More from the “conservative media” and “associates of Johnson”:
I think it’s a matter of differing projections.
This does not apply to all, but I feel like many conservatives have a very “doom and gloom” mentality. America is headed towards ruination, etc. I don’t think they feel there is much humor to be found in that.
OTOH, I feel like many liberals feel like everything is fine and that things are on the up-and-up and have felt that way for a long time. Plus as someone mentioned earlier, the entertainment industry tends to slant left on the whole.
Again, I am projecting this onto wide swaths of people but it’s a generality that I feel has at least some merit.
And you have no idea if the film actually portrays LBJ as a “villain,” because you haven’t seen it. Hint: it doesn’t.
Oh, and by the by, the fact that you surely learned about this notion from reading the New York Post or the Drudge Report or something doesn’t mean I think these ideas were limited to those outlets.
The idea of “specific criticism” is just you weaseling.
Whether specific or not, Johnson’s relationship with King and the civil rights movement is a more important historical issue and more fundamental than any number of “specific” criticisms of minor nitpicky import. Because of that and because this film’s inaccuracies happen to have been very much in the news lately, it was the best example to pick offhand.
Bottom line is that whether “specific” or not, this film’s depiction of Johnson’s actions and attitudes have been criticized by associates of Johnson, associates of King, and independent historians.
I understand that it doesn’t please your ideological inclinations to have this particular film’s inaccuracies singled out. Nonetheless, this non-stop weaseling that you’ve done in this exchange is inapropriate. From pretending that the issues are “altering timelines a little or speculating based on circumstantial evidence”, to pretending that the criticism is coming from “associates of Johnson”, in the “conservative media”, to later conjuring up the “specific criticism” line.
Though come to think of it, maybe someone with your approach to discussions on message boards would naturally feel comfortable with misrepresentations in films. Espcially if they fit your worldview. So enjoy.
Are you shifting into semantics mode now?
“Villian” is not my term. It was CBS, describing the perspective of King-associate Julian Bond, who felt LBJ was depicted incorrectly in the film (which he apparently saw).
You’re the one dissembling.
“This film doesn’t portray Johnson accurately” – not easily rebuttable.
“This film lies about Johnson’s reluctance to introduce the Voting Rights Act” – specific and rebuttable (and false).
The truth is that you picked this example, even though you haven’t seen the film and probably don’t know much about the history, because of your political inclinations.
No shit. The point was you have no idea whether or not that criticism is accurate. You googled it after-the-fact to try to support your ideologically-determined point. You don’t even know if your post hoc argument is a good one, because you have no idea what is actually in the film.
Nonesense. If that were so, then the charge would be pointless.
Your intention was to falsely imply that these criticisms were only prevalent in conservative sources, and thus could be assumed to be ideologically driven (or driven by loyalty to Johnson, from his associates).
It’s based on people who knew both men, and based on historians who studied the era and the issues. It’s not “rebuttable” only in the sense that it happens to be true based on available evidence.
It makes no difference whether I’ve seen the film, or whether I was in the room when Johnson met King FTM.
The point, again - which you keep running away from as fast as your little legs will take you - is that associates of King, associates of Johnson, and independent historians who have seen the film agree that it depicted Johnson incorrectly. That’s good enough for me.
Would be good enough for you too, if this wasn’t an ideological issue so near and dear to your heart. Once that happens, there’s no limits to your mental gymnastics, apparently.
No, my intention was to suggest that you selected this example without really knowing whether the criticisms were accurate, and instead out of political bias. You now admit that you don’t know whether they are accurate. Remains to be seen whether you’ll admit the other part.
You understand this point about what is rebuttable, but because it harms your position, you insist that a general statement like “the film mischaracterized their relationship” can be easily rebutted.
There is debate about the accuracy of the portrayal of some of Johnson’s actions in the film. I have not doubted that, and acknowledged it in my first post. That you think this is the point either means you have no idea what’s going on or–more likely–you’re trying to shift the goalposts to something you can win.
I keep forgetting that this is what happens to a lot of posters who try to go more than five posts deep with you. Oddly, while it happens a lot with you, it only really happens with me when I talk to you. I wonder why?
And there are associates of King, Johnson, and historians who disagree. Why are your associates and historians better?
I’m not getting it, here,** FP.** Perhaps if you took the risk of being more specific? Did the movie inaccurately depict LBJ as being “lukewarm” on civil rights when he was actually very positive, or did it inaccurately depict him as being very positive when he wasn’t really?
What, perzackly, do you mean when you say “inaccurate”? Just saying “inaccurate” leaves you a shit ton of wiggle room. Its easy to have a defensible position if you don’t define that position.
I’ve admitted that I don’t have personal knowledge of these events, but have accepted them as accurate by the same standards as are customarily applied to historical knowledge.
I’m frankly not completely sure what you’re saying here, but can’t be bothered to parse it out. Probably as worthy as the rest of your posts here.
I don’t know if it’s true. Or care all that much, to tell the truth. If it is, I would guess that you - like a lot of other people - are more comfortable with people who basically share your ideology and/or who have a harder time recognizing when you’re weaseling than I do. But whatever.
I’ve not seen these people being quoted in the “conservative media” or in any other media. I’ve people disputing the specific claim that the march was LBJ’s idea, but no one upholding the overall accuracy of the depiction.
And the woman who made the film did not defend the accuracy but rather said:
So she’s not even claiming that she based it on " associates of King, Johnson, and historians who disagree". Where do you get this from?
How about if you read some of the links I’ve posted here and see what the various associates and historians have said? Maybe you’ll educate yourself a bit.
Rest assured that none of the links are to “conservative media”, so you won’t risk being corrupted …
You’ve adopted the viewpoint of people who supported your bias without having any idea whether their criticisms are accurate. That’s not the standard customarily applied to verifying historical accuracy–or even the standards employed by half-decent internet posters.
Then you’re not really looking. Here’s a history professor who felt the film was a generally accurate portrayal. There are numerous articles that go into depth into the historical record and find that the film portrayed events accurately in general. Multiple associates of King praise the film and its portrayal as well.
From the actual historians, researchers, journalists, and associates of King who feel the film is an accurate portrayal.
I haven’t seen the film – I’m not sure which group of critics and historians is correct. But you are sure, and that just seems awfully silly, considering that you haven’t seen the movie – I see no reason to conclude that your critics, historians, and associates are more correct than the film’s defenders.
Who are the “people who support [my] bias” whose viewpoint you’re accusing me of adopting? And who are those who don’t support my bias who have another viewpoint?
What you’ve done here - in addition to all the rest of your dissembling - is to claim that I’ve read things in conservative sources and only later managed to find the exact same things in mainstream sources (amazing coincidence). Considering that everything I’ve posted is in fact contained in mainstream sources, and being made by maindstream people, you couldn’t possibly have any basis for your assertion. But as above, it pretty much fits in with the rest of your jive here. Anything goes with you, apparently.
Your cites make my case for me.
Not one of those cites features anyone claiming that the portrayal is accurate in dispute to the earlier sources I cited. Some of these cites make the case that despite the inaccuracies, the overall film captures in large picture the events of the time, and some don’t discuss the historical issues in dispute altogether but concentrate on other matters (e.g. the Lewis article). So if that’s the best you can do, we can take it as settled that the film is inaccurate as asserted. (If you think you found otherwise in your cites, please trot it out.)
As to whether the film is egregiously false in comparison with other historical films, that’s apparently in some dispute. I’ve not taken a position on that in this thread. I merely cited Selma in a parenthetical remark as an example of a film which distorts history, which managed to set off Richard Parker, a very delicate soul who forgot to take his meds this morning. But that’s it.
What is inaccurate? Put your finger on it, tell us exactly what the hell you are talking about. Shit man, if you are going to insist on hijacking the thread, at least take it somewhere specific! How can anybody give a fair assessment of an argument you aren’t even making?
Does the film portray LBJ has being more committed to civil rights than he really was? Then say so. Does it portray LBJ as being less committed? Then say so. Shit, say something!
So far, all we really got is you rolling around on the floor pissing and moaning about how your views don’t get a fair hearing! Which you’ve already done, Lord knows. Got anything else?
I don’t think it’s fair to say “well, you’ve quoted historians and scholars and people who were actually there, but you have not researched the subject yourself to the point of expertise, therefore your opinion is irrelevant”.
I haven’t seen Selma, am not at all knowledgeable about the minutia of the history of the civil rights movement, and have no particular dog in this fight, but I think there are three good meta-level reasons to believe FP’s position:
(1) Occam’s Razor says that when a historical movie comes out and then an unconnected variety of prima facie rational and knowledgeable people all pop up with the same basic criticism it’s more likely that there’s some substance to that claim than that they all simultaneously decided to tell the same lie or hold the same mistaken position.
(2) I think the quote from the director about it being art is very telling. She could easily have said “no, I stand by every historical claim made in the film and here are my citations and here are the names of the people who we interviewed”. It’s hard to see any reason NOT to do that if she could have done so
(3) Storywise, it makes perfect sense that to make a movie be a better story, it should have an antagonist. So making Johnson less sympathetic is precisely the kind of change that you would expect someone to make in order to turn the mess that is history into a more entertaining and satisfying narrative.
None of that is proof obviously, but given that I wasn’t there and you weren’t there and FP wasn’t there and all we are doing at this point is reading the claims of people who were there, or who have studied the situation in depth, I think it’s entirely reasonable to conclude, as FP has, that there is some truth to the “anti-Selma” claims.
Sorry, I’ve done what I can for you. As Dorothy Parker said, you can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think …
Apology accepted, here’s your hat, let me get the door for you…