Ohhh History Channel--you've really outdone yourself this time! I thought you'd reached the sublime heights of ludicrosity with your presentation on "Stalin's Monkey Army,"* but I was wrong. Indeed, last night's viewing of "The Real Wolfman," a two hour documentary program teaming the attempts of an ex-cop and a cryptozoologist to track down the true story of the Beast of Gevaudan, reached new ranges of jaw-dropping non-science.*Brief summary: 57 minutes spent on how records of dubious Soviet provenance might indicate that Stalin was funding experiments in UNSPEAKABLE UNIONS in the hopes of creating half-mans-half-monkeys super soldiers, followed by 3 minutes of scientists going "no way in hell, dude, cos of chromosomal mismatch FAIL and stuff."

Between 1764 and 1767, a series of attacks and killings were perpetrated on the villagers of the rural French town of Gevuadan. Depending on which source you're choosing to believe, anywhere from 100 to over 200 people were victims of gruesome violence that included wounds that appeared to be inflicted by biting, tearing, dismemberment, and partial devouring of the bodies of the dead. At this same time, a number of large, wolf-like animals were observed in the countryside surrounding Gevaudon, with eyewitness reports corresponding in their general details of a bad-smelling, red-furred, furry quadraped beastie. If this is sounding pretty familiar to you, it's because you spent way too much time in the occult section of your local library as a kid (guilty!) or you saw the sumptuous screen presentation of this tale in "The Brotherhood of the Wolf" (also guilty!).
Now, with forensic science being what it was in the French countryside in the mid-Eighteenth Century (to wit: probably a lot like the witch-ducking scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"), one needs to be very careful with the eyewitness accounts and the "Correlation Equals Causation" impulse. It's quite a bit easier to blame monstrous creatures for savage deaths than it is to blame monstrous men for these deeds. However, the Maneaters of Tsavo and their 135 victims give credence to the possibility of ravenous animals being responsible for the attacks. Add in a tantalizing trail of alleged physical evidence and there's a really interesting investigation here. Sadly this documentary didn't show it.
Enter our protagonists in this documentary--retired police investigator George Deuchar (veteran of such venerable programs as "Psychic Investigators") and fan of pretty young goth girls and also cryptozoologist Ken Gerhard (check out his MySpace page--srsly). Both men, with their fluency in the French language and depth of knowledge in the late period of the French Monarchy are imminently qualified for the investigation! Oh wait--did I just say that? I meant the exact opposite.
Let's re-start: this documentary is really all about the entire country of France making minor American reality teevee personalities look like idiots. Great moments include:
- A distant relative of the man who allegedly shot the Beast recounting the folk tale to our investigators, and seeming kind of confused that they don't quite get the idea that he didn't KNOW his great-etc.-grand-uncle on a personal level.
- A tour guide at a historical church trying incredible hard to restrain a smile while telling our investigators that it would be "impossible" for the Catholic Church to have conspired to create a mania surrounding the Beast for its own promotional good.
- A zoologist (the kind that studies real, actual animals--not imaginary ones) spinning a tale about how a French peasant could have kept a stable of hyenas and trained them to do his murderous bidding.
If you're thinking this is both the BEST and the WORST documentary you've ever seen--just hang in there to the final moments, when these haters of Occam's Razor sum up their findings and rest easily at night, having solved the mystery once and for all. Let's put it this way--if you've seen "Brotherhood of the Wolf," imagine something even less plausible than that.
I really think The History Channel, now that it has abandoned its mission as The Hitlery Channel (that role mantle has been taken on by the expanded cable Military Channel), should be forced to change its name to the Disreputable Crackpot Channel. It's entirely more honest, and I'd be sure to watch it more frequently to boot! Let's hear it for truth in advertising, folks.
12 comments:
What do you expect when something that calls itself the History Channel still has to compete for ratings and ad revenues with such equally compromised competition as Discovery and "NatGeo?" These channels are all turning into supermarket tabloids without the celebrity gossip, with the ideal apparently being the Weekly World News before the joke became too obvious.
I think I first read this story in an issue of "Ripley's Believe It or Not: True Demons and Monsters."
One of the things that kills me about this kind of documentary--and don't get me started on "Coast to Coast"--is how everyone and every story is accorded the same amount of credibility, things like "evidence" notwithstanding.
The story really sounds interesting though and I recall having seen a different documentary years ago (where they pretty much concluded that there can be little doubt that some kind of animal was to blame (probably wolves, seeing as there used to be quite a lot around at the time and I think there was also something about a famine and less livestock and game around thrown in).
What's the solution they come up with in this?
Btw.: Would be fun to do a "documentary" the opposite way, e.g. sending a randomly chosen French tour guide and a zoologist over to the States and let them solve a "true crime" (the phantom killer might be a good choice).
I want to see one of these done about the Chupacabra with that Jeff Corwin fellow and that wacky medium from Most Haunted (to channel the dead spirit of Steve Irwin, of course).
I was having trouble thinking of what to watch this Halloween being kinda not totally up for my planned schedule of heavy zombie action (my mom passed away a couple weeks ago, and I'm at that "this is a sociological experiment so I'm going to meditate on everything instead of just feeling sad" phase) but I think maybe The Real Wolfman would make a good combination with Man Bites Dog, F For Fake and The Hoax. Then I'm going to start a rumor that you can check out dildoes from a secret cabinet in the basement of the library if you know the secret code word, which according to Word Verification is "ilessti". Yours may vary!
As Samuel points out, history has to compete with sensationalism...unfortunately, sensationalism wins every time.
As a public historian in training, I have to deal with this in my own backyard. Our local house museums have resorted to having "ghost hunters" come in and make up crap, just to get people in the doors, because people are not interested in real history. Very sad...
I work late at night (by myself) in an old, allegedly "haunted" house museum, and I hear weird noises all the time...that doesn't mean it's haunted. Folks, it's an old house...it's SUPPOSE to make creaky noises.
You can tell this is a subject matter that sticks in my craw, can't you?
Plus, the Hitler Channel (it still is, I think they replayed that SS gig for the billionth time the other week) is cheap. We'll be getting the extra watery Haunted History of Halloween again. I want sensationalism! Where are the stories about serial killers and cannibals, dammit.
It's nonsense like this that leads people into convincing their 6 year old sons to take their mylar Elmo balloons out for a spin around Big Sky country! Yeesh! Even the "Hitlervision" documentaries have gotten out of hand, focusing on occult footnotes (Teutonic imagery and mythology of the Nazis) or weird situations (the Nazi that visited Tibet and climbed K-2 looking for a Yeti for Himmler). As a person who loves to read REAL history, it is a shame that the history channel doesn't spend its time focusing on the big issues and events. Well, I guess the sex lives of Rudolf Hess and Dr. Gobbles is more interesting than that. Or some nonsense about werewolves in France (I bet their hair was perfect!).
The Chupacabra Channel!
Fred (and cranky yankee), in defense of the History Channel I'd have to say that the idea of "real history" is one that has been discarded by historians decades ago and social, resp. "small" history is really where it's at at the moment. i also think that trying to become more accessible and interesting is generally a good thing - unfortunately, the old "ivory tower" chliche applies far more often than it should even today and one of the side-effects has been that historians (just like humanities in general) have pretty much lost quite a lot of respect and influence (and unfortunately also job opportunities - it is a fairly thankless job nowadays).
Now the history channel and all the "the more obscure the better" stuff is admittedly not much better, but I still hope that it is a step in the right direction and might eventually pave the way for more balanced stuff.
OK, now that I'm almost-recovered from my Halloween debauch, I'm going to catch up on blog comments. Sorry for being MIA, folks, and thanks for all your awesome comments!
Sam, I've found NatGeo to be the best of the lot, in terms of their presentations. At least their "Is It Real?" series follows up 50 minutes of squirrel food with a resounding "nope." It reminds me of the National Geographic "Was Darwin Wrong?" cover followed by the word "NO" inside in 70 point type. Their cinematography is generally above-par as well. But yes--as my pal pointed out WRT Discovery, they could keep their call-letters and just change the name to "Disreputable Science Channel." Which I kind of dig...
MDG--evidence is for sissies! I learned that from teevee :D
Anon, I'll do a SPOILER ALERT here:
The solution was that a hyaena escaped from a nobleman's menagerie, was caught and trained by a poor villager, sicced on a hundred or so innocent fellow villagers, and then shot by its trainer in order to gain esteem in the community.
Gobsmacking!
Also, I ADORE your documentary concept. Let's see if we can get started on financing that!
Planet of Terror--WIN. Love it!
DB, first off on the serious tip, I'm really sorry to hear about your loss. I lost my mom this year as well, and everything has been a huge transition for me. My thoughts are with you, man. And on a less-serious note, you always bring the awesome in your comments. Well-played!
Cranky, I knew you'd have strong opinions here! I'm of the opinion that there's enough genuinely weird stuff in the world that we can investigate without making up BS. There are really cool stories out there--TELL THOSE!
Randal, we watched that program for the hundredth time this weekend. We were remarking on the amazing sweaters donned by the host, and then we realized the doc was over a decade old O_o
Fred, much like you my impression of "history" was that it included "stuff that actually happened." Silly us!
J, we're suckers for the Chupacabra! Wokka wokka ;)
Wow. I wasn't expecting bad reviews for this episode. I usually stay away from monster mysteries but this episode kept me on the edge of my seat and made TOTAL sense of the wolfman myth.
The suggestion that the Catholic church was struggling to keep members during that time (which is true) and used people's superstition (which is typical) to keep them on their knees is not so outlandish.
I really loved this episode and have suggested it to many of my friends. It also makes a great campfire re-tell. I give it a 8 out of 10 for good detective work and for an excellent attempt at making sense from nonsense.
Post a Comment