still do feel.rnApted has tried to bring Fleming’srntheme to the foreground in a way that itrnwasn’t in the earlier films. His Bond is arnman of genuine feeling and loyalty, strugglingrnto defeat the dehumanized forces ofrnan uncaring rationalism. Unfortunately,rnApted only partially succeeds; no doubtrnconmicrcial interests prevailed uponrnhim. The film is too cluttered with specialrneffects and stunts to allow for an adequaterntreatment of this theme, and therernare many points at which the script hasrnbeen obviousK’ and awkwardly truncated.rnTWINE succeeds only in being promisingrnat first and disappointing at last.rnIf ou want to see what Apted was after,rnread some of Fleming’s novels. They arernbetter than one woidd expect, especiallyrnFrom Russia With Love and You OnlyrnLive Twice. Better yet, read GrahamrnGreene’s espionage satire. Our Man inrnHavana, and then catch its truly marvelousrnfilm adaptation on cable. (Unfortunatel)-,rnthis 1960 produchon —directedrnb} Garol Reed and starring Alec Guinness,rnNoel Coward, and Ernie Kovacs —rnhas ncner been made into a commercialrnideo.) Both novel and film masterfulKdramatizernwhat TWINE merely suggests:rnFlow much our soids depend on resistingrnthe temptation to become instruments inrnthe pursuit of power and wealth.rnGeorge McCartney teaches Enghsh atrnSt. ]ohn’s University.rnHISTORYrnOn the Shouldersrnof Giants?rnby William R. HawkinsrnThe Arts and Entertainment (A&F)rnteleision network, best known forrnits Biography series, has produced a listrnof die 100 most important figures of diernmillennium and devoted four hoursrnof airtimc to explain its picks. ‘Fhc listrnconsists mainly of consensus figmes:rnBeethoven, Columbus, St. ThomasrnAquinas, Genghis Khan; and some ?0rnnames are associated with the advancementrnof science. The list is heavily Eurocentric,rnwhich is not in itself a bad thing.rnE’airopean civilizafion came to dominaternthe world during this era, and A&E’s audiencernis pri’ileged to live in the mostrnprosperous and powerful offshoot of Europe.rnYet diis insular focus can lead to a distortedrnview. Does Princess Diana reallyrndeserve to be considered the V^rd mostrnimportant person to have lived during thernlast 1,000 years? Is she more importantrnthan other rovals such as Elizabeth I (80),rnPeter the Great (83), or Isabella I (78)rnwho actually ruled and accomplishedrngreat things for their domains? Even inrnthis century, did she have more impactrnthan Joseph Stalin (79) whose “evil empire’rnwas finally brought down b RonaldrnReagan (85)?rnOther quesfionable names on the listrninclude Charlie Chaplin (95), the Beatiesrn(76), Elvis Presley (57), Enrico Camsorn(96), and Louis Armstrong (98). Allrnwere great entertainers, but unlikely tornstand the test of time like Bach (26) orrnShakespeare (5).rnRemoing such lightweights wouldrnopen slots for more important figures.rnWliile George Washington and TliomasrnJefferson are on the list, James Madisonrnand Alexander Hamilton are not, despiterntheir role in writing and promoting diernConstitution. Hamilton’s economicrnpolicies, and his more realistic view ofrnworld affairs, laid the foundation for thernstrength and prosperity that has helpedrnAmerica maintain its freedom.rnHenry the Navigator is not on the list.rnHe funded improved shipbuilding andrnexploration down the coast of Africa, anrneffort which eventually opened die wa’rnto Asia. With the phrase “global economv”rnon everyone’s lips, it’s important tornremember that a 15th-centin- Portuguesernking laid the foundation forrnworldwide commerce, which nationsrnand empires have struggled to control everrnsince. These bits of histor’ armor usrnagainst claims that “globalization” is sornnew riiat we must abandon centuries ofrnexperience in die face of the “irresistible “rndemands of an unhinged merchant eliternwho care nothing for the rest of socieh’.rnOther missing names include PopernIh’ban II, who in 1095 proclaimed thernFirst Crusade against the adxancingrnMuslims, creafing Christian outposts inrnthe Holy Ijand diat endured for nearlyrntwo centuries. But then Saladin, whornunited the Arabs against die Second andrnT’hird Crusades, is also missing. Tamerlanernis another Muslim warlord whornlearned from die Mongols and sought tornreplicate dieir empire. His importancernto Europe stems from his 1403 defeat ofrnthe Ottoman Turks, who had broken offrntheir assault on Constantinople and thernBalkans to confront him in Svria. Evenrnbefore the days of “trains, planes, and automobiles”rn(not to mention missiles), therncourse of civilizations could be affectedrnby distant events.rnMilitary leaders arc conspicuously absentrnfrom the A&E list. But who can disputernthe long-term impact of JamesrnWolfe at Quebec or Robert Clie atrnPlassey, who ensured the influence ofrnBritish civilizafion on such vast lands asrnNorth America and India? E’ven WilliamrnPitt the Elder, whose strategy theyrncarried out, is absent. Abraham Lincolnrn(23) is credited with both freeing thernslaves and preserving the Ihiion, butrncould not have done either withoutrnUlysses S. Grant, who is not on the list.rnNeither arc the deans of modern strategicrnthinking, Karl von Clausewitz and AlfredrnThayer Mahan —though there’s room forrna ninny like Eleanor Roosevelt (93).rnIt is also odd that a list devoted to diosernwho made 1,000 years of history doesrnnot include a single major historian. (Irnam discounting, not oxerlooking, #46rnMachiavelli and #7 Marx.) My choicernwould be Edward Gibbon. His Dechnernand Fall of the Rome Empire is arguablyrnthe best known modern work of history.rnIts fame is the main reason most peoplerneven know there was a millennium beforernthis one. The work itself covers morernthan the tide implies, tracing over a thousandrnyears of histor)- including that of thernsuccessor states to Rome and Constantinople,rnthe Persian and Chinese empires,rnand the rise of both Christianityrnand Islam.rnJohn Locke (18) is hailed as a championrnof individual rights and democraticrngovernment who disputed the divinernright of kings, but A&E fails to mentionrnthat one of Locke’s “natural rights” wasrnthat of private property. Locke believedrnman was endowed from birth with thernpropertv’ of his own body and that, whenrnhe combined his labor with natmal resources,rnhe was enfified to the fruits of hisrnefforts.rnIndeed, economic tiiinkers are largelyrnignored in a list odierwise lieaily weightedrntowards materialism and modernrntimes. Adam Smith (20) is the onlyrnname primarily associated with the “dismalrnscience.” The absence of John MaynardrnKeynes is surprising, though not distmbing.rnLeon Walras, who marriedrndifferenfial calculus to economic theoryrnMARCH 2000/47rnrnrn