11-07-2010, 03:44 PM
Hollywood - perhaps not surprisingly - doesn't do history very well.
What percentage of the Hollywood money-making business is actually concerned with accuracy, or fact, when there is a good story to be mistold?
Occasionally a good film appears. This might sometimes be financed with Hollywood dollars, but if filmed elsewhere and perhaps controlled by a more sensitive director with some integrity - then anything is possible ... even a good historic epic.
300 is a great film. But you have to appreciate it as a translation to the cinematic medium of the very graphic comic book work of Frank Miller. Its historic content is minimal. It is a reimagining. It is also a great expose of that type of genre and has more in common with the superb Sin City (also originally by Miller). My only quibble is that this bastard hybrid offspring of Tolkien and Herodotos might have stymied the creation of a real historic treatment of Thermopylai. The latter has been on the cards for many years, originally apparently being directed by Michael Mann with the likes of Bruce Willis and George Clooney both interested in appearing as Leonidas. Whether this will ever get started is anybody's guess.
But with modern digital technology we now live in an age when some of these great setpiece battles can be interpreted by cinema with full justice being done (as opposed to having to hire either the Spanish or Romanian armies for example to fill out the ranks). You only have to look at Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings trilogy to see the potential. This applies to any period of history where there is the need for massive movement of deployed forces.
My main quibble (as a Brit) about Hollywood is the basic anti-Britishness than is endemic with its output (and not just history). This is not a basic facet of your average American (who rather likes us) but it is certainly true of Hollywood producers, and it is simply insulting and infuriating. Perhaps the average American movie-goer is not aware of this, but some of the offerings in recent years have been so bad that it has resulted in debates in Parliament and even suggestions of boycotting certain releases or having them banned. I certainly believe the British Board of Film Classification should present them all with disclaimers. Without wishing to go into extended detail here I will merely provide these links to illustrate the point:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/hollbrit.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 18209.html
What percentage of the Hollywood money-making business is actually concerned with accuracy, or fact, when there is a good story to be mistold?
Occasionally a good film appears. This might sometimes be financed with Hollywood dollars, but if filmed elsewhere and perhaps controlled by a more sensitive director with some integrity - then anything is possible ... even a good historic epic.
300 is a great film. But you have to appreciate it as a translation to the cinematic medium of the very graphic comic book work of Frank Miller. Its historic content is minimal. It is a reimagining. It is also a great expose of that type of genre and has more in common with the superb Sin City (also originally by Miller). My only quibble is that this bastard hybrid offspring of Tolkien and Herodotos might have stymied the creation of a real historic treatment of Thermopylai. The latter has been on the cards for many years, originally apparently being directed by Michael Mann with the likes of Bruce Willis and George Clooney both interested in appearing as Leonidas. Whether this will ever get started is anybody's guess.
But with modern digital technology we now live in an age when some of these great setpiece battles can be interpreted by cinema with full justice being done (as opposed to having to hire either the Spanish or Romanian armies for example to fill out the ranks). You only have to look at Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings trilogy to see the potential. This applies to any period of history where there is the need for massive movement of deployed forces.
My main quibble (as a Brit) about Hollywood is the basic anti-Britishness than is endemic with its output (and not just history). This is not a basic facet of your average American (who rather likes us) but it is certainly true of Hollywood producers, and it is simply insulting and infuriating. Perhaps the average American movie-goer is not aware of this, but some of the offerings in recent years have been so bad that it has resulted in debates in Parliament and even suggestions of boycotting certain releases or having them banned. I certainly believe the British Board of Film Classification should present them all with disclaimers. Without wishing to go into extended detail here I will merely provide these links to illustrate the point:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/hollbrit.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 18209.html
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]