wow! ranty post is ranty...I like 'Gladitator', probably because I've always enjoyed greek and roman history. Saying that, I know that this film isn't historicaly acurate, and I won't turn this into a rant about how technical and snobbish historians get about this sort of thing it irritates me enough said. I've never seen any of Ridley Scott's movies, I have seen some other R Crowe movies, and 'Gladiator' is the only one I enjoy him in, and Joaquin Phoneix is sufficently creepy (a prelude of things to come perhaps?), so yeah I'll admit to really enjoying that movie, btw 'Braveheart' is also one of my favorite films
That's what you come to tinyholidays for, right? The celebratory factoids, the pictures of baby animals, and the venemously spewed and somewhat-uncalled-for hate!
When Gladiator came out, I saw it with my HS Latin Club. We had an active geekdom. The accuracy, I don't care too much about. In my opinion, that movie pushes a lot of cheap buttons. It's entertaining, I guess. I think I'm a bit reactionary as far as it's concerned.
As for Braveheart, it is currently in a battle of love or loath. I literally was on the dvd waiting list for that movie back in, like 2001. The night I finally got the dvd, I stayed up till, like, 3am watching it, I was so stoked. I wrote William Wallace into my HS Honors Brit Lit responses. So, it holds a lot of nostalgia. Now, when I see bits of it on tv, its obvious state as a Mel Gibson vanity vehicle combined with the stereotypical characters, homophobia, and shoddily thrown-together dialogue combines to form a product that is at once fascinating and somewhat offensive.
I know what you mean about Braveheart. I haven't seen it since I got the dvd for it, but when I think about it I think about how cheap I must have been when I was 10 (which is when I first saw it
( ... )
Anyway, J, if I haven't convinced you 300 is homophobic, I'm not trying hard enough, but I do think that there is some ambiguity when you start to pare down intent and diegetic/non-diegetic context. But I'm curious to see what tinyholidays says.
Dude, God. There are so many films that make me question my childhood taste, perhaps none more than Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella starring Leslie Ann Warren. Later realized-FACT: just because someone shares your first and middle name does not make them inherently awesome.
You're right on about L.A. Confidential's use of archetypes. I hadn't thought about it like that before, but yeah, you could totally remove the names of all of those characters, replace the names with categorical types, and set them in motion, and they would still behave the same way. Hooker with a heart of gold (basinger), cynic makes good (spacey), etc. It's noir, and that's what noir does. In a way, genre films and fiction have more freedom within the restrictions of their defined traits. Perhaps that's one reason why L.A. Confidential's dependence upon archetype doesn't break the fourth wall for me, but Braveheart's does.
Okay, here's my take on the homophobia within Braveheart. You mentioned that it's been awhile since you've seen it, but do you
( ... )
As soon as you said "King Edward's son" I headdesked. No, I agree with you completely. And I agree with K re: 300. With both films I hear "homophobic" and my mind goes straight to all the beautiful subtextual homoeroticism. I completely forgot about the prince. Back in the days when I loved it like whoa I did resent that aspect and wished every gay man didn't have to be a villain. Oops. And thanks!
genre films and fiction have more freedom
I still don't know how I feel about making fiction out of real people and events. (K often brings it up, re: Amadeus and Lawrence of Arabia.) If you make the distinction that something like Braveheart is about the legend of Wallace (which is considerable, since it spans centuries), instead of Wallace the real person, then conceivably the use of stereotype and certain tropes of the heroic saga might be okay. But I'm not sure that distinction is appropriate, considering we are talking about a real person. Maybe we have a responsibility to reality. Or maybe we have a responsibility to
( ... )
I've actually been thinking about the fictionalization of historical events this week also, but mainly regarding war. In modern war movies, for example, in which the point is to provoke thought in the audience, rather than to merely provide entertaining titillation, the subject is treated with much more responsibility than, say, a film about a "fictionalized war" from which the audience feels disconnected (300, Braveheart, etc.). Uh, I don't know if this actually has much to do with what you're talking about, but it's something that I've been pondering, particularly the archetype of the doctor figure in filmic depictions of war, wherein the doctor stands in for the consciencious objector. There's one in practically every modern war movie (or tv show -- MASH), and films in which that figure is absent, my hunch is, will tend to be the films that use the setting of war just to show excitement and heroic antics.
Responsibility to reality. That may be the point in which history turns into legend. Okay, now I'm just typing phrases.
Reply
That's what you come to tinyholidays for, right? The celebratory factoids, the pictures of baby animals, and the venemously spewed and somewhat-uncalled-for hate!
When Gladiator came out, I saw it with my HS Latin Club. We had an active geekdom. The accuracy, I don't care too much about. In my opinion, that movie pushes a lot of cheap buttons. It's entertaining, I guess. I think I'm a bit reactionary as far as it's concerned.
As for Braveheart, it is currently in a battle of love or loath. I literally was on the dvd waiting list for that movie back in, like 2001. The night I finally got the dvd, I stayed up till, like, 3am watching it, I was so stoked. I wrote William Wallace into my HS Honors Brit Lit responses. So, it holds a lot of nostalgia. Now, when I see bits of it on tv, its obvious state as a Mel Gibson vanity vehicle combined with the stereotypical characters, homophobia, and shoddily thrown-together dialogue combines to form a product that is at once fascinating and somewhat offensive.
Reply
Reply
Anyway, J, if I haven't convinced you 300 is homophobic, I'm not trying hard enough, but I do think that there is some ambiguity when you start to pare down intent and diegetic/non-diegetic context. But I'm curious to see what tinyholidays says.
Reply
Also, you said diegetic. If I could achieve a boner, that would have caused one.
Reply
Reply
You're right on about L.A. Confidential's use of archetypes. I hadn't thought about it like that before, but yeah, you could totally remove the names of all of those characters, replace the names with categorical types, and set them in motion, and they would still behave the same way. Hooker with a heart of gold (basinger), cynic makes good (spacey), etc. It's noir, and that's what noir does. In a way, genre films and fiction have more freedom within the restrictions of their defined traits. Perhaps that's one reason why L.A. Confidential's dependence upon archetype doesn't break the fourth wall for me, but Braveheart's does.
Okay, here's my take on the homophobia within Braveheart. You mentioned that it's been awhile since you've seen it, but do you ( ... )
Reply
genre films and fiction have more freedom
I still don't know how I feel about making fiction out of real people and events. (K often brings it up, re: Amadeus and Lawrence of Arabia.) If you make the distinction that something like Braveheart is about the legend of Wallace (which is considerable, since it spans centuries), instead of Wallace the real person, then conceivably the use of stereotype and certain tropes of the heroic saga might be okay. But I'm not sure that distinction is appropriate, considering we are talking about a real person. Maybe we have a responsibility to reality. Or maybe we have a responsibility to ( ... )
Reply
Responsibility to reality. That may be the point in which history turns into legend. Okay, now I'm just typing phrases.
Reply
Leave a comment