Luke Documentary

In the 12-15-00 thread concerning his pending documentary on Frank Luke, Mr. King clearly states his intent of completing a work of distinct historical integrity: I cannot see where the responses to his comments give any recognition of these laudable ambitions.
One contributor cites (and "agrees" with) an "esteemed" writing coach in offering that "The Truth" would be difficult to "evoke" without "fictionalizing scenarios." "Fictional liberties" are, I read, necessitated if "listeners" and "audience" responsiveness is to be sustained. I suggest that if Mr. King was susceptible to these temptations he would not speak so clearly to the contrary- and he would not be working in documentary film.
Another offers "let innovation fill in the gaps." He additionally endorse another Forum contributor with the statement "anything he undertakes will be accurate." This said of an individual who chooses to ignore oft-repeated theme of Hartney as to putting Luke over the balloon line "after dark? (There "Must Be Light"? or else "eye-witness testimony" is precluded as affirming a Luke "defiant to the end"!) Frey with the assistance of comment from the German side pretty much "said it all" of the premise that "Luke brandished a weapon/shot it out" when he flatly stated "Don't believe it". To contradict this material, from such as HH and RF, without any supporting evidence offered to the contrary does not suggest a concern, by this other individual, with being "accurate." Quite to the contrary- Perhaps this off-hand refutation of known fact-based material is merely another use of "innovation"?
Another respondent offers that "Historical accuracy is not betrayed, in a documentary, if the narrator specifies this speculation." He, oddly then shifts his attention to " certain Lt. Rieper" of whom we are told : "He ran the balloon line and was Luke's nemesis."
No mention that this (re. Lt Rieper) is "speculation" so we can then assume the Rieper material is a historically valid offering? The Lieut. was in truth then, "Luke's nemesis"?
Well, this is certainly a departure from the documented factual report that Lt. Peter Rieper was evacuated to a Munich hospital with broken legs and underwent amputation of an arm in June of 1918. This date is of some two months prior to Luke's arrival at the 27th Pursuit! Rieper (then awarded a PLM) never returned to the Front.
This type of misinformation on one needs to find on a site where responsible historical dialogue is intended. I'm sure Mr. King or anyone working to promote a better understanding of the individuals and issues of WWI Aviation can only observe such offerings with a great sense of dismay. Seasons best to all....Lee

[stephen]

Lee, you're welcome to disagree with me til you're blue in the face, but do not put words in my mouth. The thoughts you express in your rampage are your own, not mine.

In the meantime, please produce documentation from Royal Frey that says Luke didn't fire. I'm not interested in Frey's personal opinions or any platitudes about the greatness of his character... I would like to see the documentation that he produced which says that Luke did not fire his weapon. And I'd like to see Frey's explanation as to why he didn't believe the witnesses that he personally interviewed, when all four of them specifically stated that Luke did fire. Its entirely possible that Luke DIDN'T fire... I'm willing to believe it, but show me the documentation that supports your position. Show me the witnesses who say he didn't fire. Show me the evidence that was so overwhelming that it caused Frey to contradict his own research. Show me something, Lee. Show me anything. A letter. A tape. A testimony. A photo. Anything.

[Vin]

My favourite from one of the contributors of whom Lee writes was in describing the site of Luke’s death as more like 800-1400 yards (about a kilometer) and then concluding it occurred in full view of the town. 800 – 1400 yards, the length of 8 – 14 gridiron pitches, 7 – 12 soccer pitches and 7 – 12 times the width of the MCG. I have trouble seeing what a player is doing with the football on the opposite wing in broad daylight. I doubt that I could see whether an individual had, or did not have, a handgun in his hand at that distance. But at 7 – 12 times that distance ?

Seasons greetings to all
Vin

[BillyH]

Seasons Greetings Mr Lee:
1. I have to agree with you that Tim King wants to make a documentary on Luke that will be as accurate as the depth of his research can make it. The accuracy that I allude to is about statements about his character, and what he did to end the war. Where a producer or documentarian purposely distorts/corrupts character and performance for whatever reason, we dishonor our subject and the family from which he sprang.
2. In previous threads I explained at length my doubts about what happened at the Milly creek that 29th September, doubts based on physical considerations: a) Luke was awarded a 37mm wound under his right armpit; this forced him to put down by the creek, where he got out of the Spad and left a trail of blood which led to the creek. German soldiers tracked him to the creek, where he died. What is in doubt is: Did Luke shoot at these soldiers; then die, or did he try to shoot but could not because he was too weak from loss of blood and was seconds away from eternity? Question: With a 37mm tunnel running diagonally through his chest, was Luke in any condition to fire his weapon, except as a final protest? The Frey affidavit mentions that the Germans took Luke's notebook (log?) and his helmet with goggles, but left his wristwatch, but there is no mention that the Gs collected the weapon...But my contention is that this is the end of the story: Frank is dead and what he did in those last minutes, one way or the other, can not be verified. But neither way can detract from his character and previous performance.
3. What you said about Rieper is true. He was knocked out of his balloon in June 1918, but that does not mean he was knocked out of the war, or that his tactical advice and balloon networks lost their impact. I recall that Rieper controlled these networks from balloon HQ, and was Luke's nemesis in so far as his balloon troops set up the Flak trap that caught Luke at Murvaux. The Greeks had a godess call Nemesis, the godess of retribution. Nemein in Greek means retribution, or dealout. It also means one who imposes punishment (even from a distance, like a judge imposes punishment, which is carried out by the executioner.)
4. There are gaps in anyone's story, gaps which can be filled by honest speculation, so stated, when necessary for continuity's sake. My "Interview with a Flying Doughboy" in Chapter 11 of Rampage is pure speculation but I stated so. John Luke read this chapter, and said not to delete it from the second addition. Said it had the flavoor of Frank, which was the effect I wanted to achieve.

> One contributor cites (and "agrees" with) an
> "esteemed" writing coach in offering that "The
> Truth" would be difficult to "evoke" without
> "fictionalizing scenarios." "Fictional
> liberties" are, I read, necessitated if
> "listeners" and "audience" responsiveness is to
> be sustained. I suggest that if Mr. King was
> susceptible to these temptations he would not
> speak so clearly to the contrary- and he would
> not be working in documentary film.

Right. Documentary film. I'm sorry, I was at first talking about documentary, then dramatized history, then documentary again, so I'll sort the comments out.

<O> Documentary "truth" is important (ie. historical accuracy) but the story's not worth telling if it doesn't contain a capital "Truth." We can get a chronology of events and stats out of a book; film is visual and primarily entertainment over info/educational.

<0> Documentary must follow the same Rules of Story as fiction, especially if it's looking for a prime time or theatrical audience. It is the master documentarist who can draw a balanced and compelling story from historical evidence without resorting to contriving a commercial-break-cliffhanger.

<0> The reccomendation to "fictionalize scenarios" was to TV/film makers adapting a historical story, definitely NOT advice to documentarists (see _The Kid Who Couldn't Miss_, National Film Board Of Canada, to see a real botched job).

<O> A documentary is not a document. It is a form of art, in which history (or current reality) is explored visually. Film being a painfully expensive medium of expression, investors are required to fund the production, investors who want a return on their investment. Therefore, a documentary cannot narrowcast to the hardcore historian. If a documentarist wants to make another documentary, the first had better put butts in seats. If teenagers are sitting next to professors in the audience and they all walk out satisfied, you got a hit.

I remain,
RayK

Ray! <"If the teenagers are sitting next to the professors in the audience and they all walk out satisfied, you got a hit.">

Those professors hopefully didn't write that type of material over which you enthuse. The scholarly work of a university faculty member would never- under any circumstances -include the introduction of fictive elements introduced solely for their role in retaining audience interest. Historical issues are too important for that: subsequent decades must have the right to presume that in what was written the researcher was as close to the truth as inquiry into that periods contemporary commentary, remaining evidence and corroboration of still measurable evidentiary elements can make it.
Failure to work with extreme dilligence is considered completely irresponsible in academic circles. Many a academic career has foundered when published work was found to be offering departures from the literals of the issues into- shall we say? - the imaginative.
Do you believe Luke entered the H.Q. of one the French "Storks" escadrilles and threatened to kill everyone, including himself with a hand-grenade if they didn't give him a better quality of ammunition? One current book on Luke states that! Another, in my opinion, shameless, author offers that the Luke-Wehner relationship was sexually based. Did the writer have the right to send this allegation down through the future "corridors of time" as a fact? I certainly think not! In a less grievious but still most unfortunate conceit we see that, above, in this thread, BH offered the nonsense about "Lt. Rieper" - Yes, we all know that the Aristotelian conventions of literature traditionally require an identifiable antagonist be positioned for the purpose of simplifying audience acceptance. Sadly the "Rieper" deceit- and all such innaccuracies, when identified, unfortunately make the complete body of a author's offerings rather suspect.
Unless identified- and deplored whenever possible, such "innovation" will, moreover, leave the future audience unethically deprived in that they will be unable to discern for themselves the important actual as discerned from the immorality of untruths. This is the fundamental ethical impairment when an audience is denied a perspective other than that offered by those either of the "flack" or "hack" persuasion.
More specifically- the ascension of FL- within the First Pursuit Group- from being viewed as "the village idiot" - to the status of a near "Charlemagne" - requires no introduction of extraneous offerings. What obviously great dramatic potential! Do you know there was an "anti-Luke" among the First Pursuit Group flyers who chose disgrace (he flew to a German airfield and surrendered) over death? What a marvellous counterpoint for a sub-plot!
The above is just an offering to you of why playing to the audience is not a responsibility of and in fact is the anathema to scholarly presentation of research- and a good documentary is an adjunct of this scholarship.
I'm happy to exchange comments with you. I didn't see my posting as a "rampage" and am happy you obviously consider our exchanges of to be in the nature of a responsible order of dialogue.
"Documentaries- Si?- Docudramas- "No"? At least as re the saga of FL!. I'm pleased to perceive that Tim King's approach is in my understanding of it is, suitably, so inclined toward absolute concern with the literal. My best and a great 2001 to you and yours. Lee

Lee, While your opinion concerning academia and the truth certainly applies to the sciences, I'm not so sure about historical research, where an indisputable picture of reality might be unobtainable. Certainly respected scholars will assimilate all available information, and spend a lifetime searching for the yet unfound, but note that many in the community are not above interjecting "educated opinion" or "politically correct revisionist thought" into their works. Many experts in the field are afterall the product of the sixties, with a desire to portray a new picture of the military, a picture which is not a romantic one.

[Vin]

If it is true that many in the community (the academic history community ?) are not above interjecting "educated opinion" or "politically correct revisionist thought" or any other interpretive invention for that matter, into their works then just because this occurs is no justification for exempting history from the requirements of academic integrety which apply to the sciences or any other discipline. How can you have any confidence in claims made about events in history unless those claims can be supported by honest research and not tainted by educated opinion ?

If Ray is correct, that documentary must follow the same Rules of Story as fiction, then you may as well not bother watching it - other than for entertainment, of course. It is bad enough knowing that the film media is so prone to error without seeing commentators not only accept the errors but applaud the system which introduces the error in the first place.


Vin

[BillyH]

Ray:
In much the same way that a witness in a jury trial owes the defendant, the jury and society the truth, so it is the duty of the historian to report, as accurately as the known facts allow, what happened in the segment of history he has under study, in a truthful manner, without distortion, without a bias, without a slant.
But just as we know that some jurors will lie under oath to bear false witness, there are historians, called revisionists, who have political agendas and will ignore the truth to suit their own ends, or those of their associates; there are even historians who will lie for pay, or out of animosity. A case in point is the so called historian who denies the Holocaust ever occurred.
When we take history to the media, and trade our integrity for money, we are saying we never had any integrity in the first place, if we let others reverse the truth, especially in the lame rationale of making the story interesting. so we can 'put butts in the seats'.
There has been in the moovie/TV industry an antimilitary bias against the American military, and the American serviceman. A good example of this bias is in the movie "Martian Attacks" in which Jack Nicholson shows the Armed Forces (from the generals to the privates) as pure psychotics for wanting to fight the Martians who obliterate and incinerate several thousand people in the reception area. The president lets his advisor talk him out of reprisal by saying the masacre was "a cultural misunderstanding". The Martians proceed to blow America apart, kill even the president, and are only stopped by an old women who plays golden oldies from a radio truck, with the sound acting as a death ray. The advisor end up on a martian 'frisbe' a talking head disconnected from his body, while his erstwhile girl friend exchanges her head for that of her pet dog. I have to admit that this was the first movie that showed how truly stupid appeasement really is.
My advise is that you have to look deeply into the heart of the producer and seek his intent: Is his first duty to the cash register or to the men under those crosses in France.

I am motivated by the healthy debates and differences in opinion, and I believe the interest this project is generating is wonderful. The intensity of these beliefs and disagreements underline the fact that the Luke saga is just as attractive and captivating as it ever was.

As I have previously stated, my background involves years of researching every type of story under the sun. Military history is my personal love, but the majority of subjects I have worked with were other types of factual pursuits. To me, factual storytelling is only a distant cousin to fictional work. I'm of the "I report, you decide" mentality. I hope this doesn't let anyone down. I just can't anticipate levels of boredom, in presenting a story like Luke's.

Regardless of conflicting opinions, we can all conclude that FL had little fear and hesitation in serving his country. His reckless nature propelled him, brought him success, and naturally led to his death. Honestly, I would feel shameful if I changed or distorted anything about Frank Luke, JR.'s legacy. I make that statement with no reference to John Kosek's work, as he clearly states that his new book is in part, fictional. Of course it is not that simple, but I have great respect for any story as long as the author or producer offers a fair disclosure.

While all the facts are not known and some never will be, it remains the truth that this officer's days in September, 1918 were scarcely in need of amplification. The other side of Luke, the one that his peers knew prior to September, stands in fascinating contrast to his later success. There really is a lot to work with.

It may seem contrary to the belief of some, but I am concerned as to how I am going to tell this story within the constraints of an hour. I am not dreading or anticipating a content deficit. I guess the challenge is in being a great storyteller. It is true in TV news that the best photography can be killed by a bad editor, and that an editor can sometimes take a bunch of crappy b-roll and a couple of good soundbites and create a masterpiece.

Many people who endeavor to create this type of project have strong film backgrounds, and perhaps have movies on their resume or other types of programming. Their careers may be solely based in large-scale commercial projects that by and large, have not even a connection to truth or fact. They are not at fault or wrong for following the trends in their industry. There are no rules for movie producers, there are no rules for commercial producers, but there are rules for those who work in broadcast news and journalism. If you spend enough time at it, then the truth becomes your guide and you, your own judge. Sure, there are plenty of bad apples, but there are also those who sincerely care about presenting facts in a sensible and logical manner.

I have explored over the past two years, other aspects of Luke's life, via his family and other resources. A great example that many may not be familiar with is the fact that another young man named Frank Luke (FL's nephew) was an aviator. His life fell short when he perished in a plane crash close to the site of a Luke family get -together and picnic in 1947. Luke was very popular in Phoenix and his sister-in-law told me during an interview that not one, but two of Luke's brother's wives dated FL in High School. By the way, I haven't come across the sexual orientation reference in my reading. I would think that would head the list of innuendo BS that people love to create. That really does top the list.

On another subject, my associates and I have elected to reduce the complexity of the original treatment, i.e. aerial reenactments, etc. and we have decided to move forward with a more straightforward project. This means accomplishing our goal much sooner and at less expense. It is extremely important to complete the Luke documentary so that other similar projects can also move forward. I do intend to bring the 'sides' together and the differing opinions regarding Luke's final moments.

In the future, I will invite the key players to join me in Murvaux and we will discuss these matters at length. Ideally, I would like to conduct the majority of the interviews there. I know that everyone involved cares deeply about this story, and the only way to present Luke's final moments is through a fair description of what we know. The project will never be a medium for conveying any one opinion. There is much to take into account.