No comments about Biography - Coors.

No comments about Biography: Nelson Rockefeller.

No comments about Biography - O.J. Simpson.

1 comments about Biography: Ma Barker - Crime Family.

1. The Biography episode on Ma Barker is one of the best gangster episodes they've done, perhaps second only to the one on John Dillinger. In addition to the many (some very rare) photos and commentary from Barker historians, including Paul Maccabee and yours truly, there are also interviews with Barker relatives, others who knew or encountered the gang, and, of particular interest, the daughter of murdered St. Paul policeman Leo Pavlak, whose tragic and touching account of her father's death provides a victim's viewpoint usually absent or forgotten in most such productions. On the other hand, while presenting both popular views of Ma herself, the program does tend to lean more toward the "Bloody Mama" legend than the probable truth: that Ma Barker was simply an ignorant hillbilly woman who happened to have four gangster sons who kept her mostly in the dark as to their crimes. It even includes Jay Robert Nash's fictional scenario of a wide-eyed young Arrie Clark (the future Ma) watching "her hero" Jesse James ride through her hometown. But then Ma is the center of the program. What actually caused me to dock a star in this well-produced show was the omission of the Hamm kidnapping, one of the Barker-Karpis gang's major felonies, from an otherwise detailed history of their criminal career. It's still a good show.

No comments about Biography - Chiang Kai-Shek.

5 comments about Biography - Attila.

1. It is hard to imagine how any documentary could be worse than this. The makers of the film seem to have done little more than 30 seconds of research. The main source that the documentary relies on is a book by Wes Roberts called "Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun." This book is a work of FICTION, not history. Thus, all of the material that the documentary presents about Attila's youth is just total invention, with no support in any ancient source. For example, the film claims that Attila spent time living among the Romans in his youth. This story is completely false, and yet the film presents it as Attila's main motive for his later hostility to Rome! What nonsense! Making matters worse are some hilarius recreations of the Huns at war that ignore everything that is known about Hunnic tactics. The Huns fought as horse-mounted archers, but there is not a bow in sight. One could note too that the scholars who are interviewed in the film are not experts on the Huns, and I don't think any of them has published on the subject. A&E Biography should be embarrassed about offering this ignorant drivel for sale.



2. I, Jesse Sublett, am the writer of this documentary, ATTILA THE HUN: SCOURGE OF GOD. I did all of the research, sought out historical consultants, wrote the interview questions, wrote the narrative script, and edited the historical consultants comments which were used in the final cut of the documentary. I am very proud of the finished product and stand on its accuracy, and therefore would like to respond to the bizarre, misinformed and completely erroneous "review" posted here by Charles King, regarding this documentary.

   First I'd like to address the totally weird comment that I relied upon the book Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun by Wes Roberts. What a ridiculous statement, besides the fact that if it were true, how would Mr. King know? First of all, I never read that book. I did glance at it so I could refer to the book itself in passing. During the several months I spent researching this subject (not to mention all the time spent by the production staff, fact checkers, historical consultants, and others), I had the good fortune to work with Dr. Stephen Bela Vardy, one of the world's leading experts on Hungarian history and culture, and of the Huns. He was not able to appear on the show, but his reputation and his knowledge of Attila is unassailable (by the way he certainly has been published on the subject), and Dr. Vardy checked and approved every single fact in this documentary.

   The treatment of Attila's years spent in Rome is certainly accepted by scholars. Mr. King might want to read the writings of the Greek historian Priscus, who actually met Attila on on at least one occasion. Mr. King might also want to read C.D. Gordon's The Age of Attila, probably one of the best single places to read about Attila and the years he spent in Rome. The tradition of holding a representative of one's enemy hostage for years at a time was common during this time period (which is why Attila was actually in Rome), so one wonders why Mr. King seems so upset by this part of the show, and it is certainly not "pure invention," although with anything from this time period one must consider the sources carefully, check and re-check, and that is what we have done in this case, and our conclusions and our presentation are hardly on the fringe, they are historically accurate and carefully vetted and approved by mainstream academic experts on the highest level. Mr. King is also off the money when he states that it is asserted that Attila's time in Rome was the main reason he went to war against Rome. Attila warred against Rome because he was a warrior, his people needed booty, and because it was there! It is true that when in Rome, he lost whatever respect he might have had for his enemies, because they were decadent and weak. In his criticisms of the documentary's recreations, Mr. King takes on the tone of a crushed schoolboy who has just discovered there is no Santa Claus; it is true, the production could not afford to hire and outfit thousands of re-enactors to stand in for Attila's Huns; the footage of men on horseback is only meant to add a bit of tone and texture to the show. These programs are not made on Steven Spielberg budgets, unfortunately. Archers are in fact in the show, perhaps Mr. King was in the kitchen during that portion of the documentary. I agree that it would have been nice to have a more in-depth demonstration of Hun archery techniques; however, that was not possible due to time constraints. It is very difficult to tell Attila's story in 45 minutes, but I think the choices we made were the right ones. Mr. King says what he "thinks" to be true about our on-camera experts, however, what he "thinks" must be the way he has done the rest of his research, apparently, because our on-screen experts are in fact authorities on the Huns. Perhaps someday Mr. King can make his own documentary and tell the story the way he wants it done. But I doubt he will get credible historians to support his version of the story. And by the way, Mr. King misspelled hilarious.




3. You can read here the response Jesse Sublett has made to my earlier review, in which I pointed out that much of what is in this documentary is fiction that has no support in ancient sources. As he suggests that I am ignorant, I should point out that I am a specialist on the history of the Huns, and that I have published several works on the subject. There is virtually no one in America who is more familiar with the ancient sources about the Huns than I am.

   Although his response is full of bluster and insults, Sublett does not produce any ancient sources to support his position, nor could he, since they do not exist. There are really only two major sources for the life of Attila (Priscus and Jordanes) with small bits of information in other sources (Salvian, Isaac of Antioch, etc) and a few sources on the Huns of other periods (Ammianus, Eunapius).

   Mr. Sublett builds his whole explanation of Attila's view of the Romans on the idea that Attila was a hostage in Rome in his youth. Why then is this alleged incident nowhere to be found in ANY ANCIENT SOURCE? Sublett is simply confusing fiction with history, and, if he knows a scholar who told him that story, it only shows that Sublett should have read the ancient sources and checked the facts for himself. Indeed, he could also have read the major modern studies of the subject by E. A. Thompson, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and Istvan Bona, none of which mention this nonsense about Attila being in Rome in his youth.

   There are popular tradions about Attila's life that derive from medieval and early modern folklore, but that is not history, and should not presented as history (which is basically what the film does). There are various modern works in which this popular (but inaccurate) material appears. I mentioned Wes Roberts' book because the version of the documentary that was shown on TV identified that book as a source and even flashed its cover on the screen (!) I have this on tape if anyone doubts me.

   The bottom line is that "A&E Biography: Attila the Hun" contains a substantial amount of material that is wrong, unattested by any ancient source, and unmentioned in any major modern study of the Huns. The documentary is therefore a piece of poorly researched junk, passing off legend and fiction as history and seemingly relying on modern hearsay rather than ancient evidence as its primary source of information.




4. This crybaby who claims to be a history professor and self appointed Attila expert, offered his sadly naive and silly opinion of my documentary for Biography on Attila. His main complaint, is that I used the story about Attila being held hostage in Rome as a youth. This practice was quite common in ancient times, and the story has been repeated by numerous credible sources. In his earlier diatribe, the little professor went ballistic and insulted this documentary, claiming that it was fiction and trash because it uses this story. Further, he claimed that I based this information on a motivational book titled The Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun. This was completely false. All of the facts in the documentary were checked by world renowned Hun expert Professor Stephen Bela Vardy. While it may be true that the story of Attila being a hostage is not verified by ancient sources, Dr. Vardy believes it is true and that is good enough for me. I stated this in my earlier review. Then Mr. King offered another petty and vicious attack on this video and tried to rebut my statements by asserting that a picture of the book in question appears in the credits, and therefore it MUST have been source material. This is a naive and stupid assumption, proving that Mr. King has little or no knowledge of how television productions are made. I live in Austin, Texas currently, and do not frequently visit the production company (Perpetual Motion Pictures, which has produced scores of high quality history documentaries, many of them award winning) during the final stages of the production. One of the video editors decided to include the picture of the book because at the time, H. Ross Perot was in the news a lot. He was running for president, and he was so taken with the Attila leadership book that he bought a huge number of copies and gave them away to associates and employees. Originally, a few lines about this was in the film but they were edited out. Mr. King's outrageous and insulting assertions are all based on this simple misunderstanding. He also attacks the credibility of the experts who appear in the program -- not realizing that I consulted none of these experts in the writing of the script. Also, he provides no qualifications for his own expertise. We must assume then that he is a pompous and bitter blowhard who has nothing better to do than try to attack and tear down the work of others, since he has nothing else to offer.
   Once again, I will repeat that this program was vetted by Professor Vardy, who, unlike Mr. King, is published on the subject of the Huns and a world-renowned expert. I think Mr. King should grow up and if he thinks he has anything to offer, perhaps he should try to write his own version of Attila's life and see if any network or producer thinks he has talent for anything besides bitter diatribes.



5. i saw this video on A & E the other night and found it interesting. i was looking for some background and history on the "scourge of god" and it delivered - except there weren't a lot of great battle recreations done (but i understand budgets). then i go online to find a book on attila to further my newfound interest in the famous barbarian leader and i come upon this new "attila battle" between the video screen writer and some fella named charles king who is the #1 expert in america on the huns. wow that's impressive. so why can't i find a book by you on attila? hmmmm anyway the video was good and i will look into the books and authors both you boys mention. now why can't we all try to love one another.

5 comments about Biography - Truman Capote.

1. Despite facing homophobia, heightism, and anti-effeminacy, Truman Capote became a star. Unfortunately, like so many others, drugs and alcohol did him in. Many viewers will relate or be fascinated by the subject's extreme highs and lows. For those who loved the film "Capote," this will give them a longitudinal look at his life, not just his Kansas days. For those who read Gerald Clarke's biography, you actually get to see Mr. Clarke speak. Unlike most men with clefts that look like the dot of an I, Mr. Clarke's cleft is shaped like an upper-case T: it is soooooo adorable. As many say comparing fictional books with movies, the biographical book was better than this A&E special, though the special is laudable too. This A&E work doesn't talk about Capote's intense rivalry with Gore Vidal. It doesn't mention the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird" who got exceptional coverage in the "Capote" film. Also, it is not mentioned that one of Truman's photos was the cover of a record by Morrissey's ex-band, The Smiths.



2. If you're looking for a documentary on the life of Truman Capote, you have two choices:
   
   * Truman Capote, A&E DVD Archives (2005) [ASIN: B0009HMTFS]; and
   
   * Great Writers: Truman Capote (2000) [ASIN: B000FC2HNG]
   
   Neither one is inexpensive, so I would have liked a review saying which one is better. As it turned out, I ended up buying and watching both. Although both programs are of roughly the same length, the differences are significant.
   
   The Arts & Entertainment (A & E) version is clearly better. It has more information, photographs, film footage, and interesting interviews than the Great Writers version, which seems to be trying to make some sort of artistic statement of its own - lots of pictures of grass waving in the wind, country roads, etc., none of which are terribly relevant.
   
   You will be better off buying the A & E program.



3. A&E's Truman Capote bio is head and sholders above the Great Writer's bio. A&E uses rare footage, new reasearch, and exclusive videos to bring the experience to life. The only problem is its just too short at only 50 minutes. As it is, it won't lose your interest, and touches all the important bases. See why Truman Capote is also known as "the tiny terror"!



4. The video is everything you'd expect from the A & E Biography series. Factual, balanced, highly relevant film clips are all part of this film biography. This work gives one a better understanding of and appreciation for Capote's major works, particularly "In Cold Blood". I've viewed it three times and on each occasion, I pick up something new. Very good.



5. I'm interested in literature, so naturally, I purchased this DVD. I am also regularly impressed with the quality the BIOGRAPHY series put out by A and E. That said, this "Biography" doesn't focus upon the things that interested me, but focused upon Truman Capote's celebrity connections and his demise by alcohol, loss of purpose, and drugs. The last twenty minutes show a Capote that could be any stumblebum -- except for the fact that this stumblebum is videoed in one of the most embarassing dispays of talent loss since Jack Kerouac went on a talk show lo those years ago.
   
   The DVD corruptly focuses upon the years where Capote was doing the Club scene during the last years of his life. The focus upon his regalia by A and E is just a cheap shot, and the omission that he was despised by Gore Vidal is never mentioned--- even though they were the competing writers of their decade. And the praise heaped upon Capote by Norman Mailer is selective Pabulum.
   
   I think the film, Capote, offers a better understanding of Truman Capote's faults; however, this A and E is not a biography of much worth.

1 comments about Biography - Cinque.

1. A&E Biograhies usually fall into two camps: either sensational and inaccurate (such as the Pocahontas Biography), or good -- as in this one on Cinque, who led the slave revolt on the Cuban ship "La Amistad" (which the film "Amistad" was based upon). This account of Cinque's life starts in Africa, and I loved that the video emphasized the fact that Africa was indeed civilized ALL BY ITSELF...without the intervention of any outside group. The video also summarizes Cinque's capture and enslavement by Spaniards, the revolt on board the "Amistad", the journey to America, the trials, and finally the return of Cinque and 35 of the surviving "Amistad" ex-slaves to Africa. The hypocrisy of the American Judicial system in freeing these Africans while millions of African Americans remained in bondage is clearly shown, as is the Abolitionist cause that wanted ALL slaves freed. This video is informative, passionate, and enlightening into a previously overlooked chapter on slavery in the Americas.

No comments about Biography - Edgar Cayce.

1 comments about Biography - Stanley & Livingstone.

1. They are two of the nineteenth century's most famous and celebrated explorers, but many today know little about them apart from the words uttered by Henry Morton Stanley on November 10, 1871: "Dr. Livingstone, I presume." The story and significance of the lives of Stanley and Livingstone are much larger than I realized myself, and this video makes for a wonderful introduction to two men of vastly different backgrounds brought together by fate and united in a mission to explore the African interior. Together, they would open up the central African interior to the west and shine the light of knowledge into what was previously referred to as the Dark Continent.
   
   The lives of Stanley and Livingstone could not have been more different. Livingstone grew up in a poor but loving, pious household. He worked his way through school, decided to become a medical missionary, and was sent to Africa by the London Missionary Society. He married and had four children, but he sent his family back to England when he followed God's call to take the gospel into the remote tribal areas in the continent's interior. He traveled on his own into extremely dangerous areas, braving the deadly possibilities of sickness and tribal warfare. Appalled by what he saw of the slave trade, he decided to take action to stop it - and the best way he knew to do that was to introduce bona fide commerce into the region. From that point on, he became an explorer as well as a missionary. When he published accounts of his travels and notes, the books became bestsellers, Livingstone gained international fame, and he became a national hero back at home. In 1870, it had been three years since he had last been heard from, and speculations about his possible death gained great public attention.
   
   Someone had to go to Africa and find him, and that man was Henry Morton Stanley. Stanley's was a life of great tragedy and grievous rejection. He was born with the name John Rowlands, the illegitimate son of a town drunk and a promiscuous housemaid, neither of whom had any feelings for him at all. His grandfather raised him in his earliest years, but after his death, Stanley was shipped off to a workhouse, where he endured almost unimaginable brutality and cruelty. At fifteen, he managed to leave the workhouse and took a job on board a ship sailing to New Orleans, but this led to even more brutality. When he reached New Orleans, he was aided by a cotton broker named Stanley; he changed his own name to Henry Stanley in the man's honor, but his benefactor eventually rejected him as well. He joined the Confederate army, but he wound up in an infamous Union prisoner of war camp. Eventually, though, Stanley established himself as a journalist, and in 1870 he was called upon to lead an expedition to find the missing Dr. Livingstone. He knew nothing of Africa, but he was determined to succeed, and succeed he did. He and Livingstone developed a strong relationship over the course of their four months together in Africa.
   
   In many ways, Stanley's discovery of Livingstone marks only the beginning of the story. This video does a wonderful job of recounting Stanley's later missions to Africa and the controversies that surrounded those journeys. Livingstone was a missionary, but Stanley could be called a mercenary of sorts. We learn of the rejections that continued to descend upon Stanley even as his popularity as an explorer and writer grew by leaps and bounds. Most of all, though, we learn of the importance of his explorations in the African interior, as he became the first white man to travel and map the length of the deadly Congo River, for example. This video also helps the viewer understand just how wildly popular and celebrated both Livingstone and Stanley were in their lifetimes. In the case of Stanley, it is not always a happy story, but it is an important one. A&E Biography has once again created a gem of an introduction to the lives of two extraordinary but increasingly neglected men whose achievements did much to change the world they lived in.