My God is this guy an idiot. After spending what are undoubtedly his last few remaining years on this planet yelling at clouds and writing articles moaning that people don’t drink enough during lunch anymore and aren’t are as openly racist as back in his day, this NY Post writer Steve Cuozzo has now set his glaucoma riddled sight on hypocritically condemning social media and Hollywoods use of adding fictional elements to true stories for dramatic effect.
Movies and TV shows seem to be condensed these days to either being shoddy remakes, superheros, and the based-on-a-true-story historical films- which have been a mainstay of movies since people first figured out that the moving pictures weren’t stealing their souls and people would schlep their hard earned money by the barrel to watch them. Seriously, they were cranking out war dramas in the early 1900s, and though I’ve never seen them and I also have very minimal knowledge of history in general when it doesn’t involve sports or the results of every WrestleMania (before the 2000’s), I’m still sure those early movies weren’t without some historical inaccuracies.
Which is where Steve C’s grumpy old man anger comes out, inaccuracies in movies, or as I’m sure he calls them, the talkies. In his continuing quest to whine about anything if he can somehow relate it to a millenial, he decided to get upset about something that has been happening since before he was even born. Spreading his wrinkly, loosely closed fist annoyance around, he picks on everything from The Crown, The Irishman, and Argo, all of which came out in the past ten years, and then somehow throws a dart and decides to pull JFK from the early 90’s as a bonus to hip-pain groan about.
Upset that movies add dramatic effects and extra story lines to already true stories, he attempts to stomp on both Hollywood and the brain capacity of those who watch their movies, deciding we’re unable to decipher fact from fiction when we plop down and spend a few hours knowingly watching people pretend to be other people. Why does he think the average movie goer is too stupid to think for themselves?
“Anytime I think that maybe people don’t believe everything on screen, I recall the tale of a late, Oxford-educated Post colleague and journalist friend of mine Bruce Rothwell, who lived in London before coming to New York.
Bruce told me that he was surprised to learn that it wasn’t a British pilot, but American Chuck Yeager, who first broke the sound barrier in 1947. He’d grown up with the 1952 David Lean-directed “The Sound Barrier,” the UK’s 12th-most popular film that year, which depicted RAF flight lieutenant Philip Peel as the holder of the sound-breaking record. But Peel and the movie’s plot are entirely fictional.”
Because he had a friend who went to Oxford and was still too stupid to do his own research. Either he laments this little tidbit of information to show us that an Oxford education doesn’t necessarily mean someone is a genius, or because he felt he needed to let us know that at one point in time, he had a friend. The latter is still a bit of a surprise to me, though it isn’t too much of a stretch to assume this Rothwell fella struggled to make friends too due to lack of common sense. And judging Steves past complaints, they were probably drunk all the time.
His argument regarding his friend is a stretch. We can’t help his friend fell for British propaganda and after arguing tea is better than coffee tried to enlighten Steve on who really broke the sound barrier. That would be the same as if someone tried to argue World War 2 facts based solely off what they saw in Inglorious Bastards. People have brain cells, and unlike Steve and his friends who spent much of their youth destroying theirs during liquid lunches, people are able to learn historical fact and fiction on their own.
Steve complains that the TV show The Crown adds plot elements that aren’t true, and that The Irishman was based on the word of a dying old mobster, seeking some final notoriety. Honestly, who gives two shits about the accuracy of The Crown? Unless the 4th season revolves around Prince Andrew banging 8 year olds at a Jeffrey Epstein party on a yacht, the show is irrelevant to most of us in America who don’t give a shit what dress Meaghan Markle wears to a tennis match. We watch it to be entertained by their silly accents and the occasional easter eggs of some moment in time we’ve heard about, regardless of if its true. And Scorsese has already said The Irishman isn’t based on the truth, but rather a character they’re trying to portray. Anyone with an iota of common sense knows the true story of Hoffa is unknown, no professor will be showing this movie in class as fact.
Cuozzos annoyance with minute details added to movies to make the story more dramatic and in some cases, interesting, is of course a pointless argument as it’s clear he’s just mad at the sun on a daily basis for shining and needs to target whatever he can to safely relay his anger issues without having a heart attack. Movies, TV, even books, add dramatic license when telling stories based on fact. It’s always been that way, including in the 40’s when Steve would take his gal to the pictures after chocolate milkshakes at the nearest whites-only diner to hope maybe she’ll brush the backside of her hand over his trousers before driving her home at a decent hour so her parents would allow him to bring her to the school doo-wop the next night. So I’m unsure why he chose now to deride an decade long practice that involves adding plots to movies to make them more fun to watch. Movies are made to entertain, nobody watches a movie and decides every detail in it must be taken as historical fact. We don’t need to be told mutants aren’t real after watching X-Men. Well, Rothwell might, actually.
His anger with the movie JFK makes absolutely no sense and seems to be thrown in there because he wanted to try to paint his beliefs as fact.
That more than 60 percent of Americans believe Lee Harvey Oswald either didn’t kill Kennedy or had only a minor role is surely due to “JFK’s” lumbering, three-hour “exposé” based on looney theories put forth by discredited New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
60 percent of Americans today base their opinion on a movie from almost 30 years ago? Not from the millions of documentaries, books, web-sites, and other things that dive into the JFK assassination? I could guarantee Steve the majority of people polled in whatever poll he was using (hopefully it wasn’t done by Oxford) haven’t seen the movie, and if they have, it hasn’t been for years. To complain that people don’t buy the idea that a President was shot by a lone nut from a million feet away with a shitty rifle when there’s plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise is just lazy, and is probably stemming from Steve’s ideal world where a government would never lie to it’s citizens and everything that happened since Reagan left office has been the downfall of society.
Steve needs to try to be less angry about the world we live in, if he needs movies to be 100% accurate retellings, then he should stick to documentaries. Though he should research them first to make sure they fit the narrative he wants to believe, otherwise he might find out people sometimes tend to skew facts to fit their own beliefs, and then we’ll have to hear him clack away on his typewriter about how millenials have ruined documentaries. Just go back to getting mid-day drunk Steve, the world seemed better to you that way for a reason.