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

Master and Commander

Expand Messages
  • John E Greig
    Hi All, Master and Commander is in UK cinemas from today and I am going to see it tonight. At least I will know what you all have been rattling on about.
    Message 1 of 17 , Nov 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      Master and Commander is in UK cinemas from today and I am going to see it tonight.

      At least I will know what you all have been "rattling on" about.

      Best wishes to all.

      Squire John

      HM IXth Regiment of Foot (UK)

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Glenn Stott
      Dear List, As one who has watched such Classic films as the Patriot where high profile historical consultants were employed, I have absolutely no doubt that
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear List,
        As one who has watched such Classic films as the Patriot where high profile
        historical consultants were employed, I have absolutely no doubt that Master
        and Commander is by far a superior product both in faithfulness to the
        original story line, and historical interpretation. It is an excellent film
        and sets a very high standard of quality from my humble point of view. Is
        it perfect! Heck no, but it is an excellent start and hopefully will set a
        trend for future endeavours.
        Gord Laco deserves a great deal of credit for his efforts!!!!

        Glenn Stott, Royals
        >
      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
        ... Actualy there was no historical consultant on The Patriot a few re-enactment co-ordinators to be sure but no one who knew the period. I made up
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 9, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 1/8/04 11:34:15 PM, gstott@... writes:


          > Dear List,
          > As one who has watched such  Classic films as the Patriot where high profile
          > historical consultants were employed,
          >

          Actualy there was no historical consultant on ' The Patriot' a few
          're-enactment co-ordinators to be sure but no one who knew the period. I made up
          epauletes for them (all hideously wrong as per the instructions of the costume
          designer and dispite my protests) and they kept trying to pump me for information, I
          informed them that the way it works is that they employ me, pay me and THEN I
          give them the info. They didn't seem to want to do that!

          Cheers

          Tim


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • hm95thfoot
          ... high profile ... Classic film ... The Patriot .... historic consultants all mentioned in the same breath. LOL. RWF
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 9, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn Stott" <gstott@e...> wrote:
            > Dear List,
            > As one who has watched such Classic films as the Patriot where
            high profile
            > historical consultants were employed,

            "Classic film"... "The Patriot"...."historic consultants" all
            mentioned in the same breath. LOL.

            RWF
          • suthren@magma.ca
            I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish that on this rare
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 31, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish that on this rare occasion when big-budget filmmaking turned to our beloved era, they would get it right. "Pirates of the Caribbean" could never have been taken as even approaching what actually happened in 1680 to 1720 or so---not too many lads ended up on Wapping Gibbet with an octopus-tentacle face---but the thing about M&C is that it was meant to be a fictional story set in a real environment: it could have taken place. Those who cared wanted it to be spot-on in detail and knowledge (and also to have a storyline that would grab the non-buff), and to watch the film and wince when small things were simply done wrong ( one doesn't say "Avast rowing". One says "Oars", etc. etc.) was disappointing. I suppose one risks being a version of a "stitch-Nazi" thinking like this, but, Gee, it would have been nice to sink into the enjoyment of the film knowing it had respected the past and was 'getting it right' even in the small things. POTC threw history out the window and were silly romps that had a 1680s governor and a 1759 Commodore commanding Nelsonian seamen, etc. etc., but we wanted more from M&C. I know I did.

              Vic Suthren

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • James Yaworsky
              ... inaccuracies and errors stemmed from [big snip] Did M&C receive heavy criticism ? Other than some discussion on this very group, I don t recall hearing
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 31, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <suthren@...> wrote:
                >
                > I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical
                inaccuracies and errors stemmed from [big snip]

                Did M&C receive "heavy criticism"? Other than some discussion on this
                very group, I don't recall hearing of anybody criticizing it for
                historical inaccuracies and errors. I'm sorry, in my opinion most of
                the inaccuracies and errors that have been pointed out are trivial.
                In my opinion, the overall authenticity of this movie is phenomenal.

                If most of the movies made on an historical theme were just *half* as
                accurate as M&C, I for one would be delirious with joy.

                I got to hear plenty of criticism of M&C from my wife and daughters,
                because they thought it was too long and boring, in between the
                relatively brief action sequences. Their criticism would be that it
                was all too accurate! Also, no espionage or tender love scenes. I
                might be wrong, but I think this sort of analysis, spread quickly by
                word of mouth, is what kept the big box office take from happening...

                It is a sad fact of life that we Napoleonic age enthusiasts are but a
                small niche market in the great scheme of things. We're lucky M&C was
                made at all!

                Jim Yaworsky
                41st
              • John Potter
                You re right Vic, it would have been just as easy to get some of the small details right AND have had a story that would keep the masses entertained. I did
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 31, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  You're right Vic, it would have been just as easy to get some of the
                  small details right AND have had a story that would keep the masses
                  entertained. I did enjoy M&C in the cinemas when I saw it but also
                  found the storyline to be slow moving and dull to be honest. Thank
                  heavens for the battle scene at the end..!

                  I also enjoyed POTC but at least you know with this sort of fictional
                  romp that it isn't trying to be historically correct. This kind of
                  fantasy doesn't bother me as much as the films which mislead people
                  into thinking they are seeing something historical or even a
                  fictional story in a historical setting when it is obviously (to us)
                  misrepresenting the past - things like U571, The Patriot, etc..

                  Cheers,

                  John

                  --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <suthren@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical
                  inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish
                  that on this rare occasion when big-budget filmmaking turned to our
                  beloved era, they would get it right. "Pirates of the Caribbean"
                  could never have been taken as even approaching what actually
                  happened in 1680 to 1720 or so---not too many lads ended up on
                  Wapping Gibbet with an octopus-tentacle face---but the thing about
                  M&C is that it was meant to be a fictional story set in a real
                  environment: it could have taken place. Those who cared wanted it to
                  be spot-on in detail and knowledge (and also to have a storyline that
                  would grab the non-buff), and to watch the film and wince when small
                  things were simply done wrong ( one doesn't say "Avast rowing". One
                  says "Oars", etc. etc.) was disappointing. I suppose one risks being
                  a version of a "stitch-Nazi" thinking like this, but, Gee, it would
                  have been nice to sink into the enjoyment of the film knowing it had
                  respected the past and was 'getting it right' even in the small
                  things. POTC threw history out the window and were silly romps that
                  had a 1680s governor and a 1759 Commodore commanding Nelsonian
                  seamen, etc. etc., but we wanted more from M&C. I know I did.
                  >
                  > Vic Suthren
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Peter Catley
                  You are a brave Aussie Mr Potter, I wasn t going to mention those bending history films! P** ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 31, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You are a brave Aussie Mr Potter, I wasn't going to mention those
                    "bending" history films!

                    P**

                    On 1 Aug 2008, at 03:02, John Potter wrote:

                    >
                    > You're right Vic, it would have been just as easy to get some of the
                    > small details right AND have had a story that would keep the masses
                    > entertained. I did enjoy M&C in the cinemas when I saw it but also
                    > found the storyline to be slow moving and dull to be honest. Thank
                    > heavens for the battle scene at the end..!
                    >
                    > I also enjoyed POTC but at least you know with this sort of fictional
                    > romp that it isn't trying to be historically correct. This kind of
                    > fantasy doesn't bother me as much as the films which mislead people
                    > into thinking they are seeing something historical or even a
                    > fictional story in a historical setting when it is obviously (to us)
                    > misrepresenting the past - things like U571, The Patriot, etc..
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > John
                    >
                    > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <suthren@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical
                    > inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish
                    > that on this rare occasion when big-budget filmmaking turned to our
                    > beloved era, they would get it right. "Pirates of the Caribbean"
                    > could never have been taken as even approaching what actually
                    > happened in 1680 to 1720 or so---not too many lads ended up on
                    > Wapping Gibbet with an octopus-tentacle face---but the thing about
                    > M&C is that it was meant to be a fictional story set in a real
                    > environment: it could have taken place. Those who cared wanted it to
                    > be spot-on in detail and knowledge (and also to have a storyline that
                    > would grab the non-buff), and to watch the film and wince when small
                    > things were simply done wrong ( one doesn't say "Avast rowing". One
                    > says "Oars", etc. etc.) was disappointing. I suppose one risks being
                    > a version of a "stitch-Nazi" thinking like this, but, Gee, it would
                    > have been nice to sink into the enjoyment of the film knowing it had
                    > respected the past and was 'getting it right' even in the small
                    > things. POTC threw history out the window and were silly romps that
                    > had a 1680s governor and a 1759 Commodore commanding Nelsonian
                    > seamen, etc. etc., but we wanted more from M&C. I know I did.
                    > >
                    > > Vic Suthren
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • suthren@magma.ca
                    Too right you are about misleading films. Mel Gibson s hatred for all things English has led him to beat to death a recurrent theme (Mel the mild-mannered nice
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Too right you are about misleading films. Mel Gibson's hatred for all things English has led him to beat to death a recurrent theme (Mel the mild-mannered nice guy, Mel put upon by sadistic, cruel or brutal Brits, Mel shafted by them or turning against them in righteous rebellion and doing in quite a few) that he's repeated in everything from 'Gallipoli' through 'The Bounty' and 'Braveheart' to 'The Patriot'. I don't mind him having a pathological hatred that he plays out in film, it's just that so few good historical films are made it would have been nice if 'The Patriot' had not given so distorted an image of the AWI, which took away the dignity of the original struggle (there was a great deal) and made it instead a good-guys-against-the-SS parody (which had none) that cheapened what the American fight for independence was all about. In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the exploits of Joshua Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers' Winfield Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?

                      Vic Suthren
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: John Potter
                      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:02 PM
                      Subject: 1812 Re: Master and Commander



                      You're right Vic, it would have been just as easy to get some of the
                      small details right AND have had a story that would keep the masses
                      entertained. I did enjoy M&C in the cinemas when I saw it but also
                      found the storyline to be slow moving and dull to be honest. Thank
                      heavens for the battle scene at the end..!

                      I also enjoyed POTC but at least you know with this sort of fictional
                      romp that it isn't trying to be historically correct. This kind of
                      fantasy doesn't bother me as much as the films which mislead people
                      into thinking they are seeing something historical or even a
                      fictional story in a historical setting when it is obviously (to us)
                      misrepresenting the past - things like U571, The Patriot, etc..

                      Cheers,

                      John

                      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <suthren@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical
                      inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish
                      that on this rare occasion when big-budget filmmaking turned to our
                      beloved era, they would get it right. "Pirates of the Caribbean"
                      could never have been taken as even approaching what actually
                      happened in 1680 to 1720 or so---not too many lads ended up on
                      Wapping Gibbet with an octopus-tentacle face---but the thing about
                      M&C is that it was meant to be a fictional story set in a real
                      environment: it could have taken place. Those who cared wanted it to
                      be spot-on in detail and knowledge (and also to have a storyline that
                      would grab the non-buff), and to watch the film and wince when small
                      things were simply done wrong ( one doesn't say "Avast rowing". One
                      says "Oars", etc. etc.) was disappointing. I suppose one risks being
                      a version of a "stitch-Nazi" thinking like this, but, Gee, it would
                      have been nice to sink into the enjoyment of the film knowing it had
                      respected the past and was 'getting it right' even in the small
                      things. POTC threw history out the window and were silly romps that
                      had a 1680s governor and a 1759 Commodore commanding Nelsonian
                      seamen, etc. etc., but we wanted more from M&C. I know I did.
                      >
                      > Vic Suthren
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • John Ogden
                      Vic, We can indeed hope for a decent and accurate treatment of this period on film, although I won t hold my breath. Long live the Republic! ... -- John J.
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Vic,
                        We can indeed hope for a decent and accurate treatment of this period
                        on film, although I won't hold my breath.

                        Long live the Republic!


                        On 8/1/08, suthren@... <suthren@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Too right you are about misleading films. Mel Gibson's hatred for all
                        > things English has led him to beat to death a recurrent theme (Mel the
                        > mild-mannered nice guy, Mel put upon by sadistic, cruel or brutal Brits, Mel
                        > shafted by them or turning against them in righteous rebellion and doing in
                        > quite a few) that he's repeated in everything from 'Gallipoli' through 'The
                        > Bounty' and 'Braveheart' to 'The Patriot'. I don't mind him having a
                        > pathological hatred that he plays out in film, it's just that so few good
                        > historical films are made it would have been nice if 'The Patriot' had not
                        > given so distorted an image of the AWI, which took away the dignity of the
                        > original struggle (there was a great deal) and made it instead a
                        > good-guys-against-the-SS parody (which had none) that cheapened what the
                        > American fight for independence was all about. In our 1812 era let's hope
                        > that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some flinty Hollywood heart the urge
                        > to see box-office in, say, the exploits of Joshua Barney or Oliver Hazard
                        > Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers' Winfield Scott) who battle Brits and
                        > Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not despicable near-criminals.
                        > We can hope, eh?
                        >
                        > Vic Suthren
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: John Potter
                        > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:02 PM
                        > Subject: 1812 Re: Master and Commander
                        >
                        > You're right Vic, it would have been just as easy to get some of the
                        > small details right AND have had a story that would keep the masses
                        > entertained. I did enjoy M&C in the cinemas when I saw it but also
                        > found the storyline to be slow moving and dull to be honest. Thank
                        > heavens for the battle scene at the end..!
                        >
                        > I also enjoyed POTC but at least you know with this sort of fictional
                        > romp that it isn't trying to be historically correct. This kind of
                        > fantasy doesn't bother me as much as the films which mislead people
                        > into thinking they are seeing something historical or even a
                        > fictional story in a historical setting when it is obviously (to us)
                        > misrepresenting the past - things like U571, The Patriot, etc..
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>, <suthren@...>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I think the heavy criticism M&C received because of its historical
                        > inaccuracies and errors stemmed from the deep, understandable wish
                        > that on this rare occasion when big-budget filmmaking turned to our
                        > beloved era, they would get it right. "Pirates of the Caribbean"
                        > could never have been taken as even approaching what actually
                        > happened in 1680 to 1720 or so---not too many lads ended up on
                        > Wapping Gibbet with an octopus-tentacle face---but the thing about
                        > M&C is that it was meant to be a fictional story set in a real
                        > environment: it could have taken place. Those who cared wanted it to
                        > be spot-on in detail and knowledge (and also to have a storyline that
                        > would grab the non-buff), and to watch the film and wince when small
                        > things were simply done wrong ( one doesn't say "Avast rowing". One
                        > says "Oars", etc. etc.) was disappointing. I suppose one risks being
                        > a version of a "stitch-Nazi" thinking like this, but, Gee, it would
                        > have been nice to sink into the enjoyment of the film knowing it had
                        > respected the past and was 'getting it right' even in the small
                        > things. POTC threw history out the window and were silly romps that
                        > had a 1680s governor and a 1759 Commodore commanding Nelsonian
                        > seamen, etc. etc., but we wanted more from M&C. I know I did.
                        > >
                        > > Vic Suthren
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        --
                        John J. Ogden
                        Hanley School of Law
                        Duquesne University
                        Class of 2011

                        "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity
                        in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any
                        particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?" -- James
                        Madison, June 20, 1785

                        "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
                        founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
                        enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and, as the
                        said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
                        Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising
                        from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
                        existing between the two countries." -- Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace
                        and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli
                        of Barbary, 3 Junad 1211 (Muslim calendar), 4 November 1796 C.E..


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • JGIL1812@aol.com
                        Vic, You ve raised an interesting side conversation here. If you were making a film today centered on the War of 1812, who would be the central characters to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Vic,

                          You've raised an interesting side conversation here. If you were making a
                          film today centered on the War of 1812, who would be the central characters to
                          make it saleable to the American and Canadian movie or TV audiences? As you
                          have mentioned Barney, Perry and Scott I am sure that there are other choices
                          that would make a decent film palatable to both sides of the border. Waiting
                          to hear from the world!

                          JG/RE


                          In a message dated 8/1/2008 5:09:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                          suthren@... writes:

                          <<In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some
                          flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the exploits of
                          Joshua Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers' Winfield
                          Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not
                          despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?>>





                          **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
                          FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
                          (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • John Ogden
                          Now we just need a script and someone to pitch it to... ... -- John J. Ogden Hanley School of Law Duquesne University Class of 2011 Who does not see that the
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Now we just need a script and someone to pitch it to...

                            On 8/1/08, suthren@... <suthren@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I really think the story of the Lake Erie naval race,culminating at
                            > Put-in Bay, would make a terrific film, particularly because of several
                            > factors: (a) Perry and Barclay were both honourable men and fine seamen, and
                            > did the best they could under trying conditions; (b) Perry's seamanship in
                            > getting his fleet out 'over the bar' was masterful; (c) Barclay manned his
                            > fleet with Brits, Canadians and Warriors, and fought hard and
                            > courageously---as did Perry's men---in a close-fought battle that could have
                            > gone either way; and (d) Perry and his men treated Barclay's men with
                            > honour, and the seamen worked together to put things back together after the
                            > battle. And Perry tended Barclay personally, even supporting him as they
                            > stood at the burial of the officers of both fleets ashore. Courage,
                            > seamanship, honour and the behavior of brave "officers and gentlemen" who
                            > respected one another. It doesn't get any better than that. And what a film
                            > it would make....
                            >
                            > Vic
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: JGIL1812@... <JGIL1812%40aol.com>
                            > To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com <WarOf1812%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 11:49 AM
                            > Subject: Re: 1812 Re: Master and Commander
                            >
                            > Vic,
                            >
                            > You've raised an interesting side conversation here. If you were making a
                            > film today centered on the War of 1812, who would be the central characters
                            > to
                            > make it saleable to the American and Canadian movie or TV audiences? As you
                            >
                            > have mentioned Barney, Perry and Scott I am sure that there are other
                            > choices
                            > that would make a decent film palatable to both sides of the border.
                            > Waiting
                            > to hear from the world!
                            >
                            > JG/RE
                            >
                            > In a message dated 8/1/2008 5:09:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                            > suthren@... <suthren%40magma.ca> writes:
                            >
                            > <<In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some
                            > flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the exploits of
                            > Joshua Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers'
                            > Winfield
                            > Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not
                            >
                            > despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?>>
                            >
                            > **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
                            > FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
                            > (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >



                            --
                            John J. Ogden
                            Hanley School of Law
                            Duquesne University
                            Class of 2011

                            "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity
                            in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any
                            particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?" -- James
                            Madison, June 20, 1785

                            "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
                            founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
                            enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and, as the
                            said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
                            Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising
                            from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
                            existing between the two countries." -- Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace
                            and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli
                            of Barbary, 3 Junad 1211 (Muslim calendar), 4 November 1796 C.E..


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • suthren@magma.ca
                            I really think the story of the Lake Erie naval race,culminating at Put-in Bay, would make a terrific film, particularly because of several factors: (a) Perry
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I really think the story of the Lake Erie naval race,culminating at Put-in Bay, would make a terrific film, particularly because of several factors: (a) Perry and Barclay were both honourable men and fine seamen, and did the best they could under trying conditions; (b) Perry's seamanship in getting his fleet out 'over the bar' was masterful; (c) Barclay manned his fleet with Brits, Canadians and Warriors, and fought hard and courageously---as did Perry's men---in a close-fought battle that could have gone either way; and (d) Perry and his men treated Barclay's men with honour, and the seamen worked together to put things back together after the battle. And Perry tended Barclay personally, even supporting him as they stood at the burial of the officers of both fleets ashore. Courage, seamanship, honour and the behavior of brave "officers and gentlemen" who respected one another. It doesn't get any better than that. And what a film it would make....

                              Vic
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: JGIL1812@...
                              To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 11:49 AM
                              Subject: Re: 1812 Re: Master and Commander


                              Vic,

                              You've raised an interesting side conversation here. If you were making a
                              film today centered on the War of 1812, who would be the central characters to
                              make it saleable to the American and Canadian movie or TV audiences? As you
                              have mentioned Barney, Perry and Scott I am sure that there are other choices
                              that would make a decent film palatable to both sides of the border. Waiting
                              to hear from the world!

                              JG/RE


                              In a message dated 8/1/2008 5:09:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                              suthren@... writes:

                              <<In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some
                              flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the exploits of
                              Joshua Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers' Winfield
                              Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not
                              despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?>>

                              **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
                              FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
                              (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                              In a message dated 8/1/2008 7:09:22 AM Central Daylight Time, suthren@magma.ca writes: In our 1812 era let s hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 8/1/2008 7:09:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                suthren@... writes:

                                In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in some
                                flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the exploits of Joshua
                                Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers' Winfield
                                Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy foes, not
                                despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?




                                -------------------------------------

                                Don't bank on it, this stupid atitude is so ingrained that a few years ago
                                I, and other members of this list, were present at a Battle of New Orleans
                                commemoration where the emenent historian Robert Remini (Andrew Jackson expert
                                and the official historian of the US Congress) was invited to speak. He shocked
                                - no horified many of his listeners when aften making many questionable
                                remarks about the British, in the presence of many local dignitaries, including
                                the Honorary British Consul, he tried to bring his talk uo to date with the
                                statement "and today we are again fighting against terrorists who would like to
                                end our way of life"!!

                                When one has higly respected historians coming out with such brain dead
                                statements what can we expect from Hollywood.

                                Cheers,

                                Tim



                                **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
                                Read reviews on AOL Autos.
                                (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Dale Kidd
                                Sadly, it seems that the concept of honourable treatment of one s emnemies is out of fashion in Hollywood today, whether historically factual or not. I shudder
                                Message 15 of 17 , Aug 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sadly, it seems that the concept of honourable treatment of one's
                                  emnemies is out of fashion in Hollywood today, whether historically
                                  factual or not. I shudder to think of how any portrayal of the Battle
                                  of Put-in Bay produced today would treat Barclay. He would almost
                                  certainly die spitted on the blade of a grimacing Perry, who would
                                  likely be played by Hollywood's all-American hunk de jour. Barclay,
                                  naturally, would be played by some weasely-looking fellow with a
                                  British accent.

                                  Perhaps it would be better if Hollywood did NOT take too close an
                                  interest in the bicentennial.... they might actually succeed in
                                  rekindling the war.

                                  ~Dale
                                • dzallis
                                  ... some ... exploits of Joshua ... Winfield ... foes, not ... Orleans ... Jackson expert ... speak. He shocked ... questionable ... dignitaries, including ...
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Aug 2, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, BritcomHMP@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > In a message dated 8/1/2008 7:09:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                    > suthren@... writes:
                                    >
                                    > In our 1812 era let's hope that the upcoming Bicentennial stirs in
                                    some
                                    > flinty Hollywood heart the urge to see box-office in, say, the
                                    exploits of Joshua
                                    > Barney or Oliver Hazard Perry (or even 'Old Fuss And Feathers'
                                    Winfield
                                    > Scott) who battle Brits and Canadians that are gallant and worthy
                                    foes, not
                                    > despicable near-criminals. We can hope, eh?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --------------------------
                                    > Don't bank on it, this -----------
                                    > stupid atitude is so ingrained that a few years ago
                                    > I, and other members of this list, were present at a Battle of New
                                    Orleans
                                    > commemoration where the emenent historian Robert Remini (Andrew
                                    Jackson expert
                                    > and the official historian of the US Congress) was invited to
                                    speak. He shocked
                                    > - no horified many of his listeners when aften making many
                                    questionable
                                    > remarks about the British, in the presence of many local
                                    dignitaries, including
                                    > the Honorary British Consul, he tried to bring his talk uo to date
                                    with the
                                    > statement "and today we are again fighting against terrorists who
                                    would like to
                                    > end our way of life"!!
                                    >
                                    > When one has higly respected historians coming out with such brain
                                    dead
                                    > statements what can we expect from Hollywood.
                                    >
                                    > Cheers,
                                    >
                                    > Tim
                                    >I remember hearing Robert Remini talk on one of the History
                                    Channels. He was so one sided in regards to Jackson that it was
                                    repugnant. Later, I was watching one of the Richard Sharpe series and
                                    during the commercial breaks Richard Cornwell was asked some
                                    questions. The most interesting was, he was asked if the French were
                                    really that bad. He replied that they were not but it was done for
                                    dramatic effect. Then there must be something against portraying the
                                    soldiesr as they really were. After all, soldiers probably fight for
                                    their comrades rather than the symbols we are shown.

                                    Warmest respects,
                                    David Vargo
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your
                                    budget?
                                    > Read reviews on AOL Autos.
                                    > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
                                    ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 8/2/2008 11:26:32 AM Central Daylight Time, Davidjrvargo@aol.com writes: Then there must be something against portraying the soldiesr as
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Aug 2, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 8/2/2008 11:26:32 AM Central Daylight Time,
                                      Davidjrvargo@... writes:

                                      Then there must be something against portraying the
                                      soldiesr as they really were. After all, soldiers probably fight for
                                      their comrades rather than the symbols we are shown.




                                      --------------------------------------

                                      Very True David. I think a very good method is to try to tell the same story
                                      twice, one from eavch side, which is actualy what I did in my New Orleans
                                      book. The funny thing is I still got criticised by some people for being anti US
                                      or rather pro British. It seemed that some took my pro US statements as just
                                      a plain statement of fact and my pro Brit statements as anti US lies.

                                      On the movie screen this has been done a few times, examples include Tora!
                                      Tora! Tora! in which they basicaly made two films form two different poits of
                                      view and edited them into one, and more recently Clint Eastwood's movies Flags
                                      of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima which looked at the same event from
                                      the two sides. Personaly I think that this would be a great way to portray
                                      the war of 1812, I really do not understand the obsession at justifying
                                      killing the enemy by having to portray him as evil incarnate (unless he actualy
                                      was).
                                      I put it down to modern touchy feely ideas that allof this heroism is very
                                      bad and the only reason it can ever be glorified is if the other chap is so
                                      intolerable that they had to be wiped from the face of the earth.

                                      I don't think the one of my favorite lines from Zulu would ever be used
                                      today,

                                      "You know, even as I was shooting em' I was proud of em'"

                                      Cheers

                                      Tim



                                      **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
                                      Read reviews on AOL Autos.
                                      (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.