Bottle Shock: The Movie

We rarely watch TV (in fact we don't get channels so it's dvd or nothing) and I suppose that is because we spend a great deal of time cooking and eating at night rather than sitting in front of the television (and drinking of course).
 
I've only had television for one 4 month period in the last 20 years. That was enough to get me hooked on anime unfortunately.

I also watch television while on the elliptical machine.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I read "The Judgement of Paris" about a year ago and couldn't, therefore, enjoy the movie. Granted the Spurrier role was well-acted, the finger-painting with most of the background facts was grating and distracting. I've never been able to buy into the 'don't let the truth get in the way of a good story' approach.
Click to expand...

If one didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Conrad and numbers of others would be up the creek. It does have to be a good story though. Bottle Shock doesn't qualify.
 
There's plenty of Shakespeare without the historical plays, though it's true we would miss Falstaff. He'd hardly be up a creek, in any event.

The Conrad I've read has been straight fiction, so I can't comment. As to Tolstoy, I'm not a big fan and haven't read him since I was about 14. Does he play fast and loose with history?

I guess it's a matter of taste. I feel that a good story has to be credible; distortion of known facts tends to damage the trust between me and an author, and undermines his/her capacity to carry me along with a narrative.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

The Conrad I've read has been straight fiction, so I can't comment.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure about that. "Heart of Darkness" may be nominally fiction, but it most likely draws heavily on Conrad's own experiences as an overseer of a plantation in Belgian Congo. See Adam Hochschild's excellent book "King Leopold's Ghost" for the gruesome details.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
There's plenty of Shakespeare without the historical plays, though it's true we would miss Falstaff. He'd hardly be up a creek, in any event.

The Conrad I've read has been straight fiction, so I can't comment. As to Tolstoy, I'm not a big fan and haven't read him since I was about 14. Does he play fast and loose with history?

I guess it's a matter of taste. I feel that a good story has to be credible; distortion of known facts tends to damage the trust between me and an author, and undermines his/her capacity to carry me along with a narrative.
Click to expand...

Using an author's name to refer to some of his or her works is called a metonym. Your aesthetic rule would condemn all of Shakespeare's history plays, War and Peace (which played plenty fast and loose with history while claiming to correct the historical record no less)and, as noted above, Heart of Darkness, which, while using all the details of Belgian imperialism, presents itself as an account of British imperialism. One could go on and on with regard to historical fiction.

Of course, you are right, that it is a matter of taste and you are free not to like any of these works. Since, however, you define the rules really in terms of your knowledge of historical facts, might I suggest that a large dose of historical ignorance will enable you to enjoy many more great works of art?
 
'Aesthetic rule' seems a bit high flown for my modest effort at explaining a personal preference, and you are free to like any of these works, of course.

As to Shakespeare, context matters, and, with the research tools available in his time, I'm not sure how accurate his historical plays could have been, in any event. They also have plenty of artistic merit, especially in the context of their time. But speaking personally, again, I can't give myself over to them as much as the plays that aren't tethered to historical specifics, and they are not my favorites.

As I said, I'm not a big Tolstoy fan, and he can be condemned, as far as I'm concerned - although I would estimate that he, too, would have had difficulty laying hands on the research materials necessary to write with any degree of historical precision, by today's standards. As to Conrad, I've apparently been in a blissful state of ignorance of historical fact about 'Heart of Darkness' up till now. Now I'll have to re-read it and see what I think.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jonathon.
 
Tolstoy had read the major French historical works about the Napoleonic wars, some written by eyewitnesses and set out to correct them, based on his deeper knowledge of Russia and how History Works. In one hilarious scene, he first recounts from Thiers I think (but it may be Michelet), Napoleon's questioning of a Russian peasant. He then fictionalizes a scene with the peasant riding away, writes from the omniscient perspective and describes what the peasant "actually" thought. He uses this fictionalization to "prove" that Thiers or Michelet didn't know what he was talking about. This isn't just inaccuracy, it's downright cheating. But it's a great scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top