To: Mia T
Bumped and Freeped. I notice the reviewers who loved the movie saw it purely as entertainment or believe it to be historically accurate.
I saw a profile on the movie "Alexander", in which Oliver Stone said something like "We're not historians; directors have 'License'." IOW, "We can take a historical event and twist it to read the way we need it to read." In this case, no thanks.
15 posted on
01/10/2006 3:41:51 AM PST by
FlyVet
To: FlyVet
thanx. :)
post-911, we need to revoke that 'license.'
16 posted on
01/10/2006 4:37:35 AM PST by
Mia T
(Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
To: FlyVet
"I saw a profile on the movie "Alexander", in which Oliver Stone said something like "We're not historians; directors have 'License'." IOW, "We can take a historical event and twist it to read the way we need it to read.""
Amen to that. Spielberg has already proved to be an expert at that with the "Into the West" miniseries that came out last summer. The first half of it was pretty good, but after that, it was mainly just "Noble Indian lived in perfect peace and harmony until evil, smelly White Man came and destroyed everything for no reason."
In that miniseries, they glossed over the Indian attacks on settlers, they REALLY glossed over the battle of Little Big Horn and its aftermath (Even though a fairly major character in the series dies in Little Big Horn), yet they showed instances of white violence against Indians (i.e. the massacres at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee) with full gory detail. It's what liberal directors do best: Twist historical fact to suit whatever their agenda is.
19 posted on
01/10/2006 5:17:27 AM PST by
Chewie84
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson