Text 8034, 185 rader
Skriven 2006-09-10 23:14:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8531.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <YZ6dnTGWwO0x2p7YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C128B859001614ABF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:00:49 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <IeKdnRBS4voJpJ7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Night Marshal" <mattyankees_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157821796.852583.127440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Carl wrote:
>>>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:03:24 -0400, Greg Bryant wrote
>>>>> (in article <C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nydailynews.com/09-08-2006/news/story/450443p-379111c.html
>>>>>> <<
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's some information that definitely adds to this conversation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-
>>>>> right_b_29015.html
>>>>>
>>>>> What many people are apparently unaware of is that the writer, and the
>>>>> director of this project are both closely affiliated with Youth with a
>>>>> Mission, an ultra-right-wing evangelical Christian group whose mission
>>>>> it
>>>>> is
>>>>> to reform Godless Hollywood from the inside out.  This certainly puts 
>>>>> a
>>>>> different spin on the idea that this was just some regular old
>>>>> Hollywood
>>>>> producers making a miniseries about 9/11 and -- ooopsy! -- they got
>>>>> some
>>>>> of
>>>>> the finer points wrong, all by absolutely innocent mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. It's biased.  So?
>>>
>>> So much for free speach, I guess the demacrats only believe in it when
>>> it not attacking them. Rightfully or not. and it good to know that
>>> Senate Minority Leader is spending his time threating TV channels.
>>> http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
>>> Funny how a little pressure beings out there true colours.
>>>
>>
>> When the CBS show on Reagan came out, the right did the same thing.
>>
>> Everything is biased. Anyone that thought shows like the West Wing or
>> whatever the Geena Davis as president show was called was a fair 
>> portrayal
>> is wearing some very tinted glasses. <<
>
> But West Wing and Commander-in-Chief were _fictional_ series, through and
> through.  They weren't portraying actual, living people who served in
> government and actual events and screwing up the facts with their 
> Hollywood
> liberal bias.  HUGE difference.

Nor has GWB been killed by a terrorist.

We'll see if the Dems argue as loudly when the GWB movie is made or if they 
minimize
the  inevitable departure from fact.

>>> A person can either try to suppress the other side (and by doing so 
>>> giving
>> up all right to complain when they do the same) or they can let the other
>> side go and then correct whatever mistakes and misstatements that were 
>> made.
>> Scream them at the top of your lungs until you're hoarse... then 
>> broadcast
>> them all over the 'net.  If the mistakes are intentional and aggregious,
>> then anyone that cares about such things will factor that into anythng 
>> from
>> that source in the future.   I doubt that many people care anyway 
>> though.<<
>
> All of this 'pc' evenhandedness is getting in the way of objective truth.
> There _is_ an objective truth, and it's one thing to present a biased 
> picture
> of what someone in Hollywood would like American government to be like -- 
> "West Wing" -- and say, "Okay, that's biased -- I'm not going to watch 
> it."
> But you cannot let people present lies and distortion about _actual 
> events_
> as _history_.

My understanding is that Nixon did that too.  I had a list of inaccuracies 
and lies about Nixon that was compiled about that movie, but it's long gone 
because I wasn't interested.   Even people I know on the left have said that 
Oliver Stone went way overboard on that one.

Consider:

Crowdus, Gary.
"History, Dramatic License, and Larger Historical Truths: An Interview with 
Oliver Stone." Cineaste, vol. 22 no. 4. 1997. pp: 38-42.

"Film director Oliver Stone's provocative historical films 'JFK' and 'Nixon' 
have elicited adverse criticism, such as his proficient fusion of newsreel 
footage with fictional scenes in the film JFK. The director considers 
dramatic license a reconstruction of what one believes has occurred, using 
actors, costumes, make up, the condensation of events and the invention of 
dialogue which occurred behind closed doors." [Expanded Academic Index]

or

Sturken, Marita.
"Reenactment, Fantasy, and the Paranoia of History: Oliver Stone's 
Docudramas." History and Theory v36, n4 (Dec, 1997):64 (16 pages).
"Author Abstract: In the late 1980s and 1990s, American popular culture has 
been increasingly rife with conspiracy narratives of recent historical 
events. Among cultural producers, filmmaker Oliver Stone hashad a 
significant impact on popular understanding of American culture in the late 
twentieht century through a series of docudramas which reread American 
history through the lens of conspiracy theory and paranoia. This paper 
examines the films of Oliver Stone - in particular Platoon, Born on the 
Fourth of July, JFK, and Nixon - asking why they have achieved popularity 
and brought about catharsis, why they are the subject of attack, and why it 
is useful to look beyond the debate about truth and falsehood that has 
surrounded them. It analyzes the ways in which Stone's status as a Vietnam 
veteran allowed Platoon to be accorded the authenticity of survivor 
discourse, whereas JFK and Nixon were subject to almost hysterical attack, 
not only because of Stone's assertions of conspiracy, but also because of 
his cinematic style of tampering with famous images. Taking these films as 
its points of departure, this paper examines the role of images in the 
construction of history, the form of the docudrama, the reenactment of 
historical images, fantasies of history, and ways in which paranoia is part 
of the practice of citizenship." COPYRIGHT 1997 Wesleyan University.

Ambrose, Stephen E.
"The Nixon inside Stone's head; the 'beast' is the director's own warped 
view of history." (Oliver Stone's film biography of Richard M. 
Nixon)(Column) Washington Post v119 (Sun, Jan 7, 1996):C3, col 1, 35 col in.


Ambrose, Stephen E.
"Nixon: Is It History?" In: Oliver Stone's USA: film, history, and 
controversy Edited by Robert Brent Toplin. pp: 202-16. Lawrence: University 
Press of Kansas, c2000.
Barnes, Fred.
"Not the One: 'Nixon's' Inaccuracies." (Oliver Stone biographical film of 
1995) New Republic v214, n4 (Jan 22, 1996):10 (2 pages).

"Too much of Stone's film crosses the bounds of docudrama and invents whole 
episodes, especially the 1968 television appearance where Nixon uses a 
slogan from a youngster's sign in the crowd, 'bring us together.' Several 
other facts about the 1968 campaign are also garbled." [Expanded Academic 
Index]

*****************
*** Finally !!       ***
*****************
Consider the following from 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3241539.stm :


Reagan TV drama axed after furore


A controversial TV drama about the life of former US President Ronald Reagan
has been pulled by TV network CBS.
The network has admitted the biopic did not present "a balanced portrayal" 
of Mr Reagan and wife Nancy after coming under huge pressure from 
Republicans.

Again, I thought that should have aired too.

Carl
                                                          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)