Historically accurate? It's ONLY a MOVIE!

I'm really tired of people complaining about movies (NOT documentaries, mind you) that are not being absolutely and completely historically accurate. Events, periods, actions being portrayed in a film not exactly as they really were.

So what?

To me, movies are first and foremost ENTERTAINMENT. I want to be entertained. Distracted from the real world.

Granted, if a work of fiction is as historically accurate as possible, there will be less to distract someone. But if it's entertaining enough, has a good story, good characters... who cares? It's FICTION.

One of my wife's favorite movies is "A Knight's Tale" starring Heath Ledger. Historically accurate? No. Full of anachronisms and inaccuracies? Yes. Entertaining? Hell yeah!



We already have a fairly good idea of history, otherwise we wouldn't notice when something is historically inaccurate. I think it's entertaining to see alternate views of reality, what might have been, someone else's perspective of a real event. We only have a lopsided view of history anyway, as we have all heard that "history was written by the winner." So why struggle to make a film based on that if it doesn't make a good story? Because people might believe that's what really happened? It's only a MOVIE, people. Go make your own movie if you have a different vision.

If I'm watching a documentary, that's something else. I'll want the film makers to do their homework and provide me with enough correct information that I'll learn something about the topic. And if it's something I'm really interested in learning about, I might even do my own research to help form my own opinons.

If a film is more propaganda than documentary, that's fine too, as long as I know the difference. It's a bit obvious when a subject is being presented one-sided. But if you're able to objectively look at it as such, and you're smart enough to know there's another side to it, then hearing one person's view of something can be educational in its own way. You may not like it or agree with it, but if you can objectively listen, you may learn something. Just don't go telling me that your propaganda piece is a documentary. (I'm talking to you, Michael Moore. I DO like your work a lot, but "nonpartisan" is NOT a word that comes to mind while I'm watching.)

If you are striving for historical accuracy, go find a good documentary or read lots of history books and form your own opinion. If you want to be entertained, go watch a movie, pull the stick out of your butt, and enjoy yourself.

"The Wicker Man"

The other day I rented the original The Wicker Man so I could have a refresher before seeing the new movie starring Nicholas Cage. I first watched The Wicker Man many years ago because my old boss had told me about it. He was explaining to me how all pagans are actually Satan worshippers, and I replied that no they aren't, because they don't believe that Satan exists so how could they worship him? and he said "Oh yeah? Just watch The Wicker Man!"

This morning when I looked at the IMDB page from the 1973 The Wicker Man, I started reading the user comments, and then the message boards regarding the movie. I was absolutely shocked at how seriously some people take this movie. These must be the same people who go to pagan message boards to ask the regular posters there, "the insider's view" of the Harry Potter movies. Not only that, when people call The Wicker Man a "classic masterpiece" I'm more than slightly concerned.



The Wicker Man (1973) was so incredibly retarded that it was one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The horrible songs, and I mean horrible, so you sit there with your mouth hanging open because you can't believe what you're hearing, and who could imagine a movie with so much sex and nudity could be so boring? I guess if you want to put yourself into the situation that the main character is in, you could feel frightened at the feeling something sinister was going on -- I get that same feeling when I go to Olive Garden. In the end, after watching this "classic horror film," I was really only afraid of Christopher Lee's hair, both his own and the Cher wig and purple chiffon; that and Brit's fancy little butt dance against the door that was meant to be erotic but was more like a febrile convulsion.

The Christian cop thought he was investigating a missing girl but really that girl was used as bait to lure him into being a human sacrifice. The pagans were evil, the Christian was martyred, and, in the end, everyone sang a song with Lambchop elbows. The writer wanted to make a movie about modern-day human sacrifice, and so he did, the idea is very scary, and it was very convenient to use a group that most people, especially thirty years ago, didn't know much about. Comparing the residents of Summerisle with any actual people is ignorant. The setting and circumstances were the product of someone's imagination and only an dumdum would use The Wicker Man to make a logical point about religion. Why? It's not real!

After seeing it multiple times, I'm still not sure how my boss meant that pagans are Satan worshippers. That's okay, I'm done trying to figure people out, it's time for breakfast.

1973's The Wicker Man is C H E E S E Y, but amusing. See it if you like boobs, both the breast and the idiot kind.