upcoming film

[Cirthalion]

There's a simple explanation for that, Chef, as I tell my literature students: history is what we've got, and fiction is what we want. Given that choice, which would you choose? As T.S. Eliot says, history is the experience, myth is the meaning.

But if what you're really objecting to is fiction presenting itself as history, I agree with you there. That's a tad irresponsible of Hollywood to do that as it often does.

[McClef]

There is a difference between adding bits which do not interfere with history and which could have theoretically happened and stuff which has no or little historical accuracy.

Holywood alas does not always know the difference!

[Arlen]

About Guy Fawkes and the Parliamentary Plot? Hmm. I'll have to toss that in my NetFlix Queue.

The second part is, yep.
The first part is all about Mary queen of Scots.

Played by the delectable Clemence Posey. (Who beats Scarlett Johannsen any day.)


Both parts are great viewing and stay almost completely historically accurate.

(Though if you want some fun after watching it all, go ahead and research what happened to Bothwell at the end of his life.)

[BoldHighlander]

I've said it before"

Those who do not study history are condemned to learn it from Hollywood.

Best

AA

Very well said!!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I've said it before"

Those who do not study history are condemned to learn it from Hollywood.

Best

AA

Well said.

Everyone should read George McDonald Frasier's Hollywood History of the World. Written, as always, with great wit and humour.

[Chef]

But if what you're really objecting to is fiction presenting itself as history, I agree with you there. That's a tad irresponsible of Hollywood to do that as it often does.

That is what I really meant. I love good fiction; I just hate fiction dressed up as history, particularly when that history is as interesting as anything Hollywood could think up.