Oh *that* Gabriel García Márquez - the one whose writing style used exaggerated embellishment to the point of coining the term "magical realism"? Yeah I'm sure he's a trustworthy source on how much ice cream people eat
I have to wonder if directors knowing more about the history they are working with could make the movies worse in some ways since they might focus more on historical accuracy than storytelling
Have you seen the art from the middle ages that depicts Caesar and Pompeii duelling (which they never did) in 1400s armour? We've always been bad at depicting the past "accurately"
Entirely depends on what sort of film you're talking about, and why the inaccuracy is present. Not all paintings are photorealistic, but even surreal art can be beautiful, context and intent are important. Having the characters in your film hold use bows incorrectly to convey strong emotion, or highlight cooperation or leadership skills, is unnecessary, but benign. You wouldn't notice it unless it were pointed out to you, and noticing it doesn't affect your understanding of the history, or of the story itself. There's no _need_ to misrepresent archery, but doing so in this way is harmless at worst, and can indeed serve the story well if done right. Making a Roman emperor black out of sheer contempt for Europeans and their history is much less defensible. You notice that immediately, you know it's wrong, it completely changes the story, and _wildly_ changes the history that the story is ostensibly based on, it's unnecessary, confusing, disrespectful, it serves nothing and makes the film worse.
@@MoxyCaldwell Engaging with art uncritically is a luxury, and with low culture like movies and television you're supposed to. You're meant to shut your brain off, stick your head into the trough, and enjoy an hour or so of comfortable vegetation while the studio feeds you, safe, inoffensive slop, but I find that rather difficult to do when the media I'm being force-fed features specific and explicitly racialized attacks on groups of people whose interests, like their wellbeing and dignity, I very much prize. Art is political, turning your values off to deepthroat the feeding tube in blissful, ignorant consumption is _only_ possible if you're able, or willing, to ignore that fact, and unfortunately I am neither.
![[Bad] - YouTube ВСЁ? (победа VK и прощание с подписчиками)](/img/1.gif)
Oh *that* Gabriel García Márquez - the one whose writing style used exaggerated embellishment to the point of coining the term "magical realism"? Yeah I'm sure he's a trustworthy source on how much ice cream people eat
I have to wonder if directors knowing more about the history they are working with could make the movies worse in some ways since they might focus more on historical accuracy than storytelling
Even like Robert Eggers puts a ton of effort into simulating being in an unrecognizable era but isn't really capital A accurate
Have you seen the art from the middle ages that depicts Caesar and Pompeii duelling (which they never did) in 1400s armour? We've always been bad at depicting the past "accurately"
Entirely depends on what sort of film you're talking about, and why the inaccuracy is present. Not all paintings are photorealistic, but even surreal art can be beautiful, context and intent are important.
Having the characters in your film hold use bows incorrectly to convey strong emotion, or highlight cooperation or leadership skills, is unnecessary, but benign. You wouldn't notice it unless it were pointed out to you, and noticing it doesn't affect your understanding of the history, or of the story itself. There's no _need_ to misrepresent archery, but doing so in this way is harmless at worst, and can indeed serve the story well if done right.
Making a Roman emperor black out of sheer contempt for Europeans and their history is much less defensible. You notice that immediately, you know it's wrong, it completely changes the story, and _wildly_ changes the history that the story is ostensibly based on, it's unnecessary, confusing, disrespectful, it serves nothing and makes the film worse.
I think you'd enjoy movies a lot more if you weren't so easily offended
@@MoxyCaldwell Engaging with art uncritically is a luxury, and with low culture like movies and television you're supposed to. You're meant to shut your brain off, stick your head into the trough, and enjoy an hour or so of comfortable vegetation while the studio feeds you, safe, inoffensive slop, but I find that rather difficult to do when the media I'm being force-fed features specific and explicitly racialized attacks on groups of people whose interests, like their wellbeing and dignity, I very much prize. Art is political, turning your values off to deepthroat the feeding tube in blissful, ignorant consumption is _only_ possible if you're able, or willing, to ignore that fact, and unfortunately I am neither.