MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Discussion > The blessed days...

The blessed days...

posted 12 years ago by pol-edra
3 replies | jump to latest

... when nobody gave a damn about historical inaccuracy. They didn't have to be reminded that it was fiction, they just sat back and relaxed and had fun. When did viewers start being such spoilsports and know-it-alls? When did the adjective become so much more important than the noun in "historical fiction"?

I have just rewatched the 2010 Robin Hood with Russell Crowe and cannot see any reason why it gets the "historical inaccuracy" treatment more than this 1938 classic. Except for one thing: the colours. That's all. The costumes in recent movies look supposedly "real" because the colours are deliberately not bright (a very silly and unhistorical assumption that the Middle Ages were drab and grey and sad...) while the Technicolor of old days relished in reds and blues and golds, much like some medieval illuminations or stained-glass windows. Maybe that is what made it easier for people to instantly accept that they were watching a piece of artistic expression, not a piece of "real life". But apart from the colours, really, there is no difference whatsoever between the historical accuracy of the costumes, the architecture, the warfare, the mindsets in 1938 and in 2010 Robin Hoods. So is it just the colour technique? Or something more?

Thoughts?

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] NY Whovian 12 years ago

I really don't have an answer for you, pol-edra. It seems that sometimes people act this way because it makes them feel important, sort of the way a bully picks on others to make himself feel macho.

I feel a similar frustration with the 'A-Team' movie. Several spoilsports slam it as unrealistic because of the 'flying a tank' sequence, ignoring the fact that the original series was just as unrealistic with so many people surviving horrendous car crashes and even a helicopter crash!

Trolls will be trolls. We just gotta ignore them.

[–] pol-edra 12 years ago

Your example is quite telling. Indeed, to many people "historical accuracy" and "realism" appear almost as synonyms! A very strange concept of those expressions, since quite a bit, in history, appears hard to believe... Not to mention, it seems that realism is the one and only narrative technique that some people will tolerate. It is as if they have never heard of symbolism, or parables, fables, fairytales etc... I have nothing against realism, I just don't understand why it must be the one standard to which all pieces of fiction are held.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] thepartydjz 10 years ago

I suppose one could equate it with a "coming of age" mentality. We used to believe in Santa Claus, we used to trust the government, the USA could do no wrong. But after the 60's we became far more cynical, less trusting of authority, and more skeptical about the truth of the stories of previous generations.

Today more people question religion rather than believe in it blindly. Education and science have made us far too intelligent to believe in such things. But is intelligence a blessing or a curse for being too inquisitive.