Thursday, April 20, 2006

Historical accurate movies=boring?

Edit: It came to my attenion that my draft posted instead of my final. Here's the final verison of my rant.

I re-watched Emma the other day and had a minor rant attack over historical inaccuracies in the movie. Afterwards I started to think, what was the last historical accurate movie which gained any sort of interest.

All the recent movies like Troy, Alexander, King Arthur, and even the recent version of P&P, have historical inaccuracies large enough to drive trucks through. Does a story/time period need to be skewed or changed to make an interesting story? I'd like to think the answer is no.

It's almost as if Hollywood and the general have ingrained in their brains that if it's truly historical it's boring. I've heard the "people don't see movies to learn" argument before, but why can they learn and be entertained at the same time?

And hey Hollywood do you think we could at least TRY to get the costumes right half the time? While the accuracies of costumes in movies such as Ever After (and perhaps Pirate of the Caribbean, though ironical though weren't too off basis from what my limited knowledge of that time period)and, A Knight's Tale can be forgiven somewhat I dislike seeing things such as plate armor on knights in a time only chain-mail was avaible.

Or how about artifacts pieces in the right places? I can't have been the only person who gaped at the sight of the Lion's Gate in a throne room in Tory.

Please let's not even started on changing stories to 'suit' modern audiences. It's a frustrating trend that seems to tie into the sanitized of myths and fairy/folk tales. (Remind me to do a rant on the loss of understanding of the importance of the storyteller in the telling of fairy/folk tales and how this ties into the before said sanitization.)

Does anyone else become frustated with this?

Strangely enough though, I have no problem with A Lion in Winter.

No comments: