At 5:53 AM -0400 4/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/22/06 6:05:50 AM GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> No, the other Mel Gibson Scottish film.
ah - but william wallace took York, you know....;-)
[For those who don't know -- and there is no reason why most of you
should, which is why I take the time to clarify here -- actually, he
didn't. And there ain't no way anyone who doesn't already know that
can figure it out from the film, where the fantasy William Wallace is
shown taking York...]
I actually have one friend (Scottish) who rants for about half an hour every
time it's mentioned - on the basis of how large an insult it is to william
wallace to show him as basically a peasant (given he was actually a lowland
knight, and very well educated).
And then he starts on the tartan and blue faces....
Nothing wrong with tartan, per se -- just the way the used it!
Anyway, the film in question does seem to be especially gratuitously
historically inaccurate, but while that makes it particularly
annoying to those with an affection for Scottish history, the real
issue is not that TFWNSNBU is especially inaccurate, but that *all*
films are historically inaccurate, and *no* film is or should be used
as a reliable source of pre-modern historical information, yet, alas,
many people none-the-less use films as sources of historical
information, frequently encouraged by film makers who go to great
lengths to persuade people that their films are "true" and "real".
Because it doesn't matter if 99% or 50% or only 25% of a film is
inaccurate -- unless you are already an expert (and so, by
definition, not using the film as a source of your information), you
can't tell which bits are made up and which bits are accurate history.
Take, as an example of the difficulties of guessing what is and is
not historically accurate, A Knight's Tale, recently mentioned. How
many of you have assumed that a female smith was one of the film's
anachronisms? If you did, you assumed wrong. Whether the movie makers
knew it or not (and my guess is that they didn't know it), in
Medieval England, at least, there were actually female smiths. What
is accurate and what is inaccurate isn't obvious or at all something
one can determine by watching the film -- even the film's makers
rarely (if ever) know how much, or exactly which bits, of their film
is pure fiction vs. historically plausible vs. historical fact. Not
to mention that even when film makers do know, their goal is to make
their film seemless, so the audience won't know...
Which, again, is why I prefer films such as A Knight's Tale and
Shakespeare in Love, which include enough truly obvious anachronisms
(such as modern rock music, psychiatrist jokes, modern coffee mugs,
etc.), and attitude, to essentially scream out "If you use this movie
as source of historical information, you're a fool" over movies such
as TFWNSNBU, Elizabeth, and Kingdom of Heaven, which go out of their
way, both in the film itself and in the promotion of the film, to try
to persuade people that the film is historically accurate and real
and true and can and should be used as a source of historical
information -- that is, instead of screaming "If you use this movie
as a source of historical information, you're a fool", they whisper
seductively "Honest, really, we're not making this up -- believe us".
Because the problem isn't that films are inaccurate -- the problem is
when audiences believe what they see in films.
Sharon
--
Sharon Krossa, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
Medieval Scotland - http://MedievalScotland.org/
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
