I don’t think anyone in the media, or the general public, knows the difference between fact and fiction. The thing is, though, they never did. Very shortly after the Big Bang, when I was a child, I remember seeing “King Richard and the Crusaders." You have to be pretty old to recognize these names, but how about Rex Harrison in blackface as Saladin and George Sanders as King Richard the Lionheart? LOL!!!!!!!!! They pretty much made it up as they went along, just as they do today. And how much historical truth was there to any of the “historical” Robin Hoods? And as for “real” history, I can think of three different accounts of the execution of Savonarola: hung by the neck over a bonfire, strangled first then burned, and just plain burned. And all three from books with footnotes! As for a sense of history,” how about Moulin Rouge for a period piece?
Here’s another urban legend concerning the vihuela: I heard back in the day that Alonzo Mudarra would have played his Fantasia in the style of Ludovico the harpist using a campanela technique, as opposed to the way he wrote the piece down, because he didn’t want anybody else to discover how he managed the harp-like effect. Oh well, why labor to appreciate Machaut when you’ve got the Medieval Babes, right? David R > On May 7, 2015, at 7:41 PM, howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> wrote: > > On May 7, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Ron Andrico <praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I have to say that >> trivial details like historical facts are often purged from any story >> based on historical drama in favor of popular appeal during the process >> of adapting for the screen. > > And why not, when the audience wouldn’t know the difference, and even > smartalecky critics can't distinguish between history and fantasy? Four > years ago, his annoyance with The Tudors fresh in his mind, Ron gave us a > link to a review of Camelot, the Starz (at least that’s who aired it in these > parts) series, by Sarah Dempster in The Guardian, who intoned: > > "Two months after The Tudors staggered off on its 16th century pantomime cow, > along clumps Camelot to remind us of the enduring appeal of the appallingly > rendered historical epic.” > > Critics are as entitled to make fools of themselves, but I wonder why some > editor didn't elbow her in the ribs and tell her that Camelot is no more > “history" than Lord of the Rings is. > > And no, I haven’t seen her review of Game of Thrones (which, BTW, while set > in a nonexistent world, nonetheless features some > authentic-looking-and-sounding Renaissance-period instruments, particularly > in scenes just before a king meets a violent end.) > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
