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

Re: 1812 Re: Master and Commander

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Aug 1 5:15 AM
      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 2 of 17 , Aug 1 5:25 AM
        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 3 of 17 , Aug 1 8:49 AM
          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 4 of 17 , Aug 1 9:33 AM
            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 5 of 17 , Aug 1 9:35 AM
              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 6 of 17 , Aug 1 12:56 PM
                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 7 of 17 , Aug 1 2:18 PM
                  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 8 of 17 , Aug 2 9:26 AM
                    --- 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 9 of 17 , Aug 2 10:09 AM
                      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.