Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I dearly love and respect Robert Osborn. That goes without saying, but I'm saying it nonetheless, just to make certain everyone knows this is not an attack on him. I do think that the people who help write some of the intros need to do a bit of fact checking, however. 

 

Don't get your facts about historic figures from movies.

 

I was already debating logging on and voicing my opinion about some of the stars chosen for special evenings, stars of the month, and Summer under the Stars who've been chosen before, or who perhaps really aren't that big of stars and never were. Maybe they made a handful of movies. I've tried suggesting Jeffrey Lynn for Star of the Month and you would have thought I suggested a bit player in a Broadway show. I have to admit I do get disgruntled when I hear his contributions to movies over looked and John Garfield's lamenting played up. I like Garfield, I do, but he was not a superstar, he just had good publicity. I do, however, love him in Gentlemen's Agreement because there he is genuine. I mention all of this because this is the only other time I have really disagreed with Mr. Osborn's intros before...playing up Garfield and downplaying Lynn the same as the publicists did. That's not research, and I don't suspect he completely wrote those intros. Maybe its his personal opinion. If so, he's entitled the same way I am to mine, and I will respect that. I just wish it didn't influence millions of viewers at a time. 

 

Why? Why am I lamenting on like Garfield over he and Lynn when I called this Dillinger? Because my point is about the ability to influence millions of viewers. Dillinger and his gang are something I know about. He was not a sociopath. He was not even a murderer. He was charged with killing one person, and even FBI files support he could not have been in Chicago by the time that murder occurred. Some of the men he associated with, did commit murder in the act of robbing banks and breaking jail, particularly the gang member whom he joined after his original members were captured.  The problem with the legend of the Dillinger Gang is that it follows the adage when the legend becomes bigger than the man, print the legend. And it's been printed and printed and printed, until it's so skewed no one bothers tracing the truth.  They weren't innocent, but they are not the sociopaths they are made out to be....until of course the gang was basically hijacked by Baby Face Nelson and his ilk. Early members like Harry Pierpont  and Homer VanMeter were products of a brutal prison system who should have been in hospitals rather than left untreated in prisons.

 

Tonight's movie is about as far from reality as it gets. None of the movies are right. The Johnny Depp version made a half baked attempt at reality, but had gang members, facts, places and events so screwed up it lost sight real quick. 

 

The real Dillinger Gang story begins in prison. It's never been told in any book. It has been drastically  blown out of proportion, yet the real story would take at least a season or two of episode television to portray accurately.  It's heartbreaking, hilarious and yes, thrilling, but it is hardly about a murderous sociopath. The real Dillinger Gang didn't even exist as a gang. 

 

So, that's my biennial post.  I will make one more. Someone once said they didn't understand how Jeffrey Lynn movies could fill star of the month. I will post a for fun schedule in the other thread and get back to real life.  

 

TCM is my background noise whenever I'm home. I love Robert Osborn, as I said... but Dillinger and Jeffrey Lynn are two things I've put a bit of time into. And lest anyone ask, no, James Stewart is actually my  favorite actor. :-) Followed by Cary Grant,  then a three way tie between Fred MacMurray, Melvyn Douglas, and Jeffrey Lynn. 

 

I mean no harm with this post, but lambast away again, i fully expect it. I probably won't be around to listen. Real life calls. As I said, this is a truth I know a bit about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is a bit confusing. (I am replying because I thought maybe some quick feedback would help.)

 

You did not say what comments of Osborne's were not correct. You need to be specific.

 

Also, as you admitted, there is no real connection between a Lawrence Tierney movie and Jeffrey Lynn. You have two separate topics you are trying to blend together and it doesn't actually work in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indy, I readily agree with two of your points. First I  really like and respect Robert Osborne as a host, but I don't expect him to know every fact about every movie and actor, etc. Therefore it is very important that the people at TCM who write up the intro/ending commentaries do the necessary work to make sure that the "facts" are accurate. They do make some embarrassing  misstatements at times and that reflects badly on RO and undermines the credibility of the station.  The proof readers of the scripts  have to do a better job.  Secondly I have learned a long time ago to not use "movies"  as a source for historical accuracy.  There are movies that are primarily meant to entertain us and there are documentaries that are supposed to educate us about the real stories.  Has anyone ever really done a movie with an  accurate accounting of the Gunfight at the O. K. Corral?  I don't believe so, and doubt there ever will be such a movie.   By the way, I love the Lancaster/Douglas film  and the Johnny Depp / Dillinger film, but only as entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...