The Hearst Portrayal in Deadwood
-
awrobel — 10 years ago(December 10, 2015 07:53 PM)
I'm glad I found someone who has the moral fiber to support my views. One of my problems with historical novels or films is that they conflate fact and fiction and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. Being a history nerd I like to know as much as is possible of the true facts. It would be one thing to misguide the audience of events, dates and other pertinent facts in the storyline, I'm well aware that what I'm watching is seeking first and foremost to entertain. That being said however, when one takes a historical character and depicts him/her as a mass murderer, with no evidence to suggest it's true, that I think is a bridge to far. Call me crazy, but this should really be treated as a posthumous case of libel since the dead can no longer defend themselves! If someone out there can give me evidence to the contrary I would be most interested.
-
TaraDeS — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 10:28 AM)
awrobel (Thu Dec 10 2015 19:53:11)
Post Edited: Thu Dec 10 2015 20:00:02
I'm glad I found someone who has the moral fiber to support my views. One of my problems with historical novels or films is that they conflate fact and fiction and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. Being a history nerd I like to know as much as is possible of the true facts. It would be one thing to misguide the audience of events, dates and other pertinent facts in the storyline, I'm well aware that what I'm watching is seeking first and foremost to entertain. That being said however, when one takes a historical character and depicts him/her as a mass murderer, with no evidence to suggest it's true, that I think is a bridge to far. Call me crazy, but this should really be treated as a posthumous case of libel since the dead can no longer defend themselves! If someone out there can give me evidence to the contrary I would be most interested.
CalamityDan (Thu Dec 10 2015 20:13:39)
Are you serious? Wow.
Here's a
news flash
: Fictional Drama. Does that mean anything to you?
Both of us knew and know, that Deadwood isn't a Documentary.
For this we didn't need a
news flash
from CalamityDan.
(nomen est omen)
How George Hearst appears here as the devil incarnate is simply wrong.
As said, if I would be a member of the Hearst family (what I'm not) would have sued the producers of this show.
It's not only a "posthumous case of libel".
It disparages the reputation of a family and American history as a whole.
Perhaps the Hearst family was simply aversed to re-appear in the spotlight, after all these dubious happenings around Patty Hearst?
P.S.
Deleted my reply to CalamityDan.
Aversed to more calamities either. -
awrobel — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 03:43 PM)
Well, when you think about that it kind of makes me sick frankly! Taking a person's reputation and disparaging it is one thing when one is around to defend it, but quite another when one is dead and gone. The way I see it, if an individual has led a virtuous and honest life and then have it debunked for no apparent reason is the ultimate betrayal, not mention injustice!. Especially, when that individual is labeled a murderer ! Remember also that ones memory also reflects on the family and friends he leaves behind. Clearly the great villains of history have created great collateral damage to those closest to them which is particularly unfortunate for the innocent victims. But to be told, for example, that your father or grandfather was a heinous individual, which is fact is quite removed from the truth, I personally find to be unsettling. Now as for the argument in respect to it being fictional drama, that clearly has it's limitation when that fiction dismembers a person's entire reputation with no evidence to support it. Hey, we're not talking about an character who is an amalgam of different peoples who once lived, we talking about targeting a historical figure with specificity! Besides isn't there an old adage which states "Never speak ill of the departed" ! That seems to hold doubly so for those wrongful accused.
-
TaraDeS — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 04:09 PM)
hammerbutt (Fri Dec 11 2015 11:50:28)
There is no such thing as posthumous libel in the US.
Once you are dead anyone can crap all over your name.
That's bad and perhaps time for a change.
The deceased may not care anymore, but his living descendants do.
And historical forgeries aren't funny either.
George Hearst was a father/5x grand-father and a person of historical weight.
Here an interesting discourse:
Dignitarian Posthumous Personality Rights
An Analysis of U.S. and German Constitutional and Tort Law
Published by Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository, 2008
.
.
Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being [..]. Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good. It is in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely. To ensure this acceptance with regard to the deceased, the U.S. would have to incorporate a posthumous personality right into its own fabric of constitutional values and tort laws. It would need to find an American analogue to the foreign version presented here. Helpful for integrating the posthumous personality right into U.S. law could be an equal chances dimension:
A structure and climate that encourages free expression within a frame of equal chances in the communication process installs the state in a protective role for disadvantaged minorities and the speechless, which encompasses the deceased as they can no longer speak.
Free speech in order to criticize the Government is one thing; free speech disadvantaging the speechless is another matter.
..
..
In addition, the public does not always realize the falseness of facts and it does not counterbalance them sufficiently when the targeted person is speechless. Thus, the constitutionalization of U.S. defamation law led to an underestimation of the social costs of wrong statements.
.
.
This is above all true for creative works which depend on the use of real-life inspirations. But in cases of severe infringements of personality rights, freedom of speech has to step back.
.
.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&context=bjil
Hmmm, maybe Germany should sue the producers of Deadwood.
Ok, too late and probably wouldn't impress the US much.
Or even worse, could cause a roaring laughter.
Here a further read:
Libel Tourism:
Protecting Authors and Preserving Comity
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Taylor.pdf"%3B>%3B
Enough with reading for me today.
Will rather watch the next episode of
American Horror Story (2011)
.
Should be
sufficiently
fictional and nobody will sue Lady Gaga.
Then againno, now reallyover and out. -
awrobel — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 07:25 PM)
I applaud you on your tenacity in defense of individual integrity. Despite the criticism it appears evident to both of us that an injustice had occurred. To many it might be menial, but again though views may differ, we seem to agree that sometimes facts should trump a good story. To be clear, I enjoyed the series and its characters and found it to be most entertaining. However, I was distressed to find the misguided portrait of Hearst hard to understand when they so easily could have created a fictional character instead. The series has long since ended but had I viewed it during its initial run I'm sure I would have had the same questions. Now as to the motives of the writers, I can only assume that since William Randolph Hearst's ( the son) reputation was far from stellar and had been diminished further by Hollywood, the writers must have felt that the audience would have no problem in accepting their vision of his father. The research you presented is clear validation of what we both felt viscerally. After all is said and done the core of my argument is that a man's reputation and his integrity should be sacrosanct and certainly not be trifled with upon his demise as a mere triviality.
-
jbhartley14 — 10 years ago(January 03, 2016 03:00 PM)
Oh dearNow I feel an almost overwhelming urge to compensate the poor Hearst family for the unfair portrayal of the elder George in this FICTIONALIZED program. Anyone else want to kick in a few bucks to help smooth things over?
-
TaraDeS — 10 years ago(January 04, 2016 11:24 PM)
jbhartley14 (Sun Jan 3 2016 15:00:47)
Oh dearNow I feel an almost overwhelming urge to compensate the poor Hearst family for the unfair portrayal of the elder George in this FICTIONALIZED program. Anyone else want to kick in a few bucks to help smooth things over?
asktheages (Mon Jan 4 2016 02:32:38)
LOL. Yes, please help this poor family in their time of need.
jbhartley14 (Mon Jan 4 2016 18:52:38)
Amen. Some people go off on the strangest tangents..And thank God for them! Gives the rest of us a break from all thisreality.
Yes, it's always good to see
one
person laugh and pray.
Leastwise makes him forget briefly his low family and life.
Who laughs last didn't understand the joke. -
jbhartley14 — 10 years ago(January 10, 2016 07:34 AM)
That's interesting..I was merely trying to add some humor to what was a rather dry and clinical discussion. Your response was to label me and my family as "lowlifes". Since the entire thrust of your discourse was rant about unsubstantiated libel, haven't you just single-handedly negated your own argument? Oopsie! Ahh well.. Now you've opened a whole new can of worms.
-
TaraDeS — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 01:48 PM)
jbhartley14 (Sun Jan 10 2016 07:34:00)
That's interesting..I was merely trying to add some humor to what was a rather dry and clinical discussion. Your response was to label me and my family as "lowlifes". Since the entire thrust of your discourse was rant about unsubstantiated libel, haven't you just single-handedly negated your own argument? Oopsie! Ahh well.. Now you've opened a whole new can of worms.
You only confirmed what I've said.
Time Is on My Side(Jerry Ragovoy)32C3 -
TaraDeS — 10 years ago(February 09, 2016 07:36 PM)
jbhartley14 Tue Jan 12 2016 18:52:31
IMDb member since April 2014
Yes..Exactly. Perhaps you should have a look at my more recent post "History Is A Lie Mutually Agreed Upon" There may bean idea or two in there you hadn't considered.
Your recent OP here sounds as if you watched too much
Winnetou - 1. Teil (1963)
.
For 11 days no post on this Board.
We'll see how it becomes busy now.
Ti
me Is on My Side(Jerry Ragovoy)32C3 -
firstwinsgop-1 — 10 years ago(January 13, 2016 06:23 PM)
Very few Americans knew of George Hearst prior to Deadwood. All they knew about was his son who basically just started a Newspaper from all the hard work and wealth his father had built. Deadwood made George Hearst famous again, and because of the show many people looked him up and discovered his
true
biography. So I don't think he would mind.