleon had escaped unharmed, they went to the opera by an alternative route.

The above is summarized from the accounts in a chapter of Jonathan North's Killing Napoleon: The Plot to Blow Up Bonaparte. The nonfiction book tells the tale of the conspirators, the plot, the method and means by which the explosive-laden cart came to the Rue Saint-Nicaise, the aftermath and damage from the blast, which killed many and injured many more on the busy street, as well as the measures taken to find and punish those responsible (including those who weren't). 

The book is highly readable--being well researched and well written--providing an understanding of events and the individuals involved. I enjoyed discovering the workings and the rivalries of the Paris Police agencies and the detective work required to track down and try at least some of those responsible. Although the confessions weren't entirely voluntary, they did seem to be supported by the facts uncovered in the investigation. The devastation of the terror event receives decent treatment as well, including notes about the injuries and charitable restitution provided for the unfortunate survivors.

I give it 5 out of 5 blasts.

We have to imagine that had the plot been successful, not only would 15 years of history have been dramatically changed, the target most certainly would have become forever associated with the manner of his death, often being referred to as: Napoleon Blownaparte. 

 

 

 

Golden Voyage vs Eye of the Tiger

 

If you're familiar with the films of the 70s, you know I'm talking about Sinbad. I watched these two films during my workout sessions over the last couple weeks.

 

 

 The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973), directed by Gordon Hessler, written by Brian Clemens and Ray Harryhausen, stars John Phillip Law as Sinbad, Caroline Munro as Margiana, and Tom Baker as Koura. This story has Sinbad take a scarred vizier who wears a metal mask on a journey to acquire three gold tablets to the Oracle of Knowledge and finally to a fountain where placing the tablets into the pool will give the placer certain benefits, including youth. Naturally, there's a fly in the ointment in the form of an evil sorcerer, Koura, who wants the benefits for himself.

 

 

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977), directed by Sam Wanamaker, written by Beverly Cross and Ray Harryhausen, stars Patrick Wayne as Sinbad, Jane Seymour as Farah, and Taryn Power as Dione. In this tale, Sinbad is tasked with taking the baboon who would be king to a remote island to pass him through a rainbow so that he can regain his human form. It's an evil sorceress, Zenobia (played by Margaret Whiting), in this one who attempts to thwart the hero so her own son can be king.

 

The two films are almost as much alike as are Rio Bravo, Eldorado, and Rio Lobo. It doesn't bother me that the films take a nearly identical formula and dress it up in slightly different ways. All that matters is whether the film is good. Both of these films are great. I watched them both on as a kid - probably on a Saturday afternoon when I had the good fortune to be left alone with time to watch whatever was on one of the three or four channels we got on TV.

Which movie do I prefer? Let's compare:

Leading Protagonists:  GV features John Phillip Law and Caroline Munro. He's a fine actor who exudes heroic determination in the role. She's a knockout with eyes that could melt a reactor core. Additionally, she has an eye tattooed on her hand. This Sinbad has a nice catch phrase, "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."

EOTT features Patrick Wayne and Jane Seymour. Wayne is great, but lacks something in comparison to Law's Sinbad. Seymour seems very young, but must've been about 25 or 26 at this time. Wayne has the swashbuckling down, coming across more as a fun-loving corsair than a serious adventurer. Although Seymour is beautiful, her eyes won't melt reactor cores. However, the film also benefits from the presence of Taryn Power as Dione, daughter of a wise man or magician who knows the way to San Jose or the island they need to go to. 

Powers (lower right) is also a beauty. She and Seymour help persuade the troglodyte (upper left) to help them find the magical place.

It's a close call, but I think the older film wins this factor by a thin margin. One point for GV.

What about the antagonists:

Tom Baker brings a malevolent presence to Koura. He uses imps to eaves drop

and gives life to sculptures and statues..  

He pays a price for his magic use in the form of aging. By the end, he is well aged and feeble.

Zenobia, of EOTT,

transforms herself with a potion to do her own dirty work, which at one point leads to her temporary capture.

She also has some difficulties when her potion runs short at changing back time. She also controls a metal minotaur man that propels her ship, spears men in the water, and removes heavy stone blocks - or block, actually.

Koura is the more formidable  of the sorcerers. He loses points for not doing the dirty work himself, but gains for being better at the wizard game and for bringing life and swords to the Kali figure, which was one of the most impressive feats of cinema I had ever seen as a kid.

Both antagonists use their heads at the end in a final effort to turn the scales in their favor, but, naturally, good must prevail. Again, the point goes to GV.

As far as supporting characters, specifically, the characters in need: GV has the vizier, or old metal head:

EOTT has Kasim, the prince turned into a baboon.

 Kasim is the more interesting of the two. He's a Harryhausen creation. He plays chess and progresses as the tale goes on, losing his humanity for savage characteristics. The point goes to EOTT.

The finale of each show features Harryhausen monsters battling each other as well as the heroes. The GV monsters represent good and evil while the EOTT creatures are the troglodyte featured above in the Taryn Powers picture, and Zenobia inhabiting a huge sabertooth tiger. Both were great fights, but I was irked that the GV Sinbad did nothing to help the griffin creature representing good in the battle against evil while allowing Koura to hamstring the griffin. The point narrowly goes to EOTT for the final battle.

 

Which film wins? Both are winners. It's a difficult decision, but I think Caroline Munro's eyes and, "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel," push GV a nose ahead of EOTT. Naturally, your mileage may vary. Both films are fun fare for kids and adults.

 

 

 

 

The Master of Ballantrae

  

 

The Master of Ballantrae (1953) is based on Robert Louis Stevenson's book of the same name. It's directed by William Keighley and stars Errol Flynn, Roger Livesey, and Anthony Steel. 

If you're not familiar with the summer of '45, when the young pretender did arrive and the defeat of the Jacobins in April of 1746 at Culloden Field, you might still enjoy this movie. Errol Flynn plays one of two Scottish brothers at the heart of this story. He elects to support Bonnie Prince Charlie, leaving his younger brother to side with the British so that whichever side prevailed, one of them would be on the winning side. The plot is complicated by the fact that Jamie (Flynn) is in love with or perhaps even engaged to Lady Allison (played by Beatrice Campbell) and yet also favors a comely serving wench, Jessie Brown (played by Yvonne Furneaux). When Jamie is on the run from the British, Jessie, angered by Jamie's willingness to cast her aside to marry Lady Allison, slips word to the British, allowing an ambush. 

Jamie escapes the ambush, but believes his brother Henry (Anthony Steel) let the cat out of the bag to the redcoats so that he could inherit the Ballantrae title and lands without any difficulties from his brother. Jamie returns to accuse him of the dirty deed and manages to get a misplaced piece of cutlery in his ribs. When Henry, believing he has accidentally slain Jamie, goes for help, Jamie goes or is taken away. Jamie ends up on a ship bound, not for France as he was told and for which passage he was paying, but for the Caribbean (or maybe it was the South Seas, I forget). 

Jamie and his Irish mercenary friend are impressed into service on the ship, but assist the pirates who capture the ship. They join the pirates who are led by Captain Arnaud (played by Jacques Berthier).

After taking the ship, they work together to take another pirate ship loaded with treasure. As you might expect, they have a falling out and Arnaud comes in second in the duel that follows. Naturally, Jamie heads back to Scotland with his friend of the smiling Irish Eyes--MacKellar (played by Mervyn Johns - I think).

He arrives back at the old homestead to discover his father and brother hosting a party attended by a plethora of redcoats. Jamie and MacKellar attend under false names so the British won't recognize them as wanted fugitives. However, when Jamie learns the party is also an engagement party for Lady Allison and Henry, he blows his own cover to fight his brother. They sword-up, but the wandering monster table rolls up a flurry of redcoats (what with them being present with the fight started and all) and it turns into a storm of swordplay betwixt the House of Ballantrae and the Brits. Jamie and MacKellar nearly escape, but are captured.

With the gibbet all in readiness to receive Jamie and MacKellar, Jessie confesses that she was the one who betrayed her lover to the enemy in a fit of jealousy, and Lady Allison reminds him of his family motto, which isn't "Keep looking up" but does involve something of that nature. Jessie aids in the escape and is killed. Jamie and MacKellar escape with Lady Allison, who always loved Jamie and was only marrying his brother as the next best copy when the original was lost.

There's a fair amount of swordplay and even a broadside or two from battling ships. The fights are good but the whole miscommunication and withholding of information between the brothers about the who betrayed Jamie to the redcoats jarred the scales of credibility. The acting and writing weren't terrible, but the story seemed rushed, as though key portions were being skipped to condense the tale to be told in under two hours. I enjoyed the costumes, swordplay, setting, and situation. I give it 3.5 berets out of 5.

___________________

I'm happy to report that I signed a contract for the publication of the sequel to Accidental Pirates - look for it in September (the best of all possible months).

I've also sent in another story featuring my three French cavalry officers and the mysteries of Egypt for consideration in an upcoming anthology, and I've completed a super short story for a more specialized contest. I've got higher hopes after reading it than I did before I wrote it--thanks in no small part to the reaction I received of one of my proofreaders. 

A third book in the Accidental Pirates series and another short story are the current works in progress.
 

  

 

Ford v. Ferrari

 Showing without telling:

When I was in grade school, we sometimes had show and tell. Somebody would have something cool to show, a new toy or a fossil or a new puppy, and they would show us the cool new thing and talk about it. Some of us never had anything cool to show, but we did have an experience to share. I'm reminded of the time I told the story about getting cow manure in my mouth but blew the ending when in my excitement I said "on my foot" instead of "in my mouth" and thus didn't get the response I was expecting. Anyway, it's a short and not-all-that-entertaining-tale, but I still remember the taste. My point, if I had one, was that now we're told over and over "Show. Don't tell."

I'm firmly committed to doing whichever one I want. No one is the boss of me. Seriously, I think it's better to show than tell, most of the time. However, if that show takes three chapters, three pages, or three paragraphs of boring details or otherwise uninteresting minutiae, just tell me; spare me the boredom. I say, "Show me the good stuff. Tell me the condensed version of the boring stuff, and then only if the story requires it." That was a longer explanation than I anticipated--and it was all telling with no show.

Let me tell you how Ford v. Ferrari showed rather than told. I watched the movie in short chunks over three different days. It's. Totally. Awesome. I've seen it a few times before and get angrier at the Ford VP of Obnoxious Nincompoopery who kept Ken Miles out of the first race and fraudulently stole the title from him in the final race. That's not my point. I do love the movie. At it's heart, it's a great tale of the relationship between Carrol Shelby and Ken Miles as they strive to win a Grand Prix title for Ford, in spite of everything Ford and his malevolent toady do to hinder them. 

There's a scene after Miles has been denied the chance to race in the Grand Prix after doing all the testing and providing the technical advance to perfect the car when Shelby comes to ask him to come back to the team and do it again. Miles takes the request poorly and they fight, with Miles dropping his bag of groceries. As viewers, we don't know how serious these two are in their attempt to hurt each other. However, it all becomes clear when Shelby is on the ground with Miles on his back; Shelby grabs a stray can of food with which to strike Miles in the head, but drops it when he realizes the kind of damage it could do and instead begins walloping Miles with a bag of bread. It was brilliant. That one small act demonstrated the relationship and the terms of the fight. It was showing, not telling. It didn't take a long explanation (like the description I just gave) or require the viewer to interpret motivations based on the intersectionality and relative victimhood of the characters. It was straight forward and subtle. The detail could easily have been missed. Masterful.

If you haven't seen the 2019 movie directed by James Mangold, I insist that you do so at your earliest convenience. It's on Prime.

If you're interested in more bloviating about writing, check out: 

Part II of my substack post on Forging Unforgettable Stories 

 

The Trauma The Drama and The Dream

 I'm trying something different today.

Today's post can be found on my substack. Check it out.

 

Justice Resurgent

  

I don't know why this book came to mind today. Maybe I've still got the Five Card Stud movie on my mind. I know the theme song comes into my head a couple times per day. Whatever the reason, I opened Justice Resurgent, the sequel to Justice in Season, and reviewed the first chapter. The excerpts below don't do the chapter justice (no pun intended) but I think they do provide a peek at the initial trauma set up for my Trama, Drama, and Dream theory/system for creating memorable stories. Sheriff Upton has gathered a posse to make a surprise visit to our hero, McBride, and the other members of the vigilance committee. Harmony Rivers has discovered the corrupt sheriff's plan and needs to warn McBride.

 Excerpts from Justice Resurgent, Chapter One:

Harmony Rivers, from behind the open door of her balcony overlooking the street, watched them ride out. Although she would not be performing until the evening, she had pulled her red tresses back and had placed a cap with a white feather on her head. Her matching dress of blue and white failed to conceal the figure that sparked fires of desire in the hearts of men. She hurried from her room to the top of the stairs. She looked over the saloon, searching for the right man to carry out the mission she had in mind. Most of The tables were vacant. The men at the bar didn’t seem to have the qualities that she sought—those qualities being pliant yet dependable. Quickly, she decided to place her bet at a table where three officers from the Boise Barracks...

Howard, a local freighter, leaned forward, a shock of brown hair dropping to the edge of his left eye. “I can understand why the Sheriff has his ire up. McBride has ruined several of his enterprises by what I hear. I know for a fact that the sheriff lost some kind of bet with McBride in that horserace that killed Fool’s Gold.” 

“Lost the sheriff a tavern and a carriage is the way I heard it,” put in Jones, the other civilian. Jones, who ran the sutler’s store at the end of Main Street, held a mug of beer in a hand that lacked a ring finger from the first knuckle up. 

Harmony clasped her hands together. “Yes, yes. That’s all true. What are you men going to do about it?” 

...

"Where could we find such a courageous man?” The emphasis of those last two words reached out like an inviting hand. Howard brushed back the shock of hair from beside his eye and he lost himself for a moment in the look of silent supplication Harmony cast his way. “I’ll take that horse, Mr. Quartermaster. Take me to your stable.” 

...

“I guess you could say that.” Howard took the cup of coffee and warmed both hands against the sides of the tin cup. “The sheriff has a bundle of warrants for all of the vigilante committee. He aims to take you all in your beds tonight and figures at least one of you will be killed while resisting.” 

With this last statement he cast a glance at McBride through the lock of hair over his eye. 

“Meaning me, I suppose.” 

“I suppose,” Howard nodded. 

________________

I really like this opening chapter. The trauma, the conflict, and the tension are put in motion. We see (even if we haven't read the first book) that Upton and McBride are going to be at odds in the story. We see that Harmony is an ally persuasive enough to get a man with no dog in the fight to do her bidding to help McBride. The two forces are set in motion like trains heading toward each other on the same track. Will the sheriff take McBride or the other vigilantes, or will McBride be able to stymie the sheriff's nefarious scheme?

Naturally, the drama plays out with lots of adhesive tension and the stakes continue to rise up until the thrilling conclusion punctuated in blood and bullets. There's a reason that this book has more reviews than any other novel I've written. There are plenty of skirmishes leading up the the final showdown, so it's NOT a slow burn story. Detective work, romance, and gun play all combine to escalate and intensify the conflict. 

The characters are memorable; we know on which side of the good versus evil equation they fall. The hats aren't black and white, but the moral character is. I'll have to use them to illustrate my theories on crafting characters in another post.