The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
(Posted under "Culture/Society," per FR guidelines which indicate it is for "Discussion of ...arts, humanity, sports, and other cultural and societal issues.")
Sounds like the King Family wants more money.
Look for Jesse Jackson to negotiate a higher extortion fee.
In this case I agree with them. Regardless of whatever else he may have been or done, MLK did a lot more good in his lifetime than whatever any personal transgressions might have resulted in. I’d say the same if it was Ronald Reagan or MLK, no good purpose is served by debasing those historic figures in the way scum like Oliver Stone will do.
We all have feet of clay.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
I am of two minds. Is Andy Young telling the truth, just protecting the vested interest of the King family, or is Hollywood so vested in sex that they want to make adultery the centerpiece of his career?
When I used to listen the The “G Man”,back in the day,he stated on his radio show that King picked a fight with J.Edgar Hoover. Big mistake. King cheated on his wife with white woman mostly.
Someone asked Abernathy if it was true that MLK was a serial philanderer. He responded that MLK had his weaknesses and one of them was he needed women, lots of women. Not so different from John F. Kennedy.
This is the least of what is in his sealed FBI file and neither Dr. King, the clergymen who worked with him most closely or even his wife and family ever denied it. So why does Hollywood? I thought it was a badge of honor in Hollywood anyway.
Well, then, I guess any mention of King’s membership in the Revolutionary Communist Party USA would also be rejected.
The myth of MLK not unlike the myth of JFK. A lot of image and form - the actual substance is another story.
Libs sure love to make political hay out of the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings relationship, to the point of discrediting all the work Jefferson did in architecting a new form of government. Seems a bit ... duplicitous? ... that these same people act as apologists for King’s “indiscretions.”
...but blasphemous movies about Jesus are totally cool with Hollywood.
If they did a movie on George Washington today at least three quarters of it would be about him owning slaves,but mlk was a saint
There’s supposedly some FBI audio tape recordings of King’s trysts. That’d make for some interesting audio.
The sentence that stood out to me was Stone saying he did an intensive re-write of the script. What that means is he polished it a little here and there then claimed co-writer status.
Frankly, I care less about whether the MLK movie talks about his serial adultery than I do about it acknowledging his ties to Communism. The way I see it, Oliver Stone’s version was going to be a hagiography with a little adultery sprinkled in, but whitewashing the things that made King truly dangerous. There were plenty of Civil Rights heroes that weren’t Communists that we should honor before honoring MLK.
{ping} ... because I can’t ping ol’ bw (may he R.I.P.) ...
Par for the course. But what’s stopping Stone from making his own movie his way then? Hollywood hardly likes Mel Gibson any more, but he still gets movies made.
Stone’s film would have been both about adultery and Marxism with King portrayed as some sort of Che figure.
MLKJR was whitewashed!