02-29-2012, 11:21 PM
Foner: So what you're saying is, the way the movie industry is going now we're not likely to hearf a lot of concern about historical accuracy.
Sayles: No, because coming up with the scenario that sells is the same thing as staying in office. You know, it's the difference between a leader and a politician.
Foner: 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.
-- Conversation between historian Eric Foner and writer/director John Sayles.
The irony here is that Sayles actually goes to great lengths to get the history correct in his films (Eight Men Out or Matewan for example).
Saying, "Come on, it's a film not a history lesson" is like saying "Come on, it's a painting not reality."
Film can be art. Yes, a lot of films are not (just saw the trailer for the new G.I. Joe film and it is a case in point.) but many are, and they can serve both drama and history. An excellent example of that are the films of Akira Kurosawa.
Ran is a masterpiece in every sense of that word. Of course, in this case Kurosawa used Shakespeare as his starting point, providing the firmest of dramatic foundations. However what the film builds upon that foundation is pure Kurosawa and the historical look (armor, weapons, manners, sets, etc) is spot on.
Kurosawa was approached to direct the TV series Shogun, but after reading the script he declined because it was not historically accurate.
Historical accuracy and dramatic film making can coexist. That they rarely do is no excuse for letting film makers off the hook, particularly when the film makers themselves trumpet all the "historical research" they have done as a reason for audiences to come see their movie. The production team of The Eagle (nee Eagle Of The Ninth) are guilty of this as are many other film makers (Spielberg, Costner, et.al.)
With regards to "... those Imperial Stormtroopers don't have the right boots from the other films ..." that is, frankly a valid criticism. To again quote John Sayles:
"And I think that's an important point about movies: They exist during those two hours. If you make them you hope that they have some echo, but the only thing you really have to do for the audience to buy in is to be true to the world you create in those two hours. If it's a world in which people have superhuman powers and can jump higher and faster - it you set that up early and stay true to it - then people will buy it. But if you create a world in which there are only six shots in a six-shooter and somebody fires seven shots without having to reload, then people will get upset." - Past Imperfect History According To Hollywood, c1995 p23.
Now, having said all of this, I will readily admit that I love movies including many that are anything but historically accurate. Hell, I like The 13th Warrior and there is nothing accurate about that film. The problem with The Eagle, as Robert rightly notes, is that the film misses the point of the book and squanders the potential for a good film. Yes, there are some moments that work, but the film makers keep under cutting themselves throughout. Then there is the "Buddy Movie" ending where they toss the eagle onto the Governor's desk and then stroll out, disdainfully, wondering out loud what they will do for their next adventure.
http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magaz...omans.html
I will give The Eagle credit for one good thing -- it motivated me to read the original source novel, and I liked it very much.
:wink:
Narukami
Sayles: No, because coming up with the scenario that sells is the same thing as staying in office. You know, it's the difference between a leader and a politician.
Foner: 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.
-- Conversation between historian Eric Foner and writer/director John Sayles.
The irony here is that Sayles actually goes to great lengths to get the history correct in his films (Eight Men Out or Matewan for example).
Saying, "Come on, it's a film not a history lesson" is like saying "Come on, it's a painting not reality."
Film can be art. Yes, a lot of films are not (just saw the trailer for the new G.I. Joe film and it is a case in point.) but many are, and they can serve both drama and history. An excellent example of that are the films of Akira Kurosawa.
Ran is a masterpiece in every sense of that word. Of course, in this case Kurosawa used Shakespeare as his starting point, providing the firmest of dramatic foundations. However what the film builds upon that foundation is pure Kurosawa and the historical look (armor, weapons, manners, sets, etc) is spot on.
Kurosawa was approached to direct the TV series Shogun, but after reading the script he declined because it was not historically accurate.
Historical accuracy and dramatic film making can coexist. That they rarely do is no excuse for letting film makers off the hook, particularly when the film makers themselves trumpet all the "historical research" they have done as a reason for audiences to come see their movie. The production team of The Eagle (nee Eagle Of The Ninth) are guilty of this as are many other film makers (Spielberg, Costner, et.al.)
With regards to "... those Imperial Stormtroopers don't have the right boots from the other films ..." that is, frankly a valid criticism. To again quote John Sayles:
"And I think that's an important point about movies: They exist during those two hours. If you make them you hope that they have some echo, but the only thing you really have to do for the audience to buy in is to be true to the world you create in those two hours. If it's a world in which people have superhuman powers and can jump higher and faster - it you set that up early and stay true to it - then people will buy it. But if you create a world in which there are only six shots in a six-shooter and somebody fires seven shots without having to reload, then people will get upset." - Past Imperfect History According To Hollywood, c1995 p23.
Now, having said all of this, I will readily admit that I love movies including many that are anything but historically accurate. Hell, I like The 13th Warrior and there is nothing accurate about that film. The problem with The Eagle, as Robert rightly notes, is that the film misses the point of the book and squanders the potential for a good film. Yes, there are some moments that work, but the film makers keep under cutting themselves throughout. Then there is the "Buddy Movie" ending where they toss the eagle onto the Governor's desk and then stroll out, disdainfully, wondering out loud what they will do for their next adventure.
http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/magaz...omans.html
I will give The Eagle credit for one good thing -- it motivated me to read the original source novel, and I liked it very much.
:wink:
Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
)
