Everyone should chant this until we drown out the paid Lana stooges. Anyway, this film was well done, but yes should have been longer and more in depth. All actors and Mamet did a good job. The Lana bellyachers are not happy tonight! (,'-p)
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
Like the movie implied, Phil Spector was the scapegoat for all the celebrities who were found innocent when everyone knew they were guilty. The jury would have been crucified had they come back with a not guilty verdict.
share"this film was well done"
Are you joking?!!! I'm more confused about the Spector case after seeing this movie than I was before I saw it. I was disappointed in the film tonight. HBO usually has good original films. I only liked two things about the film - the music and the mock trial scene. That's about it.
I specifically reminded her - bedside table! On the Kangaroo!
What are you confused about? That may be the point.
share
If we going to assume it was his celebrity that got him in the trouble,the question is..would he been found guilty if he was a regular Joe
I think its a good chance he might. Now this doesnt mean I think he guilty. Just that how I think it would of went down. And this not to even mention Aveage guy couldnt get a dream team on his side.
Reviews..reviews and MORE reviews
http://streamingrevies.blogspot.com/
Having been on three juries in two States, including one Federal District Court trial, I have confidence that the jury in both trials worked hard to come to a conclusion they could all agree with. For the record we found two not guilty, one guilty. Certainly some juries arrive at wrong conclusions, for issues within the jury itself or issues with the trial, but for the most part they put in an honest effort. Spector had two trials, one a hung jury, another found him guilty. His defense in both trials did not want for funds or expertise to conduct the best defense they could. None of us, except the few that were on the juries, know what they were presented with nor what their deliberations went over. All we have is what was reported, which is different than what they deliberated over. Unless the justice system finds otherwise, I have to believe he was guilty as the second jury decided.
shareYes. Just one question
Are you mentally retarded?
Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me
4 different women reported that Phil pointed a gun at them on dates to make them stay. And some of Lana's teeth were broken, if she had the gun in her mouth no teeth should have gotten in the way of the trajectory of the bullet.
And Phil told his limo driver in panic that he thought he killed someone, but phil claimed he said 'call someone', quite a coincidence that a person was dead and 'killed someone' was what the limo driver reported he said.
Amazing coincidences and conspiracy theories, that's what phil supporters use in place of facts.
At least Phil supporters don't have paid stooges screaming hysterically all the time. Who is funding them?
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
He's not getting out anytime soon, unless he's in a body bag.
This film was a great piece of Hollywood mythologizing. I have a feeling that if it wasn't in Spector's favor, then they wouldn't have been granted the rights to his catalogue of hit songs and therefore there wouldn't have been a movie.
[deleted]
The key word is reasonable doubt. Before seeing this I believed there was reasonable doubt of murder. I'm now convinced there is reasonable doubt of anything beyond accidental death.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This article is ridiculous. I haven't watched the film yet but artists can't be bothered if an audience isn't going to understand their intent.
No one watches Richard III and says "this misrepresents the real Richard!!". It's drama, it has no obligation to serve the truth, its obligation is to serve its artistic intent.
[deleted]
I think it's pretty clear from the introduction isn't it? I mean that seems like a legal maneuver sure but it also makes it clear that what you are about to see is an artistic exercise rather than a docudrama (as I said I haven't seen the film yet but I know that introduction exists, I'm only speaking to the idea of how the piece is conceived, not its quality)
How is this different from Picasso At The Lapin Agile or Robert Altman's Secret Honor or any number of the works of Shakespeare which fictionalizes real murders?
It really isn't different at all. It's just an artistic choice - it's an angle into the material. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do this film this way.
[deleted]
Yes, the intent of this film was to present an intriguing drama, not to weigh in on history and/or lay out the factual arguments. The focal point was in the head of the Helen Mirren character, who believed in her client's innocence, but her belief system was being shaken. That's what makes good, subtle drama: Internal conflict. For the purpose of making it work, Spector was given a plausible excuse. Without that uncertainty, we'd merely have an inexcusable villain, which would be (I believe) accurate history but simple-minded drama. Instead, Pacino was brilliant and the Pacino/Mirren exchanges fascinated me. But none of this is a basis to reflect upon the actual murder or trial. It's disturbing to see people opining about the real situation because they "saw" it here.
That being said, it seems unreasonable to me that Mamet used the real names, thus provoking condemnations and strange discussions. Perhaps he was deliberately courting controversy, and thus notoriety. If that was his plan, it's working.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hot bullets cauterize. Everybody knows that but nobody mentions it, for some reason.
shareDid you play "count the F-bombs"? With a Mamet piece, that's half the fun.Reminds me of a joke...
Seriously.
Why would Lana Clarkson suddenly decide to shoot herself in a stranger's house with a stranger's gun after a late night shift at the House of Blues? Did she suddenly realize that her entire life was a failure standing within the tacky foyer of "hasbeen" Phil Spector's dilapidated "castle" in the "glamorous" suburb of Alhambra, CA. It's like something straight out of Sunset Boulevard. She was probably more freaked out than anything else, and just wanted to finish her drink as soon as possible and go home.
If this woman was so miserably, so despondent over her career she would have overdosed on pain killers on her own. Spector has a well documented HISTORY of waving guns around. He is well known to be pushy with women and people when he doesn't get his way or when they threaten to leave. He did it. Use your common sense. He was a great producer, I will give him that. Those girl groups from the sixties were pretty sweet, but the man snuffed out a life, and then he tried to buy his way out of it. It didn't work.
He's where he belongs, end of story.
I'm wondering if these arguments are junk science. Of course with Phil's money these scientists would come up with a conclusion that is favorable to him being innocent, but is it what really happened?
Watch "True Crime with Aphrodite Jones: Phil Spector" on Youtube and then tell me what you all think.
Innocent or guilty?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
There was a bloody coat in his closet.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You know what I hate about juries? A guy like you could end up there
Terrible
And you get to decide of people's life, too
Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me
This film has a fictional take on a real story. Some things in the film are made up...not true...so you can't decide his innocence or guilt based on this film.
[deleted]
[deleted]
FWIW, a report:
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/02/dueling-experts-phil-sp ector-murder.html
Blood spatter analysts from the sheriff's office concluded that after the shooting, Spector had pressed the victim's right hand around the gun handle, placed the revolver temporarily into his pants pocket, later wiped it clean of his fingerprints, then laid it near her body. From the bloodstains on his jacket, the government experts concluded he had been standing within two feet of the victim when the gun went off. The absence of her blood spray on a nearby wall led the spatter analysts to believe that Spector had been standing between the victim and the unstained surface when he fired the bullet into her mouth. Gunshot residue experts found traces of gunpowder on Spector's hands.I'm not saying that's the final word on the blood spatters; just noting that arguments from the trial didn't appear in Mamet's drama. Again, remember that Mamet's version is fiction, and should be judged as drama, rather than used as a basis to form an opinion on the actual shooting. share
Why, why, why would you base your support of a murderer on a movie that starts with a disclaimer that this is NOT a true story, rather than on real trial evidence and facts? You are definitely entitiled to your opinion but to disregard the truth because you've just seen something you never considered before is just ... astonishing.
[deleted]
Since the Defense attornies themselves won't confirm that the blood splatter tests protrayed actually happened why is this what you have seized on as the all powerful proof that Spector didn't commit this murder? Your stance makes you come across as movie guillible at the very least or a Lana hater at worst. You are aware that film is not real life or does the TV talk to you as well?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So, you are the one defending as the truth what ever is trotted out on TV, however admittedly fictionalized, and I am the "ignorant one". That must make you ... wait for it ... David Mamet! Or Spector himself. In which case, your silly posts become amazingly clear.
share
OP here. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, and to reiterate, the title is "Reasonable doubt".. The posters who said Phil should be considered not guilty based on this are correct. Those who say they did some googling and found out Phil is not good; again you are convicting him because you don't like him--however I guarantee you like at least some of his songs. As far as fictionalization, those saying they should use real names, etc. Well I guess we must change the names of all Shakespeare's characters also.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
[deleted]
LI-mom, thanks for your response. The points you make would be credible if you give some examples. As for what Phil's music has to do with it; I'm saying those who say they hate Phil and then go listen to his music are hypocrites. Put it this way--the creator of songs like Be My Baby, You've Lost that Lovin Feeling, and the Producer of Let It Be would be less likely to commit murder than say the membera of the band Megadeath.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
[deleted]
Well if you want to equate John Wayne Gacy's mediocre artwork to Let It Be or All Things Must Pass, that's your prerogative. Actually one example that comes to mind is Hitler, who was an artist of sorts before he commit genocide; however he was rejected from art school since he wasn't good enough, and only painted pictures devoid of human figures.
Point is Phil's art has soul.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
[deleted]
I misstated it when I say no human form; what I meant was in essence formless humans without faces. In any case he was rejected by art school in Vienna; I wish they would have accepted him.
As far as Phil and the Beatles, PHIL was highly successful before the Beatles were, with the Wall of Sound. Every rock artist since owes something to him.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)
[deleted]
You are judging his innocence based on the film makers interpretation of the events. He is guilty. Throw away the key!
Yes, this is the logical ended... but.. the poeple are not logical are temperamental.
Oscar
Hablo mejor español :)
This is exactly what makes me wonder why producers release films like this one. .. . . . A film about a murder that is inconclusive, produced to influence the viewer that the defendant is innocent, yet has a disclaimer saying that the film is not based on a true story or fact. ?????? What exactly is the point? Did Mamet feel that Spector was innocent? Or has Mamet publically said that he believed Spector was guilty, but . . . . . . It makes no sense, and was playing the audience. . .Thanks a bunch, Mamet . .
shareThe legal disclaimer was likely put in at the insistence of the studio's lawyers because they didn't have releases from the principal characters involved in the story and they didn't want to get sued. Mamet would have no control over any of that so don't blame him. He's an artist, not a attorney.
As for what they actually believe, Mamet thinks Spector is innocent, or at the very least, that there was no basis for conviction. Pacino says he doesn't know whether he is guilty or not. I'm not sure anybody else in the production has gone on record about what they believe.