when will the man who killed don quixote be released

The film premiered on 19 May 2018, simultaneously acting as the closing film at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival and being released in French theaters.

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote

The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is a 2018 adventure-comedy film directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam and Tony Grisoni, loosely based on the novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. It is widely recognized as one of the most infamous examples of development hell in film history, with Gilliam unsuccessfully attempting to make the film many times over the span of twenty-nine years.

Gilliam started working on the film in 1989, but was unable to secure funding until 1998 when it entered full pre-production with a budget of $32.1 million without American financing, with Jean Rochefort as Quixote, Johnny Depp as Toby Grisoni, a 21st-century marketing executive thrown back through time, and Vanessa Paradis as the female lead. Shooting began in 2000 in Navarre, but a significant number of difficulties such as sets and equipment destroyed by flooding, the departure of Rochefort due to illness, problems obtaining insurance for the production, and other financial difficulties led to a sudden suspension of the production and its subsequent cancellation. The original production was the subject of the documentary film Lost in La Mancha, which was intended to be a making-of but was released on its own in 2002.

Gilliam made repeated attempts to relaunch production between 2005 and 2016, which included Robert Duvall, Michael Palin, and John Hurt as Quixote, and Depp, Ewan McGregor, Jack O'Connell, and Adam Driver as Grisoni. However, all ended up being cancelled for various reasons, such as failing to secure funds, Depp's busy schedule and eventual loss of interest in the project, and Hurt being diagnosed with the cancer that would eventually result in his death. After yet another failed attempt, it was unexpectedly reported in March 2017 that filming had finally started, with Driver still attached as Grisoni, Jonathan Pryce as Quixote, and Olga Kurylenko as the female lead. On 4 June Gilliam announced that the shooting of the film was complete, 17 years after it originally started.

Toby, a cynical advertising director finds himself trapped in the outrageous delusions of an old Spanish shoe-maker who believes himself to be Don Quixote. In the course of their comic and increasingly surreal adventures, Toby is forced to confront the tragic repercussions of a film he made in his idealistic youth - a film that changed the hopes and dreams of a small Spanish village forever. Can Toby make amends and regain his humanity? Can Don Quixote survive his madness and imminent death? Or will love conquer all?[5]

Terry Gilliam first read the novel in 1989, and started conceptualizing an adaptation right away.[8][14][15][16] He saw a personal project in adapting Don Quixote, as it embodies many of the themes that run through his own work—such as the individual versus society, and the concept of sanity. Instead of a literal adaptation, Gilliam's film was about "an old, retired, and slightly kooky nobleman named Alonso Quixano [who] reads too many chivalric romances. Taking leave of his senses, he sets out to fix the world and revive chivalry, clad in makeshift armor and accompanied by a donkey-owning farmer named Sancho Panza, who serves as his squire".

Gilliam signed a deal with Phoenix Pictures as the studio to make the film in 1990 under the name Don Quixote. Sean Connery was in talks to star as Quixote, but Gilliam disliked the idea because "Quixote is air and Sean is earth". Nigel Hawthorne and Danny DeVito were also in talks to star as Quixote and Panza respectively.[7][8] However, Gilliam ultimately decided that the budget the studio offered him was too low and dropped from the project to focus on The Defective Detective, another film he ultimately failed to make.[7][8] Phoenix Pictures chose Fred Schepisi to replace Gilliam, with John Cleese as Quixote and Robin Williams as Panza, and Steven Haft, Quincy Jones and David Salzman as producers. This version would have been based on an old screenplay by Waldo Salt. However, it was officially cancelled in 1997.[7][8][17]

In 1997, Gilliam stated "The years I wasted on this one! I was so frustrated with Hollywood, I went after European money, needing $20 million. And they said, 'You're on.' But I found out I needed more money. [...] That really hurts, that I let a project I'm convinced I'm the best director on the planet to do, slip by."[7][8]

After Schepisi's project collapsed, Gilliam resumed working on the film with co-writer Tony Grisoni, giving it the new name The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Instead of featuring a man named Alonso Quixano and Sancho Panza, this new version would instead feature Toby Grisoni (a character whose name is based on Tony Grisoni's), a 21st-century marketing executive thrown back through time and who meets Don Quixote.[18][19] Their version would also have borrowed elements from Mark Twain's 1889 novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, including its time travel elements; after having failed Don Quixote's original attempt, Gilliam had unsuccessfully tried to adapt A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court into a film.[7]

Gilliam officialized Don Quixote to be his next project at the UK premiere of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in 1998, with pre-production starting the same year.[16] Gilliam, tired with Hollywood wanting creative control on his films, had decided to make the film in Europe instead, which according to him was "one big monstrous problem".[19] It was set to have been one of the biggest continental European films ever made, with a budget of $32.1 million that had been scaled back from an original $40 million, and would have been filmed in Spain and throughout Europe.[20][19] It was to have been one of Gilliam's most ambitious films, produced without any American financing; according to Gilliam, this budget was "half the money we need".[18] RenÃ© Cleitman was one of the film's producers.[21] At the time, Gilliam stated "I hope it's going to be fun. It's been such a long slog to get to this point today."[16] Working Title Films were offered the project, but turned it down because of the needed budget.[19]

Jean Rochefort was picked to play Don Quixote, in preparation for which he spent seven months learning English.[18][19] Toby Grisoni was to be played by Johnny Depp, who had starred in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Vanessa Paradis would have been his love interest.[19] Other actors who were to appear in the film included Miranda Richardson, Christopher Eccleston, Rossy de Palma, Jonathan Pryce, and Sally Phillips.[16][9][8][22]

Filming started in September 2000, with Nicola Pecorini as cinematographer.[8] The first location shoot was at Bardenas Reales, a scenic, barren area in Navarre, Spain, near a NATO military base. Shortly before filming, the crew unexpectedly found out that several actors had conflicting schedules that would not match each other, making it unsure how and when to film scenes that would feature those same actors at the same time.[19] On the very first day of shooting, F-16 fighter aircraft flew overhead repeatedly, ruining the audio recording and mandating a later re-dubbing in post-production.[16][18][8] A flash flood then followed on the second day of filming, washing away and destroying significant portions of equipment and changing the color of the barren cliffs, making previously filmed material unusable due to continuity issues.[18][8][16] The crew spent the next days trying to recover the equipment or obtain new one, but it eventually turned out that the film's insurance did not cover the damage caused by the flood.[21] Several actors also did not show up on set for filming.[21]

On the fifth day, filming resumed, but when Rochefort, an able horseman, attempted to ride and act, he was obviously wincing in pain, and required assistance dismounting and walking; he notably suffered from prostate issues, which proved very problematic when riding a horse.[18][8][19] This made the newly filmed footage unusable, as Rochefort's pain was obvious on camera, and production was suspended while Rochefort flew hurriedly to his doctor in Paris, where he was additionally diagnosed with a double herniated disc.[19] For several days the crew attempted to shoot scenes that did not involve Rochefort – including a scene with Depp at Monasterio de Piedra – but as time passed, it became unclear whether Rochefort would be able to return or not. Cinematographer Nicola Pecorini stated at the time "Never in 22 years of being in this business have I seen such a sum of bad luck."[16] Gilliam was very disappointed by this, as he had spent two years trying to cast the perfect actor. Despite Gilliam's continued efforts, production was finally cancelled in November 2000.[18][8][23]

After his 1988 film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen was almost abandoned, Gilliam decided to document the making of all his films in case one of them was canceled.[18] For The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, he asked Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe, who had been in charge of the making-of of his film 12 Monkeys, to film what should have ultimately been its making-of; however, after Don Quixote was cancelled, Lost in La Mancha was released in 2002 as a stand-alone documentary film about Gilliam's failed attempt at making the film.[24][18]

The documentary received critical praise for its relevance on the difficulties inherent to filmmaking, and for its depiction of Gilliam as an artist.[25][21][24] BBC called the film "painful to watch: an astonishing 'un-making of' documentary which defines the phrase 'catalogue of disasters'".[19] Olga Kurylenko, who starred in the eventual 2018 film, stated about Lost in La Mancha, "You watch and you think, poor Terry. Why does this have to happen to this wonderful man? He doesn't deserve this. It's just crazy. But it wasn't meant to be, I guess. It wasn't the moment."[19]

In the years that followed its original cancellation, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote became widely recognized as one of the most infamous examples of development hell in film history, and as one of the most famous films never made, even gaining the reputation of being cursed.[26][16][27][16][28][18][20][24][15][8][19] IndieWire called the film "one of the most troubled productions in the history of cinema", while /Film believed they "could write a book about the movie's problems", stating "Heaven and hell seemed to unite in defiance of Terry Gilliam's The Man Who Killed Don Quixote".[27][29][20]

Commenting on the making of the film, The Guardian commented on "Mr Gilliam's visionary project disintegrating like a slow-motion car crash. The double hernia and slipped disc that zonked his lead actor, Jean Rochefort, the flash floods that swept away his camera equipment, the overhead Nato jets which wrecked his soundtrack, the actors who didn't show up, and finally, the implacable money-men who declared that the star's indisposition was not covered by insurance as it was an Act of God. The Act of a furious Old Testament God with a serious grudge against Terry Gilliam".[21] Geeks of Doom called the film's failure a "legendary collapse", while BBC stated that the film is "synonymous with sustained and calamitous misfortune".[30][19]

When the final film encountered legal issues due to the dispute with Paulo Branco in 2018, several journalists commented on the issue by stating that regarding the infamously complicated history of the film, its current legal issues were relatively inconsequential, with The Guardian stating, "It's another bump in the long road for this most troubled of productions, though given the director has waited nearly two decades to see his magnum opus on screen, he can stand to hold on for a few more months."[6][31] BBC stated before the film's release "It is almost unbelievable that The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is still being wounded by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" while Vox stated "It remains to be seen whether the film is any good. But at this point, it almost doesn't matter. It will be a long time before The Man Who Killed Don Quixote can be seen just as a movie, separate from its long saga of dreams and woes and catastrophes â€” which may actually be beneficial in the case of a movie about a knight with a foolish dream. The behind-the-scenes saga is part of the film's mystique and history, and whether it's great, terrible, or somewhere in between, that story is what historians, critics, and crowds will remember, long after the movie leaves theaters."[19][8]

Gilliam himself admitted in May 2017 than the film's legendary reputation added more pressure on him: "The problem is that people have very high expectations. And a lot of people say I'm a fool to make the film, and that it would have been better to let people imagine how great it would have been, rather than making it a reality and disappointing them. People love Roman ruins because they're not complete and you can imagine them. So I may be making a great mistake. Maybe the film would be better as a fantasy."[19]

After the production had been cancelled, an insurance claim was filed on behalf of the film's investors. US$15 million were reportedly paid, and the rights to the screenplay passed on to the insurance companies. Since 2003, Gilliam kept on trying to make the film, but to no avail. His first new attempt, six months after the release of Lost in La Mancha, was quickly turned down.[19] In 2005, Gilliam voiced his interest in re-casting the role of Don Quixote with Gérard Depardieu.[32] The film quickly gaining the reputation of being cursed, notably after the release of Lost in La Mancha, made it even harder for Gilliam to find financial support.[19]

Terry Gilliam on the film's reputation of being cursed.[19]

In the meantime, Gilliam made other films, stating "Every film I've done since then has been because I couldn't get Quixote made." Those other productions mostly collapsed, like the Nicolas Cage-led The Defective Detective or an adaptation of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's novel Good Omens (which was cancelled after the September 11 attacks due to his content judged too dark), or were also met with significant issues: he notably clashed with producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein on the making of The Brothers Grimm, leading to them firing his cinematographer Nicola Pecorini, and had to replace The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus's lead actor Heath Ledger after his death halfway through filming.[19][7][33][34]

In July 2006, after nearly six years of legalities between the French producers and German insurers, the issue over the rights was settled.[16] Terry Gilliam announced this at the Munich International Documentary Film Festival, saying that the production company was willing to give Gilliam the rights, and that Jeremy Thomas was still interested in producing. In August 2006, Gilliam indicated at a post-screening Q&A for Tideland that the complex legal case concerning the film's collapse was finally being wrapped up, and that the rights to the script would hopefully be given back to Gilliam and co-writer Grisoni in the near future. He stated his intention to completely reshoot the film.[16]

Johnny Depp was at times still connected to the project, but it remained unclear if Depp's filming schedule would have allowed for his participation and if he wanted to join the production at all.[35] During a press junket for his film Public Enemies, Depp stated:

[Gilliam and I] have talked about it. But to be honest, the thing about Terry... I love Terry, and I'd do anything the guy wants to do. But with Quixote... my dance card is pretty nutty for the next couple of years. So I'd hate to put him in a position—or ask to be in a position—where he'd have to wait for me. That would be wrong. But also, I feel like we went there and tried something, and whatever it was—the elements and all the things that got up underneath us—were there and happened and were documented well in that film Lost in La Mancha. So I don't know if it's right for me to go back there. I don't know if it's right for Terry too, but if he wants to...[36]

In 2008, Gilliam restarted preliminary work on a new version of the film. The film would be reshot completely, and Rochefort's role had been recast. In 2008, Michael Palin reportedly entered talks with Gilliam to step in for Rochefort and play Don Quixote.[37] In November 2009, Gilliam said he had finished re-casting the role, but he refused to disclose the actor's identity.[38] In a December 2009 interview with Collider, Robert Duvall claimed on-camera to be Gilliam's new choice for Don Quixote; this was later confirmed by Gilliam, with Depp still attached to co-star as Grisoni.[39][40] Since Depp was signed for two Disney films, further production delays were suspected,[41] but commencement of shooting was scheduled for early 2010.[42] Whether the production timetable would have been maintained is unknown, because Depp stated that he would not make room in his tight schedule for Gilliam's film.[43] Depp even noted that he was not sure if he wanted to revisit the revived film project at all.[44] The film was to be produced by Jeremy Thomas for Recorded Picture Company. International sales would have been handled by HanWay Films. On 17 May 2010, it was announced Ewan McGregor had been cast in the film.[45]

Gilliam entered main pre-production once again in 2009. After finally retrieving the rights to the screenplay, Gilliam and Grisoni started to rewrite the plot in January 2009 and hoped to be finished within a month.[46] In 2010, Gilliam stated that primary casting was finalised, with Duvall and McGregor still attached; however on 5 September of the same year, he revealed that funding had collapsed a month and half earlier and as a result shooting was delayed.[47][16] By 2012, Duvall was still potentially attached to the film, but not McGregor, with Tony Grisoni commenting the same year "Us survivors of Don Q are a strange kind of dysfunctional family. Every year since we have rewritten the screenplay. And we've got quite good at it. You will be pleased to hear the Don is back up and in the saddle and ready to ride under new colours."[30] In November 2013 during the promotion of The Zero Theorem at the Venice Film Festival, Gilliam told Variety "I'm going to try to do it again, [...] We'll see if it happens. I just want to make it and get rid of it. Get it out of my life."[16]

In January 2014, Gilliam published on his Facebook page that "Dreams of Don Quixote have begun again. [...] Will we get the old bastard back on his horse this year?"[48] In an interview with Empire's website, Gilliam stated that production would start up again 29 September 2014 in the Canary Islands. Spanish producer AdriÃ¡n Guerra was on board to fund the project. Gilliam said of Guerra, "He's really smart, loves movies. He's young enough to still love movies, but we've still got to cast it and get the money but other than that, that's the deal."[49][50] New concept art by Gilliam collaborator Dave Warren was also released.[51] In August 2014, in an interview with TheWrap, Gilliam revealed that he had received funding, and that the plot of the film has changed: "Our main character actually made a Don Quixote movie a lot earlier in his history, and the effect it had on many people wasn't very nice. Some people go mad, some people turn to drink, some people become whores."[52] In September 2014, actor John Hurt confirmed he'd become attached to the film as the titular role of Quixote, replacing Robert Duvall.[53][20]

In a September 2014 interview with Rolling Stone, Gilliam said that making Don Quixote next "[...] is my plan, but plans have nothing to do with reality. We shall see what happens. I really can't say anything at the moment, because there's been a little hiccup — once again. The Sisyphean rock that keeps rolling back. Just as we almost get to the top of the mountain... We'll see what happens. I'm not a happy camper at the moment." When asked why he continues to attempt making the film, Gilliam said, "Oh, I don't know, pigheadedness, stupid – I really don't know anymore. I'm beginning to actually think, 'If it doesn't work this time, I'm gonna dump it.' I've wasted far too much of my life doing it. If you're going to do Quixote, you have to become as mad as Quixote. [...] I've wasted how many years? Fifteen? Yeah, there's a certain point. It's kind of the determination to be crazy and unreasonable. Every intelligent person around me says, 'Walk away from it.' But those are reasonable people."[54][8] In November 2014, Jack O'Connell was cast as Grisoni.[16] Commenting on the changes on the script compared to the original version, Gilliam stated "It all takes place now, it's contemporary. It's more about how movies can damage people. Our main character actually made a Don Quixote movie a lot earlier in his history, and the effect it had on many people wasn't very nice."[16]

On 9 June 2015, Gilliam obtained a deal with Amazon Studios to release the film theatrically, followed by a streaming Amazon dÃ©but.[19] Gilliam said of the deal: "I'm intrigued by their way of doing it. They go into the cinemas first and then a month or two afterwards they go into streaming. And I think that's good because you get a chance to see it on the big screen, and yet I know that more people have seen my films on DVD than they have in the cinemas and that's the reality of life now."[55] In September 2015, the film's production was suspended once again, due to Hurt being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer shortly before filming.[56][20][8] He eventually died from his cancer on 25 January 2017.[57][58] Gilliam paid homage to him on Facebook, stating, "Sadly, the earthly marvel that was John Hurt has departed us. Two years ago, he and I were off to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote when he was diagnosed with a particularly evil brand of cancer. Despite the terrible prognosis he was determined to carry on working. And he did. Right to the final curtain. In the end, cancer was the windmill that he couldn't defeat. John was not just a phenomenal actor, but a wickedly wonderful human being. I felt honoured to be a friend."[59] That same year, original Quixote portrayer Jean Rochefort also passed away. Gilliam also paid homage to him: "When I saw him a couple of years ago he seemed to be growing younger, not older. I imagined that, like Quixote, he was capable of living forever. That he should be gone is unbelievably sad. Farewell, Jean."[60]

Terry Gilliam in 2016, reacting to yet another failed attempt at making the movie.[61]

At the 66th Berlin International Film Festival in February 2016, Gilliam, in need of a minimum 16 million euros for the budget in order to make the film, was introduced to Portuguese producer Paulo Branco, who promised that he would obtain the needed budget by September, a few weeks before they would start the eleven weeks-long shoot.[2][62]

With the film having entered pre-production once again, Gilliam cast Palin as Quixote, Adam Driver as Grisoni, and Olga Kurylenko as the female lead.[62][63][64][20] Reportedly, Driver would have been paid 610,000 euros for the film, with Palin being paid 285,000 euros.[27] Both of them took equitation lessons for the film shortly after being hired.[2] Gilliam hired his daughter Amy Gilliam as unit production manager.[2] The new version would be set in modern day, with Grisoni as a director shooting a commercial and coming across a copy of his old student film, a re-telling of the famous Don Quixote story, which leads him back to the little Spanish village where he shot it back in the days, only to get embroiled in a series of adventures and catastrophes.

Tensions soon arose, with Branco wanting creative control over the project; however, and despite having been warned against working with Branco, Gilliam believed that he had no other choice than to collaborate with him if he wanted Don Quixote to be filmed in the year, encouraged by Branco's successful financing of David Cronenberg's 2012 film Cosmopolis.[62][2] Similarly, Branco felt that Gilliam had "a deep hate towards producers".[2] Shortly before the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, Amazon withdrew from the project because of Branco's reputation as producer, with Amazon representative Matthew Heintz sending a mail stating that "in regard of the interactions we had with [Branco], we do not wish to pursue further negotiations with him".[2][8] Nevertheless, Gilliam stated during the Cannes Film Festival that the film would start shooting in October 2016.

Conflict escalated further when Branco tried to reduce the budget down from the promised 16 million.[8] He also cut Palin's pay from 285,000 euros to 100,000 euros, which deeply angered Palin; when Gilliam wrote to Branco to complain that Palin's unexpected salary cut felt like a "slap on the face", Branco answered that the film needed "a true producer", referring to himself as the "captain" of the project.[2] On 29 April 2016, Gilliam signed a deal where in exchange for producing the film, Branco would earn, in addition to his own salary, the salary of 750,000 euros Gilliam would have been paid for writing and directing the film.[15][62][2] In addition to severing ties with several other production companies interested in the project, Branco soon tried to reduce the salaries of other crew members, including the hair stylist, the assistant director, and Amy Gilliam.[2] He also tried to push Palin away from the project, considering him too old, to have his own sister hired as costume designer, to have filming moved forward by several months, and to have the film shot in digital instead of the 35 mm Gilliam wanted.[2] Some of the film's other producers and its distributor stated that Branco told Gilliam "Either you make this film my way, or you irremediably compromise the feasibility of the project and your film is condemned. It will never see the light of day."[14]

Ultimately, Branco did not provide the promised funds for the film.[62] When Gilliam complained, Branco answered that he "would not accept this kind of spoiled kid behavior."[2] On 6 August, Branco sent a mail to Gilliam urging him to accept his conditions, including a reduced budget, and to give Branco full creative control over the project, threatening to cancel the project altogether and fire the entire crew and cast otherwise.[2] Terry Gilliam answered that those demands were unacceptable, and "incompatible with the contract I have signed", while Amy Gilliam called Branco's actions "the behavior of a tyrant and a bully".[2] In response, Branco officially suspended production on 2 October.[62] Gilliam kept on working, however, with new producers, stating, "We should be here [at the Cannes Film Festival] next year with the finished film, and then you can ask me why I made such a mess of it or why I made such a wonderful film."[61][15]

Over the years, Gilliam and Grisoni kept on re-writing The Man Who Killed Don Quixote as they kept on trying to make the film. The most notable change was the removal of the time travelling element present central to the original 2000 production; instead of the character of Grisoni being thrown back through time, the film would instead take place in modern times, with the "period elements" being characters having a party dressed like in the ancient times. Grisoni would be revisiting a Spanish village he had once filmed a student film in, and discover that the shoemaker he had cast in the title role all those years ago has been living as Quixote ever since.[19]

Gilliam stated, "I'm incorporating the idea of the damage that films do to people, so it's become a bit more autobiographical."[19] Jonathan Pryce, who was a part of both the original and final productions, stated "from what I can remember of the original script, this is an altogether better version. It's a clearer story. Terry's done a lot of rewrites â€“ and he's had a lot of time to do rewrites."[19]

After Gilliam found new producers, he started production once again. Driver and Kurylenko were still attached as Grisoni and the female lead, with Jonathan Pryce cast as Don Quixote.[2][65] Pryce had previously starred in Gilliam's films Brazil (1985), The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), and The Brothers Grimm (2005), and was also cast in the original 2000 production of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote in a different role. Gilliam stated, "Jonathan has been wanting to [play Quixote] for 15 years â€“ he's been making my life a misery. And now he's here and he's just extraordinary. The editor, who is Spanish, says that she can never imagine another Quixote. So it's as if the time was right: everything seemed to be ready to make this thing."[19]

Gilliam stated that Driver was the perfect cast choice for Grisoni, calling him "the guy I've been looking for all these years."[27] Cast members later announced included Joana Ribeiro, Óscar Jaenada, Jason Watkins, Rossy de Palma, and Jordi Mollà.[11][13][12][10]

Having found new producers who obtained the needed budget, Gilliam unexpectedly announced in March 2017 that filming had started for the first time since the original 2000 attempt; the announcements of Pryce's role, and Driver and Kurylenko still being attached to their roles, soon followed.[2][65]

During filming in May, Gilliam stated "In the end, we're doing this for much less money than we honestly need. But everyone involved, from the cast to the crew, are all working their asses off for a fraction of what they would normally be paid, because they just want to see this thing done. It's odd how being obsessive and not giving up can inspire other people to get involved. Fools that they are!"[19] He also stated "It was terrifying starting shooting this film finally after, well it originally started in 1989. That's a long time ago! To be thinking, dreaming it, writing and rewriting it, it was a horrible feeling... Yet what's interesting about a film - at a certain point it starts making itself. So it's not actually the film I set out to make. This is a slightly different film. It's doing its own work, and I'm just holding on for dear life!"[66] Driver stated that "Terry couldn't control his enthusiasm, nor how deeply ingrained this movie was within his body. It seemed like an exorcism, every day we were making it."[67] During filming, Gilliam commented on how well they were doing: "I still worry. We've had too much luck, so it could go wrong at any moment. Today, the clouds are building. They'll probably block out the light and we'll have to go home."[19]

On 4 June 2017, Gilliam announced that filming had finally been completed, 17 years after it originally started.[68][69]

In November 2017, Gilliam stated that editing was nearly complete: "We're just fiddling now, figuring out a few things here and there so it's pretty much what it is. We've got still months of work to do on visual effects, sound, music. But as far as the tale, it's pretty tight now and it's surprisingly wonderful".[70] On 23 December he stated "The year is almost finished.. and so is The Man Who Killed Don Quixote."[71]

In May 2018, at the same time Amazon Studios dropped from the project, Gilliam suffered a minor medical complication that was erroneously reported as a stroke.[72]

During filming in Portugal, Gilliam's team was accused of damaging public properties, as well as the Convent of Christ, a notable convent in Tomar and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The accusation came from a report by Portuguese news channel RTP1, who stated that the crew had "left behind chipped masonry, broken roof tiles and uprooted trees at the 12th-century Convent of Christ in Tomar, central Portugal." Gilliam denied the accusations, stating, "I think the Convent of Christ is one of the most glorious buildings I have ever seen. Everything we did there was to protect the building from harm... and we succeeded. Trees were not cut down, stones were not broken. [...] There was not an iota of disrespect involved. People should begin by getting the facts before howling hysterically."[73] An investigation by the Portuguese government took place during the following weeks to determine if the news report was accurate, with the presence of "some damage" being acknowledged, which was catalogued by the convent officials who monitored the filming.[74] The destruction of the trees was determined to have occurred during the production of an earlier, unrelated film.[75] On 4 July 2017, Portuguese authorities ruled that Gilliam's crew was only responsible for "insignificant damage", adding that the accusations "lacked rigor and revealed a lack of scientific knowledge".[76]

Paulo Branco, a former producer of the film, stated in June 2017 that this new version was "illegal" and that he, not Gilliam, owned the rights to the film, and that as such, any content shot for the film was the property of Alfama Films, one of the film's former production companies.[77] Branco was a producer on the film during Gilliam's previous attempt at making it in 2016, and was supposed to find funds for the film; in exchange, Gilliam would give his salary as writer-director to Branco.[15] Eventually, Branco did not provide the funds promised and suspended production only a few weeks before filming, leading Gilliam to find other producers with whom he was able to make the film.[2][77][62] However, Branco claimed that he still owned the rights and was still owed Gilliam's salary despite not providing financial backing for the film as planned: according to Gilliam and the film's producers, he asked to be paid a total of 3.5 million euros, with 2 million before the release and 1.5 million afterwards.[15][61][77]

Considering that Branco's failure to secure funds nullified their deal, Gilliam tried to have the legal contract invalidated in court twice in early 2017, once in Paris and once in London, so he could use the money from his salary to make the film; however, the court ruled in Branco's favor both times.[2][62] In spring 2017, Gilliam attempted once again to nullify the contract, but the court of first instance ruled against it.[62] Branco also accused Gilliam of having obtained the new funds for the film illegally, which Gilliam denied, claiming that HM Revenue and Customs was well-aware of the nature of said funds.[2]

The film's current producers answered that Branco's claims were "preposterous" and that he had "no rights whatsoever to Don Quixote". Recorded Picture Company CEO Peter Watson stated, "Senhor Branco's interpretation of the law borders on the picaresque. If he really wants to kill the venerable don, I suggest he takes up jousting."[77] Gilliam himself stated that Branco "wallows in his dark twisted madness dreaming megalomanic triumphs while spreading lies and threats", while Branco stated that Gilliam was "mad and mythomaniac".[78][2]

As of April 2018, Branco still claimed that the film could not be released without his permission, leading to the issue being debated in court; as the result, the premiere of the film at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival was cancelled.[6][31][79] Both Gilliam's lawyer and Océan Films, the French distributor of the film, stated that Branco was actively trying the prevent the film from being included in festivals to pressure the producers into paying him so the issue could be settled in time for festivals, with Océan Films stating that Branco "was never, is not and never will be the producer of Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote" and adding that the producers and distributors "would not yield to this attempt at intimidation".[2][80][14] They also stated that Branco had previously attempted to have filming cancelled, but that his claim had been rejected by the court on 19 May 2017.[80]

The verdict was originally expected to be delivered on 15 May 2018, but was later delayed to 18 May, one day only before the possible release, where it was ultimately ruled that the film would be authorized to premiere in French cinemas.[80][81][82] Branco immediately stated that he would keep on pursuing legal action against Gilliam and the film's release.[82]

Additionally, Branco was also trying to prevent the film from premiering at the Cannes Film Festival, with a hearing taking place on 7 May to decide whether or not the film would be authorized to air at the festival.[83][84] On 9 May, it was announced that the film would be allowed to premiere at Cannes.[85]

The festival's organizers answered Branco's claims by stating, "The Festival de Cannes' mission is to choose works purely on artistic grounds and the selection must, above all, be with the agreement of the film's director. This is the case here. Past experience had made us aware of possible legal action and of the risks we were running, but as it happens, when we took our decision, there was no opposition to the screening of the film at the festival."[86] They added, "Our entire profession knows that 'forcing matters' has always been Mr. Branco's favorite method, and we should recall that he organized a press conference a few years ago where he denounced the Festival de Cannes because it had not kept a 'promise to select' one of his films. This was an accusation which didn't go anywhere, because the festival does not make promises to select films."[86][8]

In June 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Branco owning all rights to the film; Branco explained that he will seek damages from not only Gilliam (who the Court demanded pay â‚¬10,000 ($11,600) to Branco's production company), but to all parties involved in the making, completion, promotion, and screenings of the film: "The ruling means that the rights to the film belong to Alfama. Any exploitation of the film up until now has been completely illegal and without the authorisation of Alfama," said Branco. "We will be seeking damages with interest from all the people involved in this illegal production and above all, all those who were complicit in its illegal exploitation. We're holding everyone responsible. [...] the film's producers, [Paris-based sales company and producer] Kinology, all the others who supported the film, including those who distributed the film in France [Ocean Films] and the Cannes Film Festival, everyone." Branco said he found it "astounding" that all these parties had continued with the production and exploitation of the film without holding the rights. "The film belongs in its entirety to Alfama. The film was made illegally. It's the first time, I've ever seen so many people embark on a mission to produce and exploit a film, without holding the rights. It's a unique case."[87][88]

Later that month, it was reported that although the Court ruled in favor of Branco, producer Mariela Busuievsky clarified that Gilliam in fact still retains the rights to the film, saying that Branco, as is common practice for him, overstated his victory in the ruling. Gilliam never shot a frame of the film under the deal with Branco, and as such, the former producer does not own any rights. However, since Gilliam did a poor job of terminating his contract with Branco, there will be a financial settlement that will have to be made between the two parties and the ex-producer has been using this to claim a right to the finished film. Busuievsky went on to say that the latest ruling does say that Gilliam owes â‚¬10,000 and there will probably be more money required to settle. However, these financial issues don't affect the film's release. According to the producer, they chose to remain quiet about the actual major details because it didn't feel necessary, but when Branco went public with his victory and claimed rights to the film, they felt they had to step forward and air all the "dirty laundry." The producer says they are making plans for European territories now, and the US distribution will be coming shortly. She says that "there are many options" in regards to US distributors.[89][90]

The first image of the film, showing Don Quixote and Toby Grisoni riding horses, was released on 21 February 2018.[91][10] The first trailer was released for the French market on 5 April, featuring French text and subtitles, followed by an English-language trailer the following day.[6][92]

The film premiered on 19 May 2018 as the closing film of the 2018 Cannes Film Festival (where it received a standing ovation), and was released in French theaters the same day.[93][94][95][96]

Paulo Branco, whose legal dispute with Gilliam prevented the film from competing for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, attempted to prevent the film from both being released in France and from being shown at Cannes.[6][31][79] A hearing took place on 7 May to debate if the film can be shown at the festival, with the decision expected two days later.[83][97] On 9 May, the court ruled in favor of the film being shown at Cannes.[85] On May 18, court ruled in Gilliam's favor once again and authorized the film to be released in French theaters the following day; it will have a limited release, and will be shown in 255 theaters across the country.[82] Critics at the Cannes Film Festival received an early screening the day before the release.[98]

On 8 May 2018, despite contributing significant funding to the production, Amazon Studios confirmed that they would no longer distribute the film in the United States.[99] It was released in Spain on 1 June.[100]

The film premiered in Belgium on 20 June at the Brussels international Film Festival, before being released nationwide on 25 June. It will be released in China via the Turbo Film production company.[101][102]

Critical response for the film at the Cannes Film Festival was mixed. Peter Dubruge with Variety magazine called the film "a loud, belligerent, barely coherent mess", stating "the result feels like evidence of someone [Gilliam] who spent too long obsessing over Don Quixote, losing sight somewhere along the way of whatever attracted him in the first place."[103] Gregory Ellwood at Collider felt that the film "simply doesnâ€™t live up to its storied legacy in the annals of Hollywood film development", giving it a C rating.[104]

Ben Croll writing for TheWrap called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote "an awful lot of fun. Of course, the fun can be far from perfect. The film is also messy and hysterical in places, and by running an exhausting 132 minutes, it rather insistently overstays its welcome [...] We’re so thrilled by the film’s improbable existence that we’re willing to go wherever Gilliam wants to take us, but respond with an extra degree of disappointment whenever he stumbles along the way." He summarized by saying "It’s too much, it’s out of step with today and it’s oddly endearing."[1]

Robbie Collin for The Telegraph felt that "even when the film feels like a circuitous, effortful mess, it’s often an intentional one – and for everything in the film that doesn’t quite connect, that element of self-portraiture, with the artist as sap, strikes a wistful chord. [...] Driver and Pryce fling themselves at everything with beady resolve, just as Gilliam gives it everything he has. Around 50 percent of it sticks – and to pretend the film was any more successful than that would do a disservice to this director’s truly great films, not least Brazil. But after everything Quixote has been through, 50 percent feels like enough."[98] Peter Bradshaw at The Guardian stated: "It may not be Gilliam’s masterpiece, but it is a movie with sprightliness, innocence and charm and it is a morale boost to anyone who cares about creativity that Gilliam has got the film made at all. His own intelligence and joy in his work shine out of every frame, and his individuality is a delight when so much of mainstream cinema seems to have been created by algorithm."[105]

In May 2018, it was announced that Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe, the writers and directors of Lost in La Mancha, would release a follow-up film, titled He Dreamed of Giants, which would cover the entire history of the film's making, with particular focus on what happened after the events depicted in Lost in La Mancha.[106][107] Pepe said that the film would be "more introspective" than Lost in La Mancha, stating, "This is more a film about an internal struggle in an artist's mind. What is it like for an artist to be standing on the brink of actually finishing this project finally? [...] Even on the set we would say the conflicts raging around Terry right now of making the movie are not nearly as interesting as what's going on inside his head."[108][109]

The film is currently in the editing process. It is unknown whether it will be a bonus feature on The Man Who Killed Don Quixote's home media release, or will be released on its own like Lost in La Mancha.[107]


where do we taste things on your tongue

The misinterpreted 1901 diagram in the article that sparked this myth shows human taste buds distributed in a "taste belt" along the outside of the tongue.

Tongue map

The tongue map or taste map is a common misconception that different sections of the tongue are exclusively responsible for different basic tastes. It is illustrated with a schematic map of the tongue, with certain parts of the tongue labeled for each taste. Although widely taught in schools, this was scientifically disproven by later research; all taste sensations come from all regions of the tongue, although different parts are more sensitive to certain tastes.[1][2]

The theory behind this map originated from a paper written by Harvard psychologist D.P Hanig, which was a translation of a German paper, Zur Psychophysik des Geschmackssinnes, which was written in 1901.[3] The unclear representation of data in the former paper suggested that each part of the tongue tastes exactly one basic taste.[4][5]

The paper showed minute differences in threshold detection levels across the tongue,[6] but these differences were later taken out of context and the minute difference in threshold sensitivity was misconstrued in textbooks as a difference in sensation.[7]

While some parts of the tongue may be able to detect a taste before the others do, all parts are equally capable of conveying the qualia of all tastes. Threshold sensitivity may differ across the tongue, but intensity of sensation doesn't.[7]

The same paper included a taste bud distribution diagram that showed a "taste belt".[8]

In 1974, Virginia Collings investigated the topic again, and confirmed that all the tastes exist on all parts of the tongue.[9]

Prior to this, A. Hoffmann had concluded, in 1875, that the dorsal center of the human tongue has practically no fungiform papillae and taste buds,[10] and it was this finding that the diagram describes.


who sang charlie brown he's a clown

"Charlie Brown" is a popular Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller song that was a top-ten hit for The Coasters[1] in the spring of 1959 (released in January, coupled with "Three Cool Cats," Atco 6132).[2] It went to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles charts, and was the first of three top-ten hits for the Coasters that year. It is best known for the phrase, "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?"

Charlie Brown (The Coasters song)

According to Jerry Leiber, "After 'Yakety Yak,' I thought we could write every Coasters song in ten minutes. Man, was I wrong! When we tried to write a follow-up, Mike had lots of musical ideas, but I was stuck. â€¦ After nearly a week of agonizing, a simple name came to mind. 'Charlie Brown.' Then, 'He's a clown, that Charlie Brown.' Mike already had a skip-along melodic template in place. He helped me with the story and suddenly a character, played by Dub Jones, stepped out on stage."[3]

Towards the end of the bridge of the song, the words "Yeah, You!" were recorded at half speed, so the voices would play back at a higher pitch. King Curtis plays the tenor saxophone during the instrumental and the fade out of the record.

The best-known version of the song is in mono. However, a stereo version (with slightly different vocals) was released on the LP Atlantic History of Rhythm & Blues, Vol. 4, along with several other rare stereo versions of late 1950s Atlantic hits.

There have been over 80 cover versions of the song recorded, including one by British comedy actor Bernard Bresslaw and a German language version (as "Charly Brown") by Hans Blum, both in 1959. Deep River Boys with Mikkel Flagstad's orchestra recorded their version in Oslo on August 25, 1960; it was released on the extended play En aften på "Casino Non Stop" 1960 (HMV 7EGN 36). Dr. Lonnie Smith does an extended instrumental version on his live 1969 album Move Your Hand.[4][better source needed] Guy Mitchell released a cover version of this song.[5] In 1995, the song was recorded in a ska-punk version by Voodoo Glow Skulls, on their album Firme.[6]

The lyric "Who calls the English teacher 'Daddy-o'?"[1] is most likely a reference to the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle, in which high school students mock the surname of a new teacher, Richard Dadier (Glenn Ford), changing "Dadier" to "Daddy-o," a then-current slang term (usually genial) for a male friend or a father.

The song is not a reference to the Peanuts character of the same name.[citation needed] The strip had debuted less than a decade prior, and had not reached its peak of popularity yet. Adding to the confusion is the line "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?", resembling the comic strip Charlie Brown's generally pessimistic attitude.

In a 1979 episode of The White Shadow, the Carver basketball team performs this song at a school dance.

In the film Jack, the title character (played by Robin Williams) and his friends, including his teacher (played by Bill Cosby), sing this song in their tree house. The weight in the tree house is so great with the kids and the two adult-sized people that the tree house starts to creak. While they are singing the song, a butterfly lands on the tree house and the house collapses. Once they are on the ground, Jack uses the tag line of the song and says, "Why is everybody always fallin' on me?"

The song was included in the musical revue Smokey Joe's Cafe.


environmental impacts of the suisun bay ghost fleet

The State of California and several environmental groups have raised concerns about the environmental impacts of the fleet. Potential concerns include heavy metals and anti-fouling agents in the paint that is peeling off of the vessels, as well as PCBs and other hazardous materials that may have been released. Congress responded to these concerns by funding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to design and implement a study of contaminants in the vicinity of the fleet.

Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet

The Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet is located on the northwest side of Suisun Bay (the northern portion of the greater San Francisco Bay estuary). The fleet is within a regulated navigation area that is about 4 1/2 miles long and 1/2-mile wide. It begins just north of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge and runs northeast, parallel to the shoreline. Water depths range from about 14 meters (45 feet) at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at the foot of the anchorage, to about 8 meters (26 feet) MLLW at the shallowest berths towards the northern end of the anchorage.

The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) maintains the National Defense Reserve Fleet, a fleet of vessels that serve as a reserve of ships for national defense and national emergency purposes. The reserve fleet program was begun in 1946 at the end of World War II. At its peak in 1950, the program had more than 2,000 ships in lay-up. One of the reserve fleet storage sites is in Suisun Bay, the northern portion of San Francisco Bay. Only a small portion of vessels currently remain with the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet. In January 2016, the Department of Transportation and MARAD have officially announced the fleet closure in February 2017. All remaining ships will be sold at auction or scrapped.

NOAA's Damage Assessment, Response and Restoration Program (DARRP) began work on this project in January 2008. Since then, NOAA's team has assessed existing data from the area to determine data gaps, researched the history and environmental setting of the site, discussed the project with numerous stakeholders, conducted a site visit, and developed and refined a sampling and analysis plan. NOAA deployed bivalve samples in June 2008 and collected sediment and bivalve tissue samples from the area in July 2008. A second field sampling event for additional tissue samples occurred in September. These samples were analyzed and a data report was delivered in early 2009.

Based on these findings, the United States Government has reached an agreement with Arc Ecology, San Francisco BayKeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board) regarding the maintenance and disposal of obsolete ships owned by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) at the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet site, resolving a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California.  Under the agreement, MARAD will clean, maintain, and dispose of these ships in a manner that eliminates sources of Bay pollution.  The Maritime Administration has already begun removing obsolete ships from Suisun Bay for recyclingâ€” several ships have left since November 2009. A total of 10 ships remain.

Under the terms of the settlement:

As of November 30, 2017[2]

Two break-bulk cargo ships that were formerly part of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet were transferred to All Star Metals of Brownsville, Texas, for scrap during 2017.


what is it called when samurai kill themselves

Seppuku (切腹, "cutting [the] belly"), sometimes referred to as harakiri (腹切り, "abdomen/belly cutting", a native Japanese kun reading), is a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. It was originally reserved for samurai, but was also practiced by other Japanese people later on to restore honor for themselves or for their family. A samurai practice, seppuku was used either voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies (and likely suffer torture) or as a form of capital punishment for samurai who had committed serious offenses, or performed because they had brought shame to themselves. The ceremonial disembowelment, which is usually part of a more elaborate ritual and performed in front of spectators, consists of plunging a short blade, traditionally a tantō, into the abdomen and drawing the blade from left to right, slicing the abdomen open.[1] If the cut is performed deeply enough it can sever the descending aorta, causing massive blood loss inside the abdomen, which results in a rapid death by exsanguination.

Seppuku

The term "seppuku" is derived from the two Sino-Japanese roots setsu 切 ("to cut", from Middle Chinese tset) and puku 腹 ("belly", from MC pjuwk). It is also known as harakiri (腹切り, "cutting the Stomach");[2] the term harakiri (often misspelled/mispronounced hiri-kiri or hari-kari by English speakers[3]) is more familiar to non-Japanese speakers than the term seppuku.[4] Harakiri is written with the same kanji as Seppuku, but in reverse order with an okurigana. In Japanese, the more formal seppuku, a Chinese on'yomi reading, is typically used in writing, while harakiri, a native kun'yomi reading, is used in speech. Ross notes,

It is commonly pointed out that hara-kiri is a vulgarism, but this is a misunderstanding. Hara-kiri is a Japanese reading or Kun-yomi of the characters; as it became customary to prefer Chinese readings in official announcements, only the term seppuku was ever used in writing. So hara-kiri is a spoken term, but only to commoners and seppuku a written term, but spoken amongst higher classes for the same act.[5]

The practice of performing seppuku at the death of one's master, known as oibara (追腹 or 追い腹, the kun'yomi or Japanese reading) or tsuifuku (追腹, the on'yomi or Chinese reading), follows a similar ritual.

The word jigai (自害) means "suicide" in Japanese. The modern word for suicide is jisatsu (自殺). In some popular western texts, such as martial arts magazines, the term is associated with suicide of samurai wives.[6] The term was introduced into English by Lafcadio Hearn in his Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation,[7] an understanding which has since been translated into Japanese.[8] Joshua S. Mostow notes that Hearn misunderstood the term jigai to be the female equivalent of seppuku.[9]

The first recorded act of seppuku was performed by Minamoto no Yorimasa during the Battle of Uji in the year 1180.[10] Seppuku was used by warriors to avoid falling into enemy hands, and to attenuate shame and avoid possible torture.[citation needed] Samurai could also be ordered by their daimyō (feudal lords) to carry out seppuku. Later, disgraced warriors were sometimes allowed to carry out seppuku rather than be executed in the normal manner. The most common form of seppuku for men was composed of the cutting of the abdomen, and when the samurai was finished, he stretched out his neck for an assistant to sever his spinal cord by cutting halfway into the neck. Since the main point of the act was to restore or protect one's honor as a warrior, the condemned should not be decapitated completely; instead left with a small part of the throat or neck still attached. This way the head could, both metaphorically and literally, rest in its owner's hands. Those who did not belong to the samurai caste were never ordered or expected to carry out seppuku. Samurai generally could carry out the act only with permission.

Sometimes a daimyō was called upon to perform seppuku as the basis of a peace agreement. This weakened the defeated clan so that resistance effectively ceased. Toyotomi Hideyoshi used an enemy's suicide in this way on several occasions, the most dramatic of which effectively ended a dynasty of daimyōs. When the Hōjō were defeated at Odawara in 1590, Hideyoshi insisted on the suicide of the retired daimyō Hōjō Ujimasa, and the exile of his son Ujinao; with this act of suicide, the most powerful daimyō family in eastern Japan was put to an end.

The practice was not standardised until the 17th century.  In the 12th and 13th centuries, such as with the seppuku of Minamoto no Yorimasa, the practice of a kaishakunin (idiomatically, his "second") had not yet emerged, thus the rite was considered far more painful.  Seppuku'

During the Edo Period (1600–1867), carrying out seppuku came to involve a detailed ritual. This was usually performed in front of spectators if it was a planned seppuku, not one performed on a battlefield. A samurai was bathed, dressed in white robes, and served his favorite foods for a last meal. When he had finished, the knife and cloth were placed on another sanbo and given to the warrior. Dressed ceremonially, with his sword placed in front of him and sometimes seated on special clothes, the warrior would prepare for death by writing a death poem. He would be dressed in the shini-shōzoku, a completely white kimono worn for death.[11]

With his selected kaishakunin standing by, he would open his kimono (robe), take up his tantō (knife) or wakizashi (short sword)—which the samurai held by the blade with a portion of cloth wrapped around so that it would not cut his hand and cause him to lose his grip—and plunge it into his abdomen, making a left-to-right cut. Prior to this, he would probably consume an important ceremonial drink of sake. He would also give his attendant a cup meant for sake.[12] The kaishakunin would then perform kaishaku, a cut in which the warrior was partially decapitated. The maneuver should be done in the manners of dakikubi (lit. "embraced head"), in which way a slight band of flesh is left attaching the head to the body, so that it can be hung in front as if embraced. Because of the precision necessary for such a maneuver, the second was a skilled swordsman. The principal and the kaishakunin agreed in advance when the latter was to make his cut. Usually dakikubi would occur as soon as the dagger was plunged into the abdomen. The process became so highly ritualised that as soon as the samurai reached for his blade the kaishakunin would strike. Eventually even the blade became unnecessary and the samurai could reach for something symbolic like a fan and this would trigger the killing stroke from his second. The fan was likely used when the samurai was too old to use the blade or in situations where it was too dangerous to give him a weapon.[13]

This elaborate ritual evolved after seppuku had ceased being mainly a battlefield or wartime practice and became a para-judicial institution.

The second was usually, but not always, a friend. If a defeated warrior had fought honourably and well, an opponent who wanted to salute his bravery would volunteer to act as his second.

In the Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote:

From ages past it has been considered an ill-omen by samurai to be requested as kaishaku. The reason for this is that one gains no fame even if the job is well done. Further, if one should blunder, it becomes a lifetime disgrace.

In the practice of past times, there were instances when the head flew off. It was said that it was best to cut leaving a little skin remaining so that it did not fly off in the direction of the verifying officials.

A specialized form of seppuku in feudal times was known as kanshi (諫死, "remonstration death/death of understanding"), in which a retainer would commit suicide in protest of a lord's decision. The retainer would make one deep, horizontal cut into his abdomen, then quickly bandage the wound. After this, the person would then appear before his lord, give a speech in which he announced the protest of the lord's action, then reveal his mortal wound. This is not to be confused with funshi (憤死, indignation death), which is any suicide made to state dissatisfaction or protest. A fictional variation of kanshi was the act of kagebara (陰腹, "shadow belly") in Japanese theater, in which the protagonist, at the end of the play, would announce to the audience that he had committed an act similar to kanshi, a predetermined slash to the belly followed by a tight field dressing, and then perish, bringing about a dramatic end.[citation needed]

Some samurai chose to perform a considerably more taxing form of seppuku known as jūmonji giri (十文字切り, "cross-shaped cut"), in which there is no kaishakunin to put a quick end to the samurai's suffering. It involves a second and more painful vertical cut on the belly. A samurai performing jūmonji giri was expected to bear his suffering quietly until he bleeds to death, passing away with his hands over his face.[14]

Female ritual suicide (incorrectly referred to in some English sources as jigai), was practiced by the wives of samurai who have performed seppuku or brought dishonor.[15][16]

Some women belonging to samurai families committed suicide by cutting the arteries of the neck with one stroke, using a knife such as a tantō or kaiken. The main purpose was to achieve a quick and certain death in order to avoid capture. Before committing suicide, a woman would often tie her knees together so her body would be found in a dignified pose, despite the convulsions of death. Invading armies would often enter homes to find the lady of the house seated alone, facing away from the door. On approaching her, they would find that she had ended her life long before they reached her.[citation needed]

Stephen R. Turnbull provides extensive evidence for the practice of female ritual suicide, notably of samurai wives, in pre-modern Japan. One of the largest mass suicides was the 25 April 1185 final defeat of Taira no Tomomori establishing Minamoto power.[15][clarification needed] The wife of Onodera Junai, one of the Forty-seven Ronin, is a notable example of a wife following by suicide the seppuku of a samurai husband.[17] A large number of honor suicides marked the defeat of the Aizu clan in the Boshin War of 1869, leading into the Meiji era. For example, in the family of Saigō Tanomo, who survived, a total of twenty-two female honor suicides are recorded among one extended family.[18]

Voluntary death by drowning was a common form of ritual or honour suicide. The religious context of thirty-three Jōdo Shinshū adherents at the funeral of Abbot Jitsunyo in 1525 was faith in Amida Buddha and belief in rebirth in His Pure Land, but male seppuku did not have a specifically religious context.[19] By way of contrast, the religious beliefs of Hosokawa Gracia, the Christian wife of daimyō Hosokawa Yūsai, prevented her from committing suicide.[20]

The word jigai (自害) means "suicide" in Japanese. The usual modern word for suicide is jisatsu (自殺). Related words include jiketsu (自決), jijin (自尽) and jijin (自刃).[21] In some popular western texts, such as martial arts magazines, the term is associated with suicide of samurai wives.[6] The term was introduced into English by Lafcadio Hearn in his Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation,[7] an understanding which has since been translated into Japanese and Hearn seen through Japanese eyes.[8] Joshua S. Mostow notes that Hearn misunderstood the term jigai to be the female equivalent of seppuku.[9] Mostow's context is analysis of Giacomo Puccini's Madame Butterfly and the original Cio-Cio San story by John Luther Long. Though both Long's story and Puccini's opera predate Hearn's use of the term jigai, the term has been used in relation to western japonisme which is the influence of Japanese culture on the western arts.[22]

While the voluntary seppuku described above is the best known form, in practice the most common form of seppuku was obligatory seppuku, used as a form of capital punishment for disgraced samurai, especially for those who committed a serious offence such as rape, robbery, corruption, unprovoked murder or treason. The samurai were generally told of their offense in full and given a set time to commit seppuku, usually before sunset on a given day. On occasion, if the sentenced individuals were uncooperative or outright refused to end their own lives, it was not unheard of for them to be restrained and the seppuku carried out by an executioner, or for the actual execution to be carried out instead by decapitation while retaining only the trappings of seppuku; even the short sword laid out in front of the offender could be replaced with a fan. Unlike voluntary seppuku, seppuku carried out as capital punishment did not necessarily absolve, or pardon, the offender's family of the crime. Depending on the severity of the crime, all or part of the property of the condemned could be confiscated, and the family would be punished by being stripped of rank, sold into long-term servitude, or execution.

Seppuku was considered the most honorable capital punishment apportioned to Samurai.  Zanshu (斬首) and Sarashikubi (晒し首), decapitation followed by a display of the head, was considered harsher, and reserved for samurai who committed greater crimes.  The harshest punishments, usually involving death by torturous methods like Kamayude (釜茹で), death by boiling, were reserved for commoner offenders.

The first recorded time a European saw formal seppuku was the "Sakai Incident" of 1868. On February 15, eleven French sailors of the Dupleix entered a Japanese town called Sakai without official permission. Their presence caused panic among the residents. Security forces were dispatched to turn the sailors back to their ship, but a fight broke out and the sailors were shot dead. Upon the protest of the French representative, financial compensation was paid and those responsible were sentenced to death. The French captain was present to observe the execution. As each samurai committed ritual disembowelment, the violent act shocked the captain,[citation needed] and he requested a pardon, as a result of which nine of the samurai were spared. This incident was dramatised in a famous short story, Sakai Jiken, by Mori Ōgai.

In the 1860s, the British Ambassador to Japan, Algernon Freeman-Mitford (Lord Redesdale), lived within sight of Sengaku-ji where the Forty-seven Ronin are buried. In his book Tales of Old Japan, he describes a man who had come to the graves to kill himself:

I will add one anecdote to show the sanctity which is attached to the graves of the Forty-seven. In the month of September 1868, a certain man came to pray before the grave of Oishi Chikara. Having finished his prayers, he deliberately performed hara-kiri, and, the belly wound not being mortal, dispatched himself by cutting his throat. Upon his person were found papers setting forth that, being a Ronin and without means of earning a living, he had petitioned to be allowed to enter the clan of the Prince of Choshiu, which he looked upon as the noblest clan in the realm; his petition having been refused, nothing remained for him but to die, for to be a Ronin was hateful to him, and he would serve no other master than the Prince of Choshiu: what more fitting place could he find in which to put an end to his life than the graveyard of these Braves? This happened at about two hundred yards' distance from my house, and when I saw the spot an hour or two later, the ground was all bespattered with blood, and disturbed by the death-struggles of the man.

Mitford also describes his friend's eyewitness account of a seppuku:

There are many stories on record of extraordinary heroism being displayed in the harakiri. The case of a young fellow, only twenty years old, of the Choshiu clan, which was told me the other day by an eye-witness, deserves mention as a marvellous instance of determination. Not content with giving himself the one necessary cut, he slashed himself thrice horizontally and twice vertically. Then he stabbed himself in the throat until the dirk protruded on the other side, with its sharp edge to the front; setting his teeth in one supreme effort, he drove the knife forward with both hands through his throat, and fell dead.

During the Meiji Restoration, the Tokugawa Shogun's aide performed seppuku:

One more story and I have done. During the revolution, when the Taikun (Supreme Commander), beaten on every side, fled ignominiously to Yedo, he is said to have determined to fight no more, but to yield everything. A member of his second council went to him and said, "Sir, the only way for you now to retrieve the honour of the family of Tokugawa is to disembowel yourself; and to prove to you that I am sincere and disinterested in what I say, I am here ready to disembowel myself with you." The Taikun flew into a great rage, saying that he would listen to no such nonsense, and left the room. His faithful retainer, to prove his honesty, retired to another part of the castle, and solemnly performed the harakiri.

In his book Tales of Old Japan, Mitford describes witnessing a hara-kiri:[23]

"As a corollary to the above elaborate statement of the ceremonies proper to be observed at the harakiri, I may here describe an instance of such an execution which I was sent officially to witness. The condemned man was Taki Zenzaburo, an officer of the Prince of Bizen, who gave the order to fire upon the foreign settlement at Hyōgo in the month of February 1868,—an attack to which I have alluded in the preamble to the story of the Eta Maiden and the Hatamoto. Up to that time no foreigner had witnessed such an execution, which was rather looked upon as a traveler's fable.

The ceremony, which was ordered by the Mikado (Emperor) himself, took place at 10:30 at night in the temple of Seifukuji, the headquarters of the Satsuma troops at Hiogo. A witness was sent from each of the foreign legations. We were seven foreigners in all. After another profound obeisance, Taki Zenzaburo, in a voice which betrayed just so much emotion and hesitation as might be expected from a man who is making a painful confession, but with no sign of either in his face or manner, spoke as follows:

I, and I alone, unwarrantably gave the order to fire on the foreigners at Kobe, and again as they tried to escape. For this crime I disembowel myself, and I beg you who are present to do me the honour of witnessing the act.

Bowing once more, the speaker allowed his upper garments to slip down to his girdle, and remained naked to the waist. Carefully, according to custom, he tucked his sleeves under his knees to prevent himself from falling backwards; for a noble Japanese gentleman should die falling forwards. Deliberately, with a steady hand, he took the dirk that lay before him; he looked at it wistfully, almost affectionately; for a moment he seemed to collect his thoughts for the last time, and then stabbing himself deeply below the waist on the left-hand side, he drew the dirk slowly across to the right side, and, turning it in the wound, gave a slight cut upwards. During this sickeningly painful operation he never moved a muscle of his face. When he drew out the dirk, he leaned forward and stretched out his neck; an expression of pain for the first time crossed his face, but he uttered no sound. At that moment the kaishaku, who, still crouching by his side, had been keenly watching his every movement, sprang to his feet, poised his sword for a second in the air; there was a flash, a heavy, ugly thud, a crashing fall; with one blow the head had been severed from the body.

A dead silence followed, broken only by the hideous noise of the blood throbbing out of the inert heap before us, which but a moment before had been a brave and chivalrous man. It was horrible.

The kaishaku made a low bow, wiped his sword with a piece of rice paper which he had ready for the purpose, and retired from the raised floor; and the stained dirk was solemnly borne away, a bloody proof of the execution. The two representatives of the Mikado then left their places, and, crossing over to where the foreign witnesses sat, called us to witness that the sentence of death upon Taki Zenzaburo had been faithfully carried out. The ceremony being at an end, we left the temple. The ceremony, to which the place and the hour gave an additional solemnity, was characterized throughout by that extreme dignity and punctiliousness which are the distinctive marks of the proceedings of Japanese gentlemen of rank; and it is important to note this fact, because it carries with it the conviction that the dead man was indeed the officer who had committed the crime, and no substitute. While profoundly impressed by the terrible scene it was impossible at the same time not to be filled with admiration of the firm and manly bearing of the sufferer, and of the nerve with which the kaishaku performed his last duty to his master."

Seppuku as judicial punishment was abolished in 1873, shortly after the Meiji Restoration, but voluntary seppuku did not completely die out. Dozens of people are known to have committed seppuku since then, including some military men who committed suicide in 1895 as a protest against the return of a conquered territory to China;[citation needed] by General Nogi and his wife on the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912; and by numerous soldiers and civilians who chose to die rather than surrender at the end of World War II.  This behavior had been widely praised by propaganda, which made a soldier captured in the Shanghai Incident (1932) return to the site of his capture to perform seppuku.[24]

In 1970, author Yukio Mishima and one of his followers performed public seppuku at the Japan Self-Defense Forces headquarters after an unsuccessful attempt to incite the armed forces to stage a coup d'état. Mishima performed seppuku in the office of General Kanetoshi Mashita. His second, a 25-year-old man named Masakatsu Morita, tried three times to ritually behead Mishima but failed; his head was finally severed by Hiroyasu Koga, a former kendo champion. Morita then attempted to perform seppuku himself, and when his own cuts were too shallow to be fatal, he gave the signal and he too was beheaded by Koga.[25]

This list of notable seppuku cases is in chronological order.

The expected honor-suicide of the samurai wife is frequently referenced in Japanese literature and film, such as in Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa, Humanity and Paper Balloons,[26] and Rashomon.[27] Seppuku is also referenced and described multiple times in the 1975 James Clavell novel, Shōgun; its subsequent the 1980 miniseries Shōgun brought the term and the concept to mainstream Western attention.  It was staged by the young protagonist in the 1971 dark American comedy Harold and Maude.

In The Last Samurai, a mortally-wounded Samurai leader Katsumoto performs seppuku with Former US Army Captain Nathan Algren's help. This is also depicted en masse in the movie 47 Ronin starring Keanu Reeves when the 47 ronin are punished for disobeying the emperor's orders to avenge their master.[28] The act of Harakiri is also explored in Puccini's opera Madame Butterfly. The viral video "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" depicts Mr. Rogers performing seppuku at the end of the battle.

In the 2017 revival and final season of the animated series Samurai Jack, the eponymous protagonist, distressed over his many failures to accomplish his quest as told in prior seasons, is then informed by a haunting samurai spirit that he has acted dishonorably by allowing many people to suffer and die from his failures, and must engage in seppuku to atone for them.[29]


who is the c e o of google

Pichai is the chief executive officer (CEO) of Google Inc.[7][8][9] Formerly the Product Chief of Google, Pichai's current role was announced on 10 August 2015, as part of the restructuring process that made Alphabet Inc. into Google's parent company,[10] and he assumed the position on 2 October 2015.[11]

Sundar Pichai

Pichai Sundararajan (born 12 July 1972), also known as Sundar Pichai, is an Indian American business executive.

Pichai was born in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India,[2] the son of middle-class[12] Tamil parents Lakshmi and Ragunatha Pichai.[13][14] Sundar grew up in a two-room apartment on 46th Street, 7th Avenue, in Ashok Nagar, Chennai.[13]

Sundar completed schooling in Jawahar Vidyalaya, a Central Board of Secondary Education school in Ashok Nagar, Chennai and completed the Class XII from Vana Vani school in the Indian Institute of Technology Madras.[15][16] Pichai earned his degree from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur in Metallurgical Engineering.[17] He holds an M.S. from Stanford University in Material Sciences and Engineering, and an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,[18] where he was named a Siebel Scholar[19][20] and a Palmer Scholar, respectively.

Pichai worked in engineering and product management at Applied Materials and in management consulting at McKinsey & Company.[21]

Pichai joined Google in 2004, where he led the product management and innovation efforts for a suite of Google's client software products, including Google Chrome[22] and Chrome OS, as well as being largely responsible for Google Drive. He went on to oversee the development of different applications such as Gmail and Google Maps.[23][24] On 19 November 2009, Pichai gave a demonstration of Chrome OS; the Chromebook was released for trial and testing in 2011, and released to the public in 2012.[25] On 20 May 2010, he announced the open-sourcing of the new video codec VP8 by Google and introduced the new video format, WebM.[26]

On 13 March 2013, Pichai added Android to the list of Google products that he oversees. Android was formerly managed by Andy Rubin.[27] He was a director of Jive Software from April 2011 to 30 July 2013.[28][29][30] Pichai was selected to become the next CEO of Google on 10 August 2015[10] after previously being appointed Product Chief by CEO, Larry Page. On 24 October 2015 he stepped into the new position at the completion of the formation of Alphabet Inc., the new holding company for the Google company family.[11][30][31]

Pichai had been suggested as a contender for Microsoft's CEO in 2014, a position that was eventually given to Satya Nadella.[32][33]

In August 2017, Pichai drew publicity for firing a Google employee who wrote a ten-page manifesto criticizing the company's diversity policies and arguing that "distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and... these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership".[34][35][36][37] While noting that the manifesto raised a number of issues that are open to debate, Pichai said in a memo to Google employees that "to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK".[38]

Pichai is married to Anjali Pichai and has two children.[8] He lives in Los Altos Hills[39][40] Pichai's interests include soccer and cricket. He is an avid fan of FC Barcelona and states that "he watches every game of the club".[41]


where does the rappahannock river start and end

The Rappahannock River is a river in eastern Virginia, in the United States,[2] approximately 195 miles (314Â km) in length.[3] It traverses the entire northern part of the state, from the Blue Ridge Mountains in the west where it rises, across the Piedmont to the Fall Line, and onward through the coastal plain to flow into the Chesapeake Bay, south of the Potomac River.

Rappahannock River

An important river in American history, the Rappahannock was long an area of occupation by indigenous peoples. During the colonial era, early settlements in the Virginia Colony were formed along the river. It was at the center of a major theater of battle in the American Civil War, where tens of thousands of troops fought against each other. Some 10,000 African-American slaves escaped across the river to Union lines and freedom, after the first Battle of Fredericksburg. Due to the river's significance as an obstacle to north-south movements, it effectively functioned as the boundary of the eastern theater of the war, between the "North" (the Union) and the "South" (the Confederate States of America).

The river drains an area of 2,848 square miles (7,380Â km2), approximately 6% of Virginia. Much of the watershed is rural and forested, but development in it has increased since the late 20th century with the southward expansion of the Washington, D.C. suburbs.

The Rappahannock River rises at Chester Gap, a wind gap in the Blue Ridge Mountains a few miles southeast of Front Royal, Virginia, near the single point where Warren, Fauquier, and Rappahannock counties come together. It flows southeastward, past Remington, Kelly's Ford, and Richardsville, before it is joined by the Rapidan River, its largest tributary, from the right. Then the Rappahannock passes through the city of Fredericksburg. Southeast of Fredericksburg, it begins to slow and widen into a brackish tidal estuary approximately 50 miles (80Â km) long. It passes two small, but historic, river towns, Port Royal and Port Conway, which developed opposite each other, the former on the south bank, the latter on the north. Then it flows past Tappahannock on its southern bank, a point where the river is well over a mile wide. The last settlements of any size before it reaches the Chesapeake Bay are Irvington, Urbanna, Stingray Point, and White Stone Beach.

The broad river enters the Chesapeake Bay approximately 20 miles (32 km) south of the mouth of the Potomac River and approximately 60 miles (97 km) east of the state capital, Richmond. At the point where the river enters the bay, between Windmill Point, on the north, and Stingray Point, on the south, it is more than 3.5 miles (5.6 km) wide. This estuary, south of the Northern Neck peninsula, is a productive oyster and crab fishery.

Above Fredericksburg, the Rappahannock provides fine opportunities for recreational canoeing and kayaking. Most of the rapids are Class I and Class II in difficulty, but, near Remington, there are some rapids that are considered to be Class III.

The river's watershed is protected in various places as parcels of the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

The oysters that thrive in the estuary of the Rappahannock River are the least salty oysters of the East Coast. They are renowned for their sweet and smooth flavor, described as almost buttery. The low salinity allows a Blue Ridge minerality[4] to come through, and also makes these oysters good to consume with wine.

The nutritious oysters were eaten on a large scale in 19th-century Washington. They were served fresh, grilled, stewed or as part of a pie.

The name of the river comes from an Algonquian word, lappihanne (also recorded as toppehannock), meaning "river of quick, rising water" or "where the tide ebbs and flows," the name used by the local Rappahannock tribe.

Although a few small hamlets developed along the lower Rappahannock during early colonial times, the settlement of the Rappahannock River valley began in earnest during the first years of the eighteenth century, at the urging of Governor Alexander Spotswood. The James River had been surveyed up to its fall line, the point where, geologically, continental bedrock of the Piedmont meets the sedimentary rocks and alluvial soils of the coastal plain. Spotswood encouraged settlement in a river valley other than that of the James. In 1714, he began recruiting immigrants from the Rhineland-Palatinate and Switzerland to homestead on lands he controlled near the confluence of the Rappahannock and the Rapidan. Known as the Germanna settlement(s), these villages were founded in order to exploit the iron ore deposits of the region.

During the War of 1812, the Battle of Rappahannock River was fought on the river during the War of 1812. Seventeen British boats filled with hundreds of marines and sailors captured four American privateers.

During the American Civil War, the river, with few convenient fords and fewer bridges, provided a barrier and defensive line behind which movements of troops could be accomplished with little fear of attack from the river-side flank. It was an especially difficult barrier for Union troops to overcome in their attempts to thrust into southern Virginia, as they were vulnerable to attack while trying to cross the river on temporary bridges. Control of the river changed hands many times during the course of the war. Significant battles fought along the river include the Battle of Fredericksburg and the Battle of Rappahannock Station. The defensive line at the river was finally circumvented by General Ulysses S. Grant in the Wilderness (or Overland) Campaign of 1864, ending in the ultimate Union victory.

During and after the first battle at Fredericksburg in late December 1862, about 10,000 enslaved African Americans from area plantations and the city left slavery, crossing the river to gain freedom behind Union lines. This exodus and "Trail of Freedom" was commemorated in 2010 by installation of historical markers on both sides of the river, in Fredericksburg and in Stafford County.[5] The exodus to freedom is now celebrated in an annual re-enactment starting in Fredericksburg.

In some 18th- and 19th-century documents, including some Civil War records, the Rappahannock River was referred to as "Hedgeman's River".[6] A 1736-1737 survey labeled the Rappahannock above the mouth of the Rapidan as "Cannon", and further upstream it was identified as "Hedgeman's River," named after Nathaniel Hedgeman, an early settler of the region.[7]


who was the first president to pardon the turkey

The first President on record issuing a "pardon" to his turkey was Ronald Reagan. Reagan had been sending the turkeys presented to him to farms and zoos since at least 1982,[8] and 1987's turkey, Charlie, was likewise headed to a petting zoo. At the time, Reagan was facing questions over the Iran-Contra affair, on whether or not he would consider pardoning Oliver North (who had yet to be tried for his involvement in the affair); Reagan conjured the notion of the turkey pardon as a joke to deflect those questions.[1][9] Reagan did not pardon a turkey in his final year as President in 1988, but his successor, George H. W. Bush, instituted the turkey pardon as a permanent part of the presentation beginning his first year in office, 1989, in response to the protests of animal rights activists.[2]

National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation is a ceremony that takes place at the White House every year shortly before Thanksgiving. The President of the United States is presented with a live domestic turkey by the National Turkey Federation, usually of the Broad Breasted White variety. The early years also included a joint presentation with the Poultry and Egg National Board. The ceremony dates back to the 1940s, with presidents occasionally sparing the bird presented to them; since 1989, during George H. W. Bush's first Thanksgiving as president, it has been an annual tradition for the president to "pardon" the turkey.[1]

On various occasions, turkeys had been donated to the President as gifts from private citizens. Henry Vose, a Rhode Island turkey farmer, presented a turkey to the President each year from 1873 until his death in 1913.[2]

The official presentation of a turkey to the President each year began in 1947 under President Harry Truman, and many sources erroneously attribute the origin of the turkey pardon to Truman. However, the Truman Library says that no documents, speeches, newspaper clippings, photographs or other contemporary records are known to exist that specify that he ever "pardoned" a turkey; there are records that he publicly admitted to eating at least some of them.[1][3] The presentation was partially borne out of a lobbying campaign: the Truman Administration, in an effort to conserve grain for foreign aid campaigns, began promoting "Meatless Tuesdays" and "Poultryless Thursdays" in the autumn of 1947. Not only did American citizens quickly grow frustrated with the (voluntary, but strongly encouraged) restrictions and begin disregarding them in short order, the National Poultry and Egg Board, incensed at the attack on their industry, noted that not only was Thanksgiving on a Thursday (thus making the annual Thanksgiving turkey a taboo), but Christmas and New Year's Day also landed on a Thursday that year. A truce was called in the dispute in early November, before the Thanksgiving holiday, but "Eggless Thursdays" continued to be promoted for the rest of the year, meaning that pumpkin pie, another Thanksgiving staple, was still on the forbidden foods list.[4]

The Eisenhower Presidential Library says documents in their collection reveal that President Dwight Eisenhower ate the birds presented to him during his two terms. President John F. Kennedy spontaneously spared a turkey on November 18, 1963, just four days before his assassination. The bird was wearing a sign reading, "Good Eating Mr. President." Kennedy returned the massive 55-pound (25Â kg) turkey to the farm, saying "we'll let this one grow."[5] Scattered reports in The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times referred to it as a pardon, but Kennedy did not refer to it as such.[6] Likewise, Richard Nixon also spared some of the turkeys given to him during his time as President.[7][8]

The phrase "presidential pardon" in that ceremony was apparently inserted by a speechwriter; Bush initially was indifferent to the terminology, saying "‘Reprieve,’ ‘keep him going,’ or ‘pardon’: it's all the same for the turkey, as long as he doesn't end up on the president's holiday table.”[8] Since then, at least one of the turkeys presented to the President has been taken to a farm where it will live out the rest of its natural life. For many years the turkeys were sent to Frying Pan Farm Park in Fairfax County, Virginia. From 2005 to 2009, the pardoned turkeys were sent to either the Disneyland Resort in California or the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, where they served as the honorary grand marshals of Disney's Thanksgiving Day Parade. In 2010, 2011 and 2012,[10] the turkeys were sent to live at Mount Vernon, the estate and home of George Washington; Mount Vernon stopped displaying and accepting the turkeys due to the fact that they violated the estate's policy of maintaining its own historical accuracy (Washington never farmed turkeys). The 2013, 2014 and 2015 turkeys were sent to Morven Park in Leesburg, Virginia, the estate of former Virginia governor (and prolific turkey farmer) Westmoreland Davis.[11] Virginia Polytechnic Institute housed the 2016 pardoned turkey[12] as well as the 2017 turkeys; Virginia Tech was chosen because of the college's poultry science program, and the National Turkey Federation wanted to begin a tradition of cooperation between the turkey industry and universities.[13]

The turkeys are raised in the same fashion as turkeys designated for slaughter and are fed a grain-heavy diet of fortified corn and soybeans to increase the birds' size.[11] A flock of approximately 80 birds, typically from the farm of the current National Turkey Federation chairperson, are selected to be acclimated to handle loud noises, flash photography and large crowds; from the flock of 80, the 20 best-preened and best-behaved are chosen and eventually narrowed down to two finalists, whose names are chosen by the White House staff from suggestions by school children from the state where they were raised.[14] Thanksgiving turkeys are bred and raised to provide more meat than those of the 1960s. Turkey hens are usually marketed at 14 weeks and weigh 15.5 pounds (7.0 kg) when processed. This compares to the tom, which takes 18 weeks to reach a market weight of 38 pounds (17 kg).[15] The turkeys for the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation are usually 21 week-old toms (males) weighing 45 pounds by the time of their White House visit, compared to the shorter growing period for turkeys destined for market.

Broad Breasted White turkeys are bred for size at the expense of longer life, making them prone to health problems associated with obesity such as heart disease, respiratory failure and joint damage. For many years, the pardoned turkeys were documented to have very short lives after their pardoning, frequently dying within a year of being pardoned;[11][16] for comparison, a wild or heritage turkey has a lifespan of at least five years.[17] The lifespans of the pardoned turkeys have steadily improved in recent years, frequently having lifespans of over two years and occasionally reaching three years of age, an improvement attributed to better choices of homes after the pardons; rather than serving solely as tourist attractions, the turkeys are now placed in the care of experts who make conscious efforts to maintain the turkeys' health for as long as possible.

A number of U.S. states have similar turkey-pardoning events, including Minnesota.[50] The pardoning ceremonies have also been extended to other holidays; for instance, Erie County, New York's county executive facetiously pardons a butter lamb during Holy Week.[51]

In The West Wing episode "Shibboleth," when C.J. learns the alternate turkey is to be slaughtered, she appeals to President Bartlet to save it. He points out that he cannot pardon a turkey, as it had committed no crime and he has no "judicial jurisdiction over birds". So, he drafts the turkey into military service to spare its life. In real life, both the turkey and the alternate are spared.

The animated film Free Birds centers around a turkey who was pardoned, then is recruited to go back in time in an attempt to change history and remove turkey from the menu of the first Thanksgiving dinner at Plymouth Colony.

In David Mamet's play November, an incumbent president losing his bid for reelection uses the yearly tradition to extort the turkey manufacturers to add to his lacking campaign fund.

President Harry Truman receives a turkey from a private citizen in 1946.

President John F. Kennedy spares the turkey presented to him, 1963, only three days before his assassination.

President Lyndon Johnson accepting a non-pardoned turkey, 1967.

President Richard Nixon spares the turkey presented to him, 1971.

President Gerald Ford accepting a non-pardoned turkey, 1975.

President Ronald Reagan accepting a turkey, 1983.

President George H.W. Bush at the 3rd annual pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey, 1991.

President Bill Clinton at the 11th annual pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey, 1999.

President George W. Bush at the 20th annual pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey, 2008.

President Barack Obama pardoned a turkey called "Courage" on November 25, 2009.

Obama, Sasha Obama and Malia Obama look upon pardoned turkey "Mac" in 2014.