This is true hmm. But some people on Kenshin are based on real life characters like Saito Hajime.
Love, Grace, and Peace
Nate Ledbetter <
ltdomer98@...> wrote:
--- onnagozen <
gozen@...> wrote:
And what is
> wrong with
> entertainment if it gives you a stepping stone into
> learning more?
Um, nothing. And nothing I said indicated such.
> And how does something that inspires an interest,
> like a good film
> does, automatically become suspect?
Fiction is fiction. It may be good, inspiring fiction,
but the focus is to tell a story, not elucidate facts.
I fail to see how you are getting the impression that
I think that is a bad thing--I'm not saying it is.
And how do you
> know (and I mean
> KNOW, without any doubt) that the historical things
> you read are
> accurate and truthful and not slanted to suit the
> political agenda of
> the writer.
That's why you read multiple sources and compare them.
The difference here is intent--a film maker's goal
isn't historical accuracy--it's to tell the story he
wants to tell, and elicit a certain reaction from an
audience. Again, there is nothing wrong with that--but
99.9% of the time in conflicts with simply presenting
facts as is.
And
> finally, since we
> are all capable of telling the difference between a
> film made for pure
> entertainment and one made with loftier ideals,
> isn't turning your
> nose up at all films a bit pointless?
AGAIN, I'm not turning my nose up at all films. And
are we all capable of telling the difference? I think
not. Stick around for a while, and you'll see plenty
of people who come here, believing that what they see
in movies is real. You have no idea how many people we
get here that think that because they saw it on
Rurouni Kenshin, it must be true. I seriously
challenge the premise that "we are all capable of
telling the difference", because it's consistently
proven here that many people cannot.
> Whether Kurosawa used poetic licence or not in order
> to make a more
> entertaining film, who on earth cares?
I SPECIFICALLY said that he did that to suit his
purpose--and that's fine. If you watch Kagemusha in
order to see an entertaining and moving film, you'll
be satisfied. If you're looking for an accurate
depiction of the battle of Nagashino, you will come
away with mistaken impressions.
I wasn't
> aware that he was a
> documentary maker who had sworn a blood oath to only
> depict all the
> truths that anyone ever wrote about the latter days
> of Takeda Shingen.
Knock off the condescending attitude. Nowhere did I
ever imply the above, much less say it. Kurosawa was a
fabulous filmmaker who made wonderful movies. However,
he WASN'T a documentary maker--that's my entire point.
Accuracy in details was something he was very good
at--costuming, etc. However, accurate reflection of
historical events wasn't his desire. As I've said for
the 400th time, there's nothing wrong with that. I was
simply using him as an example--he created works of
fiction. If people take them as historical
representations, which, as stated above, many people
mistakenly take genre fiction to be, they will be
accepting as fact things that are not facts at all.
Are you
> concerned that we
> are gullible enough to believe that a film is equal
> to the truth?
> If I couldn't tell the difference I'd need locking
> up.
Well, there certainly are a lot of people who justify
that concern. Do you wish to call the police for them
to be locked up, or should I?
My point is
> this, just because films are not a reliable source,
> doesn't mean that
> every history book IS, and you can't know anyway,
> because you weren't
> there, and those that were there won't necessarily
> write everything as
> it happened if it doesn't suit their purpose.
True, history books have flaws, and no, we can't know
if every one is exactly right because we weren't
there. However, that doesn't mean that fiction is just
as correct as non-fiction. That's why you read
multiple sources and evaluate the credibility of each.
Your argument is philosphical sophistry--errors in
history books do NOT mean that fictional accounts are
just as correct.
> Saying, in effect, film
> =lies and half truths, history book = 100% correct
> is still daft.
> Assuming that I believe every film I see to be a
> documentary is insulting.
Not as insulting as your willfully ignoring what I
actually wrote, or your condescending attitude. Not
very smart to direct that at a list moderator. As I
said, plenty of people come onto this site believing
that what they see in movies, fictional books, anime,
manga, etc. is historical fact. Nowhere did I say that
history books were 100% correct--the point is, their
purpose is to try to be correct, whereas fiction's
purpose isn't to be, it's to entertain.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html
Samurai Archives:
http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "samuraihistory" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]