What a delightful movie is Hyde Park on the Hudson. Course it stars Laura Linney and Bill Murray . So it would be. It portrays the Royal Visit in 1939 of King George with FDR through the eyes of one of FDR's mistresses (assumed). Very pleasant .
I recommend it.
Of course it's mostly fiction but don't worry about that. Just watch it.
I wish people wouldn't judge films or plays on their historical accuracy. As you say, they're fiction. The same goes for all those "based on a true story" movies. The job of a narrative artist is to give shape and purpose to a story, and to do that means that the elements of a story, whether historical or based on a true story, are made to fit an artistic idea. Sometimes the result is so powerful that it defines the history it fictionalizes--Shakespeare's history plays, especially the second tetralogy, are a case in point. And I think the same thing goes for any narrative history. The guy who puts together the narrative is shaping the events she recounts for a purpose. There's a terrific book that analyzes the point, Hayden White's Metahistory. It's academic prose, but fascinating.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
The link says that they did drive to a certain spot and that FDR "kissed" her, but nothing more happened like as portrayed in the movie. If they were alone, how does anyone know what all happened? Hmmmm. They were alone. Maybe FDR's bodyguards were at a discrete distance and reported "more"?
Yes, I enjoyed the movie very much. I'm always aware of the liberties Hollywood takes to make a movie more appealing. I go though to be entertained. Otherwise I'd watch the History Channel.
Actually, film of actual wars the U.S. has been involved in were manipulated to show what officials wanted to get across to the public way back then too. Books. Autobiographies, Biographies? Written and put to paper as the person writing them wanted readers to see them. Writers take their politics to the typewriter/computer when they fashion their work, I'm convinced.
And don't let me carried away here, but take the Bible. Heck, take Shakespeare, Al. Take my wife -- please, oops somebody else's comedy routine.
Does not make me want to not read or watch any movies any more. I just think there is a lot of room for imagination/error in whatever one reports or writes down on paper.
Yes, again I say, I liked the movie very much. Very entertaining.
The link says that they did drive to a certain spot and that FDR "kissed" her, but nothing more happened like as portrayed in the movie. If they were alone, how does anyone know what all happened? Hmmmm. They were alone.
Is that where they get the name Hyde Park ? The went and parked to hyde ??
My son went to the CIA just down the road. We went up there 3-4 times to vista or for business but never made it to the Roosevelt House... Sure wish we would have !!
I agree with the sentiment yoyo, as long as they're not sold as historically accurate movies. Argo is a good example of a movie that took a lot of liberties. There are many worse examples. Some people as characters in movies have even been cast in a very bad light when the reality was not so. I understand the need for composite characters etc. but actually changing facts just to suit whims or make it more dramatic is wrong I think.
_________________________ We are what we repeatedly do - Aristotle
This is my point, generally. When I chose to watch this particular film, I was expecting a movie only. It wasn't billed as "what happened at the picnic". And it worked as it was.
But others I see as intending to be more historical.
Take two movies about the same event. My Darling Clementine and Wyatt Earp. Both dealing with the situation at the shoot out on Fremont Street.
Extreme liberties were taken with the first one, and in the second, well, not accurate either. But I would say viewers watching the first didnt come away with thinking that was the way it was whereas the second, with the name, Wyatt Earp, they probably did or else it was really close
Also folks watching Hitchcock's Psycho wouldn't expect that was what actually happened with Ed Gein.
Or, another example. Gary Busey won an academy award for his work in The Buddy Holly Story. With a title like that wouldn't a viewer think he was watching what really happened?
But for me. This is ME watching anything on TV spurs me to flip out my iPad and look up the stuff in the show. I think it helps me learn. Shucks, I know it does. Many times when I finish my exploration, I've drifted quite far from the tv presentation .
Like this one, the Hyde Park thing. First I had to see exactly where it was. Remember I've never been to New York. And how old were the characters. What did Daisy Suckley look like. (Couldn't find a direct closeup). Compared how Missy looked to the actress who played her. And then to find if Bertie really hated his brother.
See how I use it?
For once I didn't look up those Cameras the photographers were using to see if they really were used in 1939
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
MrB, lemme tell you some things about The Buddy Holly Story...
course this is scenery, but supposed to happen in Lubbock TX where it's FLAT as a board (aka W. Kansas) ... one early aerial scene shows mountains nearby ? WTF did those come from ? Then a minute later he drives up in his folks driveway and there a HUGE tree probably 10' in diameter in their front yard... BIGGEST tree in Lubbock might be 1' in diameter but most 4-6". I saw the movie in Lubbock and the home crowd really got a kick out of those 2 inaccuracies. I'm sure there were others. Holly family was in the tile setting business - that's correct. His brother still is unless he retired. Much of the story is correct... there may be some little inaccuracies.
Just found out a couple of years ago that my wife, her sister, and mother rented the old Jerry Allison house where the Crickets once practiced... that house has now been moved to the BH museum on 19th street downtown. Last time we were there (June), it was undergoing restoration. Can't wait to take my wife there and have her show me the old home place (when they lived there).
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.