Barbara Bel Gedes R.I.P.

Lung cancer has taken the life of another well known person. Actress Barbara Bel Geddes died of the disease at her home Monday, at age 82.

Barbara Bel Geddes is probably best known for her role as Miss Ellie on the nighttime soap opera Dallas, one of the mainstays of American television in the Eighties; however, her career extended far beyond that role. In fact, she was very successful on the stages of Broadway. The daugher of architect and stage designer Norman Bel Geddes, Bel Geddes made her debut on Broadway in 1941 in the play Out of the Frying Pan. By 1946 she would win a Theatre World Award for her role in the play Deep Are the Roots, directed by Elia Kazan. Over the years Bel Geddes played in several Broadway productions. She was the first actress to play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 1955. She also appeared in the plays The Living Room (1954), Mary, Mary (1961), and The Sleeping Prince (1956), among others.

Bel Geddes was primarily a stage actress, so her movie and television credits are few. That having been said, they are very notable. She made her screen debut in the role of Jo Ann in the movie The Long Night in 1947. She also appeared as eldest daughter Katrin in I Remember Mama (1948), a role for which she received an Oscar nomination. Among her other notable films were Fourteen Hours, Panic in the Streets, and Vertigo (in which she played Midge, Scottie's best friend and confidant). On television, beyond her role as Miss Ellie on Dallas, Bel Geddes appeared on various anthology shows (Robert Montgomery Presents, Campbell Playhouse, Schlitz Playhouse of Stars), and Studio One) and she made guest appearances on Daniel Boone and Dr. Kildare. She appeared on Alfred Hitchcock Presents many times. In fact, her most famous role besides Miss Ellie on Dallas may have be her guest appearance in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "Lamb to the Slaughter. There she played a wife who murders her philandering husband with a leg of lamb, then serves the murder weapon to the unsuspecting detectives investigating his death.

I never had the opportunity to see Barbara Bel Geddes on stage, but from her few TV and screen apperances I have no doubt she was an immensely talented actress. While her role as Miss Ellie may come to many's minds when they think of Barbara Bel Geddes, I tend to identify her more with her apperances on Alfred Hitchcock Presents and her role as Midge on Vertigo. In both "Lamb to the Slaughter" and Vertigo, Bel Geddes was amazing. She brought a frankness and causalness to her roles that not many actresses could have. Indeed, I have always been impressed with her performance as Midge in Vertigo. She and Jimmy Stewart seemed to have a marvelous rapport. She was very convincing as a woman who watches the man she loves (although that love was sadly unrequited) descend into madness. I don't think any other actress could have played the part quite as well. Indeed, I think it very sad that so many only think of Barabar Bel Geddes as Ellie Ewing on Dallas and remain unaware of the many other roles she played, both on stage and on film. She certainly deserves to be remembered for so much more.

The New TV Season

Here in the United States, the new TV season begins next month. And as always the networks have been advertising all summer long about new shows and new excitement coming in the fall. Unfortunately, it seems to me that for the most part this fall will simply bring more of the same old thing to American network television.

Indeed, even though it has now been five years since CSI: Crime Scene Investigations debuted, the coming season will see the debut of yet more police procedurals. On CBS Criminal Minds will follow a group FBI profilers. On Fox, Bones will centre on a forensic antropologist often consulted by the police. Also on Fox, Killer Instinct follows the San Francisco Police Department's Deviant Crime Unit. While I have always been a fan of CSI and Law and Order, there is a point where there is too much of any one of sort of show on television. In the case of police procedurals, I think American television reached that point years ago. I suppose it might be different if these shows turn out to be substantially different from the other police procedurals on the air, but from the descriptions I have read, they probably won't.

Of course, if there is one genre of show that has been done to death in the past several years it is that of the reality show. Unfortunately, this coming season will see a few more of them. NBC is debuting three alone. Now I really cannot object to Three Wishes, hosted by Amy Grant. The idea behind the show is that deserving individuals and communities will be granted wishes. While the show does not sound like my cup of tea, it seems innocuous enough and even sweet. On the other hand, I have to question the need for an edition of The Apprentice with Martha Stewart (I didn't like the show to begin with). I also have to wonder about the point behind Tommy Lee Goes to College. Is anyone really interested in Motley Crue's drummer going to the University of Nebraska? I suppose that NBC thinks it might be funny. To me it sounds dull. After all, it is not as if we have not seen reality shows placing celebrities in unusual situations before...

I have to admit, however, that I find even reality shows preferable to the few new legal dramas debuting this coming season. Between 1995 and 2003, around 18 different legal dramas aired on network television. In other words, there was a bit of a glut of them on American television for a while. And, quite frankly, I can see no signs that the American people are eager for more legal dramas. While Boston Legal did well in the ratings, both Law and Order: Trial by Jury and Kevin Hill were cancelled. I don't see how the WB thinks Just Legal will succeed, nor can I see how Fox thinks Head Cases will succeed either. Quite frankly, I rather suspect the American people are simply tired of legal dramas.

Of course, I cannot say that there is going to be nothing new on American television this fall. The success of Lost and Medium have resulted in several genre shows (that is, sci-fi, fantasy or horror shows) debuting this season. And I must admit that it seems like it has been some time since theere have been any new genre shows on most of the networks. Unfortunately, many of these shows seem downright derivative to me. Both Invasion on ABC and Threshold on CBS centre on alien invasions, something which Hollywood drove into the ground long ago. Who knows exactly how many movies about alien invasions there have been? It isn't even something new on American television. The Invaders, V, and the syndicated Earth: Final Conflict all centred around alien invasions. As to the other genre shows, The Ghost Whisperer sounds like an outright ripoff of Medium. Of the new genre shows debuting this fall, only three seem to me to have any sort of potential. One is Surface, debuting on NBC, which centres on the discovery of a new lifeform in our oceans. While I'll admit it could turn out really bad, there is also the possibility that it could turn out really good. Another show with possibilities is Supernatural, debuting on the WB. It involves two brothers travelling the United States, fighting the supernatural forces that killed their mother. While I'll admit that the concept may not be that original, it at least sounds more interesting than alien invaders or mediums. Finally, there is Night Stalker, a revamp of the Seventies series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, debuting on ABC. This sounds like the most promising show debuting on any of the networks this fall. It is being produced by veterans of The X-Files (Frank Spotnitz and Dan Sackheim). And unlike the original, they have actually given Kolchak a reason to encounter the supernatural--a mysterious attack which injured him and left his wife dead.

One thing that has me very curious about the coming season is that out of all the shows debuting on the American networks, not one is a quirky, nighttime soap opera. I would have thought that with the success of Desperate Housewives the networks would have rushed to get more on the air. I would have thought we would have seen at least five or six Desperate Housewives imitations. Now don't get me wrong. I am not complaining. I have never seen an episode of Desperate Housewives and, beyond Melrose Place and a nighttime version of Dark Shadows, I've never cared for nighttime soap operas. That having been said, I do think this a bit strange. In fact, it could be the first time in American broadcast history that producers did not rush to imitate the most successful new series on television...

At any rate, I cannot say I am really looking forward to the new fall season. It seems to me that it is simply more of the same old thing, with more police procedurals, more legals dramas, and more reality shows. Even the genre shows which are debuting this season seem like retreads of other shows. I guess one can only hope that the 2006-2007 season will be better.

Peter Jennings 1938-2005

Last night ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings died after a battle with lung cancer. He was 67 years old.

Peter Jennings was born in Toronto, Ontario on July 29, 1938. He was the son of legendary CBC (Candadian Broadcasting Corporation) anchorman Charles Jennings, who was both CBC's first anchorman and head of their news department. Peter Jennings' broadcasting career began when he was very young. At age 10 he became the host of Peter's Program, a show which featured young talent. As an adult he became a disc jockey at a small radio station in Brockton, Ontario. After covering a train wreck for CBC, he came to the attention of CTV, who hired him as a co-anchor on their late night news. His work at CTV brought him to the attention of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), who hired him 1964.

It was in 1965, at the tender age of 26, that Peter Jennings became the youngest man to ever anchor a nightly network newscast. Unfortunately for ABC, Jennings could not compete with Walter Cronkite at CBS and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC--three of the biggest names in network news history. He was replaced in 1968. Jennings spent ten years reporting from abroad, even establishing the first American television news bureau in the Middle East.

It was in 1978 that Peter Jennings once more found himself behind the anchor desk of a nightly newcast. He became one of a three anchor team (along with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson) for ABC's World News Tonight. Jennings anchored from London, Reynolds from Washington, and Robinson from Chicago. In 1983 Jennings became the sole anchorman for World News Tonight. In addition to his duties as an anchor, Jennings was also responsible for various primetime specials focusing on various important issues. The specials focused on everything from abortion to Middle East relations to the life of Jesus. Over the years Jennings won 14 Emmys, two Peabody awards, the Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award, and many others.

I cannot say I have ever been a regular viewer of ABC World News Tonight. Growing up, like many Americans, I watched The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. As an adult I tended to watch either the CBS or NBC evening news. That having been said, I do have to say that I thought Peter Jennings was a fine journalist. What always appealed to me about Jennings is that, when covering any news event, he seemed able to throw out the most obscure facts. It was as if he had to let the viewer know every single detail. He also seemed to me to be a man of integrity. In a time when many news outlets tended to focus on the more sensational or trivial aspects of the news (remember all the coverage devoted to the O. J. Simpson trial?), Jennings seemed insistent on keeping the news focused on more important issues. I find it very sad that he had to die before his time. I could have easily seen Peter Jennings continuing for many more years.

Down With Love

I have always loved the sex comedies of the late Fifties and early Sixties. In fact, I have probably seen every comedy that Doris Day and Rock Hudson ever made together several times over. It was for that reason I have been looking forward to seeing Down With Love, a movie which seeks to emulate those classic comedies.

Down With Love has been compared to those old Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies with good reason. It does draw heavily upon them. In the plot of the movie, both Barbara Novak (played by Renee Zellweger) and Catcher Block (played by Ewan McGregor) assume different roles in a game of love between the two. The relationship between the two characters unfolds in much the same way that it did for Doris Day and Rock Hudson's characters in their classic films together. That having been said, Down With Love is not simply a clone of the various Doris Day and Rock Hudson vehicles. Indeed, the comedy seems to me to be a bit more broad. In many ways it reminds me more of other sex comedies from the era, namely two Jack Lemmon movies (Under the Yum Yum Tree and How to Murder Your Wife and the James Garner film Boys Night Out. I have to wonder if this was not intentional on the part of the filmmakers, who perhaps intended to make a movie which drew upon all of the Sixties sex comedies and not just those featuring Doris Day and Rock Hudson.

Regardless, Down With Love succeeds in evoking the sex comedies of the Sixties so perfectly that at times one could swear he or she is watching a movie from that era. It utilises nearly all of the film techniques of those films, from split screen to stock footage to montages. The production design even evokes the Sixties sex comedies, the sets and costumes duplicating the bright, kitschy New York City of those films.

Of course, Down With Love would not have succeeded had it not been for its actors' brilliant performances. Renee Zellweger duplitates the wholesome sexuality of Doris Day quite well--a woman who is independent and self reliant,, yet at the same time vulnerable. In Catcher Block, Ewan McGregor creates a character who is very much in the mold of Cary Grant or even James Bond. Like Barbara Novak, Catcher Block is independent and self reliant. He is also dashing, sophisticated, and ultimately selfish, yet, like Barbara Novak, he is also capable of being vulnerable at the same time. The supporting cast, with David Hyde-Pierce and Sarah Paulson playing Block and Novak's best friends respectively, are excellent as well. Between the two of them they play the sort of roles Tony Randall or Audrey Meadows once would have. And speaking of the late, great Tony Randall, he is hilarious as the head of Banner House Publishing. I thought it was a nice touch for him to appear in the movie, given that he did appear in all of the movies Doris Day and Rock Hudson made together.

At any rate, I should point out that it is ultimately the screenplay for Down With Love that lies at the heart of its success. It does draw heavily from the sex comedies of the Sixties, so much so that often one forgets that he or she is watching a movie released in 2003. At the same time, however, the plot unfolds a bit differently from the Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies. Indeed, its ending is wholly unexpected and original. To its credit, Down With Love shares one of the virtues of the Sixties sex comedies--it never descends into cloying sentimentality or overwrought melodramatics.

If Down With Love has one flaw it is that at times it does seem a bit anachronistic. A few of the innuendos in the film, while funny, seem a bit too pointed for 1962, fitting in with the Seventies sensibilities of Are You Being Served or Three's Company than the Sixties sex comedies. And a reference to Tang with regards to the space programme is totally out of place--while Tang had been around since the Fifties, it would not be used in space missions until a few years later! In the movie's defence, it must be pointed out that these are very minor flaws and are very easily overlooked. The virtues of Down with Love far outweigh any of its shortcomings.

Ultimately, Down with Love is a fun romp which evokes the sex comdies of the late Fifties and early Sixties nearly perfectly. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of those movies, as well as anyone who simply enjoys a well done comedy.

American Gothic

Most of you probably recognise the painting above, even if you might not know its name. It is American Gothic by Grant Wood. This year it celebrates its 75th anniversary. The inspiration for the painting came from a house in Eldon, Iowa, built in a Gothic Revival style. The house had been built in 1881 and is still standing today.

As to the people in the painting, they are supposed to be a farmer and his daughter, not a farmer and his wife as so commonly thought. Just as the house is a real house, so too were the farmer and the dauthter of the painting real people. The man was Wood's dentist, Byron H. McKeeby, who took a bit of persuading before he would pose for the painting. The woman is Wood's own sister, Nan Wood Graham.

Grant Wood entered American Gothic in a competition held by the Art Institute of Chicago in 1930. Curiously, the competition's judges initially rejected what would become the most famous American painting of all time. It was only when one of the museum's trustees saw the painting and intervened that it was finally allowed in the competition and exhibited at the Art Institute. In October 1930 Grant Wood was awarded third place in the competition, winning $300. The painting then appeared in newspapers across the United States, which carried stories on the competition. While American Gothic only took third place in the competition, it was the painting that caught the public's fancy.

That is not to say that everyone initially adored the painting. At first Wood's Iowa neighbours thought that he was poking fun at them with the painting. It was only after he explained that the models for the painting were his dentist and his own sister that they realised he had not intended to parody Iowa natives. Of course, the misguided assumptions of Wood's Iowa neighbours have been shared by art critics as well, some of who have thought that American Gothic was satirsing the puritanical values of the Midwest. Wood always denied this, and it seems more likely that instead his intention was the exact opposite--Wood meant to glorify the sort of moral fortitude found in the Midwest.

Regardless, American Gothic would go on to become possibly the most famous painting ever created by an American. It has been parodied endless times, with Wood's dentist and sister being replaced by Jed and Granny of The Beverly Hillbillies, Kermit and Miss Piggy of the Muppets, the Frankenstein Monster and his Bride, so on and so forth. With the possible exception of the Mona Lisa, it is probably the painting used more in advertisements and commercials than any other. American Gothic became a part of American pop culture almost immediately upon its unveiling. I suspect it will remain part of American pop culture as long as there is an America.

The Fleischer Superman Cartoons

Last night I watched ten of the classic Superman cartoon produced by Fleischer Studios in the early Forties. For those of you who have never seen these cartoons, they are among the greatest animated shorts ever produced. They are also an interesting look at the Man of Steel during the Golden Age of comics.

Superman first appeared in Action Comics #1, June 1938. The character was an immediate success. In fact, by 1939 Superman had become an outright fad, the equivalent of what The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or Pokemon were a few years ago (except that the Man of Steel proved to have a bit more staying power...). It should then come as no surprise, then, that Superman would move from comic books into other media. By February 12, 1940, the Man of Steel already had his own radio show--The Adventures of Superman. And, quite naturally, Hollywood took an interest in Superman as well. Paramount Studios decided that a series of cartoons featuring the Man of Steel could be quite profitable. They then approached Max and Dave Fleischer, whose cartoons they distributed, about a series of Superman cartoons. Neither of the Fleischer brothers was thrilled with the idea of producing Superman cartoons, so they told Paramount that the series would be too costly. They projected a budget of $100,000 for the series. They were shocked when Paramount agreed to the rather high price.

The first Superman cartoon, titled "Superman (although also known as "The Mad Scientist")" cost an astounding $50,000 (four times the amount of the average animated short of the time). It debuted on Septemeber 26, 1941 to both critical acclaim and popular success. Indeed, "Superman" or "The Mad Scientist" would be nominated for the Academy award for Best Animated Short. No expense was spared on further cartoons in the series, each being budgeted at $35,000 (far above the cost of most animated cartoons at the time).

Despite the success of the series, Superman would not be enough to save Fleischer Studios. Fleischer Studios had always received a good deal of critical acclaim. They had also received Oscar nominations for several of their animated shorts. Unfortunately, they never made a good deal of money. In 1937 Paramount Studio loaned Max and Dave Fleischer the money to build a bigger studio, the goal being to produce animated features with which to compete with Disney. Neither Gulliver's Travels (1939) nor Mr. Bug Goes to Town (1941) proved to be overwhelming successes at the box office. Short of money, the Fleischers continually looked to Paramount for more loans. Finally, on May 24, 1941, Paramount took over Fleischer Studios, renaming the company Famous Studios. The Fleischers themselves remained in control of production until the end of 1941.

In total, the Fleischers produced 9 Superman cartoons. Their last cartoon in the series, "Terror on the Midway," was released on August 28, 1942. Famous Studios would released 8 more Superman cartoons, the last being "Secret Agent," released on July 30, 1943. Although very popular and still quite successful, the Superman series of animated shorts proved a bit too costly for Paramount Studios. They cancelled the series, replacing with the much more cost effective Little Lulu series.

The plots of many of the Fleischer/Famous Superman animated shorts are somewhat formulaic. In the typical Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoon, Lois Lane gets herself in trouble while covering a story and Superman must rescue her and stop the bad guys. Of course, it must be pointed out that to a degree a formula for the shorts was somewhat necessary; one cannot do too much with only about 8 minutes to tell a story! Besides which, the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons more than made up for their formula of many of their plots with some of the most imaginative villains and plot devices in animation at the time. "The Bulleteers" featured the novel idea of a criminal gang which used a flying "bullet car" with which to rob banks. "Arctic Giant" featured a dinosaur on the loose in Metropolis--about eleven years before The Beast From 20000 Fathoms and twelve years before Godzilla. "Mechanical Monsters" could well have been one of the sources of inspiration for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow--a villain uses remote controlled flying robots to rob banks and jewellery displays!

Not only do the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons feature interesting plots, but they also have some of the most impressive animation ever seen in cartoons. In fact, they resemble feature films of the time more than they do the average animated short. The cartoons reproduced realistic looking illumination, with a great use of light sources and shadows. A variety of camera angles and shots are used, including tracking shots, close ups, and so on. The editing is superb. Indeed, I doubt even Disney's feature films of the time quite match the quality of animation in the Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons.

Of course, in watching the Fleischer/Famous Superman animated shorts, it must be kept in mind that they are products of their time. Produced during World War II, people watching both "Japoteurs" and "Jungle Drums" will find both to be very racially offensive. "Japoteurs" centres on a plot by the Japanese to steal the largest bomber ever made. Its villain is an extreme stereotype of Japanese people, both bucktoothed and near sighted. "Jungle Drums" centres on a Nazi plot in the African jungle and features stereotypes of African natives, complete with bones through their noses. While both cartoons feature the top notch animation typical of the Fleischer/Famous Superman shorts, their treatment of race makes them very difficult to watch.

Anyone today watching the Fleischer/Famous Superman shorts will notice that the Man of Steel was very different in the early Forties from what he is today. Originally, Superman could not fly--he could simply jump 1/8 of a mile. It is for that reason in the majority of the cartoons Superman is shown leaping to travel from place to place instead of simply taking flight. Similarly, Superman was not invulnerable in the early Forties either. As originally conceived, an artillery shell could pierce Superman's skin. In the cartoons, he is sometimes knocked out (although not for long) by debris from fallling buildings, explosions, and so on. Personally, I find the Superman of the Fleischer/Famous cartoons, who could be knocked out by falling rubble, a bit more interesting than the Superman of later years, who could withstand a nuclear blast!

The Fleischer/Famous Superman cartoons are a landmark in animation history. They are perhaps the finest series of animated shorts ever made, fairly consistent in quality and very well executed. They certainly earned their place in history. With the warning that some of the cartoons do contain material we would consider objectionable today, I would recommend them to anyone interested in animation or the character of Superman.

Space Exploration

Yesterday the space shuttle Discovery had a successful launch. It's the first shuttle mission since the Columbia Disaster happened in 2003. I'm hoping that Discovery can make it home safely and that its astronauts return unharmed. I have always been a big supporter of the space programme, but then given that I was born in the Sixties, it would perhaps be surprising if I wasn't.

By the time I was born, the "Space Race" was well underway. The United States' space programme was largely born out of the Cold War. On October 4, 1957, the U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik I, the first man made satellite to orbit planet Earth. Fearing that the Soviets could well develop technological superiority to the U. S., the government created NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and hence the American space programme. The Space Race had begun. Indeed, it would be on May 5, 1961 that the first American would be sent into space. On that date Alan Shepherd Jr. rode Mercury Freedom 7 on a suborbital flight into space. It was not long after that historic flight that President John F. Kennedy would make the space programme a national priority for the United States. In a speech he made on May 25, 1961, Kennedy pledged that we should put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade.

One of the first steps towards that goal was launching the first American into orbit around the Earth. On February 20, 1962, Mercury Friendship 7 was launched, carrying John Glenn. Glenn would orbit the earth three times. It would not be long before the United States would be swept up by an absolute craze for outer space. This craze can easily be seen in the television shows of the era. Space travel, either to or from this world, played a central role in a few TV shows in the Sixties. Both My Favorite Martian and The Invaders featured aliens coming to Earth. Both Star Trek and Lost in Space dealt with space travel itself. The topic of space even appeared on many sitcoms of the era. Gilligan's Island, The Monkees, Bewitched, and many other shows had at least one episode with a space age theme. I Dream of Jeannie topped them all. Jeannie's master, Tony Nelson, was an astronaut!

Even TV commercials during the Sixties touched upon space travel in some way, shape or form. The perfect example of this was Tang, which was first used on the Gemini flights in 1965. For literally years Tang capitalised on the space programme in its advertising campaigns. Naturally, there were food products which capitilised on the space craze. Pillsbury developed "Space Food Sticks" for NASA. And as might be expected, Pillsbury made Space Food Sticks available to the general public as well. In 1965 Quaker Oats even introduced a cereal with a space age theme. The spokesman for Quisp was was an alien with a propeller atop his head, named, appropriately, Quisp.

Not surprisingly, toys with a space theme were extremely popular in the Sixties. Boys during that decade could choose from a wide array of toy ray guns, robots, spaceships, and so on. Mattel created a line of "Major Matt Mason" action figures which capitalised on the space programme. Major Matt Mason was not the only action figure with a space theme, by any means. Marx came out with its own "Johnny Apollo" line of action figures which did the same. In 1965 Gilbert came out with Moon McDare. Eldon came out with Billy Blastoff. Even a G. I. Joe action figure was issued with a space suit and space capsule!

Of course, action figures weren't the only space oriented toys around in the Sixties. Both Ideal and Remco came out with their own "space bases." Remco produced a Voice Controlled Astronaut Base, complete with rocket, astronaut vans, and so on. Ideal's Astro Base came with a scout car, astronaut figure, and so on. Ideal seems to have favoured space oriented toys. They came out with a Space Belt and Helmet set, so that kids could pretend to be astronauts. In 1968 they introduced a line of four battery powered robots called Zeroids, whose mission was the exploration of space.

Towards the end of the decade, the American space programme saw its crowning achievement. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 reached the Moon. Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on it. Unfortunately, as the Apollo missions progressed, the American public lost interest in the space programme, although it maintains many supporters to this day. Of course, even after that first lunar landing, there would still be in milestones in the American space programme. In 1973 and 1974, the Skylab missions took place. Skylab was the United States' first space station. The Skylab missions marked the most extensive amount of time American astronauts spent in space (84 days on the last mission). On April 12, 1981, Columbia became the first space shuttle launched into orbit around the earth.

While NASA has seen many successes, it has also seen its share of disasters. On January 27, 1967, a fire on the launch pad would destroy Apollo 1, killing all three astronauts on board. Apollo 13 nearly ended in disaster. Launched on Apr. 11, 1970, an oxygen tank exploded before the astronauts could even reach the moon. For a time it looked as if the astronauts might be stranded in space, but fortunately both Mission Control and the astronauts figured out a means to bring Apollo 13 home. The space shuttle has also seen its share of disasters, as is well known. On January 31, 1986, Challenger exploded on lift off, killing everyone on board. Only a little over two years ago, on February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas.

I remember both disasters quite well, particularly that of Columbia. My brother, who lives in Texas, had the misfortune to see the shuttle on its reentry. He told me that when he saw it, he knew something was wrong. Both the Challenger disaster and the Columbia disaster had a huge impact on me. Growing up, among my heroes numbered the astronauts of the American space programme, so I naturally mourned the passing of the astroanauts of both Challenger and Columbia.

The American space programme has been in existence now for nearly 50 years. In that time NASA has made some great achievements. We placed a man on the moon and developed a reusable spacecraft (the space shuttle). NASA has also had its share of disasters (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia). It is hard to say what the future holds in store for the American space programme. I have heard that NASA is developing a new reusable spacecraft, one that will be capable of reaching both the Moon and Mars. The international space station will serve not simply the United States and Russia, but many other nations as well. It seems to me that we could be approaching a time when space travel will be routine. I can only hope that I live to see that time.