Re: Pearls Before Swine: Uncle Is Not Good With Money

On 1/16/2025 11:29 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 01:23:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
 

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 1/15/2025 5:57 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Lynn McGuire wrote:

On 1/15/2025 5:16 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 1/15/2025 8:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Lynn McGuire  <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>

Dealing with monarchies is a weird thing, because it comes down
entirely
to figuring out what the monarch is thinking, which isn't always
what he
is saying either domestically or to the foreign press.  Whatever
happened
to Kremlinologists and Sovietologists anyway?
--scott

>
I enjoyed the new Napoleon movie and relearned a lot of European
history.  The battle scenes were amazing.

>
An entertainment film should not be confused with history, in
any aspect.
>
Real history is far more nuanced than can be conveyed in 120 minutes.

>
I recall someone saying "A picture is worth a thousand words...".

>
A movie is worth a million lies.
>
William Hyde

>
https://time.com/6338563/napoleon-movie-true-story/

>
 From the TFA
>
    "The movie is a work of historical fiction, but Scott's
     team worked to ensure that at least some details are
     historically accurate"

 1. Emmerich's /Midway/, IIRC, at least claims to be using characters
portraying real people and even speaking the same words. So it is
possible for the intent to be there.
 2. I have no doubt that, in the new /Napoleon/ film, "at least some
details are historically accurate" even though I haven't gotten around
to streaming it. But the same can be said of /From Hell/ or, indeed,
many films set in the past: the clothing, the carriages, the horse's
harnesses, the buildings ... many many details may well be 100%
accurate. But if the story told is not, then the warning is well
taken.
 3. Similarly, PJ's /LOTR/ films captured the physical appearance of
Middle Earth, in particular the Shire, very very well, but he still
told his own story, not JRRT's. To see the films is /not/ to read the
books. Whether to see /Napoleon/ is to learn the history is unclear.
 4. Even "historical fiction" varies. Some is simply set in an
historical context. Dumas' major works, OTOH, are /very/ historical,
in some cases at the expense of the storytelling.

Not his whole life, but I heartily recommend the 1970 "Waterloo"
starting Christopher Plummer, Rod Steiger and Orson Wells.
I've seen analysis by historians to the effect that this is the
most historically accurate version of the battle ever filmed.
The battle was filmed in Ukraine. The Soviet Army lent the
production 17,000 soldiers, who were trained to drill and
'fight' in period style and uniforms. This was before CGI and
Maya, and if you see a soldier, he's real. This led to a
minor degree of randomness that underscores the reality of the
scene, details such random glints of sunlight off the bayonets
of a formation half a mile away.
This was by far the largest number of extras ever used in one
movie, and was said to be the 'seventh largest army in Europe'.
pt