LL-L "Media images" 2002.04.29 (05) [E]

Mon Apr 29 22:51:51 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 29.APR.2002 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language varieties"

> From: "Ian James Parsley (Laptop)" <parsleyij at ukonline.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.28 (04) [E]
>
> I guess my main problem with Elaine is that she keeps being referred to
> as
> 'Cockney' where she most certainly is not, by any standards!
>
> (Although I remember her brother came to visit once and he, bizarrely,
> *was* a Londoner!)

Actually, Daphne Moon is supposed to be from Manchester
(really, you'd never pass an exam in this subject, Ian :)
so Simon's Cockney accent seems to be just another mix-up.
Even so, I once asked some "Mankies" about how authentic
her accent is, and they were all agreed that it "just sounds
odd". Since they just needed an English girl, I don't know
why they didn't just have her speak her own accent. West
Sussex would have been much better for the sort of Cold
Comfort Farm image they seem to project of her childhood,
too.

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> Indeed!  :)  Well ... it's not inconceivable that siblings are raised in
> different places ...

It's still a mix-up - fiction writers are supposed to
explain any oddities like that!

> Seriously though, American movies and television programs are not
> exactly known for great attempts at authentic representations.  That's
> something I would expect from British ones, where money is spent on
> actual research and planning, where I can pinpoint the exact decade by
> the clothes fashion alone, even centuries back.  If you'd criticize
> American producers regarding these lacking "finer" points, they'd
> probably suggest you "get out more" (which is another way of saying you
> are a geeky nerd who should get a life).

British TV _has_ to be authentic as there's a huge tradition
in England (I don't know if the Scots are quite the same) of
writing to the papers to point out any blunders made in
historical dramas. A seemingly accurate period drama of Lady
Chatterley's Lover was quickly discredited after various gaffes
were reported - the sight of daffodils in June was considered a
particularly outrageous blunder (which is a shame, when you
consider that the production team actually had to bought vast
numbers of daffodils and "planted" them for that scene!).
However the production companies do tend to bring this sort of
thing down on their own heads - they make supporting programmes
boasting that the actors wear the authentic underwear of the
period because it will make the way they walk more authentic.
That's just asking for it!

I don't know just how authentic it all _really_ is, though.
Some programmes made in the 1990's but set in the 1970's can
jog the memory about many things but still somehow don't look
just as it was - trousers are never quite flared enough, the
haircuts are just too sensible, and so on. You can also see
this effect when you look at older period dramas - for example,
a drama set in the time of Jane Austen made in the 1970's
looked authentic at the time, but now looks like a bunch of
1970's people dressing up!

Still, it's nothing compared to the ridiculous historical
travesties you see in films like "Braveheart"!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Media images

Sandy,

> British TV _has_ to be authentic as there's a huge tradition
> in England (I don't know if the Scots are quite the same) of
> writing to the papers to point out any blunders made in
> historical dramas.

> However the production companies do tend to bring this sort of
> thing down on their own heads - they make supporting programmes
> boasting that the actors wear the authentic underwear of the
> period because it will make the way they walk more authentic.
> That's just asking for it!

Remarkable!  Yet, whatever led up to this, hats up to the British
viewers for observing and bothering and to the British producers for
responding!  (Or should we tell them all to "get a life"?)

Well, I guess you can see this as a blessing or as a curse, depending on
where your priorities lie.  And, yes, I guess it could become stifling
if it became a preoccupation and would inhibit artistic freedom.  At the
very least, though, it assures some educational value even if a show
lacks in other regards.  I have also noticed that British expertise
tends to increase the degrees of authenticity where shows are set in
different cultural environments.  To me personally the mere attempt to
do away with the mostly insulting ethnic clichés of yesteryear is a step
in the right direction.  Hollywood still has a long, long way to go in
this regard also.

> I don't know just how authentic it all _really_ is, though.
> Some programmes made in the 1990's but set in the 1970's can
> jog the memory about many things but still somehow don't look
> just as it was - trousers are never quite flared enough, the
> haircuts are just too sensible, and so on. You can also see
> this effect when you look at older period dramas - for example,
> a drama set in the time of Jane Austen made in the 1970's
> looked authentic at the time, but now looks like a bunch of
> 1970's people dressing up!

Yes, of course, you notice this sort of thing when you watch a "period"
movie that was made a few decades ago: they catered to esthetic
expectations of the times, perhaps unintentionally in some cases.
However, lately it seems to me that British movie versions of
18th-century society novels tend to go beyond the current fashion sense,
where for instance the makeup clearly does not comform to today's
ideals.  Is it that knowledge and skill are improving?  Or is it only
because I don't notice the slant now but will in a couple of decades
(should I still be around then)?  I rather tend toward the former.  I
have studied "period" and "ethnic" arts and costumes in one of my former
"lifetimes" and always had a lot to criticize until lately.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================