Posted on 02/26/2013 3:22:08 PM PST by the scotsman
'What does Hollywood have against the British? Once again on Oscar night, Tinsel Town gave warmly to us with one hand — while cynically taking away with the other.
The good news is that at least nine Britons will fly back across the Atlantic with coveted golden statues.
But the bad news is that Argo — the movie that won Best Film — is yet another piece of Hollywood’s Brit-bashing junk history that casts us in a poor light.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That said, the Brit bashing wasn't all that bad IMHO. More offensive was minimizing the aid of the Canadians and their outstanding Ambassador. Their cooperation was very extensive. For example, under Canadian law a passport could only be issued to a non-citizen by Act of Parliament. Somehow they pulled that off and maintained secrecy.
The British Embassy was downtown and the scene of many demonstrations, making it obvious to all it was an unsuitable hiding place. The British residence was nice and the hospitality very nice, but it was right on a street and under constant surveillance by a komiteh, or revolutionary committee. The book implies they barely moved out in time.
When I was still in high school, I saw a bad Spanish horror film at the Skyline Drive-In called "Superargo and the Faceless Giants"".
The Canadians are the ones who should feel slighted by Argo.
I'd be interested to know why you say this.
Because it completely slighted the Canadians’ role in the rescue, they were portrayed as bit players.
There was a movie that came out around 1981, called “The Canadian Caper” which I believe you could even watch on YouTube.
Well, Ben could attack the British over Iran or he could attack Carter over Iran so he did what democrats do.
Uhh, you're British and you don't even understand your own terminology?
Braveheart was about the oppression of the Scots by the English. There were no British at the time, since British refers to inhabitants of the UK. It incorporates English + Scots + Welsh into a conglomerate.
Although I must admit the history in Braveheart was astonishingly inaccurate, even for a movie. Not sure why they do that, the real history is fascinating.
Who can forget Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg’s World War II epic, that effectively presented D-Day as an exclusively American effort?
Well, that's kind of silly. Omaha Beach was American, and I suspect most American soldiers in Normandy mostly ran into other American soldiers, just as most Canadians or Brits mostly had to do with each other. At least at the grunt level.
For what reason? The Ambassador and his wife came off as very heroic for keeping our folks safe for so long.
We enjoyed the movie. I'm reading Tony Mendez's book right now, so I'll see how the movie deviates from the actual story.
Nope sorry she is on film stating such. In fact I think its in one of the Films extras "making of Harry Potter etc." type video on the DVD where she states that even though he is an American... not that he was going to make the film Americanized but because he was an American.
Remember U-571 — the U-boat thriller set in World War II — which saw the Yanks, and not the British and the Poles, capture an Enigma coding machine and turn the course of the war?
They'd have a point there if their own Enigma movie didn't go out of its way to make a Pole the villain without any historical basis.
Or how about the abysmal piece of faux-history that was Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, which depicted the British as the rapacious, murderous oppressors of the noble and romantic Scots?
And they'd have a better case there if they cited The Patriot.
Just be grateful Affleck didn't make the Brits the villains -- though if he had it might have helped make more British actors rich.
Your attempt to portray her as antiamerican isnt going to wash, sorry. I have seen such interviews as well (although I am NOT a ‘Potter-ite’).
When she says American, you see that as her showing disdain as a pompous Limey for he being an American. Full stop. But thats wrong. You arent understanding what she said.
What she actually meant by ‘American’ was American=Hollywood=Hollywood ruining her story. And I have seen her explain this in interview.
Rowling didnt and probably still dosent like Hollywood and the many base and stupid films/blockbusters they produce, and she had horror at the idea what they would do to her stories. Which is why she fought to keep the stories as they were.
She has gone on record as saying she didnt think Chris Columbus was at all the right choice, as he was known for rather silly films like Home Alone and its sequel or Nine Months. Very Hollywood, very American and very forumlaic.
She promptly admitted she was wrong after seeing the first film.
You are seeing her bashing America, when in fact all she was unhappy about was Hollywood.
Sorry she didn't say Hollywood she said she didn't care who made the movie as long as it wasn't an American. Its right on the DVD.
She also claimed early on that she wouldn't write and American Character into the books because it was about British Children in a British School, except of course for the Bulgarian and French kids in book four.
Not that I give a rip what she thinks, my kids like her stories but I found them alternately creepy & boring.
The movie is pure fiction. Most of the work getting the Americans out was done by the Canadians; the CIA’s main contribution was the fake visas that had the wrong date printed on them.
Tony Mendez is a liar?
Uh-huh. Thats my point, you see her saying ‘American’ as a pejorative and snotty dislike of the US. When in fact she simply meant she didnt want an American to direct (and possibly ruin) her very British story. Its your interpretation she is anti-American. Its mine that you are reading far too much into ‘American’. You are reading it literally.
So what if she added foreign characters FOUR books down the line. Authors change their plans as they write.
Why arent you btw raging at Kurt Russell?. Who publicly stated that Scotsman Gerard Butler shouldnt play Snake Plissken in a remake of Escape from New York, because he is not American. Isnt he being xenophobic, bigoted and anti-Scottish/British/European?. Or is it OK when Americans do it?.
Further she made those comments about Foreigners in the books saying the books were about British Children and then later introduces foreign students into the books yet no Americans. If she didn't want them in the books fine but her reason was it was about foreigners not being British Students. Well last I checked France nor Bulgaria are or were part of the British Commonwealth so apparently her reason for not including Americans in the book were because they weren't British were a "selective choice" at best.
And Snake Plissken with a British Accent won't cut it!
American Screen writer, and did a hackneyed job of the movie scripts.
Now back to lurking
And Harry Potter with an American accent wont cut it either.
You didnt actually answer my question, btw.
Uh huh that's nice and all BUT an American Actor playing Harry Potter was not the issue. Writing an American Character into the books was the issue but hey straw men are fun to skewer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.