#objectively i will never denounce the material i find inspiration in. but i feel really thrown off kilter having it come from sing 2 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

buzzdixonwriter · 3 years

Text

Don’t Let The Screen Door Hit You On The Way Out

”It’s never the crime, it’s always the cover-up.” Watergate Lesson #1

Y’know, some bastards need to be cancelled.

The liars, the hypocrites, the betrayers of trust public and private.

The “do as I say, not as I do” anusoids.

Dropkick those bozologists right outta here.

The problem is not people who screw up -- people screw up all the time.

It’s not ideas that later prove to be in error or just plain bad -- all of us at one time or another believed something we now know to be wrong.

No, the problem is those who set themselves us as moral exemplars and then betray the very moral example they proclaim.

Ska-rue those dips.

Cast them into the outer void.

Cast in point: The drugging rapist comedian spent their entire professional career stressing high principles and values, openly saying “look at what I did and do likewise” while deriding members of their own community for not obtaining the heights they did.

A good hunk of that time they spent drugging and raping victims, paying them off to keep silent so they could drug and rape more victims.

Look, back in the day Bob Hope was a notorious philanderer but he and his wife had an understanding and Hope never promoted himself as a moral exemplar (quite the opposite!).

So to find out Hope engaged in consensual adultery with the tacit approval of his wife is neither a big shock not does it undermine any message he sought to convey.

On the other hand, the drugging rapist comedian did espouse a message that millions saw as valid, and they held themselves up as an example for their fans to aspire to.

If we learned said comedian was a garden variety philanderer like Bob Hope, their message and example would be somewhat tarnished but not destroyed; consensual sex gets a tsk-tsk and nothing more, especially if the spouse doesn’t object (and said comedian’s spouse damn well knew what was going on yet didn’t think raping victims drugged into unconsciousness was a deal breaker of a marriage ender).

Some people today hope to this disgraced comedian will die soon so their comedy can be enjoyed publicly again.

Why?

Any good from this rapist’s life has already been done in whatever charitable donations and scholarships they provided, whatever inspiration they gave audiences to help them better themselves before learning of their crimes, and stylistic / topical insights gleaned by other comedians.

The rapist’s comedy routines and TV shows -- all family friendly and morally high minded -- now ring hollow and taste sour. Whatever comedic insights the rapist had to offer have long since been absorbed by those who followed.

Leni Riefenstahl created two monstrous documentaries -- Triumph Of The Will and Olympiad -- that glorified Nazism while at the same time inventing the cinematic language for depicting mass movements and covering sporting events.

Nobody today ever need watch her original films in order to learn those lessons; thousands of film makers and videographers have applied them elsewhere and the technical lessons remain valid even when divorced from their racist origins.

So be it with the rapist comedian.

Let those who learned from their routines reinterpret those lessons in a form that noi longer contains a poison pill.

Case in point: The comic-turned-film maker presented their work -- no matter how funny the material – as a serious examination of modern moral values.

And, dang, the c-t-f certainly fooled a lot of us.

In their defense, the c-t-f always claimed in public to be a really terrible person, but this was all just c-y-a.

Of course those public admissions were all self-depreciating self-mockery, look how thoughtful and complex the c-t-f films were, how they examined modern life, look how they laid bare the contradictions and conundrums of the human condition.

Then it turns out the c-t-f could not keep their own knickers up and wreaked havoc on a dozen or more lives, rendering all their opinions and observations as worth less that a wadded of soiled toilet paper.

Yeah, the rapist comedian’s crime are worse by at least two orders of magnitude, but the c-t-f only misses a charge of incest by the barest of technicalities.

And it doesn’t matter that c-t-f’s spouse at the time is a batshit crazy homewrecker themselves -- c-t-f knew this then and chose them as a spouse and contributed to the chaos being wreaked in that family.

So, no, you can’t pose your films as Important Serious Examinations Of Modern Morals when you’re acting in a way that would get Dr. Freud to say, “That’s some seriously fucked up shit.”

Open reprobates like John Waters and Russ Meyer never need worry about failing audience expectations; they’re upfront and honest about their perversions and peccadillos (and to be fair to them, they never screwed up the lives of others the way the c-t-f did).

I used to love the c-t-f’s work and eagerly looked forward to each new one.

Not any more.

You can never trust that viewpoint again, and even the earlier, funnier work is now called into question.

Case in point: This one is smaller, more localized, but I have personal knowledge of it and it’s emblemic of a far larger, far more vast problem.

The retired pastor tried to stay busy, volunteering at their local church and nearby nursing homes, and proposing an outreach for runaway abused teen girls.

It came as quite a shock to learn the retired preacher had been caught in a classic honey trap sex sting: They texted what they thought was a 16 year old girl but turned out to be an adult investigator trolling for sexual predators.

The retired pastor got probation and registered as a sex offender. There was a big public confession and an apology to their church, a contrite promise of repentance, and a big heaping helping of forgiveness all around.

There but for the grace of God, right…?

The retired pastor wanted to resume the runaway abused teen girl project.

Oh, they would have nothing to do with it directly, of course.

Just be available to advise others as needed…

Well, that waved more red flags than a May Day celebration in Tiananmen Square. Even assuming the retired pastor was incredibly naïve -- more naïve than any retired pastor has a right to be -- the sheer optics alone would be incredibly bad.

And the chance of somebody finding out and filing a complaint for reasons real or suspected would put the church sponsoring it at terrible risk.

Dude, you screwed up. That door is shut to you.

Organized religions are imploding right now, and no matter what faith or denomination, the reason is inevitably the same: Predators of all stripes infiltrate the structure to find victims.

Sexual abuse ranks high, but there’s also financial abuse, emotional abuse, and just plain old abuse of power.

It’s ultimately the exact same problem as that of the rapist comedian and the comic-turned-film maker: Hypocrisy.

Religious leaders are as human as anyone else, few are the plaster saints we make them out to be.

And there are those who make mistakes, and those who hide their personal peccadillos from others (word among the BDSM community is that quite a few religious leaders enjoy those reindeer games), but those have the common fucking sense not to videotape themselves (remember, if you make a copy of anything you’re giving the universe tacit permission to share it and if the copy is digital, the sharing is compulsory).

The worst part is that the very victims of these predators are not only quicky to forgive these abuses and let them continue, but viciously turn on those victims that dare speak out against their abuse!

This is the reason organized religion is collapsing: It’s become a cesspool of sexual predators and con artists.

Church leaders who decry the declining numbers are eager to blame a lack of spiritual discipline, a loss of faith, cultural influence, and of course that ol’ standby, Satan hizzowndamsef.

But when you ask people who left why they left, the answer is almost always they grew tired of being taken advantage of.

Physician, heal thyself.

The problem we face today is that too many people impose standards on others they are not merely incapable of following themselves (which would be a sad but typically human failure) but are utterly unwilling to even make the attempt.

We need so-called cancel culture. We need to expose hypocrites, denounce their hypocrisy, and deny them access to new victims.

Don’t feel sorry for the bastards who get caught, get angry over the harm they inflict.

#morals #morality #ethics #organized religion #cancel culture

4 notes · View notes

popcorn-for-dinner · 5 years

Text

Earth’s Mightiest Heroes: Steve Rogers

As nationalism continues to rear its head out of the shadows, Steve Rogers paints the image of the patriot we all need to be.

“The price of freedom is high, always has been but it’s a price I’m willing to pay. If I’m the only one, then so be it but I’m willing to bet I’m not.” - Steve Rogers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

The world is very strange right now. In the midst of Pamela Anderson defending Julian Assange, measles making a comeback nobody asked for, somehow, Nazis seem to be back in vogue. As weird as it may seem, the very worst parts of Nationalism have been on somewhat of a reunion tour. Even weirder still, people are singing along to some of its greatest hits. Spearheaded by Brexit and 45’s 2016 Presidential win, nationalist ideological policies have risen to the highest forms of power in places like Hungary, India, Italy and Austria with many other traditionally center-right parties adopting more nationalist policies and ideologies.

Cut off one head and two more take its place.

So, why am I talking about Nationalism? Well, in the lead up to Avengers: Endgame, I’ve been thinking a lot about what Captain America means to me and more frequently about the quote at the top of this piece.

Steve Rogers: Captain America

“Captain America” was created in 1941 by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, two poor, often bullied Jewish kids. He was created as the superhero personification of those ideals society should strive for- Liberty, Freedom, Justice. He was the hero to stand up for the little guy. Of course, the “little guy” at the time were members of Simon and Kirby’s Jewish heritage.

Cap’s desire to stand up for what was right is best exemplified by the image of him punching Hitler on the cover of his first comic (March 1941). A cover which was designed to and succeeded in making a huge impact, not least because America was still 9 months away from joining the war.

Captain America- The Propagandist

A common criticism levied against the Captain America character is that he is merely American propaganda. It is not difficult to understand why anyone would hold this view, he literally has “America” in his name. He is also fully draped in the American flag with a big and bold “A” on his helmet. The man isn’t winning any stealth competitions. However, while I can understand the propaganda criticism, it has always seemed a bit half-baked and myopic to me.

Admittedly, at his creation, Captain America was unabashedly a propaganda machine. But, that was okay at the time! America was on the right side of that war. It wasn’t a bad thing for him to be the mouthpiece of a downtrodden class like the Jewish Americans. The propaganda he was representing was objectively good propaganda.

Once the war was over, however, and with the Cold War not really providing much action material for comics, the character began to stall. He was becoming stale.

After being discontinued for several years, Stan Lee brought him back in 1964- his story having been retconned to explain that he had been frozen in ice since before the end of the war. He was still the square-jawed boy scout with those aspirational ideals but he was now, in addition, a man literally out of time. How did he reconcile what he believed to be right and just with the actions of his current Government? All of a sudden, this was a new, more interesting character. This masterstroke by Stan Lee led to a dynamism in the character that many future writers would successfully exploit and which would help the Russo Brothers, their writers and of course, Chris Evans, create the best iteration of the character.

Steve Rogers- The Patriot

Coming out of the ice, Steve Rogers was now in a position where his, admittedly, romantic ideals and belief in people were coming into constant conflict with the thoughts and actions of those entrusted to lead his country, those he was pledged to serve. What he staunchly believed to be just and fair was not what his beloved country and indeed wider international community was practising. How could he navigate this conflict?

But first, quickly, Chris Evans

When the casting of Chris Evans was announced, there was a general sense of, “huh? HIM?”. It was confusing that Marvel had tapped the guy that played Johnny Storm and was in those mediocre rom-coms to portray this deeply historical character. “What were they thinking?”, everyone collectively thought. We would quickly realise that yeah, Chris Evans had a good grip on this whole acting thing and that he was the perfect person to embody Captain America. However, as it turned out, the scepticism wasn’t only confined to the fans.

Chris Evans has openly spoken about his hesitancy to take up Marvel’s offer to play Cap. Sure, there was his well-documented fight with anxiety but as he recalled in a 2019 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, he didn’t really see how he could get audiences to connect with a character like Captain America.

“There’s no real darkness to him. How do I make this guy someone you want to watch? I don’t get jokes. I’m not Wolverine. I don’t have dead parents, like Batman. I’m just, like, ‘Hi, I’ll walk your dog. I’ll help you move.’”

The Russo Brothers, co-directors of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War & Avengers: Endgame, have also spoken about a similar fear they had that they couldn’t make Cap relatable or interesting to audiences, having never really been fans of the character. This objectivity perhaps, helped them, Chris Evans and their writers, Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely (Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Captain America: Civil War. Avengers: Infinity war & Avengers: Endgame), somehow mould Cap into a constantly relevant character.

Captain America’s reinvention, and coincidentally, his best moments have always come as a result of his ideals clashing with the nation’s. The first major one came in the wake of the Watergate scandal (back then having a President so flagrantly undermine the rule of law was a very big shock to Steve Rogers). This scandal would inspire the 1974 “Secret Empire” storyline. Another major turning point was the passing of the Patriot Act in response to the 9/11 bombings. This would inspire the pivotal “Civil War” storyline.

On screen, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), these moments have mainly come in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Captain America: Civil War.

“You cannot have a character called Captain America without examining the politics of what that means, especially in this day and age” - Joe Russo

The Winter Soldier is a pivotal movie for both the MCU and the perception and understanding of Cap as a character. Coincidentally, at a time when most Americans were growing in their distrust and paranoia of the Government here was this superhero literally named “Captain America” going through very similar emotions.

Cap finds out that SHIELD is in the final stages of a project appropriately named “Project INSIGHT” (because that’s not nefarious at all). The aim of this project was to help SHIELD “neutralise a lot of threats before they happen” by listening in and monitoring everyone via their phone calls, social media posts etc. so the accompanying algorithm could preemptively decide who was a security threat.

Of course, at the time of the movie’s release, Americans, and the world had only recently learnt about the Obama administration’s terrorist kill list and had even more recently learnt from Edward Snowden that their Government was most likely listening to their phone calls. The movie’s real-world relevancy, though entirely coincidental was incredibly eery.

SHIELD and the World Security Council believed that the safety of the citizens and the strength of the organisation/nation were the most important things- it didn’t matter what other liberties you had to cross to achieve that.

Steve disagreed.

He believed that while the safety of the individual was highly important, the paramount thing was the citizens’ liberty: their freedom.

“It’s not unpatriotic to denounce an injustice committed on our behalf, perhaps it’s the most patriotic thing we can do.”- E.A Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly

Steve is at a moral and philosophical crossroads. He now has knowledge of the actions of his superiors and these are actions he is categorically against. While he may accept that the intentions were good, he does not see the end result as being nearly as good. “This isn’t freedom, it’s fear”. So, he chooses to stand up for what he believes in, irrespective of who he may have to stand against.

He places the liberty, wishes and lives of (all) individuals over that of the country. He is not blinded by his love and service for the country, nor is he willing to take questionable orders just because they come from an authority he is meant to respect and follow. If anything, the surprise reveal that HYDRA has infiltrated the highest levels of SHIELD and is the real mastermind behind “INSIGHT” only helps to prove his point that nothing gives Government/Governing bodies the moral or philosophical high ground to encroach on the rights of its citizens in such a monumental way.

Of course, Steve Rogers’ rebellious arc comes to a natural conclusion in Captain America: Civil War when he refuses to sign the UN’s accords that require all superheroes to register with the United Nations and only act when instructed by the UN Security Council.

The paranoia of Government from 2014 had now grown into a large distrust and a belief in the Government’s ineptitude, again mirroring real life feelings (Brexit and 45’s electoral win were only a few months away). This distrust leads to Cap’s refusal to sign the Accords. Yes, he accepts that the UN Security Council is not a Government of a country or SHIELD or HYDRA but it is still “run by people with agendas and agendas change”.

He would rather stand up for each individual’s (in this case, powered people) liberty and right to choose what they do with their powers rather than the Government keeping a registry of these people and using them as their personal watchdogs.

This signified completion of his arc, from the “company man” who followed orders irrespective of who was running the company, to believing and advocating for the self over the nation. He went from the literal personification of America and this big propaganda machine to this defiant “rebel” who advocated for the individual over the country. Importantly, this was not because he had fallen out of love or respect for the country but it was this love that had influenced his decisions. He believed that these policies were wrong and harming the thing he was meant to be patriotic to- the people. So, as a true patriot, he sought to fix this even though it meant going against the country.

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”- Carl Schurz

Nationalism, has at different points in history, been an effective unifying tool, especially in wartime. However, nowadays, the most abhorrent facets of the ideology have become its most recognisable calling card with its supporters emphasizing that they are only “patriots”- they just want what’s best for their great country. I am not going to analyse and deconstruct the principle of nationalism and its policies e.g immigration, mostly because many smarter people than I have already done that.

What is important to note, however, is the central thesis of nationalism, as described by George Orwell, “(nationalism) is the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” Patriotism, on the other hand, is a devotion to the liberties and freedoms of the people that constitute this state. The belief that the people are what matters most and that those in charge can be wrong and when they are, should be challenged. In which case, patriotism, true patriotism could be the solution to the evils of nationalism.

This is why I chose to speak about Steve Rogers’ patriotism. Despite the consequences, he chose to challenge the policies of his country/governing body because he saw them as harmful to large groups of the populace. His allegiance was to people and their liberties, not the government.

Captain America is going to represent different things to different people. He is not going to be everyone’s favourite Avenger. There is, however, one thing we should all learn from Cap, especially Chris Evans’ run as Cap- the strength to be unwavering in our own senses of morality and decency. There is a point where constant compromising becomes an issue in of itself.

In the words of Peggy Carter (probably the only person that could match Steve Rogers’ old fashioned, romantic sense of morality), “compromise where you can. But where you can’t, don’t. Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right, even if the whole world is telling you to move it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree and tell them ‘No, you move’”.

CUT FOR TIME

Chris Evans really is the perfect Captain America and honestly, that’s a whole other article that I’ve been wanting to write for a long time (I have drafts). While Robert Downey Jr has, over the years, masterfully created a version of Tony Stark perfect for the here and now, Chris literally seems to have become Steve Rogers and has imbued his performances with the core essence of what this character has been from the very first pages of his first book.

Additionally, over time, both he and the character have slowly meshed into one. He has definitely learnt the right things from Steve Rogers. Whether, it’s his constant, humorous, takedowns of 45 and his cohorts on Twitter, his random gentlemanly acts (that really shouldn’t be a big deal but are sadly not as common anymore) or taking an active role in politics, he ever so often reminds us that he is indeed Captain America.

The rebellious side of Steve Rogers didn’t suddenly come out in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. While always a dutiful soldier, he was never really a blind follower. In Captain America: The First Avenger, tired of being the Government’s ineffectual propaganda show monkey, he disobeys a direct order and goes on a covert mission to help rescue captured prisoners of war.

I also love the portrayal of Steve’s flaws in the MCU, especially in Civil War. A lot of people, understandably, have issues with his actions regarding Bucky and Tony in that movie. I like that the movie doesn’t try to make excuses for his actions, it merely explains them and personally, it’s an explanation I understand. I would probably do the same thing if I were in his position.

Speaking of, I had wanted to write a similar article pre- Endgame on Tony Stark- another character I love, especially RDJ as Tony Stark but life got in the way (!) So, please revisit my pre- Infinity War article on the Father-Son dynamic in the MCU, especially with Tony and Howard Stark.

In honour of Endgame, I have *tried* to rank all past 21 MCU movies on my Twitter. Feel free to discuss the list with me (don’t worry, I’m pretty sure you disagree).

Finally, this is my first MCU related post since Stan Lee’s death so please head over to my twitter for what I briefly said about the impact he’s had on my life.

Excelsior!

Bankole Imoukhuede,

@banky_I

#marvel cinematic universe #steve rogers #captain america #avengers endgame #nationalism #patriotism #tony stark #stan lee #jack kirby #joe simon #captain america civil war #captain america the first avenger #captain america the winter soldier #russo brothers #mcu #marvel #film

0 notes

back-and-totheleft · 5 years

Text

Nora

I'm not here to talk about JFK, per se, but about what it is like to have written a movie based on something that happened. Eight years ago Alice Arlen and I wrote the screenplay for Silkwood. It was a carefully annotated script, meticulously researched, and we kept scrupulously to what we determined were the key historical facts of the case. In Karen Silkwood, we wrote a character who was considerably closer to whoever Karen Silkwood was than the person who had been written about in journalistic accounts, most of which had tended to whitewash Karen and gloss over certain less-than-perfect aspects of her character. In fact, what drew Alice and me to Karen Silkwood's story were the less-than-perfect aspects, and what we tried to write was not a movie about a heroic woman who did something heroic, but rather the story of a complicated, interesting, flawed woman who quite unexpectedly did something heroic.

We were extremely proud of the job we did and of the movie Mike Nichols made from it, and we were completely unprepared for what happened when it came out, which was, first, an article in the Arts & Leisure section of The New York Times, which focused completely on comparing the facts in the movie to the facts of the Silkwood case. And then, a couple of weeks later, in the tradition you have now grown used to, a New York Times editorial denouncing the movie as a docudrama.

A docudrama, in case you don't know, is a movie The New York Times disagrees with the politics of. [Laughter] [Applause] But the point I'm trying to make here is that it doesn't matter whether you are good little girls like me and Alice, or big bad boys like Oliver Stone, The New York Times is going to pound you into the ground.

They won't bother, of course, if your movie is Out of Africa or Goodfellas or The Pride of the Yankees or Bugsy or The Glenn Miller Story or Lawrence of Arabia, to name just a few of the wonderful movies that have done what any movie based on something that actually happened must do: which is, to impose a narrative. So no one really objects that Dennis Finch-Haddon didn't really see Isaak Dinesen on a train on her way to Africa, or that Tommy DeSimone was actually very tall, or that Mrs. Lou Gehrig looked nothing whatsoever like Theresa Wright. These things don't matter, because they don't matter.

For something to matter it must be political, or more important, ambiguous, deliciously ambiguous, unresolved, mythic. The very thing that attracts a filmmaker to a project is the thing that guarantees his life will be hell once he makes it. Because suddenly, the filmmaker has ventured onto forbidden turf, and on this turf is a big sign that says, "Keep Off the Grass."

In the case of JFK, the attack is that much worse because the press is one of the reasons why we still don't know what happened in Dallas. And whenever you write something that implies that the press has not done its job, you get into trouble with the press because you mortify them. Incidentally, this happens with books, too, not just with movies. It happened with All the President's Men and The Final Days, to name two books that were mortifying to the press. And I would suggest that the recent gang rape of Robert Caro on the grounds that he was wrong about Coke Stevenson was actually inspired by the mortification he caused the press earlier by discovering things about Lyndon Johnson, particularly about the source of his fortune, that had lain around undiscovered by the press for years.

But let's get back to movies. You venture onto the grass, but no one says, "Keep off the grass." That would give the game away. What the press says, as a rule, is not that they mind your being on the grass but they object to your methodology. What they say is that they have no problem with your making a movie of this sort as long as you stick to the facts. The facts. I mean, this is a comical notion because it implies that having the facts correct means that the story you tell is correct, and we all know the number of times we have read things that were correct on the facts, but just plain wrong.

In the case of JFK, the most commonly objected to of Oliver Stone's methods was the combining of documentary footage with film footage. But the truth is that Stone could have done without all that. And in addition, he could have changed Garrison into the flawed human being he actually was. And why didn't you, Oliver? [Laughter] Oh, never mind. The point is, you could do any number of things and the press will still find something to object to. They will point to a silver fork that was actually stainless steel, or a breakfast that was actually dinner, or some character you have made a composite of, or some events you have telescoped: something that proves that you have got it completely wrong. And they will fall on this like a fumbled football, and wave it in the air to show that you have distorted the truth.

And all of this is nonsense, that's what I'm trying to say, because what the press is truly objecting to is not your techniques, but that you're there at all, that you have a political agenda, and-- and this is the most important part-- that you are imposing a narrative, that you are telling a story.

Now it is a writer's obligation to impose a narrative. Every time you take a lump of material and turn it into something, you are imposing a narrative. It is a writer's obligation to do this, and by the same token, it is apparently a journalist's obligation to pretend that he never does anything of the sort. The journalist claims to believe that the narrative "emerges" by itself from the lump of material, rises up and smacks you in the face like marsh gas. [Laughter]

A couple of years after Silkwood was attacked in The New York Times, I found myself at the New York Bar Association on a program on docudramas with Max Frankel of The New York Times. Frankel was at the time the editorial page director of the Times; he's now the editor of the paper. And I want to tell you what he said when it was his turn to speak.

He said that he was wearing a tie, which he was, and he held his tie up for all of us to see. He said that he had put the tie on that morning, and that it had special meaning for him, it was a gift of enormous sentimental value. He went on at some length about the tie, although never being much more specific than that. So we never did find out what was so special about the tie, or who gave it to him, and I don't even remember what it looked like. And when I called him about this a couple of days ago, he not only didn't remember what it looked like, either, but he didn't even remember the story although he did say that it sounds like the sort of thing he might have said, which I assure you he did.

Anyway, here's what he went on to say: He said that if you were making a movie about that evening at the New York Bar Association, and you put an actor into the movie playing him, and wearing an identical tie it would not be the truth, because you would have no way of knowing what that tie meant to him. [Laughter] Now I love this story. I love it because it's so honest, and it's right out there. Max Frankel honestly believes there's only one version of the story, and it's his. But I just told you my version and I promise you, it's just as good. [Laughter]

I said to him that night, "You mean we can't even make Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet?" And he said, "That's right." He was quite cheerful about it.

The other day, when I called to check the story with him, by the way, he continued in his merry way by ending the phone call with me by saying, "And congratulations on your recent success in fiction." Fiction, nonfiction; is that all there is? Or to put it in a completely opposite way, as Edgar Doctorow did in an essay a few years back, quote, "I am led to the proposition that there is no fiction or nonfiction as we commonly understand the distinction. There is only narrative."

Edgar Doctorow brings me to another story. Years ago he wrote a novel called The Book of Daniel, which happens to be a masterpiece. It is a novel that was clearly inspired by the historical fact and ongoing myth of the Rosenberg case. I always feel that someone should mention the Rosenbergs at any event sponsored by The Nation in Town Hall. [Applause] It was very clearly not a nonfiction book about the Rosenbergs; it was very clearly an improvisation, a novel inspired by that case. The characters in the book are named the Isaacsons, and when the book was published it received splendid reviews.

Some years later, Sidney Lumet made a movie based on the book called Daniel, and when The New York Times Arts & Leisure section put out its hit on the movie, an article that it will not surprise you to hear compared the events in the movie to the facts of the Rosenberg case, it actually said in the Times that Mandy Potemkin was playing the part of Julius Rosenberg. So here we have the case of a writer who removed something very deliberately from historical fact, who never pretended to be telling the story of the Rosenbergs, but they nailed him for it anyway.

Having said all this, let me speak to the topic as I understand it, which is what the obligations of film are to history. As someone who is trained as a journalist, I have strong feelings about this that I suspect are slightly more rigid than most screenwriters. I believe that you have to hit the marks, whatever the marks are. The marks differ from project to project and there's no way to make a simple rule about what they are. But in the case of Silkwood, as I explained, one of the primary marks was Karen's character, which we believed we had a moral obligation to convey, warts and all.

There were, in addition, a number of episodes that it seemed to us had to be conveyed with as little dramatic license as possible. When we got to areas where it was not known what happened, like when Karen Silkwood's urine sample was contaminated with radiation, we did not depict anything in connection with that episode that wasn't known at the time. At the same time, we did compress things, made up the characters of the people Karen worked with, etcetera. We made a movie that was our version of what had happened. What we believed was that we had written something that conveyed, not necessarily the truth, but what it was like, sort of, maybe. And what it was like in a way that ordinary journalism couldn't come close to.

It was clear to me when I saw JFK that I was seeing Oliver Stone's version of the story, and I didn't object to it any more than I object to the 601 books that have been written about the assassination. One of the problems with the movie JFK is that it is more ambiguous and brilliant than its defenders, but that shouldn't be held against the movie which, in its own way, is not just a wild and wacky look at the assassination, but manages to convey 30 years of Kennedy assassination madness and recapitulate it in a way that seems to me practically ontological. I hope I'm using that word correctly, but I'm probably not.

What intensifies this even further was Oliver Stone's splendid performance as himself, a performance that was -- I'm completely serious -- inspirational to those of us who were bewildered and cowering in the same circumstances. Unfortunately, though, there are very few directors who want to make a movie, and then spend four to six months after it with Ted Koppel. [Laughter] On the contrary, most directors who will look at a similar sort of movie will say to themselves, "Life is too short."

There are people who say that movies have a special obligation in this area, that for instance, young people will see JFK and think that the Joint Chiefs of Staff killed President Kennedy. But I don't know why they are going to think this any more than I do. And what if they do? [Laughter] [Applause] Eventually they will grow up and figure it out for themselves, or else they won't. It's not the issue, and it is not the filmmaker's responsibility.

The real danger is not that we might have an inaccurate movie-- which, by the way, never hurt anyone-- the real danger is that the wholesale, knee-jerk objection to movies based on things that happened might result in something far worse, which is a chilling effect on the creation of works of art. Thank you.

-Nora Ephron’s brilliant defense of historical films and JFK in particular at the “Hollywood & History: The Debate Over JFK” panel, sponsored by The Nation Institute and the Center for American Culture Studies at Columbia University, March 3 1992 [x]

#nora ephron #oliver stone #jfk #silkwood #history in film #history and film #historical films

0 notes