| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 23:02:52
I saw "Anonymous" today and made my customary visit to the IMDB message board to see what people were saying. Someone posted this list of the 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies and suggested that "Anonymous" belonged on it. I was more interested in the origins of works attributed to Shakespeare than anything. The film was all speculation and I don't particularly care about historical accuracy most times. I hated school, especially history, and don't remember much, so I can fall for a lot when it comes to period movies as long as long as Captain Kirk doesn't show up or something. I'm a stickler sometimes when it comes to things I think I know, like comic properties or (being a veteran) military stuff, but it never ruins the movie for me.
However, the bottom line for me is that nobody makes movies to teach history. They want to sell tickets � "fucking asses in fucking seats" as QT put it in "Four Rooms." Whatever the producer doesn't think will help to that end is omitted or altered.
If one is that concerned about historical accuracy then the cinema is probably not the place for them.
Anyway, back to "Anonymous" � I found it very intriguing as a Bard fan, but hard to follow sometimes, with the Earl of this and that, and Sussex and Essex. Perhaps I should have paid more attention in history class.
P.S. x 2
"Anonymous" also bounces back and forth in time, which confused me. I now understand how people say they are confused by "Pulp Fiction," which made perfect sense to me.
In the early 90s, I asked an Army lawyer, "what did you think of 'A Few Good Men?' " Her answer: "There's no such charge as 'conduct unbecoming a Marine.' " Being severely outranked, I didn't have the stones to say what I was thinking: "so, umm, what did you think of 'A Few Good Men' "
Last P.S. (i mean it)
I think I could listen to Derek Jacobi read phone book listings. |
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| damalc |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 15:32:28
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
GREAT to see you here on da 4Um, damalc 
aww, shucks  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 12:33:02
Apart from the discussion --
GREAT to see you here on da 4Um, damalc
PS - totally agree with Se�n that movies ain't a history lesson - even when they'd like to be. 
|
| damalc |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 01:22:49
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
... a LOT of people end up believing them as they won't question them and do some post-movie research. ...
good point |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 00:46:54
The thing I dislike most about movies based on conspiracy theories is that a LOT of people end up believing them as they won't question them through post-movie research. Hence they won't determine that they've been sold a pile of total crap disguised as truth (as is Anonymous).
Still, I guess it's harmless enough if people think Shakespeare was someone else. It's not as damaging as selling people "the Holocaust didn't happen" or "CIA imploded the WTC" etc.
Edit:- I wonder if Emmerich et at actually believe what they're peddling though. I find it hard to believe that they could have made a period drama without a cursory check of the facts and chronology. If they know it's crap, and the 'teach-this-in-schools' position is simply a marketing exercise ("Hey guys, this is not a joke, you need to all see this, it's REAL!!!") then I guess that makes them demagogues. They'll sell you what they know is bullshit to get your money.
Also, LOL at three Mel Gibson flicks being on that "10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies" list.  JFK should also have been there; it should replace 2001 which is futuristically inaccurate, not historically inaccurate.
|
| AC |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 23:26:57
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
However, the bottom line for me is that nobody makes movies to teach history. They want to sell tickets � "fucking asses in fucking seats" as QT put it in "Four Rooms." Whatever the producer doesn't think will
Yes, but when Emmerich and his deluded team from Sony start advocating that this 'history' be taught in schools, as is explicitly stated in the 'Anonymous' press kits, then that's where they cross a line. 'Anonymous' is simply one of the most grievous examples of historical revisionism, with so many glaring errors that even the anti-Stratfordians are starting to distance themselves from it, that it becomes a joke. Too bad for what could have been an interesting take on the Oxford position: making errors like saying that 'Richard III' prefaced the Earl of Essex rebellion and that Shakespeare was alive in the 1550s blows the whole shebang out of the water. Emmerich's distrust of scholars blew up in his face - who would have guessed that this film would be a bigger disaster than 'Godzilla' or 'Independence Day'? ;) |
|
|
