I don't think this is about one extreme or another. I think you can recognise that a generic movie like Gladiator is not going to place historical accuracy at the forefront of its priorities and still talk interestingly about it. I think your email Bill does exactly that although I accept your point that if it simply doesn't interest you then why bother? My example of Shakespeare was simply to show that the use of history as an artistic raw material in which accuracy is relatively unimportant is not simply the by product of Hollywood but is done where ever people tell these stories. That there are degrees of closeness to the historical record, but historical accuracy does not necessarily ensure artistic legitimacy. Many historical pictures are more about Now than Then. Cleopatra and Spartacus are about the 50s-60s, 300 seems rooted in a quite dispicably racist politics which is all too obviously about Now.
This also has something to do with genre. A sword and sandal film like Gladiator is more obviously talking to other films rather than seriously thinking about representing Rome. Gladiator seems more accurate than Cleopatra; The HBO series Rome seems more accurate than Gladiator.
However, as you've already said that Gladiator is not of much interest to you, let's do something different. What film do you think accurately and interestingly represents the past? For instance, Master and Commander I thought was very good in this respect. The Russian film Come and See also comes to mind.
best wishes
john
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|