How stupid does a website have to be to carry the comments of Steve Simels who seems to most days of the year attribute opinions to me which I've never expressed or ever had? I don't even know who William Goldman was and have no opinion about his work. The only movie of his that I recall seeing was All the Presidents Men and all I can say is that I'll take history over the movie. Looking him up to see who I'm accused of hating, I read he said this most un-Simels of things, "Many movies that get made are not long on art and are long on commerce," which if I'd said Simps would have a hissy fit.
I do know enough of who Steve Simels is to know he's an idiot who doesn't understand the distinction between real and artificial, logical and fanciful and truth and lies. Like most people who can't make that last distinction, he invariably falls on the side of lying, proving, again, that lies are easier to tell than the truth because they don't have to conform to reality. In a contest of easy or hard, the Eschaton preference is generally for EZ. The kind who watch the movie instead of reading the history or value accuracy.
I didn't see Butch Cassidy because I don't like horse operas and I didn't see Charley because I read Flowers for Algenon and didn't like it. I was vaguely aware of something called The Princess Bride but it sounded kind of 7-year-old girl to me so I never looked into it. Looking him up just now to find out who Simps is accusing me of hating, I read he said of his own work,
"I [don’t] like my writing. I wrote a movie called Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and I wrote a novel called The Princess Bride and those are the only two things I’ve ever written, not that I’m proud of, but that I can look at without humiliation."
Looks like Simps is going to have to slam the guy for hating his own stuff. All I can say is he should know, I don't since I never read and saw almost none of it.
Update: The reason Simps doesn't understand what I said about the movie All The Presidents Men, that I preferred history to the movie is that Simps has never read any history, though he skimmed Berlin Diary once.
"The only movie of his that I recall seeing was All the Presidents Men and all I can say is that I'll take history over the movie."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point, if you're an ignorant psycho.
Seriously, shithead, the movie version of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN is a brilliantly transliteration of a book into a film. So if you don't like it, you're saying that Woodward and Bernstein's account of history is fraudlent.
In which case, go fuck yourself.
A. I said "I'll take the HISTORY over the movie." All The President's Men, the book, is not "the history" of the Watergate affair or anything like a full and complete history of it. And by Woodward and Bernstein's own admission, they structured their book with an eye to it being made into a movie at the suggestion of Robert Redford, it hardly history when two reporters insert themselves as the primary focus of the incidents being written about. Everything in the book could be relatively accurate and it still wouldn't be history.
DeleteB. You really are amazingly stupid, too stupid to understand that I've kicked your ass every single time you do this. That you hang out with people as stupid as you isn't shocking, that tends to happen with the stupid, smart people get tired of you. That's the history of Eschaton.
So ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN -- book and movie -- are historically inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteYou tell 'em, Sparky.
Something can be historically accurate AND STILL NOT BE HISTORY. Geesh, Simps, it's not at all a complicated point to get. Historians don't put themselves in the central rolls when they are writing history, they don't put things in a narrative form that is structured for a movie instead of history. I'm not even sure you could say that the book was reportorial, which one would imagine would have been the first structure two reporters would have given it. I don't remember if it was one or both of them who noted the difference between their original intent and what they ended up doing at Robert Redford's suggestion. Historians don't generally form their work with an eye for it to be made into a movie, they form it to be maximally informative in support of the theme or theory of events that they conclude will lead to the truth. And when I said "I'll take the history" I didn't mean any one work about the Watergate affair, I meant the body of accurate, honest historical writing about it. The book didn't even cover the whole period, which is why Woodward and Bernstein wrote The Final Days, covering the last months before Nixon's resignation. And that's the book, not the movie which Redford said that William Goldman wrote only 10% of, though some dispute what he said about that, so we don't even know whose point of view it was written from and what for. Something I didn't know until I looked up more than one source to find out who you lied about me hating this time.
DeleteI know, due to your repeated citation of Shirer's Berlin Diary in your ill-informed claims about the Holocaust (something that that book doesn't even cover) I know a. you didn't read the book, b. that you don't understand that a contemporaneous diary centered around what the author saw or heard is not history, Shirer hadn't even read much in the way of primary documentation of the period when he wrote his "Diary", c. that you're an ill-educated idiot. This is pretty much the same thing.
You are a movie daddled idiot, an all too typical example of one in the modern world. At one point I'd have said of an American, but it's clear that the movies and TV had made the world a far stupider place than it used to be.
Why don't you haul your well kicked ass out of here till at least the end of the year. You can go to Duncans and preen in your superior knowledge of inferior music and movies and TV.
Here's a clue, old horse - if you have to tell somebody you kicked their ass, you didn't.
ReplyDeleteBefore I encountered you I'd have thought so. You are so stupid and dishonest you apparently don't realize it.
DeleteSays the crackpot who thinks that everything he personally dislikes is responsible for Trump.
DeleteSays the man who never thought up a lie so preposterous that he wouldn't tell it, as irresponsible as Trump.
Delete