The cavalry moving into position.

If you don’t know what schadenfreude is, you are going to become very familiar with it in the next few minutes. The people of Hazlet love this term, because only when we experience this is something exciting and noteworthy going on in this lovely, vanilla-flavored town. I just love that the Germans gave us this word and did not allow us to Americanize it like we usually do with our butchery of spoken language, because this word flows quite easily off the tongue and is highly apropos. The best definition of this word would be when people take pleasure in the misfortune of others, and I would like to expand that to actually having fun at their expense. Last night, many people were experiencing schadenfreude, when a man took a shotgun and held his wife hostage at their home in the West Keansburg section of Hazlet. Social media immediately blew up with excitement. People were just going bananas over the fact that S.W.A.T teams were called in, and men in camouflage were climbing up peoples’ houses and onto rooftops with sniper rifles so they could have a better glimpse at the perpetrator of justice. People were anxiously awaiting to hear gunshots, which would serve to cap off the night and be the icing on the cake.

But just remember, this is Hazlet, and something that fun would not be in the cards. Just like TV news networks have a fascination with tragedy, so does the average person. Hours later, when the man allegedly surrendered, with no shots fired, mind you, there were not so many statuses and “Tweets” of excitement saying how wonderful it was that everyone emerged unscathed. In fact, there was almost an ignorance of the situation. It just kind of disappeared, and then people resumed their daily lives. I’ll admit, I was one of those people who sunk into their chairs when it was “over”. I was probably a little disappointed to learn that no shots were fired, and that there was no dramatic Hollywood rescue. Nor was their a laser-sniped shot through the window to save the damsel in distress. It just ended. If this was any other town, we probably would have had the modern-day incarnation of the Gunfight at the O.K Corral.

This calls to mind another instance of schadenfreude, from about five or six years ago. This one involved a death, though, so I don’t really like to poke fun at it. Then again, it was a suicide, so the gentleman did get what he wanted after all. Now this truly was a change of pace for Hazlet because it was quite complex and ghastly. For a town like ours, you would probably assume the man hanged himself, popped some pills, or maybe even blew his brains out. Wrong! He actually came up with one of the most intriguing ways to commit suicide I have ever heard of in my life. I suppose the idea was good in theory, but the execution (pardon the pun) was just a little off. I guess, in his thinking, he wanted to strangle himself in a creative way, so rather than just tie a rope around his neck, climb up onto a chair, and tie the other end around a ceiling beam and jump into oblivion, he decided he was going to tie the other end around a tree, get in his car, and slam on the gas pedal.

While he succeeded in killing himself, it went just a little beyond strangulation, as the speed he drove at caused his head to pop off and land several feet away from the car. I was in high school at the time, and I remember it was cause for a good amount of conversation. Normally, this type of situation might start some dialogue about suicide and how to recognize and prevent the symptoms of depression. But, because this was Hazlet, the conversation was more like, “Hey guys, guess what they found behind the movie theater! A severed head! Blood all over the place! It was amazing!” Only in Hazlet. Only in this boring town.

Costume designers are extremely underrated members of any film production crew, because more often than not, we do not realize exactly how much work goes into fitting hundreds of cast-members, even though we find ourselves staring right at them on the screen. For a history-related film more than any other, it is of the utmost importance that the clothing the characters are wearing is correct, especially with a director at the helm who is known to go for an authenticity down to the buttons on a coat or shirt. While many of the background extras were members of the living history settlement where Copperhead was filmed, all of their clothing was not dated to the Civil War time period, as they portray 1800′s Canadian townspeople and farmers, not upstate New Yorkers from the 1860′s. Thus the tedious journey began, to not only design uniforms for the various soldiers who come in and out of the film (and whose uniforms are well-documented), but to come up with accurate renditions of the clothing “normal” people of the time would wear. The immense task of fitting the cast of Copperhead fell to Kate Rose, who has eighteen other titles of work to her name, spanning both film and television. Having seen the film already, I would like to comment that she did an outstanding job. It may be ironic, but sometimes it takes a person to not even notice the costumes to realize how great a job the designer did. What I mean is, because everything looked so real, both clothing and scenery wise, sometimes it is easy to forget we are watching a movie, and only when we step back do we say, “Wow”.  Simple but elegant would be the proper way to describe her work. I had the chance to interview Kate by email. Our conversation is below:

Costume designer Kate Rose.

GC: How did you first get involved with the Copperhead production?

KR: I became involved with the Copperhead production the old fashioned way. I interviewed for the job! I knew Ron Maxwell only by cinematic reputation before that interview.

GC: Describe what you went through in order to get the costumes made accurately.

KR: During a period build, there is always a great deal of research. I have a small private library of costume reference books and , of course, the resources of the world wide web. Research involved not only silhouette and palette but also historically correct options for fabrics,trims, notions, undergarments and footwear. I sourced most of my fabrics in Montreal and Toronto and had hats and shoes made locally by excellent and knowledgeable craftspeople. Because I was invited on the initial location scout to Kings Landing I saw the set before I had to make costume choices which was most helpful.

GC: What was the hardest part of the costume design?

KR: The biggest challenge with the design was to keep it honest and simple. These characters are rural northerners who worked for a living. I wanted the garments to look like their clothes, not costumes.

GC: Take us through your typical day during the production.

KR: A typical day begins an hour before main crew call at base camp to ensure that all is well before the cast travels to set. Traveling back and forth between base camp and set is required to establish new costume pieces and prepare for the coming day’s scenes. Fittings for the day players are scheduled throughout the day. Adjustments are made on chosen pieces and photos of each costume are sent to Ron for approval. Once approved, the costumes must be altered and “broken down” or distressed to avoid looking newly constructed. As well, principal costume builds  continued throughout production. Repairs, changes, shifts in schedule and completely unforeseen happenings occurred on a daily basis. The days were long and very busy for my department. I was extremely fortunate to have an amazing team working with me!

GC: Did you have an interest in the Civil War or American history prior to your involvement?

KR: Ironically, I did my MFA south of the Mason-Dixon line at Ole Miss. I spent three years in Oxford, Mississippi experiencing the American South first hand, so this was naturally a subject of great interest to me.

I would like to thank Kate for taking the time to conduct this interview! She was also kind enough to share some more of the original design sketches of her work. Please enjoy!

The first actor I interviewed involved with Copperhead was Josh Cruddas, which happened right after filming began. We just went for the basics and he promised me another interview once filming ended, to give a better picture of his overall experience. Since I am lucky enough to have already seen the movie, I can say that Josh does a wonderful job in the role of Jimmy, who is kind of like the main character, Abner Beech’s, adopted son. Copperhead begins with Josh reciting the opening narration, setting the stage for the story to come—some of that narration can be heard in the voice-over on the trailer. As good of an actor as Josh is though, he is an even better person. We have remained in touch all this time, and I am proud to know such an aspiring young actor, who has such a bright future ahead of him. Though he has acted before, hopefully this will serve as his “big break”. At the end of our interview, Josh added, “All in all, playing Jimmy in Copperhead was a life-changing adventure for me, and I’ve made many new friends while creating a film that I believe will be something special. I need to thank Ron for giving me the chance to be in a picture like this, and I’m so grateful for the support I’ve received from everyone involved in the production and from folks back home and around the world. I feel very blessed.” Below is our full interview. Enjoy!

GC: What were your overall experiences like in working on this film? And for director Ronald Maxwell?

JC: It’s pretty hard to capture all of my thoughts about this question in a single answer, but I’ll try! I would have to say that doing Copperhead was one of the most amazing experiences I’ve had in my young life. Working with Ron was simply an honor and a treat, and working and playing with my fellow actors was absolutely wonderful. Ron is an actor’s director, which is fantastic, but he also doesn’t sacrifice looking at the bigger picture when making a film, which I think is such an incredible gift – to be able to balance things like that. Also, when we were on set, everyone (actors, crew) was on their A-game at all time, and it inspired me, I think, to become a better actor just from watching everyone else work. Of course, when we weren’t working, it was just as great because we all bonded closely and quickly and had lots of fun around Fredericton!

GC: What was the most difficult part of filming? Were there any funny moments behind-the-scenes?

JC: The most difficult part? Being done and having to leave the set! Otherwise. As an actor, I guess I would have to say that it’s sometimes difficult getting to a place of deep sadness or loss in a scene because you’re doing something you absolutely love for a living. However, that’s part of my job, and perhaps because I was on an amazing set, I think I was inspired more to dig deeper and get to that level of emotion when I was surrounded by brilliant actors who made it look easy. For example, on our first day of shooting, Lucy Boynton and I had a scene in which she had to be quite emotional, and I had to remain steady. As it’s a big scene for our first day, I remember being pretty nervous and couldn’t imagine what Lucy must’ve been feeling. However, she did what she had to do brilliantly, and it was then that I realized how lucky I was to be working with these folks and how I had to make sure my level of work was up to par. I hope it was! In terms of funny moments, I think I could point to pretty well every day and find something pretty hilarious. However, most might only be funny to those who were there, but there’s one instance I can definitely remember. It was the end of the day in early June when we were just about to go home when I was told by a couple of our great production assistants (in worried tones) that Ron wanted to speak with me in his trailer – and it was urgent. After racking my brains for a few seconds, wondering if I had done anything terribly wrong, I gingerly knocked on the door, only to be greeted by shouts of “Happy birthday!!” and some inspired singing. Members of the cast, crew and production team had all crammed themselves into Ron’s trailer and, along with a couple of cakes, surprised me on my birthday with a celebration! It was something I’ll never forget.

GC: Do you have a favorite scene?

JC: Another tough question! I think in terms of having the most fun, the opening shot of the movie was a blast to shoot; it was simply the guys of Copperhead, including Augustus (Prew), Francois (Arnaud) and I, walking down a long hill joking around with each other. Also, there’s a scene in which the young characters take part in a barn dance, together with dozens of extras. This scene was simply a joy to make; all of us were having the time of our lives, cheered on by the amazing background performers who lined the walls of the intricately dressed barn. Being a big brother myself, I always enjoyed entertaining the little kids (who were background performers) between takes in scenes like that – a happy set was always much more fun to work on! As an actor, I loved the “two-hander” (two-person) scenes that I was able to be a part of. Billy (Campbell) and I have one which is quite emotional, and, looking back, I must just say how lucky I was to be able to do it. When you have two actors giving their all, surrounded by a brilliant director, cinematographer and crew, there’s a crazy kind of magic in the scene and it’s palpable. Definitely one of those incredible moments in an actor’s life.

GC: I just have to ask about that Facebook status you posted a while back bout playing Foosball against Angus Macfadyen. How did that work out?

JC: Oh yes, that time…Well, most of the cast decided to go out to eat to celebrate the end of a long week, and we ended up at a restaurant which had a foosball table in the back corner. I, foolishly, asked Angus Macfadyen if he wanted to play a game, as we were both soccer fans and I had a feeling I could at least challenge him a bit. He obviously accepted, and proceeded to beat me in two straight games. I wish I could say the matches were close, but after I scored a couple of goals in the first game, he decided that was enough, and proceeded to shut me out afterwards, if I remember correctly. Another time, after a cast barbeque at the river’s edge, he, Billy, Hugh Thompson and I were kicking around a soccer ball, and the two of us tried to see who could “juggle” the ball the longest without letting it hit the ground. I’m pretty sure he won that little contest too! I had a lot of fun working with Angus, as I did with everyone!

 I would like to thank Josh very much for taking the time to conduct this interview! I also wish him the best of luck in his future ventures!

Dissent: often scorned, sometimes praised, always misunderstood. The American Civil War is sometimes called the Second American Revolution or the Second War of Independence, yet the American Revolution is never referred to as our country’s first Civil War. And why not? One could argue that the situations are exactly the same. In both cases, a percentage of the population wanted to remove themselves from a ruler they perceived as tyrannical. Don’t think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant? Well, there were plenty of people that didn’t think King George III was either.

One of those people was William Franklin, who served New Jersey as Royal Governor from 1763 until 1776, the last two years of his tenure carried out while he was living at the Proprietary House in Perth Amboy. He was the son of Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s most well-known “Founding Fathers” yet aside from the ardent and well-read of history buffs, not many people have heard of him. People are equally surprised to find that Benjamin even had a son at all. This son, an illegitimate child who he and his wife Deborah raised as their own, was the boy present during Benjamin’s famous experiment with electricity, when he allegedly flew a kite with a key tied to it during a thunderstorm. Paintings depicting this event most often show a young boy with the old scientist. That boy was William. Aside from this famous event, though, William seems to have been largely forgotten.

But the character of William is too fascinating to ignore, and not just because his relationship with his father can serve as an iconic microcosm of the American Revolution. Studying the character of William allows us to gain insight into the “unpopular” point of view. It is very easy for us today to judge history in hindsight, and on those who lived it, choosing sides based on what we think is right or wrong by our current standards. It causes people to grow extremely uptight when historians speak anything less than critical of the losing side, be it the Loyalists of the Revolution or the Confederates of the Civil War. Yet such an “all or nothing” approach denies the complexity of motivations that animated our ancestors and misses the lessons history has to teach. We can learn so much more by digging deeper and examining both sides of the story, and remember that we are all human—that we have all made mistakes. William’s “mistake”, for example, cost him nearly everything except his life.

As we all know, Benjamin Franklin was one of the fiercest American “patriots”—though that term is relative, as the Loyalists would have considered themselves just as patriotic to their country and cause. Franklin started out a loyal subject, aspiring to being regarded as a gentleman in the English and European tradition. When the desire was rebuffed by “true” English gentry, his attitudes began to shift towards embracing an “American” identity. This left him in a rather precarious situation, given how his own son was a Royal Governor and loyal to the same King George III that most colonists loathed. He tried to persuade his son, a very popular governor even amongst the growing turmoil and souring of relations, to join him in the American cause. But William would not have any of it. The man who had given his life of service to the crown, and a man who had accomplished much for the colony of New Jersey, by way of educational and agricultural improvements and some of the nation’s first arguably humane Indian reservations, was going to stay loyal to his King, and there was nothing his father could say or do to change his mind.

It is said that in late 1775 or early 1776, Benjamin visited his son at the Proprietary House one last time. They debated over the course of several nights, likely by the fireplace in the drawing room. Both men were stubborn, opinionated, and passionate in their own right, and neither would allow his mind to be changed. Benjamin stormed out of the house following an argument, and father and son would never reconcile, though they did meet one more time. As the summer of that same year came around, and one-by-one the other Royal Governors in the colonies became deposed, William remained one of only two loyalists left holding office, the other being William Tryon of New York. The Provincial Congress of New Jersey decided that Franklin too needed to go. He was first placed under house arrest in the spring of 1776, with orders to not conduct any governmental business. When he defiantly continued on with politics—including a secret negotiation with agents of the Crown to sign a truce to remove New Jersey from the war—they then wanted something more severe. They gave orders to militia colonel Nathanial Heard from Woodbridge, to either coerce Franklin into unlikely changing sides, or to remove him from the office of governor and his mansion home. The orders were also explicit, however, in that he was to be treated with respect.

When Heard arrived at Franklin’s mansion, the Royal Governor was insulted that someone with so low of a rank was chosen for the assignment. Franklin, therefore, refused to cooperate. When Heard reported to the Provincial Congress, he was then given orders to return, this time with a militia and to force Franklin out of the house and place him under arrest. That day would come on June 19, 1776. He was allowed the courtesy of addressing a gathering crowd, which was proof that he was still a respected gentleman, even as a loyalist. Arrested, Franklin would be taken prisoner to Burlington, where he would fall ill and lose most of his hair and teeth. He would later be released in a prisoner exchange, following which he proceeded to New York to rally the loyalist cause there. He eventually exiled himself to England, where he would remain until his death in 1814.

Father and son would meet only one more time in England, shortly before Benjamin’s death following the Revolution. The two talked but were unable to reconcile, the passions and disagreements between them running deep. In Benjamin’s last will and testament, he referenced his son only once, in the second paragraph, “To my son, William Franklin, late Governor of the Jerseys, I give and devise all the lands I hold or have a right to, in the province of Nova Scotia, to hold to him, his heirs, and assigns forever. I also give to him all my books and papers, which he has in his possession, and all debts standing against him on my account books, willing that no payment for, nor restitution of, the same be required of him, by my executors. The part he acted against me in the late war, which is of public notoriety, will account for my leaving him no more of an estate he endeavored to deprive me of.”

It is because of a single yet important decision—to remain loyal—that William, despite all of his accomplishments, has been largely forgotten by history, while his father is glorified in monuments and namesakes all over the country. You will not read of him in textbooks, and even information on the internet is scarce. When I talk about the Proprietary House with people, and introduce them to the many characters who walked the halls over the centuries, I do not even start out by saying it was, “William Franklin’s former mansion”. Instead, I have to call the house, “Benjamin Franklin’s son William’s former mansion,” just so people know who I am talking about. All of this is the price he paid for his dissent.

Imagine for a moment the possible outcome of William choosing instead to agree with his father and rebel against the crown, rather than follow his own instincts to stay loyal. Imagine how revered he would be, right alongside his father. Imagine the monuments constructed and endless number of books that could have been written about him. How might a different choice have influenced the political landscape of the early Republic? Had he remained in government, perhaps that revered Franklin name might have even taken him as far as the presidency. There are so many stories, just like William’s, which result in a myriad of what-if scenarios balanced on a single decision. On the other hand, had the British put down our rebellion, William would have most likely been re-installed as governor and over time—even if we gained our independence through peaceful means as other former-British colonies have done—maybe his story would not be shunned. After all, if the Revolution was not a success, the textbooks would likely note how insane the colonists were in thinking they could rebel against the mighty King. Our heroes would then be the ones regarded with the same disdain reserved for the “losers” with which we often regard the British. One nation’s heroes are often another’s despised enemies. Had it all turned out differently, William’s future might have included martyrdom

This is, of course, just a brief treatment of William’s story. While he may have been reviled by some during the Revolution, and even by his own father, however, today, at the Proprietary House, he is our folk hero. It may be one of the only places you will hear of a British figure during the War of Independence spoken about in a positive light. We embrace his legacy in all its messy complexity because that is what history is: the facts, not mere convenience.

Please visit the new official website of the Proprietary House Museum, where I serve as 1st Vice President, by clicking here.

Due to reasons beyond my control, I have not been able to be active with postings on the official Copperhead website, nor have I been able to share the few interviews with cast and crew members that I have gathered over the last few weeks. However, I still want to do my part in helping to get Copperhead into as many theaters as possible. Though the cast and storyline is stellar, we must remember that this film is still an “Indie” and it will take a grassroots effort to expand the viewership to markets not just near Civil War battlefields on the east coast. There is a very cool feature available through the main website called “Demand this Movie”, where fans can literally enter in their zip code to demand that this film comes to a theater in their area. I believe that this is the future of film distribution, and you can take part in this exciting movement by clicking here and helping to get this movie to a theater near you! Copperhead is currently doing very well with demands in New York and Los Angeles, but there are many cities in between that need to see this movie! Thank you for your help.

As we all know, the production company for the still-in-limbo To Appomattox miniseries project, Sony, has recently severed ties with them after years of holding the rights got absolutely nowhere. There are a good number of people following this massive Civil War project who feel they are being misled by the people in charge, but after speaking to a source close to the situation, the individual was very clear that peoples’ anger should be directed at the company who “held them hostage”, not the other way around. This was not a deflection of my questions, but a rather comprehensive explanation of all that has been going on over the last five years, and I believe it to be true—if I didn’t, I would not be writing this. It was a lot to digest, but I am of the opinion that the producers of To Appomattox and their cast and crew still have the utmost enthusiasm in the project, and that it certainly is not dead. There are a few concerns that need to be looked at, but overall, I do think they are now moving in the right direction.

First things first, and this was something that not many people think about, is the importance of the foreign market. The main reason why this series has not been produced is because major European markets do not have any interest in the American Civil War. While this is obviously expected, it is also very discouraging that American production companies must rely so much on foreign money. The comparison that was made for me is that any day of the week an internationally-based series like The Borgias or The Tudors will get picked up, yet something centered solely on American history will not, no matter what the caliber of the cast is (if Rob Lowe, William Peterson, Stephan Lang, Bill Paxton, and the many others cannot draw interest to an American story, what will?). The producers still feel that there is enough American interest to make this, though, and that by independently financing it through a Kickstarter campaign (more on that later) they will be able to reach a large enough audience here in the states to be profitable and successful, and that anything else gained oversees will just be gravy.

There was also a lack of seriousness amongst big studio and network executives in what this project is all about, as the script was being thrown around for consideration. One claimed that it was “too historical”, while another wanted it to be “something like North and South; a love story with a bunch of characters no one ever heard of”. Perhaps the most mind-numbing assessment of why To Appomattox was a bad project came from one executive who said that, “We need this to be more about the fighting in the trenches. We cannot have a series about generals who are watching the battle unfold miles behind the lines on surveillance monitors.” My source and I both hoped that this individual was speaking metaphorically, and that no one could really be that incredibly stupid.

The reason why we have had so many delays over the years is quite simply because of the inaction and foot-dragging of the Mini Series and Movie of the Week Division of Sony Pictures. Putting it bluntly, they wanted to own the rights to the project without putting in a cent of their own money, thus rendering anything further happening impossible because of the aforementioned lack of interest by foreign markets and investors. There was also the revelation that Sony was never really “fully in” with their commitment to putting a product out there, a mentality that actually caused several networks to tell the production staff, “We love this project, but we will not work with Sony”. Because of this, everything grounded to a standstill, and now ties between To Appomattox and Sony were finally cut. While both sides parted amicably, there is no doubt plenty of frustration is still hovering, as it was essentially their fault that this could not get made. The company held the series hostage, and in turn, held the still-interested cast-members and their fans hostage, all of this for more than two years. While I would still criticize the series crewmembers who posted regular updates, which may have been falsely leading others to believe that production was closer than it was in reality, I am now of the opinion that it is not their fault that we do not have a finished product. I appreciate the team for wanting to interact with fans and keep them informed, but could there be such a thing as too informed?

Because they are now looking to do this independently, that is where Kickstarter comes in, as well as one major change to the format of the series. While it would still be eight parts, the first episode would actually be a made-for-TV movie, about 90 minutes long (for a two-hour time slot) as opposed to the 48 minutes an hour-long episode would have gotten. This is what is known as the “backdoor pilot”, which would allow for the gears to get rolling on something small, with the hopes that an impressive film can be produced to then garner interest in a full-on series, which would have seven parts remaining. With such an impressive cast, it would be hard to see zero interest in furthering along the story. That is the money that would need to be raised—only the budget for this pilot, and not the $30 million or so for the entire thing. The budget of the first episode cannot yet be revealed, but the campaign is expected to begin in June or July, and there are some very exciting gifts to be had in what I will call the “exchange program” that Kickstarter offers for monetary donations of various levels. To use a quote by Abraham Lincoln, if done correctly, this series will really be one “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. For everyone’s sake, I truly hope this is it.

For anyone who knows author and historian Ned Huthmacher, they would be hard-pressed to find someone more enthusiastic about Texas history and the siege and battle of the Alamo than him. His life simply revolved around it, so much so that he actually moved to Texas several years after authoring a book titled One Domingo Morning: The Story of Alamo Joe, a novel, and also the first time commander William Barrett Travis’ slave Joe was ever profiled in-depth. Ned is a very easy-going guy who is always willing to talk about anything, especially his love of history. He is a man who can serve as inspiration for those who have a hobby or interest and want to take it to the next level. However, in a step away from his normal Alamo focus, Ned has spent the last several years working on songs to be produced for an album, titled Outside the Alamo, sung and performed by John Beland, who in the past has served as guitarist for several country music legends, including Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Ricky Nelson, and Dolly Parton. While the cover of this album is a vintage photograph of Ned sitting by the outer barrack walls of John Wayne’s Alamo film set, the focus of the songs are quite literally outside the Alamo (with the exception of the song titled the same as his book, which he considers to be it’s “soundtrack”), meaning focusing on his other interests besides the famous battle.

Ned’s authorship of One Domingo Morning was quite flowery and impressive, therefore it is no surprise that Outside the Alamo, performed in a country tone, is poetic and flowing. It is an album that is very easy to listen to, and would probably fit rather nicely emanating from a stereo on the back deck, with the listener kicking back and sipping a cold one (or a margarita if you are in Texas) on a hot summer night. I am not much of a fan of country, but I found myself truly enjoying Ned’s words put to harmony through the veteran Beland. The two make a very interesting tandem, and if you like country music, or easy-listening, you should definitely give this a shot. You will not find another album with such a unique combination of historical reference, poetry, and creative thought. For those of us that know Ned, it is a way for us to better be in-tune with him. For those that do not know him, this is quite an introduction.  To place an order, please contact Ned at n_huthmacher@yahoo.com.

And enjoy this sample track!

I am lucky to have known Ned for nearly ten years now, after we first met through a message board devoted to the 2004 film The Alamo. He was always very kind to me, especially when I was “just a kid”, and helped foster my historical interest of the Alamo and history so much that I finally had to visit San Antonio back in 2007. Now you can see why it  does not come as a surprise to me that this album is so good. I hope you will all give it a shot.

“We have breaking news just in!”

“Stay tuned, you won’t find this information ANYWHERE else!”

“We are the only ones on the scene!”

“Our sources are reporting…”

“Do not miss our EXCLUSIVE interview with…”

“If you remember, [insert network] was the first to bring you…”

These are just a few phrases you could have heard uttered on the various news networks over the last couple of days, following the bombing in Boston. As a result, like every tragedy involving mass-violence and death, the television news networks become a feeding frenzy of information and “breaking” stories. It almost becomes a game between networks, and within networks, individual reporters, between who can be the first to bring their viewing audiences the bits of information that are being released from law enforcement agencies and “trusted sources”. While waiting for this information, which, admittedly, we can do nothing with once we receive it, the networks and their reporters are sure to drum up as much drama as they humanly can, without appearing to actually be cheering for the one bomber who is still on the loose, to not be captured right away, so they can drag the coverage on even more. Is there such thing as news anymore? A straightforward reporting of the facts and broadcasting of interviews without unneccesary sensationalist showmanship getting in the way? Is it so much for the reporters to show even one fraction of an iota of respect for the victims and their families, without promoting their own egos and agenda?

It truly appears that these cretins actually enjoy bad news. I firmly believe that they sit around the studio on a slow news day praying for someone to shoot up a school, or maybe blow up a building. Maybe they even hope for a high-speed chase or shootout with the police so they can go live on the scene for something more than a recap. How else can we explain all of this seemingly bent up enthusiasm for horror and murder that we have witnessed on television? I understand network ratings increase quite drastically in times of tragedy, and that is only fair, but the actual reporters who we have to stare at could be just a little bit more restrained. The fake sense of sadness and sympathy does not work for me—deep down, they are saying to themselves, “Please, don’t get caught, not just yet! I need a few more hours of face time here and I cannot afford to have to break away from me in the studio to go live on the scene to someone else!”

The worst of the lot has to be ABC’s Diane Sawyer, who takes a sadistic, fetish-like pleasure in reporting the deaths that result from tragedies. Slowly and carefully enunciating every syllable of every word out of her mouth, she tilts her head ever so slightly and angles her eye-line down to give off the appearance of pain, then dramatically pausing close to the end of her sentence before she allows the other reporters, or interviewees, in the broadcast a chance to answer or chime in. Seeing what is going on with people like her, and Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who reports the news like he is the only person on television, makes me thankful that I was only nine years old on September 11th, too young to be able to critique a newscast. I could not imagine the happiness that must have engulfed the studios on that day, if events like the Boston bombing or Newtown shooting are any indication. Hell, it must have been like the World Series and Super Bowl condensed into one!

And what is the big deal about being the first to break something? Does anyone really keep track? Do networks get a monetary bonus for being the first channel to report a certain piece of news? And I love the whole “my sources are telling me” mantra that these drama-mongers use to make themselves seem more important. This is an investigation led by the FBI. There are tanks and soldiers with machine guns patrolling the streets of a city in lock-down. Just who exactly are your sources? This isn’t a free agent frenzy show on ESPN, this is coverage of an ongoing investigation looking for the perpetrator of a bombing that killed and maimed nearly two hundred people. Does it help you to sleep at night knowing that your cell phone’s texting plan may hold the key to your employers breaking the story first?

Reasons like this are why my viewing of television news was very limited during the Newtown school shooting, because I just could not bare the exploitation of the deaths of children in order to boost egos. I felt that it would be different this time around, but the fact that they can publicize a “manhunt” is proof positive that things will never change—they will just get worse. It is a sad day when someone like me would rather get news updates from Twitter than an established network like CNN, ABC, or FOX. These people should go home and take a long look in the mirror and see what they are all about, how in the face of a tragedy, they can just keep trumpeting their egos along like they are in a competition with a trophy awarded at the end of it all.

Breaking news! This just in: you are all scumbags and should be ashamed of yourselves. More at 11.

I do not usually post copies of research papers I have written, but being that I just enthusiastically finished this one for my biology class this semester, I wanted to share it with all of you. I have written several times about how companies prefer the Almighty Dollar to consumer health, so this one would be the icing on the cake for me (hold the high fructose corn syrup, please). I guarantee that after you read this, if you are not an ingredient reader already, you will become one. Included within the body are the original sources that I cited. If anyone would like a complete list of works cited for their own enjoyment or research, please contact me. 

I. Overview

Paying customers should have a right to expect that the food they are purchasing is healthy and clean. Maybe not healthy in regards to the nutrition facts such as fat, sodium, and cholesterol, but for the actual ingredients going into these foods, some of which are quite horrifying. Manufacturers, as they have always done, are coming up with new and innovative ways to cut costs on their end, increase shelf life, and make the food look more appealing, all at the expense of the customer’s health. The reason why there is such a push for “natural” and “organic” is because people are finally waking up, and becoming ingredient readers and questioning what some of these items are. That may be the saddest part of all of this, because the manufacturers are doing this right in front of our eyes, as they are bound by law to list all the ingredients on the back of food labels. However, what these individual ingredients do not say is what exactly they are and what side effects they may have following your consumption of them.

It could be said that the initial push to discover what food manufacturers are up to behind the closed doors of their factories began in the early 1900’s with Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, a story centered around the lives of immigrants, but went in-depth with deplorable descriptions of the Chicago meatpacking district. Preservatives, then as now, extended beyond the use of merely salt, and in some instances, kerosene was used to keep butchered meet from spoiling, and that was not even the worst of it (Sinclair, 1906). Since this book was published, government agencies have been formed to oversee the sanitary conditions of food factories, but this supervision does not seem to apply to the actual chemicals and ingredients now being pumped into our foods. How else then could the ingredients listed below be used, and openly so?

II. Propylene Glycol

If you think this ingredient sounds more like a type of fuel than something that should be in food, you really are not too far off. Propylene glycol is actually a derivative of ethylene, and can be found in brake fluid, antifreeze, and rubber cleaner (National Health Information Center, 2007). While it is scary in itself that this is used by health product manufacturers in skin and hair care products such as shampoo, conditioner, baby powder, and deodorant (which is ironic considering the usage of this product comes with explicit warnings to avoid contact with skin because it causes irritation and over time, kidney failure), this has also made its way into ice cream and soda (National Health Information Center, 2007; Tan, 2012). Because of its qualities as an antifreeze agent, ice cream companies see this as a no-brainer to use so that it “prevents ice crystals from developing” and “helps retain its shape once packed as well as maintain its creamy texture” (Tan, 2012). Does anyone else see a problem with using something commonly found in car radiators in ice cream as well?

This reminds me of a quote from a dark comedy called Dr. Strangelove, where a paranoid military commander is going on and on about how the “commies” are going to infiltrate America and put dangerous ingredients in our food, one of the famous lines being, “Ice cream, Mandrake! Children’s ice cream!” (Kubrick, 1964). While this was just a farcical comedy, the eventual realization is quite on point, only the poisoning is not coming from a foreign enemy, it is coming from within. But that’s okay—if you stay away from ice cream, you can still take solace in the fact that propylene glycol is used in sorbitol, an artificial sweetener in diet products as well as soda because it “maintains the suspension of fatty acids in the liquid” and acts as a “flavor carrier” (Tan, 2012). Aside from skin irritation and kidney damage, it can also cause abnormalities in your liver (National Health Information Center, 2007).

II. Aspartame

More popular now than ever before are so-called “diet” products, the most prominent one being soda. In order to achieve a nearly identically sweet taste, manufacturers needed to come up with a chemical, or artificial sweetener, which would allow customers who need to cut back on sugar a chance to enjoy soda. This sweetener, called aspartame, in use since the 1960’s, will not only let customers enjoy sodas, but a plethora of ailments along with it, including cancer (Geib, 2012). The dangers were apparently so severe that in 2005, a European research center called on the US FDA to reexamine the ingredient and declare it not safe for consumption in children (Geib, 2012). This was prompted by studies on animal subjects where ingestion of aspartame caused holes to be formed in their brains (Geib, 2012). In humans, it could cause cancer, migraine headaches, infertility, and seizures, as well as damage to an unborn fetus if consumed by a pregnant woman (Geib, 2012).

In addition to that, a component of aspartame, phenylalanine, has been linked to ADD and ADHD because of the way it attacks and kills brain cells (Hull, 2002). It is all over the news and in magazines at how high the increase is of children having behavioral and concentration disorders such as ADD and ADHD are. Can we now draw a parallel between that increase and an increase of aspartame and phenylalanine in our food and drinks? As a customer and human being, we almost have to weigh “the bad vs. the worse” when deciding whether or not we should have regular or diet soda. Do you want a sugary drink that will cause obesity, high blood sugar, and diabetes, or a diet product that will kill you even faster with dangerous chemicals? The safest bet to make would be to not drink either one, because even in “real” soda, sugar is slowly being phased out in favor of an even cheaper, more dangerous ingredient, high fructose corn syrup, which is discussed next.

III. High Fructose Corn Syrup

 As an obsessive ingredient reader on the back of food and drink labels, let’s just say I have become very familiar with high fructose corn syrup, the ingredient that has usurped sugar as the most used sweetener on the market. In fact, if you look at the back of a bottle of soda, chances are you will not even see sugar listed at all. The same could be said for most sweet products. High fructose corn syrup, however, is everywhere—you cannot avoid it. People might not give this any thought, because corn syrup on its own is not harmful, and is used in many baked goods, but HFCS is completely different. A derivative of corn starch, HFCS is a “refined clear liquid” used in products because it has a longer shelf life and is much cheaper to produce than natural sugar (Health Mad, 2007). This is yet another instance of sacrificing safety in the name of the almighty dollar. So why is this worse than sugar? Well, putting aside the fact that it was introduced in the 1980’s, right about the same time as obesity rates began to climb in America, it is digested much differently by the body than real sugar (Health Mad, 2007).

When we eat sugar, our pancreas produces insulin which in turn tells the brain that we have eaten, and we begin to feel full. HFCS does not cause the pancreas to do this, thus our brain takes a lot longer to feel full and we keep eating and eating this sweet killer until the sugary liquid turns into fat (Health Mad 2007). So, there is the link to obesity, and with weight gain comes an increase in blood pressure, hypertension, and diabetes. With these three things come an increase in heart disease and chances of having a stroke—it is a vicious cycle caused not only by consumption of this product, but of the unhealthy lifestyles and lack of physical activity many are plagued with in America. Think that is bad? How about the liver damage HFCS causes, allowing fat build-up and shutting down the liver’s chance to remove toxins from the body (Global Healing Center, 2013). Even worse than that, if it is even possible, are the high levels of mercury associated with HFCS. A study conducted in 2009 found the presence of mercury in more than half of the samples they tested, an alarmingly high number (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2009). With mercury exposure comes increases of the chances of “irreversible” brain and nerve damage, even worse if ingested by children, which no doubt happens because of the dangerous sweet tooth we have (Global Healing Center, 2013). HFCS is not just found in soda, though. It actually figures quite prominently in condiments such as ketchup and relish, where it can be seen as the first or second ingredient on the list. Even more surprisingly is its use in breads, both white and wheat. Just stroll down the bread aisle and you will be shocked at the number of loaves containing HFCS, even ones marketed as “natural” or “organic”.

You know there must not be something right with this ingredient when certain breads actually market themselves as not containing any HFCS. These breads, like all other “healthier” alternatives are, of course, more expensive. The same can be said of the “retro” soda products that have hit the shelves in recent years, charging consumers more money because they are made with real sugar and not HFCS, the ingredient they should never have been using in the first place. Money trumps all in America—kill people will dangerous ingredients, and when they are fed up with that, charge them more money for the healthier option.

IV. Monosodium Glutamate

It is an unfortunate misconception that monosodium glutamate, affectionately known as MSG, is only associated with Chinese restaurants and their food, because this harmful ingredient can also be found in processed meats, and to my chagrin, Doritos, Cheetos, and certain kinds of potato chips. Though it can be created naturally, as an extract from seaweed, there are many harmful side effects of this flavor enhancer (Wiesenfelder, 2010). While salt can be dangerous in itself, if used to excess as an enhancer or preservative, it cannot hold a candle to MSG in regards to actual side effects, which include swelling and tingling (most often in the fingers), headaches, facial pressure, sweating, a burning sensation in the mouth, nausea, and chest pain (Johnson, 2008; Zeratsky, 2012). Even worse than that is the potential for permanent brain damage, as reported in 2011, when Underground Health Reporter named MSG the most dangerous food ingredient on the market, listed directly above our dear friends aspartame and high fructose corn syrup (Johnson, 2008). According to this research, MSG affects the hypothalamus of the brain, which is a “vulnerable” area that controls our metabolism, body temperature, thirst, and pituitary hormones, among other functions (Underground Health Reporter, 2011). Repeated consumption of MSG can cause “enough cell death [in this area that can] eventually kill off enough brain cells to do permanent damage” (Underground Health Reporter, 2011).

It appears, though, that the FDA is somewhat aware that MSG might be a dangerous ingredient, because it holds the distinction of being on a very special and totally ambiguous list of foods titled “Generally Recognized as Safe” (Zelatsky, 2012). Generally recognized as safe? What does that even mean? It is safe only some of time? How is an ingredient like this even allowed to be on the market, in additional foods like canned meats, canned soups, salad dressings, and flavored crackers? There is a reason why Chinese restaurants have stopped using this, and have put labels on their menus stating such, because MSG became synonymous with danger, and they wanted to disassociate themselves from it. Food manufacturers have yet to follow this road, because people do not expect this ingredient in their foods. They simply slip it in the ingredients list and no one bats an eye. A reason for this might be that people only know it literally as “MSG” and might not know what it stands for, therefore when they see “monosodium glutamate” on a label, they think nothing of it. It is scary how people can be so easily deceived.

V. Final Thoughts

We live in a very scary world and a dangerous environment, most of which we have created for ourselves. It is very hard to live a truly healthy lifestyle, because organic food is so expensive, and dangerous chemicals and preservatives intrude in our food while toxins and pollutants are in our water supply. This man-made destruction of our health is almost apocalyptic in nature and is something we should definitely be concerned about. We cannot trust government agencies like the FDA to look out for us, because they actively seek to find out if certain ingredients are safe, yet we still have all those covered in this paper, and many more. How is this possible? It is all because of money. These ingredients are cheaper ways of accomplishing something, whether it is making ice cream hold its shape in its container and not have ice crystals, to making soda cheaper to produce by not using real sugar, or enhancing a food’s flavor with something other than salt.

Now, not to sound apocalyptic myself, just because these ingredients are dangerous does not mean that consuming them every once in a while (“everything in moderation”) will automatically kill you. There is nothing wrong with one diet soda today, and maybe some HFCS-laden Oreos tomorrow, and some MSG laced Doritos next week, but very rarely does it ever end with that. In America, we have all kinds of junk food out our disposal day and night. We have a deadly sweet tooth and a craving for salt. This means that the one soda a week becomes a soda a day, and the potato chips are no longer a special “cheat treat”, but an all-day snack.

Is there anything we can do to stop this? Probably not, because the ingredients are not isolated occurrences, but regular ones, in almost every product out there. The only way to make an impact would be to stop buying them, but that is a difficult order, because there would probably be nothing left to buy. Just spend some time looking at the ingredients on, let’s say, a bag of potato chips. All a company really needs on that list are potatoes, oil, and salt. Take some time then to research the other 20 ingredients accompanying them. You may be surprised and intrigued at what you find, and will no doubt give you new meaning to the phrase, “Killing with kindness”.

If there is a film that is going to be new and innovative regarding the Civil War or battle of Gettysburg, chances are its director is going to be Robert Child, the man behind Gettysburg: The Boys in Blue & Gray, Gettysburg: Three Days of Destiny, and the very popular Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom. When I interviewed him two years ago, he hinted at what possibly might be coming for the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, which he will be tasked with directing and producing the official commemorative film for, titled, Gettysburg: Final Measure of Devotion, which I guess you could say will act as the capstone to his unofficial Gettysburg documentary trilogy. The actual film itself is slated to be released on Remembrance Day in November, on Blu-Ray and DVD. There is also plans of a broadcast on PBS next year, in addition to it hitting local theaters in the fall.

However, what people are really excited about (or what they should be, considering most of you will be finding out about this here) is a planned live broadcast of the Pickett’s Charge portion of the reenactment, this July 7. It is being dubbed the “Battle Cast”, and this will be the first time ever that something like this is taking place. For people that cannot make it to the reenactment, they will actually be able to purchase a pay per view pass and watch the massive battle from the comfort of their own homes. There will not be just wide angles for filming, but some “hidden” placements in the rows of troops, elaborated on below. It truly is going to be a piece of history, right along with the reenactment, which looks to be the largest event near that town since the battle itself, 150 years ago. I spoke to Robert about all of this yesterday, and conducted the interview below, so that you too can become excited as I am!

GC: How did you get involved with both coordinating components of the reenactment as well as producing the film that goes with it?

RC: I am not really involved with components of the reenactment itself. The Gettysburg Anniversary Committee handles that and and they have done a fantastic job for 18 years. I am just the media or film production arm and the Pay Per View component. I had done the film for the 140th reenactment 10 years ago and I really felt we needed a “wow” factor with the film and doing a live streaming of the Pickett’s Charge battle that can be viewed around the world fits that bill. You have to do something bold for the 150th anniversary and the PPV is certainly BOLD with capital letters.

GC: The event is less than three months away. What else needs to be done in order for production to be ready by the first week of July?

RC: As far as the production of the film, I have been doing the writing and crafting the storyline and also engaging vendors for camera gear and hiring technical personnel. It is an ongoing task that won’t stop until the first week of July. I just spent several days crafting the new promo which is being unveiled today (April 11th). It is my attempt to get people pumped to come to the event and to watch the PPV.

3) What is going to be the most difficult part of this venture? Has something like the Pickett’s Charge “Battlecast” ever been done before?

RC: The Pickett’s Charge Live Webcast is the most difficult part but I have hired on a company, D2 Productions, in Boston, that are one of the preeminent live webcasting companies in the country. It helps that a friend of more than 20 years, Dave Walzer, co-owns the company. Dave and I used to work closely together in the early 1990′s in Boston at the Monitor Channel (owned by the Christian Science Monitor). We worked in a studio that was the first of it’s kind which used a monitor wall which we had to program to fire automatically and we were always live. So Dave and I are used to being on the cutting edge in live situations. It gets your adrenaline going but we are both calm guys so we will  have fun as well. Nothing like the Gettysburg Battlecast (Pickett’s Charge Live) has ever been done before. I even had to come up with the name “Battlecast” and I get tired of seeing it always highlighted in my spell check (laughs).  The main reenactment field is perhaps more than 1000 meters across. It is a massive area to cover and it has been a challenge in the technical planning. People wouldn’t stand for watching all wide shots of the battle so we have several wireless cameras embedded with the troops and we have just started discussing ground breaking angles with miniature cameras like Go Pro Hero 3. My idea which I think we will do is the “Flag Cam”. We can mount a Go Pro on a say a color guard on the Confederate side and get a high angle of the the advance to the stone wall and no one would ever know the camera was there. ( I guess they do now). But I like to do things like that that people wonder “how did they do that?”. And no, I don’t think anyone has ever done “Flag Cam” before. I think I’ve made up another new word. (laughs)

GC: What should people expect from the 150th anniversary events and film this year, whether they are attending or just trying to keep tabs from home?

RC: At the event itself it is going to be truly special because everyone knows this is the last big reenactment for Gettysburg perhaps in their lifetimes. So expect the organizers to go out of their way to make it memorable. I’m not giving away any secrets expect for “Flag Cam”. If they are watching from home, the web cast will start at 2:30pm, 30 minutes before the start of the Pickett’s Charge Battle. I felt we needed a warm up or a pre-game if you will to pump folks up and bring them up to speed. This “pre-game” will be hosted by someone we haven’t chosen yet but who is good with live television. Once the battle starts, I plan to drop in sort of audio or visual markers for folks which convey what was happening at such and such time in the Confederate advance. As folks know, Pickett’s Charge on the Union side is a lot of waiting around and watching them come which isn’t compelling, but I got the idea to track the Confederate advance from one of the displays at the Gettysburg Visitor Center which break down in about 10 minute intervals what was happening in the charge. I think people will find it compelling…I hope.

GC: What is your film going to be like, and when can we expect it to be released?

RC: The film itself I have decided to do a narrative focus on Lincoln and his role as Commander-in-Chief of this battle. His decisions really shaped the outcome starting of course with replacing Hooker with Meade only three days before, and continuing with the angst he suffered at the close of the battle and the drama of his trying to get Meade to pursue Lee to literally in his words, “end the war”. I didn’t think this aspect of the battle had been explored and it is quite compelling material that puts you on the edge of your seat. I have enlisted the help of several preeminent Civil war historians who will appear on camera during the film, including, Allen Guelzo, the only two-time winner of the Lincoln Prize, Thomas Desjardin, an author and expert on the 20th Maine, Greg Urwin, an author and expert on Custer, and I am soon to film Scott Hartwig and he needs no introduction. Also, I recently filmed Ron Maxwell whom I have known for years and he will appear on camera in the film. I basically wanted him to reflect on the 150th Anniversary and what it means for America and also the 20th anniversary of his film, Gettysburg, which introduced the battle to millions in a very exciting way. I thought folks would want to hear his thoughts and in his interview he was eloquent as always.

I would like to thank Rob for taking the time to conduct this interview, and I wish him the best of luck with production!