Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Anchorman on October 16, 2016, 10:36:00 PM
-
OK, Poetic licence - I get that. But I've just spent an hour watching the first episode of "Tutankhamun" (ITV, Sunday). Suffice it to say the liquid refreshment I now imbibe is for medicinal purposes only. There were so many glaring errors that I lost count, and the portrayal of Carter was terrible, that of Flinders Petrie disgraceful, and the glossing over of Davies - Dubbed "Vandal of the Nile" by his contemporaries - shameful. Rant over........
-
;D. Hee hee, I watched most of it, on ITV Hub as Silent Witness tempted me more. I wandered into the kitchen to do a few things and when I came back, it was over. Very unexpectedly, my husband was enthusiastic and said I ought to wind it back to see what I missed but I didn't. All I can say is I liked some of what I saw but it didn't grip me. Silent Witness did, nasty though it was. Well they are both about dead people I suppose. I had a couple of glasses of red too. weekend indulgence.
-
I suppose it's because I'm an Egyptology nerd, Brownie - but when I see a drama supposedly based on real events, I'd like at least some nod to the historical facts of the era. Still, at least there were no shots of camels climbing pyramids in the background..... ;)
-
This should have been a mini series about the real Tutankhamen, the costumes would have been far sexier and we anoraks could have fun spotting all the anachronisms. A bit like a modern version of Land of the Pharoahs, hey, perhaps Joanie could be in it as Tut's scheming grandmother in law?
-
The anoraks wouldn't have had fun, HWB - we'd bee to busy at daggers drawn! :D The theories surrounding his parentage, predecessor(s), burial, etc, would fill umpteen hours of air time.
-
I suppose it's because I'm an Egyptology nerd, Brownie - but when I see a drama supposedly based on real events, I'd like at least some nod to the historical facts of the era. Still, at least there were no shots of camels climbing pyramids in the background..... ;)
Your last comment reminds me of a biscuit barrel my mum had for years (art deco shape), which had camels and pyramids. It was lovely really, she gave it to me and I broke it :(.
During the show, my husband did say at one stage, "Why doesn't he get out his mobile?".
Sometimes I think the producers might as well have stuff like mobiles, yellow lines, Concorde going overhead and other anachronisms in period drama, it could be fun and at least no-one would be spotting the anachronisms.
(My old man is a petrol head and always picks up on cars from the wrong period, maybe with inaccurate number plates. Whenever a car appears I wait for the comment. Son does the same with musical instruments.)
-
This should have been a mini series about the real Tutankhamen, the costumes would have been far sexier and we anoraks could have fun spotting all the anachronisms. A bit like a modern version of Land of the Pharoahs, hey, perhaps Joanie could be in it as Tut's scheming grandmother in law?
I'm still scarred by the memory of The Cleopatras.
-
Aaargh....To be fair, 'The Cleopatras' were only slightly worse than 'The Borgias'. Not by much, though......
-
Aaargh....To be fair, 'The Cleopatras' were only slightly worse than 'The Borgias'. Not by much, though......
I think the Borgias was just not very good and Adolfo Celi's accent didn't help. To be fair to The Cleopatras it was an attempt to do something different which didn't come off. There is a reasonable take on it in the link below (Warning: if you are geeky about old TV, site can be addictive)
http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/shows_ci_to_cl.htm#cleopatras
-
I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.
-
Your last comment reminds me of a biscuit barrel my mum had for years (art deco shape), which had camels and pyramids. It was lovely really, she gave it to me and I broke it :(.
During the show, my husband did say at one stage, "Why doesn't he get out his mobile?".
Sometimes I think the producers might as well have stuff like mobiles, yellow lines, Concorde going overhead and other anachronisms in period drama, it could be fun and at least no-one would be spotting the anachronisms.
(My old man is a petrol head and always picks up on cars from the wrong period, maybe with inaccurate number plates. Whenever a car appears I wait for the comment. Son does the same with musical instruments.)
There are a fair amount of historicals which certainly use anachronistic attitudes and other areas. We have to be careful in thinking that accuracy is something that is the aim of historical dramas. Mel Gibson has been taken to task for the outright impossibilities of Braveheart, but much the same is true of Shakespeare's histories - I.e. they are not history. The very idea of accuracy is something that seems to mean different things at different times, and when you get, as I have seen, complaints about people's dentition, it looks to be fairly pointless.
-
I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.
On the same theme I remember 'The Borgias', which was panned at the time and, iirc, partly because one of the lead actors was difficult to understand since he barely spoke English.
As far as I know neither The Cleopatras nor The Borgias have been repeated.
-
I've never really warmed to the Ptolemaic dynasty, NS, but I did watch 'The Cleopatras' back in the day. Yep, different, it most certainly was. The Beeb was trying to recapture the magic of 'I Claudius' with these series....and failed miserably on both occasions.
In part, that's because of the source material, I would say. Graves had already done the work on framing the approach and characters of 'I, Clavdivs' and so it was a straight adaptation, blessed with a stunning cast, and a very clear directorial approach.
Both the Borgias and The Cleopatras were mere attempts to follow on, rather than clear understood decisions about what to do next. I know of a couple of people though who much prefer The Caesars shown in the late 60s to I, Claudius because they see it as more historically accurate.
-
On the same theme I remember 'The Borgias', which was panned at the time and, iirc, partly because one of the lead actors was difficult to understand since he barely spoke English.
As far as I know neither The Cleopatras nor The Borgias have been repeated.
Clive James reviews The Borgias amongst other things
http://www.clivejames.com/books/glued/borgias
There have, of course, been 2 different recent TV dramatisations of The Borgias. I've watched the one with Jeremy Irons as Rodrigo, and it has lots of historical 'oddities'. I am sympathetic to the ideas put forward by J G Meyer on his book on the Borgias suggesting that a lot of the myth, is precisely myth and it's because they are seen through the prism of propagandists that they are painted so black, rather like Richard the Third and Shakespeare.
-
At least 'I claudius' was reasonably true to Graves' two novels, NS - and for anyone who hasn't read them, they're both worth a reasd. Graves never really intended to be historically accurate. Don't even think of starting me on Gibson! Once I saw the synopsis for Braveheart, that was enough for me. I've never watched it.....I value my blood pressure. If a drama is claiming to be historical, it shouldn't be hysterical.......
-
This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really. I think it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really. For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy. But then people will still get upset, I suppose. Good points about Shakespeare though. The Romeo and Juliet set in gangland was stunning really. trying to remember the director, but then R & J has never been seen as historical. Baz Luhrman.
-
Surely we need to understand that all drama is a fiction. Even if we were say to dramatise the Diary of Pepys with effectively just a voiceover and pictures if people doing whatever was voiced, the reading and pictures are interpretations, and the diary itself is an edited fiction of what happened.
-
This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really. I think it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really. For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy. But then people will still get upset, I suppose. Good points about Shakespeare though. The Romeo and Juliet set in gangland was stunning really. trying to remember the director, but then R & J has never been seen as historical. Baz Luhrman.
Don't even start me on Shakespeare, Wiggs.
The only tragedy in his execrable 'Macbeth' was his political sycophancy and abject failure to deal with anything remotely resembling truth.......
-
Depends on what you mean by truth. I didn't think Shakespeare was after historical truth. In fact, I'm not sure what the point would be in writing a tragedy that was historically accurate.
-
Don't even start me on Shakespeare, Wiggs.
The only tragedy in his execrable 'Macbeth' was his political sycophancy and abject failure to deal with anything remotely resembling truth.......
But he isn't doing history, he's doing drama.
-
Depends on what you mean by truth. I didn't think Shakespeare was after historical truth. In fact, I'm not sure what the point would be in writing a tragedy that was historically accurate.
Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.
-
But he isn't doing history, he's doing drama.
Mope. He was writing fantasy in an attempt to curry favour with James VI.
-
Mope. He was writing fantasy in an attempt to curry favour with James VI.
Drama is fantasy, it isn't history as per most of this thread has been pointed out. Whatever the motivation for writing it has no relevance as to whether it is bad or good as drama.
-
Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.
given his likely 'sources' some of the differences from actual history were already inbuilt. We are talking about Holinshed here which wouldn't really be a proper historical source.
-
This question of historical accuracy is a bit of a bugger really. I think it's OK to do something that isn't accurate, but then this should be indicated really. For example, a drama showing Queen Victoria having a steamy lesbian affair with a kitchen maid would be OK, as long as it was designated as fiction or fantasy.
I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate - otherwise base the story on someone or something made up. In your example why base the story of a Queen having a lesbian affair on a real life Queen rather than a fictitious one? Even if people are told that the story is not accurate a proportion of people will think it is.
-
I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate - otherwise base the story on someone or something made up. In your example why base the story of a Queen having a lesbian affair on a real life Queen rather than a fictitious one? Even if people are told that the story is not accurate a proportion of people will think it is.
So if a character is played by an actor that is too tall, it is somehow flawed in your view?
-
I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate - otherwise base the story on someone or something made up. In your example why base the story of a Queen having a lesbian affair on a real life Queen rather than a fictitious one? Even if people are told that the story is not accurate a proportion of people will think it is.
It doesn't matter why someone might write a drama about a lesbian Victoria. Fact is different from fiction. Another example: there are novels and films which describe Germany winning the war. Hint: they're not documentaries.
-
So if a character is played by an actor that is too tall, it is somehow flawed in your view?
In my view a story about an actual historical figure should not misrepresent the facts about that individual. If someone wants to tell a different story then don't base it on an historical figure. In most cases I doubt the actors height is a factor in the story being told but if it is it shouldn't be misrepresented.
-
In my view a story about an actual historical figure should not misrepresent the facts about that individual. If someone wants to tell a different story then don't base it on an historical figure. In most cases I doubt the actors height is a factor in the story being told but if it is it shouldn't be misrepresented.
Any story involving an actual historical figure will be inaccurate to some extent. Your position is that you cannot use history in drama at all. I don't think you understand drama.
-
Any story involving an actual historical figure will be inaccurate to some extent. Your position is that you cannot use history in drama at all.
No its not.
I don't think you understand drama.
Think what you like.
-
Famous modern example: "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter", (film), oh hell, someone might think that Lincoln really was a vampire hunter.
I don't really understand the 'should' in all this. Why should novels, films and dramas be accurate? Is this a moral should?
-
No its not.
Think what you like.
Well it certainly seems to be that, you seem to have no understanding for what drama might try to achieve, and you want it to be historically accurate if it mentions anyone who exists. To take the earlier example of MacBeth, any conversations would be inaccurate, even if there were eye witness accounts, what is your reason for thinking it should not be a drama?
-
The examples are not attempts to tell an historical story - they are pure fiction. This Tutankhamun program is presented as telling the story of Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamum's tomb - it doesn't. I don't like that approach and would prefer that if such a story is to be told that it is not based on historical figures but on made up characters - you obviously don't mind about that so we won't agree. That's life.
-
It's an approach that kills the imagination, basically. And as NS indicates, it would invalidate anything, since we can't reproduce conversations, or scenes between people. Did Lady Macbeth really wash her hands to get the blood off?
-
Well it certainly seems to be that, you seem to have no understanding for what drama might try to achieve, and you want it to be historically accurate if it mentions anyone who exists. To take the earlier example of MacBeth, any conversations would be inaccurate, even if there were eye witness accounts, what is your reason for thinking it should not be a drama?
For you to ask that question suggests you don't understand my point.
-
It's an approach that kills the imagination, basically.
No it wouldn't. Imagination could be used just as much but without attaching the story to a real historical figure or event.
And as NS indicates, it would invalidate anything, since we can't reproduce conversations, or scenes between people. Did Lady Macbeth really wash her hands to get the blood off?
Not the point I'm making.
-
The examples are not attempts to tell an historical story - they are pure fiction. This Tutankhamun program is presented as telling the story of Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamum's tomb - it doesn't. I don't like that approach and would prefer that if such a story is to be told that it is not based on historical figures but on made up characters - you obviously don't mind about that so we won't agree. That's life.
So actually you don't take the position that you were stating that earlier
'I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate - otherwise base the story on someone or something made up. In your example why base the story of a Queen having a lesbian affair on a real life Queen rather than a fictitious one?'
as the above is a major qualification to that. Further as already noted by making it drama it is already a fiction. It is not a documentary.
-
I think it would be helpful to wigginhall and myself if Maeght were to outline the reasoning for their position.
-
'Pure fiction' is an interesting category, used by Maeght. It suggests that writers should either write completely made up stuff, which no historical connections, and this is pure fiction, or factually based stuff, which should be accurate. This leaves no room for hybrids, of which there is a lot today, but then Shakespeare also wrote hybrids. I think writers can do whatever they want.
-
'Pure fiction' is an interesting category, used by Maeght. It suggests that writers should either write completely made up stuff, which no historical connections, and this is pure fiction, or factually based stuff, which should be accurate. This leaves no room for hybrids, of which there is a lot today, but then Shakespeare also wrote hybrids. I think writers can do whatever they want.
It also seems to put an idea of some kind of moral position into drama that by its nature it is unable to support.
-
It also seems to put an idea of some kind of moral position into drama that by its nature it is unable to support.
Yes, there's a whopping great 'should' lurking around.
I was thinking of Amadeus, play and film, supposed to be highly inaccurate, but that's not its intent.
-
given his likely 'sources' some of the differences from actual history were already inbuilt. We are talking about Holinshed here which wouldn't really be a proper historical source.
[/quote
Shakespear was trying to curry favour with the Stewart - hence the drivel about a nasty royal couple murdering a saintly old king in bed - when Duncan was actually uyounger than Macbeth, whose rule in early medieval Alba was reasonably stable - an exception.
That the wholly imaginary Banquo was a supposed ancestor of the Stewarts was telling.
It's a nice story spoilt by political kowtowing.
-
It's an approach that kills the imagination, basically. And as NS indicates, it would invalidate anything, since we can't reproduce conversations, or scenes between people. Did Lady Macbeth really wash her hands to get the blood off?
It's an approach that kills the imagination, basically. And as NS indicates, it would invalidate anything, since we can't reproduce conversations, or scenes between people. Did Lady Macbeth really wash her hands to get the blood off?
Not unless she was a damn good soldier: Duncan I was killed in battle. Whether Macbeth was actually married to Grouoch at the time is less well known. Probably not, though, since he married her to legitimise his claim to power, since she was part of the 'derbfine'.
-
given his likely 'sources' some of the differences from actual history were already inbuilt. We are talking about Holinshed here which wouldn't really be a proper historical source.
Shakespear was trying to curry favour with the Stewart - hence the drivel about a nasty royal couple murdering a saintly old king in bed - when Duncan was actually uyounger than Macbeth, whose rule in early medieval Alba was reasonably stable - an exception.
That the wholly imaginary Banquo was a supposed ancestor of the Stewarts was telling.
It's a nice story spoilt by political kowtowing.
Again we are back at some of the inaccuracies coming from Holinshed e.g. Banquo and the motivation not being of any impact in this being a good or bad play. It is not history.
-
In all my posts I have said 'In my view ...', 'I think ...', 'I don't like ....', 'Why ....' never 'Shouldn't ...'
I was expressing my preference - which others clearly don't share. I don't intend wasting any great time on going in to minutiae or 'defending' my preference I'm afraid.
-
In all my posts I have said 'In my view ...', 'I think ...', 'I don't like ....', 'Why ....' never 'Shouldn't ...'
I was expressing my preference - which others clearly don't share. I don't intend wasting any great time on going in to minutiae or 'defending' my preference I'm afraid.
But your post #24 did strike me: "I think if you are referring to an historical figure or incident then it should be factually accurate."
I actually did ask in #30, why the should?
-
In all my posts I have said 'In my view ...', 'I think ...', 'I don't like ....', 'Why ....' never 'Shouldn't ...'
I was expressing my preference - which others clearly don't share. I don't intend wasting any great time on going in to minutiae or 'defending' my preference I'm afraid.
I don't really see any difference between 'I think it shouldn't' and 'it shouldn't' on a message board. I read the second as a mere contraction of the first. I don't understand why asking you to explain what your reasoning is for thinking something is problematic.
-
Getting back to the 'Tutankhamun' thing. The facts are very well known; Carter's journals from 1898 (Griffiths Institute), Carnarvon's diaries - and letters to Carter, all in the public archive, Lady Evlyn's diaries, Maspero's notes and many, many Egyptologists, from Weighall onwards, opinions on Davies And literally thousands of articles, journals, notes and papers from the great W.M Flinders Petrie. You'd have thought the writers could have hit SOME truth in the show, if even by accident.
-
Getting back to the 'Tutankhamun' thing. The facts are very well known; Carter's journals from 1898 (Griffiths Institute), Carnarvon's diaries - and letters to Carter, all in the public archive, Lady Evlyn's diaries, Maspero's notes and many, many Egyptologists, from Weighall onwards, opinions on Davies And literally thousands of articles, journals, notes and papers from the great W.M Flinders Petrie. You'd have thought the writers could have hit SOME truth in the show, if even by accident.
Again this seems to miss that people make choices in drama that are not about factual accuracy. Further documentation is itself an edited fiction when comes to actual fact. Obviously more recent stuff we might get closer buy even that isn't guaranteed.
-
The show was billed as a historical drama, NS. 'Hysterical', might have been a better word.
-
A recent example that got some people hopping about was Victoria (in the ITV production) being in love with Lord Melbourne, not true, say some people. So what? Hint: it's not a documentary.
-
The show was billed as a historical drama, NS. 'Hysterical', might have been a better word.
Historical drama simply means a drama that can be tied in with some history. They bill Poldark as historical drama. The key word is drama.
-
FFS, it's not a documentary, no more than 'Lawrence of Arabia', also full of inaccuracies. I give up.
-
FFS, it's not a documentary, no more than 'Lawrence of Arabia', also full of inaccuracies. I give up.
I agree. I haven't seen this, so I cannot actually comment on it. However, Shakespeare's Macbeth, as has already been said, is full of historical inaccuracies but, to my mind, remains moving and powerful drama.
-
I think a lot of historical novelists do a lot of research and pride themselves on their accuracy, for example, Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall). But she has to fill in a lot of stuff, for example, conversations and meetings, where there is no record. The TV version did get criticized to a degree, e.g. Thomas More was shown as something of a villain, whereas everyone remembers Paul Scofield's beatific version in 'A Man for all Seasons'.
But the Tudors do attract a lot of writers, and for some reason, people get very upset about some portrayals, how dare you show Anne Boleyn as a scheming Protestant bitch, she was a nice girl, and Henry was a knob.
-
As I have asked before, how should I see the history of Catiline, which I would love to see a drama of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline
-
I'm still scarred by the memory of The Cleopatras.
Infamy, Infamy.....they've all got it infamy!
-
Infamy, Infamy.....they've all got it infamy!
...........which was infinately better than 'The Cleopatras'...........
-
I should have watched 'Planet Earth 2', but, out of morbid curiosity. I endured tonight's final part. I wish I hadn't bothered.
-
Sir David was on BEEB 1 an hour earlier than Tut anyway DOH ?!?!!??
-
Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.
I don't think there was ever any pretence that Macbeth was based on fact. It's fiction that just happens to use the name of a real King.
-
The TV version did get criticized to a degree, e.g. Thomas More was shown as something of a villain, whereas everyone remembers Paul Scofield's beatific version in 'A Man for all Seasons'.
In that case, the TV version was faithful to the book. Thomas More was something of a villain in the book.So who has the correct version of Thomas More? Hillary Mantel or Robert Bolt? The answer is probably neither, so, according to Maeght, both Wolfe Hall and A Man for all Seasons must be consigned to the rubbish bin.
-
In that case, the TV version was faithful to the book. Thomas More was something of a villain in the book.So who has the correct version of Thomas More? Hillary Mantel or Robert Bolt? The answer is probably neither, so, according to Maeght, both Wolfe Hall and A Man for all Seasons must be consigned to the rubbish bin.
A gross misrepresentation of what I said. Has it been niggling you all this time? Really?
-
A gross misrepresentation of what I said. Has it been niggling you all this time? Really?
Ahem
In my view a story about an actual historical figure should not misrepresent the facts about that individual.
-
Ahem
Which no where says they should be consigned to the dustbin. I was expressing my personal taste about misrepresentation of facts about historical figures and situations. You may not agree - and this has clearly been niggling you for sometime which is pretty sad really. Nothing better to think about?
-
Which no where says they should be consigned to the dustbin.
What, in your view, should happen to drama that misrepresents the facts then?
You may not agree - and this has clearly been niggling you for sometime which is pretty sad really.
What makes you think it's "niggling" me?
Clearly my criticism of your opinion is niggling you to make you react the way you have done.
-
What, in your view, should happen to drama that misrepresents the facts then?
Nothing - other than not being enjoyed by me.
What makes you think it's "niggling" me?
Because you made a point aimed at me when I was no longer involved in the discussion harking back to a point made sometime back.
Clearly my criticism of your opinion is niggling you to make you react the way you have done.
I wouldn't have responded if you hadn't made the post which was aimed at me and misrepresented what I had said sometime back in the discussion. I was irritated originally that you and others leapt onto a passing comment and tried to make it some intellectual debate, hence my dropping out of the thread. You bringing it back up suggests it has stayed in your mind.
There is a growing trend on here of certain posters trying to make every discussion into some battle of logic and intellect, which makes it a very tiresome place at times.
-
Sir David was on BEEB 1 an hour earlier than Tut anyway DOH ?!?!!??
Yep.....OI was elsewhere, though - Sunday and all that.
I should have watched PE2 on Iplayer at nine instead of shouting at the ITV station.
-
lol. Glad I noticed your earlier comments and avoided the whole thing :)