,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: I’ve tried to stay away from this as I’m gonna sound like a broken record. And I’m sorry in advance.
Of course they’re not “fake history”. And yes historians can publicly respond. And all of them, even the ones who disagree. But I cannot help and wonder /1
Of course they’re not “fake history”. And yes historians can publicly respond. And all of them, even the ones who disagree. But I cannot help and wonder /1
Why is it so hard for producers, film makers, etc. To follow more what actually happened. Does that mean that history is not entertaining enough by itself?
Example: for centuries Catherine de Medici has been portrayed in plays, drama, books as this evil queen. Yet she’s not. /2
Example: for centuries Catherine de Medici has been portrayed in plays, drama, books as this evil queen. Yet she’s not. /2
Historians are STILL trying to rehabilitate her and because of all these historical fiction it has damaged massively her reputation. Same for Henry III of France or Mary I of England.
I’m not against historical fiction and it doesn’t have to be exactly IT but continuing /3
I’m not against historical fiction and it doesn’t have to be exactly IT but continuing /3
Myths that didn’t happen (Catherine ordering the massacre of St. Bartholomew (we have no evidence of it) or the meeting between Elizabeth and Mary Stuart) makes it harder for historians to debunk these myths because not everyone will pick up a history book. From what I’ve heard/4
From friends who have worked as historical consultants, most wished that they were better heard and they felt that staying a bit more true to the historical facts would have made a scene more powerful and emotional. We can agree or disagree on that but I guess this is a debate /5
That we need still. It’s fine to want to represent the past but maybe it should be stated from the beginning “based on a true story but events have been altered” or something like that? 🙄🤔
History is fascinating by itself. What happened to Mary Stuart is due to the fact that /6
History is fascinating by itself. What happened to Mary Stuart is due to the fact that /6
They never met. I could see a scene where Mary is so enraged with Elizabeth and wrote a letter to the Guises agreeing to all their plots. The despair, the illness, the anger, meant that she was part of her own downfall but was left with no choice almost... isn’t it more powerful?
I’m not a “purist”, I do well understand about “money” and how one movie needs to be entertaining, I just think that by putting too much modernity in a sixteenth century movie we lose what makes it so fascinating in the first place. Again history is entertaining by itself.
