It's not that I don't agree with it, per se. But it does seem to me like it's painting with an awfully broad brush. Carried to the logical outcome, it seems like she's saying we shouldn't make movies or write novels about any historical events because we can never really get all the facts right and these things are real and important to someone somewhere. Well, historians writing actual history books and making documentaries don't get all the facts right either - you never can, that's the thing about history, there's not necessarily just one "true" story to be told. We edit and select and interpret events based on our biases and the story we're trying to tell, whether that story is overtly fictionalized or not.
And some people can understand something more immediately through the lens of fiction or docu-drama or whatever you want to call it. It's a way of getting through to people who don't read history. And even if it makes mistakes or takes liberties for dramatic effect, that doesn't mean it's entirely worthless, because it could help someone stand in another person's shoes for an hour or two, and maybe it will inspire someone to look into the subject more deeply.
Taking deliberate liberties for political gain is another matter entirely, of course, and one I don't coutenance, but I don't know if that's what's happening in this movie - I believe it hasn't even aired yet, so people are judging based on the reports of a few people who've had a chance to preview it, or comments from goverment officials and actors... buzz, basically. It seems suspicious to me that this film is being promoted as super historically-accurate, sure, but I won't go casting blame until I've actually seen it myself, or at the very least heard a hell of a lot more about it from people who have.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-10 02:10 pm (UTC)And some people can understand something more immediately through the lens of fiction or docu-drama or whatever you want to call it. It's a way of getting through to people who don't read history. And even if it makes mistakes or takes liberties for dramatic effect, that doesn't mean it's entirely worthless, because it could help someone stand in another person's shoes for an hour or two, and maybe it will inspire someone to look into the subject more deeply.
Taking deliberate liberties for political gain is another matter entirely, of course, and one I don't coutenance, but I don't know if that's what's happening in this movie - I believe it hasn't even aired yet, so people are judging based on the reports of a few people who've had a chance to preview it, or comments from goverment officials and actors... buzz, basically. It seems suspicious to me that this film is being promoted as super historically-accurate, sure, but I won't go casting blame until I've actually seen it myself, or at the very least heard a hell of a lot more about it from people who have.