This is not an accurate representation of the cites. They cite historical documentation which refutes various criticism – specifically the criticism of Califano (who, according to the article, falsely claims that the movie portrays LBJ as only reluctantly behind the VRA, among other things, such as his claims about conversations between LBJ and King), as well as criticism that the film shows that LBJ wanted King to ‘wait in line’ metaphorically behind his other priorities… and according to the historical documents referenced in the article, the film was exactly accurate in this regard. There are numerous other specific refutations of the claims of historical inaccuracy regarding LBJ. Maybe the criticisms are correct, but I don’t see how one could factually claim that they are without having seen the film, and with the existence of much that refutes the criticisms.
I just wonder why you take these critics’ word that the portrayal of LBJ in certain ways is inaccurate where there are numerous historians and researchers who feel that these particular issues were portrayed accurately.
There is a debate about the accuracy of Selma, largely within the confines of relatively minor deviations from history in the context of a major motion picture.
F-P chose one side of that debate, and exaggerated it. He did so not because he has any reason to agree with that viewpoint as a matter of history or knowledge of the film, but because it fit his politics.
So there are two things which are entirely independent from the truth of the anti-Selma claims: (1) that F-P sided with them out of bias; and (2) that those claims, or at least the ones that can be made with enough specificity to assess, involve deviations from history that are relatively minor when compared to most other historical movies.
As it happens, the critics are mostly wrong. LBJ isn’t portrayed especially negatively in the film. He is portrayed as having other priorities (the War on Poverty, which is portrayed positively), and having to be tugged into the Voting Rights Act. That’s all true, or at least a very reasonable view of history. The most suspect part of the film is the suggestion that he knew about or ordered the FBI surveillance of King and the sending of nasty messages to him. There is less historical evidence there, though there is some (including the very circumstance of it being LBJ’s FBI involved with a figure that LBJ spent a lot of time working with).
But I have no quarrel with people who think the critics are mostly right. What I found upsetting is that partisans without any knowledge of the film or the history are trying to use it as an example of “lies” as F-P put it.
This is the second time you’ve asserted that I’ve said the film contains “lies” (in quotes), so I have to ask you to cease and desist from this falsehood.
I’m not sure what the significance of the term is to you - possibly to boster your position that this is about whether the film is uniquely malevolent - but whatever it is, don’t put words in my mouth please. (Or maybe that’s too much to ask of someone like you?)
I stand by that representation. These cites do not contradict the assertions by the various people who I’ve quoted in this thread.
It’s hard to hash this out more fully, since you’ve linked to 5 or so sources, and claimed that somewhere within that corpus there’s a refutation of what I said. Hard to argue with that type of thing.
The word has no special significance to me. I thought you had used the OP’s word. You didn’t. My mistake.
Instead, you said: “That said, the broader point about comics making real points is a valid one, and it also applies to other types of fiction (e.g. movies like Selma). The point is that they tend to bolster their positions by saying things that are not actually true. They fall back on the “it’s only humor/fiction” line when pressed on it, but the fact is they are expecting their audience to take what they say seriously at some level - certainly as to their overall point - and much of that audience will not be able to differenciate between what’s true and what’s fiction/humor, and the false parts of their presentation are a part of what influences their audience about real issues.”
So what are you saying? Is Selma an example of what you’re talking about there? Or do you have some special snowflake definition of “lie”? (Or will you dodge these questions altogether with some new tangent?)
Selma is an example of what I as talking about. Matter of fact, that’s exactly why I said “e.g. movies like Selma”.
When you repeatedly falsely attribute a word with quote marks, and say things like ““lies” as F-P put it”, you can’t blame someone for suspecting that you may have some intent behind it, especially considering the rest of your performance in this thread. Sorry if you think it’s a tangent - if so, be more careful about it in the future.
You linked to four articles (one in Wikipedia): here, here, here, and here. All of them reference Califano’s criticism, which my cites specifically refute, and all of them mention some supposed portrayal of reluctance by LBJ to support Civil Rights, which my cites specifically refute. Maybe my cites are incorrect and the criticism is correct, and maybe it’s the opposite – but your acceptance of the critics without having seen the film, and with the existence of multiple and detailed refutation by historians, journalists, and associates of historical figures of these criticisms, seems indefensible.
I guess that’s the sticking point. If there’s debate going on between legitimate historians and critics and F-P chooses to believe one side of that debate and you choose to believe another side of that debate, well, that’s fine, reasonable people can disagree. But the reaction F-P has been getting in this thread is way out of proportion for just a disagreement like that.
Or to look at it a different way, how is what F-P is doing (seeing a debate about the historical veracity of a based-on-true-events film, which is of course a reasonable thing to debate because such films often take great liberties with the facts, and choosing to believe one of the sides of that debate) any different than what you are doing, which is the same thing? Or do you think the debate is so patently obviously a slam dunk that only willful ignorance could lead to someone believing the side you don’t agree with?
Disagreeing with F-P is one thing. Scorning him for having the temerity to hold his position is something else entirely.
And of course the accusations of partisanship could equally apply to either side… (although ironically in this case it is F-P, on the conservative side of the modern spectrum, who is defending a Democratic president).
F-P chose a side in the debate without seeing the film. I don’t know whether he knows the history or not, but I doubt it. I have seen the film. I also know the history, or at least have read a few well-respect books about the period, which is of personal interest as a civil rights lawyer.
So you cannot accuse us of having done the same thing. He did some post hoc research to try to support his pre-existing opinion. I saw the film, read some of the online criticisms, and find them to be largely misplaced.
Beyond that, as I said before, Selma is just a very odd choice to illustrate the intentional manipulation of history to make a political point, because it is more accurate than the typical major film. The choice only makes sense if you have some particular grudge against Selma.
What’s indefensible is your claim about “the existence of multiple and detailed refutation by historians, journalists, and associates of historical figures of these criticisms”.
Neither of the two cites about the historical figures (Lewis and B. King) even mention LBJ. The one historian (Jones) seemed to agree about the criticisms re LBJ but merely said ““As presidents go, he was heroic when it came to his support for civil rights, and I can see how people close to him felt people need to know that about him,” Jones said. “But I think that’s minor compared to what (the film) gets right.””
The other cites are from journalists, not historians or associates. So your attempt to claim that you’ve introduced any historians or associates of these historical figures who refuted these criticisms is incorrect.
(FWIW, the Grantland article seems mostly focused on artistic license and the larger truth about the big picture. The New Yorker article did quibble with some - though not all - of the details, but again, it’s a journalist criticizing a historian, and FWIW ISTM that she misrepresented some of the criticism in order to refute it.)
I’ve already explained what I objected to, your attempt to misrepresent it notwithstanding. Basically you got busted, now stop whining.
Actually, this quote kind of sums up the argument of the article that the OP linked to.
In essence, they’re saying that when it comes to history, current events and political stuff, you can’t really play fast and loose with fact in the name of art or comedy. Not because art and comedy aren’t worthy subjects, but because when things like that get distorted or fictionalized, people tend to believe them as fact, when in reality it wasn’t that way at all. And as a filmmaker or reporter about real events, no matter how comedic or artistic, you ARE the custodian of someone’s legacy, or at least ethically obligated not to distort things any more than absolutely necessary.
I mean, how many people are going to watch “Braveheart” and think that lowland Scots of the late 13th/early 14th century wore kilts and painted their faces in battle? They wore chain mail and surcoats and fought much like the English knights did. But that’s not nearly so visually cool as war-painted, kilted Scots charging across a field.
That’s a relatively minor example, and I tend to think that while the Jon Stewart criticism does spring from the same train of thought, it’s much less serious than effectively rewriting history in the name of art, although the idea of journalistic standards for comedy shows and talk shows (I’m not letting the right wing off the hook here) bears consideration. Rush Limbaugh is every bit as guilty, and while not a self-described comedian, he does seem to have a certain tongue-in-cheek delivery that a lot of people seem to miss along with a lot of the hyperbole.
Ultimately, the responsibility would fall on the information consumer to ferret out the reputable and responsible news sources, but people are on the whole, dumb as shit, so maybe there should be some kind of basic standards in place.
There are other historians and associates that disagree with the claims of historical inaccuracy. I don’t think you’re actually interested, considering the way you dismiss the actual historical documents and records that (unless they’re made up) utterly obliterate Califano’s criticism and at least some of the other claims that Selma falsely portrays LBJ, so I won’t bother linking them.
It’s amusing that you’re quibbling that the Grantland writer misrepresented the criticism, since much of the refutations of the criticism are that the critics misrepresented the film – and LBJ was actually portrayed in the film as a brave defender of Civil Rights who also had some political considerations that sometimes conflicted with King’s immediate goals. And you haven’t seen it, so, no, your FWIW is not worth anything. I haven’t seen it either, but I’m not making any claims one way or the other about the film.
It’s probably a good thing you’re not going to link them, because if it’s anything like what you’ve linked so far it would just be links to a bunch of stuff that don’t actually say what you claim they say. This kind of thing gets tiresome.
If you would read a bit closer, you would see that the one who seems to be misrepresenting the criticism was the New Yorker writer, not the Grantland one. But that’s a small matter.
More important is that it’s not really relevant whether or not people are claiming that critics misrepresented the film. It’s not like that claim automatically gives license to counter-critics to rebut these critics by misrepresenting what their criticism is. And since I was not commenting on whether the first set of critics misrepresented the film, whether I’ve seen the film is not relevant. All you need to see is the criticism itself and the rebuttal to it.
For example the New Yorker writer says:
You don’t need to have seen the film to find out whether the critics the writer was attacking said what she claimed they said, because there are two links included in the first sentence. The first is to a Politico article, which does not object to a claim that LBJ wanted the VRA to wait in line, but merely objected to the portrayal of LBJ’s motive. The claim is that it was not because it was “getting in the way of dozens of other Great Society legislative priorities”, but because “he knew that adding voting rights to the Civil Rights Act would make it top heavy, jeopardizing its passage”. Leaving aside whether that objection was correct (and Politico quotes Andrew Young - who was there - backing their version) or what the film said, the point I was making is that the New Yorker “refutation” was based on a misrepresentation of the Politico claim. Similar for the second cite, from the NY Daily News, which does not even mention Johnson wanting for the VRA to wait in line or anything like that.
In sum, the New Yorker article uses misrepresentations of the critics’ arguments in order to refute them, as I said, which is not a big argument to give it much weight.
But that was a parenthetical aside. Bottom line is that the only “refutations”, such as they were, that you quoted were from journalists, and you had nothing whatsoever from historians or associates as you incorrectly claimed.
And no mention of Califano’s refuted claims in my links (which you continue to mischaracterize). If the main criticism from LBJ associates is that “LBJ was motivated by political concern A and not concern B”, then that’s not much of a criticism. I’ll leave you alone to make conclusions about a film you’ve never seen.
I actually think it is a serious criticism, because it speaks to how much he valued the issue. And I don’t know where you got the idea that this was the “main criticism” (Actually I do know - you just made it up.)
But beyond that, that’s not the point. Even if it’s not much a criticism, that doesn’t mean that another writer is justified in misrepresenting it in order to refute it. And if that other writer does so, then that writer’s arguments are suspect. Which is an additional reason to give your New Yorker cite less weight.