More thoughts on "historical" films
Jun. 11th, 2007 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chickenfeetThe recent discussion about Kingdom of Heaven got me thinking more about what does and does not make for a satisfying "historical film" by which I think I mean one that is satisfying as a film while not providing fodder for ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
history_spork.
First, it seems to me, too much budget tends to be deadly. Too much budget creates a need for a return on a vast investment. This in turn leads to patronising the audience, casting overpaid stars who can't act, spurious romance and even altering historical events to broaden the audience appeal. It also, of course leads to gratuitous overuse of CGI.
Kingdom of Heaven pretty much manages to incorporate all of these sins. Another example I might cite would be A Bridge Too Far which is pretty good overall but transfers key bits of the action from the British to the Americans, presumably for box office reasons. I often feel that one of the reasons The Duellists is so successful is that it is modest in scope and extraneous elements are avoided. If the director had had unlimited budget the temptation to include a set piece Napoleonic battle would probably have been quite strong. I wonder too whether the extremely unromantic treatment of sex and marriage would have survived.
A second observation would be that the best "historical" films tend to be grounded in a solid story. The Name of the Rose, The Duellists, Master and Commander were all solid novels or short stories before they were films. For whatever reason, directors and screen writers seem to take fewer liberties with fiction than fact!
And, finally, beware of directors on a mission. There are few surer ways of screwing up history than letting some overpaid denizen of the Hollywood fishbowl 'educate' the great unwashed (ie us) about historical events and their current relevancy. Yes, Mel Gibson, I'm talking to you.
I guess when one gets right down to it, it boils down to a solid story, respect for the past and respect for the audience.
history_spork.First, it seems to me, too much budget tends to be deadly. Too much budget creates a need for a return on a vast investment. This in turn leads to patronising the audience, casting overpaid stars who can't act, spurious romance and even altering historical events to broaden the audience appeal. It also, of course leads to gratuitous overuse of CGI.
Kingdom of Heaven pretty much manages to incorporate all of these sins. Another example I might cite would be A Bridge Too Far which is pretty good overall but transfers key bits of the action from the British to the Americans, presumably for box office reasons. I often feel that one of the reasons The Duellists is so successful is that it is modest in scope and extraneous elements are avoided. If the director had had unlimited budget the temptation to include a set piece Napoleonic battle would probably have been quite strong. I wonder too whether the extremely unromantic treatment of sex and marriage would have survived.
A second observation would be that the best "historical" films tend to be grounded in a solid story. The Name of the Rose, The Duellists, Master and Commander were all solid novels or short stories before they were films. For whatever reason, directors and screen writers seem to take fewer liberties with fiction than fact!
And, finally, beware of directors on a mission. There are few surer ways of screwing up history than letting some overpaid denizen of the Hollywood fishbowl 'educate' the great unwashed (ie us) about historical events and their current relevancy. Yes, Mel Gibson, I'm talking to you.
I guess when one gets right down to it, it boils down to a solid story, respect for the past and respect for the audience.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 06:18 pm (UTC)Kingdom of Heaven I know we disagree on. I can see why some wouldn't like it and I can see where history buffs might find fault, but I thought it was a really good movie, especially the extended cut - but I certainly didn't leave the theatre thinking I knew All About The Crusades. I did leave thinking that it was a fairly balanced view of two sides, neither of which could claim to be The Good Guys and a vague intention that it was an area of history I'd like to know more about. I shall take your word for it that the history's more than a little off - I assume that with historical movies anyway because it's par for the course.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 06:31 pm (UTC)