Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (112327)	5/2/2005 9:24:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793858

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.

To: KLP who wrote (112327)	5/2/2005 9:31:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793858

Then there's the Mark Steyn review of Kingdom of Heaven And, if you're stuck with a subject where it's hard to switch the Muslims to neo-Nazis - like, say, the Crusades - best to use it as an opportunity to explore our present blundering stupidity in the context of our long tradition of blundering stupidity - which is the short review of Sir Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. Ask them to make a post-9/11 thriller in which Americans are the good guys and the enemy is, well, the enemy, and Celine Dion sings the big theme song about how she'll miss feeling his throbbing heart beating against hers all night long but she knows he's going off to do the right thing and they'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when - and the studios'd tell you there's no audience for it. Just like they told Mel Gibson he'd lose his shirt on The Passion of the Christ. The disconnect between the headlines and the culture these last four years is not about economics, it's about a loss of civilisational confidence.