I have a problem with historical ficiton. Not a moral problem or anything; I'm ok with the existence of historical fiction, I certainly don't mind other people reading it. I just have never been able to bring myself to do it.
There's just too much fiction and not enough history, for my taste. I can see needing to use fiction to fill in the gaps of what we just can't know, but what actually happened is often so interesting that I don't understand why writers need to change around major stuff.
Like Anne Boleyn. I don't know why you need to make stuff up in order to make her life more suitable for the big screen. Admittedly, I haven't read The Other Boleyn Girl, so I'm not an authority on What Its Deal Is.
I am somewhat intrigued, though. In fact, as far as the movie goes, I was sold until about the 1:45 mark of the trailer (Then my condition was downgraded from Sold to Intrigued):
I think I want to see it, even though the innacuries may, at the end of the day, just annoy me.
Speaking of intrigued, but in more of a confused way--there's some miniseries next month, Comanche Moon? And it's a Western? And it's all gritty and whatnot? And . . . Steve Zahn is in it? I don't get it, Steve Zahn. I don't get it.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
History + Fiction = ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Personally, I think that "in a time, when women were controlled by men, who were themselves ironically controlled by women" stuff gets old as a theme pretty quick. The movie doesn't look too bad though.
I really, really want to see this movie. although, after watching the trailer I'm a little worried by the casting, because natalie portman just doesn't seem bitchy and conniving enough to be anne boleyn. are they trying to make her a sympathetic character? I think she's a lot better as the one you love to hate, sort of scarlett o-hara-esque.
Post a Comment