(no subject)

[bedlamsbard]

I think the saddest thing about being a MEMS major is that now I can't watch most historical movies without wincing and weeping. Which is sad, because historical action/adventure used to be one of my favorite genres.

I watched King Arthur over spring break. I managed to get through most of the history!fail by telling myself it was really taking place in a fantasy world that closely resembled ancient Britain, but wasn't really! Somewhere near the end my attempts at this fell through. Gladiator is good with the action but bad with the sheer WTFery of ancient Rome. I am kind of afraid to watch either the new Robin Hood or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (which I actually like, by the way), partly because I am now incredibly fond of King John. (Oh, my lovely unpopular opinions, they are very strange.)

On the bright side, at least I have always been of the opinion that Kingdom of Heaven was a rubbish movie, so nothing to be disillusioned of there!

Comments

[somnolentblue]

I feel your pain; I did a Classics and History double major as an undergrad, and I'm writing a dissertation in history. I've gotten to the point where I can watch stuff if they're not even pretending to be historically accurate and embracing anachronism and ridiculousness (Gladiator, the sheer WTFery of the new Spartacus which is great for giggles and Lucy Lawless), but the movies and TV that take themselves seriously make me want to throw things (Braveheart, Troy, 300). (Of course, all that being said i cannot even begin to contemplate watching The Devil's Whore, which is about the people I'm writing a dissertation about, because I think it would make me want to cry.)

I have a friend who's a medievalist who also likes King John, so you're not alone!

[bedlamsbard]

Heh, the new Spartacus. It tears me between laughter and tears.

King John! I blame the biography I had to read for class, which I cannot remember the author of right now.

I suspect the situation will only get worse the further I go into history, and since I'm going for a PhD... *sighs*

[aella_irene]

Read Mistress of the Art of Death, for you will fall in love with Henry II, and I'm fairly sure she's got to bring in John at some point, she's already brought in his half-brother Geoffrey and his sister Joan.

[jeanniemactavish]

I hear ya! Although I find that my ability to stomach the inevitable inaccuracies is directly related to how good the storytelling is otherwise, and (like another commenter said above), how seriously the filmmakers seem to take themselves.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is RIDICULOUS, but I kind of love it...in part because although Kevin Costner takes himself Very Very Seriously throughout, everyone else involved seems to just be having a fine old time glorying in the corny-historical-fantasy-AU-ness of it all. See also the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which is ostensibly set in "my" period (late Victorian Britain), so I was all set to be cringing at wrong notes...but it turned out to be a sort of fantasy-steampunk-y late Victorian London, so all was well and I really enjoyed it. ;)

The only historical film I've ever seen that set out to be accurate and actually succeeded was "Topsy Turvy", an obscure little film about Gilbert and Sullivan writing and producing The Mikado...directed by Mike Leigh. It came out in...2001, I think? ...when I was writing my MA thesis *about* Gilbert and Sullivan and their operas. So when I saw it, I knew WAY too much about them and their period...but I did not notice a single mistake. NOT ONE. All the details were right - from the clothes and the way people talked to the ins and outs of how theatre was produced in the 1880s in London. It was amazing - like seeing everything I'd been reading and writing about come to life on screen. And the result was that the stuff the screenwriters extrapolated (the personal interactions that were never documented) seemed completely plausible, just as real as the rest of it.

[bedlamsbard]

Yes. I think movies definitely work much better if the story-telling is also top-calibre. I can't think of anthing in my period right now that actually is (or at least, that I'm not afraid to rewatch).

[scy]

Heh, that is one way to get through KA. *nods*

[bedlamsbard]

It almost worked! Almost! ...I can't quite remember when it fell apart, but it almost worked!

[scy]

I just told myself going in 'fantasy...that HAPPENS to look like King Arthur...sort of..' That helped? But yes, I can see how it would all fall apart if you thought too much, or at all really.

[bedlamsbard]

*nods* That's exactly what I did. I had to, after they started throwing out dates willy-nilly!

[scy]

*pats your shoulder*

Oh, on the subject of literature..I have my very own copy of the complete Chronicles of Narnia. I was given this lovely book today by my mother (I always stole the 'family copies' and I have since moved out) *GLEEES*

Peter/Narnia FTW!

[ineptshieldmaid]

King Arthur was actually a remarkably... clever movie. Full of history fail, and badly applied research, but it was interesting to see what research they HAD done. For example, it was pretty clear that they'd read Arthur the Dragon King when they decided to randomly make Lancelot a *sarmatian mercenary*... but they'd failed to realise that if you want to be "accurate" the FIRST THING YOU GET RID OF IS LANCELOT.

[bedlamsbard]

They lost me at the dates. I don't remember what the dates were, but they were too late. *weeps, sadly*

[ineptshieldmaid]

But there's no space in the historical record even EARLY on for King Arthur! He doesn't fit ANYWHERE. Thus anyone who ever cites dates makes me *facepalm*. A lot.

[bedlamsbard]

They were throwing out dates of Roman history that were wrong. Just wrong!

[bearshorty]

The only historical movie that I can watch without cringing now (I'm a medieval England PhD student) is 'Lion in Winter' which I actually show in classes. Well, and silly movies like "Monty Python" and Mel Brook's 'Robin Hood' which are also excellent teaching tools. Otherwise they need to be silly enough. The new 'Robin Hood' trailer made me laugh out loud at its historical silliness and I read one review that made me cringe at their ideas about property law and the whole "opposing Richard about the Crusade idea" issue. I also don't like Russel Crowe, so I'm probably biased. But yes, the more you study actual history, the harder it is not to throw things at the screen.
Incidentally, 1992 "Edward II" directed by Derek Jarman, set in modern dress, based on Marlowe's play about Edward II (with appearance by Annie Lennox)is actually really excellent in historical ideas while it shocks students with its weirdness.
King John is a very interesting person on many levels and it always annoys me when people try to simply him. But then my ideas on English Kings are based on the fantastic historical novels by Sharon Penman. She does her research so well.

[bedlamsbard]

The MEMS program showed "Becket", which was -- well, probably not as accurate as it could have been, but oh, the acting. Good story-telling or good acting can carry a movie through. (I really must rewatch Lion in Winter sometime)

We read a really, really good biography of King John in my Medieval England class, so that definitely helped.

[juliekarasik]

Have you seen the version with Patrick Stewart? I'm less fond of his Henry (really, no one does Plantagenet rage as good as O'Toole) but the actor who did Richard really owned the role. Much better than Anthony Hopkins.

[juliekarasik]

Oh, I love LiW in spite of the fact that John comes off looking... well, short bus "special". (Srsrly, the man had the worst PR ever.)