Monday, April 23, 2018

2017 Annual Report: A new level of analysis, transparency…Coalition of Immokalee Workers

Mystic Chorale concert, May 19/20 - From Selma to Soweto - Songs of Power

To  act-ma  
Spring 2018
Mystic Chorale mysticchorale.org
From Selma to Soweto: Songs of Power
Led by Nick Page

Join the 200 singers of the Mystic Chorale singing songs of community, power and hope from the ongoing Civil Rights movements of South Africa and the US. We are thrilled to welcome returning guest, Dr. Ysaye Barnwell , who has spent three decades singing with Sweet Honey In The Rock and building communities of song throughout the world. Her central message—that together our voices matter—is sagely conveyed in the lyrics she wrote for Step by Step : “Many stones can build an arch, singly none.”

We also welcome back South African friends Nthabi Thakadu, Phakamani Pega, and Pumla Bhungane, as well as pianist extraordinaire Jonathan Singleton.

Audience and Chorale alike will enjoy Ysaye’s uplifting song-leading and a rich program that features several contemporary pieces, including one Ysaye wrote especially for Mystic that assures us, “We can rise higher than high, We can rise in love.”

All of the songs—past and present, South African and American—deliver powerful and relevant messages for today’s world!

Enjoy this video of the Mystic Chorale singing Usilethela Uxolo (Nelson Mandela, You Bring Us Peace) at a past concert.
SATURDAY , May 19, 2018, 7:30pm or SUNDAY , May 20, 2018, 3:30pm

Advance tickets are $15/ $20 at door.

_______________________________________________
Act-MA mailing list
Act-MA@act-ma.org
http://act-ma.org/mailman/listinfo/act-ma_act-ma.org
To set options or unsubscribe
http://act-ma.org/mailman/options/act-ma_act-ma.org

On The 100th Anniversary Of American Entry In World War I (1917)-The Golden Age Of The Musical-Judy Garland And Gene Kelly’s “For Me And My Gal” (1942)-A Film Review

On The 100th Anniversary Of American Entry In World War I (1917)-The Golden Age Of The Musical-Judy Garland And Gene Kelly’s “For Me And My Gal” (1942)-A Film Review




DVD Review

By Si Lannon

[Although a few regular readers has asked when this bracketed insert below the name of the writer will be curtailed we feel that given the dramatic internal shake up at American Left History with the ouster of the now gone missing Allan Jackson (who used the moniker Peter Paul Markin which Zack James explained in a recent film review of   Paris When It Sizzles see April 2018 archives) we should continue to do so as long as we are giving each writer full sway to discuss his or her take on the matter. So as mentioned previously as of December 1, 2017 under the new regime of Greg Green, formerly of the on-line American Film Gazette website (and through that on-line site linked to the American Folk Digest, Progressive American and Modern Book Library sites), brought in to shake things up a bit.

This shake-up, a major earthquake here given his longevity, after a vote of no confidence in the previous site administrator Peter Markin was taken among all the writers at the request of some of the younger writers abetted by one key older writer, Sam Lowell, means the habit, Markin’s habit of assigning writers to specific topics like film, books, political commentary, and culture is over. Also over is the designation of writers in this space, young or old, by job title like senior or associate which Markin instituted over the past few years as he brought in desperately needed younger blood as a “firewall” between him and anyone who might try to tip the increasingly bizarre balance of coverage to the narrow sphere of the turbulent 1960s. After a short-lived experiment designating everybody as “writer” suggested by a clot of older writers seemingly seeing the recent struggle as off-shoot, as an emulation of the French Revolution’s “citizen” or more to the point given the political personal histories of some of the clot member, the Bolshevik Revolution’s “comrade” all posts will be “signed” with given names only. The Editorial Board]



“For Me And My Gal,” starring Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, George Murphy,  1942


[A number of reviews, commentaries and opinion pieces of late at this American Left History blog site have been prefaced like I am doing with the writer’s take on the recent shake-up at this site with the sudden ouster of the now missing Allan Jackson (aka Peter Paul Markin) at the direction of the newly installed Editorial Board and new day to day site administrator Greg Green. I don’t wish to belabor the points already made by both older and younger writers except as an old-time high school friend I am sure that Allan, as has been his nature since about fourth grade, as far as I know is off on a sulk and neither in forced exile in Siberia or its equivalent Utah (although if it had been rumored that it was Alabama  I would get out my old history book on the internal struggle in the Bolshevik party between “Uncle Joe” Stalin and torch-carrier Leon Trotsky). He will be back as always. See Allan lived in the shadow of the real Markin, who passed away many years ago and which we have written extensively about in this space, and never really felt he was as good as Markin which led to many problems back then. And now too I suppose.          

But enough of that since what I want to write about since I am reviewing this Judy Garland-Gene Kelly dominated musical is that Allan hated musicals or I should say musicals that were not from the 1960s. If you wanted to do a retro-review on Hair, Tommy, Jesus Christ, Superstar be his guest. Otherwise say you wanted to review Chicago forget it. Look at the archives, almost nothing earlier or later. The only way to get such a review through was as a re-post from say American Film Gazette and he had to honor our common commitment on publishing. My feeling, my gut feeling, since we are being candid here is that he did not like musicals because, well, because the real Markin hated them which I will go into a little when I actually get to the review. The only serious exception Allan would make was for Fred Astaire vehicles because of the dancing not because of the music even though that was created by the likes of Cole Porter, the Gershwins, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin all of whom he loved as part of the American songbook. (By the way the real Markin loved them too so maybe I am on to something).               

Allan did let up a little of late but really only for Gene Kelly vehicles to demonstrate how much better a dancer Fred was against Gene. And truth to tell because he confided this to me while the internal struggle was going on since I supported his retention he relented a little to throw a bone to the younger writers. Enough for now.]
*****

When Allan, the real Markin ( I will just use Markin hereafter),  and I were just out of high school, maybe the summer after graduation we went down to Provincetown to see what was up with what we heard was a swarm of faggots, fairies, sissies, light on their feet guys, whatever, you know gays today. (Provincetown then and today as well Mecca for gays and lesbians mixing it up with the dwindling surplus of native Portuguese heritage fisherman.) Walking down the street we saw a poster-board or whatever they call them in front of Lazy Daisy’s which may still be their although the original owners must have long passed since they were old then announcing a talent night. Since it was getting dark we figured we would go inside and see what there was to see. Jesus, what we saw were “drag queens,” transvestites, cross-dressers, trans-genders although I know that was not a term of usage then. Whatever you called this scene and we settled on “drag queens” the talent in front was everything from Miss Patti Page, Miss Peggy Lee, and this is why I have started this review this way Miss Judy Garland. Christ half the acts were doing some song of hers starting from that old rubbish Somewhere Over The Rainbow from the Wizard Of Oz. Markin was in full grim after that one as much as I said he loved that part of the American songbook.  So Allan was in full grim too. I think, and the archives will bear me out, there is not one reference to Judy Garland in all the years this publication has been around. It might, at least I suspect that it might, have something to do with Markin’s own sexual ambivalence and thus Allan’s, but I will let the pyscho-scholars figure that one out.                
    
So it is actually for me a breath of fresh air to review a Judy Garland effort as here with For Me And My Gal although since it has a significant portion of the film extolling American entry into World War I with everything from war songs to war bonds to war-mongering which although I am not anywhere an American Firster like I was when I was a kid I retroactively have opposed as just another bum American government blunder. Since this year is the 100th anniversary of American entry into that war it has a sense of poignancy which explains a lot of the naiveté about war that we one hundred years later have come to distrust with a vengeance.   

At bottom like half the film ever made, if not more, and many of the novels as well this is just another “boy meets girl” saga set to music and dance with the lead actors, Judy and Gene, bursting into song and/or dance every chance they get before realizing they were, ah, in love and chaise get ready to do something about the matter-get married.  Let me back up a little to give some background. This one is set in the days just before World War I when the main way to give the masses some entertainment out in the prairies, small towns and such were vaudeville shows. That’s is where “from hunger” Harry, Kelly’s role, is ready to do anything from stealing songs to ditching professional partners to get to the big white way, to get to Broadway and the real deal and Jo, dear sensibly warm-hearted Jo, played by Judy Garland meet and hate/love each other before the deal goes down.

The deal being that just before they are as a professional team  ready to hit the bright lights WWI gets in the way when Harry is drafted. Being a “main chance” guy he tries the old honored draft dodger special which guys have been doing since governments have been impressing soldiers for their needs-fakes and injury bad enough to get him out of the draft. That does not sit well with Jo whose younger brother had been killed in France early in the American intervention. She calls the whole thing off with this bum of the month and heads to Europe to entertain the troops with a YMCA troupe. Forget that bastard Harry and sing every possible WWI song that Tin Pan Alley could produce for the war effort from sentimental to super-patriotic. Remorseful Harry finally gets on that patriotic bandwagon and they meet again (don’t know where, don’t know when, oops that’s a Dame Vera Lynn WWII song) via the YMCA circuit. And love again.

Like I said boy meets girl out of uniform and in. Two points as hard as it to believe Judy out-dances Gene by a mile and you know now I see why all those “drag queens” were so crazy to do Judy Garland stuff. Sometimes you can learn like that something in this wicked old world.           

The Mad Monks Of The Pre-War (World War I If Anybody Is Asking) Germanic Art- Klimt And Schiele At The Boston Museum Of Fine Arts

The Mad Monks Of The Pre-War (World War I If Anybody Is Asking) Germanic Art- Klimt And Schiele At The Boston Museum Of Fine Arts    










Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele’s Twisted Fates in Paint

Cardinal and Nun (Caress), 1912, Egon Schiele.
Cardinal and Nun (Caress), 1912, Egon Schiele.
Kneeling forms against an indeterminate background, two figures interlocked as one… perhaps this painting looks familiar? The work is a tongue-in-cheek play by Egon Schiele and a slightly sacrilegious homage to his master, Gustav Klimt’s The Kiss. Rather than love and passion, these religious figures are caught in the act, stiff against religious vow.
The Kiss (Lovers), 1907-1908, Gustav Klimt.
The Kiss (Lovers), 1907-1908, Gustav Klimt.
The Mentor and His Star Pupil
With a nearly 30 year age difference, Schiele and Klimt had a mentor-student relationship that lasted throughout their artistic careers. From copycat styling to love triangle rumors, this twisted story is told in their paintings.
In 1907 a then-teenaged Schiele saw Klimt as an idol and sought him out. The two fostered an artistic friendship and elements of Klimt’s avant-garde style can be found in many of Schiele’s early works and drawings, including these:
Left: Portrait of Gerti Schiele. Right: Standing Girl in a Plaid Garment. Both by Egon Schiele, 1909.
Left: Portrait of Gerti Schiele. Right: Standing Girl in a Plaid Garment. Both by Egon Schiele, 1909.
The Love Triangle with Wally Neuzil
Klimt’s influence was never far away. He introduced Schiele to many gallerists, fellow artists, and models, including the perhaps infamous Valerie (Wally) Neuzil. Neuzil had previously modeled for Klimt, and is rumored to have been his mistress. In 1911 she moved with Schiele to Krumau in the Czech Republic and thus began a four-year affair with him. In 1916 she returned to her old lover, posing again for Klimt.
The Hermits,  Egon Schiele, 1912.
The Hermits, Egon Schiele, 1912.
Left: Portrait of Wally, Gustav Klimt, 1916. Right: Woman in black stockings (Valerie Neuzil), Egon Schiele, 1913.
Left: Portrait of Wally, Gustav Klimt, 1916. Right: Woman in black stockings (Valerie Neuzil), Egon Schiele, 1913.
In fact, Schiele slyly alludes to this shared love in his 1912 painting The Hermits. The artist depicts two male figures in a Klimt-esque embrace, who on second take appear to be the mentor (on the left) and student (on the right) themselves. Dressed in all black, these two “hermits” are one mass but two thin white lines in the background connect the couple to a wilting rose, red like the color of Neuzil’s fiery hair.
Muse Shared, Again?
Klimt and Schiele portraits also reveal another shared subject: Viennese society woman Friederike Maria Beer-Monti. She rang Klimt’s doorbell in 1915 and asked if she could pose for his artworks. The process took six months and, in that time, she is rumored to have been one of his many flames. Just one year earlier, she had been the subject of a work by Klimt’s mentee.
Left: Portrait of Friederike Maria Beer-Monti, Egon Schiele, 1914 Right: Portrait of Friederike Maria Beer-Monti, Gustav Klimt, 1916
Left: Portrait of Friederike Maria Beer-Monti, Egon Schiele, 1914; Right: Portrait of Friederike Maria Beer-Monti, Gustav Klimt, 1916
Both artists were notorious for their affairs with women. Klimt, who never married, is said to have fathered 17 children with his muses. Schiele often found himself in hot water with the authorities for his choice of studio visitors, children and adult, who posed nude.
Breaking Conventions in Art, Too
As personal relationships grew more interconnected so did their artistic styles. The bright colors and elongated bodies in Klimt’s unfinished The Bride and the more jagged lines and gestural coloring in Schiele’s Portrait of Dr. Erwin von Graff would lead their contemporaries to a new – and more personal – way of thinking about color and form in art.
Left: The Bride, Klimt, 1917; Right: Portrait of Dr. Erwin von Graff, Schiele, 1910.
Left: The Bride, Klimt, 1917; Right: Portrait of Dr. Erwin von Graff, Schiele, 1910.
With a relationship based on mutual respect, Klimt and Schiele continued to support and guide each other through the art world. There was an obvious amount of humor between the two; only a prized pupil could have gotten away with such sheer parodies of his mentor.
And, by the way, here’s a more banal portrait of Wally that her artists’ paintings didn’t show:
Schiele and Neuzil in Krumau, Czech Republic, 1913. Image via Leopold Museum.
Schiele and Neuzil in Krumau, Czech Republic, 1913. Image via Leopold Museum.
Gustav Klimt is currently abuzz in the pop culture world. Actress Dame Helen Mirren is starring in The Woman in Gold, a movie about Klimt’s painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer. Watch the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geJeX6iIlO0
Learn more about Klimt’s life and career here: http://www.theartstory.org/artist-klimt-gustav.htm
Learn more about Schiele’s life and career here: http://www.theartstory.org/artist-schiele-egon.htm
include ‘share1.htm’;

“The Hardest Working Man In Show Business”- “Mr. Dynamite”-The James, Please, Please, Please Brown Story (2014)-A Documentary Review Of Sorts

“The Hardest Working Man In Show Business”- “Mr. Dynamite”-The James, Please, Please, Please Brown Story (2014)-A Documentary Review Of Sorts



DVD Review

By Josh Breslin   

Mr. Dynamite: The Rise Of James Brown,  starring James Brown, the Famous Flames, and others, 2014   

No question I wanted to do this documentary evaluation of the life and times of the “godfather of soul” James Brown who came all surly and cocky out of Augusta, Ga around the middle third of the 20th century and had to fight off Sam Lowell, the former chief film editor here and now something of an emeritus although such designations are frowned upon under the new dispensation of one site manager Greg Green. The reason that I wanted to do this review though is probably not exactly what the reader would think-the place of a man, a black man in the history of rock and roll, of soulful rock, and his effect on young white guys who came up dirt poor in places like North Adamsville and Carver, Ma and Olde Saco up in Maine without the racial harassment part that James suffered growing up in the redneck, white supremacist Southern non-hospitality. Maybe say three or four years ago I might have centered on those points and only made some pointed but passing reference to his shameful treatment of women throughout his life.
But in the age of #MeToo that is hardly an adequate way to treat his life. The problem, a problem Sam Lowell first brought up a couple of years ago when he did an Alfred Hitchcock film review is exactly what one, no, what a male reviewer, or maybe any reviewer is supposed to do about some kind of balance between whatever cultural meaning any performer from acting to painting and everything in between has on society and the personal life factors where the power balance is askew. I cannot help but in the back of my mind in the case of James Brown be aware that his art, however much honored and historically relevant, is decisively marred by his personal hostilities and actions toward women.          

James Brown came up from the dirt down in Augusta, Ga from a family setting that was not good. He “escaped” via music first through the gospel traditions which a number of musicians from his generation and a little later were grounded in. Later moving “uptown” to rhythm and blue he latched onto various groups which would evolve into the Famous Flames and form the core of back-up bands under various names for most of his early career. The big breakthrough hit was Please, Please, Please in 1956 which had enough sexual energy and innuendo to become something like an anthem for the post-World War II baby boomer generation which was in many ways trying to break out of the many-sided box they had been raised in from sex to patriotism. After that it was more a question of refining his music to ride with the times for a while as long as rock and roll had some energy left. Subsequently he moved on to become, well, the Godfather of Soul, the precursor of funk that had its heyday before hip hop nation emerged in the 1980s, No question James Brown on a professional musical basis deserved all the awards and honors he received all the way up to induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

To show how the contradictions worked James Brown also created many songs headed by I’m Black and Proud which became something of an anthem itself although he disclaimed the publicly accepted militant sense of the song. He also went against the black stream politically hanging out with weirdo Republicans like Nixon and Reagan. He fired band members for using drugs yet he had his own drug jones, was practically a junkie. The list of number of allegations of domestic violence is staggering and in the end would do him in. His claim to fame that he chilled the crowd at a concert in Boston when Doctor Martin Luther King was assassinated seems rather an exception to his life although no question he did keep violence epidemic elsewhere down in that town. Maybe it is best to say today in 2018 that like a lot of other men whose cultural talents are unquestioned James Brown carries the sins of his times heavily on his back. That is the best I can do here since he will be among the exhibits of how primitive we were when societies evolve beyond sexism, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, racism, classism and all the other oppressions which hold back humankind.       

Sunday, April 22, 2018

From The Archives-On The 100th Anniversary Of Irish Easter Uprising 1916- A Word

From The Archives-On The 100th Anniversary Of Irish Easter Uprising 1916- A Word


A word on the Easter Uprising.


In the old Irish working-class neighborhoods where I grew up the aborted Easter Uprising of 1916 was spoken of in mythical hushed reverent tones as the key symbol of the modern Irish liberation struggle from bloody England. The event itself provoked such memories of heroic “boyos”  (and “girlos” not acknowledged) fighting to the end against great odds that a careful analysis of what could, and could not be, learned from the mistakes made at the time entered my head. That was then though in the glare of boyhood infatuations. Now is the time for a more sober assessment. 


The easy part of analyzing the Irish Easter Uprising of 1916 is first and foremost the knowledge, in retrospect, that it was not widely supported by people in Ireland, especially by the “shawlies” in Dublin and the cities who received their sons’ military pay from the Imperial British Army for service in the bloody trenches of Europe which sustained them throughout the war. That factor and the relative ease with which the uprising had been militarily defeated by the British forces send in main force to crush it lead easily to the conclusion that the adventure was doomed to failure. Still easier is to criticize the timing and the strategy and tactics of the planned action and of the various actors, particularly in the leadership’s underestimating the British Empire’s frenzy to crush any opposition to its main task of victory in World War I. (Although, I think that frenzy on Mother England’s part would be a point in the uprising’s favor under the theory that England’s [or fill in the blank of your favorite later national liberation struggle] woes were Ireland’s [or fill in the blank ditto on the your favorite oppressed peoples struggle] opportunities.


The hard part is to draw any positive lessons of that national liberation struggle experience for the future. If nothing else remember this though, and unfortunately the Irish national liberation fighters (and other national liberation fighters later, including later Irish revolutionaries) failed to take this into account in their military calculations, the British (or fill in the blank) were savagely committed to defeating the uprising including burning that colonial country to the ground if need be in order to maintain control. In the final analysis, it was not part of their metropolitan homeland, so the hell with it. Needless to say, cowardly British Labor’s position was almost a carbon copy of His Imperial Majesty’s. Labor Party leader Arthur Henderson could barely contain himself when informed that James Connolly had been executed. That should, even today, make every British militant blush with shame. Unfortunately, the demand for British militants and others today is the same as then if somewhat attenuated- All British Troops Out of Ireland.

In various readings on national liberation struggles I have come across a theory that the Easter Uprising was the first socialist revolution in Europe, predating the Bolshevik Revolution by over a year. Unfortunately, there is little truth to that idea. Of the Uprising’s leaders only James Connolly was devoted to the socialist cause. Moreover, while the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army were prototypical models for urban- led national liberation forces such organizations, as we have witnessed in later history, are not inherently socialistic. The dominant mood among the leadership was in favor of political independence and/or fighting for a return to a separate traditional Irish cultural hegemony. (“Let poets rule the land”).

As outlined in the famous Proclamation of the Republic posted on the General Post Office in Dublin, Easter Monday, 1916 the goal of the leadership appeared to be something on the order of a society like those fought for in the European Revolutions of 1848, a left bourgeois republic. A formation on the order of the Paris Commune of 1871 where the working class momentarily took power or the Soviet Commune of 1917 which lasted for a longer period did not figure in the political calculations at that time. As noted above, James Connolly clearly was skeptical of his erstwhile comrades on the subject of the nature of the future state and apparently was prepared for an ensuing class struggle following the establishment of a republic.

That does not mean that revolutionary socialists could not support such an uprising. On the contrary, Lenin, who was an admirer of Connolly for his anti-war stance in World War I, and Trotsky stoutly defended the uprising against those who derided the Easter rising for involving bourgeois elements. Participation by bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements is in the nature of a national liberation struggle. The key, which must be learned by militants today, is who leads the national liberation struggle and on what program. As both Lenin and Trotsky made clear later in their own experiences in Russia revolutionary socialists have to lead other disaffected elements of society to overthrow the existing order. There is no other way in a heterogeneous class-divided society. Moreover, in Ireland, the anti-imperialist nature of the action against British imperialism during wartime on the socialist principle that the defeat of your own imperialist overlord in war as a way to open the road to the class struggle merited support on that basis alone. Chocky Ar La.

Suddenly Is Right-Frank Sinatra’s “Suddenly” (1954)-A Film Review

Suddenly Is Right-Frank Sinatra’s “Suddenly” (1954)-A Film Review




DVD Review

By Film Critic Sandy Salmon

Suddenly, starring Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden, 1954, based on a 1943 story Active Duty by Richard Sales who wrote the screenplay, 1954       

For my generation, the generation of ‘68 as one political pundit who I read occasionally called those of us who were involved in the great counter-cultural wave of the mid to late 1960s, November 22, 1963 the day President Kennedy was assassinated by an ex-military man, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a touchstone in our lives, as December 7, 1941 was for an earlier generation and 9/11 for a later one. Thus the subject matter of the 1954 film under review, Suddenly, an assassination attempt on the President of the United States as he passed through by train the Podunk fictional town of Suddenly out in California was a little shocking. If I had seen the film in 1954 at a time when I knee-deep, as were many of my fellow film critics, in attending Saturday afternoon matinee double features I probably would have passed it off as another great B-film noir effort. And at some level that was my reaction recently as well but the film brought to the surface more questions than I would have expected for such an old time film.              

The plot-line was like this if it helps the reader understand my perplexity. In advance of the unnamed President (although if you go by the original 1943 story the film is based on Active Duty by the screenwriter here Richard Sales hard it would have been Franklin Delano Roosevelt but by the film’s release Dwight Eisenhower) heading to some Western mountain retreat the town of Suddenly was suddenly (I couldn’t resist that, sorry) infested with all kinds of cops, feds, Secret Service, naturally, state and local cops. The important one of the latter here is Sherriff Shaw played by gruff he-man type Sterling Hayden. With all this police action it was fairly easy for a bunch of guys led by John Baron, played by Frank Sinatra, to pose as FBI agents and gain access to a primo location at a house across from the railroad station where the President was expected to stop. That house also just happened to be the home of Sherriff Shaw’s hoped for paramour, a war widow, her son, and her ex-Secret Service father.    

After a series of ruses Baron and his boys set up for the ambush in a position in the house and with a rifle that reminded me of what the situation was like at that 1963 Texas School Depository. But remember this is 1954 and fiction so that you know that this plot like many others before and since would be foiled before the dastardly deed was consummated. Foiled one way or another although not before a senior Secret Service agent was killed and Sherriff Shaw was wounded and taken hostage along with his sweetie and her family. The long and short of it was that the plot was foiled by the heroic action of that son, that paramour, her father and even the Sheriff. So you can see the film to get the skinny on the how of that. 

What is of interest, beyond the excellent job that Frank Sinatra did of playing an ex-soldier who learned to love to kill, who gained self-respect and dignity during World War II when he could freely shoot on sight anything that moved and nobody thought anything of it and the good job Sterling Hayden did as the Sheriff also an ex-soldier trying to figure out Baron’s motivation for shooting the President. Baron was nothing but a flat-out psychopath who had no more feeling about what he doing and who he was doing it to than the Germans he wasted in the war. I have seen guys like that, saw them during my own military service, saw them at the VA hospitals too when they completely broke down. With this caveat in Baron’s case he was a hired killer, was being paid big money, half a million, no mean sum back then, by unnamed sources to perform his task and blow the country. Who was behind it and their motivation didn’t interest him. 

In light of all the controversy surrounding the Kennedy murder by an ex-Marine of unknown psychological stability and a million theories about whether he acted alone or as part of greater conspiracy that got me thinking about who might have hired Baron to do the dastardly deed. That was a matter of some speculation among the hostages in that ambush house and since it was the post-World War II 1950s and the heart of the red scare Cold War night  the obvious possibility was the “commies” (although not the Cuban variety since their revolution was several years away). But that did not end the possibilities. It could have been some nefarious criminals, the mob, unhappy about their exposure to public scrutiny. It might have been the military-industrial complex unhappy about their contracts, or lack of them. It could not have been Lyndon Johnson since he was not Vice President then but it could have been the sitting Vice President. You know who I mean in 1954 if you are old enough. Yeah, Richard Milhous Nixon, later to be a President and a known felon. Don’t tell me he wasn’t mean and craven enough to order that hit. Don’t be naïve. Watch this film and develop your own conspiracy theory.