|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Dec 27, 2023 4:56:04 GMT
I started Easy Rider (1969) the other day, and today watched Fandango (1985) and finished Easy Rider. An accidental but very fitting double feature. I didn't know Toni Basil was hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by eljedicolombiano on Jan 3, 2024 17:48:36 GMT
Recently saw Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans-
Tremendous film that probably would not get made today
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jan 4, 2024 5:46:35 GMT
Today I re-watched The Goonies. I guess we can describe it as: "a good ol' fashioned, wholesome adventure." I enjoy all of the silly visual gags that populate the movie. They help create a consistent reality that is unlike our own. Part of the reality created here is one where the villains are rather cartoonish, not unlike say...Casper or Home Alone for example. Part of the unreality of it all can also be seen when Cory Feldman's character, who can speak Spanish, translates for the cleaning lady who can't speak English, telling her crazy details about her new found employment (such as which drawers each of the different kinds of drugs are to be stored in). In reality, she'd be able to tell he's fucking with her, she's an adult for Pete's sake, but in this wish-fulfillment reality that feels conjured up by a kid, his practical joke on the cleaning lady is taken by her at face value.
The motivation for the adventure is the kids wanting to save their neighbourhood from being foreclosed on by the forces of greed. It is very reminiscent of Padme wishing to save her home from the greedy Trade Federation. However, here the victory for the children is untainted by Palpatine-style machinations.
It also has some funny lines, such as: "you're kind of pretty, when you're face isn't ruining it." xD
This repeat viewing also reminded me why the dagger from The Rise of Skywalker is so familiar. The dubloon in this movie serves the same function and is used in the same manner visually. I am hitting myself for not being able to place the reference the first time I saw TROS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jan 7, 2024 19:57:48 GMT
I started Easy Rider (1969) the other day, and today watched Fandango (1985) and finished Easy Rider. An accidental but very fitting double feature. I didn't know Toni Basil was hot. Now you need to watch Five Easy Pieces. Toni Basil is in that too. And they drive through the sand town I grew up in. The dune in this shot is across the street from one of the houses I lived in.  And the funny thing about Toni Basil and my childhood is, Oh Mickey is the first new song I was old enough to be consciously aware of the concept of it being brand new and heard for the first time. And my next door neighbor and friend for the rest of my childhood was named Mick(ey) and we watched the video for that song premier for the first time on TV together at his house and went wild with excitement. Other contenders for first new song I was aware of being new are I Love Rock N' Roll, Who Can It Be Now?, and Lennon's Watching the Wheels and Woman. Movies are The Empire Strikes Back, The Shining, Raiders of the Lost Ark and James Bond: For Your Eyes Only. My earliest memories involve people saying "I am your father!" "Heeere's Johnny!" "Jason's gonna get ya!" "We don't need no education." |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Jan 18, 2024 6:23:19 GMT
all these historical epics Well here now is a trailer for the granddaddy of historical epics, with Ridley Scott behind it. And with a new **minor spoiler** emperor... that of Anthony 's country. You couldn't possibly find better source material, you couldn't possibly find a more fitting actor at the zenith of his career, and yet I can think of so many ways this could be blown up (if you'll excuse the pun). Scott's recent outings do not inspire a lot of confidence, he's become a Transformers-style director, where it is spectacle over soul or style before substance. I hope it's good, I'd like to be proven wrong, but this trailer does not lend itself to optimism. It would appear the main character will be subordinate to a gore cannon extravaganza. That would be a terrible waste. Is Phoenix only calling in for a big payday like Ford in Indie 5? He could well be.
I regret to say this was not a pleasant experience, and the trailer took us for suckers once again. Phoenix phoned in for the most lethargic, juvenile, uninspired performance I've seen in a protagonist since, well, probably TROS. For an actor coming off top form in Joker, one expected at least a touch of charisma and yet there was nada, nothing there even to chew. My fear was prudent: Ridely Scott has become a shadow of himself, lost in the chase for the spectacle, bereft of all soul. His cantankerous responses in interviews to legitimate questions concerning historical accuracy revealed a graceless man, riddled with ego, an air of untouchability, and long since past his best. With his insistence (and boasts) about rapping up photography in under a month and the ten-twenty whatever camera set-up which he conducts from his special cabin, he is man who now churns out his films like a Chinese sweatshop does your trainers. And he's making Gladiator 2 next, God help us all.
My turkey of 2023 goes to Napoleon. There was some splendid period costumes, no doubt, but that is absolutely it. For a proper depiction of the era, for Rod Steiger's thundering performance as Bonaparte, for none of the classless gorefest that is modern cinema, for 17,000 very un-CGI Red Army soldiers as extras, for real sensibility and class, see Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo (1970) its on YouTube for free GO SEE IT |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jan 23, 2024 5:31:25 GMT
Haha, wow! There's a lot of talk in the Star Wars fandom about whether or not anyone can be a jedi. Especially recently. And a couple weeks ago a friend was telling me about the Kurt Vonnegut story Harrison Bergeron, which is a dystopian tale of a future of forced equality. For example, everyone has devices which lowers their intelligence if they're smart. It got me thinking of the 'everyone should be a Jedi' thing. Then today the Fb group Incredibly Strange Films had a group watch of the movie adaptation, which I also didn't know existed. It stars Sean Astin and Christopher Plummer. Sean Astin (title character) is very smart and tries to start a revolution and go back to the way things were when different people had different talents. At the end it shows one 12 year old boy who has started to believe what Astin's character was saying. And it's... Hayden Christensen. Full movie: youtu.be/xxLhqVIhIWQ?si=bLnvjixKjVPcmeiH |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jan 23, 2024 21:35:40 GMT
I tried watching Edgar Wright's Last Night In Soho yesterday. I made it half way through and had no desire to continue any further. This is a film that thinks it is deep, but it is actually shallow.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Feb 9, 2024 23:52:25 GMT
Well here now is a trailer for the granddaddy of historical epics, with Ridley Scott behind it. And with a new **minor spoiler** emperor... that of Anthony 's country. You couldn't possibly find better source material, you couldn't possibly find a more fitting actor at the zenith of his career, and yet I can think of so many ways this could be blown up (if you'll excuse the pun). Scott's recent outings do not inspire a lot of confidence, he's become a Transformers-style director, where it is spectacle over soul or style before substance. I hope it's good, I'd like to be proven wrong, but this trailer does not lend itself to optimism. It would appear the main character will be subordinate to a gore cannon extravaganza. That would be a terrible waste. Is Phoenix only calling in for a big payday like Ford in Indie 5? He could well be.
I regret to say this was not a pleasant experience, and the trailer took us for suckers once again. Phoenix phoned in for the most lethargic, juvenile, uninspired performance I've seen in a protagonist since, well, probably TROS. For an actor coming off top form in Joker, one expected at least a touch of charisma and yet there was nada, nothing there even to chew. My fear was prudent: Ridely Scott has become a shadow of himself, lost in the chase for the spectacle, bereft of all soul. His cantankerous responses in interviews to legitimate questions concerning historical accuracy revealed a graceless man, riddled with ego, an air of untouchability, and long since past his best. With his insistence (and boasts) about rapping up photography in under a month and the ten-twenty whatever camera set-up which he conducts from his special cabin, he is man who now churns out his films like a Chinese sweatshop does your trainers. And he's making Gladiator 2 next, God help us all.
My turkey of 2023 goes to Napoleon. There was some splendid period costumes, no doubt, but that is absolutely it. For a proper depiction of the era, for Rod Steiger's thundering performance as Bonaparte, for none of the classless gorefest that is modern cinema, for 17,000 very un-CGI Red Army soldiers as extras, for real sensibility and class, see Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo (1970) its on YouTube for free GO SEE IT Ridley Scott cannot make historical movies because he is too fixed in his own ideological agenda and it is very 21th century like. I noticed this still in Gladiator that as epic movie is great but as an historical one is ridiculous. The emperor who wants to restore the Republic...gimme a break. That's why politics in Star Wars works while it is practically a fantasy movie and in Gladiator-not. However, the political aspect in Gladiator is not the main one, so many people ignored the historical problems, so to say. Then came Kingdom of Heaven. And after Robin Hood I just gave up and even didn't bother to watch Napoleon. The trailer looked disastrous (in the same aspect, so)...There are great French mini series about emperor's life, so it is something I would recommend. Napoleon of Scott has longer TV version but I doubt that the big problems of this movie can be erased by expanding the movie time. I have watched at last Ex-Machina of Alex Garland today. Pretentious crap masked as pseudo-intelectual movie just as I thought but I decided to watch it as is praised just like Arrival as good contemporary scifi movie which it is not. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Feb 10, 2024 0:21:19 GMT
tonyg Robin Hood as a dark gritty story doesn't work i bet Ridley was hoping to finally win the Oscar with Napoleon
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 10, 2024 0:33:31 GMT
Personally I don't think filmmakers are beholden to historical accuracy. At the same time, if a filmmaker wants to be historically accurate that's great too.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Feb 10, 2024 0:45:08 GMT
Personally I don't think filmmakers are beholden to historical accuracy. At the same time, if a filmmaker wants to be historically accurate that's great too. Historical accuracy for me does not mean that the filmmaker should recreate precisely any historical event/moment. Historical accuracy means to try to recreate the different time and different way of life of a different era. For example, it is not possible for everyone to be a republican liberal for obvious reasons, especially before the time in which liberalism was invented and this is what Ridley insert in it's movies. It is ridiculous for an emperor to want to restore the Republic while it is considered that the Empire solidified the Roman state: historical and political fact. Republic good, hierarchical power bad, we got it, but why? There is no argumentation, i.e. it looks unrealistic and anachronistic, like a cosplay by 21th century people in sandals and Roman attire. And this is just an example. What drove me mad in the trailer of Napoleon is that someone sad that Napoleon wanted to be king (or something like that, but king is the key point here). This shows complete misunderstanding of the situation in France at this point. He didn't want to be king but emperor and this is not a detail because king means at this point restoration of the old times before the revolution: something that Napoleon didn't want at all. He wanted a new, great French state and only the title of the emperor could give him such legitimation after all. This is historical accuracy and not recreating his costume to the last button. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Feb 10, 2024 0:51:10 GMT
tonyg Robin Hood as a dark gritty story doesn't work i bet Ridley was hoping to finally win the Oscar with Napoleon Being dark and gritty are not the problems of his Robin Hood. Again the historical environment betrays him (I know that Robin Hood is legendary, that's why I say the historical environment). For example, Richard the Lionheart dies in the movie...why? again to install there pro-republican tendencies later (I'm not pro-monarchy in general, but it has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of the movie) and so on and so far. Also this Robin is claimed to be "the beginning" and he is not young enough to tell his story form the beginning for purely "demographic" reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Feb 10, 2024 5:18:04 GMT
Personally I don't think filmmakers are beholden to historical accuracy. At the same time, if a filmmaker wants to be historically accurate that's great too. Historical accuracy for me does not mean that the filmmaker should recreate precisely any historical event/moment. Historical accuracy means to try to recreate the different time and different way of life of a different era. For example, it is not possible for everyone to be a republican liberal for obvious reasons, especially before the time in which liberalism was invented and this is what Ridley insert in it's movies. It is ridiculous for an emperor to want to restore the Republic while it is considered that the Empire solidified the Roman state: historical and political fact. Republic good, hierarchical power bad, we got it, but why? There is no argumentation, i.e. it looks unrealistic and anachronistic, like a cosplay by 21th century people in sandals and Roman attire. And this is just an example. What drove me mad in the trailer of Napoleon is that someone sad that Napoleon wanted to be king (or something like that, but king is the key point here). This shows complete misunderstanding of the situation in France at this point. He didn't want to be king but emperor and this is not a detail because king means at this point restoration of the old times before the revolution: something that Napoleon didn't want at all. He wanted a new, great French state and only the title of the emperor could give him such legitimation after all. This is historical accuracy and not recreating his costume to the last button. Yeah, I don't think filmmakers are beholden to any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Feb 10, 2024 8:21:46 GMT
Ridley Scott cannot make historical movies because he is too fixed in his own ideological agenda and it is very 21th century like. I noticed this still in Gladiator that as epic movie is great but as an historical one is ridiculous. The emperor who wants to restore the Republic...gimme a break. That's why politics in Star Wars works while it is practically a fantasy movie and in Gladiator-not. However, the political aspect in Gladiator is not the main one, so many people ignored the historical problems, so to say. Then came Kingdom of Heaven. And after Robin Hood I just gave up and even didn't bother to watch Napoleon. The trailer looked disastrous (in the same aspect, so)...There are great French mini series about emperor's life, so it is something I would recommend. Napoleon of Scott has longer TV version but I doubt that the big problems of this movie can be erased by expanding the movie time. I have watched at last Ex-Machina of Alex Garland today. Pretentious crap masked as pseudo-intelectual movie just as I thought but I decided to watch it as is praised just like Arrival as good contemporary scifi movie which it is not.
Yeah, that is a nonsense, but the film, as I recall, doesn't lecture the audience on the matter. It's not constantly drilled into the viewer, it speaks more as a metaphor for the protagonist wanting a more just Roman civilisation, which he believes Marcus Aurelius' reign of the empire delivered. If you want to see a real howler that gets Roman history completely wrong, and politicises the film into oblivion, see Agora. I'm happy to link you some devastating reviews of it.
By comparison, Gladiator isn't so political at all. You must remember it came out before 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, so there isn't the illusion to imperial overreach that would characterise later Anglo-American films. If it was made today, the Antoine plague would be mentioned and may well be one of the themes, given it played a roll in kickstarting Rome's long decline.
To be fair to Scott there, a director's cut was later released on the DVD and it makes for a far superior film. It's widely praised.
There's a notorious moment in that film where the Kings of England and France meet (in the French countryside) and struggle to communicate. To anyone who knows the most basic facts about medieval Europe, this is as ignorant and sloppy as it gets. England was ruled by a French-speaking elite for centuries, there is no way in the 13th century that an English monarch would have any issues communicating in the French of the time - he'd understand him better than an English peasant. I mean, still to this day, if someone wants to sound fancy in English they typically reach for French vocabulary (30% of the total), even to the pretentious degree that perfectly good English words (from Old English/Anglo-Saxon) already exists. The restaurant and fashion industries in the English-speaking world are full of this, to those who know some French it can become very cringey.
The vocabulary of the following is almost entirely French, a strong argument could be made that English itself is a pidgin, creole language:
"I am a solider in the army, who is passionate about the sovereignty of my nation. I admire castles and the theatre, I enjoy pastries for breakfast and salads for lunch, always with excellent sauces!
I agree, the fantasy format works tremendously well for Star Wars, giving Lucas all the freedom to paint as he pleases. It can borrow at will from history, without having to be faithful. The same goes with regard to science.
Expecting any historical epic to be 100% authentic, however, is a fool's errant. Anachronisms are near impossible to avoid, they slip in just as goofs in the continuity do. I think Gladiator tells a wonderful story, is extremely well directed, has a marvellous score, is stacked with outstanding actors and does very good in capturing the spirit of the legions and the drama of the Colosseum. Let's face it, as soon as you hear the first words of dialogue uttered in English rather than Latin, you're already suspending disbelief.
Scott has been an incredible director in the past. He's just lost in recent times. Napoleon is poorly disguised anti-French propaganda from England, which has a long history in itself. He's not engaged in any politics or culture war stuff beyond that, you have to understand that this is an elderly director of a different era. He's not a political savvy Rian Johnson.
For proper history, turn to books and after that, documentaries (except those of the "History" Channel). You won't learn much from film, drama series or video games, though at their best they can help visualise long gone eras.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Feb 10, 2024 9:02:25 GMT
Personally I don't think filmmakers are beholden to historical accuracy. At the same time, if a filmmaker wants to be historically accurate that's great too.
I think if your film can capture the essence of an eraword now appropriated by Taylor Swift period, you're doing very well. You want to be faithful to the manner in which people spoke, behaved and their worldview. There's no issue with making up a character like Maximus, so long as he feels natural to the historic environment you're placing him in. If on the other hand he's pontificating about human rights or other modern legal/cultural inventions, then you have a problem.
While Oppenheimer may contain plenty of speculative conversation that never occurred, it succeeds, indeed it triumphs in emulating the US of the 1930s, 40s and 50s. It feels authentic and that's what matters. |
|
|
|
Film club
Feb 10, 2024 13:14:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by tonyg on Feb 10, 2024 13:14:09 GMT
Ridley Scott cannot make historical movies because he is too fixed in his own ideological agenda and it is very 21th century like. I noticed this still in Gladiator that as epic movie is great but as an historical one is ridiculous. The emperor who wants to restore the Republic...gimme a break. That's why politics in Star Wars works while it is practically a fantasy movie and in Gladiator-not. However, the political aspect in Gladiator is not the main one, so many people ignored the historical problems, so to say. Then came Kingdom of Heaven. And after Robin Hood I just gave up and even didn't bother to watch Napoleon. The trailer looked disastrous (in the same aspect, so)...There are great French mini series about emperor's life, so it is something I would recommend. Napoleon of Scott has longer TV version but I doubt that the big problems of this movie can be erased by expanding the movie time. I have watched at last Ex-Machina of Alex Garland today. Pretentious crap masked as pseudo-intelectual movie just as I thought but I decided to watch it as is praised just like Arrival as good contemporary scifi movie which it is not.
Yeah, that is a nonsense, but the film, as I recall, doesn't lecture the audience on the matter. It's not constantly drilled into the viewer, it speaks more as a metaphor for the protagonist wanting a more just Roman civilisation, which he believes Marcus Aurelius' reign of the empire delivered. If you want to see a real howler that gets Roman history completely wrong, and politicises the film into oblivion, see Agora. I'm happy to link you some devastating reviews of it.
By comparison, Gladiator isn't so political at all. You must remember it came out before 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, so there isn't the illusion to imperial overreach that would characterise later Anglo-American films. If it was made today, the Antoine plague would be mentioned and may well be one of the themes, given it played a roll in kickstarting Rome's long decline.
To be fair to Scott there, a director's cut was later released on the DVD and it makes for a far superior film. It's widely praised.
There's a notorious moment in that film where the Kings of England and France meet (in the French countryside) and struggle to communicate. To anyone who knows the most basic facts about medieval Europe, this is as ignorant and sloppy as it gets. England was ruled by a French-speaking elite for centuries, there is no way in the 13th century that an English monarch would have any issues communicating in the French of the time - he'd understand him better than an English peasant. I mean, still to this day, if someone wants to sound fancy in English they typically reach for French vocabulary (30% of the total), even to the pretentious degree that perfectly good English words (from Old English/Anglo-Saxon) already exists. The restaurant and fashion industries in the English-speaking world are full of this, to those who know some French it can become very cringey.
The vocabulary of the following is almost entirely French, a strong argument could be made that English itself is a pidgin, creole language:
"I am a solider in the army, who is passionate about the sovereignty of my nation. I admire castles and the theatre, I enjoy pastries for breakfast and salads for lunch, always with excellent sauces!
I agree, the fantasy format works tremendously well for Star Wars, giving Lucas all the freedom to paint as he pleases. It can borrow at will from history, without having to be faithful. The same goes with regard to science.
Expecting any historical epic to be 100% authentic, however, is a fool's errant. Anachronisms are near impossible to avoid, they slip in just as goofs in the continuity do. I think Gladiator tells a wonderful story, is extremely well directed, has a marvellous score, is stacked with outstanding actors and does very good in capturing the spirit of the legions and the drama of the Colosseum. Let's face it, as soon as you hear the first words of dialogue uttered in English rather than Latin, you're already suspending disbelief.
Scott has been an incredible director in the past. He's just lost in recent times. Napoleon is poorly disguised anti-French propaganda from England, which has a long history in itself. He's not engaged in any politics or culture war stuff beyond that, you have to understand that this is an elderly director of a different era. He's not a political savvy Rian Johnson.
For proper history, turn to books and after that, documentaries (except those of the "History" Channel). You won't learn much from film, drama series or video games, though at their best they can help visualise long gone eras.
Last remark: educating ourselves by a movie is of course the stupidest thing to do, except in the case where the movie is not some very well made documentary, of course. However, every movie has its ideological impact and if it isn't that way then Ridley Scott wouldn't waste his time to incorporate his own political views in movie like Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and so on, no matter how strange they look like. So yes, the filmmaker should be aware of this ethical responsability. But here comes the problem of authenticity as you described it very well: it shouldn't look like some people of today are playing with Roman gladius but as we really are there. It doesn't matter that General Maximus is real historical character or not as long as he looks authentic (he is), because indeed this is not a documentary movie. But the moment with the possible reinstallation of the Republic is ..oh, dear (I wish it was cut by the final version. It would be enough for the Emperor to want another heir, Maximus and not his own son, this is not unseen practice). However, this is not crucial point for the movie, so Gladiator works well and is great epic blockbuster. Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood, of course, couldn't because they rely much more on the social, big scale of things, and not so much on the personal journey of the protagonist. However, Napoleon pretends to be biographical movie and such liberties for one of the greatest French statesmen and rulers would be disastrous. Another example: I still cannot understand why such progressive filmmaker as Scott (at least he claims to be progressive) had chosen to elect so young actress for the role of Josephine. Their love story with Napoleon is well known and is well known that she is older than him and Vanessa Kirby is not just younger, she looks obviously younger than Joaquin, so it is a deliberate choice. We are progressive but as long as it suit us. (For the record Isabella Rosselini plays Josephine in the mentioned French series and she captures the character of the Empress perfectly). Anyway, my point is not to show that Ridley Scott is not a great filmmaker (I consider his Blade Runner as a masterpiece) but why he cannot make good historical movies: maybe he could, but he should be less ideological if I could say so. |
|
|
|
Film club
Feb 10, 2024 13:23:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by tonyg on Feb 10, 2024 13:23:38 GMT
One more remark about Ex Machina: poor D.Gleeson is mocked regarding his role in Star Wars sequels but the man works with what he is given: same with Ex Machina. He can act, but the plot of the aforementioned movie is too shallow to offer some substance. Same with the other star there, Oscar Isaacs. He played his role with authenticity but his character is just paper thin.
@smitty, I tried to watch another movie of this same director (Edgar Wright) Scott Pilgrim against the world. It was a disastrous attempt, I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Feb 10, 2024 20:40:43 GMT
A Hollywood film on Napoleon Bonaparte presents several fundamental problems. To a large degree, I would say Scott was doomed from the beginning. Like King Lear himself, hubris got the better of him.
1) how do you condense a long, dramatic, complicated military & political career into a mere 2-2.5 hours?
2) to what degree does making a film about late 18th century France in another language distort from the original context?
3) Is English really a suitable language for such a film if it is inherently biased by anti-French prejudices ? The American "surrender monkey" caricature of France proves that its not constrained to the UK.
I believe these were unsurmountable obstacles. The only way you can attempt to do the subject justice is in the original language, either via a TV drama series where his whole career is followed, or a long film which zones in on a part of it and is made by international filmmakers like Waterloo was (an Italo-Russian co-production).
Kudos to you tonyg for getting out of the Anglo bubble and seeking out the French language series. But then you're Bulgarian, it's more natural. Unfortunately most English-speaking movie-goers are lazy and demand everything be served on a platter in their native tongue. The only reason these historical epics are made in English anyway is because the film studios who can afford to fund them are from the US, with a very sizeable home market guaranteed. Economies of scale: capitalism 101. So I hate to break it to THX fans and Subtext Mining 's memes, but the large consuming American middle class was - let's be frank - precisely why Hollywood could become the juggernaut in the first place. Such a pre-made audience with cash at hand did not exist in the war-ravaged Europe of the 1950s, half of it under the boot of Russian imperialism (and the ideology of the puppet communist regimes), the other half consigned to watching an endless loop of social realism which was the worser faith lol
I personally would love to see a Band of Brothers style TV series set during the Napoleonic Wars. Recent films on WWI and II have shown that following the lives of ordinary soldiers can be a much more meaningful and insightful way of exploring the past than the travails of the elites at the top. Sticking to a Polish regiment in the French grand army would be a treat - it would really capture the international nature of the conflict, make one wonder why a Pole could be so devoted to a Frenchman. Just because we know the end results, that the 1812 invasion of Russia and so on end in failure, doesn't mean we can't have an interesting story along the way. There's scope for so many possibilities, for making use of several languages. But unfortunately we're Europoors and can't afford it, so we are left to the mercy of Uncle Sam and his British lackeys, where instead of the historically documented Poles in the grand army and narrative balance we get random Nigerians in the Prussian army and whatever the latest whims of the US Democratic Party are. Look to Netlfix docu-dramas to see how well this has worked out.
Christopher Nolan would be well capable of making a good Napoleonic era film. Alas, his films so far show he's only interested in the UK or the USA. It's what he knows, I guess, can you blame him?
The following is a clip from a series set during the mid-19th Second Schleswig War in Denmark. You get a flavour of what I'd hope for in a Napoleonic series, and with a bit of humour for good measure:
|
|
|
|
Film club
Feb 10, 2024 21:43:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by tonyg on Feb 10, 2024 21:43:28 GMT
Ok, this really should be the last remark, but I saw that in YouTube there are some random clips from the French series translated to English, including something like trailer. Even the appearances are better in these series maybe because the protagonist is played by French actor. youtu.be/XqmBUZJ0Yro?si=1nwBaEfZl_fmO3Vt |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Feb 11, 2024 10:39:34 GMT
One other thing tonyg that should be stressed on Rome is that the Republic-Empire distinction that we harp on about, that the historiography loves to empathise, wasn't quite so clear cut to contemporaries. Only with hindsight do we now understand that Ancient Rome started to descend into an autocracy under Caesar (the tetrarchy) before then being set in stone under his grand-nephew, Augustus (the so-called first emperor). But there was no official proclamation of empire, certainly not the over-the-top, theatrical kind seen with Palpatine, and Augustus only claimed that he was saving the republic, that he was merely a first citizen. The contemporary sources (Pliny the elder et all) are notoriously silent on the establishment of a de-facto dictatorship. There is instead this sort of meek, forced gratefulness - for lack of a better term - whereby the population are so relieved to be done with years of disruptive term now appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism troubling civil war that they gladly accept a huge roll back on civil rights. This of course helped inspire the plot of the prequels and indeed happened in 2000s Russia in our own world.
Again, it must be stated that, as things go in Hollywood, Scott is not an overly political person. Ideology isn't the only cause of bad films. He's not a product of Obama's America, he's not an evangelist of wokism. He's an old-school northern Englishman (the former industrial heartland of that country, now less privileged part - Americans, think the Mid-West) born in the 1940s. He speaks with the gruff, earnestness of a working class person, a contrast with the posh, upper class British accent of fellow director Christopher Nolan, who was educated at an elite university. Scott has fairly humble origins, so far as I know, its a credit to him that he's achieved what he has. It breaks my heart that he's made such a stinker out of Napoleon with an actor of Phoenix's calibre. I thought it would be a dream pairing.
|
|
