Beckett

[Captain Casper]

Out Monday and one of Richard Burtons finest performances. Some great extras on this one too:

Commentary by: Peter O'Toole Dolby Digital 2.0
Theatrical trailer
Still gallery
Interviews with editor Anne V. Coats and composer Laurence Rosenthal
Archival interviews with Richard Burton
TV spot

[catflap]

Originally Posted by Captain Casper Out Monday and one of Richard Burtons finest performances. Some great extras on this one too: Commentary by: Peter O'Toole Dolby Digital 2.0 Theatrical trailer Still gallery Interviews with editor Anne V. Coats and composer Laurence Rosenthal Archival interviews with Richard Burton TV spot

Watched it last night - the print is superb, as is the soundtrack. Considering the film was lost 20 years ago and had to be restored from whatever elements they could find, it is a remarkable achievement.

Suffice to say, as film, it is sublime entertainment.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

I have it on order from PlayDotCom... knowing the post it won't get to me Monday morning... nothing ever gets delivered Monday morning... I hardly ever see a postman on Mondays.

Hopefully it will arrive on Tuesday.

[silverwhistle]

On the other hand, historically, it's terrible…

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by silverwhistle On the other hand, historically, it's terrible…

All movies are to one extent or another... even the ones which follow the general history as opposed to the purely fictional or romantisized ones.

Its the nature of the movies. Want accuracy... find a documentary. Movies are entertainments and not history lessons... though saying that, I personally prefer the more generally accurate ones.

[Mr Cosmo]

When I was studying history in 1971, there were a few historical films around and my professor used to go and see them all and when we asked him what he thought of CROMWELL, he really took it apart - especially Alec Guinness who played it with a Scottish accent which given that Charles I only spent a short time in Edinburgh when he was young, it was wildly inaccurate. Best summed up by Professor Norman McDougall concluded by saying "If you want historical accuracy - you're better off with CARRY ON HENRY!"

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by Sam Boone When I was studying history in 1971, there were a few historical films around and my professor used to go and see them all and when we asked him what he thought of CROMWELL, he really took it apart...

Like I said... you can do that with any historical period drama... be it 'Cromwell' or 'Lawrence of Arabia' or you name it. 'Cromwell' is more accurate than most... but to be critical of film, your History teacher would need to know more about film story construction and film history - then perhaps he wouldn't have been so critical of a fine movie... which takes much less liberty with history than something like 'The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex'.

As a very generalised history, 'Cromwell' stands up pretty well... in the light of the needs of adaption into film construction - yes it takes liberties... but it would have a lot of very boring and repetative episodes which would make very poor drama otherwise.

Like I said... if you want History... watch a Documentary.

Regarding Alec Guinness' accent... nobody today knows what the English language sounded like back then. It has been theorised that it may have sounded like a mixture of Yorkshire and certain American accents. So the history teacher would have been on shakey grounds singling out one accent, Scottish or otherwise. The dialogue from every actor would have likely been incomprehensable had they spoken with the historically accurate accents (if only they were known).

Even history teachers can try too hard to be smarty pants - lol

[batman]

I think the subject of accuracy in films that depict historical characters and/or events can polarise opinion and lead to some very heated debate. One of my bette noires re this issue is the depiction of General Custer in films/tv. Custer began by being deified in books and movies. One hatchet job of a biography in the 30s changed all that and he became a symbol of every wrong done to the Native Americans by the US govt over the years. These days poor ol' Custer is like some kind of anti-christ and is regularly portrayed as a murderer of women and children. In fact Custer was against the Indian wars and, although he was most certainly no saint, committed hardly any of the 'crimes' attributed to him. His defeat at the Little Big Horn is re-enacted in movies and ususally shows him to be a megalomaniac buffoon who disobeyed orders. Fortunately, several recent studies of the battle site, one particularly good biography and several excellent documentary films have gone some way to redressing the balance by proving that Custer was on the verge of winning the battle but was let down by subordinates who had personal motives for not helping him or his command. I suppose what I am trying to say, in my long-winded fashion, is that film (either feature or documentary) portrayals of historical characters are often done to fit in with the fashionable thinking of the day, and it is a judgement call as to whether they can be relied upon for accuracy.

Bats.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by batman ...very few can be relied upon for accuracy.

I agree with you, Batman, except that I wouldn't trust any movie or documentary... indeed I even try to cross reference things in books as often as I can.

However, don't worry, I have no intention of getting heated. I don't mind those who disagree with me, so long as they don't mind me disagreeing with them - lol

[batman]

Originally Posted by Aaryk Noctivagus I don't mind those who disagree with me, so long as they don't mind me disagreeing with them - lol

I agree ... ... no you don't !!!!


Bats.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

lol