Personally, the filmmaker's race wouldn't enter the equation with me. With a biopic, I would hope that the filmmaker would respect the truth enough not to invent stuff like this for dramatic effect, and would write them off as hacks if they did, without expecting that having the same ethnicity as the subject would influence the filmmaker one way or the other.

So are you racist, David, for thinking that they would? I don't know. Racism to me is still defined mostly by prejudging and hating members of other races, and not so much expecting that members of other races are simply going to be more respectful of each other. It's a silly assumption, but I don't see it as a racist one.

I'm so glad you wrote about this. If you didn't, I would have, because I ran into Cross after the screening, and we had a very dispiriting chat about it. Like you, there were things about the film I liked, particularly Imogen Poots's nuanced performance, but the imaginary domestic violence left me feeling really queasy.

Wow.

Does John Ridley just really, really love violence? To the point that it doesn't matter if said violence serves an historically necessary purpose (12 Years...) or becomes an inexcusable dramatic trope (here)?

I thought this one would be different because if focused from the early rise of the artist to the beginning of fame, before the ribaldy of drugs and sex take over the work, but the pathological biography remains the norm.

In such a telling, the artist is no more than the sum of his addictions and sexual proclivities. Thus Johnny Cash becomes not a breakthrough singer-songwriter who redefines a genre -- but a guy who wrote some songs and drank a lot.

And here, you are telling me, that finding not much decadence in real life, they decided to throw some in. Not to make it more accurate, but to fit the paradigm of the pathological biopic!

Oh no, this is horrible to hear.

Always surprising when Bailo writes cogently about film, but this is not the first time it has happened.

The filmmakers are assholes, you are not racist. Get over yourself.

I can't figure out the attraction to biopics. I find them boring and "cookie-cutter". And now here's an example of how they can be totally misleading, too.

7: Of course you're right. But I thought it was worth mentioning, this assumption that "black artists got each other's backs," that made me overlook that I'd never, ever heard anything about Hendrix being a woman-beater (and I'm a lifelong rock head).

The same thing was in play with "12 Years a Slave"—the fact that it was made by black artists was key in getting my ass in the theater, not just because it offered a valuable perspective, but also made me confident that the nuclear-grade subject matter would be handled with integrity. (And it was, if you overlook the Brad Pitt Christ figure.) That movie made me excited to see what Ridley would do with JIMI, and here we are.

well, now, if Jimi Hendrix didn't beat women in the face with telephone handsets in the 1960's, he just needs to step up and prove it!

money-grubbing aside, i'm glad the Hendrix Family didn't license his music to slander.

Have you seen "My Dinner With Jimi", by Howard Kaylan of the Turtles (and the Mothers and Flo and Eddie)? It's mostly about the Turtles, but when they get to London there's a wonderful scene with Royale Watkins playing Jimi. No wife-beating involved. I wouldn't call it a great film, but it's entertaining. And Watkins nails the character.

In Noel Redding's autobiography, he mentions that he saw Jimi strike women on more than one occasion. So, he may not have beaten this particular woman he had beaten others. Probably taking dramatic license in the movie to show that point.

This is extremely f'ing depressing. I was looking forward to the film.

@8 The Serge Gainsbourg biopic was rather entertaining--great acting and interesting characters, even if it was very much of a love letter to Gainsbourg.

Now I'm not saying that Wiki is the be all end all, but his wiki page mentions Jimi's abusive drunken rages, and also cites Cross' book in that section.

Wow, this is disgusting. It sickens me though doesn't surprise me for a moment. John Ridley is a notorious dick. He has had only one goal in mind in his career and that is to advance John Ridley. Which is fine, many writers (artists, people) are the same way -- but best he stick to narrative where he can write whatever the fuck he wants. What a scumbag.

Has Ridley responded to this yet? We might want to hear his side of the story before we crucify him in typical internet-outrage fashion. Have you guys learned nothing from the Macklemore escapade?

Was getting to that outrage point, then got to #12 - and that changes everything on this topic. Poetic license vs fiction. The Cross comment passed as fact made it seem like this was 100% fiction.

Can we get some journalists on this, even to confirm the Redding reference? Maybe Goldy's free. Miss that guy...

David @9: Though it seemed credibility-straining to watch, the real-life historical figure played by Pitt really did travel to New York to seek Northrup's friends and contacts, and really was instrumental in securing Northrup's release. That was one of the most historically accurate portrayals in the movie. Crazy, I know.

@17: Would that be the escapade in which the perpetrator of the original offensive and idiotic act half-heartedly "apologized" while continuing to deny the offense and shirk all responsibility, while the parochial idiots stubbornly refused to learn anything? Yeah, that can totally be blamed on The Stranger for noticing and addressing a ridiculously obvious problem.

I don't have a copy of Noel Redding's book, but I did read it (and Mitch Mitchell's), and I distinctly remember reading about Jimi striking women - it really stuck out at me. Maybe some willing writer can check that book and cite the pages? I know it is in there.

Thanks. d.p. (for both points).

Hey David - could you please follow up on the assertions @12 and 20? Kinda central to your story and I am sure we would all really like to know. Once you're done thanking your supporters, of course.

Hmmm...I have no historical or cultural knowledge about this at all. The first I'd "heard" of this was watching the film. Now I'd really like some research/more information on whether there is any truth to the domestic violence.

Next you're going to tell me Jimi didn't play sax for Jackie Jorp Jomp at Woodstocks.

d.p. @19: "Ridiculously obvious problem"? Really? I wasn't alone in deeming the entire outrage over that incident a complete waste of time and energy...in fact, I think more people were in my camp than yours. So it would seem that what's obvious to you is not obvious to most people...but maybe you have an especially advanced sense of fairness and moral rightness which we everyday mortals can only dream of one day attaining.

No biography that has ever been converted into a 2 hour film is "irrefutably true." Filmmakers constantly change their subject's stories, add characters who never existed for story convenience and dramatic effect (i.e. Jared Leto's character in Dallas Buyer's Club), and rewrite stories to create emotional arcs and plot twists.

Even if Jimi Hendrix had hypothetically done everything depicted in the film (which I have not seen) and the filmmaker used actual footage of those events, the film still may not be an "irrefutably true" account of what happened. After all, what footage did the filmmaker use and what footage did the filmmaker cut? Filmmakers are naturally biased, sifting through story details for vignettes, real and fictionalized, that create the characters they want to show you.

Every film biography should start with with the "American Hussle" disclaimer, "Some of this actually happened."

25: What do you know? The majority doesn't agree with a minority's sense of outrage. That settles that!

@25

I'm sure Ansel appreciates the Jewsplanation.

26: I'm not saying an entire film must be "irrefutably true." It's irrefutably true that Jimi Hendrix is a guitarist, and the film got that right. Don't present him as an accordianist if he's a guitarist, and don't show him beating up someone who is still alive and loudly proclaiming that Jimi Hendrix never beat her.

Hey David, I know that Charles wrote a bio on Jimi Hendrix but he isn't the only or definitive biographer of his life and it seems to me that the film was created from extensive research that did not come from Charles Cross specifically. Other sources indicate otherwise including Noel Redding's book ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? Maybe it wasn't specifically Kathy as the film portrayed. However, screenplays often composite characteristics and story lines from multiple sources into one in order to make a film with less than a 2 hour run-time. Pointing out some of Jimi's failings that have been documented does not make him out to be a monster. Ultimately the film celebrates his life and formative years leading up to his breakout success and to single out one scene as character assassination seems a bit extreme. I was at the screening and John Ridley mentioned afterwards that he researched the film extensively from multiple sources. Are there other reasons why Charles Cross doesn't like this film? The Hendrix family wasn't included in the making of the film. Maybe he is upset he wasn't included either.

Wow.

Next thing you will tell me is Benghazi was caused by the GOP cutting embassy security in half.

@27: I am pretty sure the word "obvious"--and particularly the expression "ridiculously obvious"--means that something is broadly evident to most people. Do you not think that? Not trying to be pedantic...I'm just not sure you understand my point.

@27

I'm not sure that's accurate. For example, I think many of us would have considered it ridiculously obvious any time in the past 20 years that same-sex marriage wasn't going to harm anyone, and yet, at least up to 2008, when Prop. 8 passed in California, a majority of Americans arguably feared what Seattleblues fears.

Sorry, Schmacky, I guess I meant "ridiculously obvious to people not ensconced in their fucking White Mainstream Seattle Privilege Bubbles."

Whoops.

p.s. The entire world outside of Seattle thought it was intentional attire (if perhaps not of intentional malice), and a huge problem.

p.p.s. Fuck you.

Dear everyone talking about what I wrote at 27: I was being completely ironic, in the I-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-what-I-typed way. The fact that an alleged majority of people in Seattle thought Macklemore's costume was a non-issue is exactly why it *should* be discussed, not evidence that it shouldn't be discussed.

@35: But you do realize the opposite might also be true, right? In other words, your opinion might not be the absolute truth?

Oh, my favorite! The "all opinions are created equal, even those that endorse the tyranny of the majority, even those that claim the sky is fire-engine red" thing!

Seattleites are so very good at confusing prejudgment for legitimate factual dispute, and so very bad at bothering to educate themselves!

36: I'm not looking for "absolute truth" in a discussion of a pop star's choice of attire. I'm having a discussion.

Ah! All I'm saying, David, is that if "an alleged majority of people in Seattle thought Macklemore's costume was a non-issue" then maybe it WAS a non-issue. That possibility actually exists. For some reason neither you nor d.p. seem willing to acknowledge that.

Been a Hendrix fanatic for 30+ years now, seen numerous documentaries, read countless interviews & several biographies, and yet this is the first time that I've heard the abuse allegations. Makes one wonder...

Indeed, Schmacky. I will not acknowledge the "possibility" that "Seattle-bubble ignoramuses think this is a non-issue" could magically make it a non-issue.

It doesn't matter if the majority of Seattle is similarly ignorance-driven, nor if actually-informed people elsewhere unanimously disagree with you. Percentages don't matter at all. Yours is an invalid view and an invalid possibility.

Because facts:

Macklemore has a history of flirting with Jewish symbols. His willingness to make winking jokes from the stage demonstrates both that he knew what outfit he had put on, and that he expected it to be received lightheartedly. His subsequent denial of intent was a lie.

Why his privilege prevented him from being able to fathom the offense is the real and substantive issue, but by doubling down on the lies in his non-apology, this substance has remained unaddressed.

None of the above can be dismissed because some dumb Seattleites might not recognize the caricature, or might harbor simmering antisemitism, or have decided that homophobia is the only form of bigotry worth caring about, or are self-indulgent assholes who simply don't give a shit about anything that doesn't directly impact them, or all of the above.

Perhaps it's time for you to acknowledge the "possibility" that the forces of denial and knee-jerk defensiveness are just fucking wrong here!