TV/Movies Megathread

[Valmy]

How is that at odds with that?

Great men are often assholes? That isn't exactly new ground.

Humans have flaws and Winston was no more able to overcome his sins or the sins of his age anymore than anybody else.

I mean it was not like there were not famines and plagues that ravaged British India when he wasn't in charge.

[Eddie Teach]

So Netflix made a series based on the movie She's Gotta Have It...  

[Razgovory]

I thought Darkest Hour was ok, but it made me wish somebody went and made a movie/show (preferably the latter) about Churchill's exploits *other* than his WWII role. Only the stuff he went through i.e. in WWI with all the ups and downs is a fascinating tale.

I agree, telling the whole story of his life would be interesting but telling a story of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, being a terrible father along with all his other vices would be greatly at odds with Churchill as WW2 hero.   

How is that at odds with that?

Great men are often assholes? That isn't exactly new ground.

That's a bit beyond simply being an asshole.

[celedhring]

I thought Darkest Hour was ok, but it made me wish somebody went and made a movie/show (preferably the latter) about Churchill's exploits *other* than his WWII role. Only the stuff he went through i.e. in WWI with all the ups and downs is a fascinating tale.

I agree, telling the whole story of his life would be interesting but telling a story of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, being a terrible father along with all his other vices would be greatly at odds with Churchill as WW2 hero.

That would be part of the point. He was a complex man who encapsulated the highs and lows of his age.

[crazy canuck]

I thought Darkest Hour was ok, but it made me wish somebody went and made a movie/show (preferably the latter) about Churchill's exploits *other* than his WWII role. Only the stuff he went through i.e. in WWI with all the ups and downs is a fascinating tale.

I agree, telling the whole story of his life would be interesting but telling a story of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, being a terrible father along with all his other vices would be greatly at odds with Churchill as WW2 hero.   

How is that at odds with that?

Great men are often assholes? That isn't exactly new ground.

Being one of the people responsible for the deaths of millions in Bengal isn't exactly simply being an asshole.

[crazy canuck]

I thought Darkest Hour was ok, but it made me wish somebody went and made a movie/show (preferably the latter) about Churchill's exploits *other* than his WWII role. Only the stuff he went through i.e. in WWI with all the ups and downs is a fascinating tale.

I agree, telling the whole story of his life would be interesting but telling a story of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, being a terrible father along with all his other vices would be greatly at odds with Churchill as WW2 hero.

That would be part of the point. He was a complex man who encapsulated the highs and lows of his age.

Sure, that is why I agreed with you.  But given the hero worship that surrounds the man, it would be a risky proposition for a studio to take on.

[Berkut]

I thought Darkest Hour was ok, but it made me wish somebody went and made a movie/show (preferably the latter) about Churchill's exploits *other* than his WWII role. Only the stuff he went through i.e. in WWI with all the ups and downs is a fascinating tale.

I agree, telling the whole story of his life would be interesting but telling a story of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, being a terrible father along with all his other vices would be greatly at odds with Churchill as WW2 hero.   

How is that at odds with that?

Great men are often assholes? That isn't exactly new ground.

Being one of the people responsible for the deaths of millions in Bengal isn't exactly simply being an asshole.

Actually, it is.

Being someone who makes decisions about the lives of millions of people means that bad decisions results in a lot of dead people.

I guess you can, if you have that axe to grind, then pin the results on him as if he went around shooting them in ditches. Moral relativism is a cheap tactic, but so often hard to resist.

The reality is that the causes of the famine were varied, and the response to it a mess at all levels. To sit here and try to claim that Churchill is somehow responsible for it in the manner that you might say Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust is about as shallow and idiotic as those who claim that Hitler didn't know what was happening at Dachau or Auschwitz.

If anyone wants an actually reasonable unbiased look at the controversy around the Bengal famine, wikipedia actually has a pretty good right up of the various positions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Debate_about_causes

IMO, the "Churchill was responsible for those 2 million deaths" is almost completely a political statement. There is almost no actual analysis that looks at the disaster dispassionately that would lead one to conclude that primary responsibility could be laid at any one persons feet.

[Grey Fox]

I think CC was going for the asshole isn't a strong enough word for it angle.

[Berkut]

I think CC was going for the asshole isn't a strong enough word for it angle.

His claim, I think, is that Churchill is so well loved that nobody could do a movie about him that accurately reflects his true history.

I think that is bullshit, and the only way it could be true is if your definition of his "true history" was not much of a true history, like the oft repeated and well known claim that he is responsible for the Bengal famine of 1943 in some singular manner.

I think you could easily have a movie about Churchill that shows his role in that famine in an honest manner and have it be acceptable to most people - at least to most people interested in movies about historical figures, in any case.


The idea that historical figures are complex people with good and bad traits, and have made good and bad decisions is not exactly new. Which was my point to begin with. Washington owned other human beings. Jefferson was fucking his slave, and then didn't even free people who almost certainly knew to be his OWN CHILDREN! That, to me, is actually a more morally repugnant action.


Churchill was a racist, imperialist asshole. But there is nuance even to that. He wasn't some hater of Indians gleefully chuckling over a couple million dieing. Nor did he, apparently, much care that a bunch would die in the midst of a global war.

[Grey Fox]

It's the same age old issue with any media made about a Politician.

Too strong & the casual person thinks it's boring & unrelateable.
Too soft & the connaisseurs thinks you are avoiding the real issues & being complacent.

[Valmy]

The idea that historical figures are complex people with good and bad traits, and have made good and bad decisions is not exactly new. Which was my point to begin with. Washington owned other human beings. Jefferson was fucking his slave, and then didn't even free people who almost certainly knew to be his OWN CHILDREN! That, to me, is actually a more morally repugnant action.

But that was not how it was done. For Jefferson to recognize those children as his would have been absolutely scandalous and might have ruined his reputation. Now to have those kids and have sexual relations with slaves, that was totally normal but you were supposed to pretend you weren't. Even though everybody knew you were. Because that was the whole hypocritical evil wrapped up in that horrid institution.  Now obviously it would have been awesome if TJ had transcended this institution as he had so many of the other injustices of his age. But he didn't create it either, he was born into it and participated in it the same way we were born into and participate in all the sins of our own age. He did play an essential role in ending the international slave trade and his anti-slavery writings, as weak-sauce as they were, did turn some key slave owning politicians against the institution later (I am primarily thinking of Thomas Benton here but there may have been some others). He did give Sally a room at Monticello which was certainly beyond what was expected of him. His grandson fought for the end of slavery in Virginia and claimed it was TJ's desire that that happen, and I don't think he was lying about that. Now that is all weak sauce compared to what we would have liked to have seen him do, but maybe that was the best he could do because he was too flawed and weak of a man to do more.

The fact that George Washington freed his slaves on death was a big deal. Because he was George fucking Washington the Demi-God of his time. The epitome of the 18th century man of honor. A lot of people freed their slaves because he did it. There were something like 400,000 freed people or descendants of freed people (now I got that number from a talk I heard by Henry Louis Gates, I never fact checked it though) living in slave states at the time of the Civil War and many thousands of those were doing so because of what George Washington did. Now is what he did impressive by our standards? Oh hell no. I mean WTF George you wait until you are dead and expect for us to praise you for it? Still it had a powerful message: George Washington the great American who everybody idolized was against slavery. Now I think we can agree that it was not nearly as far as he should have gone, as we would have liked but maybe it was the best he could do. 

I mean how many of us could renounce something that would financially ruin ourselves, our families, and end all of our ambitions in life? I don't think I can. It is hard for me to feel the kind of moral repugnance I do for people like John C Calhoun towards those guys like you do. Because I seriously doubt I could have done much better in their circumstances. I mean I like to think I could...but I don't know....I doubt it.

[Josquius]

God damn it. It seems I have to get back into Supernatural again. I trailed off watching some years ago after it passed yet another "should have been the final series" milestone.
But...
Damn it, this looks so good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2a3dMIABf0


In other news I am thinking of finally just stopping watching Walking Dead.
Past few episodes I haven't been able to pay attention at all.

[crazy canuck]

I think CC was going for the asshole isn't a strong enough word for it angle.

His claim, I think, is that Churchill is so well loved that nobody could do a movie about him that accurately reflects his true history.

I think that is bullshit, and the only way it could be true is if your definition of his "true history" was not much of a true history, like the oft repeated and well known claim that he is responsible for the Bengal famine of 1943 in some singular manner.

I think you could easily have a movie about Churchill that shows his role in that famine in an honest manner and have it be acceptable to most people - at least to most people interested in movies about historical figures, in any case.


The idea that historical figures are complex people with good and bad traits, and have made good and bad decisions is not exactly new. Which was my point to begin with. Washington owned other human beings. Jefferson was fucking his slave, and then didn't even free people who almost certainly knew to be his OWN CHILDREN! That, to me, is actually a more morally repugnant action.


Churchill was a racist, imperialist asshole. But there is nuance even to that. He wasn't some hater of Indians gleefully chuckling over a couple million dieing. Nor did he, apparently, much care that a bunch would die in the midst of a global war.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  Are you claiming Churchill did not make decisions which contributed to the famine?

[celedhring]

Just started rewatching the old Colditz BBC show. Mostly out of nostalgia, since I used to watch it when I was a kid at my grandma's (mom didn't like me watching shows about nazis ). Despite not being technically great (this whole mixing film with video that 1970s Brit shows did so often is pretty jarring nowadays) it holds pretty well in other aspects.

[Berkut]

I suspect you know exactly that I am trying to say, since I spelled it out rather clearly.

I will pass on your invitation to play the strawman game.