Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:28 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7433
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Vexer wrote:
You found Lugo sympathetic? Really? :shock: I never found him sympathetic in the slightest. I'm not annoyed, i'm just surprised that someone could actually see him that way.


Again, I didn't find him sympathetic. I just think Bay does. His depiction of Lugo's character leans heavily on the American ideal of rugged individualism -- pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps. Lugo is presented in a positive light as he gets a job (despite a checkered criminal past) by his bravado and can-do spirit. He wants to advance in society and he can't. So he has to resort to crime. Notice how he doesn't use his money frivolously like his friends do -- the filmmakers show that he is worthy of his newfound wealth and social class, and only has to go back to crime because of his criminal companions. And they cast him with an actor, Wahlberg, who has innate likability.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu May 30, 2013 11:24 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Quote:
Again, I didn't find him sympathetic. I just think Bay does. His depiction of Lugo's character leans heavily on the American ideal of rugged individualism -- pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps. Lugo is presented in a positive light as he gets a job (despite a checkered criminal past) by his bravado and can-do spirit. He wants to advance in society and he can't. So he has to resort to crime. Notice how he doesn't use his money frivolously like his friends do -- the filmmakers show that he is worthy of his newfound wealth and social class, and only has to go back to crime because of his criminal companions. And they cast him with an actor, Wahlberg, who has innate likability.
.

Bay's purpose is dark humor, and I don't see the problem with that. None of the humor comes from the death scenes anyway. Bay is making a movie, his job isn't to channel the hatred of the victims of that crime. In terms of messing with history, Django Unchained is what I have a problem with. The most hateful, disgusting film I've ever seen in my life.


Last edited by MGamesCook on Thu May 30, 2013 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu May 30, 2013 11:42 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
I love breakfast food, but I never cared for rehash browns.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu May 30, 2013 11:44 pm
Profile
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Vex, you forgot to answer who the villain was in "Titanic". I'd be very happy if you could tell me. Thanks :)


Thu May 30, 2013 11:45 pm
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
I also get the feeling that focusing on these issues is just a way to distract from discussions about formalism and aesthetics.


Thu May 30, 2013 11:49 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7433
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
One case and point I find interesting about the importance of historical accuracy is Platoon vs. Apocalypse Now.

Platoon is an accurate Vietnam War movie. It's not perfect (the squad essentially undergoes every possible Vietnam experience in a few weeks time) but hell, it's not a documentary and inasmuch as a movie can be accurate, Platoon is.

Apocalypse Now is not as accurate as a Vietnam War movie. But that's not to its discredit. Coppola isn't trying to nail down the experience of a soldier in the war. He's going for something deeper. And it's largely because of the film's departure from reality that it succeeds so thoroughly.

And so while Platoon is the better "Vietnam War film," in my opinion, Apocalypse Now is the better film in general.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu May 30, 2013 11:52 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
I'm not sure either one is the "better" Vietnam movie. Platoon is a very sensory movie, but Apocalypse Now might be called a literary movie--it finds its themes in Vietnam and uses the war as a metaphor for problems that (in the filmmakers' view) are fundamental to the human condition. They're both about Vietnam in very different ways. If these movies are any indication, carrying a machine gun in the jungle and losing your soul are both indelible war experiences.

I do agree that Apocalypse Now is the better movie. Indisputably so. My favorite thing about Platoon is that Oliver Stone isn't getting all up his own ass with messages. That fella loves him some messages.

MGamesCook wrote:
I also get the feeling that focusing on these issues is just a way to distract from discussions about formalism and aesthetics.

I get the feeling that focusing on formalism and aesthetics is a distraction from inventing a time machine to go back to the 1970s, the last decade when such things mattered to filmmakers.

And I get the feeling that inventing a time machine is a distraction from inventing a time machine is a distraction from inventing a time machine is a distraction from inventing a time machine is a distraction from inventing a time

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri May 31, 2013 12:50 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Threeperf35 wrote:
Vex, you forgot to answer who the villain was in "Titanic". I'd be very happy if you could tell me. Thanks :)

I didn't "forget" to answer, I mentioned it in my previous post:

Quote:
The person in Titanic I was talking about was William Murdoch, who was a hero in real life who did everything he could to save people's lives, he never shot anyone for trying to get to a lifeboat.


Here's a list for you guys
urlhttp://www.cracked.com/article_19851_5-real-people-who-got-screwed-by-famous-movies-based-them.html


Fri May 31, 2013 12:56 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1424
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Oh you've found that out via Cracked? I was wondering a bit how you could have known that fact.


Fri May 31, 2013 3:36 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 215
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
MGamesCook wrote:
Django Unchained is what I have a problem with. The most hateful, disgusting film I've ever seen in my life.


When Saw VII, Heavy Metal and Funny Games exist? Hardly. But please, do tell.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Fri May 31, 2013 3:54 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
peng wrote:
Oh you've found that out via Cracked? I was wondering a bit how you could have known that fact.

Yeah, but even before that I had my suspicions when I viewed both of those films, I was like "were these guys really evil in real life?" they were both too cartoonish for me to believe that they were really like that, so I can't say I was entirely surprised when I found out they're portrayals had little to no basis in reality.


Fri May 31, 2013 4:38 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
JJoshay wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Django Unchained is what I have a problem with. The most hateful, disgusting film I've ever seen in my life.


When Saw VII, Heavy Metal and Funny Games exist? Hardly. But please, do tell.

None of those films hold a candle to Irreversible, the Human Centipede films, Chaos or A Serbian Film(I finally bit the bullet and watched it on Youtube).

Just curious, what makes Saw VII more "hateful" and "Disgusting" then any of the other sequels? I think they all suck pretty equally.


Fri May 31, 2013 4:42 am
Profile
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Vexer wrote:
Threeperf35 wrote:
Vex, you forgot to answer who the villain was in "Titanic". I'd be very happy if you could tell me. Thanks :)

I didn't "forget" to answer, I mentioned it in my previous post:

Quote:
The person in Titanic I was talking about was William Murdoch, who was a hero in real life who did everything he could to save people's lives, he never shot anyone for trying to get to a lifeboat.




Ooops, haven't seen that. Sorry. Thanks.


Fri May 31, 2013 8:09 am
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
James,

What exactly would constitute "damaging" for you?

I ask as there are plenty of examples of historical presentations of minorities in films tend to do one of the following:
1) Downplay a minorities contributions to society
2) Emphasize that a particular minority is a "danger" to society, that is focus on criminal or violent acts.
3) Emphasize that a minority is weak and needs saving by a privileged member of society. Usually will focus on tragic stories where a minority is the victim of extreme violence.
4) Pretend that certain minority groups simply don't exist (arguably applies to non-fiction as well) See
Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical for more info on that.

Often times, films in category numbers 2 and 3 aren't even that historically inaccurate. It's only (in my opinon) given the existence of #1 that they become an issue. Individually I even like many films that fall in these categories and would consider them superior examples of filmmaking (Monster, Boys Don't Cry, Swoon). Even films in category number one will often only slightly modify the historical record, but usually just enough so that the contributions of LGBTQ, people of color, etc. are obscured.

For example, De-Lovely is not that far off from the historical record so to speak, but it's invention of an epic romance in what was likely to have been a lavender marriage, while downplaying Porter's male lovers. I mean in the films defense, it does acknowledge them, which in some ways makes it better than more than 95% of what's out there but the total effect is disheartening. Wilde came close to doing the same thing, but the degree of invention was not quite as great.

My point is not that I think film historical accuracy is the end all, be all of films, but don't you think it's a bit more complicated than just "films shouldn't be judged on historical accuracy unless they do something really damaging". Because a lot of the problems I have with how LGBTQ people are portrayed on film do not typically reside in one singular film but rather in aggregate. Also, the same thinking can be applied to other minorities (woman, people of color, the disabled, etc.)

Thoughts?

-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Fri May 31, 2013 10:06 am
Profile WWW
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 608
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
thered47 wrote:
Also, the same thinking can be applied to other minorities (woman, people of color, the disabled, etc.)


Sidebar: I always find it curious when people refer to women as "minorities" since they do in fact make up >50% of the population.


Fri May 31, 2013 11:19 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Johnny Larue wrote:
thered47 wrote:
Also, the same thinking can be applied to other minorities (woman, people of color, the disabled, etc.)


Sidebar: I always find it curious when people refer to women as "minorities" since they do in fact make up >50% of the population.


Minority has nothing to do with what percentage of the population your group makes up, but with how much political and social power your group holds...

-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Fri May 31, 2013 12:15 pm
Profile WWW
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 608
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
thered47 wrote:
Johnny Larue wrote:
thered47 wrote:
Also, the same thinking can be applied to other minorities (woman, people of color, the disabled, etc.)


Sidebar: I always find it curious when people refer to women as "minorities" since they do in fact make up >50% of the population.


Minority has nothing to do with what percentage of the population your group makes up, but with how much political and social power your group holds...

-Jeremy


Under that logic, the Shiites in Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have been called a "minority". I don't recall anyone ever referring to them in such a fashion.


Fri May 31, 2013 1:51 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
Well, I googled Shiite and this is the first thing that came up.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/sunnisshiites.html

They are referred to as such in the first line.
-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Fri May 31, 2013 2:03 pm
Profile WWW
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 608
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
That's on a global scale; I'm talking about Iraq. Unless you are saying that I, as a white male, should be given minority status as there are certainly more other types of people in the world than that.


Fri May 31, 2013 2:06 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7433
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: You know what really doesn't matter? Historical accuracy
thered47 wrote:
James,

What exactly would constitute "damaging" for you?

I ask as there are plenty of examples of historical presentations of minorities in films tend to do one of the following:
1) Downplay a minorities contributions to society
2) Emphasize that a particular minority is a "danger" to society, that is focus on criminal or violent acts.
3) Emphasize that a minority is weak and needs saving by a privileged member of society. Usually will focus on tragic stories where a minority is the victim of extreme violence.
4) Pretend that certain minority groups simply don't exist (arguably applies to non-fiction as well) See
Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical for more info on that.

Often times, films in category numbers 2 and 3 aren't even that historically inaccurate. It's only (in my opinon) given the existence of #1 that they become an issue. Individually I even like many films that fall in these categories and would consider them superior examples of filmmaking (Monster, Boys Don't Cry, Swoon). Even films in category number one will often only slightly modify the historical record, but usually just enough so that the contributions of LGBTQ, people of color, etc. are obscured.

For example, De-Lovely is not that far off from the historical record so to speak, but it's invention of an epic romance in what was likely to have been a lavender marriage, while downplaying Porter's male lovers. I mean in the films defense, it does acknowledge them, which in some ways makes it better than more than 95% of what's out there but the total effect is disheartening. Wilde came close to doing the same thing, but the degree of invention was not quite as great.

My point is not that I think film historical accuracy is the end all, be all of films, but don't you think it's a bit more complicated than just "films shouldn't be judged on historical accuracy unless they do something really damaging". Because a lot of the problems I have with how LGBTQ people are portrayed on film do not typically reside in one singular film but rather in aggregate. Also, the same thinking can be applied to other minorities (woman, people of color, the disabled, etc.)

Thoughts?

-Jeremy


Well I think something's harmful if someone perceives it as such. So while I might not give a shit about Max Baer's presentation in Cinderella Man, I respect that his family feels differently. And even if I don't care about the portrayal of gay people in Basic Instinct (not a historical example, but you take my meaning) that doesn't mean the gay community is equally okay with it.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri May 31, 2013 2:12 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr