alterations
Aug. 31st, 2004 12:40 amLooking at some of the discussion of Hero I've seen around the place (and may I just say that I would like to heap coals of fire on the heads of everyone who's already seen it, YOU LUCKY SO AND SOS) it seems to bring up a question which has been raised before, from what one might term the other side.
How much is it permissible to alter the substance, characters, background, history, or other details of a storyline for a film, in order to conform with the current taste and theories?
Is it right to portray as a virtue things which were regarded as virtuous/upright/proper/natural at the time of the original story which is being filmed? Should one do anything else?
How much of a story should be changed to agree with the taste of the public, or the nationality of the filmmakers (Braveheart, Enigma, King Arthur, other stuff)?
No, I don't have any answers.
---
The Tower walls at midnight burn,
With fraught desire -- the rocks beneath
Are taut and wet with fiction's blood.
Someone leaps. The other turns. But who is who.
(and who are you?)
[...]
-- Close to the River, Anno
How much is it permissible to alter the substance, characters, background, history, or other details of a storyline for a film, in order to conform with the current taste and theories?
Is it right to portray as a virtue things which were regarded as virtuous/upright/proper/natural at the time of the original story which is being filmed? Should one do anything else?
How much of a story should be changed to agree with the taste of the public, or the nationality of the filmmakers (Braveheart, Enigma, King Arthur, other stuff)?
No, I don't have any answers.
---
The Tower walls at midnight burn,
With fraught desire -- the rocks beneath
Are taut and wet with fiction's blood.
Someone leaps. The other turns. But who is who.
(and who are you?)
[...]
-- Close to the River, Anno
no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 08:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-01 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-01 08:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 01:53 am (UTC)"Nothing ever begins. There is no first moment; no single word or phrase from which this or any other story springs. The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making. Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.
"Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will with time become a world. It must be arbitrary, then, the place of which we choose to embark, somewhere between a past half forgotten and a future as yet only glimpsed."
no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 08:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 08:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 10:44 am (UTC)For other reviews, try this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hero/
(It's just a collection of links to online film reviews - most of these reviewers are from the US and collectively they adore it. Hmm. Which makes me think I want to see it, actually :) My research says 24th Sept for opening date... maybe a trip to London is in order ...)
To answer the question, I think the spin a director puts on a story is as valid and interesting as any other part on it. If these things have merit, it's because they can teach us something about ourselves and the society we live in. (I do think it's intellectually more honest to at least mention when RL history has been changed for artistic reasons, like in Enigma). We can look at Casablanca, Olivier's Henry V, and Leni Riefenstahl's films now and still see merit in them despite the overt messages. Maybe even because of them ... it maybe says more to us about our grandparent's lives and views than if they had told the stories 'straight'.
But I still won't watch Enigma :)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 12:13 pm (UTC)Mm. You have a point. Films made with directorial bias are in their way as useful a historical document on the perceptions of the times as a totally unbiased representation of the story would have been.
(Don't worry, I'm sure they're working on a version of Boudicca where a conveniently shipwrecked Native American will teach the Celts how to use bows and arrows before leading them in driving away the Roman oppressors -- and marry Boudicca, oops, Boadicea happily at the end of the movie, of course.)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-01 02:22 pm (UTC)[/philistine] ;D