That is an interesting thought, when you think about it for a minute. If that should be the case, Hollywood doesn't pay any attention to History anyhow... So what do they care about this movie being accurate to history?
Oh, certainly they never cared about historical fidelity. But back in the day, Richard was the good guy, and Saladin was the noble enemy, and there was a good old fashioned war story to be told. When you're not allowed to root for the Crusaders anymore, movie making gets complicated.
Also, as movies get bigger and bigger visually, the needs of the visuals tend to overwhelm everything else, like plot or character.
I remember a rather plaintive conversation I had with my father when the movie "Elizabeth" came out. He said, I can understand sticking to history even if it complicates the story, and I can understand abandoning history for the sake of telling a dramatic story. But I do not understand abandoning every shred of history for telling a completely muddled and confused story that works neither as history nor as drama.
I replied that he didn't understand the priorities of the filmmaker, which were entirely visual (it didn't help that my father was almost blind when he saw the movie). The plot may have been inaccurate, and it may have made no sense as a story, but by golly every iconic image of Elizabeth I that has survived was faithfully reproduced during the movie, with her life being shown as a kind of progression from one icon to the next. |
