In this article, we will analyse why horror stories, even now, like to draw on these cultural touchstones, before looking at some horror films and the folklore and myths that inspired them.

Past Horrors

Older forms of storytelling like myths, legends, folklore etc. have concerned themselves with confronting our fears of the unexplained for thousands of years. Whether it be existential, rooted in the problems of a particular region/culture or often both. Many of these stories act as tales of morality or explorations of the fantastical, they are also seen as formative teaching moments for children to learn about the world and the moral frameworks through which to view it. But these stories also have a hint of horror about them. With the dire consequences visited upon those who are evil (e.g. burning to death or in hell) and villains being capable of scary/dark things (e.g. devouring people in their path). Thus these stories act as a foundation for horror stories by prominently using the fantastic and unexplained.

Since the beginning of cinema films have been drawing inspiration from this kind of storytelling. Allowing stories from across the Earth to be experienced in a way that foregrounds a sense of reality and immediacy. 

Horror and Myths

So why do horror films keep returning to these older stories? Well, one reason is that these types of stories value reinterpretation. These stories have been told differently in various regions with each storyteller giving the story a different spin. Providing filmmakers with a great license for creativity. 

Equally, these sources can provide production with an air of seriousness due to drawing on older traditions that those outside of the genre are more familiar with.

They also add an extra eerie factor. Due to the association of myths and folklore with formative childhood experiences and a time before cinema, it allows films using these stories to act as a dark confrontation of childhood innocence and evokes feelings of a time before modern technology which creates feelings of unfamiliarity and thus unease in viewers.

But most significantly horror as a genre has a habit of recontextualising these older stories. With many of these older stories attempting to explain the unexplained or offering definitive morals their use in a modern context, where many questions posed by these stories have been answered and morality is less black and white, refocuses the story’s meaning to show humanity’s fallibility. Notably folk horror, which focuses a lot on invoking folklore, takes the trappings of old tales and puts more focus on humanity’s capacity for self-destruction.

Folklore in Horror Films

To see how widespread the influence of older stories are in horror here are three horror films and the stories that inspired them:

Haxan

The groundbreaking silent horror essay film dramatises and analyses the folklore of witches and the societal factors that resulted in these stories being used to destroy the lives of women from the Middle Ages to the then modern day.

Midsommar

This film’s story has ties to several traditions and folk tales. For example, Midsommar’s Hårga cult is influenced by a folk story which concerns a group of villagers who are visited by the devil and made to dance to death – something at the heart of the dramatic displays of Midsommar. Plus there is the use of May Queen imagery. This symbolises someone being chosen to embody the coming of growth in Spring, with Dani representing the growth of the cult’s ideology.

Huesera: The Bone Woman

Huesera’s central threat is based on a Mexican legend. The story concerns a woman who collects bones. Upon having enough to form a skeleton she brings them to life. Creating a wolf which then becomes a woman. The story is said by scholars to be about restoring lifeforce, which does not want to be tamed. The movie updates this theme by making the central threat encompass how women are viewed by and harmed under patriarchy, with the main character Valeria’s visits from the bone woman revealing more about herself and how society views her.

Also Read: Animated Horror: The Overlooked Genre Fusion

The post Horror and Folklore: Movies Inspired by Myths and Legends appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Um Actually…

I am a history fan and a nitpicking nerd who has said on countless occasions “Um actually…” as I issue a correction to someone. To many the idea of going through movies and pointing out the errors of Ancient Rome’s senatorial politics in Spartacus is simply being a killjoy. An understanding of history is important in society, it is a way to learn and understand things in the world. For example, the great biopic Lawrence of Arabia covers, in part, the redrawing of borders in the Middle-East after World War I, creating countries by drawing lines on maps and an accurate understanding of these events would help someone understand the political history of that region for the past 100 years. Does Lawrence of Arabia help or hinder that understanding?

Silly Criticisms

Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette had mixed reviews but was criticised for its historical inaccuracies, such as not portraying all of Marie’s children. However, it was also criticised for purely stylistic choices of the director, such as when a blistering review of Marie’s dozens of shoes a pair of Converse trainers are seen for a split second. Coppola was not trying to suggest Marie Antoinette had Converse shoes. Even just the poster of Napoleon caused fury as it contained the text “He came from nothing. He conquered everything.” as he did not come from nothing, being minor Corsican nobility and did not, in fact, conquer everything. I would feel that this was poetic licence and helped to contextualise the scope of his achievements.

Revising History

Movies (as well as teachers, historians etc) are constantly being accused of revisionist history, or changing it to suit their political purposes and the real and accurate history is being pushed down. The fact is there is one correct version of history. When a historian writes a book there may be many facts about dates of battles etc but they are making an argument, an interpretation, of the events. And this has been going on since there was history. Opinions on figures, like say, Oliver Cromwell have changed considerably over the centuries from his death – tyrant, liberator, religious fanatic, champion of democracy or destroyer of it, and are never a monolith. As such if we’re saying filmmakers have a responsibility to portray history accurately…surely that would mean just portraying one interpretation accurately.

But that is an argument about the subject of history and biopics are not history. Biopics are fiction, not a documentary, and they do not claim to depict history. Their goal is to tell an entertaining story. Filmmakers adapt books, TV shows, plays and more as they are entertaining stories and history is just a fertile ground for ideas as any of these.

However, even if a biopic should be seen as a work of fiction rather than history, it is undeniable that biopics have a huge impact on how history is perceived. To use the example of Lawrence of Arabia – we have a dearth of material on and about Lawrence, he wrote books, and there are many photographs and even footage but for most people that is irrelevant, they have seen the movie. Your opinion of the real historical figures of the people portrayed in the film will be deeply affected by the movie.

In conclusion…

So we come to the difficult conclusion to the question of do filmmakers have a responsibility to history when making biopics? Yes in some ways, no in others, and it probably comes down to “it depends”. Some films, like Marie Antoinette, are not made to accurately depict every aspect of their protagonist, whereas some clearly want to create the definitive version of this person. And what are we being “accurate” about…a period costume being wrong is very different to interpreting the motivations of a leader going to war. Often a lot more leeway is granted to a figure from 1000 years ago to someone who died in the 20th Century. Its hard to imagine a biopic being made now of someone like Winston Churchill, who has equally vocal supporters and critics, who is not accused of betraying history no matter what. Ultimately if we want to watch historical figures in film then we shall have to accept they will never be completely accurate.

Also Read: Will We Ever See These Celebrity Biopics?

Also Read: Straying From The Truth: The Historical Facts Disney’s ‘Pocahontas’ Overshadowed

The post Ethics of Biopics: Balancing Historical Accuracy and Creative License in Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today, we will look at Hollywood’s early years and what drew people to the area. Along with this, we will look at the first major studio to set up in the area, as well as the factors that led Hollywood to dominate world film.

Hollywood Begins

In the early 20th century, film production companies sprang up in big cities across America. However, soon a de facto monopoly was created by several big studios (headed by the Edison Company). They, along with Eastman Kodak, then the biggest film stock supplier, joined forces to create The Motion Picture Patents Company or the Edison Trust in 1908. This company effectively controlled camera patents, exhibition theatres and film stock, meaning they controlled who could use their cameras, who bought the film to shoot on and the cinemas that could show films. The story goes that many independent filmmakers fled to the West Coast (particularly California) to escape the Trust’s heavy enforcement, which is when filmmakers discovered Hollywood.

Some have disputed the claim’s accuracy as one of the first films shot around Hollywood, D. W. Griffith’s In Old California, was shot for an Edison Trust member, Biograph. Additionally, several Trust studios would soon set up their facilities in and around Los Angeles, though the patents might have been less easy to enforce.

Regardless of the Trust’s role, California offered manymotivations for filmmakers to move there. Namely, it had constant sunny weather, which allowed for regular outdoor filming, and the varied terrain provided great settings for different film stories. Los Angeles also had a lot of anti-union laws, which allowed productions to exploit cheap labour. 

As this influx was happening, a small Los Angeles neighbourhood known as Hollywood soon began letting property to movie producers to help boost the local economy. But this small area would soon balloon into something much greater.

Hollywood’s First Studio

At the end of 1911, several studios had a presence in or near Hollywood. Like the aforementioned Biograph, as well as other big names like Selig and Essnay. But the first studio to set up permanent operations there is credited to the Nestor Film Company.

Nestor was established in 1909 as a production unit for the Centaur Film Company, owned by brothers David and William Horsley. It was known for making short comedy films. The company would soon, along with several other studios, merge to create Universal, which is now one of the world’s oldest functioning film studios. 

Growth and War

In the years following the first film productions set in Hollywood, the film industry would change the small village into a sprawling industry of studios. The Edison Trust was disbanded. Plus, progenitors of other major studios were born during this time. Famous Players (Paramount’s precursor) and the first Warner Bros operation were established. But these years also saw the outbreak of WWI.

WWI resulted in almost the complete destruction of Europe’s film industry. The American industry was left relatively untouched. Many stars and directors active in Hollywood at the time were also approached by the government to aid in war efforts by creating pro-war propaganda and war bond promotions. Thereby resulting in healthy returns and the stars of the time becoming the faces of films exported across America and Europe.

All of this meant that after the war, Hollywood had economic, artistic, cultural and public image strength that was unrivalled across the world. 

Toward A Golden Age

The years after the war would see the influenza outbreak contribute to the decline of independent theatres, which were then bought up by Hollywood studios. The Hollywood sign was erected, creating a firm association in viewers with the idea of Hollywood and scale. More major studios were established, such as Disney and MGM, and Hollywood would begin pushing the boundaries of film itself with the introduction of sound. Some historians mark this as the start of Hollywood’s golden age, when Hollywood showed itself as the undefeatable titan of world cinema, forever cementing itself as the filmmaking capital of the world.

Also Read: Deep Brain’s AI: Transforming Hollywood’s Landscape in 2024

The post How Hollywood Started appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The History of Stage Names

Stage names were popular in the early days of the film and television industry. Performers wanted to choose names that were memorable, so they would stick in the minds of casting agents and audiences. They chose names that reflected the image they wanted to project. Some performers chose names to hide their nationalities, because they experienced racial and ethnic bias in auditions. 

Stage names also extend to theatre actors and musicians. Many of these artists chose stage names for the same reasons as actors. They also craft alter egos to have a distinct medium for their creativity.  

Reasons Actors Choose Stage Names

Some actors choose stage names to draw a line between their private and public personas. Since the entertainment industry can be a small world, actors can change their names to separate their talent from family connections. Some entertainment institutions, like the Screen Actors Guild and Equity, have rules that performers may not use the same name.   

Actors may choose to adopt a stage name if their given name sounds too similar to another famous person. Similarly, if performers haven common names, they may select a stage name that helps them stand out.  

Some entertainers select names that reflect the public image they are trying to create. Performers may select a stage name if their given name is difficult to pronounce, which would give them more marketability. Many actors choose stage names that honor important influences in their lives.   

Iconic Examples

There are many iconic examples of entertainers choosing a stage name to craft a public persona.

• Marilyn Monroe was born Norma Jeane Mortensen. This glamorous starlet chose a flashier stage name to reflect her public image.
• Emilio Estevez decided not to use his family’s last name, Sheen. He wanted to separate his talent from his famous family’s name. 
• American rapper and comedian, Awkwafina, chose a single stage name that reflected the playful character she wanted to build. 
• Old Hollywood actor Rock Hudson was born Leroy Harold Scherer Jr. He picked a stage name that exuded strength and masculinity because he wanted leading roles. 
• The Vampire Diaries actress Nina Dobrev shortened her name, Nikolina Kamenova Dobreva, to make it easier to remember. Diane Keaton was born Diane Hall, but had to change her name because another actress had the same name.

Stage Names Allow Actors to Transcend Stereotypes

Stage names allow actors to transcend racial and ethnic stereotypes. In Old Hollywood, stage names allowed actors to get in front of casting agents where they could showcase their talent, instead of being sidelined by prejudice. In the 1930s, Margarita Cansino became starlet Rita Hayworth. The name led to an erasure of her Spanish ethnicity, which helped her secure more roles because of the unfair racial and ethnic prejudice in Hollywood. 

Stage names widened the net of opportunities for entertainers who did not want to be put in stereotypical roles. Bruno Mars revealed in a 2013 interview with GQ that he chose his stage name because he did not want to be stereotyped as a Latino singer. 

While Hollywood still has a long way to go regarding inclusivity, some actors use their birth names to honour their heritage. In a 2021 interview, Riverdale actor Jordon Connor revealed he chose his stage name because he was stereotyped as an Asian actor in early auditions. He has since embraced his last name Yuen, to honour his Chinese background.  

Also Read: Shattering Stereotypes: The Rise of Women in Action Cinema

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Behind the Name: The Origins and Reasons for Actors’ Stage Names appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we will explore film’s relationship to music. To do this we will briefly look at the history of film score development. We will then discuss the ways music is used within films. Before finally looking at how music can impact audiences.

Film’s Musical Beginnings

While early films were silent they had live musical accompaniment. Sources differ on whether music was originally used for marketing, aesthetic, or noise masking purposes. Whatever the reason music quickly became entwined with film screenings. Live film scores were typically improvised or performed using existing tunes. Eventually, production companies began sending cue sheets to suggest the type of music that should play during particular scenes. The earliest original accompanying film score was featured in The Assassination of the Duke of Guise (1908). 

Live music quickly faded when sound cinema emerged. However many early sound films had trouble adapting to the new technology needed for sound and so restricted the use of music. That changed when composer Max Steiner made a full-length orchestral score for King Kong (1933).

Each subsequent decade brought new advancements and experiments. The 40s and 50s saw the popularisation of jazz music. Which made films like A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) seem more modern. Forbidden Planet (1956) also became the first sci-fi film to have an electronic score. Additionally, this time saw orchestral scores decrease, mostly being reserved for big-budget projects.

The 60s showcased how popular songs could effectively emphasise action (The Graduate (1967)) and experimented with different musical tools (Ennio Morricone’s Dollars trilogy score). The 70s saw the rise of synthesizers, allowing lone creators to create full scores (Dark Star (1974)). Orchestral scores also made a broad return (Star Wars (1977)). And with the expansion of computer technology since the 80s and the internet’s development we have seen diverse experimentation with what can make up film music.

For example, Junkie XL uses different hardware and instruments to create eclectic scores for movies like Deadpool (2016). Meanwhile, Hans Zimmer influenced many modern scores through his wall-of-sound style and blending of orchestral, electronic and recorded elements.

Highs and Lows 

With everything that goes into making film music what functions do they serve? Composer Aaron Copland listed 5 functions they can have:

• Establish time and place – Inform us about the story’s genre and setting. While also helping build atmosphere.
• Underline characters’ interiority – Communicate a character’s thoughts and psychology. 
• Background filler – Comment on what the audience is seeing and enliven the film’s pace.
• Build continuity – Help to connect seemingly disparate scenes.
• Create dynamic shaping and give closure – Drive the narrative forward and provide finality to the film, characters, and plot strands.

Robin Hoffmann has since expanded on this list, by discussing how music can:

• Manipulate – Trick the audience’s emotions in service of the story.
• Create contradictions – Produce unexpected audience reactions by using music that may not match a scene’s tone.
• Psychologically condition – Elicit a primal emotional response and encourage the same reaction to similar work.

The Universal Language

Of course, the ultimate goal of film music is to impact audiences emotionally. So how does it accomplish these goals?

Research has shown that music helps to stimulate brain activity, particularly the parts of the brain that process emotions and control memory. Therefore when film music is being constructed it can use cultural signifiers that audiences recognise or techniques that appeal to instincts (e.g. high pitches and a fast pace can indicate danger) to generate an emotional reaction from audiences.

But music also affects film audiences through its enhancement of narrative elements. It can help us feel more connected to the characters, as it immerses us in their world and allows us to not just hear what characters say and see what they do but experience how they feel. Helping viewers feel more intimately involved in the story.

Additionally, it can encourage personal analysis of a film’s themes through its repeated deployment of themes and motifs which prompt questions as to the meaning behind their repeated use. Film music engages audiences physically, intellectually, and emotionally. There is a reason it is one of cinema’s most powerful tools.

Also Read: Great Dance Moments In Non-Musical Films

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post From Silent Films to Soundtracks: The Evolution and Impact of Music in Cinema appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What is Claymation?

Claymation is a form of stop-motion animation. This is where a still frame of either model characters (in claymation these models are clay formed around a metal skeletal frame) or background elements is photographed before being moved slightly and photographed again. When the frames are played together it gives the illusion of motion. The main difference is that it focuses on creating animations using various forms of clay e.g. plasticine. This results in the animation and characters feeling more tactile. It also allows for smoother and more detailed facial animation than traditional stop-motion materials.

Like regular stop-motion, claymation animators must have an eye for detail. To ensure that movements of various details captured within each frame follows on adequately from prior frames. They also need a great level of patience. Because of all the details that need to be captured and how gradually changes need to be made to each frame to make the animation feel natural animating a single scene in claymation can take days. But the results are definitely worth it.

The History of Claymation

Several early short films featured some form of clay animation. The oldest surviving film emphasizing the technique is The Sculptor’s Nightmare (1908). Which showed lumps of clay transforming into the busts of US politicians. Traditional 2D animation and other forms of stop-motion soon began dominating the industry. Clay animation was rarely the focus of a production, but shorts like Little Baker (1925) and Long Live The Bull (1926) centralized the technique. 

Around the 1950s clay animation became a fixture of children’s shows (Gumby). Then in the 1970s well-regarded clay animations like Italy’s Mio Mao and the UK’s Morph, created by Aardman Animations, were released. And animator Will Vinton’s work began gaining attention. Vinton won the medium’s first oscar with Closed Mondays (1974). He also coined and later trademarked the word Claymation.

The 80s saw the medium reach new heights. Many respected Eastern European animators helmed claymation projects such as Aleksandr Tatarskiy, Jan Svankmajer and Garri Bardin. The Adventures of Mark Twain became the first feature-length claymation film. And Aardman debuted their beloved award-winning claymation duo Wallace and Gromit in A Grand Day Out.

Claymation made its way to video games in the 90s. With the animations of clay figures featuring in the gameplay of ClayFighter, The Neverhood and its sequel Skullmonkeys. And in the 2000s adult-oriented claymation like Mary and Max showed that claymation could tell stories for older audiences. The medium also produced the two highest-grossing stop-motion movies ever in this time: Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Top 5 Claymation Films

So what are the quintessential claymation films to see?

1. Dimensions of Dialogue (1982)

Jan Svankmajer’s acclaimed short is a surreal meditation on the nature of communication. A great showcase for claymation’s creative possibilities.

2. The Adventures of Mark Twain (1985)

An important milestone for claymation features. It’s a triumph of effort and the mostly clay production is a visual treat.

3. The Wallace and Gromit Series (1989-)

Whether you’re watching the shorts or the Curse of the Were-Rabbit film Wallace and Gromit is utterly charming. And their claymation aesthetic makes the characters feel like they were directly birthed from your childhood imagination.

4. Chicken Run (2000)

A funny take on The Great Escape full of loveable quirky characters that are so well written and animated that you quickly forget they are just plasticine.

5. Mary and Max (2009)

Tackling heavy subjects like alcoholism, identity and self-harm, Mary and Max showed that claymation can mould itself to tell stories about adult themes.

With that our look into the world and history of claymation is over. We hope you’ve enjoyed it and are now ready to experience more from the world of plasticine perfection.

Also Read: Cartoons For Adults: The Rise of Adult Animation

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The Beautiful World of Clay Animation appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The History

I am fascinated by history and like many pedantic people can become furiously annoyed when their interests are not portrayed accurately in film and television. The Great neatly sidesteps this entire problem, the title card of the show has an asterisk after the title explaining this is “an occasionally true story”. There are numerous and significant historical inaccuracies. For example, Peter often talks about being overshadowed by his father, Peter the Great, but Peter the Great was not the father of this Peter but the show is more concerned with the grand theme of the story. Catherine was a foreign princess who became ruler of one of the most powerful countries in the world, a monarch of the Enlightenment who brought sweeping changes to Russia. The show makes it very clear that it is using the broadest of strokes of Russian history.

The Characters

Elle Fanning plays Catherine and it is through her we see the story unfolds. Catherine is a young, intelligent (if a little naïve) noble who feels she has won the lottery of marriages when told she is to be wife to the Russian tsar. And then she meets the Russian tsar. Catherine is very much influenced by the Enlightenment; she is a proponent of science, modernity, liberal government, freedom of the press and finds that with Peter, and Russia, these are not popular concepts.

Nicholas Hoult is endlessly entertaining as Peter. At first Peter seems little more than the standard portrayal of an absolute monarch who gets power too young and doesn’t have the talent or intelligence to do the job. He is obsessed with sex, food and alcohol, is casually violent to most of those around him (up to and including murder), seemingly unconcerned with the lives of the millions of people he rules. Catherine is little more than a pretty bride who will provide him with children. There is, however, a little bit more to Peter. But not much more. Providing it won’t trouble him he wants the people to love him, he does have friends of a sort who he cares about, and he can actually develop feelings for Catherine.

Another character worth looking at is Elizabeth, Peter’s aunt. She is portrayed as eccentric bordering on delusional with very little connection to reality but a pleasant and nice person. She cares for Peter and wants Catherine to be happy. However, it quickly becomes clear that she is by no means as eccentric as she might appear and is an expert on the often deadly politics of the Russian court and will get involved directly when necessary. Elizabeth wants everyone to be happy but she is a survivor first and foremost. The idea of feigning madness or stupidity (or exaggerating it) to survive in a hostile environment has been around for literally centuries – both Hamlet and I, Claudius use it.

The Plot

As Peter’s stupidity, cruelty and ignorance become more and more clear to Catherine she decides to act and starts a plot against Peter and it doesn’t take long to find people who don’t like Peter.

There is Marial – her maid but who was once an aristocrat until her family was punished by Peter.

There is Orlo – the intelligent government minister who Peter ignores and belittles.

There is Velementov – an aging but capable general who Peter, again, ignores and belittles (as a viewer you can see Peter creating his own problems – maybe don’t insult the person in charge of the people with all the guns).

As Catherine’s plot develops over the course of the first season Peter swings between love and hate, violence and peace, action and inaction and is almost completely oblivious to the danger around him.

Is It Great?

The Great is an enjoyable and interesting period comedy-drama that may not teach much actual history and may well turn people towards history. After watching HBO’s Rome, another show which takes a lot of liberties with history, I started reading books about it which has lead to a love of history which continues to this day. Of course, The Great is not trying to educate people but rather take a fascinating period of history and make it entertaining.

Also Read: The Many Collaborations of Michael Winterbottom & Steve Coogan

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The Great: Occasionally True; Always Fun appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Martin attempts to set a new fastest known time on the 184-mile Thames Path—running from the Thames Barrier in London to the source of the river in the Cotswolds. What starts as a gruelling and ambitious record-breaking attempt turns into a journey of discovery. He learns both about himself and the entangled history between Black people and the river. Martin hopes his run will encourage more diversity in the sport of trail running and inspire others to get out beyond the city and run.

We spoke with the film’s director, Matt Kay, about what he hoped people would take away from the film.

I think MJ is hugely inspirational and so hopefully from the film you can appreciate the physical toll it takes but also the reasons as to why MJ wants to do the run in the first place. When people think of the Thames they often think about how iconic it is as a river or the sites along the banks. I’d like the film to inspire people to think a little deeper about the history of the river and what connections it has to London besides the opening of Eastenders! 

– Matt Kay, Director

Watch the full documentary on Patagonia’s YouTube page below

Also Read: Hong Kong Activist “Pepper” & Director Franz Böhm Discuss “Dear Future Children”

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Patagonia’s Latest Documentary “Run To The Source” Explores The River Thames Like Never Before. appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

It is crucial that history is documented and Hollywood re-tellings can make previously unknown historical events accessible to a wider audience. However, issues arise when an artistic license is taken to a new level and scenarios can be changed in order to heighten drama or, a more damaging reason, to portray events from a particular bias.

The popularity of period dramas is undeniable; let’s face it, good period dramas are one of the main reasons the BBC can justify the TV license – not that I’m complaining as it brought Tommy Shelby into my life! Now other platforms are jumping on the historical bandwagon – or carriage – with series three of the Netflix original ‘The Crown’ now in production.

Audience numbers for ‘historical fiction’ films have peaked and dipped over the years. There was a huge increase in 1998, with 16.63% of overall tickets sold being for this genre (Titanic had been released the December before!) while the 2011 rise could be put down to the film adaption of The Help. However, ticket sales have declined rapidly in the past year, from 6.98% in 2017 to just 2.61% this year. So why the drop?

Perhaps the issue is the historical accuracies, or rather, inaccuracies which has caused audience numbers to dwindle. Perhaps it is the whitewashing of historical events which has been prevalent in Hollywood. Perhaps it is the lack of diversity within period and war dramas.

There is a clearly evident issue of harking back to the “good old days”, particularly in older war films. This is often the case with films told from a British perspective. Graham Dawson refers to this as “the pleasure culture of war”; films providing a nationalistic perspective. Although this is to be expected as the winners tell the story, this only provides a very limited narrative to audiences. The issues caused by this “revisionist” history can be incredibly damaging. On a small scale, it might infuriate historians to see a plane being used in a film which wasn’t commissioned until two years after the events it is portraying. But, on a more damaging scale, stories can be told which present people and even social groups in an unfairly positive or negative way.

Zack Snyder’s 2006 film 300 faced a huge backlash; both historically and socially. The film gave the Spartans all the credit when they were actually supported by around 7,000 other Greeks. More worrying is the film’s portrayal of the Persians. The Persians were one of the most advanced cultures within the ancient world while the film depicts them as savage killers who held people as slaves. It was, in fact, the Spartans who held the most slaves in Greece while the Persians had outlawed the practice. The film received a great deal of negativity in Iran due to this factually inaccurate and damaging depiction of the Persians.

Although issues can arise in the making of a film, it is still vitally important that these events are documented, albeit accurately and with fair representations. As  the old adage from George Santayana goes; “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” But we still need to remember the actual past, not a fictional one created for heightened drama and box office sales.

World War Two is possibly the most documented war in modern cinema. There have been all sorts of perspectives told on the silver screen; from the battle in the air to the trials and tribulations of those left behind when their loved ones went off to fight. Stephen Spielberg has done his fair share of big budget war movies, most famously Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan. (He also directed War Horse – a British story about British soldiers directed by an American – think that’s one for another post!) Both films mentioned have been heralded as incredibly accurate representations of the events they depict. Although Private Ryan wasn’t, in fact, a real person, the artillery used in the film most certainly was. In fact, the opening scene, the storming of Omaha Beach, was so accurate that WWII veterans had to be escorted from screenings. Schindler’s List is another Spielberg film which has been praised for its accurate telling of the harsh realities of Nazi Germany.

Perhaps that is what historical films need in order to be able to fully tell their story: harsh reality. 12 Years a Slave was incredibly difficult to watch because of the brutal violence shown. It has also been deemed one of the most accurate accounts to date by historians. The film was based on the actual experiences of Solomon Northup, a man who was forced into slavery and was able to share his narrative after he regained his freedom. It was a narrative that I was unfamiliar with until the Hollywood adaptation, at which point I read the book. This is why historical re-tellings are important; they provide the opportunity to learn about the lives of people which might otherwise have been lost. However, it is vital that these stories are told with the accuracy they deserve.

The post Questioning Our History appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

David Mckenzie’s new historical drama about how Robert the Bruce became King of Scotland

What’s Going On?

The film starts with Edward I, King of England, forgiving Scottish lords for rebelling against him. Edward I claimed the Scottish crown after they asked him to decide on should be king and he picked himself (he had no claim to the throne). Not surprisingly many Scottish lords rebelled but were soundly defeated by Edward I. Robert the Bruce, son of a Scottish lord, was one of the leading rebels but he too makes his peace with Edward, possibly only because his father is one of the strongest claimants and they think Edward will make him king. English rule on Scotland is hard with Edward I brutalising Scotland; at one point he refuses to accept surrender from one lord until he’s had a chance to try out his new catapult (this really happened). Eventually, the injustices prove too much to bear and Robert the Bruce rebels despite being hugely outnumbered.

Behind The Scenes

The film is directed by David Mackenzie, who I knew mainly from Hell Or High Water, which is perhaps best described as a modern western, a film I enjoyed a lot. This is a Netflix production and I would say does manage to feel like a “proper” film and not some made-for-tv second rate movie. Obviously, this is based on history and while taking some liberties does a good job of setting the scene and showing how utterly outmatched Robert the Bruce is.

In Front Of The Camera

The film stars Chris Pine as Robert the Bruce and he very much carries the film, it is his story from start to finish. Stephen Dillane is King Edward, probably best known as Stannis Baratheon in Game of Thrones, and it is in many ways a similar performance, certainly not a likeable man but extremely capable. Billy Howle gives a great performance as Prince Edward; an arrogant fool, constantly shoving his exalted status in other people’s face while having mountains of father issues to work through. Florence Pugh takes on the difficult role of Robert’s wife, an Englishwoman who is married to Robert (neither seemed to have much say in it) and displayed the strained circumstances and mixed loyalties she has when her husband rebels.

The Elephant In The Cinema

Inevitably there are going to be comparisons with the hugely successful and Oscar-winning Braveheart. Three of the central characters also appear in that film and it is telling much of the same story but from a different perspective. Braveheart focused on William Wallace who is never actually seen in Outlaw King but his existence is referenced a lot. There are many similarities between the two portrayals of Edward I, both are old but fierce men, with Braveheart’s king being crueller and crazier, seemingly going out of his way to be evil. The big difference is with Prince Edward, in Braveheart a weak and ineffectual man whereas in Outlaw King he is a far more aggressive and warlike man but still was glaring deficits. This change seems to make Prince Edward a more compelling adversary to Robert.

Does It Work?

The film is certainly enjoyable and is a grimmer, less elegant portrayal than many similar films, it feels like 50% of the film is people fighting or walking through mud. Everything and everyone is dirty; even kings. Unavoidably it suffers from the problem that we know what is going to happen but it does as well as it can at maintaining the jeopardy. Certainly, some people will not know the ending or how it all happened. At times Robert is asked specifically how many soldiers he has and you could fit them all on one bus, hardly an army, and it is hard to conceive how he can possibly win. The real problem is one of scale. There is only one large scale battle in the film which is quite possibly the smallest battle in this whole war, with Robert having around 500 men. While this is historically accurate you can’t help but think they chose this battle over, say, the Battle of Bannockburn where Robert had at least ten times that number because the smaller battle would be cheaper. Considering Game of Thrones has battles that feel on a bigger scale this is a real failing with the film. Indeed the film ends with text explaining what happened next and it really feels like they have only told half of Robert’s story.

The viewer’s sympathies do lie with Robert but there is an incident early in the film which does muddy the water a lot. To the filmmaker’s credit, this is something that really happened and permanently tarnished Robert’s reputation and damaged his standing with a lot of people. An equivalent action today would probably be committing a war crime. Robert is portrayed as wanting to act not out of personal ambition but for the good of Scotland and it’s people. In part, though the film makes less of a case for Robert being the good guy but in clearly demonstrating that King Edward and Prince Edward are clearly the bad guys. A good point about the film is I don’t think every English person is shown as thoroughly evil (a problem I think Braveheart has), more than the people in charge have tried to steal Scotland and the foot soldiers are just caught up in it.

Overall I’d say if you like historical dramas you will enjoy this but it certainly isn’t the cultural touchstone something like Braveheart or Gladiator are but in Outlaw King’s defence the film is far more historically accurate than either of those. It’s a two-hour film that was always interesting and enjoyable and a lot of its faults come from comparing it to other films.

Verdict: (3 / 5)

The post Review: Outlaw King appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.