Live data from Hacker News

The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

slate.com

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

#11

Unlucky? I mean, unlucky to be born when he was I guess. Otherwise, he did a thing, was told not to do a thing, then went ahead and did it anyways and had the book thrown at him. That was his choice, not some stroke of bad luck.

He stood up against censorship, seems laudable and deserves more in my estimation than an attitude of "well that's what you get"

Re: The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

#12
post #5

His bad luck, which could be seen as poor choices, led to him attempting to restart his film career in probably the worst possible place given his ethnicity. "After he got out of jail, Goldstein tried to re-establish himself as a filmmaker...Eventually he drifted to Germany. ...Goldstein almost certainly died in the Holocaust."

> the worst possible place given his ethnicity

In 1935 in the USA, Jews were a race, not an ethnicity.

Source: my grandparents and great-grandparents immigration papers. Funny how language changes.

Re: The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

#13
Intriguing story, so I did a bit of genealogical research on him this evening using various online databases. Here's what I found:

- In March 1940, he filed for social security using the given name ROBERT GOLDSTEIN, birth date 27 Sep 1883 in San Francisco, CA, son of Simon Goldstein and Margret (sic) Moran. We know both from earlier US Federal Censuses and other official records that that was indeed him.

- His confirmed whereabouts were unknown after that. There's nothing in any scanned historic newspapers about him through 1990, though his younger brother's, Louis Stanislaus Goldstein, obit appeared in the LA Times on Apr 27, 1950. There's no mention of Robert in the obit.

- I ran a quick check of the Social Security Death Index for Robert's SSN and nothing was reported. Odd, but not completely unusual if his death wasn't reported to the Social Security Administration - perhaps he was destitute? Or...

Things get interesting when you start combing through other contemporary records:

- In the 1940 US Federal Census of Rikers Island Penitentiary (conducted on April 13th of that year), there is an inmate by the name of Robert Goldstein, aged 54, born in California. Though "our" Robert would have 56 at that point in time, inaccurate ages in US Censuses are very common, even into the modern era.

- In the 1950 US Federal Census of Willard State Hospital for the Insane, Romulus, NY, conudcted on Apr 1, 1950, we find another Robert Goldstein, also born in California, an aged 67 inmate. Sixty-seven puts his estimated birth date in 1882-1883.

- The 1960 US Federal Census records won't be available until at least 2030 so any newer information in that regard requires a lengthy wait.

---

Info on Willard State Hospital: https://homeinthefingerlakes.com/willard-asylum-ovid-ny/.

And, apparently Willard had its own inmate cemetery: https://inmatesofwillard.com/about/. Sadly, as of 2012, public access to its burial records was still not available.

Though this later evidence is circumstantial, I suspect that this Robert Goldstein may be the one convicted for his film. If so, a sad end to a long sad life.

Re: The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

#14

Unlucky? I mean, unlucky to be born when he was I guess. Otherwise, he did a thing, was told not to do a thing, then went ahead and did it anyways and had the book thrown at him. That was his choice, not some stroke of bad luck.

He stood up against censorship, seems laudable and deserves more in my estimation than an attitude of "well that's what you get"

I didn't say it wasn't. I said luck wasn't a factor.

Re: The Unluckiest Man in Movie History (2000)

#15

Unlucky? I mean, unlucky to be born when he was I guess. Otherwise, he did a thing, was told not to do a thing, then went ahead and did it anyways and had the book thrown at him. That was his choice, not some stroke of bad luck.

He stood up against censorship, seems laudable and deserves more in my estimation than an attitude of "well that's what you get"

...during wartime. The rules change a bit then. He knew that. I have little regard for those kind of heroics - self-aggrandizing and counterproductive.
Post reply on HN