#also yes some historical inaccuracies made me cringe | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mearchy · 3 years

Text

Swords in Writing: Common Mistakes

Today we are going to be talking about general truisms that many might not know about when attempting to write a historical story with swords. Because I mostly see European swords written about, and thus that is where I see the most inaccuracies, this is going to be European-focused.

- Swords didn’t weigh a lot. Yes, I have also read a hundred fantasy series that go on and on and on and on and on about how f****ng heavy that dude’s sword is and how the main character can barely hold it up, but 98% of the time, that just wasn’t true. Swords needed to be carried by soldiers, usually alongside a shield, for both the battle, the campaigns, and other travels. That’s the main reason swords had a fuller- to reduce weight without reducing strength. Here is a GREAT post talking about the actual weights of different medieval European weapons. Dm for more resources on other weapon weights.

- “Longsword” refers specifically to a two-handed sword, like a Zweihänder or a Claymore. “Broadsword” does not refer to a specific type of sword, and has no historical usage in any language to refer to big swords. This basket-hilted sort of blade is the only type of sword that has ever been known to be called a broadsword, and it’s definitely not what you think of when you hear the word. When people say “broadsword” they usually mean “longsword.” If you want to be historically accurate, do not mix these two up.

- Two-handed swords were almost always used for thrusting. You attack and parry a bit until you find access to a weak point in the armor, where you thrust forward into it and hope that you’ve damaged something vital. I have no idea why so many tv shows/movies need to have a dude with a big longsword diagonally slashing his merry way through a bunch of other dudes. Longswords aren’t great for slashing. Also... historically, nobody would use a longsword during a time period where no one is wearing plated/metal armor. Longswords evolved specifically in response to plate armor, because they are meant for thrusting.

- Swords needed maintenance. All swords. They needed constant care and cleaning. They needed to be oiled regularly, with different ways of caring for them depending on the time period, what they were made of, and what you were protecting them against (someone on a ship with seawater would protect their sword differently than someone in a desert with sun and sand). On top of this, blood is highly corrosive; it wears away at many metals used for making swords, so anyone who used a sword for fighting would make it mandatory to clean the blood off their sword after every battle. If your character has left a non-magical sword in a trunk for 15 years and then decides to pull it out to use again, it’s going to need to undergo cleaning and repair. It won’t be fit for hard use right away.

- Swords were relatively delicate. With medieval longswords or rapiers, people would parry blows by dodging, deflecting the opposing weapons, or landing the blow on the flat of their blade. If they did not do this, their weapons would become basically serrated from the edge cracking and chipping on each hard impact. Every time I read or watch a fight where the sword blades hit each other edge on edge, I cringe. It is worth noting that some lesser known swords, like hangar cutlasses, did not use the flat of the blade to parry, and thus would purportedly become saw-toothed after a particularly hard battle. THIS LEADS TO MY NEXT POINT

- People would rarely practice/spar with real swords. Swords were delicate, required maintenance, and vitally, were expensive to repair or replace. Practice swords (which look like blunted swords, this one is 16c.) were created specifically for this purpose, though people who couldn’t afford to be equipped with formal practice swords would often have used sticks or lightweight metal rods.

- Being good and staying good at fighting with a sword requires lots of practice. For someone who’s been doing it a long time, it is true that a lot of it is muscle memory. But like learning a language, in order for your skills to stay sharp - even for someone who’s very experienced - old drills need to be revisited regularly, and you’d need to be challenging yourself in order to maintain your skill level, or else you will lose proficiency. Someone who takes up the sword for the first time in ten years will not have the same level of practical skills they did when they put it down.

It is worth noting that there have been sword-bearers in history who didn’t have the means or structure for formal sword training (I’m thinking specifically of pirates for example), and they fought their sword battles more like brawls, pommeling each other and grabbing each others’ blades and generally relying on desperation/bloodlust to win. There are also many dirty tricks an inexperienced swordsman who is clever can use to win a duel (sand in the eyes, etc). Those are ways your character might sword fight without training/regular practice.

Anyway, I am but a simple young lad who looks up stuff about swords in their free time. If I’ve made a mistake, please send me aggressive hate mail about it (with citations).

40 notes · View notes

pollyssecretlibrary · 4 years

Text

Review: “When the Earl Met His Match”, by Stacy Reid

I voluntarily read and reviewed an advanced copy of this book. All thoughts and opinions are my own

This is book 4 of the “Wedded by Scandal” series and it will be released on September 14th, 2020.

I thoroughly enjoyed the story. I cried and smiled and felt joy and pain with Phoebe and Hugh. I wanted her to tear down his walls and free him. I loved that woman. But, the book isn’t perfect, please read on.

I’m giving it 4 stars because my enjoyment of the story made up for its flaws

Lady Phoebe Maitland, daughter of a duke, is going on a little trip to Scotland with her parents. There’s a little inconvenience with one of the carriages and while it’s being fixed, the young lady and her maid do a little exploration of the area. During their walk they find a starving dog and they try to feed him, the girls then meet a woman with a message in which the master of the dog, who’s on his deathbed, begs them to look after said dog and tells them that he only responds to hand signs.

Five months later Phoebe’s sweetheart requests her hand in marriage for she’s been ruined by him. Despite claiming to love her deeply, when her father the duke tells him to set up a sum for him to forget about her, he says a number. Betrayed both by her too strict, too snob, too ambitious parents, a pregnant at 19 Phoebe runs away from home, knowing that that’s the only way she will be able to keep her baby.

She runs to Scotland, looking for a man she’s been corresponding with. In her last letter she asks him to marry her, but before he could answer she comes knocking on his door. Or his castle.

By the time Hugh was conceived his mother had many lovers. Hugh and his siblings might not be the earl’s children, however they’ve been legitimized, looked after, and cared for with love and warmth. The earl truly loves his children, biological or not. But the old man is dying and he doesn’t want his son to be left alone in life; Hugh needs a suitable wife to share his responsibilities. And lady Phoebe, with her wit, her passion, her independent spirit and her secrets is not that woman. But she’s the one whose letters intrigued him.

And then her dog jumps down her carriage, the dog Hugh had to let go five months ago. Hugh doesn’t believe in love, but perhaps the dog coming back to him through Phoebe is a sign of fate? When Hugh makes a sign to call the dog Phoebe realizes that the man she wants to marry can’t talk. All odds seem to be against them… but will they be able to overcome their struggles and be happy ever after?

———————————————————————————

This story of a marriage of convenience is the second of Stacy Reid’s books that I read. I read less than a month ago when someone recommended her to me and what I liked the most about it is how sweet it was, how heartwarming… I mean, the main characters went through some struggles and they had to do whatever it took in order to find their happiness together, but they never stopped being actual cinnamon rolls themselves. And it is the same here. Hugh and Phoebe never had it easy, not before meeting each other nor after. Hugh is a man with a serious disability, he can’t speak. He’s an earl, and I don’t mean the privileged side of the situation, but the position he must take in life, he must be heard in the House of Lords just to give an example. And Phoebe is disgraced, she is so young (both of them are) and she knows what it is being pregnant, being scared, being alone, being betrayed and being heartbroken. Both Hugh and Phoebe have every right to be bitter and dark and angry at life and society… and they’re not! They are sweet and tender both of them. Even if Hugh would like to present himself as some the cynic and skeptical sort of man: “I don’t believe in love, I acknowledge its existence but not in my life (because my mother left me behind)”. Actually in the beginning Phoebe is naïve and romantic and Hugh is the opposite. But the events that happen right before they meet make them kind of exchange their roles.

Another feature of the book that I want to remark are the letters they write each other. They speak volumes about the characters. In fact, the characterization in the novel is quite remarkable, it’s so well done that you get a clear picture of all of the characters right from the start. Hugh and Phoebe, yes, but Sarah, the duke and the duchess (I hated her), the earl… the dog!

I also loved the fact that both Hugh and Phoebe are nearly inexperienced in bed matters. Phoebe having had sex just once and Hugh having had a couple of lovers if any. So for both of them it feels like wonder the way they feel such an electric attraction towards each other. That their bodies seem to connect like they were made of the same material so they match like pieces of a puzzle. This is written in a very natural and sweet, yet hot, way. It is quite difficult to write two people’s intimacy and not making it sound weird or artificial or cringe-y.

But this book is not without flaws. I thoroughly enjoyed the story of Hugh and Phoebe and cried and smiled a lot throughout the book. Still, it has a couple of historical and geographical inaccuracies, they are not bothersome and I understand that most people will not detect them easily, but I did. There’s also a little confusion of titles, we have earls that are suddenly addressed as marquesses, countesses become marchionesses and vice versa… it feels a bit arbitrary and one wonders if the writer knows how titles work. Of course a man or a woman could hold more than one title, but that was never specified in the novel. Lastly, the plot feels sometimes a bit rushed, it uses formulas such as “A month had passed’ or ‘a couple of weeks after…’ and while it is not wrong to use those formulas from time to time they happen so often that I couldn’t help feeling that the writer wanted to cover too much time in too few pages.

On the other hand, the depiction of that thing called The Society and of the relationship between money, power, and influence is quite remarkable. Not only because it is so well done and well documented but because it is relevant. We, as a Society, are still the same. More than two hundred years later we are still the same or worse. Will we ever change?

#Review #When the Earl Met his Match #Stacy Reid #Historical romance #Regency romance #Regency era #Regency #romance novel #romance #romance readers #Wedded by Scandal series #romancelandia #romance community #historical romance novel #Netgalley #e-ARC #new releases

7 notes · View notes

katybirdy95 · 6 years

Text

Outlaw King: My Thoughts

Hey Everyone!!

Well, I watched the Outlaw King a few days ago and I was mildly surprised in a good way. It wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t bad neither.

The Accents: The accents were actually pretty decent, especially that of Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who managed to sound authentic throughout the film and although I have only seen it once, I believe that he managed to retain it and not slip into his English accent. Chris Pine’s was okay (I will be honest and say that I wasn’t expecting much), I thought that it was better than other actor’s trying to immediate the Scottish accent (I don’t think I have to say who), although I did notice a few slip ups when he raised his voice during a passionate speech (the scots do love their speeches), but apart from that I think he did a good job. There was one accent that had me cringing slightly throughout the movie and that was Tony Curran’s, which was surprising as he is Scottish. I don’t know what was up with his voice, but it sounded as though he was talking with marbles in his mouth (if you don’t know what I mean by that, check out Gerard Butler’s accent - it’s a thing us scots say when an actor loses his strong accent and suddenly you can hear bits of English or American in it). I think the actor may have been told to ham his accent up a bit so that the American and English actors he was working opposite with wouldn’t sound too out of place.

Costumes: The Costumes from what I have heard are actually accurate to what the scots would have worn in battle - the English armour not so much, but it was nice to see the designers take into consideration what would have been appropriate and it is a nice wink to all those historical fashion experts who just want some damn accuracy in their medieval costumes (me included), even if it is only one part of the cast that got to wear them. The women’s costumes were a bit plain for my liking, more so for the nobility and royalty. I was expecting a bit more elegance for Elizabeth De Burgh’s costumes and some headpieces, but it’s fine - it seems to be the thing for women in period pieces to let their long hair blow free. So I am kinda over it now, although I will not accept the excuse that the reason they don’t have the headpieces is because it distracts from the acting (only if the acting is bad will it distract) and yes I am pointing the finger at TWQ, but I just wanted to remind readers of Isabella of France’s headpiece in Braveheart (even though she shouldn’t have been in it) was beautiful as well as her costumes and it only distracted me for a second or two because beautiful costumes should do that. I did like Elizabeth’s teal dress with the flowers embroidered onto it though, I just wish we got to see more of it and I also liked the fact that the women didn’t wear dresses that were designed to titillate the audience as women watch historical, medieval biopics too not just men.

The Women: I was surprised that the women got as much attention as they did, but I am not complaining. I don’t want to get into too much historical facts as I want to speak primarily about the portrayal of women on this rather than historical content, which I know defeats the purpose as it is a historical piece, but I wanted to compare the women in this to more recent historical/period pieces and how this movie had done a better job. So, there are a few things with costume/period/historical pieces that feature women that often are the alpha female (hates dresses, sewing and would rather swing a sword because being feminine and wanting a husband and family is weak and not submitting to gender types is the new kickass thing because every women from the past has 21st century ideals) think Arya Stark, Then we have the ultra feminist (doesn’t listen to men because they are stupid and is similar to the alpha female except they are very lady like, but they just don’t like being treated as broodmares) and then we have the whore (her only purpose is to stand around and look pretty and is basically there to titillate the audience and have pornographic sex with the leading man). I roll my eyes a lot at these stereotypes because although women like this did exists back then it was few and far between and not many women like Eleanor of Aquitaine and others like her came around as often. Elizabeth’s character did have a few feminists streaks, but not so many as to make me sigh allowed (I often roll my eyes when the female love interest says that she wants to be the leading man’s equal and doesn’t want to be treated like a baby-making machine because sadly back then that was a woman’s role and seeing nearly every character take on the mind of a 21st century women is annoying). The main thing though and I mentioned this before was that the women aren’t treated like sexual objects, for example their dresses were not low cut and the director did not resort to rape scenes to shock the audience because to use D&D’s excuse that’s just what happens in wars and therefore has to be shown, instead the director implies that there were rapes, but didn’t show it. There was one sex scene, but it didn’t last long and was dim lighted, which wasn’t so bad.

Chemistry: Unfortunately, I didn’t feel as though there was much chemistry between Chris Pine and Florence Pugh, so I wasn’t as invested in their love story as I wanted to be.

Scenery: There is nothing like Scotland and its beautiful scenery and I always love seeing and admiring the beautiful places that they filmed on.

Favourite Lines: “Where the fuck were you!?” and “What my fucking name!?”

Fun fact: the director’s wife and daughter came into my store and immediately told us that they were going to a premier - the wife was a bit arrogant about it as we never asked them what the occasion was she just came out with the fact that her husband was a director and was making a big movie and that they were going to his premier. I walked away because I was busy, but not before giving one of my workmates a look as she was serving them. She asked what movie he made and what was his name and when the wife told her she said she had never heard of the film or the director lol. The wife’s face was a picture.

I feel as though I am forgetting a lot, but those were the main things I wanted to discuss. So, that’s just my two cents. It was a good movie, but I felt it was a little slow at times and there was a lot of gazing into the distance and a few inaccuracies, but none the less still good.

#outlaw king #robert the bruce #elizabeth de burgh #scotland #medieval scotland #my thoughts #what do you all think?

11 notes · View notes

tudorscharlot · 6 years

Photo

Bohemian Rhapsody (Bryan Singer/Dexter Fletcher, 2018)

31 Halloweens of October #34

(An important note about the following tirade: I know that this film was written by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan and that it was directed by Bryan Singer and Dexter Fletcher. But it is obvious from the course of its labored, years-long development and from the final product itself that this film was made in strict accordance with the views of Brian May and Roger Taylor. And I hold them ultimately responsible for the film that was made.) This is the most deeply offensive film I've seen in years (probably since I saw Nymphomaniac: Vol. II). The music of Queen is so important to me on an emotional level and on a fundamental, worldview level that it would be fair to describe my devotion to it as religious. And I know I'm not alone on planet earth in feeling that way. Fuck this movie and everyone responsible for it forever. Do not go and see this. Don't give them your money and don't give them any sense of validation that what they've done is acceptable. (After seeing the cringe-inducing trailer, I vowed to never give this film a cent of my money. But then I was unexpectedly given a free ticket to see it. I went to see Suspiria for the second time in 24 hours with my best friend, but the theater it was showing in was having technical problems. The theater manager gave us tickets to a later showing of Suspiria and offered us free passes to anything that was playing right then, as well as free concessions. Even though I was now essentially being paid to see this film, I still only reluctantly accepted the situation.) It feels like a cheap shot to come at this movie over the chronological inaccuracies. The last thing I ever want to be is one of those "ACTUALLY..." guys who misses the poetic forest for the literal trees. I don't think it's critically important in a non-documentary, narrative film to be 100% accurate on dry, historical details, especially when it benefits the narrative structure to make slight revisions and combinations of events. Liberties taken in service of the spirit of the larger truth are fine by me. But the extremity of what they did in this film is egregious, lazy, and ultimately just confusing. So yes, I am going to go there, right now. The vocal version of "Seven Seas of Rhye" was not recorded during the sessions for Queen. "Another One Bites the Dust" was recorded three years after "We Will Rock You". Freddie Mercury did not release his first solo album until four years after Roger Taylor released his first solo album and one year after Roger released his second solo album (which goes some way toward debunking the notion that the band viewed Freddie's solo projects as a betrayal). Freddie did not return from an extended period of isolation in Munich and beg the band to perform at Live Aid. Queen just had completed the massive, nearly year-long world tour for The Works less than two months before their appearance at Live Aid - it had not been years since they played onstage together. The band did not decide to start sharing all writing credits equally until they recorded The Miracle three years and two albums after Live Aid. And, as far as is publicly known, Freddie Mercury did not find out that he was HIV-positive until 1986 or 1987. (And this is all off the top of my head.)

None of this should matter, but it does matter. Because the moment that Brian May and Roger Taylor slapped their names on this thing as executive producers, the nature of the project and its relationship to the Queen oeuvre changed. What is this movie, and who is it for? Queen is one of the biggest bands ever, but I would still argue that a biopic about Freddie Mercury ought to be aimed primarily at people already familiar with him and Queen and the music they made. It should be for the fans, and the filmmakers should assume a certain basic level of familiarity with their story among viewers. And in that case, they should know that having all of these historical inaccuracies is only going to irritate devotees like me who have a deeper-than-Wikipedia knowledge of the subject matter. And, whether or not these inaccuracies irritate me, I'd certainly expect them to irritate the two men who lived these experiences and who exercised serious executive control over this movie from start to finish. Why would Brian and Roger sign off on such an error-riddled version of their own story? I mentioned Wikipedia up there, and I've read at least one review that snarkily described this film as an adaptation of the Wikipedia entry for Queen. I think that even that is giving it too much credit. This film is like an adaptation of a Buzzfeed "25 Things You Might Not Know About Queen" list (with an emphasis on the factual inaccuracies those lists always have). Bohemian Rhapsody is clearly not intended as a thoughtful love-letter to serious fans of Queen. So does that mean it is aimed at the widest common denominator - a promotional item designed and deployed to attract record-buyers (or Spotify-streamers) unfamiliar with the band? And to stoke nostalgia among extant fans who may then be enticed to buy whatever new reconfiguration of Queen's Greatest Hits is being released along with this film? On the one hand, yes, obviously. I'll never fault living artists (or the estates of deceased artists) for working to keep their valuable bodies of work alive in the public consciousness and available to new generations of potential fans. But there are tasteful, thoughtful, discerning ways to do this (see the recent John Lennon Imagine boxed set or Queen's own Made in Heaven album). Careful and caring artists or estates share archival or celebratory releases that add substance. Greedy people who've lost the plot completely offer up crass, sloppy, tasteless cash grabs. And that's what this goddamned movie is. And what virtually everything Brian May and Roger Taylor have done in the name of Queen over the last two decades has been. I say "greedy" and "cash grab," but I don't think this is just about money. It's also more abstract. There's an idea and an image of Queen that is very real for them and for me and for so many people in the world, and it is precious. But Queen is in the past. Queen as we know them and want them ended when Freddie Mercury left us. It's not right and it's not fair, but what was can never be again. No matter how many Queen + whatever asshole tours or holograms or biopics are shoved at us. On the other hand, though, this film is a far more dangerous thing than just a promotional cash grab. It is a piece of propaganda. When Brian May and Roger Taylor made themselves executive producers of this film, it became canon. Which confers on this film and its creators a much higher level of responsibility with regards to the legacy of Queen. And every person who made this film failed to be honest or faithful to Freddie and the idea of Queen. It's shameful. Even if Brian and Roger set out to share an honest but loving account of the story of Freddie and Queen, such an endeavor is impossible in their hands. It is impossible for two members of a four-person group to present their own version of events and group dynamics to the world as though it were an official and objective record of what happened and get it right. Even free of conscious, questionable intentions, they are too close to be objective. But I do not believe they are free of conscious, questionable intentions. This film never disputes Freddie Mercury's genius talents as a performer or songwriter. And it is generous in its portrayal of his kindness, sweetness, and wit. But it also presents him as a pill-popping sexual deviant whose pursuit of a solo career in the 1980s was an ego-driven affront to the unity of Queen, rather than the healthy and fairly standard outlet for expression that any artist a decade in with a massively successful band tends to engage in (see also: Roger Taylor, for fuck's sake). And it also presents him as the only real source of discord in the band. This is all in striking contrast to the presentation of Brian and Roger as blandly stable family men dedicated wholly to the vision of Queen. (There are a couple of winking references to Roger cheating on his wife, but these references lack the weight of similar events in Freddie's story.) An important side-note: It should also be mentioned that John Deacon is presented as basically a non-entity whose only contribution is to frequently make silly faces that are eerily like Andy Samberg mugging (seriously, find a still or clip of this actor in this movie - it's fucked up). In real life, John Deacon more or less permanently parted ways with Brian May and Roger Taylor in the late 1990s. It has been widely assumed (he may even have said so at some point) that this was because he didn't like the way they were handling the legacy of the band. Fast-forward to 2018 and this film's portrayal of John seems to be grinding a major axe of butt-hurt at him. It's so fucking petty. But back to Freddie. What do we know about Freddie Mercury, the private citizen? We know he was extremely private and largely refused to ever discuss his personal life with the press. That doesn't mean that it's strictly off-limits and inappropriate to discuss his private life in a film about him now. There are private things about Freddie (both personal and professional) that the surviving members of Queen definitely knew. Jim Hutton and others have shared personal things about Freddie over the years since his death, as well. I believe it's okay to respectfully reveal private details in the service of telling a great artist's story. The problem here is that Brian and Roger have shot any credibility they had as reliable or unbiased sources. If they can't even get the decade and order in which two of their biggest hits were recorded - if accurately representing something as verifiable and relevant to the development of their work as that isn't important for this film, why should and how can we believe anything this films tells us that can't be verified beyond "the executive producers say it happened"? If major events in their recording and performing career can be juggled around willy-nilly to fit the desired narrative arc, how we can trust that the same wild liberties aren’t being taken with unverifiable closed-door meetings and private arguments? I'm SURE that Freddie Mercury was sometimes flamboyantly egotistical in the studio and backstage. But I'm equally sure that every other member of Queen was just as egotistical, just as often. They never would have accomplished the things they accomplished if there weren't huge amounts of ego and ambition and personal investment between them. But I do not buy that this film accurately represents Freddie's temperament, his ego, or his behavior in many of the specific situations it reenacts. It doesn’t get his style. Watch any video of Freddie performing or being interviewed - this film doesn't get him at all. I'm not queer and I'm not Parsi, but the way this film handles Freddie's relationship with his ethnicity, with his family, and with his sexuality feels pretty boilerplate and cliched. It doesn't strike me that any particularly negative stereotypes are being indulged, but it does feel like a lot of simplistic movie tropes are employed to quickly dispense with these matters. I am glad that so much attention is given to Freddie's relationship with Mary Austin, but it nonetheless feels tonally wrong. I think that their relationship was beautiful and I don't think this movie quite gets it. And sure, what the fuck do I know? Very little. But I know they were lifelong companions in ways that went far beyond sex, and that she was the love of his life. And I know that I can't trust that the two guys who were there are representing it truthfully now. I'd rather take Freddie's word for it. And UGH. What the ever-loving fuck is up with Rami Malek's prosthetic bucked teeth in this movie? Let's get something straight: Freddie Mercury was a physically beautiful man. My god, he was. It is an obnoxious insult to have some guy prancing around like fucking Nosferatu playing at being Freddie Mercury. No serious actor would need fake teeth to play this role, and no serious filmmaker would ever even consider such a thing. All this heavy, meta shit aside, this is also just a bad movie on the most basic level. It is so bloated with unnecessary show-off shots, rock and roll biopic cliches, embarrassing dialogue, and one-dimensional performances that even hearing some of my favorite music ever at high volumes in a movie theater couldn't transport me. Some serious acting talent was assembled here, and some of the cast do an admirable job with what they were given, but this movie has no heart. Bohemian Rhapsody makes Freddie Mercury a caricature. It tries not to, and it really is mostly a very flattering caricature. But it's a reduction that fails terribly in its mission to show us who Freddie Mercury was. Freddie Mercury deserves infinitely better than this film. This film should not have been made. If they had gotten everything perfectly right, it would still be a pointless and distasteful exercise. Go watch any video of Freddie Mercury performing or just talking and the emptiness of this film becomes instantly clear. (Note: I’ve tagged this film with my October horror film viewing because this film is horrible.)

#bohemian rhapsody #bryan singer #dexter fletcher #rami malek #31 halloweens of october

3 notes · View notes

cheesencustardwatchnetflix · 6 years

Text

10,000 BC

Cheese- I’m pretty sure I’m going to hate this movie. My dad talks about this movie all the time and just that alone is enough to make me hate it. I have never seen the entirety of this film. Nor have I ever wanted to. But will for the sake of… whatever this is. I’m expecting lots of horrible CGI animals. Probably only one female character. I’m not expecting to be impressed by this.

Custard- I saw this movie in the fall of 2008 when it came out on demand while spending the night at my friend nemesis’s house. In line with all the other poor decisions we made that night [a revolting amount of candy, breaking the smoke detector off the wall (which was never fixed in the rest of the time I knew this girl), and sleeping with the AC set to 50F] we started watching it at 1 am and didn’t make it all the way through to the end, and attempted to watch the last portion in a nearly hung-over state- or as close to that as 15 year olds can get- so the details are really fuzzy now. But the very thought of this movie makes me cringe by association.

This girl’s whole house smelled like rice.

All the time.

Always.

Yuck.

15 Minutes In

Cheese- My first comment on this movie is that it’s very obvious that both actresses playing the main female character are wearing blue contact lenses.

Was everything filmed in front of a green screen?

Also main actress was in a Jonas Brothers music video. It was for ‘Love Bug’ I remember.

I have seen worse CGI. But I have also seen TONS BETTER and from movies that came out earlier than this one. Although I expect this level of CGI was considered okay back in 2008. It’s just really horrible to watch when things are supposed to be fast moving. And when the people are in the middle of the mammoths…because then it’s just shitty as hell.

Also, everyone looks like they’re in a low budget history program that they force you to sit through in school.

Custard- I knew the keying in this was terrible but it SCREAMS AT THE TOP OF ITS LUNGS “I’M SHITTY GREEN SCREEN LOOK AT ME TEEHEE.”The mammoths aren’t terrible… But that running.

30 Minutes In

Cheese- Dude kills mammoth and almost dies underneath it but then gets rescued and all the other dudes just give him swift pats on the chest because NO HOMO

Fake snow is FAKE

The acting is also a joke in this movie.

The use of the green screen has only increased.

60 Minutes In

Cheese- I’ve only just noticed how WHITE everyone’s teeth are. What brand of toothpaste were they using back in 10,000 BC?

The weird giant birds are terrible. SO TERRIBLE. They’re almost comical. Like a bunch of deranged Kevins.

Why are all these people gathering for a war??? Did I miss that part?? The dude guy talked to the scary cat and now everyone is marching to battle?? Did they actually say why????

So far this move is very boring. Even the exciting action parts. Boring. It’s hard to get all nervous and excited over a suspenseful action scene when half of it is in terrible CG shit and you can’t see it.

Custard- … Wow I don’t remember there being this much story here. Flimsy, cliche story but, wow. Actual story.

Conclusion

Cheese- I don’t even know what to say anymore. What did I just watch? There were parts of this movie (granted they only lasted maybe thirty seconds tops) that I actually thought that it wasn’t so bad, and then something completely ridiculous would happen and I’d find myself taking back my words. What was that ending? What the actual fuck? I don’t even know what to say. So much so that I had to say that twice. I found myself laughing out loud during the big dramatic climax because it was all just so silly. So so silly.

I think my main problem with this movie is that I found myself unable to follow along with anything anyone was saying. Yes I was reading the subtitles, yes I was listening. But all the words just seemed to go in one ear and out the other. I had no fucking clue what was going on. And I honestly don’t think it would have mattered.

I liked the boats. The fake boats they were all on. But mostly just like their sails…just the way they looked. I don’t know. Also, the part when Main Dude goes over the sand dune and shouts to Main Chick was the only scene I can remember where I had any actual emotion that wasn’t annoyance. This emotion didn’t last long because I was probably reminded how bland the whole movie was.

There were other moments that seemed to spark a hint of promise to this movie, but they were so small and so few and far between that I completely forgot about them in all the boring unattractive scenery.

Do I hate this movie? Not nearly as much as I thought I was going to. Will I ever watch it again? No thanks. I’ll probably completely forget about it in a matter of days. It was all very forgettable. Even the shitty CG animals weren’t shitty enough to remember and laugh about later.

Two Stars - because I could have hated it more.

Custard- So, I think as I watched this my brain cells were dying because I had less and less to say as the movie progressed, and now I find it difficult to even type up a conclusion. I remember when this movie hit theaters people were crowing about how “pretty” it was, but uh, when did that happen? It was kind of nice in the beginning, in a vague, desolate way, but I was so distracted by the terrible lighting on the characters and the poorly hidden green-spill that it wasn’t even a blip on the radar.

Story-wise, even ignoring the historic inaccuracies, it was painfully simple, and any notion of a prophecy (how many prophecies were there???) was poorly done to the extreme- to the point of nonsense. I was bored 95% of the time, and the visuals weren’t good enough to distract me.

There were three and a half scenes I actually enjoyed; The part where the old hunter dies (I had subtitles on and I still couldn’t tell you his name) because suddenly the dialogue had the tiniest amount of depth to it, and the scene when the “God’s” servants find the slaver with the three pack-a-day voice hiding out with blue contacts- because ridiculous egyption servants tickle me, apparently- and the scenes with the saber-toothed cat; because cats. The scene in the village with Mr. Toothpicks wasn’t that great, although I remember 15 year old me being enchanted by it. Having yet another convenient prophecy to help the plot along didn’t impress me, even if it involved a one-ton-tabby, and especially considering how fleeting any involvement in that prophecy was.

On the whole this came out as bottom of the barrel, barely passable as a good mindless summer flick in my book. If your story is going to be so flat and full of holes, you damn well better have some stunning imagery, and while the CG cat was good, it was there and gone again before I could even really start to care, and the rest of the VXF ranged from ‘meh’ to ‘ho damn that ugly’.

Two stars - I was never embarrassed, but I’m not even sure I had normal brain function through the whole thing.

#10000 bc #movie review #cheese and custard #review #sabertooth balls

0 notes

topmixtrends · 6 years

Link

“The only members of the party not perhaps completely happy are the corgi dogs, feeling apparently just a little bit out of the picture.” – “Royal Family on Holiday” (1960)

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again…

Where

Are

The

Corgis????????

I never wonder this more often than I do when watching Netflix’s The Crown. However, the recent second season—which premiered on Netflix earlier this month—took my questioning to absurd degrees. It’s no secret that Queen Elizabeth II loves corgis—indeed, has loved corgis since before she was ever what she is most known for now, which is the longest-reigning British monarch, though even that is debatable because, Christ, the lady LOVES CORGIS. She loves them publicly. They love Meghan Markle. We saw them all over The Crown: Season 1. When I heard that there would be more seasons, I thought to myself: Ah yes, There Will Be Corgiez.

Where, then, exactly, in The Crown: Season 2, are they?

Here we glimpse them for the first time in Season 1—a total of THREE episodes in and during a flashback to Dec 10, 1936 (the day of King Edward VIII’s infamous abdication) no less:

During this first view of corgis (“Where are the corgis?” “There they are finally!”), we never see more than two corgis in one frame. Yet, we hear the girls on bikes (here, the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret) repeatedly shouting, “Gina! Carina! Ella!” while the dogs bark along, which suggests that there are in fact three corgis. As though to avoid any confusion about what “Gina,” “Carina,” and “Ella” rigidly designate, we see young Elizabeth turn a corner towards a corgi while saying, “Ella! Ella.”

Now, I always thought this scene was fishy. According to my records, Elizabeth never even owned any corgis under the names of Gina, Carina, or Ella. And it’s even more unlikely that she would’ve had all three of them in 1936, given that Dookie—Elizabeth’s first corgi—was introduced into the household only three years prior in 1933. (Something I recently learned was that, when selecting her first corgi puppy, Elizabeth went for the one with the slightly longer tail “so that we can see whether he is pleased or not.”) Dookie was followed three years later—aka 1936, during which this scene is set—with corgi Lady Jane (who Dookie actually didn’t really take to, but that’s another story), so it seems even more implausible that the princesses would be hanging around with Gina, Carina, Ella, et al here. Some further googling of these three names together leads me to one Maria Carter, who is the owner/trainer of—yes—three show corgis with these exact names (see here; they’re also supposedly featured in this advertisement for London, if you care to compare to image above).

It seems more than a little possible, then, that the actresses portraying young Elizabeth and Margaret in this scene are simply calling the actual names of the three show corgis, which doesn’t even make that much production sense if we assume that they hired these corgis to act and thus presumably respond to names that might not be their own. (Corgis have the IQ of a 5 year old FWIW…BUT CAN AN ANIMAL REALLY ACT?) This seems borderline offensive to me, especially if we remember that this is the first time we see any corgis on a show that is literally about the life of a famous monarch who basically “made corgis happen” and because it’s a bracketed representation of a historical date in what is already a historical drama! I get why the show needs to dial up the unreliable intrigue when it comes to Philip’s affairs, Jackie Kennedy, and whatnot, but there is zero reason why anyone needs to lie about how many corgis 10-year-old Elizabeth had or what their names were. And honestly, given Elizabeth’s penchant for liquor, “Gin” would have a far more plausible name than “Gina.” There’s simply no excuse for this shadiness.

Sit down folks, we’re going to be here all day.

The second time we see corgis on The Crown is in S1Ep7, during a meeting Elizabeth has with Winston Churchill. Here they are:

The middle one is drooling with excitement, and the one on the far right seems completely starstruck about meeting the Bulldog. Corgi on the left seems more chill, like maybe he could take it or leave it, but for now this is fine.

Moving on to the next corgi appearance, here they are in the following episode, appropriately titled “Pride and Joy”:

Our three corgis sit obediently near Elizabeth while she works. Corgis apparently come in threes in the Queen’s household. At this point, I’m starting to get a little suspicious. Is The Crown simply reusing the same three corgis for all their corgi scenes? Actors are expensive these days, but do they really need to skimp on corgis?

And given the primacy of Susan—Elizabeth’s famous “foundational bitch” from which all her current corgis derive—at the time, it seems more than a little egregious to represent the corgis of her early reign as some mere indistinguishable pack. Elizabeth and Susan (an 18th birthday gift following the unfortunate death of Lady Jane by car) were historically inseparable. Susan went with Elizabeth and Philip on their honeymoon to Scotland, after all! I would’ve liked to see more one-on-one with Susan in The Crown, and the level of deception and assumed ignorance on behalf of viewers is unsettling. Corgis are not simply background features in the Queen’s life. In fact, Elizabeth had to train Susan to accept the presence of new human offspring Charles when he was born, with tricks like introducing Susan to the baby while “stroking Susan all the time” and also to “when nursing baby let Susan have a nice saucer of milk or tea [???] beside you.” This corgi drinks tea. The corgi is part of the royal family, not some kind of quaint joke accessory.

Even more unforgivable is the fact that the corgis acting on The Crown are Pembrokes with a nontrivial amount of white fur. The Queen’s corgi aesthetics famously tended toward Pembrokes of the darker red persuasion (as the breed more commonly used to be), and with very little white on them. As Vanity Fair has reported, Elizabeth once remarked upon one of the corgis of the chairman of the Welsh Corgi League with the following disapproval: “Oh, he’s got a lot of white on him, hasn’t he?” What we have on The Crown, it seems, is the Americanization of the corgi. (To be sure, one of my favourite corgis is an all-white albino corgi named Winston, but that’s no excuse for period piece inaccuracy.)

Compare the above images, then, with an actual photograph of Susan:

Where is the white chest fur here? Exactly.

I bet the actual Queen cringes each time she sees a corgi on The Crown, if she’s even still watching, because this level of corgi-washing is unbearable.

Alas, onwards. Elizabeth returns from her 23-week tour of the Commonwealth countries to her children and corgis and doesn’t bend to hug either one:

DEAR GOD, SOMEONE GIVE THIS CORGI SOME LOVE!!!!

Look into the corgi’s desperate eyes, for they are trying to tell you something.

Now onto Season 2, where the corgis are at least introduced a bit earlier this time with their first appearance occurring near the end of episode 2:

Captions are featured here because at least someone cares to be specific about the corgis on this goddamn show.

Here we see them, leaving the car with the Queen as God intended them to. This is the only time The Crown eludes to the fact that Elizabeth travels everywhere with the corgis. Half of the public photographic record of the Queen’s corgis involve them getting in and out of cars, or up and down airplanes, so you’d think the show would make a point to feature travel scenes with corgis. This is not the case. When Elizabeth flies on The Crown, there are no corgis ever in sight.

Look, all I’m trying to say here is that the Queen goes everywhere with her corgis and The Crown doesn’t even try to respect this fact.

Beggars, it seems, cannot be choosers, so back to regular programming: after the corgis bound from the cars, they scurry inside, and we find the family sitting around the radio in anticipation of Philip’s Christmas speech:

Elizabeth isn’t even making eye contact with the corgi here.

The next time we see corgis in Season 2 is near the end of Episode 5, when the Queen invites a bunch of semi-commoners into the palace at the end and the corgis join too, presumably for promotional reasons? As if the corgis aren’t genuinely an integral part of Elizabeth’s daily life?

Once again, three corgis. Always (the same?) three corgis…

Near the beginning of Episode 8—otherwise known as The Kennedy Episode—we see three grumpy corgis (you can always tell by looking at how their ears begin to droop) at the back of her Land Rover:

Sure, give us corgis in vehicles only when the corgis appear to be suffering. These corgis are going through hell. I hope they fed them plenty of tea after this shoot.

And finally, the moment you’ve all been waiting for since you hit that click button and started reading this piece: The Corgi Room Scene. This scene is arguably the heart of the episode, which is further centered around the key to, yes, Elizabeth’s heart. In a moment of intimacy, the Queen takes Jackie Kennedy into the Corgi Room (this aspect of The Crown is at least accurate) and introduces her to Sugar and her puppies Whiskey and Sherry.

It’s a touching scene—a moment of what appears to be sincere empathy and affinity between the two women who bond over having each found themselves rather unwillingly in the public spotlight. Both Elizabeth and Jackie self-identify as the “shy” one between their respective sisters, and as “deep down […] happiest with animals.” Corgis are not simply background effects here, then. Instead, they crucially mediate the newfound closeness between Elizabeth and Jackie as well as become the literal topic of conversation. In this scene, corgis are both form and content. They are revealed as the background—the hidden Corgi Room—that in fact grounds the very core of what makes The Crown, well, uniquely Elizabeth. Viewers see this scene as a turning point for Elizabeth, as she opens up to Jackie on what is very much her turf. Both women are brought just a little bit more down to earth, as often happens when one is around corgis. And as if to allay any anxieties that the show might be recycling the same three corgis, the three corgis here are noticeably neither Gina, Carina, nor Ella as evinced by their darker markings and varying sizes. Viewers are further drawn then to understand this scene as a turning point for corgi representation on The Crown as well, in which the animals are finally recognized for the key figures they are.

Alas, for anyone who watched through to the end of the episode, this scene is yet another disappointing mirage. Elizabeth and Jackie aren’t really friends. Susan, Whiskey, and Sherry aren’t really the corgis we are led to believe they are. L To begin, the real Susan looked like this:

Yes, folks, she is a lovely deep-hued red corgi. And the Susan on The Crown is, oh dear, a tri-colored corgi:

Sigh.

Equally troubling is the fact that while Whiskey and Sherry were born in 1955, the Kennedy visit to Buckingham Palace didn’t happen until June 1961. The most generous reading of the artistic decision to play fast and loose with dates here is that The Crown is replicating the illusion of corgi-lubricated intimacy played out between Elizabeth and Jackie here by simultaneously pulling the wool over viewers’ eyes with a bald lie about Sugar, Sherry, and Whiskey’s biographical details. Did they think we’d eat out of the palm of their hand here because of how naming Sugar’s puppies Sherry and Whiskey is SO HECKIN’ CUTE? How we move on from this I don’t even know.

It should go without saying that I adore The Crown so much, and, perhaps against my better judgment, still do. I’ll take any corgis I can get. But this season, especially, I felt increasingly that the corgis were featured as Easter Eggs—popping up here and there, always in threes—rather than what they actually are, which are living, breathing, frapping members of the royal household. Check yourself, The Crown, before you etc.

For instance, I started listing the moments where the show would be more plausible if there was a corgi in the scene. Besides almost all the scenes featuring a vehicle, think also about those where Elizabeth is sitting around the television. The Crown does excellent work of always reminding viewers that Elizabeth’s reign follows the arc of television’s increasingly everyday presence in people’s lives by having Elizabeth follow real-time world historical news on her television. Beginning with the televizing of Elizabeth’s own coronation, The Crown frequently thematizes how Elizabeth’s understanding of how the public views her through the medium of television is a first-order experience of how we as Netflix viewers come to understand Elizabeth through The Crown. In other words, there ought to be more corgis.

The TV they are watching is so small they could definitely fit a few corgis in here:

They even rented a TV for watching the Kennedys!:

You would think the Queen would definitely nap with corgis:

It just doesn’t add up! If The Crown is about both realism and entertainment, then wouldn’t both beg the presence of more corgis? It’s not like the show or the advertising around it isn’t already aware that corgis are a major selling point. All the articles featuring how the corgis “stole the show” on the red carpet, for example, led me to expect more of the same in the actual show itself. Consider too the enviable London promotion where one might “Borrow My Corgi” to binge-watch the premiere of the second season. Or The Crown’s little add-on spoofs featuring an all-corgi cast. I would have preferred if corgis weren’t treated like fluff to be paraded as some paratext to the show, and were actually taken seriously as the heart and spirit of the Queen—indeed, the Crown—itself. As with the first season, this one concludes too with a photographic portrait of Queen Elizabeth, except instead of a solo portrait, this time we have Elizabeth surrounded by her growing, bouncing, increasingly unruly family. This season, Elizabeth looks a little less put together, a little more dead inside:

Could it be because there is no corgi in the frame? That it is finally dawning upon Elizabeth that the corgis are being slowly erased from the life of the heroine? That, as Claire Foy sits here in her last appearance portraying the Queen on The Crown, she too is slowly coming to comprehend how the corgis have already gone long before her? A spectre is haunting Britain—the spectre of corgilessness.

The post Occasional Corgis: The Crown’s Canine Politics appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2pKQAhW

#Los Angeles Review of Books #topmixtrends

0 notes