OT: Just a thought on "artistic freedom" in historical films

[Chris K.]

You know, during the Mel Gibson message board post their was a small discussion on the terms of "artistic freedom" when it comes to making films taking place in a historical time. And, of course, this has been applied to when looking at BRAVEHEART or THE PATRIOT, films that do not focus on "accurate history" but rather go for the entertainment factor. As entertainment, I really see these films as very low-quality (and not because of the non-accurate history, but as entertainment in genreal they are dull). Others don't feel that way, but they have a right to their opinion so I'm not going to stop them. Here, the question on this topic is when does "artistic freedom" go too far?

Now, we all know that Hollywood doesn't make films to educate us and yes nobody goes to a theatre to watch a 2 hour documentary rather than be entertained. But consider the following: CBS's now-pulled REGAN miniseries. According to those who saw test screenings of the show, REGAN is neither accurate towards the man or what he has done and therefore can be considered to be a rendering of a "historical figure". And apparently the show outraged many that it had to be pulled from it's original CBS airdate.

But as what people have said, this is "Hollywood" taking a historical moment in American history and turning it into a "dramatic" show with an abundant amout of changes. But is it done for entertainment, or a bias look on a well-known  American figure? So again the question remains: is REGAN artistic freedom or sloppy rendering of history? I would really like to know what you all think.

[Cullen]

Chris K sez:
> So again the question remains: is REGAN
> artistic freedom or sloppy rendering of history? I would really
> like to know what you all think.

That's Reagan, not Regan.  I'm not knocking your spelling - God nose I'm terrible at time, and I'd probably spell it that way mysefl given half a chance.  In fact, if you're quick about it, you can change it using the Edit feature and no one'll be the wiser.

And to answer your question, I say "artistic freedom."  They knew what they were doing (by all the things I read) and had enough resources at their disposal to "get it right", as it were.

Now, whether or not the movie is "good" or moral, I can't say without seeing it, and have no desire to see it.

Cullen - who knows how to spell nose.  Really.
Edit - I know how to spell "Myself" too.  Least, I THINK I do...



Post Edited (11-08-03 18:55)

[AndyC]

People have been trying to rewrite the history of the Reagan era for years. This is just the latest example, and not terribly surprising, coming out of the entertainment industry. Not a big deal.



Post Edited (11-08-03 10:30)

[Chris K.]

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake of "Reagan".

Cullen wrote:

> And to answer your question, I say "artistic freedom."  They
> knew what they were doing (by all the things I read) and had
> enough resources at their disposal to "get it right", as it
> were.

I can see it as being "artistic freedom". Even so, if CBS knew full well what they were undertaking then they should have expected the heavy amout of backlash they got from it and not stand down. But, in typical television fashion, it's the raitings that they are thinking about.

As for enough resources at CBS disposal to "get it right", I believe they did. But then, Michael Bay had enough resources to get PEARL HARBOR right, but the resources are just not there (sorry, just had to throw that one in here as a rough example). So the same goes with CBS, they just didn't use any of their resources.

> Now, whether or not the movie is "good" or moral, I can't say
> without seeing it, and have no desire to see it.

Good point. I, too, cannot come to the conclusion that the film is "good" or "bad" because I haven't seen it. But apparently, those who have seen it (especally Matt Drudge, who is said to be the one to have encouraged the banning of the miniseries) the show sounds like it has struck more than a few chords.

I wonder if a bootleg copy is floating around somewhere?

[FearlessFreep]

I think one difference has to do with the time.  Reagan is siall alive, as are his friends, relatives, and contemporaries.  Reagan's politics and presidential decisions still influence our lives in many ways.  Reagan is not really history yet; his coworkers still work for a living, etc..

Reagan also gets a 'sympathy' factor in that he is currently suffering a terrible disease, and his friends and relatives are watching him go through it.

In "Braveheart", etc..the events are long passed, as are the people.  It can be fictionalized because, for the most part, it really doesn't matter what the truth was, as long as people understand it's just a fictional story.

The same is probably true for the Kennedy's.  The Kennedy presidency is still part of our 'present' in many ways, and his friends and relatives still live, and he suffered a terrible assassination.  I think a hatchet job story of the presidency of Kennedy would probably be pretty tacky right now.

In respect for the people invovlved, it's probably better to wait until the events are truly 'history'

[Jim H]

There's probably no bootleg, but it will be shown on Showtime eventually.

[Flangepart]

They can air it, but we don't have to like it, or refrain from telling them so.
Free speech goes both ways, regardless of the speech Nazi's preferances.

Rotten show, from what i've read and heard. Let it rot some more,on someone else's T.V.