What's new

Last Movie You Watched

Went to see Pressure at the cinema yesterday morning. A good film with a good cast. A few inaccuracies but I've come to expect that from films about historical events. I thought that the portrayal of Kay Summersby, Ike's driver and aide was wrong as the film gave the impression that she played a key role.

James Stagg's prediction of the weather on 5 June the original date for D Day proved right and it was right to put back the invasion a day. It would have been good if more emphasis had been put on the views of Bertram Ramsay and Trafford Leigh-Mallory and not just on those of Bernard Montgomery. Possibly because Montgomery is better known than the other two.

I thought Andrew Scott was excellent as Stagg.

Worth going to watch. Despite what I've written above still better than some of the films about historical events I've watched. Braveheart and The Imitation Game spring to mind.

 
Went to see Pressure at the cinema yesterday morning. A good film with a good cast. A few inaccuracies but I've come to expect that from films about historical events. I thought that the portrayal of Kay Summersby, Ike's driver and aide was wrong as the film gave the impression that she played a key role.

James Stagg's prediction of the weather on 5 June the original date for D Day proved right and it was right to put back the invasion a day. It would have been good if more emphasis had been put on the views of Bertram Ramsay and Trafford Leigh-Mallory and not just on those of Bernard Montgomery. Possibly because Montgomery is better known than the other two.

I thought Andrew Scott was excellent as Stagg.

Worth going to watch. Despite what I've written above still better than some of the films about historical events I've watched. Braveheart and The Imitation Game spring to mind.
Click to expand...
The age-old debate. Documentary -v- drama. Real life, the true story, often isn't enough to put bums on seats in cinemas which is the bottom line. Character involvement is tweaked for dramatic purposes, as obviously in this case of Ike's female driver, and it's often female characters who are affected in the cause of audience involvement. It's offensive efforts like Braveheart that give the process a very bad name.

 
dermott said:
The age-old debate. Documentary -v- drama. Real life, the true story, often isn't enough to put bums on seats in cinemas which is the bottom line. Character involvement is tweaked for dramatic purposes, as obviously in this case of Ike's female driver, and it's often female characters who are affected in the cause of audience involvement. It's offensive efforts like Braveheart that give the process a very bad name.
Click to expand...
Yes, the age-old debate. I think that we have discussed this before. I appreciate that there are times when events and people have to be dramatised. Even historians sometimes have to speculate and dramatise events when there is uncertainty. I've recently read about the Empress Matilda who was the daughter of Henry I and mother of Henry II who reigned in 12th Century England. She was given the title Empress as her first husband was the Emperor of the German States. The author who is a professor of Mediaeval history at Cambridge University had to speculate about Matilda's motives. Not helped by a lot of the accounts of the time were written by men and especially those in the clergy and often they were disparaging towards women.

What really annoys me is when there is a gross distortion of facts especially when there is historical evidence to the contrary. Braveheart is an excellent example. William Wallace could not have had an affair with Edward II's wife Isabella as she did not arrive in England until 1308. Three years after Wallace was executed. The Imitation Game is another example when Turing and Denniston are portrayed as not getting on with each other. Absolute Tosh. They did get on. Not a new thing though as Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III is poor but then Shakespeare did rely on the writings of that so called saint Thomas More. I could have a rant about More but maybe another time. Saying that the play is probably an introduction to Richard III and late 15th Century England and can be put aside for other accounts. I have to admit that I've only read one play by Shakespeare and snippets of others. Recognised as a great playwright but for me the second most important in the development of English in the 16th Century. For me the most important was William Tyndale yet he is not as well known.

You're right about the portrayal of women and they are often seen as the love interest. A shame when you consider the lives of some of the women who served in WW2. Noor Inayat Khan, Vera Atkins, Pauline Gower and Christine Granville spring to mind. They had spectacular and key roles in WW2 and yes they had relationships but so much more.
 
In movies to maximise revenue they need a love angle, war films with an all chap cast do not normally fare well at the box office.

In saying this it is a shame if they need to distort facts.
 
Watching Zulu for what feels like the 100th time. Loads of inaccuracies in it and to be fair to the production team have only become known since the film was first shown in 1964. The portrayal of Henry Hook was inaccurate. The film showed him as an alcoholic when he hardly drank. At the film's premier his grand-daughters walked out in protest.

Despite the inaccuracies it along with Donald Morris's book The Washing of the Spears to study the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.
 
Boyne said:
Watching Zulu for what feels like the 100th time. Loads of inaccuracies in it and to be fair to the production team have only become known since the film was first shown in 1964. The portrayal of Henry Hook was inaccurate. The film showed him as an alcoholic when he hardly drank. At the film's premier his grand-daughters walked out in protest.

Despite the inaccuracies it along with Donald Morris's book The Washing of the Spears to study the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he also portrayed as a shifty character avoiding the heat of battle, when in reality he played a heroes part throughout. I am sure that I read that, am I right with that?
 
WhiteWall said:
Wasn't he also portrayed as a shifty character avoiding the heat of battle, when in reality he played a heroes part throughout. I am sure that I read that, am I right with that?
Click to expand...
You're right the film portrayed him as a shifty character. Another cause of complaint by his grand-daughters. He was a hero and one of the recipients of the Victoria Cross. Just checked and rather than not being big drinker he was tee-total and was also a Methodist lay preacher. After leaving the army he was employed at the British Museum. He was recommended for the job by Lord Chelmsford who was in overall command of British forces in the Anglo-Zulu War and Bromhead who was one of the officers at Rorke's Drift.
 
Am planning to go and see The Uprising which is based on the Peasants Revolt of 1381. An event which had its roots in taxes levied as a consequence of expenses incurred by the Wars between England and France. Will be interesting to see how the radical priest John Ball is portrayed. His famous quote of "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" In other words we're all born as equals.
 
One annoying thing about living here is the difficulty in finding a film shown in its original language. There are thousands of Italian voice actors furiously dubbing films into Italian and frequently not very well. Rare would be the Italian who has ever heard, say, George Clooney's actual voice. Moreover, with dubbing, subtlety and nuance are usually the first things out the door. Much of the blame lies with Mussolini who outlawed languages other than Italian. Subtitles, a not always successful option, but a decent compromise and common in other European countries, are rare indeed. Pity.
 
I watched a random film on Netflix yesterday. I think it was called "It's what's inside", about body swapping. It was decent.
 
dermott said:
One annoying thing about living here is the difficulty in finding a film shown in its original language. There are thousands of Italian voice actors furiously dubbing films into Italian and frequently not very well. Rare would be the Italian who has ever heard, say, George Clooney's actual voice. Moreover, with dubbing, subtlety and nuance are usually the first things out the door. Much of the blame lies with Mussolini who outlawed languages other than Italian. Subtitles, a not always successful option, but a decent compromise and common in other European countries, are rare indeed. Pity.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same in Germany. Arthouse cinemas might show "OV" films in the original language, but the default is dubbed. I find it strange because a lot of people speak good English anyway, and even those who don't "speak" English will often understand it well enough. I can only imagine there are a lot of German voice actors who need to be kept in a job.
 
Boyne said:
Am planning to go and see The Uprising which is based on the Peasants Revolt of 1381. An event which had its roots in taxes levied as a consequence of expenses incurred by the Wars between England and France. Will be interesting to see how the radical priest John Ball is portrayed. His famous quote of "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" In other words we're all born as equals.
Click to expand...
Just back from The Uprising. Not bad and very accurate. I was pleasantly surprised as when it comes to watching dramatised events of historical events I'm very pedantic. Did a very good job of depicting the grievances of the 'peasants' and those of what we now call the middle-classes and were the merchant classes. The main cause of the revolt was the imposition of taxes on the lower classes; money was needed to pay for 'The Hundred Years War.' There were also complaints against traders from Flanders and the Hanseatic League as it was believed they were being favoured over English traders. Richard II was badly advised by senior officials e,g, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Saying that Richard II believed in the divine right of kings. Something that other monarchs believed in but he took it to another level.

Some good acting especially by Woody Norman who played Richard II, Jamie Bell as John Ball and Katherine Waterston as Richard's mother Joan of Kent.
 
Boyne said:
Just back from The Uprising. Not bad and very accurate. I was pleasantly surprised as when it comes to watching dramatised events of historical events I'm very pedantic. Did a very good job of depicting the grievances of the 'peasants' and those of what we now call the middle-classes and were the merchant classes. The main cause of the revolt was the imposition of taxes on the lower classes; money was needed to pay for 'The Hundred Years War.' There were also complaints against traders from Flanders and the Hanseatic League as it was believed they were being favoured over English traders. Richard II was badly advised by senior officials e,g, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Saying that Richard II believed in the divine right of kings. Something that other monarchs believed in but he took it to another level.

Some good acting especially by Woody Norman who played Richard II, Jamie Bell as John Ball and Katherine Waterston as Richard's mother Joan of Kent.
Click to expand...
That's news to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top