Regarding your comments about The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, I agree that the life of the historical Kaspar Hauser makes an excellent basis for exploring the themes of identity and society in which Herzog was interested. And I think that Herzog's interest in exploring those very themes, instead of just giving an artistically dead itinerary of the events of Kaspar's life, goes a long way toward making the film as great as it is. But when art and fact are mingled, the greatness of the art doesn't erase or blanket over the fact. I know I might seem to be talking out of both sides of my mouth regarding historical accuracy, but sometimes accuracy is a hindrance, while sometimes inaccuracy is a distraction. Long story—and several posts—short, the question of historical accuracy vs. artistic vision is a thorny one, some inaccurate movies can get away with it while others can't, and it really seems to be something that requires a case-by-case look.
As for I'm Not There, I haven't seen it yet, though I've meant to (where's my Portland pride?), but I see what you're saying. While This Is England avoided historical-accuracy problems by taking elements of actual events to make a fictional story, I'm Not There, while implicitly depicting Bob Dylan at various points in his life, changes it so much that no reasonable person could take it as accurate (not least of all by having several different people playing the same (?) role). It sounds interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. And well done mentioning Einstein's Dreams; not only is that a good example, but I'm impressed at your recall of books from Mr. Joy's sophomore English.
Though one last comment (or parting shot, if you want to take it that way) I'd like to make about historical accuracy is that I don't think that depictions of earlier historic events have less of a obligation to factuality (to the extent one exists, not to go back to that discussion) than do those depicting more recent events. I mean, is a movie with Caesar fighting his assassins in an awesome action sequence less troubling than one with Kaspar Hauser as part of a carnival freakshow, or one with Cuba Gooding, Jr., shooting down Japanese planes with a battleship machine gun, because it's depicting earlier events? After all, "the past isn't dead, it isn't even past," and I'd say earlier events are often more significant than later ones, as their implications multiply and magnify over time. Alright, I'm done, consider this nit picked.
And I have indeed seen The Believer, and it's really extraordinary. Ryan Gosling is amazing, and its story is so fascinating and challenging. Not just one of the most interesting depictions I've seen of anti-Semitism, but of Judaism as well. But a view of the skinhead subculture isn't complete without This Is England's broader, more historical perspective; like I said earlier, I didn't previously know that "skinhead" is more than just a synonym for "white supremacist." (The Believer is also an example, like This Is England, of using a kernel of historical fact as the basis for a work of fiction.)
As for your Duplicity-vs.-Bond post, I don't have a whole lot to say. I haven't seen Duplicity—in fact, I had no intention of seeing it before reading your post—and I'm not all that into the Bond franchise. I've seen some of them (Dr. No, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, GoldenEye, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace), and I've found stuff to enjoy it most of them (though honestly, Dr. No bored me to tears; bad guy pulls a gun on Bond, they talk for 20 minutes, Bond judo-chops him and takes his gun, they talk for 20 minutes longer, repeat till Owen falls asleep), but I just don't care that much about them one way or the other. Seriously, the Bond product that's made the biggest impact on me has been the GoldenEye videogame. But though your comparison of Craig's Bond with Jason Bourne is apt, I don't necessarily see that as a criticism or as a sign of the Bond franchise's irrelevance. It's always been flexible enough to adapt to nearly fifty years of history and popular culture; the early films fed on Cold War anxieties, Moonraker responded to the Star Wars phenomenon, and Licence to Kill is practically a microcosm of the '80s (a Latin American drug lord straight from Miami Vice or Magnum, P.I., a televangelist, the Contras). So to answer your question, I'd say that "what good is James Bond anymore" is those fifty years of history and mythology he's accumulated, his status as a multigenerational icon rather than a time-and-place-specific protagonist. Today's incarnation merely reflects today's movie culture, which includes the Bourne trilogy, but I don't think that necessarily makes him any less relevant than Moonraker necessarily did. I'm not saying they're great movies, I just don't think the Bond concept is fully played out.
I think I may have poorly worded the part about accuracy related to older history. I was trying to acknowledge that any easy criticism someone could have made of my judgment was that I was saying older history is not as important for accuracy and was trying cut that off and say it was not the case. I agree with you except to say that more recent history generally has more detail and I can understand that in a play about Caesar, for instance, a writer might not know details about all of his interpersonal relationships and is allowed some leeway in interpreting so long as their is the attempt to stay accurate to general history and what is known. But that's a whole other topic.
ReplyDeleteOn the note of interpreting history: definitely see I'm Not There. Like I said it is not completely successful, but certainly an effort worth watching. Also, a bit of a caveat for you: it is multiple characters all inspired by Dylan at times in his life, not necessarily Dylan himself. You'll understand when you see it.
On James Bond, sorry, I needed a second comment. That is an interesting take. I honestly wanted to write more about Duplicity and found myself realizing how good I thought it was and how much of a bore QOS was. I do think that in general the last two James Bond movies were just not good spy movies. I'm no Bond expert but the most recent incarnation might be a fine movie and character in a strictly cinematic way, but there is so much that could be done with a spy movie now and it just does not even try. And boring, which doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I had a more positive reaction to "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" because I came at them "in a strictly cinematic way," rather than as "spy movies" or "Bond movies." As I said, I haven't seen all that many Bond movies, I don't have that much invested in the franchise, and the spy genre isn't one I've ever gotten especially into. I didn't think the last two Bond movies were astounding or anything, but I didn't go in with a lot of expectations either.
ReplyDelete