BS: Ten films that got it wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 04:20 AM

"read ... books (which tend to record history with a little more accuracy)" . . .

I think not.

History is written by the winning side. The winning side wants to put itself in a good light, so it frequently lies about how it won.

Anything William Shakespeare wrote about monarchs and royal power struggles is pretty much tripe. He was writing FOR the Tudor monarch of the time, who had acquired the throne by an ancestors' deceitful action (Henry Tudor predating his reign by one day to make all those who fought for Richard III into traitors, to name but one), and would have probably been executed if he'd told the real truth. As for Richard III's alleged murder of the 'princes in the tower', that was debunked almost as soon as the Tudor line was off the throne, but STILL manages to find its way into history books printed now.

History is mainly boring. There are large chunks of politics that just won't make good entertainment. Imagine writing a screenplay for the 100 years war. It would get pretty boring, the same sides bashing each other for 80 years. Then there's the 37odd years of political wrangling that interspersed it (I can do maths, the 100 years war was actually 116 years long).

There are considerably more than 10 films that got it wrong. There are even more that deliberately got it wrong because it was not 'good entertainment'...

Worse than that, there are thousands of books that have 'got it wrong' because they were written from the winners' perspective, not as an accurate record of what actually happened.

As for 'The Other Boleyn Girl' - I've not seen the film but I have read the book, and it is a very good book. It is not historically accurate - it is classified as 'historical fiction' and won the 'Parker Romantic Novel of the Year' award in 2002, so quite clearly it is not meant to be an historical record - it is however, a fictionalised account of actual events, for which contemporary evidence still exists, as shown by the author's notes and large list of source materials.

The skill in writing historical novels and screenplays is to fill in the gaps that contemporary references allude to, or suggest, or miss out. That some prefer to fill the gaps in with wild imaginings and exciting events just panders to the human desire to be titilated and shocked.

Oh - and if 'cavewimmin' had looked like Raquel Welch and those other skinny actresses, they wouldn't have lasted the winter. It's more likely that your average 'cavewommin' was shaped more like Roseanne Barr ([pre-surgery) or Miriam Margolyes.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:19 AM

The way to make a truly great film about the American Civil War is dead simple. Just show in an even-handed way what happened on both sides of the line. Respect the humanity, the courage, and the sacrifice of both Northerners and Southerners. Give credit to all who served bravely for the cause they believed in. Make a movie that HAS no bad guys in it, and that has no axe to grind.

That does not take genius...just honesty and evenhandedness.

A good movie does NOT have to have evil people on one side of the confict to be a good movie.

Clint Eastwood recently did two powerful movies about Iwo Jima...the first from the American viewpoint, the 2nd from the viewpoint of the Japanese defenders. He showed the humanity, patriotism, and courage on both sides. That's smart. It's more than smart, it's wise.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:05 AM

>>>The American Civil War has been served abysmaly by Hollywood. "The General" is wonderful for Buster Keaton's creativity, but most films were dreck the likes of "Kansas Pacific" with characters like Quantrill nothing like they originally were.
<<<

This may be worthy of its own thread, but how can Hollywood possibly do a decent job of a civil war movie. Unless it is a soap opera like "Gone With The Wind". It would have to offend at least one third of the country.

Here's an idea, make one called "The War of Northern Aggression" It could be a three hour polemic about how the war was not about slavery at all but about States Rights and freedom of choice.

It wouldn't be a hit with everyone. It would probably offend three quarters, but about ten or fifteen million southerners would probably buy the DVD. If there is gore and sex you'd get a decent foreign market. Seems like a good next project for Mel Gibson.

By the way, all that said. "Glory" was a great movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:12 AM

Yup. But we figured it out. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Slag
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:31 PM

Did I actually spell "citing" s-i-t-i-n-g, "siting"?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:19 PM

Except for Black Hawk Down...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Guezzt
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:10 PM

You can always follow Dave Barry's Pearls of Wisdom #1:

The badness of a movie is directly proportional to the number of helicopters in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:41 PM

Good point, John!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:26 PM

First it's that cavewimmin didn't look like Raquel Welch. Now I'm being told to believe that Zorro couldn't possibly disrobe a woman with a single flick of the sword.

Why even watch movies anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:12 PM

In the film Braveheart a lone piper is seen set against the evening sky in silhouette. He is playing highland bagpipes - the sound is uillean pipes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:11 PM

Hmmm. What do you think of William Shatner's version of the Andersonville Trial? :)

(I know, I lobbed a real stink bomb into the thread, but I think ol' Willie Boy actually wasn't so bad in that.)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Severn
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:04 PM

The American Civil War has been served abysmaly by Hollywood. "The General" is wonderful for Buster Keaton's creativity, but most films were dreck the likes of "Kansas Pacific" with characters like Quantrill nothing like they originally were.

But then, with all the movies made about The James Brothers and Billy The Kid (who looked like Paul Newman, Kris Kristofferson AND Michael J. Pollard, among others, at one time) we could spend some good hours on just those.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:19 PM

Exactly, Slag. ;-) They were ALL under the impression that they themselves were the real "people"...meaning "the good guys".

The Whites were under precisely that same impression. That's why they had a Declaration of Independence that proudly stated "all men are created equal", but in actual practice that did not include Native Indians, Asians, Muslims or Blacks (or women, for that matter).

Same basic flaw in perception there...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Slag
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM

Quick! This thread is bogging down! Cut to the chase! Blow something up (preferably with the protagonist casually walking away with great balls of fire back lighting him)!

In Pawnee, the word for "People" is "Pawnee". Oddly enough, the word for "The People" in the Lakota is "Lakota". In the Pomo dialect it is "Pomo" and in Yokuts it is "Yokuts". See a pattern here? Hence the brutality. Kinda like "Gook" or , well, you get the picture. I don't want to offend anyone by siting examples. The point is, if you want to justify abuse and maltreatment, first you dehumanize the other guy!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:01 PM

Sounds typical, alanabit.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:00 PM

Armageddon is about as bad as a big budget science fiction movie can possibly be, for the reasons already mentioned, gravity on the comet/asteroid, the silly timing, the spliced in scenes of Tyler and Affleck after they both had successes in other films, etc etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: alanabit
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM

A movie which really pissed me off in Germany was "Die Edelweiss Piraten".
The Edelweiss Piraten was a group of young people in the early forties, who daubed anti Nazi slogans on walls in Köln and sang anti Nazi songs. That alone was dangerous enough and was more than enough to get yourself hanged from the railway bridge in Ehrenfeld, which was the fate of about a dozen of them.
To make the film "more exciting" a lot of cock and bull was added about them having guns and offering armed resistance. It pissed me off big time, because it undermined the point that simply getting caught daubing slogans or singing anti Fascist songs was dangerous enough in itself. It was so stupid to make a film, which almost went some way to justifying the authorities brutal repression. It did not make the film more exciting. It completely undermined its credibility. The Edelweiss Piraten were quite heroic enough without all that bollocks with the gunplay being added.
I have a strong suspician that chucking in a bit of shooting is what poor writers and directors are doing in many films nowadays when their imaginations are not up to the task of making films exciting.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

As for "Armageddon"...whoof! Pretty bad movie, that was. But I won't deny that it had some okay action scenes. I just couldn't take it at all seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:17 PM

The Pawnees have been getting very bad press in western movies for as long as anyone can remember for some reason. Kevin Costner was simply following a very long established movie tradition in that respect. The truth, I suspect, is that the Pawnees and Lakota treated each other with a similar utter brutality and lack of regard...they were traditional enemies.

From the point of view of either side...the other were "the bad guys".

Costner befriended one group of Indians in the movie, just as Champlain did in Canada in the early days...and he fought the other group. That sort of thing happens in an adventure story, and we are always set up to see from the point of view of one side. It makes for a good story with some dramatic impact. This was not a movie which attempted to show the home life of both Lakota AND Pawnee. The Pawnee were simply there to drive the action.

Sure, I agree that the Lakota were over-idealized in Costner's film. No argument there. I still love the movie anyway. It works as a dramatic story.

The Pawnees DID serve as mercenaries to the White armies against a whole series of their traditional Native foes...and they were hated bitterly for it...but from the Pawnee point of view it seemed like the right thing, and the smart thing, to do. What the Pawnees didn't realize was that allying yourself with the Whites was like allying yourself with a rattlesnake. He'll bite YOU as soon as the larger problem is out of the way. But I think the Pawnees were doomed to disappointment no matter what they did. There was no way out for those people, and not for the Lakota or Cheyenne either. Not for any of them. They were all doomed to disaster by the White expasion into their lands.

Another western tribe that fought as mercenaries for the Whites a great deal was the Shoshones, under their great chief, Washakie. Again, they were not loved for it by their neighbours, the Lakota and Cheyenne (among others), but again, they probably figured it was the smart thing to do under the circumstances. Shoshone scouts served on most of the military campaigns of the post Civil War period, helping White army columns find and devastate the villages of "hostile" tribes.

This does not mean Shoshones or Pawnees were bad people. It simply means they decided to make a deal with the new devil...so to speak...against the old devil...just as did the tens or hundreds of thousands of Mexican Indians who allied with the Spaniards against the Aztecs in the 1500s.

They sided with the new White devils (the devil not yet known) against the fellow Native devils they already knew....a gamble. It was a gamble that didn't pay off well in the end for any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM

Don, you mean that swinging from the chandelier is NOT part of fencing? And here all along my fencing coach has assured me that it was.

Here's a documentary with a mistake that caused my wife to exclaim "I don't think so!" out loud:

There's a film shown at Culloden Battlefield about the battle. In it, one of the British soldiers is shown using a musket with a percussion lock. It's like the jet contrails in the sky during the chariot race in "Ben Hur" (the Richard Burton one).

I said it elsewhere and I'll keep saying it: if you want to KNOW a subject, read several books about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:09 PM

My favourites still include "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" and the Original "League of Gentlemen". No fact here, just two great films.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:55 PM

I won't even touch swordplay in movies (like shooting fish in a barrel), other than to mention that probably the best fencing in any movie to date was in the 1940 rendition of "The Mark of Zorro" with Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone (the duel in the alcalde's study). Both Power and Rathbone were pretty good fencers in real life, so they knew what they were doing. Major goof, however, was that the weapons used were modern light-weight fencing sabers, strictly for sport fencing (no cutting edge, of course), and probably didn't come into common usage until about a hundred years after the period being portrayed. You can buy ones just like them out of any fencing equipment catalog. Also, both Power and Rathbone were fencing the modern Hungarian-Italian style of saber-play pretty much developed by Italo Santelli, who hadn't been born yet when Diego Vega and Captain Estaban Pasquale tried to slice-and-dice each other.

Be that as it may. . . .

A couple of Great Moments at the Movies:

1. In "Independence Day," when the alien space ship blew up the White House, the audience cheered!! Kinda makes you wonder.

2. In "Armageddon," OY! Where to start!??

a) Picking an oil drilling team to go into space and blow up a killer asteroid?
b) The decision to blow up the asteroid in the first place, so that instead of the earth getting punched out by one big rock, it gets thoroughly shot-gun blasted by a rain of smaller rocks ("A fine mess you got us into this time, Ollie!")?
c) The space shuttles (not equipped with the big orange fuel tank) go all the way to the incoming asteroid under power, zipping and zooming about like fighter planes!
d) Then, they crash-land on the asteroid and nobody gets killed, and one of the shuttles is still space-worthy, so they can get off again.

There's much more, but even if I were a young man, I probably wouldn't live long enough to list them all.

Best line in the movie (as close as I can recall it):   Having planted the nuclear bombs deep inside the asteroid, they prepare to blast off. And the engines won't fire! Obligatory quick cuts to the timer ticking off the seconds before the bombs explode. Determining that the problem is electrical, a Russian cosmonaut in the crew starts to open an electrical panel. An American astronaut objects, saying something like, "That's a military secret!" (Military secret on a space shuttle? As if that's a matter of any importance when they're all about to be vaporized!). The Russian shoulders her aside and says something like, "Secret, schmecret! They're all made in Taiwan!" He then bangs the thing with his elbow and suddenly the engines fire! And they're well away (just in the nick, of course) before the bombs blow.

Lotsa fun, though!

Don Firth

P. S. One of the best movies ever made was "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM

Yes, I thought that 'Dances with Wolves' was rubbish too! Not only does it portray the Sioux as loveable hippies (who could, of course, 'kick ass' when really, really provoked) but it demonised the Pawnees. This latter tribe did become mercenaries for the US Army but they really hated the Sioux - and with good reason!

A proper perspective is provided by George E. Hyde's book, 'The Pawnee Indians' (Univ. of Oklahoma Press pb. ed. 1988 [first pub. 1951]). He shows that the semi-sedentary tribes of the Pawnee confederacy, in their earth lodge villages, were, from the end of the 18th Century onwards, often decimated by disease (particularly smallpox). And in this weakened state they were continually and mercilessly preyed on by the Sioux who killed their warriors, massacred their women and children and plundered their corn fields and horse herds. It's really no wonder that they allied themselves with the white men when the opportunity presented itself (not that it did them any good in the long run).

But if you believe Kevin Costner and 'Dances with Wolves' the Pawnees were wicked, venal mercenaries. This is positively libellous and if I was a Pawnee I wouldn't be very happy!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM

Gallipoli was a darned good movie, as I recall.

Here's another one I loved: "The Man Who Would Be King" You can't do better for a great adventure film with perfect casting. It was even BETTER than the Rudyard Kipling short story it's based upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: meself
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:47 PM

'By the way, for the BEST film about Custer...watch "Son of the Morning Star".'

Read the book - it's largely excerpts from original documents - letters, diaries, interviews, etc. - By far the best book I've read on Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and I've read a fair bit on the subject. Warning: it's harrowing.

I agree with you about the movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: gnu
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:39 PM

If it is now open to vote for best movie... Never Cry Wolf. There are some scenes lost on those who have never been north, but, I have, and I was entertained.

"How do you fight boredom, Tyler?"

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: heric
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

The Secret.

(And it's a documentary to boot.)

Reefer Madness

Atonement

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

Thanks, Mick. :)

Baggage is often a problem for actors. Back when Mel Gibson was just starting out, remember the great reception he got with Gallipoli and especially The Year of Living Dangerously?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Slag
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

Yes Rap, Mars Attacks got just about everything right. Thank you.

SRS, you keep hitting those nails on the head and you will have built a theater! Remember these guys? :) and :( ? That's what movies and the theater are all about. If you want accuracy then watch documentaries and critic the same. Film makers take great liberties at time and accentuate different aspects of their subject for effect. They don't tell the whole story. They don't give every one's point of view. It IS about entertainment and it IS about box office receipts! Big $$$ and if the public WANTS "stupid" and if the public PAYS for "stupid", why it's STUPID they shall have! For my self, I'm not really into STUPID so I spend my entertainment $$$ elsewhere, for the most part.

If you are getting your history from the movies, that just might be STUPID!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM

Rob Roy was a much better movie in my opinion, the acting alone made it light years beyond Brave Heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:42 PM

Simply as a movie, as entertainment, Braveheart was pretty good. But I would not have taken it to be much in terms of real history. Rob Roy did have a considerably more authentic feel about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

Even with its inaccuracies, I much preferred Rob Roy. I felt like Braveheart was just escapist entertainment.

HEY MAGGIE!

Very nice job with:"It's a good-natured, silly, non-academic discussion where a few rays of erudition shine through. If you thought it was impolite, blame yourself and the voices in your head. I can't control those." More than a few folks need to read that one for comprehension.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:29 PM

By the way, for the BEST film about Custer...watch "Son of the Morning Star". That is a truly balanced and accurate account of the Custer episode. It shows both his great flaws and his humanity. He was an interesting character, a man whose ambition and recklessness eventually led to his downfall. The most ironical thing is, he loved the open West that his military campaigns were helping to destroy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM

I like "Little Big Man" a lot...although its loopy portrayal of George Armstrong Custer is WAY over the top...but that fit just fine into the overall plot which was strong on satire and humour to get a message across. "Little Big Man" has some wonderful moments in it. It also has a lot of mythology...but again, that works within the overall approach of the film. Faye Dunaway plays a most enjoyable role in that one.

"Dances With Wolves" is a very different approach. I didn't just like it, I loved it. I loved the slow way it meandered along...just like real life...and then suddenly something unexpected happens...just like real life. I think it was a masterpiece, just an absolutely beautiful film.

Looks like we'll have to keep disagreeing on this one, Jack. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM

Of course, when it comes to films getting it wrong, quite a few playwrights play hard and loose with the truth, including Willy Shakespere. Poor old Lady McBeth, who was nothing like the witch described in the play.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM

"Little Big Man" was so much better than "Dances with Wolves", I can only assume that you have not seen the former or a head injury prevents you from recalling it. ;-)

"Dances With Wolves" wasn't about Indians. It was about liberal guilt. It was a totally oversimplified, unrealistic transplantation of a California liberal into a romanticized version of the old west.

As self indulgent self-agrandizing over-hyped actor director shite it made Brave-heart look like a Discovery Channel documentary. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Not all films are art, SRS. Just entertainment.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM

The Film Industry is wilfully ignorant, has contempt for its audience and is happy to spread misinformation.

Parts of it anyway. A big portion of it turns out the same thing over and over and target males age 15 to 27. Those aren't the movies I watch and they're the ones I'm not patient with when my 16-year-old turns them on. If he wants to watch Adam Sandler in Mr. Deeds then he also has to watch the original with Gary Cooper to see why I object to that toady little schmuck and what he's doing to a classic.

It's not a one-way operation here. He and his sister have introduced me to some very interesting programs and films that they think are well done. I thought Napoleon Dynamite was a hoot, and I'd have never seen that on my own. I probably wouldn't have started watching the Miyazaki animated films if they hadn't told me how much they enjoyed them.

Films are art, and not all art appeals to everyone. Some of it is throwaway, mass produced (like the stuff that hangs on the walls of cheap motel rooms), and some of it is thoughtfully conceived and produced and may not end up with a wide audience, but those who discover it enjoy it (and ends up in museums). Sometimes you get lucky and your vision captures a wide audience.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

Yeah, "Black Robe" was probably more accurate. But I still like "Dances With Wolves" better.

What if we were to show some respect for a change to the makers of historical films for the great many things they DID get right....a simply tremendous amount of work goes into making a feature film, you know. Do you think it's easy? Do you figure you could do better? How would you like it if you put in a simply incredible amount of work over 2 or 3 years to do an authentic period film, got about 10,000 things right, and then heard nothing from people but endless bitching about 2 or 3 little technical or cultural mistakes you made?

Hmm?

Think about that. It's a lot easier to criticize than it is to create something.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:26 PM

As for "Dances With Wolves", "Black Robe" was a much more accurate portrayal of American Indians.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:25 PM

Offhand I can't think of a single Hollywood product that had its history right. All the technical advisors and fact checkers are interested in is that they don't show something that will get them sued. As long as it passes Legal, everything's okay.

And I have to put up with Curmudgeon's ranting during films mostly about anachronistic weaponry, but also uniforms, clothing styles, not to mention the actual historical facts of the film. (It bothers me, too, but I only EXPECT entertainment. Plus his knowledge of historical weapons and uniforms, etc. is much more broad than mine.)

And it's not just history -- there hasn't been a single Dracula film that was even close to Bram Stoker's book. (Gawd, and we won't even mention other books.)

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:59 PM

Spaw, when I read your post on this thread I was reminded of Woody Allen copulating with a Sicilian goat atop a seedy car rental place somewhere in New Jersey. Please be a good fellow and stop doing that, okay? I don't need those scenes in my head.

Jack, a man cannot technically be a "cuckold" when he is only provisionally engaged to a girl who can't stand him anyway and he hasn't even been with her yet. Not in my opinion, anyway. No doubt he thought he was a cuckold, but I believe he was in error about that. Be that as it may, your point about it being a useless distraction to the worthy plot of a movie about the Titanic is right on. ;-)

Strangely enough, I differ from your choice about the 3 lengthy Kevin Costner movies on one key point. I agree with you on the first two...but "Dances With Wolves" is one of my favorite movies of all time. I think it's absolutely wonderful, but then, I LOVE movies about American Indians...and maybe you aren't all that interested in them. Of all the movies about American Indians ever made, "Dances With Wolves" is my favorite.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:26 PM

"Shimrod, there's a vast gulf between "ignorance and stupidity" and "not getting it right"."

Right. So we fall back on hypothesis B then:

The Film Industry is wilfully ignorant, has contempt for its audience and is happy to spread misinformation.

Perhaps that's why I don't find many films entertaining ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:09 PM

Finally watched most of '300' last night....I laffed a lot! LOVED Xerxes 'get up' and the silver masks. Parts of it are almost farce. Pretty good flick tho.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

There's also little accounting for the naivete of swathes of populations.

Just as some will send baby things to a meedja station when a character in a soap opera has a baby, so people see films (and don't read books), and think what they're watching is true in every particular.

Ans to repeat what I said near the start, when I said to a national radio host that you couldn't rely on films for your history, he said you could.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:47 AM

Independence Day was entertaining. I like a science fiction movie, with some humor that shows me things I haven't seen before.

Like wise "the Day after Tomorrow" was what if the same process occured to us that cause the intact Mammoths we have found. The science was a stretch but there wouldn't have been much drama had the icecaps taken 10 years to form.


The "Chick Flick" part of Titanic, with the Celine music was truly dreadful.

Three of my ten worst movies are Costner's

The Postman
the silly and tedious Waterworld.
the incredibly slow moving and disjointed "Dances With Wolves."

It seems that a lot of the choices for worst move here are over 2 hours long. I don't think that is coincidence. It takes a lot of material to fill two hours on the other hand the narrative of a good movie is simple and straight forward and there is a certain pacing required. For example in Titanic, we are waiting for the big moment we know is to come, and I don't mean the one where the peasant sketches the rich lady's boobs. Sappy music and too long, love scenes are a distraction, as are scenes of a cuckold trying to kill a man who will be dead in an hour or so anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:37 AM

Silly, Do you not think your comment towards Vic was a little harsh ?
He is entitled to his opinion. It comes across somewhat pompous, arrogant and a touch self-righteous.


Guest Guest, I said nothing harsh or arrogant--that came ENTIRELY from the tone of voice you chose when you read my post. It was not included in my writing. So go examine your attitudes before you jump on one of many who have brought criticism to the initial premise of this discussion. You must have a fairly sour view of the world of you read my post in any way other than a frank statement of polite disagreement. It's a good-natured, silly, non-academic discussion where a few rays of erudition shine through. If you thought it was impolite, blame yourself and the voices in your head. I can't control those.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:33 AM

"The Green Berets."

Film is theater (or theatre, if you prefer). Aristotle discussed this in his "Poetics" and it hasn't changed since. Tragedy, comedy (meaning non-tragedy), farce, spectacle -- it's all there and it's all here.

I think that the problem is that today we blur the line between entertainment, the catharsis of theater, with reality. More, we view reality through the lenses of our own prejudices and preconceptions which have been at least partially shaped by ubiquitous entertainment. Perhaps we should reserve entertainment -- movies, television, etc. -- for special occasions held only a few times a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:30 AM

Taht should have read "Holmes sound film"

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 10:07 AM

John Wayne the draft dodger.