I've come to realise that movie adaptations and depictions of actual events that include blatant fabrications annoy the shit out of me. I recently watched the Dennis Nilson biopic with David Tennant, which was performed really well and interesting to watch, but when I looked into the particulars I didn't really appreciate it wasn't entirely committed to reality.
Then I watched the Crown. Two episodes in I gave up. Olivia Coleman is wonderful but I don't really want to sit through the seasons she's not in. And I don't like it when they insert fake characters. I do understand these are dramatisations, which take certain liberties with the story, which may involve swapping out certain historical persons to play the same role, or changing the chronology to suit the story. But when you're inserting entirely made up people to dramatise an aspect or work to the new narrative, at what point do you trust your audience to find out that person never existed? Because you're marketing the Crown to ignorant Americans. So what makes you think they're not going to spout this as factual. When we're living in an environment of "alternative facts" the people who think that's okay are going to believe this as fact. They're already doing it. And now the Brits have to clear their throats and ask you all very politely to take The Crown as fictional. Not historically accurate. This is while the fucking Gutter Press likes to sell magazines and papers based on fake royal arguments and conspiracies about Diana's death and Harry's real lineage.
Des, the show about Nilson, changed some names and took liberties with character development and I understand the point of it, that certain people don't want to be named in these stories and if they have that right they should be granted it. And yes, the royals have some right to their narratives as well. But they've created this bubble in which people can imagine certain things, mixed with the personal accounts the palace prefers you not to know. History isn't perfectly retold. Historians play more than one role depending on who's in charge. I don't believe now they make people up, not if they want to keep their jobs. Writers for TV shows have to make you pay attention. Making up shit in the Crown doesn't make it that entertaining. Interesting factoids about Elizabeth become dot points. As a character in this show, she's not particularly interesting, she's torn between her man and her country and her duty and blah blah boring. Philip and Edward are whiny prats, the latter burdening poor John "Churchill" Lithgow with demands get his bird a proper title. Meanwhile this poor woman is claimed to have three ex husbands in the show and only two on Wikipedia. Why add another? But Edward pines for her and claims it's all in the name of Love. (Cue Beatles classic). The other problem with the show is the writing isn't good. It doesn't have the same brilliance you expect from these shows. Again, it's not for the Brits. But looking at requests to have more disclaimers and clarity on the show, I have to agree now, it's not a docudrama, it should much clearer in its intent. I don't remember seeing any disclaimers which is standard for this kind of thing. Even if it's making Charles look bad, when he did a lot of that on his own, if it's not true to history it shouldn't make claims to be. They managed to soil their own reputations to an extent. It's bizarre they should be looking to their own children, who've become pillars of decency by comparison now the princes have settled with families. I've always felt bad for them, William's my age, weirdly I've pitied him for his position and what the tabloids do to someone as upstanding as him. It's almost the perfect situation you have one son willing to carry on regardless as it were, while the other departs and does his own thing. I don't think it has to have as damaging an effect as it's claimed.
But this is coming from someone who likes Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette despite it being incredibly liberal and modern in its execution. I'll watch the Other Boleyn Girl as mindless period pap despite it having two Americans with bad British accents and one Australian in the three leads. Whatever version of Robin Hood you watch is wrong. You can get a lot of fictional stories from periods in history. If it's recent history, where you have a better chance for evidence, where it's not founded in folk law, maybe take a few pains to be clear before you present something purporting to be based on "historical" events.
No comments:
Post a Comment