alternate alternate history
Sep. 16th, 2009 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonExpanding on a Tweet from earlier in the day, I enjoyed this article from Tor books blog describing the liberties Hollywood takes with historic accuracy. I agree with the author that the real story is often more interesting than the watered down, simplified version movies give us, and I'm often frustrated with the cut corners, compressed timelines and/or modernization/"sexing up" that shows up in movies covering time periods I actually know something about.
At the same time, I think it's inevitable given that historic stories (rather like science fiction) are interesting to modern audiences primarily because of what they tell us about ourselves, and apart from the comparative few who know the historic context of any given film I'm aware that allowances must be made to tell a story modern audiences can relate to (this is in addition to any limitations set by budget, actors, 2 hour limit, etc.)
I used to be a lot more unforgiving, and sometimes still am, particularly on the subject of clothes because I'm "fluent" enough in costume history that anachronisms from a time period I'm familiar with (no headgear, unbuttoned doublets in "Shakespeare in Love") can jar me out of the narrative. However, I am starting to take a softer line. For example, I understand why Deadwood went for anachronistic profanity. I don't know enough about Roman history or costume to judge, so I can just sit back and enjoy "Rome" without distraction.
The make or break for me is good acting - I'll forgive a a lot of time compression and polyester if the actors make me care about the characters. This is why I enjoy "Elizabeth" (esp. Geoffrey Rush as a ruthless Walsingham), but not "The Tudors" (IMHO John Rhys-Davies & many of the other main characters are poorly cast). "Elizabeth R" trumps both because it's got Glenda Jackson, good costuming AND closer adherence to the actual timeline.
And I admit I enjoy historically inspired movies who take a time period and turn it so completely on it's ear that there can be no question that they aren't going for the "you are there" vibe. "A Knight's Tale" makes no pretense to historic accuracy, from the Queen soundtrack to the leading lady's bizarre headgear, BUT it certainly translates how exciting a medieval joust was for a modern audience - it's like the Superbowl coming to town! Ditto things like Romeo and Juliet set in modern day Miami (and the West Side Story variant), or "Moulin Rouge" which just uses the famous nightclub as a setting for a modern story/music and an excuse to put everyone in luxe corsets and old fashioned eveningwear.
I do still love the ones that get it right (or at least as right as I can tell). The aforementioned "Elizabeth R", "Dangerous Liaisons" and BBC's "Pride and Prejudice" have that "you are there" vibe, with few glaring modern hairstyles or makeup, modernized language or settings.
And if the past is a foreign country, the near-past is a parallel universe. I'm thinking of "Mad Men", a show D. just introduced me to. I've only seen a few episodes, but the resemblance of the cast and sets to pictures in my parents' old photo albums is downright eerie in it's accuracy. Language is similar if not current, clothing is identifiable, technology is obvious in it's use and purpose but everything is a bit off. More perhaps on this show as I watch more of it, but the attention to the details of late 1950s-early 1960s trappings and life ring true to my memories (full disclosure: I wasn't born until 1973, but my parents came of age in this time period and I remember a lot of the same furniture/clothing/ubiquitous smoking left over from that time).
So history buffs: what makes or breaks a "historically accurate" movie or book for you? What will you tolerate, what snaps you out of the mood, and what makes you think you've stepped out of a time machine? Is ignorance (of a time period, historic figure, etc.) really bliss?
At the same time, I think it's inevitable given that historic stories (rather like science fiction) are interesting to modern audiences primarily because of what they tell us about ourselves, and apart from the comparative few who know the historic context of any given film I'm aware that allowances must be made to tell a story modern audiences can relate to (this is in addition to any limitations set by budget, actors, 2 hour limit, etc.)
I used to be a lot more unforgiving, and sometimes still am, particularly on the subject of clothes because I'm "fluent" enough in costume history that anachronisms from a time period I'm familiar with (no headgear, unbuttoned doublets in "Shakespeare in Love") can jar me out of the narrative. However, I am starting to take a softer line. For example, I understand why Deadwood went for anachronistic profanity. I don't know enough about Roman history or costume to judge, so I can just sit back and enjoy "Rome" without distraction.
The make or break for me is good acting - I'll forgive a a lot of time compression and polyester if the actors make me care about the characters. This is why I enjoy "Elizabeth" (esp. Geoffrey Rush as a ruthless Walsingham), but not "The Tudors" (IMHO John Rhys-Davies & many of the other main characters are poorly cast). "Elizabeth R" trumps both because it's got Glenda Jackson, good costuming AND closer adherence to the actual timeline.
And I admit I enjoy historically inspired movies who take a time period and turn it so completely on it's ear that there can be no question that they aren't going for the "you are there" vibe. "A Knight's Tale" makes no pretense to historic accuracy, from the Queen soundtrack to the leading lady's bizarre headgear, BUT it certainly translates how exciting a medieval joust was for a modern audience - it's like the Superbowl coming to town! Ditto things like Romeo and Juliet set in modern day Miami (and the West Side Story variant), or "Moulin Rouge" which just uses the famous nightclub as a setting for a modern story/music and an excuse to put everyone in luxe corsets and old fashioned eveningwear.
I do still love the ones that get it right (or at least as right as I can tell). The aforementioned "Elizabeth R", "Dangerous Liaisons" and BBC's "Pride and Prejudice" have that "you are there" vibe, with few glaring modern hairstyles or makeup, modernized language or settings.
And if the past is a foreign country, the near-past is a parallel universe. I'm thinking of "Mad Men", a show D. just introduced me to. I've only seen a few episodes, but the resemblance of the cast and sets to pictures in my parents' old photo albums is downright eerie in it's accuracy. Language is similar if not current, clothing is identifiable, technology is obvious in it's use and purpose but everything is a bit off. More perhaps on this show as I watch more of it, but the attention to the details of late 1950s-early 1960s trappings and life ring true to my memories (full disclosure: I wasn't born until 1973, but my parents came of age in this time period and I remember a lot of the same furniture/clothing/ubiquitous smoking left over from that time).
So history buffs: what makes or breaks a "historically accurate" movie or book for you? What will you tolerate, what snaps you out of the mood, and what makes you think you've stepped out of a time machine? Is ignorance (of a time period, historic figure, etc.) really bliss?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-18 01:19 am (UTC)Besides bad costumes, what will also undermine a historic film or series (or book) for me is social behaviours and cultures being incorrect for the period ... 21st-century-style rabid feminists in crinolines just don't work for me. I wanna see history the way it was, which means not necessarily politically correct or "nice" or flattering to my (or anyone else's) ancestors. Probably why I've been so happy to discover Terry Jones' recent documentary series ("Medieval Lives", "The Barbarians") that accurately turn textbook history upside-down and inside-out ... potentially the seeds for inspiring some future gripping historical dramas (one hopes).
But there are, as you say, the exceptions ... the entertainments that say up front that this is a romp and nothing more (provided the humour is intelligent and witty) ... after all, I couldn't treasure my copy of George Macdonald Fraser's The Pyrates if I couldn't accept anachronism in fun. ;p
Speaking of Mr. Fraser, the greatest treasure that a history and film buff can read/own is, IMO, still his Hollywood History of the World ... I've always thought it a shame that he never got 'round to producing an updated edition before his death last year.
P.S. Since you also favour a fun piece well done, I recommend keeping an eye out for the little-known Brit comedy series Haggard ... while the women's make-up tends to be 20th-century "historical", the costumes and hair look pretty good (to my untrained eye, anyway), and the sets, speech mannerisms and manners are great.