LL-L "Media" 2002.05.04 (01) [E]

Sat May 4 19:41:50 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 04.MAY.2002 (01) * 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: "Media images"

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

I suppose skills must be improving all the time, but British
period dramas seem to me to have one fatal weakness, which is
that they try to make their settings seem as attractive as
possible to the viewer. Thus settings which should be
portraying rural poverty are actually quite sumptious, and
moreover supported by scenic grandeur which has more to do
with skillful photography than authenticity. When I read
Pride and Prejudice my impression was of an erstwhile
well-to-do rural family who were now teetering on the brink
of poverty to the point where the mother was in a panic over
how to marry her daughters to sufficiently rich bachelors. I
think the setting can be given only so much "attractiveness",
after which the story loses its edge. It may be this sort of
thing that's led to the book's degeneration into parody in the
form of Bridget Jones's Diary - people just don't take D'Arcy
seriously any more!

It's true that there are some dramas where the "seediness" of
the lives of the characters in classic English novels is
emphasised, however.

I find it particularly enlightening to compare the original
BBC "Vital Spark" comedy series from the 1960's with the
1990's version, also by the BBC (these are based on Compton
Mackenzie's "Para Handy Tales" which are about a ship called
the Vital Spark which makes deliveries between Glasgow and
the Western Isles). In the very popular 1960's series the
clothes the crew wears are functional - thick jumpers,
jackets, boots, black sailing hats or woollen caps - or in the
case of the ship engineer, a filthy boiler suit and even
filthier undervest. The pubs they visit have hardly a stick
of furniture and very little cheer. In other words, it's an
authentic portrayal of rural hardship, where the magnificent
scenery is irrelevant to the characters because they can't eat
or drink it. In this situation the loss of a ten shilling note
can be a heart-rending incident. Compare this with the unpopular
1990's version where the period detail is so sumptious and the
scenery so uplifting that it's hard to imagine the characters
having real problems - it just makes us moderns wish we could be
there!

In short, I think that the period detail and the pleasant
feelings that go with it can become an end in themselves,
and this is never good for the story.

On the other hand, you make a good point about authenticity
vanquishing stereotypes - however, this seems to me to be a
completely different genre from period drama. In such films
as "East is East" the authenticity has quite the opposite
effect from a period drama. In fact, "Monarch of the Glen"
got the period drama treatment (though it's supposed to be
in modern Scotland) and the Scottish stereotypes are
excruciatingly bad - though I warn you, ten minutes was all
I could watch of this rubbish, so I'm no expert!

> From: erek gass <egass at caribline.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Media images" 2002.04.29 (05) [E]
>
> Though it seldom deals with language (is it astonishing that movie
> characters use language the audience easily understands?), the HISTORY
> CHANNEL (an American cable TV channel) has compared a number of movies
> to actual events.  They gave the movie, Braveheart, praise in some
> areas, noted some rather transparent flaws (e.g., the Battle of Sterling
> Bridge had no bridge in the movie), noted the loose accounting of time,
> and bypasses of whole periods of time (e.g., when Wallace was an envoy
> in France).  Then they iterated the reality of a movie made for
> entertainment, and pure history -- history isn't always interesting --
> there are times when nothing important is happening!

I think this point would be valid if it _were_ taken as
entertainment, but when the film came out I found (much to
my surprise) that many English people had never heard of
Wallace or The Bruce, and this film is their education in
these matters, so that several times I've had to explain
that Robert the Bruce was not a coward and traitor, but
that historically the term "Braveheart" refers to him,
not to The Wallace. This is a huge piece of misinformation
and doesn't seem necessary to the film.

Even worse are films like Titanic, where, although the special
effects display remarkable technical accomplishment, the writing
is on an amateur level - conflict for conflict's sake. So since
we have some heroes there have to be some cowards too, and real
people from living memory who heroically gave their lives on the
Titanic to save others are portayed as cowards who attempted to
save their own lives at the expense of the children. The whole
thing reeks of "panem et circenses" and is unethical and
unprofessional.

> watching need to realise this in advance.  Audiences need to relate to
> the portrayals or they won't bother to see the movie at all.  We
> shouldn't expect much more out of movies than titillation and
> entertainment -- real education in history will come from studyingand
> evaluating the actual sources the moviemakers themselves used (and
> abused) rather than accepting a loose entertainment as actual
> history.

I think most fiction writers take their role as educators
seriously. The great tradition in historical novels is not
to rewrite history but to write between the lines of history.
Look, for example, at the Flashman novels, basically a portrayal
of a womaniser, cheat and coward, but with excellent history
(well, as far as I can tell - I wasn't too happy with George
MacDonald Fraser's portrayal of Florence Nightingale, tho!).
Even although there is a subtext that Flashman should take
part in every major battle of his own lifetime (and survive),
he manages to do this without contradicting what we know about
history, even at places like Little Big Horn where all the
"whites" are supposed to have died.

Many film-makers just haven't learned how to be both informative
and entertaining.

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: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: Media

Ron wrote:

>Not knowing what "Sky" and its "late night programmes" were, you had me
>worried there for a second or two.  However, a quick web search
>convinced me that I didn't need to double-check with you before posting
>your confession.

Thank you for your circumspection, Padre Ron!

I forgot that Sky (BSkyB Satellite TV) isn't a worldwide phenomenon -
merely Rupert Murdoch trying to take over that part of the globe which
Ron's fellow Seattle resident Bill Gates hasn't got round to yet - and
therefore people in the States wouldn't necessarily know what it was. My
sons, however, inform me that 'Sky' is also the name of a (I presume
unrelated) magazine with content of a type which my generation
associates with Hugh Hefner (who, I hasten to add, is not of my
generation!). Needless to say, when I talked about 'late night
programmes', nothing could have been further from my mind...

Do you suppose filtering devices censor out the names of any of the
aforesaid gentlemen!?

Here endeth my exercise in treating this list as a chat room!

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================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
=======================================================================