Inexplicably not called "In defense of Hollywood's pandering bullshit"

[james_davis_nicoll]

Brad Kane's "Forget the Facts, Tell a Story".

Comments

[konsectatrix]

Y'know, I could see a point being made for the fact that real life is totally chaotic, and trying to tell a story can become a very fine line dance between narrator's perception/PoV, historical accuracy, and the ability to be edited into a comprehensible novel or movie format.

But that's hardly the same thing as this dude's advocacy of "hey, it's cool to throw it all out and tell outright lies, as long as the production values are good!" *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

[dorothy1901]

Ditto.

[mishalak]

Real history is also too big to cram into a movie. As Shakespeare would have put it:
...
   Turning the accomplishment of many years
   Into an hour-glass: for the which supply,
   Admit me Chorus to this history;
   Who prologue-like your humble patience pray,
   Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.

Speaking of him, Shakespeare's histories also present a similar problem as Braveheart. I am not trying to put Mel Gibson on the same level as The Bard of Avon (as I think his movies are, to put it gently, not on the same level), however his Henry V and Richard III had much the same relationship to actual people as did the Gibson versions of Henry II and William Wallace. Should Richard III never be staged due to its numerous inaccuracies lest people get the wrong idea about the real king? Or, as an example what I would call a good movie that plays silly nonsense with history, Shadow of the Vampire?

The real problem with the essay, in my opinion, is not the premise, but the movies used as examples. If he had picked actually good films rather than uneven propaganda pieces it would have been clearer that art can be its own justification.

[konsectatrix]

The real problem with the essay, in my opinion, is not the premise, but the movies used as examples. If he had picked actually good films rather than uneven propaganda pieces it would have been clearer that art can be its own justification.

Absolutely. Which is why I mentioned that you'd have to edit it down from reality to novel (and rewrite/re-edit again from novel to movie, because of the differences in medium). I mean, you could also argue that it's not actually an artist's job to copy things exactly from life--that the problem with photorealism is that the art can be technically brilliant, but otherwise not illuminating, whereas great fiction contains all sorts of truth.

I can also paraphrase one of fantastic old illustrators that taught one of my classes --"Sure, any liberties you take with a subject can be justified by 'it's my art.' And I'm not going to argue that it isn't. But if you're gonna pull that line of bullshit on me in this class, it'd better not be lazy. It'd better be some damn good art."

I totally admit that I enjoyed Braveheart when I first saw it in the theater; it was groundbreaking in its scope, and I've seen its influence in many other movies (specifically the battle scenes). I haven't bothered to rewatch it to see how it holds up, because I recognized that story-wise, it's really just a quasi-period skin pasted on a fairly generic story, in the same sense that Avatar was, and not particularly well-told.

It does bug me though, when a movie like, say, "King Arthur" will try to inform the viewer in the beginning that this is based on actual events, in an attempt to lend gravitas to pure entertainment. That's crossing the streams, imho. It actually invites me to judge the film on that level, and that's no fun at all.

[mishalak]

Even saying, "Based on true events" does not bother me if it is done with the right wink to the audience. Though maybe that is just me in love with Fargo for its quirkiness. Also, even if you believe the lie, it is useful to make the wink so that a few more people can enjoy it.

I saw Braveheart as a teen. It has not held up extraordinarily well. The battle scenes are still impressive, but the hamming of the rest is jarring to me now that I am older, sadder, and wiser.

[konsectatrix]

Hah, there's always a gem of a film that breaks the rules in the very best ways. Thanks for the reminder.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. Bummer. I noticed it's still on Netflix, but I haven't had it in me to try it again; it's not one of my repeat watches, like Reservoir Dogs, and there's still so many other movies that I haven't seen the first time, y'know?

[zotz]

"top-notch execution"

Yes. More than one, as I recall.

To be fair to Braveheart, the treatment of Robert Bruce is more accurate than you'd normally expect in a popular film.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

I agree with the author -- it's quite silly to get upset by the historical inaccuracies in Braveheart.

Our rage should be directed at the vicious homophobia that suffuses the film.

[tandw.livejournal.com]

So inaccuracies in the name of the Rule of Cool are OK, but inaccuracies in the name of a particular agenda (*cough* 300 *cough*) are not? Yeah, I'm good with that.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, Braveheart is the only movie I've ever stormed out of before it was over without any reason I could articulate properly at the time (or explain even now). Normally, I think of Hollywood's version of history as being in the genre of Alternate History, so that part doesn't bother me. But Braveheart just hit me viscerally in the worst place it could possibly hit me, and steam still comes out of my ears when I think of it now, eighteen years later.

(and, no, it wasn't any of the usual suspects so far as the 'isms' go, either -- that stuff doesn't usually hit me till I'm in the car going home at the very earliest)

[sesmo.livejournal.com]

Walked out on the torture scene. They were being a bit to S&M for me. Then again, I barely remember the movie, so it clearly didn't 'grab me by the bullocks.'

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

I left before the torture scene. Possibly just before, but I'm not sure.

I love your icon, BTW.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I remember laughing through the whole thing. Something about the uber-mega-superheroic portrayal of Wallace was just too ridiculous for me to believe or take seriously. I don't remember if it actually showed him jumping out of a circle of assailants with a mighty leap, but it wouldn't have been out of character.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

I believe there was something close to that in the climactic battle, but the movie was both offensive and bland and I remember very little. Well, except for seeing the prop weapons wobbling as they charged. Even rewound it to watch again to make sure I wasn't just imagining it.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I miss history_spork

[ryzhaya-by.livejournal.com]

:)

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

I have still never seen Braveheart. I know, that makes me some form of weird anomaly.

I don't have a problem with movies based on historical figures being wildly innaccurate. That's not a problem, actually--I tend to expect that Hollywood will totally disregard anything that doesn't look cool on screen and make up stuff that does to fill the resultant empty spaces. It's when they go overboard explaining how incredibly historical they're being, that they've done all this Research And Book Stuff, that annoys me, because usually even when they DO have someone as a "historical consultant" they STILL ignore everything that doesn't look cool on-screen and make sure the leading lady has the latest hairstyle and makeup and figure silhouette despite being in theoretically historical costume.

tl;dr Don't say you're historical when you're not, otherwise, I really don't care.

[doc-lemming.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen it either.

Rule of Cool thinking seems to predominate, even when dealing with things that the cast and crew might actually have some experience with. I'm thinking of holding the gun sideways in particular, but examples are plentiful.

If it were cool (and not particularly expensive) to have gravity suddenly turn off without any other consequences, I suspect you'd see it in a lot of films.

[seawasp]

Rule of Cool controls in everything, not just film; comics, TV, books, you name it.

Except real life, unfortunately.

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

"We talk about learning history so that history doesn’t repeat."

I've never met a historian that said anything like that.

I kind of wish I could make that guy read a book about to practice of writing history, so he would understand why historians are doing what they do and why it might be important, because he doesn't seem to understand.

Which, granted, is not the point of his essay. But it still made me a little sad.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

That essay and many of the comments on it rather handily demonstrate why so many people have so poor a grasp of history, though.