Scholarship table
Mrs. Maisel is back. Enjoyed Ep. 1.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
Clint Eastwood has defamed a since-deceased reporter, depicting her in "Richard Jewell" as having slept with sources to get stories about the 1996 Olympic bombing despite no evidence that ever occurred.Warner Bros is defending Eastwood and the studio by pointing to the disclaimer that rolls with the end-of-movie credits: "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization."Nice. Misogyny and character assassination are always dramatically fun!
Legally, anyway, you can't defame the deceased. Does not excuse it.
Just watched The Coinfession Killer on Netflix. Outstanding.Documentary about Henry Lee Lucas who the Texas Rangers falsely claimed was the most prolific mass murderer in history.It shows the laziness and arrogance of police everywhere. Most of all the Texas Rangers - a terrorist group formed in the 1800s to first control (and murder) Mexicans and Indians and then to control and intimidate blacks after the Civil War. Seems like the organization is as corrupt as ever.
#FakeNews #Lies
Legit question, did Clint Eastwood write the screenplay? I get the pile on to Eastwood, but if he didn't write the script why is it his responsibility for the film to be "historically accurate". One note, Olivia Wilde is the actress who plays the person in question, she has come out to vigorously defend the role and her performance, if she supports the portrayal why is it an Eastwood problem only?I will say this, given all the inaccuracies that happen in film and television, it is somewhat interesting this is the one that drove some attention to that. Also, I was listening to a podcast that was discussing this and they made a really good point.....the work of journalists is vital but ultimately very, very boring to put in a film.....so a lot of screen writers put stuff in that isn't true just to make the content more interesting. I think the sex with sources stuff is lazy screen writing to make things interesting.
I agree, Eng.Personally, I have no interest in Eastwood's "brand". Have never cared for the message in his films going way back.That being said, he has every right to make the kinds of films with whatever message he wants to portray. It's just a movie, and like any film based on a real event, is not intended to be 100% accurate. Or even anywhere close to 100%.I choose not to partake in the garbage he peddles. Others can decide for themselves.
Interesting viewpoint. I still don't like the idea of taking a real person, who did her job well and is now deceased, being "defamed" in absentia -- whether that's Eastwood, the screenwriter, Wilde or all of the above.
And yet.... Nixon, anyone?
You cannot defame the dead. Law 101.
Just because it is "legal" per se, does not mean it is moral. I haven't looked at all jurisdictions, but I am surprised some do not have a civil remedy for this, especially in cases involvimg famous people, who have products their brand is still selling.On an aside, this topic reminds me of a part of Repo Man, involving John Wayne.
You cannot defame the dead. Law 101. But keep working hard to defend the indefensible what they did to that man. And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.Looking forward to seeing it tonight with the family.
But keep working hard to defend the indefensible what they did to that man. And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.