Also slightly OT --- but B1G football nonetheless

Has anyone else seen the HBO movie "Paterno"? Former poster Greyghost and I watched it in our A-squared motel room after the BH5K.

He (GG) was a bit disappointed in the fact the script almost BEGAN in 2011, at the time the Sandusky scandal broke, and that it didn't include more of Paterno's earlier (and incomparably happier) times as a coach.

Me, I thought it was very interesting---but of course, being a movie, its historical accuracy must be questioned. Still, if the devil-may-care attitude Paterno (Al Pacino) exhibited at almost every mention of the scandal---even from his own sons and wife---is even remotely on point,
his legacy takes an Andromeda-sized hit...(like it hasn't already, eh?)

Comments (from any of you who've seen it)???

Haven't seen it yet. I did read that the story line only spans about two weeks during the Sandusky scandal. Since I've read all that I need to about what happened I'm not interested in the movie.

Also for me, no matter what Joe Pa did or didn't know or did or didn't do regarding Sandusky's crimes, I think he's done enough over the years off the football field to not be defined by scandal. If I'm going to watch a movie about him it's not going to be one that solely focuses on a particular dark moment of his life.

I did however watch the Andre the Giant documentary. I loved it.

I also have not seen it yet, but I will watch.  Before seeing it, I think that I would agree with GreyGhost, I would like it to span a longer period of time.

I have seen the Andre the Gian documentary, and it was excellent.  What a good man, living a painful existence because of his enormous size.

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

Also for me, no matter what Joe Pa did or didn't know or did or didn't do regarding Sandusky's crimes, I think he's done enough over the years off the football field to not be defined by scandal.

Sorry, Sandy, but I'm not with you on that. Given the timeline (stretching back, from what I've read/heard, to the 1976 season), and the sheer egregiousness of Sandusky's offenses, I simply cannot pass off JoePa's potential involvement as lightly as to say "No matter what he knew---and did/didn't do..."

Of course, if he really never knew much or anything, or immediately acted but those above him (Spanier, Curley, etc.) did nothing, it becomes a completely different scenario. But I have serious trouble believing he knew nothing; I've always maintained, and mentioned on this and other forums in the past, that in any hierarchical structure (e.g., a major university's flagship sports program), the MAN AT THE TOP must take the ultimate credit, or blame, as the case may be. It is his/her job to know, or learn, what is happening among his subordinates, within his organization.

Note, however, that I certainly do NOT deny the man did a great deal, and attempted to do even more, for the good of college sports and education overall. Rather, I attempt here simply to emphasize that the scales of justice cannot tip entirely to the positive side as if a brick were placed in their bucket and a feather in the other. (Make sense?) (Didn't think so...)

michmike wrote:

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

Also for me, no matter what Joe Pa did or didn't know or did or didn't do regarding Sandusky's crimes, I think he's done enough over the years off the football field to not be defined by scandal.  

Sorry, Sandy, but I'm not with you on that.  Given the timeline (stretching back, from what I've read/heard, to the 1976 season), and the sheer egregiousness of Sandusky's offenses, I simply cannot pass off JoePa's potential involvement as lightly as to say "No matter what he knew---and did/didn't do..."  

Of course, if he really never knew much or anything, or immediately acted but those above him (Spanier, Curley, etc.) did nothing, it becomes a completely different scenario.  But I have serious trouble believing he knew nothing; I've always maintained, and mentioned on this and other forums in the past, that in any hierarchical structure (e.g., a major university's flagship sports program), the MAN AT THE TOP must take the ultimate credit, or blame, as the case may be. It is his/her job to know, or learn, what is happening among his subordinates, within his organization.

Note, however, that I certainly do NOT deny the man did a great deal, and attempted to do even more, for the good of college sports and education overall. Rather, I attempt here simply to emphasize that the scales of justice cannot tip entirely to the positive side as if a brick were placed in their bucket and a feather in the other. (Make sense?)  (Didn't think so...)

yep after reading over my previous post I realize that I didn't expand on my point and clearly used the wrong words to try and make my point in any case. So I definitely agree that my thought came across as disagreeable. I actually disagreed with myself after reading it again ha ha.

Nothing can justify a "no matter what he knew..." point of view. There is a two part action sequence that fails on the most critical level.

1) Did he know and say something? My understanding is yes, but...

2) Did he follow up or take the "not my problem anymore" approach?

I would argue that he didn't follow up and instead decided on the latter course of action. That IMO is unforgivable on any level from any person given the nature of the accusation.

I tried (and failed miserably) to convey the point that I also understand that he had done so much for his community and the younger generations that he should not be remembered solely for the Sandusky scandal. And I tried (and again failed miserably) to make it known that I have no interest in watching a movie on JoePa that only focuses on that brief moment of his life.

I hope this clears up my point of view.

Also, I just got home from hockey practice with my youngest son and have had a few beers so maybe I should have waited a while longer to clarify ha ha

Points taken.  On such a complicated--and sordid---matter as this, it's hard for either of us, or anyone, to unmistakably clarify ALL our viewpoints.  We seem to be in overall agreement, though, Sandy...

For the record, this is what I referred to when I reached back as far as 1976 in my arguments:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/07/john_doe_150_tells_of_alleged.html

So I did watch Paterno on Saturday.  I thought is was pretty good.  However, it made me sad to watch.  It portrayed JoPa as if he had some form of dementia.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  But it sure played it up.  Also, the ending, when his wife talked about the pool at the Sugar Bowl in the 70's, kind of made it seem like JoPa had known for 40 years about Sandusky.

On another note, I thought Al Pacino did a great job as JoPa.  Had the mannerisms down, and the makeup really made him look the part.  I wonder if he really sat around the house in khakis and black turf shoes with PSU sweater on just like he wore on the sidelines.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

So I did watch Paterno on Saturday.  I thought is was pretty good.  However, it made me sad to watch.  It portrayed JoPa as if he had some form of dementia.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  But it sure played it up.  Also, the ending, when his wife talked about the pool at the Sugar Bowl in the 70's, kind of made it seem like JoPa had known for 40 years about Sandusky.

On another note, I thought Al Pacino did a great job as JoPa.  Had the mannerisms down, and the makeup really made him look the part.  I wonder if he really sat around the house in khakis and black turf shoes with PSU sweater on just like he wore on the sidelines.

I haven't watched it yet (I plan on it tonight) and I am not a neurologist. That being said I bet JoePa was at least in the beginning stages of Dementia. JoePa did play college ball, for Brown so there is an asterisk by it, so he may have had a minor amount of CTE. It wasn't enough to kill him thank God but adding in the CTE to possible dementia, age, cancer, and the Sandusky thing unraveling and costing him his job may have caused the end for JoePa.

I watched and agree...early dementia or something was DeNiro's take. Paterno came across as befuddled.

Just finished watching it, meh. To tell you the truth I didn't like the movie mainly because I don't think Pacino went far enough on the dementia aspect. He was good though, he just needed to sell it more for me.

The pool thing at The Sugar Bowl in the 70's recollection seemed to me as if JoePa repressed that memory because it was so bad. Then JoePa imagined going into the pool fully clothed to save his son from the monster that was Sandusky. He felt remorse and knew that he screwed the cow (Penn State is/was a Cow college). The guilt that JoeP felt is most likely what did him in. I know his death certificate reads cancer or whatever but it was the guilt.