Some medals you wear on your heart not your sleeve
- Mar 29, 2019
This is a statement that alone, I feel I have to disagree with. Or rather, the movie is an object, but those that created it may have had very real objectives. There have been times when films [books, painting, architecture, statues, stain-glass windows, etc] were made with the explicit intention of changing the mood and mindset of people. During the 30s and 40s Soviet and Nazi regimes cinema was used to create a culture and mindset that suited those in charge. British and American cinema did the same for that matter but we don't seem to notice that as much...A movie, like an idea, is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Right with you here.Where I object is when the makers of the movie (or book, or any other work of art) start making claims of historicity and then fail. Braveheart falls into that category, among its other failings. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was reprehensible but he continued to claim he'd done good research. By contrast, Umberto Eco took any number of liberties, but he generally stays true to both time and place in The Name of the Rose.
I remember there being an issue with JFK when it came out, that Oliver Stone "recreated" the Zapruder film to show what he wanted and not what the original film showed.
I like a good but silly film...That last is a good example of another aspect of this. The details in that book were so specific, down to the conflict within the Franciscans at the time, that the author didn't need to claim any sort of historical accuracy. The book itself stakes the claim with its specificity. Many other books play fast and loose with the past and it's obvious they're doing it and we're invited along for the story ride, not a history tour. With movies one can look at Troy or the even sillier 300 as examples. If a viewer takes either at face value, well they get what they've invested. Hope they didn't pay too much for the popcorn.