Four For Friday - There Goes The Neighborhood - A Birdie Blind Item
You might say that this one movie - made during a stand-out decade for the medium - was inspired by real life events. It's ironic though because the now/long time permanent A list actor who starred in it had been literally, and on foot, pursued by radicals of a different kind.
It all took place roughly a half-decade earlier when he was living in New York. There were flattering overtures by members of this one group - a cell within a cell - who lived in the neighborhood. They wanted him to be for them what the famous composer had been for another group, just a few years earlier. But they misunderstood his initial politeness as interest. He in fact wanted nothing to do with them.
That's when things took a turn for the worse.
When he began changing his daily routine to avoid them, they took notice, and staked out his apartment, following him to and from lunch dates, rehearsals, openings. The soft sell became a hard sell, with kidnapping threats, and intimations of violence.
Even after he hired a full time security detail, and reported them to law enforcement, he had no idea what would happen next.
You see: they had planned to kill him. Okay, not just him, but everyone on the entire block - a wealthy and fashionable enclave in Manhattan.
If their plan had been successful, scores of people would have been murdered, including not just the families - men, women, and children - but also the help, as in disproportionately the very sort of people they claimed to represent. ("There goes the neighborhood," they'd planned to joke, in reference to the bombing.)
What happened though may have altered the course of history, in a small but vital way, saving the lives of several hundred people, at least, at a nearby military installation.
You see: some of the volatile explosives being stored in their residence ignited prematurely, killing the three rogue plotters (who had planned to abscond for an island nation, where they expected a hero's welcome), and leaving two other members (of the cell rather than cell-within-cell) injured, and stunned.
Miraculously, a majority of the ordinance went unexploded, and only this one residence, rather than the whole neighborhood, was destroyed. The actor, of course, was unharmed.
The national organization was chastened by the loss, and canceled further actions which would result in injury or loss of life. This, itself, is important to know. Their image, carefully cultivated for decades now, has been one of misguided, but not even itinerantly murderous, radicals. But if the very famous person who made a big return to the news cycle in recent days - an appearance in a foreign country (on a continent where, you'll note, he was not born) - had bothered to check with the then-current president (when he became acquainted with a certain group alum, I mean), he'd have known that federal law enforcement understood otherwise. Yes, there was talk of killing babies (of a certain race - their own), but it didn't stop there. The group was behind the bombing of police in a west coast town known for its university. One officer was permanently maimed, nearly losing his arm. Only the death of an informant helped them escape prosecution.
What's more, or rather who else does this story involve?
One of the heroes of the decade, known for his chats in the literal underground. It's funny the way that history classifies and reclassifies, because his primary reason for doing what he did was revenge. There had been efforts by all three branches of government to curtail the unlawful practices of he and his men (including threats of prosecution) - all of which were aimed at bringing down this group, and others like them. The irony, of course, is that he/they were engaging in some of the very conduct that would bring down his boss, and his men. It was either him or them, he thought, and he expected a change in leadership that would be more favorable to the work he was doing.
His instincts were vindicated - just not in the way he imagined. The change in leadership was not in fact favorable to him and his men - he was indicted, after all - but by the time the more favorable leadership came, and his record was wiped clean (with, and could you even make this up, the support of his former boss), the whole movement was a pathetic husk of its former self, a relic from a different, more chaotic time. What else did he have in common with his former boss? A mixed preference, at least. Why do you suppose he originally struck up a conversation with the young man who along with his colleague would really alter the course of history?
And, bringing this story back to the beginning, lets talk about the part the actor played in the other movie that same year...
It all took place roughly a half-decade earlier when he was living in New York. There were flattering overtures by members of this one group - a cell within a cell - who lived in the neighborhood. They wanted him to be for them what the famous composer had been for another group, just a few years earlier. But they misunderstood his initial politeness as interest. He in fact wanted nothing to do with them.
That's when things took a turn for the worse.
When he began changing his daily routine to avoid them, they took notice, and staked out his apartment, following him to and from lunch dates, rehearsals, openings. The soft sell became a hard sell, with kidnapping threats, and intimations of violence.
Even after he hired a full time security detail, and reported them to law enforcement, he had no idea what would happen next.
You see: they had planned to kill him. Okay, not just him, but everyone on the entire block - a wealthy and fashionable enclave in Manhattan.
If their plan had been successful, scores of people would have been murdered, including not just the families - men, women, and children - but also the help, as in disproportionately the very sort of people they claimed to represent. ("There goes the neighborhood," they'd planned to joke, in reference to the bombing.)
What happened though may have altered the course of history, in a small but vital way, saving the lives of several hundred people, at least, at a nearby military installation.
You see: some of the volatile explosives being stored in their residence ignited prematurely, killing the three rogue plotters (who had planned to abscond for an island nation, where they expected a hero's welcome), and leaving two other members (of the cell rather than cell-within-cell) injured, and stunned.
Miraculously, a majority of the ordinance went unexploded, and only this one residence, rather than the whole neighborhood, was destroyed. The actor, of course, was unharmed.
The national organization was chastened by the loss, and canceled further actions which would result in injury or loss of life. This, itself, is important to know. Their image, carefully cultivated for decades now, has been one of misguided, but not even itinerantly murderous, radicals. But if the very famous person who made a big return to the news cycle in recent days - an appearance in a foreign country (on a continent where, you'll note, he was not born) - had bothered to check with the then-current president (when he became acquainted with a certain group alum, I mean), he'd have known that federal law enforcement understood otherwise. Yes, there was talk of killing babies (of a certain race - their own), but it didn't stop there. The group was behind the bombing of police in a west coast town known for its university. One officer was permanently maimed, nearly losing his arm. Only the death of an informant helped them escape prosecution.
What's more, or rather who else does this story involve?
One of the heroes of the decade, known for his chats in the literal underground. It's funny the way that history classifies and reclassifies, because his primary reason for doing what he did was revenge. There had been efforts by all three branches of government to curtail the unlawful practices of he and his men (including threats of prosecution) - all of which were aimed at bringing down this group, and others like them. The irony, of course, is that he/they were engaging in some of the very conduct that would bring down his boss, and his men. It was either him or them, he thought, and he expected a change in leadership that would be more favorable to the work he was doing.
His instincts were vindicated - just not in the way he imagined. The change in leadership was not in fact favorable to him and his men - he was indicted, after all - but by the time the more favorable leadership came, and his record was wiped clean (with, and could you even make this up, the support of his former boss), the whole movement was a pathetic husk of its former self, a relic from a different, more chaotic time. What else did he have in common with his former boss? A mixed preference, at least. Why do you suppose he originally struck up a conversation with the young man who along with his colleague would really alter the course of history?
And, bringing this story back to the beginning, lets talk about the part the actor played in the other movie that same year...
