Tolkien

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It isn't that the dead don't sue for libel (because they're dead), it's that it is impossible in law to libel the dead.

Exactly. One has only to consider the several cases in recent years where allegations of impropriety have been made against public figures following their deaths. Those accusations would certainly have resulted in libel lawsuits had they been made while the person concerned was alive, but there is no legal recourse for living relatives once the person has died.

[pwalker8]

It dawned on me this morning that my initial question is because Hollywood has a long history of biopics - Sargent York with Gary Cooper as Alvin York, The Babe Ruth Story with William Bendix as the Babe, The Pride of the Yankees, a 1942 movie with Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig Story, The Great Escape, Patton the movie with George C Scott, heck, even The Sound of Music could be considered a biopic. It was based on the real von Trapp family after all (well actually, it was based on a German film about the real von Trapp family). One of my favorite movies, The Wind and the Lion, was based on real events (of course the real Perdicaris was a guy, Ion Perdicaris and was in his late 50's at the time). So the history of Hollywood playing fast and loose with the facts in movies based on real people is the basis of my question, was the Tolkien family involved in the making of the movie.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Exactly. One has only to consider the several cases in recent years where allegations of impropriety have been made against public figures following their deaths. Those accusations would certainly have resulted in libel lawsuits had they been made while the person concerned was alive, but there is no legal recourse for living relatives once the person has died.

Perhaps not a 'legal' recourse but they could certainly (I would think) protest the movie if they felt it defamed Prof. Tolkien. And what of the publishers of his books? If a documentary painted him in a bad light and it had an adverse effect on sales of the books couldn't they sue on some grounds?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crich70

If a documentary painted him in a bad light and it had an adverse effect on sales of the books couldn't they sue on some grounds?

No, they could not. Again, you cannot libel the dead.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It dawned on me this morning that my initial question is because Hollywood has a long history of biopics - Sargent York with Gary Cooper as Alvin York, The Babe Ruth Story with William Bendix as the Babe, The Pride of the Yankees, a 1942 movie with Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig Story, The Great Escape, Patton the movie with George C Scott, heck, even The Sound of Music could be considered a biopic. It was based on the real von Trapp family after all (well actually, it was based on a German film about the real von Trapp family). One of my favorite movies, The Wind and the Lion, was based on real events (of course the real Perdicaris was a guy, Ion Perdicaris and was in his late 50's at the time). So the history of Hollywood playing fast and loose with the facts in movies based on real people is the basis of my question, was the Tolkien family involved in the making of the movie.

Yep Hollywood does twist facts often enough. I remember the case of Braveheart . The real battle of Sterling took place on a bridge for example. The Scots didn't let the English get across the bridge before they attacked. Otherwise the outcome may have been quite different. And the real princess that Mel Gibson's character of William Wallace had a fling with would actually have been a child of (I think) 5-6 at the time not a grown woman. Hollywood changed the facts to create a better story.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yep Hollywood does twist facts often enough. I remember the case of Braveheart . The real battle of Sterling took place on a bridge for example. The Scots didn't let the English get across the bridge before they attacked. Otherwise the outcome may have been quite different. And the real princess that Mel Gibson's character of William Wallace had a fling with would actually have been a child of (I think) 5-6 at the time not a grown woman. Hollywood changed the facts to create a better story.

and of course William Wallace was suppose to have been a very tall man, 6-6 at least. Mel Gibson is just a little bit shorter than that.

[Apache]

I have always thought Liam Neeson would have been a better choice for the part.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

I have always thought Liam Neeson would have been a better choice for the part.
Apache

You are likely right. He got his shot in Rob Roy, which I liked a lot more than Braveheart. Neeson has had a lot of great roles.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are likely right. He got his shot in Rob Roy, which I liked a lot more than Braveheart. Neeson has had a lot of great roles.

One of his earliest was in a dramatization of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan in which he played several different parts.

Originally Posted by crich70

And the real princess that Mel Gibson's character of William Wallace had a fling with would actually have been a child of (I think) 5-6 at the time not a grown woman. Hollywood changed the facts to create a better story.

Number 1 Hollywood cliche: always gotta shoehorn in some romantic drama, even if it wasn't prominent in the original story and nobody is asking for it.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yep Hollywood does twist facts often enough. I remember the case of Braveheart . The real battle of Sterling took place on a bridge for example. The Scots didn't let the English get across the bridge before they attacked. Otherwise the outcome may have been quite different. And the real princess that Mel Gibson's character of William Wallace had a fling with would actually have been a child of (I think) 5-6 at the time not a grown woman. Hollywood changed the facts to create a better story.

Shakespeare is full of anachronisms.

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Shakespeare is full of anachronisms.

True. Artistic license is not new to our time.

I'm never bothered merely by the use of artistic license. It's more how it is employed, especially if the end result is to distort critical events or themes in the subject for tendentious, ideological purposes. This too is not new to our time. What's new is the 'reach' of modern media, and the degree of disingenuous distortion that can be done convincingly with modern film techniques. So even though the tendency has always been there, today it's possible to do more 'damage' to the historical record because of the impact that modern media can have.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by maximus83

True. Artistic license is not new to our time.

Probably simple ignorance in Shakespeare's case. Eg, when in "Julius Caesar" we have:

Brutus: "Peace! Count the clock."
Cassius: "The clock has stricken three."

It probably didn't occur to Shakespeare that there actually were no striking clocks in Roman times.

@Harry, could be. He was a smart guy tho, wouldn't surprise if some of his anachronisms were intentional artistic license for tongue-in-cheek humor or other reasons. One of the chuckle-worthy ones that I think was intentional, from Antony and Cleopatra, has Cleopatra wanting to play billiards a couple thousand years before it was invented. :-)

Cleopatra: Let it alone. Let's to billiards: come, Charmian.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by maximus83

So even though the tendency has always been there, today it's possible to do more 'damage' to the historical record because of the impact that modern media can have.

I disagree. It is simply easier today with the internet to check fud or spread fud. Hard to truly know what is fact or fiction. As for entertainment I rather be entertained than bored to death. One possible exception might be "How it is made" and spinoffs thereof. Documentary style that doesn't fail to entertain (me).

ETA: Depending on how you meant it, we possibly do agree on this. The damage is easier discovered, so in a way more damage is done, possibly?