Well, that one works in reverse, too.
And by pointing out the inaccuracy, Connecticut increases the number of people who know the accurate information and decreases the number of who have inaccurate information. Are we really defending the spreading of ignorance… on this board?
The “15 seconds” thing is especially snotty. 15 seconds in a movie can convey a lot.
If Kushner had included a scene of Mary Todd walking on on Abe being pounded in the ass by Andrew Johnson, would he be immune from criticism because it only showed three or four seconds of vigorous buggery?
…in Connecticut!
You guys are right. It works.
What are you responding to? I said it wasn’t a “lie”. I don’t have any problem with CT pointing out that they didn’t actually vote against the amendment.
Since there is no conceivable artistic motive for changing Connecticut’s vote, I chalk it up to either laziness or inattentiveness. Were all the other votes recorded in the movie historically correct?
Anyway the proper response from Kushner would have been “Oops, my bad. Sorry I missed that one. Here’s a free DVD of the movie to make it up to you.”
…in Connecticut!
…in Connecticut!
…in Connecticut!
It really does work!
Hasn’t the movie been out in wide release for three months or so? And Courtney is only now calling attention to how his state has been maligned? I sense attention whoring on the good congressperson’s part, particularly with the Academy Awards less than two weeks away.
That said, Kushner was kind of a jerk. Ina historical drama like this, it’s easy to get things right that are in the historical record, like who voted for what. The things you create are things like dialogue, or rearranging the sequence of events to increase the dramatic tension. I agree it was silly to change how a state delegation voted on the amendment, especially in a film that is being touted for all the attention to historical accuracy and realism. I saw the 60 Minutes piece, too - why was it important to have first editions of books Lincoln probably owned, or the recording of his actual watch ticking, if you were going to change how an entire state delegation voted on the issue at the crux of the film? Particularly as the change didn’t add to the tension or uncertainty that existed in reality at the time.
So, Kushner did a dumb thing in changing that fact (perhaps he does have a grudge against Connecticut). He compounded the dumbness with his somewhat tactless response. The Congressman is making some crass political hay by bringing this up months after the film’s release, in close proximity to the Oscars. I say fie on both their houses. It’s too late for Kushner’s rewrite to result in a recount on the Thirteenth Amendment, so let’s enjoy the film as a very good work of historical drama, while giving the fine folks of 1865 Connecticut their justly deserved due.
… In Connecticut!
Wow, you’re right.
…In Connecticut!
I think there’s a difference between movies like Inglorious Basterds, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and even National Treasure and movies like Lincoln or JFK. The former movies are historical fantasies. They’re set in the past, or, in the case of National Treasure, contain a fantasy account of our founding fathers, but these stories aren’t meant to be based on any fact or honest interpretation of the past. Hell, Inglorious Basterds has the war in Europe end early when a ragtag group of American Jews manages to fuck up the assassination plot of a European Jew to kill Hitler.
I don’t expect movies based on historical events to be 100% accurate. Errors do occur after all. But what would anyone say to a movie purportedly based on historical facts that had the Governor of Alabama calling Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and encouraging his boycott? Artistic license?
Oh please. New Jersey is used to being a punchline. At worst Connecticutt is ignored.
Maybe, just maybe, he didn’t see the movie until just a short time ago, and didn’t learn about the “error” until then. Sending his letter nearly three weeks before the Academy Awards doesn’t strike me as “close proximity to the Oscars”, nor would any reasonable person expect that there’d be a bounty of publicity inherent in the timing.
If one wants to make a “crass hay” accusation against the ASPCA for being involved with a news story about sleazy AKC-approved dog breeders coming out the day before the Westminster Kennel Club show opens, that’s a bit more defensible.
Well, according to Kushner, at least, Courtney’s press release was titled “Before the Oscars …” so it appears the Congressman was trying to make that link. Of course, maybe Kushner changed that, too. 
I would be surprised if many Washington political types put off seeing Lincoln until recently, but I admit it’s possible, and I’m reading a bit too much into the timing. Frankly, I’m more surprised that a factual error like this hasn’t gotten any publicity already. I’m kind of a movie buff, and I never heard of Connecticut’s vote being changed in the movie until this thread. With all the historical praise being given to Lincoln, one would think a blatant change to the facts like this would have gotten some attention already.
You. The entire point of this thread is to say that the director is an asshole for getting mad at Connecticut for pointing out the flaw. You pulled out one of the pillars of that argument. You actually agreed with the main argument made by the asshole director. You thus by implication agreed with the rest of his argument.
Art is not a license to spread misinformation. It doesn’t matter whether it was a lie. This film perpetuated false information that did not have any other purpose that might justify it. Maybe it’s not a lie, just a mistake, either in not knowing it or thinking that there was a purpose in doing so. But, either way, it’s a dumb thing to get upset about.
If you can’t take factual criticism, then don’t make a biopic.
I know I’m attacking a somewhat sacred cow here, but in fairness, Jon Stewart does the exact same thing. Both sides are equally guilty of this.
- Agent Foxtrot, far left-of-center liberal
See? It works perfectly.
Well, if it’s on LewRockwell.com you know it’s true!
:rolleyes:
No, wait… it’s the opposite of that.
ETA: Aren’y you the same guy who’s aways defending Ron Paul, saying he isn’t racist? And you quote from Lew Rockwell.com? LOL
Here’s a relevant question: it seems clear to me that one main reason for the initial objection is that the Congressman feels that his home state is being “slandered,” in a sense, by this inaccuracy. The writer obviously disagrees that it’s a big deal. What’re everyone’s thoughts on this?