Read on Twitter
THREAD: Phil Spector's name is in the news again for obvious reasons, since the convicted murderer recently passed. Reading an article today, I've bumped into the trailer of an HBO movie about the Spector case - 1
Phil Spector is a 2013 American made-for-television biographical drama film directed and written by David Mamet. It was released in the United States by HBO Films in 2013 and stars Al Pacino and Helen Mirren. - 2
In the trailer I've seen, one of the characters says something along the lines of: "They let MJ walk free, they won't let you do the same." (a statement absurd is so many ways) Interesting for an HBO movie, isn't it? But not surprising. So I snooped around a bit. - 3
According to Wiki, "The HBO film was controversial for fictionalizing aspects of the case and for neglecting significant evidence presented by the real-life prosecution, leading to accusations that the movie was created as an advocacy piece in Spector's favor." - 4
It opens with an unusually worded disclaimer: "This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' ... It is a drama inspired by actual persons on a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the trial or its outcome." - 5
Which is something that HBO should have put at the beginning of their hyper-promoted, super-flopping, anti-MJ borefest LN... Minus the last part of the statement, which seems to be false in both cases. However, they sure are both works of fiction. - 6
Author Mick Brown addressed issues related to how historically accurate the film is. In Brown's view, the movie selectively included evidence supporting Spector's defense and glossed over/ignored prosecution evidence. Here's some, including (shock) one about time-traveling - 7
Brown wrote that "Mamet ignores the evidence that doesn’t fit his thesis, so that in the end Phil Spector becomes less an 'exploration' [of the relationship between Spector and lawyer Kenney Baden] than an act of advocacy" and he described the movie as "dishonest." - 8
When Brown asked director Mamet why he had given so little attention to the prosecution's case in his script, Mamet replied, "Well...I'm not making a film about the prosecution." Reminds you of something? - 9
Mamet also dismissed Brown's concern that the film would mislead many viewers, who would assume it was an accurate depiction of history and would never bother to look up the facts of the case, saying, "I’m entitled under the First Amendment to write whatever the hell I want" . 10
"...and if someone’s fool enough to put it on TV that’s their problem. But the right is moot if there’s going to be some overriding authority that at some point says, 'Aha! But what about x, y and z?’ That's a problem between me and God. I don’t give a shit about the facts."- 11
...Which is, after all, what Reed did with his own project: no space to the defense, an endless string of fictionalized events, made-up stories (in interviews too) and theories, blatant lies, hidden financial motive, omission of a mountain of exculpatory key facts and so on. - 12
A very interesting 2013 op-ed about Mamet's "bias" and inability to describe facts without fictionalizing them. Just like Reed, "Mamet has been using the bully pulpit granted to him as an artist to broadcast the doctrines of loudmouth talk radio". - 13 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-xpm-2013-mar-29-la-et-cm-david-mamet-notebook-20130331-story.html
I won't even begin to describe how far from clement the justice system was against MJ and how he was acquitted simply because he was innocent, and not a shred of evidence against him was ever found - 14 https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/
What I will say, though, it's that it's unsurprising to see which side HBO systematically takes, regardless of the truth (which shouldn't have sides at all). That's why you'll never see a well-done documentary like this on HBO - 15 (END THREAD). https://www.amazon.com/Square-One-Danny-Wu/dp/B0887TPJ6Q
