|
Out of print for more than 30 years, now available for the first time as an eBook, this is the controversial story of John Wooden's first 25 years and first 8 NCAA Championships as UCLA Head Basketball Coach. This is the only book that gives a true picture of the character of John Wooden and the influence of his assistant, Jerry Norman, whose contributions Wooden ignored and tried to bury. Compiled with more than 40 hours of interviews with Coach Wooden, learn about the man behind the coach. The players tell their stories in their own words. Click the book to read the first chapter and for ordering information. Also available on Kindle. |
|
The Lost King (8/10) by Tony Medley 102 minutes without credits. PG-13 King Richard III of England was either a monster who, among other things, killed two young boys to pave his way to the throne, or one of the most unjustly maligned men in history. Years ago, I was a member of The Richard III Society, dedicated to bringing forth the truth. The fact is that most of what people know about him is based on a play by Shakespeare (or Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford), which is what I believe, see https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/top-reasons-why-edward-de-vere-17th-earl-of-oxford-was-shakespeare/) that paints him as a monster. Richard was the last of the Plantagenets, defeated and killed at the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 and the Tudors took over England. Thomas More, decapitated and sainted by Tudor Henry VIII also authored a scathing but unfinished bio of Richard III while he was in Henry VIII’s good graces. Shakespeare/deVere were subjects of Tudor Elizabeth I. As such, they (especially De Vere since he was Royalty) were flacks wanting to ingratiate themselves to their monarch. Since the Tudors were still desirous of legitimizing their reign, the flacks felt they had to paint Richard in the worst possible light and Shakespeare/De Vere and More were only too glad to oblige. In fact, the facts indicate that Richard was an enlightened king who did much for England and the world during his short reign, including enforcing the rule that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Phillipa Langley (Sally Hawkins) was an amateur researcher who took it upon herself to find Richard’s body, so she joined The Richard III Society and attacked the problem single-handedly, having to convince a doubting society to even start the project. Director Richard Frears has taken a script by Langley and himself, from the book “The Search for Richard III” by Jeff Pope to tell the story of her quest. Her quest was not easy because it cost money that she had to raise, and she had to deal with political-minded academics who were dubious and untrustworthy. She is quoted in Smithsonian Magazine: I’m not a professor. I’m not a doctor. And yes, I’m female, and yes, I’m a Ricardian, so I have revisionist views of Richard III. I think if I was doing the dig now, quite a few of the people that I dealt with … would be more aware of how they spoke and what they actually said. Because a lot of the things they said, they probably thought, “I’m being very nice here.” But they were actually being really patronizing and condescending. The film uses the conceit that Langley spoke to the spirit of Richard (Harry Lloyd) to tell this story. If it’s not true that Langley was this loony, I think it detracts from the story. But Frears directs the tale tightly and Hawkins gives a smashing performance, so the scenes with Richard fit in with the narrative. While Hawkins gives a fine performance, here is a
picture of the real Phillipa Langley. https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxyTH6FYNHhAwXl3nuguxBYDRtXOqcFP5B
|
|
|
