Posted by NightSky on February 25, 2000 at 12:01:05:
In Reply to: Can o'Worms posted by Joe Hinson on February 25, 2000 at 08:28:54:
: My, My, My, Didn't this stir up something..Brent, you said "But why make a "period" film about a historical event if you don't care about history!??? I guess I'll never understand." You have answered your own question.. I stated that I didn't like TRL because of the self important artsy nature of it and it's blatant historical inaccuracies.. then you and Nightsky expound on it's great artistic value..That is why they are made that way.. Your next quote was, "These are two good examples of films where they got it right. And thats what made them so enjoyable for me." TRL didn't get it right..it was art, not historically correct, not true to life. SPR you next say you hated.."I didn't find anything realistic about the movie", but this film was more true to life..My Father was at Normandy. I took him to the first screening .. and he told Me later that he didn't sleep for four days afterwards, that it was the most realistic movie he had ever seen about his time there..this wasn't an art film.. it was more true to life.. as for the dialogue.. people in real life write their own.. Most didn't quote ancient greek, it doesn't always win Academy Awards..but I suppose that it isn't supposed to..Hanks was very believable.. which is what I thought was called for.. an ordinary man who became a man who led other men into death, dying a little bit inside every day, trying to keep his values, but having to go against them with every order. The others, who's names seem to drop from everyones tongues like raindrops, were mostly little known actors at the time and were quite convincing as young men thrust into hell..This is My opinion.. I liked Apocolypse Now but thought it wasn't realistic , but several Vietnam vets have told me that it was just as they remembered it, everyone has an opinion.. I'll take the opinion of the people who were standing there
: Now.... The first posts were directed toward historical accuracy, but you see how it all has changed to "Artistic interpretation", this is why filmmaker's change history..because people want to see it..
: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.." (Newspaper editor,in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance")
: Gets down off his soapbox and cleans his musket for this weekend's encampment.
: Joe Hinson
: sorry Elaine didn't mean to write a book..
Dear Joe: Sorry to hit such a nerve. For me, the type of film we're talking about here will always be a work of art, and will be interpreted differently by everyone that sees it. If they're not works of art, they become documentarys, where acurracy, detail, and factual depictions are the standard. If they were going to make LOTM factually accurate, then I'm sure the cast would have been smelling to high heaven and covered with fleas and most likely body lice. And I don't remember the scene where old Hawk pulls out the Oral-B and Colgate, but he has a great looking smile just the same. And we're not even going to get into what brand of shampoo he would have to use to keep those locks looking so great. As works of art, they are meant to provide a basic framework for our imaginations. I think what were discussing is each films success at stimulating our individual imaginations and giving us an experience that is truely, at most, a small window into a world that must be lived to be understood. My biggest fascination with this discussion has been the HUGE differences of opinion on a board that is basically very homogenous. We're not exactly a cross section of American culture here, so it's interesting to see how differently we all view these films. Just a little brain exercise that hopefully doesn't blow a fuse. YRH
Post a Followup