"The Montefeltro Conspiracy" - the Bad comes with the Good

When it comes to history books, Marcello Simonetta's The Montefeltro Conspiracy is something rare: a thoroughly detailed and entertaining narrative of the context, the settings, the key people and events all presented in a very brief and accessible package - a mere 215 pages (including many full-page pictures).

Normally, scholars writing about the Rennaissance can lose themselves to tangential distractions. These take the form of either excessively detailed explainations that can only be comprehended and put in context with difficulty, or speculative flights of fancy. Simonetta actually does engage in the latter for the last twenty-something pages; more on that below.

However, what makes The Montefeltro Conspiracy so unusual is the fact that it presents a complete, comprehensive picture of the events of the Pazzi conspiracy - including the historical context and aftermath - in such a short and accessible narrative. By turns it is fascinating, exciting, and the amateur historian may even feel a twinge of suspense here or there.

Along the way, the reader learns a great deal about the political and cultural landscape of 15th century Italy. One gains a great introductory understanding of the lives and perspectives of the great personalities involved in Rennaissance era politics and their games; the which include bribes, spies, conspiracies, insurrections, and assassinations. It should be noted that there is no shortage of great literature available examining the lives of these fascinating historical figures, which include Lorenzo il Magnifico, Federico da Montefeltro, Pope Sixtus IV, and others which are among the most popular names spoken in reference to the Rennaissance in general and Italy in particular.

Yet one would be hard pressed to find much information on one of the central characters in his narrative: the author's own ancestor, Cicco Simonetta. This fascinating and extremely influential individual has been given short shrift by popular historical works until now. Indeed, the greatest reason to read The Montefeltro Conspiracy, in my opinion, is to learn about this intriguing man.

That said, The Montefeltro Conspiracy is not without its flaws. Toward the end, Simonetta attempts to "discover" subversive hidden messages in some contemporary Botticelli paintings. This is apparently an attempt to lengthen the book past the 200 page mark while grasping at some of the scraps from the ignominious Dan Brown's table (the chapter is actually entitled "The Botticelli Code"; needless to say such intellectual whoring makes the gorge rise).

Smarty Pants Sez: The Montefeltro Conspiracy is a fun, informative, and easy read. Recommended.

Caveats: Simonetta's discovery, though valuable, does not warrant all the hype with which it is associated. Also, his tendency to throw the phrase "the [name-of-famous-Rennaissance-Italian-person]Code" around is quite annoying for those of us who would rather not have Dan Brown's foolishness associated with real history.

"Chicago" Fire

Remember the good old days of cinema? You know, back when musicals were all the rage and every movie had at least one song and dance number?

Awful, wasn't it?

Yeah, musicals are strange things. The direct descendants of opera, they sound like such a good idea: have the characters express themselves in song. After all, audiences pay fortunes for musical numbers, dance routines, and operas in the live theater. How could it go wrong?

A lot of ways, as it turned out. As cinema advanced as a medium for story-showing rather than story-telling, the music just seemed to get in the way. Every time an actor broke off a captivating and realistic performance to do a fancy caper and belt out an excessively long ditty, the magic spell of the theater was broken. Instead of remaining interlopers, cinema musicians consigned themselves to working in the background in support of the thespians whose performances were judged for their realism above all.

Yeah yeah, you get it. I'm not a musical fan. But as I said before, the idea of the musical is a good one, and sometimes -rarely- movie makers get it right.

Which brings us to Chicago. This is one of those rare instances were the musical numbers and live performances do not interfere with each other. In fact, this movie would likely be disappointing without the toe-tapping beats and poignant metaphors that characterize its musical interludes.

The story is not much to talk about. Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is a dissappointed housewife who craves fame, and accidentally gets it when she shoots her lying lover. Consigned to jail alongside her former idol, Velma (Catherine Zeta-Jones), Roxie and her estranged but loyal husband hire lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), a greedy conniving flim-flam, who promises to get her out.

Cliche city, right? But the real quality of this movie is in the music and dance numbers. Every scene or so, the audience is treated to a dazzling spectacle as a character takes the stage and reveals their intimate perspectives in flamboyant paradoxical exhibitionism. Even otherwise boring characters like Roxie's estranged husband, Amos, get surprising new depth in these scenes.

The musical bits also serve to highlight the dishonesty and corruption of the subject matter. By portraying Roxie's press conference as a puppet-show and the trial as a literal circus, the movie makers gave a hilarious satire of journalism and the justice system.

Smarty Pants Sez: It's a great spectacle. See it for the song and dance, not the story.

Caveats: Chicago, like most modern movies, glamorizes and sexualizes crimes -especially murder. It's somewhat disturbing, but altogether expected from Hollywood. Also, the story itself lacks depth.

"Les Miserables" (not the musical)

Based on Victor Hugo's classic novel, this story of desperation, redemption, obsession, and romance is a finely crafted work of art.

Les Miserables follows the story of Jean Valjean (Liam Neeson), an unscrupulous and ignorant convict who is willing to lie, steal, and betray to prolong his meager life. Until, that is, an act of mercy by a stranger transforms him. After escaping from the law, Valjean starts a new life as a factory worker in a small French town where his unwavering kindness and generosity eventually take him to riches and the position of Mayor.

Enter Inspector Javert (Geoffrey Rush), a ruthless police officer who is determined to return Valjean to jail. Valjean is forced to escape to Paris, but not before a desperate single mother (Uma Thurman) begs him to take care of her daughter Cossette (Claire Danes). Unable to refuse someone in need, Valjean becomes Cossette's foster father as they start a new life in Paris. But the revolution is on, and Javert isn't finished yet.

Les Miserables is masterfully done. The cinematography and music are beautiful, and the story is inspiring. By far the best thing about it is the superb acting, with particularly strong performances by Neeson and Rush. Neeson's portrayal of Valjean is a man who is determined to help those in need and prevent the type of suffering he had to endure, yet with the hesitancy of a man who knows how unpredictable life can be. Rush's Javert is a fascinating character: an uncompromising legalist who can't tell the difference between "legal" and "moral", he is obsessed with catching Valjean, not because of a personal vendetta or even because he broke the law, but because Valjean's obvious goodness is anathema to Javert's simplistic worldview.

Smarty Pants Sez: Les Miserables with Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman, and Claire Danes is highly recommended.

Caveats: It isn't a musical, and many of the characters from the original novel are simplified or left out. Even so, it's still a great movie.

"The Wheel of Darkness" Falls Flat

Today, Smarty Pants reviews Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's latest Pendergast novel: The Wheel of Darkness.

In this thriller, Aloysius Pendergast and his ward, Constance Greene, go to a remote Tibetan monestary to heal the spiritual wounds they suffered at the hands of Pendergast's various evil relatives and acquaintances. Trouble is, an extremely dangerous object has been stolen from the monks, so naturally it's up to Pendergast and Greene to find it... even though they don't actually know what it is.

They track it down to a luxury ocean liner on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic. There, they have to contend with a viscious serial killer, a dangerous misanthropic Naval officer, a terrible storm, a mysterious ghostly phantom, and an Aloysius Pendergast gone crazy.

And yet, through all that, The Wheel of Darkness falls short of the successes that preceded it. The main reason for its failure is the authors' unaccountable decision to remove all the characters with whom the audience has the most empathy. It was with a great deal of disappointment that I realized this book would contain no hint of Vincent D'Agosta, Bill Smithback, Margo Green, Nora Kelly, or Viola Maskelene. This creates the problem that most of the character interaction is between Pendergast and Greene, whose personalities are far too similar for an interesting dialogue. This is in sharp contrast to Pendergast's interaction with characters like D'Agosta and Smithback. Unfortunately, the trouble doesn't end there.

If there's one thing Preston and Child almost never seem to get right, it's a good villain. Sure, Job from Still Life with Crows was fascinating, but he's the exception that proves the rule. Leng and Fairhaven were non-characters with barely a hint of personality, Frock was seriously underdeveloped, and Diogenes was nothing more than Pendergast with a sinister twist. Count Foscoe doesn't count because he was copied from Wilkie Collins. In spite of this marked shortcoming, the books in which these characters appear were excellent.

Yet in The Wheel of Darkness, this weakness reaches a high point. Preston and Child were simply unable to come up with anything resembling a good villain. Instead, they resorted lamely to a simple motif of harmful sensation.

Now don't misinterpret me. The Wheel of Darkness isn't great like most of Preston and Child's books are, but it is still a good read. It's interesting, rather than rivetting.

Smarty Pants Sez: Recommended, though not nearly as good as Still Life with Crows, Brimstone, Dance of Death, and Book of the Dead.

Caveats: While it's good by most standards, it's bad by Preston and Child standards. Fans of the series, prepare to be disappointed.

"10,000 BC" YAWN

It's not a good sign when the most exciting, action-packed scene in your movie involves a dodo.

10,000 BC"is bad. Not the "good" bad, either.

See, some movies are so unabashedly, mind-numbingly, powerfully bad that you can't help but enjoy them (yes, I mean Snakes on a Plane). These movies are driven to fantastic heights of camp by the straight-faced performances of overly committed actors who seem to be having a great time.

Then there's the "bad" bad. Movies in which the one-dimensional characters just stumble along, muttering lines of momentous cliche without a hint of deep emotion, as though wading through a bog of apathy. These movies are bad because the actors are apparently not having a good time, and that translates to the audience. Without committed actors, even the most inspired storyline can become mired in this type of ennui.

And the plot of 10,000 BC is definitely inspired (read "ripped off"). It follows the story of a tribal hunter named D'Leh (Steven Strait) whose girlfriend, Evolet (Camilla Belle) is enslaved by the evil ancient Egyptians (huh?). The evil Egyptians are using slaves and woolly mammoths to build the three pyramids of Giza and the sphinx, you see (all in "10,000 BC", no less; yeah, my inner historian is having an aneurysm too). Naturally, the caucasian D'Leh sets out after her, in the process raising an army of black tribesmen to fight the Egyptians. Not to mention near-plagiarizing such sources as Apocalypto, One Million Years BC, and the book of Exodus.

You think maybe I'm reading too much into the fact that D'Leh is a caucasian leader of a black army? And that his symbol of authority is the White Spear? And that Evolet is routinely referred to as "the Blue-Eyed Child"?

Yeah, probably. I'm just groping for a reason to endure this snorefest, and maybe latent racism will do the trick. The problem is that the movie is just so boring. D'Leh barely has to do anything to fulfill his quest, since the director shamelessly uses old shaman ladies and "prophecies" as a Deus ex Machina.

Smarty Pants Sez: 10,000 BC is bad. Not just bad, "bad" bad. Don't see it.

Caveats: It's an epic movie without much of a plot, a romance without drama, a war movie without action, and a bad movie without camp. But hey, if you like dodo's and woolly mammoths, you might enjoy it. A little.

"Persian Fire" is Smokin'

Making a modern, historically accurate account of events that occurred 450-500 years before Christ is no easy task, and neither is compiling the information into a fascinating narrative for a wide audience. Tom Holland has accomplished both in his book Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West, an engaging account of the Persain War against Greece.

There are few historical periods more shrouded in myth and legend than the Persian War, especially the famous stand of the "300 Spartans" in the Thermopylae pass. It's easy to find exaggerated or romanticised portrayals of the events of the Persian War, but as Holland points out in his preface:

As is so often the case, the truth is both messier and more intriguing than
the myth (xviii)

In other words, 300 this ain't.

Holland goes beyond merely relating the story of Thermopylae, Marathon, or Salamis. Instead, he relates the entire history of Persia, Sparta, and Athens (in that order) each from their founding to just before the fateful clash. In this way, the reader recieves a valuable context with which to understand the famous battles that would go down in history. You see, the war between Persia and Greece was not simply a conflict of interest between neighbors; it was a monumental collision between two groups of people whose culture, government, language, and basic perspective were so fundamentally different that they hardly seemed the same species.

Over time, the Persian perspective would be adopted into subsequent Near Eastern empires including the Muslim Caliphate whose influence continues strongly to this day. Meanwhile, the Greek influence is so overt in the cities of Europe and the United States that it barely needs mentioning. Were it not for the Greeks' seemingly impossible expulsion of the Persian armies and navies from Europe, there may not have been a "Western history" at all.

So the material is relevant to us today, but is it a good read? You betcha'. Holland has a knack for giving illustrative anecdotes that give the whole thing a very human, down to earth feel. He also fully explains the immediate importance of each major event in the fifty year confrontation that helps the reader fully appreciate the importance of the events. It's far superior to the dry list of names and dates most people associate with history texts. Persian Fire has history, drama, action, war, politics, honor, betrayal, and a big bibliography. What's not to like?

Smarty Pants Sez: Persian Fire is highly recommended, especially for the amateur historian/classicist.

Caveats: This is history, and although Tom Holland is a great story teller, things don't always turn out the way you want. Be aware of this as you read.

Classics Corner: "Cyrano de Bergerac"

If there's one thing I love, it's old school cinema.

So a black-and-white movie released in 1950, based on a play written in 1897, based in turn on the life of a 1600s swashbuckler/author is right up my alley.

The story follows Cyrano (a spot-on performance by Jose Ferrier), a dashing duelist and dramatist of 1640 France. Although he's a poor soldier, Cyrano draws the respect and admiration -not to mention jealousy- of Parisians great and small thanks to his unequalled skill with sword and pen and his razor sharp rhetorical wit. However, Cyrano's macho posturing turns out to be only a cover for his delicate ego.

Cyrano's problem is, he has a big nose. Huge even- like six inches long, and he's very sensitive about it. He's convinced that he's ugly, and so he never pursues the woman he secretly loves with a passion: his childhood companion (and distant cousin) Roxanne. Determined to see her happy, he even helps another man woo her, the handsome but not too bright Christian. An irreverent comedy ensues, in which Cyrano feeds sweet poetry to Christian who in turn repeats it (as best he can) to Roxanne. She falls for the words, not knowing that they were truly written by her just-a-friend, while Christian reeps the kisses without any idea of Cyrano's own passion for Roxanne.

Uh oh, I'm afraid I've led the poor reader astray. It looks like I'm reviewing a boring chick flick, doesn't it? Another movie about innocent deception and the resulting awkward romantic situations. Like Pillow Talk if Rock Hudson had a big nose.

Banish the thought! Cyrano de Bergerac has some excellently choreographed duel scenes as well as rivetting battle sequences. Cyrano himself is a real man's man; a swaggering action hero who's willing to face death for his devotion, laughs at impossible odds, and don't take no crap offa' nobody. Sort of a talkative Clint Eastwood.

But for all it's attention grabbing surface flair, Cyrano de Bergerac is at heart a substantial work, which manages to deal seriously and artfully with love, devotion, and tragic sacrifice. Even its most light hearted scenes use dialogue of such wit and charm that they stand head and shoulders above the inferior soundbites of the best modern movies.

Of course a lot of the movie's success is the result of Jose Ferrier's brilliant charisma in the title role. Ferrier sometimes has to carry his less skilled fellow performers, most notably Roxanne herself, but this takes very little from enjoyment of the movie. This is a truly great movie for the ages.

Smarty Pants Sez: Cyrano de Bergerac is highly recommended.

Caveats: None. Stop what you're doing and go watch it. Right now. What are you waiting for?

"The Bank Job", not a bad job

Don't let the "Based on a true story" caption fool you. The Bank Job has exactly what you expect from entirely fictional heist pictures (kinda makes you wonder...).

Basically, if you take Ocean's 11, add some Snatch, throw in just a dash of Sherlock Holmes and the Red-Headed League, and cut out pretty much all the humor, you've got The Bank Job. It's the story of a small time, loanshark-ridden used car salseman named Terry (Jason Stratham, not fighting for once and not acting as always) who gets a tip about a bank whose alarms will be down for one week, leaving the safe deposit boxes in the vault up for grabs. Being a family man, Terry makes the smart choice for his wife and daughters and takes the chance. He and his partner Martine (Saffron Burrows) bring in a little group of petty crooks and lowlife porn actors to help with the heist. Trouble is, our merry band of misfits don't know that they've been set up by a secret government operative who wants the contents of one of the safe deposit boxes destroyed with minimal government involvement. He's content to let our heroes have most of the goods at first, but he's willing to have our heroes quietly "erased" to protect the secret in the vault.

But that's just the beginning. The bank job has sent waves throughout London society that sets everyone from lords to drug lords, brothel proprietors to government agents, ruthless porn thugs to brutal black extremist groups, and cops both crooked and straight against our heroes. See, Terry and company just happened to pick the one closet in London where every powerful lowlife -from the street to the crown- stores there skeletons. Our heroes are in way over their heads and there only hope is to get out of this mess alive.

Stratham has a good screen presence, but he can't act well enough to pull off the emotional scenes with his very justifiably worried wife (one of only two characters with a hint of scruples). Also, the director uses shots of enhanced breasts way more than necessary. Yeah yeah, I get the point, crime is fun and sexy and has no consequences. Even so, this movie is one heck of a fun ride. There are no notable performances, but this movie is still good for its fast paced action and suspense.

Smarty Pants Sez: The Bank Job is recommended.

Caveats: This is a fun movie, but lacking in substance. If you want to see heart rending performances, or you really don't want to have a lot of silicone-laden nipples pushed in your face, don't see it.

"Never Back Down" Never Steps Up.

If you see Never Back Down, you'll get exactly what you pay for. A by the numbers throwback to '80s fight movies.

Its oh-so-predictable story follows misunderstood-angry-brunet-brawler-with-fatherhood-issues JakeTyler (Sean Faris, who looks and acts eerily like Tom Cruise) who moves to Orlando, where he gets lured into fighting popular-asshole-angry-blond-brawler-with-fatherhood-issues Ryan McDonald (Cam Gigandet, who looks and acts suspiciously like Iceman from Top Gun) by boring-attractive-blonde-popular-girl-who-really-has-a-good-heart-and-brain-on-the-inside Baja (Amber Heard, whose excessively made-up Caucasian features make the name Baja sound like a self parody). After losing badly, Jake undergoes an intensive martial arts training montage under wise-foreign-bald-peaceful-yet-tough-martial-arts-guru-with-fatherhood-issues Jean Roqua (Djimon Hounsou, who probably doesn't need that accent anymore) so that he can eventually take on McDonald in The Tournament (betcha can't guess who wins). Along the way, everyone learns to value peace and shun violence (in a truly impressive display of hypocrisy).

To be fair, there are some good things about it. Cliche as it is, it is well shot and not terribly written, though sometimes the homages to Rocky get a little too obvious. Djimon Hounsou's performance is as good as ever, and the fight choreography is both realistic and exciting. If you're into fight movies and you don't mind checking your brain at the theater entrance, this is a fair distraction.

Smarty Pants Sez: Never see Never Back Down. Not worth the time.

Caveats: If you like fight movies and don't mind a lot of cliche, wait and rent it. Or better yet, rent Rocky IV.

"Baudolino" Triumphant

Just to start things off with a bang, my first review will be one of the most captivating and mystifying tales of our generation, by none other than the brilliant Umberto Eco. Today, Smarty Pants reviews Baudolino.

Baudolino is the name of the hero, a charming rogue of a twelfth-century peasant whose quick wit and gift for telling lies wins him the favor of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. From Frederick's house, Baudolino sets off on a seris of grand adventures across the medieval world, each more fantastic than the last. Along the way, he acquires a cadre of quirky friends who join him on the most unbelievable quest of all: to the legendary kingdom of Prester John.

Baudolino bills itself as a light-hearted romp through the intriguing history of the middle ages, and it is that. It's also at times a highly cerebral evaluation of the complex history and politics of Europe in the twelfth century. Even so, it also manages to draw the reader emotionally into the hero's life. You find yourself laughing with him when his crazy schemes pay off, or crying when he experiences devastating loss.

The real pleasure of Baudolino comes from the history. Since this book seamlessly weaves known historical events into the plot, and often "reveals" them to be the result of Baudolino's machinations, the reader gets treated to a hearty belly-laugh at his own ignorance. Anyone with a good basic knowledge of history will appreciate the jesting skepticism. Further, if you know a bit about medieval European history, you'll be able to pat yourself on the back for "getting" hilarious jokes that most people would miss.

I said 'biography' earlier, but that isn't quite right. Baudolino is more of an autobiography, because its framing device sets up the tale as an old Baudolino relating his life story to a Byzantine refugee named Niketas. Baudolino's interlocutor is no mere Macguffin for plot convenience. On the contrary, Niketas' insightful, profound, and funny exchanges with Baudolino are one of the high points of the book.

Ultimately, Baudolino is a cautionary tale, almost a fable whose moral is that we really know much less than we think we do. With adventure, romance, and fantasy, it reminds us in a fun way not to take history -or ourselves- too seriously.

Smarty Pants Sez: Baudolino is a must-read.

Caveats: Umberto Eco is an expert in medieval history and an intellectual heavyweight. Baudolino is certainly not the heaviest thing Eco has written by a long shot, but it still requires some serious mental muscle to tolerate, let alone enjoy. A good basic knowledge of medieval history, European languages, theology, and mythology will really come in handy to appreciate it. Of course, if you're not interested in learning about history or enjoying a great book, you can always go here.

Smarty Pants Intro

Greetings and salutations, my soon-to-be devoted readers. I'm Smarty Pants, your source for intelligent, accessible, and useful media reviews.

There are tons of great books to read and movies to watch out there, and even more complete duds that look great only in the trailer or the dust jacket. Let's face it, we all want to enjoy fun evenings at the movies with friends, or spend hours engrossed in a gripping page-turner. Then again, we don't want to get suckered into wasting our money and time on mindless schlock or pseudo-intellectual tripe. What ever shall we do?

Have no fear, Smarty Pants is here!

That's right, Smarty Pants will give you honest, insightful, and smart reviews that will tell you exactly what you need to have the best time you can, either at the movies or at home. And don't worry; this is a No Spoiler Zone.

So, without further ado, let the reviews begin.