2:10 p.m.: Just got out of showr; going to fridge for beer

2:15 p.m.: Driving to store; out of beer

2:51 p.m.: Back home. Drinking a Bud and watching Judge Judy

Tweeting on Twitter is a cultural phenomenon; it’s like keeping a private diary except it isn’t private. Users can share with the world every breathless moment of their day. Is this the stuff of history?

The Library of Congress thinks so. It reached an agreement—call it a Tweetheart deal—with Twitter to archive Tweeters’ messages, currently about 55 million a day. While preserving communications such as those hypothetical ones shown above may seem trivial, it will make electronic ephemera less ephemeral and, just as letters and diaries give us insights into the daily life of generations past, Tweets may help future researchers understand today’s world. Won’t that mean pouring through a multitude of meaningless messages to find something of substance?

Well, yes, but reading old letters, diaries or even newspapers from the 19th and early 20th centuries means sifting through a lot of news about aching bunions, gossip about people whose last names aren’t given, and inside jokes the meaning of which you aren’t privy to in order to find a few scraps of useful information. But even trivial messages, taken together, give clues to daily life in other places and times. Here’s a link to the story about the Library of Congress and Twitter. What do you think—what will this e-archive offer to future researchers?

NOVA takes a few known facts about the attack and extrapolates them with an in-depth, self-funded study. The so-called midget subs, 80-foot, two-man, electric-drive submersibles, had more in common with the “I” class subs of the Imperial Navy at the time than did other countries’ small submersibles with their own underwater fleets. The principal factor that separated these subs from their full-size counterparts was their design for a single combat operation; part of the growing Japanese “suicide” threat.

The program, well-produced with archival film—including some in color—clear underwater footage and sophisticated graphics, begins with the well-known existence of the five midgets which were launched from “I” class subs on the night of December 6–7. They account for four of them, those known to be recovered or destroyed in the action on Dec. 7. The facts discussed in these cases agree with accepted historical knowledge; none of those four fired torpedoes at U.S. ships.

One of the most fascinating things about the program is the inclusion of Japanese as well as American scholars. (Japanese TV network NHK contributed to the production.) One of the two remaining intact Pearl Harbor midget subs, displayed outside the Japanese Naval Academy, is used to point out features of the craft. Admiral Kazuo Uyeda (Ret.), the senior surviving officer from the Type “A” sub program, goes along on NOVA’s undersea journey to explore war wreckage outside the mouth of Pearl Harbor. Skeptical at first, Uyeda weighs the evidence gathered and concludes, “…this was the special submarine that was used in Pearl Harbor.”

Throughout the investigation scientific and historical principals are seriously interwoven to draw conclusions. The program even makes a good case for the disappearance of the sub in the West Loch, where it is hypothesized to have been blown up by its crew, then dumped at sea in its present location along with wreckage from the accidental destruction of LST-353 in the West Loch on May 21, 1944. If the program’s premise that this sub actually entered the harbor is convincing, it is less so in supposing one or both of its torpedoes were actually fired at Battleship Row.

Again using scientific and historic evidence, the program examines the claim. A famous Japanese photograph of the attack is examined by two experts who claim torpedo tracks and other water motions can be attributed to the sub firing. This is an interpretation open to debate, according to Chuck Haberlein, Head, Photographic Section, Naval History & Heritage Command. He describes the circumstances of the first encounter with the image by U.S. Navy personnel on September 21, 1942. “It was released for publication by the Japanese Navy Ministry (as an inscription in Japanese in the lower right of the photo states) along with several other photographs of the Pearl Harbor attack (none showing, or subsequently interpreted as showing, any sign of Japanese midget submarines).”

One of the two torpedoes missing from the wreckage of this fifth sub is concluded to have been a dud. Two NPS divers cleared to explore the hull of USS Arizona report to the NOVA team no evidence of a strike on BB-39. According to the photo interpreters, that would leave only USS Oklahoma or USS West Virginia in range. Stuart Hedley is a survivor of the December 7 attack on USS West Virginia. “In the narrow space the sub had to operate it would surely have been affected by the explosion because underwater explosions are more devastating. I could not verify if we got hit by a midget sub torpedo or only torpedoes from the air, but USS West Virginia was hit by nine torpedoes. In my (post-war) talk (as part of the Naval Intelligence section) with (Captain Mitsuo) Fuchida (Japanese first wave flight leader on December 7,) he never expressed any knowledge of a submarine hit on one of the targets. They knew we had an armor belt below the waterline and they added an additional warhead to the air torpedoes for this reason.”

Whether or not the program is conclusive in proving all or any its theories scientifically or historically is open to individual interpretation. One hopes that Adm. Uyeda, who carried symbolic sand from the wreck back to a ceremony in Japan, is convinced of the sub crew’s demise in the small underwater tomb the wreckage provides. In any case the program is a fascinating, entertaining and sometimes solemn and haunting tribute to an event of history that will always be with us.

So what does this have to do with A Christmas Carol? The Haunted Mansion, one of Disneyland Park’s most popular attractions, might seem hokey to contemporary high-tech snobs but the ghost effects were pretty cool in the day. I have to believe that Robert Zemeckis, director of Disney’s A Christmas Carol and other cutting edge visual effects films, also enjoyed the Haunted Mansion and its ghosts on more than one occasion. It seems he pays homage to the venerable Disneyland ride in Disney’s A Christmas Carol.

Before I describe a little about the experience—one has to see it as such—of this new film version of Charles Dickens’ Victorian-era classic, it is first important to point out that A Christmas Carol is one of literature’s most interpreted stories in television and cinema. From straightforward plots set in time and place to satires and character studies that touch on the timeless morality themes of the tale, there is A Christmas Carol for every taste. What is the best rendition of the story? Different people will find a certain version more memorable than others. Hopefully readers will respond with a holiday cornucopia of opinions to this blog.

There is quite a history of films to choose from. The first was a 1910 Edison Company short, A Christmas Carol. Other filmmakers took a shot at the story over the years, including MGM in 1938, using contract players such as Leo G. Carroll and Reginald Owen as Ebenezer Scrooge. These black and white versions capture the dreariness of the world Scrooge creates for himself but in the hands of talented directors of photography they also bring out the shining faces and places of Christmas joy. I rather like the idea of sitting around with the family on a snowy holiday watching old Christmas movies on TV.

Many people point to Alistair Sim, Scrooge in the 1951 British production A Christmas Carol, as the best performance of the man in a most faithful rendition of the novella. Two other British films, one made in 1935, one in 1970 and both named Scrooge, tell Dickens’ tale as well. In the 1970 production Alec Guinness is a frightening Jacob Marley but Albert Finney hams up Scrooge a bit too much—a sign of things to come in some more contemporary productions. A more convincing Scrooge is played by George C. Scott in the 1984 TV movie A Christmas Carol, also shot in England.

Ebenezer Scrooge is a juicy character that many actors have wanted to play and the story of redemption never dates. So it’s understandable that other well established Hollywood types have wanted to take on the project. Welcome to a world where characters play characters, sometimes in a play within a play. What? How about Mickey Mouse (as Bob Cratchit) in Disney’s first version of the classic? Mickey’s Christmas Carol (1983) with Donald Duck and others in Mickey’s group of animated friends voiced by their long-time real life companions was nominated for a best animated short Oscar.

Other television characters have taken on the story as well. Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol (1979) featured Mel Blanc as Bugs (the Ghost), Yosemite Sam (Scrooge), and Porky Pig (Cratchit). Two familiar animated characters played the role of Scrooge in community theater productions within their cartoon worlds. Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962) features musical numbers and Jim Backus, as a redeemed Scrooge, sings about gold coins, “Give then away and nobody can rob you.” A Flintstone Christmas Carol (1994) reveals Fred, the Bedrock theater Scrooge, taking on the miser’s persona at home. In The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) Michael Caine is a wonderful Scrooge surrounded by Miss Piggy, Kermit and the rest of the Muppet gang. It’s a favorite rendition of the story for many people.

And the films just keep coming. On the fringe is a recent internet production, A Clown Carol: The Marley Murder Mystery (2007). The unfinished work introduces a clown ensemble acting the traditional roles in a Dickens meets Cirque du Soleil affair. Apparently the producer turned into Scrooge and wouldn’t open his purse to finish the production.

In Disney’s A Christmas Carol it would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t believe Jim Carrey is a brilliant Scrooge. Unfortunately, despite the vocal, facial and body nuances of Carrey, Gary Oldman and others, the motion capture animation still lacks the heart of a performance for me. The 3-D experience offers the opportunity for all sorts of sight gags and flying about. But as with Disneyland rides, audiences are treated to a lot of motion, color and sound from mechanically animated characters who lack soul in their eyes. Disney’s A Christmas Carol is a film that’s sure to be a hit without hitting on all cylinders.

My personal favorite interpretation of A Christmas Carol is Scrooged (1988). Bill Murray plays TV executive Frank Cross, walking the tightrope between executing his own zany comic style and interpreting a classic character. The implications in the story about how the TV business is run are hilarious and biting. Bobcat Goldthwait, Karen Allen, John Forsythe, Robert Mitchum and David Johansen are part of a stellar cast. Like Dickens’ 1843 literary classic, this film can be enjoyed again and again. Happy Holidays!

There was a time not too long ago when using “guys and dolls” in the same phrase referred only to the title of a timeless and classic Broadway musical. That is until Hassenfeld Brothers looked over at what competitor Mattel Toys had achieved since 1959 with its Barbie™ line of dolls and accessories. Under the guidance of toy designer Stan Weston and partially influenced by the TV show The Lieutenant, Hasbro, as Hassenfeld Brothers came to be known, in 1964 launched a line of pliable figurines called G. I. Joe and the “guy doll” concept was born.

But G. I. Joe and other similar products were never called dolls. Rather, the term “action figure” was developed to describe this type of toy. The key element of the 12-inch doll was the articulation: twenty-one moveable joints that enabled the toy to be posed in combat positions. The imagination of the players determined how the action figures and their sold-separately accessories would be used in play. This past summer Hasbro co-produced two blockbuster movies that originated with their action figure lines: G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers 2. The success of movies, cartoons, books, games, accessories and the toys themselves attests to just how successful a merchandizing concept the action figure has been.

Boys have been fooling around with toy soldiers for centuries, but these have been of the hand-painted or extruded non-malleable variety in play sets. Napoleonic War – of which there are examples in the fine hand-painted collection of figurines in musée de L’Armée at Hôtel des Invalides in Paris – Civil War and Revolutionary War soldiers are among the play sets that have been around for a long time. For the past sixty years or so World War II army sets have probably been the most popular toy line using military figurines. Settling on the WWII theme, the name of the original toy was inspired by the Ernie Pyle biopic The Story of G. I. Joe. There was a ”Joe” for each major service branch dressed in military fatigues. A scar on the face was a touch to help differentiate G. I. Joe from traditional dolls. A public relations campaign claimed that the face of the doll, err, action figure was a composite of twenty WWII Medal of Honor recipients.

Knock-offs of G. I. Joe appeared quickly, including an imitator from toy giant Marx called Stonewall “Stony” Smith. None of the knock-offs generated any serious threat to G. I. Joe and it wasn’t until action figures inspired by a megahit movie, Kenner Products’ Darth Vader and other outer-worldly characters from Star Wars, burst onto the scene that the military theme action figures had some serious competition.

The accessories for G. I. Joe, as well as the action figure itself, expanded the toy line considerably. In 1965 the first African-American G. I. Joe was introduced, followed by a nurse version and Talking Joe. Anti-war sentiment during the Vietnam War caused Hasbro to deemphasize the original military model in favor of the Adventure Team. Whether it was the political climate, the higher cost of plastic during the late 1970s oil crisis or competition from R2D2 and friends, the G. I. Joe line was discontinued in 1978. But consumers appealed to the company and Joe returned in a smaller 4-inch version, becoming popular with a new generation of youngsters in their imaginary action figure playgrounds. In 1983 the FCC lifted a 14-year ban on toy-inspired programming. Starting with the animated G. I. Joe cartoon series, Joe-themed productions on the large and small screen began a long run that continues today.

The G. I. Joe line advanced more exotic personas: foreign soldiers, movie-inspired hi-tech Joes and others. Today’s stocking stuffers include “Snake Eyes” and “Duke” from G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. But World War II models are still popular. The talking G. I. Joe Navajo Code Talker, one of the newer 11-inch models, gives phrases in Navajo and English. Vintage G. I. Joe dolls and accessories are in demand on auction websites and on-line forums devoted to collection, discussion and news about the many action figures produced over the years are all over the web. The toy originally inspired by real and fantasy heroes of “the Good War” has had quite a history of its own in the annals of popular culture.

Major Howard’s gallant action was immortalized by the 1962 film The Longest Day. Howard was a practical and professional soldier, with a matter-of-fact approach to his job, and he was not particularly pleased by the film’s dramatic portrayal of the operation. In fact, he described it as “sentimental rubbish.”

The British actor Richard Todd portrayed Howard in the film, and whatever Howard thought of the film’s overall treatment of the operation, he must have approved of the choice of Todd to play him. Why?

Todd attended Sandhurst in the 1930s but then embarked on a career as a stage actor. When war came he joined the army and received a commission in the infantry, later transferring to the Parachute Regiment. On June 6th, 1944, he was a captain in the 7th Parachute Battalion and arrived with his men at the bridge thirty minutes after Howard’s gliders landed. He then fought as part of Howard’s command defending the bridge until Lovat’s commandoes arrived.

I imagine Todd was able to contribute quite a bit of technical expertise to the filming of that segment, even though his contingent from 7th Para is not mentioned in the film.

If it had been, I wonder who they would have cast to play Captain Todd?

The editors of American History magazine compiled their list of the 100 Greatest Spy Movies. Now they want you to vote in an elimination-style tournament to determine (swell the music) The Greatest Spy Movie of All Time!

The voting takes place in the forums hosted on our partner site, ArmchairGeneral. Click here to go to the forums and accept your 100 Greatest Spy Movies mission. Scroll down to Qualification Rounds A, B, C. and D. Be sure to vote in all four, selecting eight movies in each. After each list you’ll find a short synopsis of every movie on it. You can also leave comments about your favorite films, films you think should have been on the lists but aren’t and those you wouldn’t have included on the lists. Preliminary voting ends December 10!

If you aren’t already registered on ACG’s forums, click here. We don’t spam, and we don’t sell or trade information.

For detailed information on each film, plus data on “Reel vs. Real Spies,” look for 100 Greatest Spy Movies, available on newsstands December 8.

If you’re an espionage buff, check out Paul Davis’ espionage blogs on Great History.

One such bombing run occurred sixty-five years ago on November 16, 1944. A squadron of B-24s was on a routine hop over Borneo, where Japan harvested nearly fifty percent of its petroleum supply at the height of the war. On that particular day, rather than targeting tankers, the Liberators were searching for a Japanese carrier reported to be in the vicinity of Brunei Bay when they ran into heavy anti-aircraft fire.

One of the planes dropped out of the sky. Thanks to the skillful flying of co-pilot Jerry Rosenthal, seven of the ten crewmen parachuted to safety before the B-24 crashed in the rugged highland jungle of northern Borneo. The story told in the November 11, 2009, episode of Secrets of the Dead on PBS comes from the bomber’s radioman, Cpl. Dan Illerich. His eyewitness account and many others contributed greatly to the book The Airmen and The Headhunters by Judith M. Heimann, on which the Secrets of the Dead episode is based.

Aware that Japanese soldiers stationed along the coast would likely investigate the crash, Illerich and another crewman with whom he quickly rendezvoused knew they must avoid capture. Photos and stories of prisoner beheadings had been circulated widely among Army Air Corps personnel. But they also knew they were in the land of the storied “wild men of Borneo” whose traditional practices included preparing shrunken heads from their victims. Their first encounter with the Dayaks, the name given to the tribesmen of the region, was a tentative exchange of gestures across a river. After one of the men crossed to the Americans, the tensions relaxed and the two airmen realized they were about to embark on a journey into a completely different culture—one that welcomed them in.

Christian missionaries had preceded Dan and his fellow airmen into these jungles by decades. Earlier in the war, Japanese invaders had scattered and gunned down the missionaries, creating sadness and hatred among the native converts. By rescuing Illerich and his six companions, some of whom were in bad shape from the crash, the resolve of the Dayaks to do something about the invaders was stiffened. Encouraged and helped by William Makahanap, an educated East Indian administrator pressed into service by the Japanese but sympathetic to the natives, the Dayaks not only skillfully hid the Americans, they launched a campaign to torment the enemy occupiers.

One would think the tale of the Dayak people protecting the American airmen and waging a retaliatory campaign against the Japanese would consume this story, but there is more. About the same time an Australian anthropologist who had previously studied the Dayak was given an unusual war assignment. Commissioned a major, Tom Harrisson led a group of his countrymen on a clandestine operation to Borneo called Z Special. The operatives parachuted in, made contact with the Dayak and learned about the downed airmen. The Australian officer and his team took the Americans in and planned for their extraction. At the same time, Harrisson conducted a sustained guerilla effort against the Japanese in conjunction with Dayak warriors and ahead of a major Australian invasion of Borneo. He encouraged traditional warfare for the Dayak, including lifting the colonial ban on headhunting if the victims were Japanese. The tribesmen excelled in using their age-tested blowguns to cut down Imperial soldiers and took advantage of the temporary return to the ancient headhunting practice.

The documentary is quite compelling to watch. Using a combination of vintage film clips, photographs and reenactment scenes, the story unfolds against a timeline narration by the fine actor Live Schreiber. Heimann and another Borneo authority contribute as well but the most fascinating parts of this program are the interviews with Illerich, Australian veterans of Z Special and octogenarian Dayak tribesmen and women who witnessed it all. To hear Dan Illerich tell of the harrowing bomber ditch and then listen to Dayaks who were boys at the time talking about what they saw and did when the plane went down is incredible stuff.

Some of the vintage footage is quite rare and the filmmakers are forced to repeat certain scenes where appropriate. The same explanation can’t be given for the reenacted scenes which are not strong, repeated too often and mixed haphazardly with Borneo scenics. These are beautiful but at times appear in strange spots and without much justification. I would rather see the Dayak eyewitnesses on screen—their faces, adornment and expressions are wonderful. They proudly show off their blowguns and demonstrate how they built a unique bamboo runway to land a military plane in the rugged area in 1945. Thankfully, no modern demonstrations of headhunting are given. “The Airmen and the Headhunters” makes a memorable contribution to the WNET series Secrets of the Dead on PBS.

One place where Veterans Day has been mentioned quite a few times is in sports programming. The NFL radio and television coverage of the past weekend recognized groups of military men and women in the stands at games, mentioned Veterans Day on the broadcasts and aired PSAs (public service announcements) about cooperation between the NFL and the U. S. Army. No doubt the NBA and NHL will have similar efforts during their games on Wednesday. News programs will cover Veterans Day ceremonies in Washington and elsewhere. Regrettably, the recent tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas is dominating the news at the moment but by Wednesday the focus should return to the vast majority of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who are just doing their jobs in service to their country. Watch for mention of any of the several private and military community efforts to bring care packages and other relief to those serving in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. On the local level there will probably be visits to military and Veteran Administration hospitals. If a need is identified, get involved if possible.

Some of the broadcast and cable networks are featuring special programs for this remembrance holiday. Military Channel is premiering Return Salute, in which three returning veterans are seen being honored with their special wishes, Wednesday night. On Veterans Day and other times during the week Military Channel is airing Timewatch: Last Day of WWI, several episodes of its Medal of Honor series and Return to Tarawa, reviewed on GreatHistory.com during its premiere last April. During the day the History Channel is airing a documentary about the “Tunnel Rats,” assigned to destroy a network of enemy tunnels in Vietnam, on Modern Marvels and several World War II episodes of its popular series Battle 360. On the spin-off channel Military History, Civil War Combat features “The Battle of First Manassas.”

PBS will be premiering a documentary with a title that, on first glance, doesn’t sound appropriate on a day we honor combat veterans, “The Airmen and the Headhunters,” on Secrets of the Dead. In fact, it’s a fascinating story of a little-known incident in World War II that featured cooperation and valor among some unlikely partners. The program will be reviewed on GreatHistory.com shortly.

Looking back on past GreatHistory.com stories, two special presentations seem appropriate to mention. Taking Chance from HBO Films (now on DVD) starred Kevin Bacon in a story about a military escort who accompanied a soldier killed in Iraq to his final resting place. The escort mission really took hold as a tradition after World War I. The feature documentary Brothers at War, in which a filmmaker documents his two brothers and others serving in Iraq, premiered last spring and is in limited release. Not yet reviewed on GreatHistory.com but receiving much award attention is the dramatic film The Hurt Locker about an explosive demolitions team in Iraq.

Thrust into this maelstrom of fires, floods and shifting, decaying topography was a monumental government mobilization program. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, faced with national economic and natural resource crises, convinced the U. S. Congress in his first hundred days in office to pass legislation to get the country moving again. One of the opening salvos in the New Deal was the Civilian Conservation Corps, the topic of the second program in the American Experience series The 1930s on PBS.

Filmmaker Robert Stone, who created the episode “The Civilian Conservation Corps” for the series, considers the effort one of the most important of Roosevelt’s early policies.

“The Civilian Conservation Corps both addressed the issue of unemployment, particularly among young people, men, and also addressed this environmental problem head-on. And I think really saved this country. The reason we’re the bread basket of the world right now is largely because of the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps in preserving America’s topsoil which was really just washing out to sea.”

Billions of new trees were planted by the CCC. The initial group of men, more that 250,000, was inducted in just three months and the program was run by the U. S. Army. Though discipline and the rigors of army life were introduced in the camps that spanned all regions of the country, the CCC was not a military training operation. Nevertheless criticism sprung up initially in nearly all quarters—business, labor, communities—but the FDR administration used some savvy politics and strong public relations to keep the program on track. As a result says Stone:

“In 1937 when Roosevelt attempted to balance the budget and cut back on these New Deal programs, Congress wouldn’t let him. Republicans wanted the CCC as much as anybody because it was very popular in their districts. The CCC was probably the most popular New Deal program perhaps with the exception of Social Security. It was widespread across the country—people saw what good works they were doing and that in turn built support for all of the work that Roosevelt was doing.”

Among those other New Deal programs was the Works Progress Administration that broadened the work of the CCC through expansive public projects such as the construction of Hoover Dam, the topic of the third episode of The 1930s. (Part One of this article outlines all episodes). The CCC also expanded its goals for the corps members, including teaching construction and other skills, expanding erosion prevention and wildfire control.

Stone uses four CCC veterans to narrate his piece. Their experiences are revealing in the honesty of their comments—they ate well, they learned a lot, they were glad to be working at a time when work was difficult to find. They talk about the camaraderie but also the resistance they sometimes felt in the communities where the camps were located. One of narrators is Hispanic and one African American (the CCC had separate camps for African Americans) and they talk about prejudice within the corps and the towns where they served, but still their overriding impressions were positive. Stone evaluates their feelings and what the experience meant to these men.

“My impression is the reason they look fondly at this time in their lives is that there was this sense of the community spirit—that we’re all in this together. And that‘s a spirit that was lost in the in intervening years. Everybody that we spoke to that went through an experience like that, it profoundly impacted the rest of their life.”

“I think we came out of the Depression, we came out of World War II—what we call the Greatest Generation—with national purpose, national spirit, that in the intervening years we’ve kind of lost. We’re in a recession now. I don’t see the country uniting the way that it did in the 1930s unfortunately. I would like to see a kind of national service program like the CCC. Certainly if I was a young man, I would join something like that.”

The fact that Swank resembles Earhart physically is an advantage in that she can sell the aviatrix’s off-beat looks with no effort. She has to work a lot harder, however, to reveal all the shades of character this film requires on a whirlwind tour of Earhart’s relatively short life. Perhaps the first tipoff to the trouble in this biopic is the title in the opening frames crediting two books as the basis for the story: East to the Dawn by Susan Butler and The Sound of Wings by Mary S. Lovell. Writer/flight instructor Kim Green writes on GreatHistory.com about the thesis prepared by Lovell – that Earhart was torn between the limelight of her early fame and the drive to be a real aviation pioneer. Through the efforts of her promoter/book publisher (and later husband) George Putnam, Earhart’s early success was more pomp than accomplishment. She had to walk a fine line between keeping up the hype in order to focus attention on women in aviation while satisfying her own goals.

The exposition of this thesis is often overbearing in the film. It’s hard to completely fault India-born actress/producer Mira Nair, who directed Amelia, on this if one is to imagine the deal-making that got this ambitious production off the ground. Among the worst obligatory faux-pas was to cast Richard Gere as George Putnam. With his non-stop career as a romantic lead it would have been virtually impossible for him to keep the romance between Putnam and Earhart in the realm of believability. That difficulty is very obvious in the film. To further complicate matters, the introduction of Ewan McGregor as Gene Vidal pulls Butler’s thesis into the work about Earhart’s extra-marital affair with the New Deal’s head of commercial aviation. One can see in Swank’s facial expressions at times a lack of focus on how she should react. It’s no wonder she had trouble properly emoting in this part travelogue, part adventure film, part soap opera.

The best scenes in the film are the flying sequences. The planes look great, the flyovers well photographed and the visual effects mostly unobtrusive. Even if the scenics are overdone, they give Earhart and the audience a break from the issues back home. In her interaction with a cavalcade of characters, Swank as Earhart works most effectively with her fellow aviators and a lively Eleanor Roosevelt (Cherry Jones). The best of these supporting performances comes from Christopher Eccleston as Fred Noonan, making the round-the-world flight and the interaction between him and Earhart the most compelling in the film.

All of the characters and storylines in Amelia are based on true events and people in Amelia Earhart’s life (except the opening “girl chasing a plane” sequence — her interest in aviation came as a young adult). But the divergent paths and near collisions of the storyline resembles an air show gone awry more than a fluid biography. Lost in the process is the opportunity to showcase Earhart’s dedication to advancing women’s aviation and how her actions set a concrete foundation for the feats and opportunities of those who followed her in this ambitious endeavor.