- This topic has 5 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
There’s something that bothers me in period films these days, and it has become all-too-common. I don’t know if there’s a word for it, but hopefully I’ll come up with a word sooner or later.
What bothers me is the projection of modern "values" or "mores" into stories that are supposed to have taken place in time periods when such "values" would likely have been quite foreign. Examples might include the oh-so-free love in movies set in Renaissance or Elizabethan England; a "noble" hero of the Middle Ages who fights battles but happens to be an atheist; the norm of stereotyping Christians as persecutors; or a warrior princess who exerts massive "girl power" by battling on the front lines along with "the guys". Some guilty films include Shakespeare in Love, Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, and Elizabeth (I know there are plenty more out there).
Even Mel Gibson (one of my favorite actors) isn't immune to this; the outdoor wedding feast in The Patriot depicts slaves or former slaves partying it up alongside a white family to the airy sounds of Calypso music. Nice in the Twenty First Century; hardly believable in late 1770s America.
I'm not suggesting that all of these values are bad - some are, some aren't - or that they depict things that could not have taken place (i.e. the story of Joan of Arc). What I'm arguing is that this kind of projection seems to be the rule and makes for poor choices in period films; it's as if some of these characters could pop out of the movie and be just as comfortable living in an upscale Tribeca apartment in 2005 as they would be back in their own time. It's simply bad storytelling.I call it “chronocentrism:” imputing modern values and conventions into previous historical epics because the author/moviemaker thinks they SHOULD have been there or judging the events of the past through the prism of contemporary experience rather than through the paradigm that existed at that time.
Yes, nemesis, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Another quick example - in the novel Robinson Crusoe, the main character tries to bring his cannibal friend to Christianity; in the 1997 movie, he starts to do this, but then says to himself that he's not even sure whose deity is the right one - his or the cannibal's. A very modern answer for someone living in the early 18th Century world.Film dramatise an event so much they don?t just tell it how it was they add to it and it gets so on my nerves. When I watch them and see what they have done in a way it?s a bit pathetic
usually in historical films – especially WW2 films the british war effort is minimalised and the Americans are doing most of it.
Also, there always has to be some sort of love story to grasp the female viewers to watch the movie (as it is assumed that they are not interested in the historical facts). I liked Pear Harbor movie though I have to say...it was very sad ending 🙁
Has anyone seen the Pianist???? its about a Jewish Pianist who survives the holocaust - it seems more gritty...but again some parts are a bit farfetched if you know what I mean (I guess you can't avoid that). It was a true story though.inputink wrote:usually in historical films – especially WW2 films the british war effort is minimalised and the Americans are doing most of it.
LOL, I don't doubt it, and it's got to be pretty annoying for the folks in the UK. Wasn't the storyline of the WWII submarine movie - U-571 - changed from the British taking over the sub to the Americans? Yes, I suppose I would be annoyed if I were British. Also, I know that in the movie Master and Commander, the story was changed. The novel takes place around 1815 or so, and the British are battling with the Americans, but in the movie the story is set back to around 1805, and the Brits are instead battling the French.
inputink wrote:Has anyone seen the Pianist???? its about a Jewish Pianist who survives the holocaust - it seems more gritty...but again some parts are a bit farfetched if you know what I mean (I guess you can't avoid that). It was a true story though.
Yes, I have seen that movie and enjoyed it quite a bit. In fact, it is one of the top historical films I have seen. It takes place during the Jewish uprising against the Nazis in a particular ghetto.Phidippides wrote:......Wasn't the storyline of the WWII submarine movie - U-571 - changed from the British taking over the sub to the Americans? Yes, I suppose I would be annoyed if I were British. Also, I know that in the movie Master and Commander, the story was changed. The novel takes place around 1815 or so, and the British are battling with the Americans, but in the movie the story is set back to around 1805, and the Brits are instead battling the French.
I haven't seen any of those movies...i refused to watch U-751 when i heard what had happened to the story - just put me off watching it completely!I'll add another movie to this list. It was brought up over in a thread on the IMDB.com forum, where I am a member. The movie is The Brothers Grimm. I won't go into all th details explained over at IMDB, but here's a sample:
The only one in the village who knows the forest is the trapper, a typical 20th century feminist named Angelika, "The Cursed One" who's mere mention causes even the priest to cross himself. Unlike the other villagers, Angelika is not afraid of the forest because, unlike the other villagers, Angelika is not a Christian.
The theme of Christian=bad, Modern-thinker=good is rehashed again and again in historical films. While I don't think that it was the primary thrust of The Brothers Grimm, I do think that the cumulative effect of many films which repeat the same message is going to have an influence on mainstream culture.
