The First Assassin is a historical thriller set primarily in Washington, D.C., at the start of the Civil War. Bestselling author Vince Flynn blurbs it on the front cover: “An excellent book–it’s like The Day of the Jackal set in 1861 Washington.”

The Day of the Jackal is a twofer: Both the book (by Frederick Forsyth) and the movie (the 1973 version) are excellent. But the book is still better. It’s super excellent.

Anyway, I started working on The First Assassin in 1996–more than 13 years ago. Yeah, that’s a long time. It was the project I kept setting aside when something more pressing came along, such as the birth of a child or a writing deadline that came with a guaranteed paycheck.

There were other challenges as well. I knew how I wanted the story to start and finish. Inventing the plot that would connect the opening pages to the conclusion was a different matter. One time, I wrote down every scene on an index card and spread them across a big table. I moved scenes around and invented new ones, trying to make chapters flow and events unfold in a logical and compelling progression.

Another time, I wanted to jump start my creative process. So I resorted to a trick that one of my English professors used in college when she hoped to spark a classroom discussion about an 18th-century play: What actors do you imagine on stage, performing these roles?

I went through my manuscript and tried to associate several of its main characters with well-known actors. Then I pinned their pictures on a corkboard next to my desk. For the mysterious hitman who stalks President Lincoln, I naturally thought of Edward Fox, the star of The Day of the Jackal. But I wanted someone less debonair. So I settled on Viggo Mortensen. Other actors with pictures on the corkboard included Halle Berry, Nell Carter, and Morgan Freeman. My wife would joke about the Halle Berry picture. Thank goodness she’s not a jealous person.

The First Assassin also has a femme fatale, though I never thought of an actress who seemed like a perfect fit for my character. I may have discovered one recently: Polly Walker, who played Atia of the Julii in “Rome,” the HBO series.

I also tacked up photos of historical figures with parts in The First Assassin: Lincoln, Gen. Winfield Scott, and Secretary of State William Seward. For the central hero, Col. Charles Rook, I used the picture of an actual Union officer, Charles Pomeroy Stone. Over time, however, I came to think of Rook as a good role for Tom Selleck. I’ve always liked Tom Selleck.

Did this technique work? Well, it didn’t exactly fail. Honesty forces me to report that it didn’t drive me toward completion as quickly as I had once hoped. It did influence the way I wrote, however. In that sense, it shaped the book.

Now I just need for someone to turn The First Assassin into a movie. The film rights are available. Does anybody know if Tom Selleck is looking for a project?

Just as I suspected, it has happened.  They are trying to “Falwell” me and my colleagues here at Big Hollywood for raising concerns about “Sesame Street’s” description of Fox News as “Trashy.” We are “stupid,” “idiotic” and we are whining and pathetic (impressive debate tactics there, Mr. Socrates).  And, according to PBS’ own Ombudsman, Michael Gelter, we are….  right:

I don’t know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn’t do it through the kids

I was planning on letting the issue die after being romanced by Media Matters, but I noticed something fascinating.  I’ve written here about a lot of subjects.  Mostly about theatre and the arts, and I also defended that “racist-fascist” Rush Limbaugh,  but, never has a post of mine gotten the kind of hate-filled comments this one did.  Also, for the first time I started receiving hate e-mails… the long, rambling, Holden Caufield kind of e-mails (you can forgive me for feeling a little “Grouchy”).  What gives?  Why was this post different?

I think many people either don’t believe there is anything wrong with some playful jokes at the expense of Fox News on a children’s network, or they don’t WANT to believe that the writers of “Sesame Street” are deliberately injecting attitudes that plant seeds in children for future growth.  To me,   it doesn’t matter.  Gelter’s words say it best:  “You shouldn’t do it through their kids.”

I am very tired of being lectured by the left (and fellow denizens of the right) about “manning up” and growing a thick skin and taking it in stride.  Listen, I’m a conservative in the theatre business… You don’t think I have a thick skin?  But when it comes to my kids, I am ferocious in protecting them and in protecting my influence over them.

If my kid came home from a neighbor’s house and told me that “Jimmy’s Daddy said Fox News was trashy news,” you better believe that I would have a word to say to Jimmy’s Daddy.  It’s inappropriate and tasteless to inject your personal beliefs onto someone else’s kids.  Why is this position controversial?  And, to add insult to injury, PBS used my money to do it.  Am I really going out on a limb in crying foul?

But, the vitriol and sheer volume of criticism of this post has intrigued me and I have begun to look further into “Sesame Street,” the Children’s Television Network, and the educational advisers who shape the message and curricula injected into these shows.  There’s more to discuss.  Much more.

And, for those of you mocking this whole concept as to whether a children’s TV show can have that kind of influence over a child, ask yourself:  Did Morgan Freeman and Rita Moreno have as much influence on your use of compound words as your first grade teacher did?  Did you learn the preamble to the Constitution from school, or from “Schoolhouse Rock”?  Do you remember “Free to Be, You and Me”?

If children’s TV could influence you with those shows, don’t you think it can influence your kids today?  Since you’re paying for it, shouldn’t you know a little more about what you’re buying?

“I’m looking through you, where did you go? I thought I knew you, what did I know? You don’t look different, but you have changed. I’m looking through you, you’re not the same.” — Lennon/McCartney: “Rubber Soul,” 1965

When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated in May, I wrote a satirical essay for Big Hollywood called The ‘Magic Latina’. The title was a send up of the “Magic Negro,” or “Magical Negro,” a fictional stereotype common in film and literature. The “Magic Negro” has been criticized by white and black commentators alike. Blacks, most famously Spike Lee, but many others, view the role as ultimately degrading. As Rita Kempley, writing for DVRepublic, said about the “Magic Negro,” “What’s the deal with all the holy roles?” The core of the critique is that the characters are given special powers and/or underlying mysticism. It is not that the characters per se are so bad.  The perception is that this kind of character, the selfless and powerful, insightful, and sometimes magical being, is always black, has no “interior life”, and is always serving white people. To name a few at random, they include such famous stars as Hattie McDaniel (”Gone with the Wind”), Sidney Poitier (”The Defiant Ones”), Morgan Freeman (”Shawshank Redemption,” “Driving Miss Daisy,” “Bruce Almighty”), and Laurence Fishburne (”The Matrix”).

For those fixated on this kind of thing, once you get this thought in your head, it is difficult to get it out. As I stated in my last essay, the critics have a point, but it also seems strained. They really go too far and can appear paranoid. There are many characters in cinema and television of this type who are white (Simon Baker as “The Mentalist” comes to mind, having just seen the show last night). If Morgan Freeman is a “Magical Negro” in “Bruce Almighty” (according to Rita Kempley), then surely Christian Bale is the “Magical Caucasian” in Batman. One would have thought it difficult to see the role of God played by a talented black actor as racist.

There are also countless black actors playing roles with no “magical” powers. It is almost silly to name them. Forest Whitaker, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Jamie Foxx, Eddie Murphy, Cuba Gooding and Halle Berry are just a few. The concept, while having some validity, is over done by those who promote its persistence. As true ethnic and racial equality (legally, politically, and sociologically) has become a virtual reality in America, there seems to be a simultaneous political movement to keep identity politics alive and well. In fact, it is a growth business.

What does all of this have to do with Sotomayor? And why is it a “tragi-comedy”? We now know Sotomayor spent years promoting an odd racial concept, which I parodied in the “Magic Latina.” She has said:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging”. Also, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life.”

Sotomayor, ironically, embraced this “Magic Negro” concept by fixating on race, gender and ethnicity as “a”, or even “the” key ingredient in attaining “wisdom,” in this case, judicial wisdom. Clever people might say, “…of course those factors affect judgment.” But so might the fact that we studied math or history; or that we are tall or short; or that we are from Michigan and not Ohio; or that we were born in 1950 instead of 1960; or that our IQs are 120 and not 110; or that we are obsessed with advancement to the exclusion of all else.  There are an infinite number of things which go into who and what we are.

The goal of law is to establish an objective standard, however difficult that may be and however difficult that is to put into practice. The “means” by which a Judiciary seeks objectivity, is through the use of Reason. Not intuition, faith, emotion, symbolic thinking, or, as the president so foolishly said, “empathy.” It does not matter that there can be different interpretations. The idea is one must use the faculties of reason to try and achieve a “blind result.” Further, why single out “gender and national origins” as the special differentiating factors? Watching and reading some of Sotomayor’s speeches on this topic over the years is cringe inducing. Of course, during her questioning last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, she denied any knowledge of such views. These were all just bad word choices and mangled speeches that just somehow got tangled up in blue.  She claims not to have ever believed such nonsense. “Her voice was soothing, but the words weren’t clear.”

THE COMIC

History is partially a story of subjugation and conflict. It still persists today in obvious places around the world. Racial, religious, and ethnic conflict also existed in the United States. But Hispanics take a big league back seat to Native Americans and African Americans on that score. Frankly, I cannot see much of a difference between what Italians experienced up until the 1960s and what Hispanics experienced up until the 1980s. In fact, once you hold “the generation” constant-i.e., how many years ago your ancestors immigrated here, there is no ethnic bias to speak of against Italians or Hispanics. My four grandparents came from Italy around 1910 and I know their stories. The experience of Italians obviously does not compare to slavery or Jim Crow. And neither does the experience of Hispanics. The “ethnic conflict” issue today with Hispanics is really an illegal immigration Mexican problem, not a racial or ethnic problem.  If Sweden were south of the US and we had such unfettered illegal immigration of Swedes, Chuck Shumer might today be crying about some woman nominee named Helga. (Yes, I realize Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, not Mexican).

But in the game of racial politics, a teary eyed Senator Shumer can see a modern day  Rosa Parks when he looks at Sonia Sotomayor;  while Dick Durbin sees only a “white man” when looking at Sam Alito. The whole issue, in one sense, is comical. I think I can speak expertly on this topic. I am related to several Hispanic immigrants and am even a father to half Hispanic/half Italian children. I am uncle and/or godfather to a few “all Hispanic” children of immigrants, as well.  This trick was accomplished by marrying my wife, a “Hispanic” who emmigrated from Cuba (and who grew up in far worse circumstances in this country than Ms. Sotomayor).  I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that there are few groups who adapt faster to being “instant Americans” than children of Hispanic immigrants. Just add water and stir. Yet my children, nephews and nieces can “check the Hispanic box” on their college applications and presumably get beneficial treatment.  It is a joke.

Affirmative action policies were designed in the 1960s to address real racism against Black Americans. Somehow, these policies, originally designed to correct past discrimination of Black people, have been allowed to be glommed onto by every ethnic group under the sun, except those whose ancestors are from Europe (unless you are a female of European ancestry). If one cannot see the humor in this, then comedy is not your bag. This is what happens when neo-Marxist doctrine gets hold of your educational and legal system; all hell breaks loose. It is hip to be a victim of the “dead white male” culture.

THE TRAGIC

When Obama starts apologizing about, and for, America, it makes me ill. However, this is what the left has wrought. What has made the United States exceptional, is its explicit stated foundational principle, written in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” How did we get here from there?

It is difficult to say how. America has always taken its core principles seriously. When reality did not comport to principle, change was promoted until it did. Slavery was abolished and second class citizenry of women was abolished. Change happened legally first, then more gradually relative to true cultural acceptance. An Anti-American philosophy developed in the 1960s and 1970s, to challenge the traditional unifying concept which is the core principle of this country. The concept of Identity Politics has arisen as one of the main “alternatives” to the Founders’ principles.  Sonia Sotomayor obviously was an “early adaptor” of this philosophy. She grew up in lower middle class circumstances and graduated valedictorian from the Catholic High School, Cardinal Spellman High . As one can see from the link, it is a pretty good school. My high school was in the same sports league as Spellman. It always seemed like a good school to me.

Yet, her entire identity as an individual almost seems invested in disadvantage, even inferiority, which government action and identity politics saved her from. She has said she is an “affirmative action baby” who scored worse than her classmates on the SATs at Princeton, due to cultural biases in the tests. Assuming there are so called cultural biases in the test, it seems absurd to think a Cardinal Spellman valedictorian would be a victim of such bias. Further, almost as a coping mechanism, she has made herself believe there is some kind of secret or magical wisdom from primarily identifying herself, not as an American, but as a “wise Latina”. But she did not need and certainly did not deserve special treatment. She was quite accomplished on her own. The American system did not prevent her from being successful. Like millions of other Americans through out our history, she worked hard to achieve success. Yet, for reasons of insecurity or bad faith, or worse, bad reasoning skills, she has needed to trumpet a key part of her success to overcoming institutional and cultural obstacles with the help of government mandated affirmative action policies. It is both sad and tragic that she cannot believe that her achievements were hers, and hers alone; neither impeded by cultural or political bias, nor enhanced by government policy. Wouldn’t a better message by her over the years to have been “work hard and in America you can achieve your goals and aspirations”?  It is exasperating to see such convoluted reasoning as she has expressed over the years.

The Senate had an opportunity to really get at these issues, but chose basically not to. At least they forced Sotomayor to recant these opinions. This implies that Americans still believe in one nation, not a nation of separate identities. But what does she really believe? Is she the person who believes, as was implied in her 3 judge panel ruling in the Ricci case, that outcomes alone can be evidence of racial bias in an exam (rejected by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 vote)? Or can she finally be a person who no longer needs to kow tow to racial and ethnic politics, now that she will be on the Supreme Court? I don’t know. And the Republican Senators were too afraid to find out.

THE CLOSER

I stated earlier in the essay that true ethnic and racial equality is now a virtual reality in America. The hypersensitivity of people like Spike Lee to certain characters in cinema; and of people like Sotomayor, who trumpet ethnic differences as critical components in the culture (and therefore the judicial process), are out of step with much of American experience. At the very least, the emphasis is misplaced and destructive.

I enjoy watching crime based television shows. I hope to write an essay on one or two in the near future. For once, the entertainment industry, whether purposely or not, seems to implicitly refute these tales of ethnic separation and identity politics. At the very least, their message is a normative one of unity among different ethnic groups. Nothing speaks equality, and better, lack of ethnic hypersensitivity, than a crime fighting unit in a modern television series.  These shows mix people of clear and obvious different backgrounds. The implied message, however, is not their differences, but their unity of purpose. The characters are primarily defined by what they have in common, rather than how they are different. A classic example is the series “The Closer.”

Based in Los Angeles, the key characters are a White Texan female (Kyra Sedgwick), a Black sergeant who is her “go-to guy” (Corey Reynolds), a Mexican-American detective (Raymond Cruz), an Asian Lieutenant (Michael Chan), and two white detectives (G.W Bailey and Tony Denison). The show is both comic and a traditional “who done it” mystery. The characters work together to solve crimes. No presumption of ethnic based wisdom is pushed. No victim status is accorded any of the characters.

Watching the Sotomayor hearings was like being in a time warp participating in a 70’s seminar on Marxist politics. They were not in tune with current popular culture. Identity politics is now a money and power scam.  Sotomayor was questioned on her ethnic statements, but she was permitted to pretend it was clumsy language. The core of her stated philosophy was never really addressed. One of the “elephants in the room” was the large ghost of Miguel Estrada, who might have made the Supreme Court under Bush, had not the Democratic Senate, for the first time in history, through a filibuster, prevented a vote on his nomination to the DC circuit court. Somehow, Chuck Shumer failed to get teary eyed over that failed vote. Estrada made the mistake of not trumpeting his victim status.

Is the Hartford Fire department really that much of a different place than the fictionalized “Priority Homicide” unit in The Closer? But in a Sotomayor world, if the black guy happens to not pass the test, and the white guy does, that may be prima facie evidence of systematic racial discrimination. In our fictionalized world, the Corey Reynolds character was studying for his Lieutenant’s test at some point in the show. I don’t recall him complaining about its “cultural bias”. If he had, I think the rest of the “Priority Homicide” department would laugh out loud. But in the Senate, we get a 60 year old man crying over Cardinal Spellman valedictorians overcoming cultural bias, discrimination, and adversity, against all odds.

Forget the “tragedy” part. It’s all a joke.

Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman acquired the film rights to the book, and he will play a post-prison Nelson Mandela with friend Eastwood directing. The Human Factor will tell the story of how the 1995 World Cup Rugby Final between heavily-favored New Zealand and underdog South Africa helped to heal the post-Apartheid racial divide. Matt Damon, sporting blonde hair, has reportedly trained hard in order to credibly play South African captain Francois Pienaar. Some photos have begun to show up from the current production.

Eastwood is riding high from the success of his Gran Torino (Warner Bros), which has now passed $145M domestic. He’ll stay behind the camera for Factor, and it is probably where he is most comfortable these days. In a business where the average director burns out quickly after a short burst of artistic excellence (see Francis Ford Coppola), Eastwood has directed seven films since turning 70 (starring in just three – Blood Work, Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino). In that span, he has won two Oscars, for directing and producing Million Dollar Baby, and nominated for four more, for producing and directing both Mystic River and Letters From Iwo Jima.

There is no reason to believe that Eastwood is slowing down. He directed both Changeling and Gran Torino last year, and, as a rugby fan, he jumped at the opportunity to direct The Human Factor. His movies are always top secret, so we won’t hear much about it until fall, but it’s safe to anticipate a platform release starting in early December.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.

The film industry in Hollywood is the most rewarded vocational field in the world. Having been a part of the “Big Hollywood” launch team, I followed roughly forty-eight award shows this year. Generally, I would characterize them as slightly self-aggrandizing. By the way, I’m not confused; awards are nice (consult my bio), but why are there so many award shows? The people who win awards are rarely underappreciated.  Take Kate Winslet for example, one of Hollywood’s most overrated actresses.  I always feel I’m watching her act. Peter Mayhew was more organic as Chewbacca than Winslet as a suburban housewife in the off-putting “Revolutionary Road.” But Hollywood seemingly invents awards to celebrate Winslet and her ubiquitous bare breasts.

What irritates most is that while the shows may differ, the awards are roughly the same.  In sports, there’s only one MVP, one Rookie of the Year.  Yet every year, we are bombarded with the Oscars, the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, and the BAFTAs.  Not to mention all those snooty little film festivals in upscale ski towns.

But as I always say, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  So, if we’re going to resign ourselves to watching three months of awards galas, let’s introduce some new awards that could electrify a show more than a Melissa Etheridge/Beyoncé duet:

Best-in-Show: This would be awarded to the best animal appearance in a film this year.   We see eight or ten lovable movie animals each year, and they don’t get the praise they deserve.  Who wouldn’t want to see the dog from “Marley and Me” bound onto the stage to claim the Golden Dog Biscuit?

Best Non-Sexual Nudity Award: Nothing puzzles and inspires me like incidental nakedness on film.  On second thought, it would come down to Harvey Keitel vs. Kate Winslet every year, so this one may not be as interesting as it sounds.

The Daniel Day-Lewis Award for Acting Performance: Thanks to Daniel Day-Lewis, I can no longer take seriously any award that claims to honor the “Best Actor.” There is one unequivocal “Best Actor” in Hollywood and it is he, so it is foolish to pretend Tom Hanks or Sean Penn or Ashton Kutcher or any other leading man can equate.  There are years Daniel Day-Lewis acts and there are years he doesn’t–either way, he is the best actor.  Let’s rename the annual award for excellent acting to reflect this reality.  The only thing that changes from year to year is best performance, not “best actor.”

The Morgan Freeman Award For Best Performance as an Omniscient Narrator

Best Best-Friend Award: Every romantic comedy has a quirky best-friend role for the purpose of plot development—the “best-friend” grants the audience insight into Kate Hudson’s character.  Picture this all-too-common date night debacle: I treat my girlfriend to an order of General Tsao’s Chicken at P.F. Chang’s (medium/spicy) and we head over to the multiplex in the mall with high hopes for the romantic comedy du jour we are about to watch from the front row of a theatre packed with eighth graders.  And BAM!  Much to our chagrin, the entire night is ruined by a poor performance by the quirky best-friend character.  A competent performance here can slightly enhance my Friday night, so let’s celebrate the best.

Evil-est Corporation Award: Lazy Hollywood’s default bad guys are those big, bad multi-national corporations that make our food, our cars, our medicines, send us our paychecks, etc.  Let’s reward the most heinous onscreen company of this year!

Most Disappointing Picture of the Year: This is an excuse for me to mention that “Quantum of Solace” was beyond terrible.

The Helena Bonham Carter Award: You can use the comments to debate what this one should actually celebrate, but I think we can all agree that there needs to be one every year.

What additional awards would you suggest?

Well, tonight I watched a doozie on Starz, and I must say, I have to give Benjamin Geza Affleck props. I have made fun of him publicly (it’s easy!) but this guy picked good material and directed it wonderfully. His brother Casey is phenomenal.

It’s like nothing I expected with a name like “Gone Baby Gone.” I thought Susie had me watching a chick flick. It was anything but. Ed Harris and his wife Amy Madigan, the douchebags that crossed their arms when Elia Kazan was awarded a lifetime Oscar, co-starred. So does Morgan Freeman who was injured in a mysterious car crash in Mississippi last year. But Casey Affleck really emerges the savior of this creepy and gritty missing child crime mystery tale.

Whoever cast the Boston grotesques that littered the film, my hat’s off to you. These profoundly ugly people really created a backdrop that made you want to root for the kid not to be found and brought back to her natural origins.

If Ben is willing to rethink his love of Marxism and former neighbor, pal and history revisionist Howard Zinn, perhaps there is redemption for him. After seeing this film, I can’t help thinking he’s gotten a bum steer in this impossible town. He certainly has talent.