Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

50322Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: crusades and all that...

Expand Messages
  • Sharon L. Krossa
    May 9, 2005
      At 6:32 AM -0400 5/9/05, Jenn Ridley wrote:
      >On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:36:34 -0700, "Sharon L. Krossa"
      ><skrossa-ml@...> wrote:
      > >At 4:00 PM -0700 5/8/05, Mary Taran wrote:
      > >>If you're there to rip it apart by trying to find the
      > >>inauthentic elements, you'll be miserable.
      > >
      > >Why do you say that? Are there no inauthentic elements in the film?
      > >
      >There's probably more than a few (I've not seen it), but I think Mary
      >Taran's point is that if you go to the movie *looking* for inauthentic
      >stuff, you'll miss the entertainment value of the movie.

      And my point is that if you go to the movie *looking* for inauthentic
      stuff, that suggests that is a source of entertainment value for you
      -- in which case you are guaranteed to be entertained by any
      "historical" movie, no matter how bad it may otherwise be.

      >Most people don't go to a movie, even a period movie, expecting to see
      >thing exactly "as they were". Most people go to a movie expecting a
      >story, and to be entertained.

      In my experience, despite their frequent cries of "It's only a
      movie", most people appear to go to a "historical" film expecting to
      believe what they are shown on screen -- to the point that they
      frequently tell others "facts" about history that they learned only
      from watching a movie, often without mentioning that their only
      source was a movie -- and when, as they inevitably do, they discover
      that this or that aspect of what they were shown was *not* exactly
      (or even remotely) "as they were", they get all mad at whoever
      "ruined" (or "tried to ruin") the film for them by pointing out that
      X, Y, and Z was inaccurate.

      If people truly didn't care that films were not exactly "as they
      were" historically, they wouldn't care whether anybody pointed out
      the historical inaccuracies, and they wouldn't think it "ruining" (or
      "attacking") a film to point out those inaccuracies, let alone that
      people who look for such inaccuracies are "miserable".

      Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic