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.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 11:17 pm (UTC)It's hard to go wrong with those aspects.
I think something that helps modern audiences identify/sympathize with key characters, is to set it at an appropriate time for changes in science, politics, and etc. So we can see those who adopt the new ways of thinking as more like us and less like the old guard. So in The Name of the Rose, William is, along with William of Ockham and Roger Bacon, moving away from Scholastic thinking and towards what we can recognize as a scientific method.
And in Master and Commander we have Dr. Maturin reading Darwin and wanting to spend more time in the Galapagos.
I think these sorts of nods towards our ways of thinking and our knowledge of which model would triumph makes us feel sort of complicit with those characters, and enables us stomach some of the historically accurate, but, to us, repugnant actions of other characters.
But I think that this has to be done with care and in keeping with the thinking of the time period in question. Which, from your review/summary, is exactly what Kingdom of Heaven got wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 11:28 pm (UTC)