50322Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: crusades and all that...
- May 9, 2005At 6:32 AM -0400 5/9/05, Jenn Ridley wrote:
>On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:36:34 -0700, "Sharon L. Krossa"And my point is that if you go to the movie *looking* for inauthentic
> >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.
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 seeIn my experience, despite their frequent cries of "It's only a
>thing exactly "as they were". Most people go to a movie expecting a
>story, and to be entertained.
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@...
- << Previous post in topic