Re: discipline
Peter Knupfer (PKNUPFER@KSUVM.BITNET)
Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:46:33 ECT
On Tue, 12 Oct 1993, kurt luginbyhl <MNHAD007@SIVM.BITNET> writes:
>
> On this discussion on whether the whipping Denzel's character was too severe.
> Ya gotta remember folks. ITs A MOVIE!!!!! How many times have film makers
> portrayed anything historical in exact context? I can't think of one!
> is movies are movies and your not going to find historical perfection.
Every
> stinkin station in the East has run the Making of Gettysburg 10 times this wee
> 30 or 40 on TNT and TBS. The only good thing is that the re-enacters are
> portrayed well with a bit of dignity. All this bickering over things that don
> t matter. Let's discuss the campaigns of Sibley against Canby in the West.
> Ya can't keelhaul someone on dry land. Keelhauling is worse than whipping I
> bet. Except in the movie Botany Bay Alan Ladd got keelhaul like twice and was
> little damaged?! Not likely.
> Truth is stranger than fiction? Not! These day fiction is easier to believe.
> Down with revisionism! History needs truth not to be rewritten to be politica
> ly correct. Some people called other people names we know because we still
> use them. Let us not forget!
>
> I am going to have my coffee now and maybe take a pill. &:{)
> Some things get my dander up. Peace!
>
> H. A. Kurt Luginbyhl
> Scientific Computer Specialist
> National Museum of Natural History
> Washington D.C. 20560
C'mon Kurt -- take a chill pill. I don't remember anybody on this list saying
that the film was supposed to be accurate; if I remember right, we were
discussing how it is that the -directors- and -producers- were touting it
as accurate. The whole idea behind discussing what happened in -Glory-
is think about how film-makers use Civil War subjects to address more modern
issues. When a director has access to information that -is- closer to
historical accuracy and decides -not- to use it, and then portrays his
film as "historically accurate," then what's the harm in discussing it? After
all, books are just books and we can't expect to find historical perfection
there either, even in those about the "only things that matter," like Silbey's
campaigns against Canby. Folks who are curious about history would naturally
want to question authors and directors who make claims to accuracy.
One of the best examples is Ken Burns, who has hawked his CW documentary as
a piece of scholarship (which in many ways it is) and not "just a movie" like
Santa Fe Trail (which avowedly seeks to entertain, not to educate or instruct).
Maybe truth is stranger than fiction after all -- certainly it's a stranger
to some writers and film-makers who can help an audience of millions come
a little closer to it -- the better to understand things that matter.
Peter Knupfer
Kansas State University