From p.snider@sympatico.ca Mon Jan 1 00:58:12 2001 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id AAA18590 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 00:58:09 -0800 Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (smtp.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.26]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id AAA05514 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 00:58:09 -0800 Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.96.28]) by tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP id <20010101085803.UAQG16490.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:58:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3A504BFD.552947D9@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 04:21:01 -0500 From: Phillip Snider Reply-To: p.snider@sympatico.ca X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-SYMPA (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: More Alexander the Great References: <3A4ECA08.16E242F2@sympatico.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's not like I disagree with you, but I was rather speaking of an ideal world. I don't think we can assume that people understand that what is on the screen is fiction when it is pretty clearly presented as history as Gladiator is (I refer you to the opening screen which sets the scene, accurately, I note, but with a clear implication that if this part is right, the rest must be). I grant there is no legal reason for such a disclaimer, nor is there any way to impose it, but personally I find this level of being misleading rather unethical. But, of course, that is a personal opinion. Peace, Phil James Pfundstein wrote: > At 12:54 AM -0500 12/31/00, Phillip Snider wrote: > >I agree > >with Kathryn Coleman's contention that Gladiator, for instance, should > >have made clear somewhere that this is creatively 'enhanced' > >(considerable tongue in cheek here) historical fiction presented in the > >movie, not real history. Personally, I think it should be stated right > >off, but a note at the end of the credits would suffice. We insist on it > >when a movie happens in the present (i.e. This is a fictional story. > >Any resemblance to actual persons or situations is purely coincidental). > >I find it odd that we expect such a note for the present day, but don't > >care when there is an equal blatant reconstruction of the past. > > We (the audience) don't insist on such disclaimers; the producers (or > their lawyers) do. And they only insist on a highly visible > disclaimer when there is a potentially actionable resemblance between > the fictional events and some actual events, especially those that > have become somewhat notorious. ("RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES!" as the > peacock network frequently screams in ads for _Law and Order_.) The > motivation is not to make a genre distinction but to avoid lawsuits. > > Movies (unless they are documentaries) are always fiction, and all > fiction is fictional. Audiences are actually pretty sophisticated > about this: no sensible person relies on James Bond movies, or even > Graham Greene novels, as a significant source of information about > British espionage activities in the 20th century. A piece of fiction > set 2000 years ago is still a piece of fiction. > > Naturally as a teacher of classics I would much prefer any movie set > in the ancient world to be as accurate as possible, to make it all > the more effective as a teaching tool. But it is not really the > director's or producer's business to create an effective teaching > tool; it's their business to make a good movie, according to their > lights. Any case for accuracy has to be pitched within these > rhetorical limits: what makes a good movie, not what is "true" in > some absolute historical sense. > > Si vera res erit, nihilominus haec omnia narrando conservanda > sunt; nam saepe veritas, nisi haec servata sint, fidem non potest > facere. > --Rhetorica Ad Herennium 1.9.16 > > JMP("Pseudo-Cicero") .