11-07-2010, 06:36 PM
Interesting articles -- thanks for the links.
Indeed, I think the British have good cause to be unhappy with Hollywood's re-writing of WWII into an 'American Only' epic, but they can hardly be surprised (look for example at how Shakespeare dealt with both Henry V and Richard III) nor do I think that the British have been singled out for any special ill-treatment by the Studios. Indeed, the opposite it often the case. If you want to add a degree of class, sophistication and gravitas to a production (or particularly a commercial) then cast a British voice. The accent alone denotes class to most American ears.
Of course, this can also work against them.
George Lucas wanted to avoid casting only British voices for the Imperial Officers and American voices for the Rebels but with filming Star Wars in England, he fell into the casting trap with the notable exception of Obi-wan Kenobi, played by Alec Guinness and Ewan McGregor, who retained a distinctly British sounding accent. (Interestingly, McGegor's uncle, who played the Rebel fighter pilot Wedge Antillies in the original trilogy, uses a non-accented voice more akin to American than any other.)
But more to the point of Ancient History and Hollywood, indeed I fear you are correct -- the success of 300, as a film if not as history, may well preclude the translation of Steven Pressfield's book, Gates Of Fire, into a film. (Clooney optioned the book before its publication with the thought of either starring in or producing or both, however it has languished in Development Hell ever since.)
With regard to Saving Private Ryan, it did not really re-write WWII history -- in fact I would say it is an homage to Hollywood World War Two films. With the exception of the first 20 minutes or so, the film is riddled with all of the standard Hollywood cliches and tropes leading to a finale that is so "Hollywood Ironic" as to be almost laughable. I find Zanuck's 1962 war horse, The Longest Day, to be a far more interesting and ultimately enjoyable film.
But I digress...
In another thread on this Forum Graham Sumner made the following astute observation:
"However If Gladiator is the best then obviously a good script, great acting and high production values beat accuracy every time which in a way proves what the film-makers keep telling us, although it is rare that they do get all three."
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30554">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30554<!-- l
In a 1995 interview writer / director John Sales spoke to this problem directly:
Foner: So what you're saying is, the way the movie industry is going now we're not likely to hear a lot of concern about historical accuracy.
Sayles: No, because coming up with the scenario that sells is the same as staying in office. You know, it's the difference between a leader and a politician.
Forner: And the stakes are so much higher now. You stand to lose a hundred million bucks instead of five million.
Sayles: I think the stakes were always the same, personally, for those guys: "Don't make a movie like this. It doesn't make money. If historical accuracy were the thing people went to the movies for, historians would be the vice presidents of studios. Every studio would have two or three historians.
Foner: Fortunately, or unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen.
From: Past Imperfect - History According To The Movies c1995 ISBN: 0-8050-3759-4
Thus the enduring quality, and or box office success, of Gladiator, of 300, of Pvt. Ryan, and yes even Shakespeare's Richard III and Henry V (the latter now being made into a Science Fiction film).
If it is any consolation, one of my Top Ten favorite films is the Powell & Pressberger classic, The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp. Lots of people, including Winston Churchill, dislike that film, but it will always remain a favorite with me, historical accuracy be damned.
:wink:
Nrukami
Indeed, I think the British have good cause to be unhappy with Hollywood's re-writing of WWII into an 'American Only' epic, but they can hardly be surprised (look for example at how Shakespeare dealt with both Henry V and Richard III) nor do I think that the British have been singled out for any special ill-treatment by the Studios. Indeed, the opposite it often the case. If you want to add a degree of class, sophistication and gravitas to a production (or particularly a commercial) then cast a British voice. The accent alone denotes class to most American ears.
Of course, this can also work against them.
George Lucas wanted to avoid casting only British voices for the Imperial Officers and American voices for the Rebels but with filming Star Wars in England, he fell into the casting trap with the notable exception of Obi-wan Kenobi, played by Alec Guinness and Ewan McGregor, who retained a distinctly British sounding accent. (Interestingly, McGegor's uncle, who played the Rebel fighter pilot Wedge Antillies in the original trilogy, uses a non-accented voice more akin to American than any other.)
But more to the point of Ancient History and Hollywood, indeed I fear you are correct -- the success of 300, as a film if not as history, may well preclude the translation of Steven Pressfield's book, Gates Of Fire, into a film. (Clooney optioned the book before its publication with the thought of either starring in or producing or both, however it has languished in Development Hell ever since.)
With regard to Saving Private Ryan, it did not really re-write WWII history -- in fact I would say it is an homage to Hollywood World War Two films. With the exception of the first 20 minutes or so, the film is riddled with all of the standard Hollywood cliches and tropes leading to a finale that is so "Hollywood Ironic" as to be almost laughable. I find Zanuck's 1962 war horse, The Longest Day, to be a far more interesting and ultimately enjoyable film.
But I digress...
In another thread on this Forum Graham Sumner made the following astute observation:
"However If Gladiator is the best then obviously a good script, great acting and high production values beat accuracy every time which in a way proves what the film-makers keep telling us, although it is rare that they do get all three."
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30554">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30554<!-- l
In a 1995 interview writer / director John Sales spoke to this problem directly:
Foner: So what you're saying is, the way the movie industry is going now we're not likely to hear a lot of concern about historical accuracy.
Sayles: No, because coming up with the scenario that sells is the same as staying in office. You know, it's the difference between a leader and a politician.
Forner: And the stakes are so much higher now. You stand to lose a hundred million bucks instead of five million.
Sayles: I think the stakes were always the same, personally, for those guys: "Don't make a movie like this. It doesn't make money. If historical accuracy were the thing people went to the movies for, historians would be the vice presidents of studios. Every studio would have two or three historians.
Foner: Fortunately, or unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to happen.
From: Past Imperfect - History According To The Movies c1995 ISBN: 0-8050-3759-4
Thus the enduring quality, and or box office success, of Gladiator, of 300, of Pvt. Ryan, and yes even Shakespeare's Richard III and Henry V (the latter now being made into a Science Fiction film).
If it is any consolation, one of my Top Ten favorite films is the Powell & Pressberger classic, The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp. Lots of people, including Winston Churchill, dislike that film, but it will always remain a favorite with me, historical accuracy be damned.
:wink:
Nrukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
