it was a bad story, badly conceived and written, even more badly researched.
There was a statement on the imdb that the "artistic license" is essential for the movies. I've answered it would be still the story which is essential for a good movie. But now I really don't know. I only know that so called "aristic license" could be a very dangerous thing to the historical truth. It's all a little of topic, but how do you think about it?
it was a bad story, badly conceived and written, even more badly researched
No argument there. So is it bad art, or no art at all?
"artistic license" is essential for the movies
I think this is true, as it is true of all art: It has to be the judgement of the artist (or artists) what the work will consist of. the problem is, artistic license is not licence to be dishonest about the work, or misrepresent truths, or simply to produce a bad product.
so called "aristic license" could be a very dangerous thing to the historical truth. It's all a little of topic, but how do you think about it?
Historical truth - well, any truth - is important to me. When making a work of art, I think the first duty of the artist is to be true to the work, and the only way to do that is to create a complete and consistent vision - the world as the artist sees it. In a historical setting I think it okay to conflate characters, or change details, but the more you change, the more you swerve from a sense of your own reality, the more flawed the work will be. If you want to produce flawed works, sure, cheat on the historical or psychological truths. If you want to create something you will be proud of and that has some real value, don't skimp on the truth and don't take the easy way out.
Historical truth - well, any truth - is important to me. When making a work of art, I think the first duty of the artist is to be true to the work, and the only way to do that is to create a complete and consistent vision - the world as the artist sees it. In a historical setting I think it okay to conflate characters, or change details, but the more you change, the more you swerve from a sense of your own reality, the more flawed the work will be. If you want to produce flawed works, sure, cheat on the historical or psychological truths. If you want to create something you will be proud of and that has some real value, don't skimp on the truth and don't take the easy way out.
Yes: I think deliberately lying about or misrepresenting historical characters and facts is plain wrong. If the writer/film-maker is using real characters under their real names, they have as much of a responsibility to get them right as they would if they were alive and could sue.
I spent 6 years on a doctoral thesis on the relationship between history painting and historiography in 19-early 20C Russia. It was fascinating work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 11:34 am (UTC)There was a statement on the imdb that the "artistic license" is essential for the movies. I've answered it would be still the story which is essential for a good movie. But now I really don't know. I only know that so called "aristic license" could be a very dangerous thing to the historical truth. It's all a little of topic, but how do you think about it?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 01:41 pm (UTC)No argument there. So is it bad art, or no art at all?
"artistic license" is essential for the movies
I think this is true, as it is true of all art: It has to be the judgement of the artist (or artists) what the work will consist of. the problem is, artistic license is not licence to be dishonest about the work, or misrepresent truths, or simply to produce a bad product.
so called "aristic license" could be a very dangerous thing to the historical truth. It's all a little of topic, but how do you think about it?
Historical truth - well, any truth - is important to me. When making a work of art, I think the first duty of the artist is to be true to the work, and the only way to do that is to create a complete and consistent vision - the world as the artist sees it. In a historical setting I think it okay to conflate characters, or change details, but the more you change, the more you swerve from a sense of your own reality, the more flawed the work will be. If you want to produce flawed works, sure, cheat on the historical or psychological truths. If you want to create something you will be proud of and that has some real value, don't skimp on the truth and don't take the easy way out.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 03:29 pm (UTC)Yes: I think deliberately lying about or misrepresenting historical characters and facts is plain wrong. If the writer/film-maker is using real characters under their real names, they have as much of a responsibility to get them right as they would if they were alive and could sue.
I spent 6 years on a doctoral thesis on the relationship between history painting and historiography in 19-early 20C Russia. It was fascinating work.