Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Bambi B on November 28, 2003 at 21:27:36

In Reply to: Topic: Does anyone *really* take movies seriously? posted by ClarityKid on November 27, 2003 at 13:50:35:

CK,

Of course, it's a broad pronouncement, but with historical/foreign movies, I get a feel -usually early on- as to the historical accuracy or success in estblishing the "genius loci" (spirit of the place) and a movie then may or may not "ring true"- seem as though events or places must have really felt that way.

If the movie feels artificial or contrived, that is almost as interesting as it usually reveals some kind of slant. The first principle of screenwriting is to establish a strong point of view- and this often comes in the form of summarizing/compressing/inventing events, characters become composites, and etc.

Example: I know enough of Mozart's life and the original play to object to "Amadeus" on historical grounds, but I take seriously that the invented part concerning Salieri is intended to make points about genius meeting mediocrity and I forgive the factual silliness.

Likewise "Pollock", "Mutiny on the Bounty", "32 Short Film about Glenn Gould" (one of the best) and many, many others- there's just wild variation on accuracy and completeness. There are in-betweens: Does "Casablanca" convey the reality of WWII Morocco but within a ficticious story. Is the whole movie a colourful rabble rouser to get Americans interested in entering the war? Both?

There's a bit of a dangerous area: I just saw "Seven Samurai" and this is an example where a movie just rings true- but of course I really have no way to know if 17th Century Japan was even remotely like that. In this way, a powerful movie can become the standard in our minds- supplanting fact- true or not true.

Some must take historical films very seriously as Conservatives made a fuss and were able to stop the CBS broadcast of their series on Reagan.

Good topic!

Cheers,

Bambi B