![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI'm back...from visiting my family in South Carolina. (Actually it was just my aging parents, the rest of my family is scattered across the 50 states, including Hawaii, where my brother and sisinlaw and niece are currently residing. But most of us stay in touch via Facebook.)
Saw quite a few films over the holidays, three via DVD, and three in an actual movie theater -- which is a bit out of the norm for me this year. It's cheaper down there, plus more comfortable - since they have recliners. In NYC, it costs close to $20, and the seats are crappy, in Hilton Head, it costs $6 per person, and the seats are more comfortable than in my own living room. Also they confiscate cell phones from folks who text or use them during the film in Hilton Head. (Not sure how well that would work in NYC.) Oh, and my mother treats me, so the movies are also free (at least from my perspective).
1. Million Dollar Arm starring Jon Hamm - this is the Disney flick based on the true story about the sports agent who rebooted his business by convincing Sony to sponsor a Baseball recruiting effort in India. Basically, Hamm plays this self-involved, somewhat shallow sports agent who flies off to India to find a few great pitchers. He holds a huge contest, anyone who pitches over 85 miles per hour gets 10,000, a trip to the US, and the possibility of a major league baseball contract. He gets the idea watching "cricket" where he discovers that the game has some interesting similarities to baseball - and maybe there are a few talented players over there. Except the two kids who win - hate cricket, never played it, and actually excelled at track, javelin throwing, and hockey. The movie has its moments.
Anyhow Hamm brings the kids back to the states with him, much chaos ensues, because Hamm has to take full responsibility for the kids and can't rely on others to do so - as originally planned. They bond. He screws them. He feels deep remorse. Everything works out in the end.
It was okay. Not all that memorable, but good family fare.
2. Ken Burns Documentary of Mark Twain - actually quite good. If you haven't seen this yet, go rent it. I was impressed. I gave it to my Dad for his birthday, hoping it would be good, so was rather relieved. Learned a few things about Twain that I didn't know - such as he lost everything that mattered to him before he died in his 70s. He blamed himself for the deaths of his brother, son, wife, and favorite daughters. The only relative remaining, his middle daughter Clara, he was never close too. Although she did return before his death, and was with him when he died.
Throughout much of his life, Mark Twain - a noted humorist - was depressed and often contemplated suicide. [Reminds of another noted humorist, Dorothy Parker. Actually quite a few noted humorists and comedians were depressed individuals, using humor to keep themselves upright. To name just a few? Oscar Wild, Dorothy Parker, Mark Twain, Robin Williams, Richard Pryor...]
Twain also abhorred racism - it was the one thing that shocked and horrified him the most. Two of his books addressed the topic head-on: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Puddinhead Wilson. And he had issues with imperialism and imperial colonialism - seeing echoes of the slavery he'd grown up with in the way Europeans treated the indigenous people of Africa, India, and Australia, which horrified him. Twain didn't like humanity all that much.
Didn't realize he traveled as much as he did. Or that he had to support himself and his family with speaking tours, which he despised, not the speaking so much as the traveling - which took him away from his family. Many writers apparently have to support their writing through speaking tours and traveling. Something about that strikes me as wrong or off. You are asking someone who "writes" for a living - to "meet and greet and promote themselves on stage"?
3. Lee Daniels The Butler - this is loosely based on the story of Eugene Allen, who was a White House Head Butler for almost 50 years. The story sort of gives you the cliff notes version of the Civil Rights Movement through the eyes of a black man struggling to make ends meet. All the main characters are black. The white characters - such as the Presidents of the US, are in the background. It's okay, better than I expected actually. Although, the most entertaining bit was admittedly the casting choices for the five Presidents of the US featured, and two first ladies.
Quick run-down:
* Robin Williams plays Eisenhower
* John Cusack (yes, the same guy who did Gross Point Blank and Say Anything) plays Nixon. (he was actually weirdly good as Nixon)
* James Marsden is Kennedy (also weirdly effective), and Minka Kelly is Jackie
* Liv Shrieber was LBJ
* Alan Rickman plays Reagan (he's actually really good as Regan, who at one point worries if history might consider him being on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement. Regan, a conservative in ahem more ways than one, derailed various civil rights laws and measures - took the stuffing out them so to speak, and refused to sanction South Africa. Yet, weirdly, Regan supports The Butler's bid for raises and promotions for the black staff - the white staff was paid more and got promoted in the White House, while the black staff did not...)
* Jane Fonda plays Nancy Regan (LOL!!! I enjoyed that. Great joke.)
Oprah Winfrey and Forrest Whitacker are quite good in the movie. But it reminded me a lot of other biopics that I've seen - too broad in scope. Lacked focus.
4. Mockinjay Part I - better than expected. Also more focused...than most of Danny Strong's screenplays. Which is interesting. Strong also wrote the screenplay for the Butler, in case you were wondering. This film made me cry, which I don't recall happening with the last film. Of course, I was also feeling hormonal.
So there's that.
Has a haunting soundtrack. But all the films do. Also, the acting was top-notch. I've decided the Hunger Games is by far the best adaptation of a series of childrens/YA novels that I've seen to date. (I've not read or seen Divergent, so cannot comment on it.) Harry Potter? It was okay, but I felt the adaptations lacked some of the humor and magic of the books. Also, I'm not sure Harry Potter lends itself to movies well - it's more serialized in nature, and seems to have a broader point of view. I say that, with the caveat that I happen to own all the Harry Potter films on DVD, have gotten rid of most of the books, and do not own any of the Hunger Games films. So...
5. Into the Woods - starring Meryl Streep, Chris Pine, Johnny Depp, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick amongst others. The best performances were of course the unknown theater vets...as should be expected: The Baker, Red Riding Hood, and Jack. Although
Emily Blunt was surprisingly good in the role that Johanna Kerns portrayed far more comically on Broadway - Blunt has a better voice than Kerns does.
I wish they'd cast Bernadette Peters as the Witch, Streep felt wrong somehow. Also not sure about Depp as the Wolf, although he only has two scenes - so it hardly manners.
Chris Pine was surprisingly good as Cinderella's self-involved and rather shallow Prince. Actually, the scene where Cinderella and Rapunzel's Princes attempt to outdo each other singing "Agony" is a hilarious send-up of Disney's Prince Charmings or hero trope.
I loved it. Of course. It's a musical. It's Sondheim. It's about fairy tales. It's steeped in metaphor. And I'm hardly a purist or for that matter much of a music snob (you sort of have to be able to sing in order to be a music snob...and well I can't), so what's not to love?
Purists though may be a wee bit upset by some of the changes - the Mysterious Man/Stage Manager/Narrator is gone (honestly how could they have kept him in a movie - the character only works for the stage production, he acts as sort of a meta narration on the proceedings. And since he doubles as the Baker's dead beat Dad, it really works metaphorically...since the tale he's telling of his son, ends up being the tale his son tells his son...and so on...lending weight to the finale song: "Children Will Listen", which always sends chills down my spine.)
Another change? They don't kill Rapunzel. (Considering I didn't remember them killing Rapunzel until a purist critic reminded me of it, this didn't bother me that much. I saw the musical in the 1980s. While I know the score by heart - I don't know the plot by heart. In the play it does sort of matter - because it's why the Witch gets so upset and gives her a wee bit more complexity.) Oh and we don't get a reprise of Agony - which I sort of missed, but is admittedly unnecessary. They also seem to wrap the story up a bit neater than it was in the stage musical. And there's no long duet between the Mysterious Man and the Baker, revealing that the Mysterious Man (Stage Manager/Narrator) is the Baker's father.
So it's not an exact adaptation. But close enough. The core is still there.
If you've never seen the stage musical - you probably won't notice. Also like the stage musical - the first act is much better than the second act. The second act sort of drags - but it's totally worth it - because it features two of the most powerful and by far the best songs that have ever been written. "No one is Alone" and "Children Will Listen". The last one almost gets lost...since it rolls at the very end. These were showstopping numbers for the stage musical. And send chills up my spine.
If, however, you are one of those poor deprived souls who despise musicals (along with my Granny - who never quite understood the point of them, she thought people bursting out in song for no reason was rather silly, but she had similar issues with science fiction and fantasy not to mention historical romance novels, mysteries however didn't bug her - probably because there was less in them to jar her out of the story...lovely woman my Granny but she lacked imagination in the storytelling department), you might want to skip it.
6. The Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbatch (and the Good Wife's Matthew Goode, plus Keira Knightly and Charles Dance.)
I enjoyed it. But, it's not accurate. So if you see it? Keep in mind that 75% of it was made up or altered by the screen writer to get certain points across or make an interesting movie.
For the facts, or rather the Facts according to Andrew Hodges biography on Alan Turning, entitled "Alan Turning:The Enigma" go HERE.
Cumberbatch is rather good in it, but I'm not sure it's an accurate portrayal of Turning. Cumberbatch performs Turning more like Sherlock or Sheldon, when I think Turning was actually more like Leonard on The Big Bang Theory. This may get in the way of Cumberbatch getting a nomination for the role.
Also there's a moment in the movie that reminds me of BladeRunner...it's actually in regards to the title or where the title derives...apparently "The Imitiation Game" is determine if a person is a machine or a person based on a series of questions.
The problem with movies based on the lives of real people or real events is well, we sort of expect a certain level of "historical accuracy". If we're told up front that it is loosely based on the individual's life, or is a fictionalized account, or not based at all - then we suspend disbelief. If we're lead to believe it is an actual account or closely based - then we get a might jarred or pissed when we realize otherwise. Or at least that's how I react, your mileage may differ. Some people can't handle any variation from the history as they know it without being jarred out a story. (I'm not that well-versed in history to care. Nor that anal.) Usually, I tend to be fairly easy-going. As I was in regards to The Imitation Game, I knew going in that it varied from real events, just not to what extent. I admit to being a bit disappointed that it varied to the degree that it did - and I felt the writers were a bit heavy handed and emotionally manipulative in how they did it. BUT...I still enjoyed the movie and do highly recommend it. It's unlikely to jar any historians, unless of course you are experts on Turning, The Enigma Machine, British Homosexual Legal History, or WWII Code Breaking. If so, it might jar you a bit. If you know next to nothing about these things...it may inspire you to get more information or it could mislead you into thinking Turning was a tragic victim of British homophobia and injustice. (I don't think he actually was, I think his death was more complicated than the movie depicts.) The movie does get across how homophobia in Britain ruined lives...but, I think if anyone looks up the facts on the internet - that message could be lost, since it's not clear that Britain's homophobic laws really destroyed Alan Turning. He was hurt by them, don't get me wrong. But not quite to the degree that the movie portrays - like most films and novels, the writers tend to exaggerate things for effect. This embellishment - I think - could have a derogatory effect on how various people view the film, particularly those who are savvy enough to hunt down the actual facts. Which is the risk you take when you decide to embellish upon actual history in order to get across a specific moral message.
While we're discussing historical accuracy or fact checking in fictional and non-fictional works of art, it really only bothers me in works of art that pretend to be accurate or factual. For example? If you have written a biography of Theodore Roosevelt and decide to embellish or make up facts, cite secondary sources, or make up sources - I'll be annoyed. OR say, you are writing a non-fictional history of the women's movement in Great Britain, then dang-it, you better get the fashion, marriage laws, and property laws right. But if you are writing a historical romance novel, a mystery novel, or say just a fictional meeting between Doctor Who and Jane Austen, I sort of know that you're making stuff up. It would however be nice if I could tell it was Jane Austen and we were actually in her time period - if you have her write Wuthering Heights instead of Pride and Prejudice, I would be jarred out of the story.
Historical novels - I struggle with, because the writers often do embellish or play loose with the facts. I know Hillary Mantel did in Wolf Hall - I read a while back on how she changed a few things to make the story more interesting. John Jakes certainly did in his historical novels, as did Gore Vidal and Phillipa Gregory. This tends to bug me more - possibly because - the writer is pretending to provide facts. I feel like I've been mislead or lied to. I go in thinking they are giving me actual info, when - whoops it's not. I had the same problem with The Tudors, Downton Abbey, and
The Borgias...and it's why I struggled with those series. Jarred me out of The Tudors and The Borgias - gave up entirely. Downton Abbey...I sort of shrug it off, and look at it as being similar to Mad Men and The Hour (although apparently, Mad Men and The Hour are historically accurate, while Downton is not or so I've been told by the British historians on my flist.) But, in a television series such as Sleepy Hollow, it doesn't bother me. You know going in that the writers are making things up. It's horror. Hello. It's when it is "straight historical drama" or "mystery" - that I get jarred. It's almost as if I expect the writers of the straight historical or mystery novel to actually do fact-checking? Or hold them to a higher standard? I don't know.
It is at any rate my difficulty with historical novels and why I don't like them very much - mainly because, I think, if I'm going to take the time to read a historical account - shouldn't it be accurate? And wouldn't it make more sense to read non-fiction? Preferably a good non-fiction, there's a lot of lousy non-fiction novels out there.
Speaking of non-fiction books - two have grabbed my interest:
1. Alan Turning: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges - the book that inspired the film The Imitation Game.
2. The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle for James Joyce's Ulysses by Kevin Birmingham
Did I tell you that the reason I became obsessed with James Joyce's Ulysess was my mother had written her college thesis on the battle to get this book published in the US? I remember her telling me about it. And that it was a 800 page book that took place in one day. Separated into chapters...that closely followed Homer's The Odyssey.
The narrative structure along blew my mind.
(Hmm...sort of like why people raced out to see The Interview over the holidays. Note to self, if you want people to read your book or see your film - piss someone off badly enough that they want to censor it or ban it. Guaranteed to get readers and viewers and critical acclaim. Plus free publicity.)
This is the story about why that book couldn't get published. And it is also a fairly relevant critique of the book publishing industry - and it's inability to take risks.
The Mark Twain documentary also touched on this - Twain had his own publishing company, otherwise he would not have been able to publish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - which was banned by various libraries at the time, and critiqued for the narrative style - the book is written entirely in dialect and not in the accepted prose style of the time period. (*cough*HenryJames*cough*). James Joyce did the same thing - he stepped outside the norm and created a new and revolutionary literary style.
Saw quite a few films over the holidays, three via DVD, and three in an actual movie theater -- which is a bit out of the norm for me this year. It's cheaper down there, plus more comfortable - since they have recliners. In NYC, it costs close to $20, and the seats are crappy, in Hilton Head, it costs $6 per person, and the seats are more comfortable than in my own living room. Also they confiscate cell phones from folks who text or use them during the film in Hilton Head. (Not sure how well that would work in NYC.) Oh, and my mother treats me, so the movies are also free (at least from my perspective).
1. Million Dollar Arm starring Jon Hamm - this is the Disney flick based on the true story about the sports agent who rebooted his business by convincing Sony to sponsor a Baseball recruiting effort in India. Basically, Hamm plays this self-involved, somewhat shallow sports agent who flies off to India to find a few great pitchers. He holds a huge contest, anyone who pitches over 85 miles per hour gets 10,000, a trip to the US, and the possibility of a major league baseball contract. He gets the idea watching "cricket" where he discovers that the game has some interesting similarities to baseball - and maybe there are a few talented players over there. Except the two kids who win - hate cricket, never played it, and actually excelled at track, javelin throwing, and hockey. The movie has its moments.
Anyhow Hamm brings the kids back to the states with him, much chaos ensues, because Hamm has to take full responsibility for the kids and can't rely on others to do so - as originally planned. They bond. He screws them. He feels deep remorse. Everything works out in the end.
It was okay. Not all that memorable, but good family fare.
2. Ken Burns Documentary of Mark Twain - actually quite good. If you haven't seen this yet, go rent it. I was impressed. I gave it to my Dad for his birthday, hoping it would be good, so was rather relieved. Learned a few things about Twain that I didn't know - such as he lost everything that mattered to him before he died in his 70s. He blamed himself for the deaths of his brother, son, wife, and favorite daughters. The only relative remaining, his middle daughter Clara, he was never close too. Although she did return before his death, and was with him when he died.
Throughout much of his life, Mark Twain - a noted humorist - was depressed and often contemplated suicide. [Reminds of another noted humorist, Dorothy Parker. Actually quite a few noted humorists and comedians were depressed individuals, using humor to keep themselves upright. To name just a few? Oscar Wild, Dorothy Parker, Mark Twain, Robin Williams, Richard Pryor...]
Twain also abhorred racism - it was the one thing that shocked and horrified him the most. Two of his books addressed the topic head-on: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Puddinhead Wilson. And he had issues with imperialism and imperial colonialism - seeing echoes of the slavery he'd grown up with in the way Europeans treated the indigenous people of Africa, India, and Australia, which horrified him. Twain didn't like humanity all that much.
Didn't realize he traveled as much as he did. Or that he had to support himself and his family with speaking tours, which he despised, not the speaking so much as the traveling - which took him away from his family. Many writers apparently have to support their writing through speaking tours and traveling. Something about that strikes me as wrong or off. You are asking someone who "writes" for a living - to "meet and greet and promote themselves on stage"?
3. Lee Daniels The Butler - this is loosely based on the story of Eugene Allen, who was a White House Head Butler for almost 50 years. The story sort of gives you the cliff notes version of the Civil Rights Movement through the eyes of a black man struggling to make ends meet. All the main characters are black. The white characters - such as the Presidents of the US, are in the background. It's okay, better than I expected actually. Although, the most entertaining bit was admittedly the casting choices for the five Presidents of the US featured, and two first ladies.
Quick run-down:
* Robin Williams plays Eisenhower
* John Cusack (yes, the same guy who did Gross Point Blank and Say Anything) plays Nixon. (he was actually weirdly good as Nixon)
* James Marsden is Kennedy (also weirdly effective), and Minka Kelly is Jackie
* Liv Shrieber was LBJ
* Alan Rickman plays Reagan (he's actually really good as Regan, who at one point worries if history might consider him being on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement. Regan, a conservative in ahem more ways than one, derailed various civil rights laws and measures - took the stuffing out them so to speak, and refused to sanction South Africa. Yet, weirdly, Regan supports The Butler's bid for raises and promotions for the black staff - the white staff was paid more and got promoted in the White House, while the black staff did not...)
* Jane Fonda plays Nancy Regan (LOL!!! I enjoyed that. Great joke.)
Oprah Winfrey and Forrest Whitacker are quite good in the movie. But it reminded me a lot of other biopics that I've seen - too broad in scope. Lacked focus.
4. Mockinjay Part I - better than expected. Also more focused...than most of Danny Strong's screenplays. Which is interesting. Strong also wrote the screenplay for the Butler, in case you were wondering. This film made me cry, which I don't recall happening with the last film. Of course, I was also feeling hormonal.
So there's that.
Has a haunting soundtrack. But all the films do. Also, the acting was top-notch. I've decided the Hunger Games is by far the best adaptation of a series of childrens/YA novels that I've seen to date. (I've not read or seen Divergent, so cannot comment on it.) Harry Potter? It was okay, but I felt the adaptations lacked some of the humor and magic of the books. Also, I'm not sure Harry Potter lends itself to movies well - it's more serialized in nature, and seems to have a broader point of view. I say that, with the caveat that I happen to own all the Harry Potter films on DVD, have gotten rid of most of the books, and do not own any of the Hunger Games films. So...
5. Into the Woods - starring Meryl Streep, Chris Pine, Johnny Depp, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick amongst others. The best performances were of course the unknown theater vets...as should be expected: The Baker, Red Riding Hood, and Jack. Although
Emily Blunt was surprisingly good in the role that Johanna Kerns portrayed far more comically on Broadway - Blunt has a better voice than Kerns does.
I wish they'd cast Bernadette Peters as the Witch, Streep felt wrong somehow. Also not sure about Depp as the Wolf, although he only has two scenes - so it hardly manners.
Chris Pine was surprisingly good as Cinderella's self-involved and rather shallow Prince. Actually, the scene where Cinderella and Rapunzel's Princes attempt to outdo each other singing "Agony" is a hilarious send-up of Disney's Prince Charmings or hero trope.
I loved it. Of course. It's a musical. It's Sondheim. It's about fairy tales. It's steeped in metaphor. And I'm hardly a purist or for that matter much of a music snob (you sort of have to be able to sing in order to be a music snob...and well I can't), so what's not to love?
Purists though may be a wee bit upset by some of the changes - the Mysterious Man/Stage Manager/Narrator is gone (honestly how could they have kept him in a movie - the character only works for the stage production, he acts as sort of a meta narration on the proceedings. And since he doubles as the Baker's dead beat Dad, it really works metaphorically...since the tale he's telling of his son, ends up being the tale his son tells his son...and so on...lending weight to the finale song: "Children Will Listen", which always sends chills down my spine.)
Another change? They don't kill Rapunzel. (Considering I didn't remember them killing Rapunzel until a purist critic reminded me of it, this didn't bother me that much. I saw the musical in the 1980s. While I know the score by heart - I don't know the plot by heart. In the play it does sort of matter - because it's why the Witch gets so upset and gives her a wee bit more complexity.) Oh and we don't get a reprise of Agony - which I sort of missed, but is admittedly unnecessary. They also seem to wrap the story up a bit neater than it was in the stage musical. And there's no long duet between the Mysterious Man and the Baker, revealing that the Mysterious Man (Stage Manager/Narrator) is the Baker's father.
So it's not an exact adaptation. But close enough. The core is still there.
If you've never seen the stage musical - you probably won't notice. Also like the stage musical - the first act is much better than the second act. The second act sort of drags - but it's totally worth it - because it features two of the most powerful and by far the best songs that have ever been written. "No one is Alone" and "Children Will Listen". The last one almost gets lost...since it rolls at the very end. These were showstopping numbers for the stage musical. And send chills up my spine.
If, however, you are one of those poor deprived souls who despise musicals (along with my Granny - who never quite understood the point of them, she thought people bursting out in song for no reason was rather silly, but she had similar issues with science fiction and fantasy not to mention historical romance novels, mysteries however didn't bug her - probably because there was less in them to jar her out of the story...lovely woman my Granny but she lacked imagination in the storytelling department), you might want to skip it.
6. The Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbatch (and the Good Wife's Matthew Goode, plus Keira Knightly and Charles Dance.)
I enjoyed it. But, it's not accurate. So if you see it? Keep in mind that 75% of it was made up or altered by the screen writer to get certain points across or make an interesting movie.
For the facts, or rather the Facts according to Andrew Hodges biography on Alan Turning, entitled "Alan Turning:The Enigma" go HERE.
Cumberbatch is rather good in it, but I'm not sure it's an accurate portrayal of Turning. Cumberbatch performs Turning more like Sherlock or Sheldon, when I think Turning was actually more like Leonard on The Big Bang Theory. This may get in the way of Cumberbatch getting a nomination for the role.
Also there's a moment in the movie that reminds me of BladeRunner...it's actually in regards to the title or where the title derives...apparently "The Imitiation Game" is determine if a person is a machine or a person based on a series of questions.
The problem with movies based on the lives of real people or real events is well, we sort of expect a certain level of "historical accuracy". If we're told up front that it is loosely based on the individual's life, or is a fictionalized account, or not based at all - then we suspend disbelief. If we're lead to believe it is an actual account or closely based - then we get a might jarred or pissed when we realize otherwise. Or at least that's how I react, your mileage may differ. Some people can't handle any variation from the history as they know it without being jarred out a story. (I'm not that well-versed in history to care. Nor that anal.) Usually, I tend to be fairly easy-going. As I was in regards to The Imitation Game, I knew going in that it varied from real events, just not to what extent. I admit to being a bit disappointed that it varied to the degree that it did - and I felt the writers were a bit heavy handed and emotionally manipulative in how they did it. BUT...I still enjoyed the movie and do highly recommend it. It's unlikely to jar any historians, unless of course you are experts on Turning, The Enigma Machine, British Homosexual Legal History, or WWII Code Breaking. If so, it might jar you a bit. If you know next to nothing about these things...it may inspire you to get more information or it could mislead you into thinking Turning was a tragic victim of British homophobia and injustice. (I don't think he actually was, I think his death was more complicated than the movie depicts.) The movie does get across how homophobia in Britain ruined lives...but, I think if anyone looks up the facts on the internet - that message could be lost, since it's not clear that Britain's homophobic laws really destroyed Alan Turning. He was hurt by them, don't get me wrong. But not quite to the degree that the movie portrays - like most films and novels, the writers tend to exaggerate things for effect. This embellishment - I think - could have a derogatory effect on how various people view the film, particularly those who are savvy enough to hunt down the actual facts. Which is the risk you take when you decide to embellish upon actual history in order to get across a specific moral message.
While we're discussing historical accuracy or fact checking in fictional and non-fictional works of art, it really only bothers me in works of art that pretend to be accurate or factual. For example? If you have written a biography of Theodore Roosevelt and decide to embellish or make up facts, cite secondary sources, or make up sources - I'll be annoyed. OR say, you are writing a non-fictional history of the women's movement in Great Britain, then dang-it, you better get the fashion, marriage laws, and property laws right. But if you are writing a historical romance novel, a mystery novel, or say just a fictional meeting between Doctor Who and Jane Austen, I sort of know that you're making stuff up. It would however be nice if I could tell it was Jane Austen and we were actually in her time period - if you have her write Wuthering Heights instead of Pride and Prejudice, I would be jarred out of the story.
Historical novels - I struggle with, because the writers often do embellish or play loose with the facts. I know Hillary Mantel did in Wolf Hall - I read a while back on how she changed a few things to make the story more interesting. John Jakes certainly did in his historical novels, as did Gore Vidal and Phillipa Gregory. This tends to bug me more - possibly because - the writer is pretending to provide facts. I feel like I've been mislead or lied to. I go in thinking they are giving me actual info, when - whoops it's not. I had the same problem with The Tudors, Downton Abbey, and
The Borgias...and it's why I struggled with those series. Jarred me out of The Tudors and The Borgias - gave up entirely. Downton Abbey...I sort of shrug it off, and look at it as being similar to Mad Men and The Hour (although apparently, Mad Men and The Hour are historically accurate, while Downton is not or so I've been told by the British historians on my flist.) But, in a television series such as Sleepy Hollow, it doesn't bother me. You know going in that the writers are making things up. It's horror. Hello. It's when it is "straight historical drama" or "mystery" - that I get jarred. It's almost as if I expect the writers of the straight historical or mystery novel to actually do fact-checking? Or hold them to a higher standard? I don't know.
It is at any rate my difficulty with historical novels and why I don't like them very much - mainly because, I think, if I'm going to take the time to read a historical account - shouldn't it be accurate? And wouldn't it make more sense to read non-fiction? Preferably a good non-fiction, there's a lot of lousy non-fiction novels out there.
Speaking of non-fiction books - two have grabbed my interest:
1. Alan Turning: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges - the book that inspired the film The Imitation Game.
2. The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle for James Joyce's Ulysses by Kevin Birmingham
Did I tell you that the reason I became obsessed with James Joyce's Ulysess was my mother had written her college thesis on the battle to get this book published in the US? I remember her telling me about it. And that it was a 800 page book that took place in one day. Separated into chapters...that closely followed Homer's The Odyssey.
The narrative structure along blew my mind.
(Hmm...sort of like why people raced out to see The Interview over the holidays. Note to self, if you want people to read your book or see your film - piss someone off badly enough that they want to censor it or ban it. Guaranteed to get readers and viewers and critical acclaim. Plus free publicity.)
This is the story about why that book couldn't get published. And it is also a fairly relevant critique of the book publishing industry - and it's inability to take risks.
The Mark Twain documentary also touched on this - Twain had his own publishing company, otherwise he would not have been able to publish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - which was banned by various libraries at the time, and critiqued for the narrative style - the book is written entirely in dialect and not in the accepted prose style of the time period. (*cough*HenryJames*cough*). James Joyce did the same thing - he stepped outside the norm and created a new and revolutionary literary style.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 05:31 pm (UTC)Not sure I'd want it stretched out too far...I mean you could create an effective series, but....I don't know if I'd want to see it. OTOH, The 100 reminds me a little of it...so, perhaps.
Have you seen the 100? You'd like the 100.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 05:35 pm (UTC)I'm not wild about any of the Harry Potter movies, though parts of all of them are well done.
No, I haven't seen the 100. I guess I'll have to check it out, since I generally share your taste. :)
no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 09:47 pm (UTC)Stops being romantic by about the 10th episode, and has some unexpected twists and turns...I mean you think it is going one way and it suddenly goes in the opposite direction.
It's the best sci-fi series I've seen in a while. And by far the best YA television series.
RE Harry Potter movies? Eh, there's a few that are quite good - the third film (where Gary Oldman is introduced as Sirus Black and is actually directed by a film auteur), the fifth (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), the sixth (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince) and the eigth (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part Two) - weirdly it's every other film that seems to work well in that series and the darker ones.
I didn't mind Goblet of Fire and Socerer's Stone, but Chamber of Secrets, and Deathly Hallows Part I dragged.
On Hunger Games? Yeah, they skipped over a few things - like the slaves who had their tongues cut out. I think the film briefly touches on them.
I know Mockingjay did. But the books provided more in depth characterization. We also got a bit more on each of the tributes in the books. And - a bit more on Gale/Katniss' romance. The films barely touch on it. (I was rooting for Gale/Katniss when I was reading the books, now...I don't - because it's barely there.) That said, I don't remember the books well enough to notice the variations - in part because I read them so long ago - about five or six years ago, I think.
And all at once. (I read them in the span of two weeks.) The movies...have weirdly taken more time to watch. (LOL!)
no subject
Date: 2014-12-31 10:07 pm (UTC)When I first read Hunger Games, I was definitely in the Gale camp. My daughter then informed me that I was wrong and Peeta was the right one. When I re-read it, I decided she was right.
I re-read the books for Mockingjay because it'd been so long, and I noticed much more of the anti-war material which really appeals to me and which I'd like to see in the adaptations.