I've been thinking about this a lot as of late. Andrew and I watched the movie, Moonrise Kingdom, a Wes Anderson film set in the early 1960's in a remote, New England island. We liked it and watched it with Cody who was rather bothered by the lack of representation of people of color. On the one hand, I totally see his point, but, on the other, it would be highly unlikely to have people of color in that setting. I asked him about the historical accuracy thing and he replied that Wes Anderson should have changed the setting to fit a new vision of the story.
This can work - even with pre-existing material. Think about movies like Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You and other films that are re-tellings of classic tales in different settings. The fact is, I often prefer that route to the idea of altering history/cultural viewpoints of the time
( ... )
In the end, for me it's primarily about story more than anything else - and about context and intention. If something is way out of line historically, I can be extremely bothered by it. For example, how very often women in historical films (especially those from previous decades) are meant to be attractive to audiences of the time. The make-up and hair just doesn't always ring true, etc. Or that moment in Titanic in which Rose shows her finance the paintings that she'd bought. They were all real works (Picasso's "Dames d'Avignon," etc.) and that threw me for the longest time because I took it as a sign that, since those were not really lost on the Titanic, Rose was a fool who bought fakes or copies. And that wasn't true at all
( ... )
For me, it depends very heavily on my pre-existing relationship to the time period and location in question. I am much more likely to view something set in late 19th century England or Renaissance Italy as a curiosity; but the second you start messing about with my precious ancient Greece, my shit will be flipped. My relationship with shows is about my previous knowledge of the setting and desire to give a crap about the time period in question - if I don't engage with the story being told, I am much more likely to focus on finding the extras wearing watches in Rome instead of the high drama on screen/stage.
Blind casting... is tricky. Your example of Shakespeare is pretty spot-on - in general, the plays are universal, but I can better relate to blind casting in retellings instead of in historically accurate settings.
You realize, of course, that by saying "Not to be confused with Downton Abbey", everyone reading this entry thought first of "Downton Abbey"! It's like someone saying, "Don't think about pink elephants." Naturally, what's the first thing that pops into your head? A big pink elephant!
I think in terms of certain types of literature, "blind casting" isn't such a bad idea. I remember I watched a Masterpiece adaptation of "Oliver Twist", having never read the book, and they cast an African-American actress as Nancy. She played the role very well. Later on, my sister said, "I never would have pictured Nancy as black, but that woman did a really good job." I believe there were lots of minority performers in Moulin Rouge! and Chicago as well. Perhaps the rule doesn't apply to musicals! LOL. However, those roles are changed around so much on stage that it's probably almost expected that an unconventional person for the time period might be cast. Does that make sense
( ... )
i also am bothered by weird language stuff. and i agree that in some instances, blind casting works fine - maybe musicals are like opera and shakespeare, lol. context is so key for me on that issue.
fyi, fuck has been around a long time - according to wikipedia, first use was at least as early as 1475, and maybe even earlier. it's like cunt that way - a word that used to be more or less a descriptor that has come to be a bad word nowadays. a lot of our best curse words seem to be old english, lol.
The bit about curse words works in both directions too. I wrote some science fiction and used "shit" and "fuck" because they're so darn old and well-used I figure they'll be around for a few more centuries. I had to stop myself using "cool" and "awesome," though.
Didn't you see Silver Linings Playbook and the scene at dinner in which Pat explains the origins of "okay" and "Old Kinderhook?" LOL. That may or may not be true, but the word was apparently used first in the mid 19th Century.
I think a "nontraditional" character, personality, or situation can be included, if there's an explanation (explicit or implied) in the story. For example, if an independent-minded woman is looked on by others as "unusual" or "forward." Gail Carriger does this excellently in her "Soulless" series--Alexia is seen as destined to be an old maid for her non-Victorian personality. Though she still has a few Victorian-lady attitudes (about proper dress, tea and other things). Fumu Yoshinaga puts a half-Chinese character into one of her pre-French Revolution French stories, explaining the fascination with China. And the character is a servant, possibly the child of someone's Chinese mistress)
i make it a point not to evaluate historical fiction with a modern eye. yes, there are often things like an over-abundance of caucasians, so-called problematic class systems, lack of openly lgbt people, racial remarks and other bits that some find offensive, but if that is accurate of the time period and more importantly part of the original text, then one should not mess with it. it's like trying to remove the n-word from huckleberry finn. you shouldn't do it. it's part of the text.
Comments 14
This can work - even with pre-existing material. Think about movies like Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You and other films that are re-tellings of classic tales in different settings. The fact is, I often prefer that route to the idea of altering history/cultural viewpoints of the time ( ... )
Reply
In the end, for me it's primarily about story more than anything else - and about context and intention. If something is way out of line historically, I can be extremely bothered by it. For example, how very often women in historical films (especially those from previous decades) are meant to be attractive to audiences of the time. The make-up and hair just doesn't always ring true, etc. Or that moment in Titanic in which Rose shows her finance the paintings that she'd bought. They were all real works (Picasso's "Dames d'Avignon," etc.) and that threw me for the longest time because I took it as a sign that, since those were not really lost on the Titanic, Rose was a fool who bought fakes or copies. And that wasn't true at all ( ... )
Reply
Blind casting... is tricky. Your example of Shakespeare is pretty spot-on - in general, the plays are universal, but I can better relate to blind casting in retellings instead of in historically accurate settings.
Reply
I think in terms of certain types of literature, "blind casting" isn't such a bad idea. I remember I watched a Masterpiece adaptation of "Oliver Twist", having never read the book, and they cast an African-American actress as Nancy. She played the role very well. Later on, my sister said, "I never would have pictured Nancy as black, but that woman did a really good job." I believe there were lots of minority performers in Moulin Rouge! and Chicago as well. Perhaps the rule doesn't apply to musicals! LOL. However, those roles are changed around so much on stage that it's probably almost expected that an unconventional person for the time period might be cast. Does that make sense ( ... )
Reply
fyi, fuck has been around a long time - according to wikipedia, first use was at least as early as 1475, and maybe even earlier. it's like cunt that way - a word that used to be more or less a descriptor that has come to be a bad word nowadays. a lot of our best curse words seem to be old english, lol.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment