The Jersey Shore Anniversary

---

---

When you hear the phrase Jersey Shore these days, I guess most people's first thought would be of a reality series on MTV.

But a series of events on the Jersey shore in the early 20th century had a profound impact on American culture later in the century — a much greater impact than any television show.

Those events began on this day in 1916.

I'm speaking of shark attacks that led to four deaths and one injury in the first half of July 1916.

As I understand it, it was a brutal summer along the East Coast. Folks had been sweltering in a heat wave, and that — along with a polio epidemic — sent hordes of people to the beach seeking relief.

No one probably thought about the possibility of shark attacks in those waters. Such attacks are quite rare in that vicinity, but, on Saturday, July 1, 1916, a 25–year–old man who was vacationing with his family decided to go for a short swim with his dog before dinner.

After entering the water, the man began shouting, and other people on the beach thought he was calling to his dog, but, in reality, a shark was biting his legs. A lifeguard pulled him from the water, but he bled to death on the hotel manager's desk.

The beaches remained open, though, in spite of reports from ship captains of swarms of sharks off the coast. For awhile, it must have seemed that the folks who stood to gain from keeping the beaches open were going to get away with it, but then, on July 6, tragedy struck again about 45 miles north of the first attack.

A hotel bellhop was attacked while swimming about 100 yards from shore. He, too, was pulled from the water and bled to death on the way back to shore.

Another six days went by, then two attacks occurred about 30 miles north of the second incident. These were perhaps the most baffling. The first two attacks had happened in seaside resort locations, but the one on July 12, 1916, happened inland on a creek in a community that didn't really seem like a resort. An 11–year–old boy, who had been playing in the creek with some friends, was attacked and killed by a shark. A man who dove into the water in an attempt to save the boy also was attacked and bled to death at a hospital.

About half an hour later, the final victim, a 12–year–old boy, was attacked. He eventually recovered from his injuries.

The shark attacks triggered a panic. Tourism declined precipitously, and shark sightings rose sharply. Things only began to settle down after a fellow named Michael Schleisser caught a 7½–foot shark at the mouth of the creek. When they examined the shark, they found human remains in its digestive tract — but it was never established absolutely that the shark had been responsible for the attacks.

Half a century later, the shark attacks off the Jersey shore inspired Peter Benchley's phenomenal best–selling novel "Jaws" — which, in turn, inspired a blockbuster movie by the same name that dwarfed every other movie that was released that year.

Although the public officials along the Jersey Shore, like the ones in Benchley's novel, thought more about tourism and profits than public safety initially — and few, if any, people seemed to dispute the conclusion that sharks had been responsible for the attacks — it's still something of a mystery exactly what kind of shark it was — or, for that matter, how many were involved.

In the novel, the great white was to blame, and it was a good suspect in real life, too, but some people insisted it had been a bull shark instead. Bull sharks are known for their aggressiveness, as well as their ability to tolerate freshwater, which would account for its (or their) presence in the creek.

Folks didn't know a lot about sharks or shark behavior in 1916. Until the attacks, they were seen as relatively harmless, unlikely to attack humans unless provoked.

People knew a little more when Benchley wrote his novel, but public opinion had swung to the other extreme, mostly viewing sharks as dangerous and unpredictable. Before the end of his life, Benchley had a change of heart and said he regretted whatever role his book may have had in public misunderstanding of sharks.

Read More

The Pause That Refreshes

---

---

Several years ago, I was spending a weekend at an old friend's home, and I happened to notice that one of my favorite films was scheduled to be shown on TV.

"Have you ever seen 'One Two Three?' " I asked my friend.

"No," he replied, "but I've seen its sequel — 'Four Five Six.' "

We got a good laugh out of that one, but, unfortunately, we didn't watch the movie — and I regret that because I would have liked to share it with him. Perhaps one day I will.

Anyway, my thoughts have turned to "One Two Three" today because it was the (fictional) story of a Coca–Cola executive.

And it was 125 years ago today that Coca–Cola was first served in a drug store in Atlanta.

At first, Coca–Cola was sold as a medicine. In the late 19th century, it was believed that carbonated water had health benefits, and it was because of those perceived medicinal benefits that its developer wished to market it.

As hard as this may be for some folks to swallow, it was developed by a Georgia druggist named John Pemberton, a Confederate veteran.

The invention of Coke actually came about because of Pemberton's military service. He was wounded in battle and became addicted to morphine — and embarked on a search for a cure for his addiction, eventually coming up with Coca–Cola.

For the rest of Pemberton's lifetime, Coca–Cola was marketed as a medicine — a tonic, I suppose, intended to relieve a number of ailments.

Today, of course, it is the leading soft drink company in the world.

Well, I presume it is the leader. It always was the leader when I was growing up, and I don't think it has been displaced by anyone.

But competition has been around for a long time. Both Pepsi and RC Cola have existed for more than a century. As a result, I suppose, I always felt (well, at least since I first saw the movie) that the title was a reference to the three titans of the soft–drink industry.

Coke was the first of the colas, though — chronologically as well as in the marketplace.

In my household, in fact, "coke" was a generic term.

In other households, such drinks are called "soda" or "pop." My mother seldom drank Coca–Cola, but she used the word "coke" to refer to any soft drink.

When my mother said "Would you like a coke?" I knew she wasn't speaking only about a Coca–Cola. I knew she meant any soft drink that was available.

I always felt that "One Two Three" was one of Billy Wilder's best comedies — and that is saying something when you think about all the movies that he wrote, directed and/or produced — but it was often overshadowed by the others that he did.

The story had several joking references to the rivalry between Coke and Pepsi (which, I gather, was a fact of commercial life by that time), but I don't actually recall any references to RC Cola. Perhaps that is because Royal Crown (as it was known) was more diverse, dabbling in other flavors (and, hence, other markets) at the time that "One Two Three" was in the theaters.

It got its title from a phrase that Jimmy Cagney, playing a Coca–Cola executive in Berlin in the early 1960s, would say when he wanted something (usually several things) done quickly.

"One, two, three!" he would say, snapping his fingers with each word.

That movie will observe the 50th anniversary of its premiere later this year, and I plan to write about it at length when that time comes.

But, for some reason, today I feel compelled to write about one of its lesser–known yet memorable performers.

Her name is Liselotte Pulver. She played Cagney's sexy secretary, and her character served as the bait in his plan to retrieve his employer's new son–in–law from his East German captors.

Cagney deserved and received much praise for his performance, but the sometimes frenetic pace of the film was too much for him, and he went into virtual retirement when it was over.

There were other performers in the film who, for various reasons, seemed to get more attention than Pulver. Pamela Tiffin, who played the boss' daughter, may have been perceived by some as sexier than Pulver. She was quite a bit younger. And Horst Buccholz, who played her East German fiance/spouse, was a rising star when "One Two Three" was made. He made his American debut in "The Magnificent Seven" the year before, and he went on to appear in several American films before his death in 2003.

Cagney, of course, was an old pro — with a film resume that went back more than 30 years. Arlene Francis was, too, although she spent many years on television, not the silver screen.

Pulver's career, I gather, was spent mostly in her native Germany. Most Americans weren't familiar with it.

But Pulver was a refreshing element in the story — a true pause that refreshed.

And that was appropriate, I suppose, for a movie about a Coca–Cola executive.

Read More

The Japan Syndrome

---

---

Years ago, I went with my mother to see a movie called "The China Syndrome."

The movie — which starred Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas — was about the perils of nuclear power. The title came from the popular misconception that, if someone in America drilled through the earth, he/she would come out in China. The movie's premise was that, if a nuclear reactor melted down, its core would do something similar.

It was a frightening premise that was made even more frightening by an actual nuclear accident at Three–Mile Island in Pennsylvania not long after the movie made its theatrical premiere.

That event gave the movie a lot of unexpected publicity, resulting in higher–than–expected ticket sales and a lot of anxiety on the part of the public.

We know more about nuclear power now than we did when that movie came out — but not, perhaps, as much as we may have thought — or, perhaps, would like to have thought.

In my adult lifetime, Americans have always seemed eager to embrace the simple solution to a complex problem, and many seem to be taking that approach to the nuclear situation in Japan.

"How bad could it get?" asks Josh Dzieza at The Daily Beast. And that's a fair question to ask — flippant though it may seem.

Barry Brook writes at Brave New Climate about the "misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media" and asserts that "[t]he plant is safe now and will stay safe."

Well, time will tell.

Maybe it is the same mindset that always seems to assure Americans that higher gas prices are only temporary. In the past, yes, gas prices have declined after enormous spikes — but rarely, if ever, to the levels that existed before.

I'm not inclined to think that gas prices will fall to anything resembling what they were just a couple of months ago — especially now because the most vocal proponents of that particular pie–in–the–sky theory (that gas prices will decline almost exclusively on the basis of consumer behavior) also have been advocates of nuclear energy as the solution to the cost of heating and cooling our homes.

Those are the same people who scoffed at President Carter when "The China Syndrome" was at the theaters — because he warned that America's dependence on foreign oil was setting this nation up for disaster.

The recent events in Japan are sure to be mentioned now whenever someone promotes nuclear energy in this country. The issues that have been raised are far too complex to be addressed by a simple solution.

The truth is that, for all that 21st century humans know about nuclear power, there is still much they do not know — even in Japan, which, if anything, has been overly cautious about safety in just about every aspect of its existence when compared to virtually any other place on earth.

That is why you could watch video footage of the area nearest to the ground zero of the earthquake — and see large buildings that were still standing, even though a 9.0–magnitude earthquake struck the area 2½ days ago, and powerful aftershocks continue to strike.

Japan is no stranger to earthquakes. As a result, it has done a remarkable job of preparing its buildings for the possibility that one will strike, but this is the strongest ever to hit that country — and only the third earthquake globally to register 9.0 or higher in the last 50 years. One was the 9.2 earthquake that struck Prince William Sound in Alaska 47 years ago this month, and the other was the 9.1 that struck Indonesia the day after Christmas in 2004.

And this earthquake, along with the tsunamis it has produced, has been causing a number of unforeseen problems. Japan, as I say, always appears to prepare for the worst–case scenario — but its engineers didn't actually anticipate the worst case, only a worse case.

And that could have tragic consequences.

When you are dealing with something like nuclear energy, you must think way outside the box. I don't fault Japanese officials for not preparing for the size earthquake that almost never happens, but the fact remains that attempts to restart the cooling system at one of the damaged reactors have failed.

Safety standards have to be revisited — and, until we know more than we do about nuclear power, we have to treat it with the respect it deserves and prepare ourselves for a disaster that is much greater than anything we've seen — or may be likely to see.

Read More