MovieChat Forums > The Weight of Water (2002) Discussion > Smear of a good woman...

Smear of a good woman...

posted 14 years ago by Bladerunner
34 replies | jump to latest

By all accounts, Maren Hontvet was a good woman, while Louis Wagner was scum. There has never been any evidence that Maren was guilty, and CERTAINLY nothing about some incestuous affair between her and her brother, Ivan Christensen. There has been much speculation about who really committed the crime, but if you read the evidence, it is incredibly damning and basically an airtight case against Louis Wagner. It's one thing to speculate, it is quite another to pretend there was some real document of Maren's confession to the crime.

There is a good summing of the case and evidence here:

http://www.seacoastnh.com/smuttynose/history.html

Anita Shreve's book (upon which this movie is based) is classified as fiction, and she never has contended otherwise. However, when real life events like these are used as the plot of a book or movie, and then horrific accusations, based upon complete fiction are made toward real people, I think a line is crossed. Frankly, it smacks of libel. If I were a living relative of the Hontvet's, I would be mortified and offended, and would feel myself justified in bringing a libel case. At the very least it is reckless and cruel to attribute such repugnant motives and actions to a real victim of a heinous crime.

The worst offense though is committed by the makers of this film. At the end they suggest that this is all true, when it isn't true at all. There was never any accusations of Maren as the killer. There was never any evidence of an incestuous affair between Maren and her brother Ivan. And there certainly was never any confession by Maren concerning said.

We've seen films play fast and loose with the truth, with filmmakers pretending their films are based upon the truth, when they are anything but. For example, Fargo has a disclaimer that the entire movie is based upon true life events, but that has been exposed as a lie. Fargo is complete fiction. I found it sad that the Coen brothers would use that ruse to heighten the tension and impact of the drama, but no real person are implicated in that film. In this film though, the historical portion is based upon true life events, but perverted into some incestuous crime of jealousy and fear of exposure. It crosses the line. No one would be arguing that this is wrong if it were about recent events. If someone remade a movie about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and showed it to be her father murdering her because she was going to expose his rape of her, would anyone be okay with that? No, they wouldn't. So, why is it okay to do it to someone who lived 140 years ago? I don't think it is. Not now, not ever.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] samrose66 14 years ago

I agree. I know that we are supposed to suspend disbelief, but it is a quite a bit much. It makes me feel sorry for their relatives and their spirits - may they rest in peace.

~~~Sharon~~~~

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

If I were a living relative of the Hontvet's, I would be mortified and offended, and would feel myself justified in bringing a libel case.

And I would consider you a moron and an ass in that case. It's fiction. Fiction can be based on actual people and events--and it usually is, even when that's not obvious to anyone except perhaps the writer.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Because you are a teen-ager, and are still wet behind the ears, I'll explain it simply for you. This story of the Hontvet's isn't fiction. See, fiction is something made up, and fact is something that is real. See how that works?

It is one thing to use a factual event to base a fictional story on, when the names are changed. It's quite another to take a factual story, with the real names of the people and then ascribe something heinous and repugnant to those people.

Stick to movies like "The Crazies" that you understand, and leave the more difficult material to adults.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

I'm a teenager?? I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Put it this way--I've seen Jimi Hendrix in concert.

The Weight of Water, both the book and film, are fiction. They're not non-fiction just because they use a characters and a story that is easily identifiable from the actual world. Lots of fictions do that. There is a whole subgenre of fiction called "historical fiction" that does that, even, although something doesn't have to be typically classified as "historical fiction" to do this.

Historical fiction is still fiction by the way. It's different than non-fiction, different than a documentary, different than a "reenactment".

In fact, almost ALL fiction uses many real world people and events for its basis. It's just that in many cases, only the author knows what they had in mind there (well, and often some people who know the author extremely well and who would be familiar with the same people and events). The real world bases are not easily identifiable. Names are changed, details of events are changed, etc.

But you can certainly do the same kinds of things with easily identifiable real world bases, too. Certainly real world locations and major historical events are used all the time. And details are often changed for those things too. That's because as a fiction author, you can fictionalize ANYTHING you want to fictionalize. Including things like the facts of physics even. But you typically do not fictionalize everything. Almost all fiction is a mixture.

So if you watched this film, or Elizabeth, or Schindler's List, or The Doors, or Lisztomania, or I.Q., or anything like that, and expected it to be a documentary or reenactment rather than fiction, then you have serious conceptual problems, particular if you're older, as you apparently are. You must have very little understanding of the scope of fictions.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

You're a teenager.

Yes, there is a genre of fiction called "historical fiction", but it usually utilizes fictional personages in real historical circumstances. However, when it does use real people it doesn't attribute axe murders to innocent women. It would be one thing to speculate if Jackie O met Elvis and had an adventure, it's quite another to accuse her of shooting her own husband in Dealey Plaza.

Historical fiction is not used to sully the character of reputation of a real person. Whimsical or humorous speculation is one thing, as in the movie Forrest Gump, attributing murder to an innocent victim is quite another. At the end of the movie, there is text that states, "The matter of who killed Anethe and Karen Christenson was settled in a court of law, but has continued to be debated for more than a century." As if there is some serious debate that they were killed by Maren Hontvedt (there is nothing but rank speculation that is easily refuted).

Also, just because someone calls something "fiction" doesn't mean they can't be sued for libel. For example, Vicki Stewart was awarded $100,000 in damages when she sued Haywood Smith for libel for a "fictional" character based upon her, in the fictional novel, The Red Hat Club. This is just one case, many other authors have been sued for libel, and lost. So, just because you are "okay with it" doesn't mean it's right or the person who wrote it can't be sued.

I am a writer and well aware of the "scope of fictions" [sic], however you clearly aren't aware of the reality of libel and the fact that a person cannot simply hide behind the guise of "fiction".

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

You're a teenager.

Any particular reason that you're claiming that? Just curious.

Yes, there is a genre of fiction called "historical fiction", but it usually utilizes fictional personages in real historical circumstances.

No. You're confusing historical and period fiction. Historical fiction is centered on factual, historical persons, but creates fictions about them. Historical fiction can do anything that other fiction can, it can fictionalize anything about the characters. I mentioned a few in the earlier post. Obviously you haven't seen films like Lisztomania.

Historical fiction is not used to sully the character of reputation of a real person.

I agree with that, but because it's not making truth-claims about the characters, it's rather creating a fiction about the characters.

"The matter of who killed Anethe and Karen Christenson was settled in a court of law, but has continued to be debated for more than a century." As if there is some serious debate that they were killed by Maren Hontvedt (there is nothing but rank speculation that is easily refuted).

The film is fiction. The statement "The matter of who killed . . . " could be entirely fictional. However, if it's taken as non-fictional, then the only requirement for it to be accurate as a truth claim is that some people have debated it. It doesn't say or imply anything about "serious debate" . . . as if that's well-defined anyway. It isn't.

Also, just because someone calls something "fiction" doesn't mean they can't be sued for libel.

There would have to be a law against suing someone in some circumstance in order for suits to not be possible. You can sue others for just about anything imaginable, in just about any circumstance.

So, just because you are "okay with it" doesn't mean it's right or the person who wrote it can't be sued.

Just because you can sue someone and win doesn't mean that it's not right. It also doesn't imply that persons were conceptualizing fictions in a coherent, consistent, sensible way.

I am a writer and well aware of the "scope of fictions"

Among other things, I am also a writer and a philosopher with an a.o.s. in aesthetics who disagrees that you have exhibited awareness of that.

however you clearly aren't aware of the reality of libel and the fact that a person cannot simply hide behind the guise of "fiction".

I made no statement prior to this post about whether suits are possible. Obviously, they are. It just doesn't justify what you were hoping it justified.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Any particular reason that you're claiming that? Just curious.

Because I know.

No. You're confusing historical and period fiction. Historical fiction is centered on factual, historical persons, but creates fictions about them. Historical fiction can do anything that other fiction can, it can fictionalize anything about the characters. I mentioned a few in the earlier post. Obviously you haven't seen films like Lisztomania.

No, I'm not. I know full what what historical fiction is, and I'm not confusing it with anything.

I agree with that, but because it's not making truth-claims about the characters, it's rather creating a fiction about the characters.

As I pointed out, a person cannot simply say whatever they want in fiction. There are rules, as people who have been sued for libel have discovered.

The film is fiction. The statement "The matter of who killed . . . " could be entirely fictional. However, if it's taken as non-fictional, then the only requirement for it to be accurate as a truth claim is that some people have debated it. It doesn't say or imply anything about "serious debate" . . . as if that's well-defined anyway. It isn't.

No, the film is only partly fiction, based upon true events, which the filmmakers used to their advantage and specifically pointed out at the end of the film. Again, learn the laws of libel, then debate.

There would have to be a law against suing someone in some circumstance in order for suits to not be possible. You can sue others for just about anything imaginable, in just about any circumstance.

Someone can sue someone any day of the week.... WINNING however, is another story and requires that the person prove - according to the law - that the law has been broken and libel committed. You know the difference between simply suing, and winning in a court of law. Don't try to confuse the issue, 'cause that isn't working. Sorry.

Just because you can sue someone and win doesn't mean that it's not right. It also doesn't imply that persons were conceptualizing fictions in a coherent, consistent, sensible way.

Sorry, I have no idea what those sentences mean. To win a lawsuit you must be right, that is the definition of winning one - one is proven *right*. We're not talking about whether people are "conceptualizing" anything coherently, consistently or sensibly. We're talking about someone being reckless in implying an innocent woman is an axe murderer. It's pretty much that simple.

Among other things, I am also a writer and a philosopher with an a.o.s. in aesthetics who disagrees that you have exhibited awareness of that.

I had no intention of "exhibiting" any "awareness" of anything to you, and I'm certainly not interested if I have exhibited awareness of it to you. I can assure you that you have not "exhibited" anything to me other than the fact that you're hotheaded and call people names on your very first post to them. Mature and aware... indeed. Perhaps you should concern yourself with exhibiting the aesthetics of decency and politeness in your first post to someone, rather than showing your ass to the forum. Just a thought.

I made no statement prior to this post about whether suits are possible. Obviously, they are. It just doesn't justify what you were hoping it justified.

Again, I could care less if it "justifies" anything to you. This is a strange conceit you have that I had any intention or concern as to what you believe has been justified or not. My original statement was this:

So, why is it okay to do it to someone who lived 140 years ago? I don't think it is. Not now, not ever.

Suing someone for libel and winning proves that it isn't "okay" to smear the person for the purposes of someone's fictional machinations in a given society. Therefore, the point I made about lawsuits vis-à-vis libel is perfectly germane. That you cannot comprehend this is no fault of mine and no aim of mine.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

Because I know.

Right. Well, that certainly helps me respect your intellectual abilities, lol.

No, I'm not. I know full what what historical fiction is, and I'm not confusing it with anything.

"Is to/is not". Brilliant.

As I pointed out, a person cannot simply say whatever they want in fiction.

Yes, they can. That doesn't imply that no one can sue them. People can sue for anything they like as long as there are not laws prohibiting that. Now, some of those suits might get thrown out because they are so ridiculous, but one can sue. There's also no guarantee that anyone will win a suit, regardless of how sensible it might seem to us. But you can write what you want in a fiction, and no matter what you write, you might get sued.

No, the film is only partly fiction, based upon true events,

We're just repeating ourselves. I'm not sure why that's entertaining to you, but okay. Yes. I noted that basically all fictions have elements that are based on the actual world. It might be possible to create one that does not, but it would be a challenge. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done it. That something in a fiction is based on the actual world doesn't make it not fiction insofar as that goes. It's the nature of fictions. I'm not debating anything about libel laws, by the way.

WINNING however, is another story and requires that the person prove - according to the law - that the law has been broken and libel committed . . . To win a lawsuit you must be right, that is the definition of winning one.

No. Winning requires that you persuade either a judge, arbiter or jury to rule or vote in your favor. That's it. That can happen or not with just about any case.

When we're talking about whether "S should have done x", whether "x should be illegal", etc., there is no right or wrong aside from individuals' opinions. There are no facts of that type. The fact that one won a court case simply means that one persuaded a judge, arbiter or jury to rule or vote in their favor. It doesn't amount to anything being right or wrong factually.

We're not talking about whether people are "conceptualizing" anything coherently, consistently or sensibly.

I have been, but maybe you've been having another conversation.

I had no intention of "exhibiting" any "awareness" of anything to you,

Which is wise, because you would have been rarely successful.

I can assure you that you have not "exhibited" anything to me other than the fact that you're hotheaded and call people names on your very first post to them.

I call folks names where I think it's appropriate, and I did and still do think it's appropriate in the case at hand. That's not going to change.

Perhaps you should concern yourself with exhibiting the aesthetics of decency and politeness

Aesthetics of decency and politeness?? At any rate, if I think someone is a moron in something, I'll tell them. That should be clear enough. If you don't care for that, don't engage with me. I only talk to people because I'm enjoying it.

Again, I could care less if it "justifies" anything to you.

Right, kinda moronic to forward an argument about something in that case, though. What would be the point?

Suing someone for libel and winning proves that it isn't "okay" to smear the person for the purposes of someone's fictional machinations in a given society.

Not at all, and thinking it does is pretty stupid.

Okay, next round.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Right. Well, that certainly helps me respect your intellectual abilities, lol.

There's that conceit again - believing I care if you respect anything about me. You're an only child, right?

"Is to/is not". Brilliant.

This coming from the guy that called me a "moron" and an "ass" in his first post. What next, are you going to call me a "poo-poo head"?

Yes, they can. That doesn't imply that no one can sue them. People can sue for anything they like as long as there are not laws prohibiting that. Now, some of those suits might get thrown out because they are so ridiculous, but one can sue. There's also no guarantee that anyone will win a suit, regardless of how sensible it might seem to us. But you can write what you want in a fiction, and no matter what you write, you might get sued.

Sticking by something absurd with more bravado, won't change the fact that you're wrong. A person cannot write anything they want in a fictional book. Sorry, they can't. For example, The Jewel of Medina, a work of historical fiction written by Sherry Jones has been dumped by Random House for fear of the reactions of Muslims. Deb Margolin's play about an imaginary conversation between Bernie Madoff and Elie Wiese, a work of historical fiction, was pulled by the theater because there were threats of libel.

Besides those examples - there are others - many, many times an author has been made to modify his or her manuscript for fear of libel suits. The publisher's lawyers demand that changes be made before the book is published, because there are LAWS governing LIBEL. Why is that so hard for you to understand? An author can't simply write (and publish) anything he or she wants. For example, there are laws concerning copyright infringement. A person cannot write a fictional book about say, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars without permission. There was an author that wrote an encyclopedia about the Harry Potter series and was sued by Rowling and the book was axed. If an author wanted to write a book of historical fiction with explicit sexual scenes involving children, he or she would not be allowed to do that - by LAW. Bottom line, one cannot "...write what you want in a fiction". Sorry, you're wrong. Actually, I'm not sorry, you're just wrong.

We're just repeating ourselves. I'm not sure why that's entertaining to you, but okay. Yes. I noted that basically all fictions have elements that are based on the actual world. It might be possible to create one that does not, but it would be a challenge. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done it. That something in a fiction is based on the actual world doesn't make it not fiction insofar as that goes. It's the nature of fictions.

Hmmmmm, could it be that you are simply stating the same absurdities over and over? There is a difference between "fiction" and "non-fiction". There is a difference between fact and fiction.

I'm not debating anything about libel laws, by the way.

Good, because you're not doing well on that front.

No. Winning requires that you persuade either a judge, arbiter or jury to rule or vote in your favor. That's it. That can happen or not with just about any case.

Haha!!! That's a gross little tidbit of sophistry. Winning in a court of law is the definition of being "right". Now, times may change, judgments overturned, but winning in a court of law means one is "right". There may be other definitions of "right", but that is definitely one of them. I'll put it this way, if you are found guilty in a court of law for murder and sentenced to death, we'll see how "right" you are when they push the needle in your vein.

When we're talking about whether "S should have done x", whether "x should be illegal", etc., there is no right or wrong aside from individuals' opinions. There are no facts of that type. The fact that one won a court case simply means that one persuaded a judge, arbiter or jury to rule or vote in their favor. It doesn't amount to anything being right or wrong factually.

No, that isn't what we're talking about. I started, in my first post, by saying that it wasn't right "okay" for the filmmaker to pervert the events of what happened "into some incestuous crime of jealousy and fear of exposure". It's not "okay" to do that. You think it is, fine. I've shown reasons why it isn't using libel cases, because winning in a court of law is the definition (in a society governed by law) of being found "right". You don't agree with that, fine. It is possible for you to disagree with anything I say, and in fact, it is rather likely. That means, what.... to me?

I have been, but maybe you've been having another conversation.

Clearly, you're quite good at having one with yourself. You certainly aren't effective at having a conversation with me.

Which is wise, because you would have been rarely successful.

There's that conceit again. I have a feeling that when you are in a crowd, few others (besides you) get a chance to talk.

I call folks names where I think it's appropriate, and I did and still do think it's appropriate in the case at hand. That's not going to change.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

Aesthetics of decency and politeness?? At any rate, if I think someone is a moron in something, I'll tell them. That should be clear enough. If you don't care for that, don't engage with me. I only talk to people because I'm enjoying it.

"It is the nature of every person to error, but only the fool perseveres in error."

Right, kinda moronic to forward an argument about something in that case, though. What would be the point?

I'll quote someone I met here on that point: "I only talk to people because I'm enjoying it".

Not at all, and thinking it does is pretty stupid.

Repeating something over and over won't make it right, even if you do use big and powerful words like "stupid".

Okay, next round.

I think you've had enough, time to call a taxi.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

There's that conceit again - believing I care if you respect anything about me. You're an only child, right?

I didn't say anything about your beliefs. I made a sarcastic comment about my reaction to something. It's up to you whether you care about what I think or not. It's a bit bizarre to me that you'd keep reading what I'm writing and responding to me if you don't care about what I think, but whatever floats your boat.

This coming from the guy that called me a "moron" and an "ass" in his first post.

Right, you're free to think that's not brilliant or whatever you think. The idea of these message boards is to express your thoughts, to share them with other folks.

What next, are you going to call me a "poo-poo head"?

I'll just stick with moron, since it's so innocuous to you.

Sticking by something absurd with more bravado, won't change the fact that you're wrong.

It's not wrong, it's a fact that you can write whatever you want in a fiction. It's not a fact that no one could sue you, and again, that's the case regardless of what you write.

The Jewel of Medina, a work of historical fiction written by Sherry Jones has been dumped by Random House for fear of the reactions of Muslims.

"One can write whatever they like in fiction" and "Regardless of what one writes, it will be published by particular publishers" are not the same claim. The first claim I assign "true" to. The second claim, "false". I made the first claim, not the second. So arguing that the second claim is false doesn't help falsify the first claim. I agree that the second claim is false.

The publisher's lawyers demand that changes be made before the book is published,

Publishers and editors will demand all kinds of changes sure. You sometimes are left with an option of either making the changes or not publishing with the party(ies) in question (and there might be other legal upshots of taking the latter route, but it's still something you can choose).

because there are LAWS governing LIBEL.

"If there is a law against x, then one can not do x"<---that is false. That's not to say that one can not be prosecuted for doing x, but one can do x. As we've already agreed, it's possible to be sued for saying things in fictions. No one in this thread ever disagreed with that, did they? No one is disagreeing that there are slander and libel laws, either. Now, we disagree on whether something should be considered slander or libel (and we also disagree on whether there should be slander and libel laws, period, by the way), but that's not what you're arguing about there. You're rather arguing for something we agree on.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because it's wrong. You can write anything you like in a fiction. It's just not the case that anyone you like will publish whatever you write or that you might not be sued. But those are two different ideas.

An author can't simply write (and publish) anything he or she wants.

Yes they can. If you want to make a wager on that, I'll take it because I'm guaranteed to win. All I have to do is write and publish whatever is at issue myself. I'll make sure that the amount of the wager is more than my costs for self-publishing there.

For example, there are laws concerning copyright infringement.

If it were the case that because there are laws concerning copyright infringement, it's not possible to create a work that violates copyright, then there would never be any copyright infringement suits in court. Obviously, it's possible to publish works that are then sued for copyright infringement.

A person cannot write a fictional book about say, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars without permission.

You can, but there's a good chance you'd be sued. Two different ideas that you need to make a distinction for.

There was an author that wrote an encyclopedia about the Harry Potter series and was sued by Rowling and the book was axed.

Sure. No one is disagreeing that people bring and win copyright infringement cases.

If an author wanted to write a book of historical fiction with explicit sexual scenes involving children, he or she would not be allowed to do that - by LAW.

It's bizarre that you believe that "If there is a law against x, then one can not do x" is true.

Bottom line, one cannot "...write what you want in a fiction". Sorry, you're wrong. Actually, I'm not sorry, you're just wrong.

You should be able to see why that's not the case now.

Hmmmmm, could it be that you are simply stating the same absurdities over and over?

I just noted that we're repeating ourselves, which you quoted prior to that response. You're not a rocket scientist for figuring out that some things are repeated.

There is a difference between "fiction" and "non-fiction". There is a difference between fact and fiction.

Duhr.

Good, because you're not doing well on that front.

It would be odd if I were doing something good that I wasn't even intending to do, although it might not surprise me so much. ;-)

Haha!!! That's a gross little tidbit of sophistry.

Sophistry, conventionally, refers to something seeming to be true or right. Is that what you really wanted to say there?

Winning in a court of law is the definition of being "right".

That may be someone's definition, but whose? I'm curious to see a citation there. Not that the fact that it's someone's definition makes it correct, but I'm just curious to see whose definition that is.

Now, times may change, judgments overturned, but winning in a court of law means one is "right".

It should be obvious that I do not agree with that. I believe it's rather ignorant instead.

I'll put it this way, if you are found guilty in a court of law for murder and sentenced to death, we'll see how "right" you are when they push the needle in your vein.

Nice argumentum ad baculum, lol.

No, that isn't what we're talking about.

I didn't say, "This is what we were talking about", I was explaining an idea to you.

I started, in my first post, by saying that it wasn't right "okay" for the filmmaker to pervert the events of what happened "into some incestuous crime of jealousy and fear of exposure". It's not "okay" to do that. You think it is, fine. I've shown reasons why it isn't using libel cases, because winning in a court of law is the definition (in a society governed by law) of being found "right".

"It's possible to win libel cases" I agree with. "If you win a court case, then you were right" I do not agree with. "If S defines x as y, then x means y (unqualified)" I also do not agree with.

You don't agree with that, fine. It is possible for you to disagree with anything I say, and in fact, it is rather likely. That means, what.... to me?

I don't know, but why the hell are you spending all of this time typing to me if you don't care about anything I'm typing back? It would be interesting to know what the answer to that is. Is it like you just can't control yourself or something?

Clearly, you're quite good at having one with yourself.

Well, I do write, as I mentioned, so yes. That's a skill you need to develop, especially if you write fiction and would have two or more characters interacting by saying things to each other.

You certainly aren't effective at having a conversation with me.

I consider this a conversation, but can I ask just what you're doing then?

There's that conceit again.

I suppose "having opinions" is the same as "conceits" to you. I'll make a note of that so I can translate you more easily.

I have a feeling that when you are in a crowd, few others (besides you) get a chance to talk.

When I'm in what I consider a crowd, I just make an effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I do not care for crowds.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.

"It is the nature of every person to error, but only the fool perseveres in error."

"The only error is your inability to adjust your preconceptions to reality." - Brian Eno

I'll quote someone I met here on that point: "I only talk to people because I'm enjoying it".

Right, so you don't care about anything I think or say, but you're enjoying talking to me?

Repeating something over and over won't make it right, even if you do use big and powerful words like "stupid".

We do agree on that, but I hope that doesn't mean that you're going to avoid repeating the same comments about whether one can sue for libel and win in your next response.

I think you've had enough, time to call a taxi.

I'm enjoying this. Keep going, man.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

By the way, why don't you try to convince a descendant to bring a libel suit in this case? I'd be up for a wager with you about whether they'd win.

And another by the way--did you maybe take my "And I would consider you a moron and an ass in that case . . ." to be implying "because you couldn't sue for this or win a suit for this"? That's not at all what I had in mind. Even if someone sued and won, I'd say that they were a moron and an ass for suing in the first place, that whoever ruled or voted in favor of the suit was a moron and an ass, etc.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

By the way, why don't you try to convince a descendant to bring a libel suit in this case? I'd be up for a wager with you about whether they'd win.

I let you do the convincing. Bringing the lawsuit is often vindication enough. The truth comes out that the author lied, the truth comes out about the individual. By the way (since you seem to love these) Vicki Stewart might take that bet, for say $100,000?

And another by the way--did you maybe take my "And I would consider you a moron and an ass in that case . . ." to be implying "because you couldn't sue for this or win a suit for this"? That's not at all what I had in mind. Even if someone sued and won, I'd say that they were a moron and an ass for suing in the first place, that whoever ruled or voted in favor of the suit was a moron and an ass, etc.

And that would be important for what reason?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

I let you do the convincing.

But I'm not the moron and ass. I think it's stupid to sue for libel in response to a fiction. You were arguing that you were right in this case, because "right" means that you'd win in a court of law. If you bring the suit and lose, presumably you're wrong per your schematic, no?

Bringing the lawsuit is often vindication enough.The truth comes out that the author lied, the truth comes out about the individual.

Are you saying now that one is right merely by suing? If I sue you for being a moron and an ass in this thread, does that imply that I'm objectively right somehow? Would you say that the truth is coming out that you're a moron and an ass just because I'm suing you?

Vicki Stewart might take that bet, for say $100,000?

Sure. So get to work. I'm open to the wager for anyone who would want to bring the suit. I just mentioned the descendants because they'd be less ridiculous candidates.

And that would be important for what reason?

To figure out why whether one could sue for something and possibly win became the topic, as I had simply said that I'd consider you to be a moron and an ass for suing for libel in response to a fiction, which is true. I would consider you a moron and an ass for that, whether you'd win the suit or not.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

Oh, and by the way, for "fictions", try a Google search for "aesthetics 'in fictions'" (you could also do "aesthetics 'fictions about'", and so on). Then you can sic your sic.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Google it yourself, you don't use "fictions" in the way you did. The [sic] stands.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

you don't use "fictions" in the way you did.

Fine writing there, lol.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

As if you would know. Haha.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

As if you would know. Haha.

Why wouldn't I know my opinions? That's a bizarre stance to take, that I wouldn't know my own opinions.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

You wrote, "fine writing, there", to whit I wrote, "as if you would know". That I question your writing skills should be apparent, but I suppose some people need it spelled out for them.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

I was wondering what happened to you, Bladerunner. I'm glad you're once again up for some endless volleying.

You wrote, "fine writing, there", to whit I wrote, "as if you would know".

Right, I can read. "Fine writing, there" is my opinion. That's all it can be. I would certainly know my opinion. It would be odd to suggest that I wouldn't.

Also, the filmmakers have a disclaimer that the movie was based upon a true story, which basically negates the protection they felt the misspellings afforded them.

The beginning of that sentence would make sense, maybe, if one wasn't familiar with the conventional sense of "disclaimer".

At any rate, you're again making a moronic mistake. "Based on a true story" is not an indication that something is not fiction. It's not an indication that everything you're about to see is being claimed as fact, so that the film is basically a reenactment. Saying that something is based on a true story is different than saying that it is a true story.

This reply to you is based on your ignorant comments. That's not to say that this reply IS your ignorant comments. There's a distinction there.

As I noted a number of times above, almost all fiction is actually "based on a true story". There are a number of reasons that fiction authors (and producers, publishers, etc.) choose to explicitly make that statement, however. One of them is when it would be common knowledge that some of the characters in the fiction are correlated to actual-world persons.

Of course, there's also a history in film of saying that something is "based on a true story" when it either really isn't or when the fiction has been so transformed that almost no one would recognize the actual-world basis--for example, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, or Fargo. The point of mentioning this is that even if your reading of "based on a true story" wasn't moronic, the phrase in the artform in question has a precedent of often being used just for "effect", and that's fairly common knowledge among fans of the medium.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Right, I can read. "Fine writing, there" is my opinion. That's all it can be. I would certainly know my opinion. It would be odd to suggest that I wouldn't.

"Read"? Yes. Comprehend? No. Your opinion is only as good as your writing skills. I doubt the latter. See how that works?

As to the second part, I wasn't posting that for you, so eat dirt and "volley" with yourself.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

You don't have a very positive opinon of me, right. That's not news. But what of it? You're free to have whatever opinion you do, of course.

And I can respond to whatever I'd like to respond to. Fascinating how this Internet thingy works.

Okay, your turn.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

I tried twice to explain it to you... you don't get it. That's not news. Also, my opinion of you is based upon fact and how you rudely and immaturely respond to people. That is also not news.

Yes, you can respond to things about this movie, but I don't have to (and won't) respond to that. See how this Internet thingy works?

Hopefully you'll skip your turn.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

There are only opinions, not facts, about whether someone is a good writer, whether they're rude, etc.

Right, you don't have to respond to anything, but I can respond to whatever I like, about the film or not.

Re turns: sorry, if you can't stand not having the last word, you have to go again.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

If someone remade a movie about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and showed it to be her father murdering her because she was going to expose his rape of her, would anyone be okay with that?

Oops. Yes, I would. I'm okay with anything in fiction.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

When I said "anyone" I meant a human being, not you.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bladerunner 14 years ago

Yes, that is a way to (try to) avoid libel, however it's not foolproof. Also, the filmmakers have a disclaimer that the movie was based upon a true story, which basically negates the protection they felt the misspellings afforded them.

"Sensationalism"... excellent characterization, ChampagneNova.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] armagecko 9 years ago

You can't libel the dead. Period. Tons of precedence on that. If you don't like people smearing your dead relative's good name, that's too bad. Anybody dead is fair game.

[–] stacy0912 9 years ago

If only that were true. Dead people have living relatives, at least most do--and that's probably even worse if a writer uses that dead person in a negative way. There's a fine line to walk when using anyone famous, even infamous, in books or films.

If somebody today slandered Michael Jackson, or painted him in a negative light, you better believe his entire family is going after that author.

~Keep some room in your heart for the unimaginable~

[–] armagecko 9 years ago

No, that IS true. You cannot libel the dead. Period. End of story. For now, anyways. Laws can change as societies change, but today you cannot libel the dead. Whether or not they have living relatives makes no difference. Please Google Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Dzugashvili v. Russia if you want further details (Joseph Stalin's ancestors sued and lost) or feel free to spend $250 consultation fee to have an attorney explain it to you. It is considered a "victimless" offense since the "victim" literally does not exist. Not that I would suggest using Wikipedia as a law resource, but even the internet knowledge collective agrees. Search "United States Defamation Law" and you will find: "In no state can a defamation claim be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased." It really doesn't get any plainer than that, does it?

[–] melora72 8 years ago

I don't know the law, but if the movie said it was "based on a real case," that gives them a LOT of leeway. I'm glad I read the truth here. I'm planning on researching the real case.

There were too many back and forth arguments on whether historical fiction or period fiction need to be accurate. I hardly ever read that genre, so I don't know. It seems to me though, that they should at least get it straight about who the murderer is.

[–] uvl 7 years ago

Anyone can readily see that this is not non-fiction nor is it a documentary. So what we have here is a story, and the screenwriter and the director are storytellers. And that very fact invites tinkering with historical events at the very least, and wholesale embellishment at the other end.

Is it ethical? No. Is it art? No. It's done for money. You can argue until the cows come home about this aspect of quasi-fictional storytelling, but it is not going to change, because there are folk who see it as a paycheck.