- Posts: 602
- Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:13 am
Maybe I am wanting things to be too correct when I watch period pictures? I like people who do their research and don't foist upon us things that are totally incongruous for the period. What I find all too often is that whilst attention is taken to the womens' costuming - sticking a double-breasted jacket and a cloth cap on a man serves in some minds to stick him in the 1920's or 1930's. They forget little things such as men's shirts then had detached collars and starch was used in abundance. When men wore black tie evening dress, their shirt fronts were rigid, they wore starched wing collars and a waistcoat. Double-breasted dinner jackets did not come into vogue until 1925 when introduced by Jack Buchanan.
Musically I don't mind if sometimes a piece is slipped in that might have been a couple of years away from the period but I am more inclined to appreciate a score that evokes the period rather than re-creates it.
Another thing is the language. Colloquialisms that may be of today are out of place in a period picture. I would not expect a 1920's charachter to have a line such as "Hey dude, lay some skin on me." Neither would I expect the attitudes expressed in the character to be the same as of today.
If someone wishes to take a classic work of literature and adapt it into the form of a motion picture, then the essence of that work should be faithfully reproduced on the screen. Anything less would be insulting to the author.
(I said earlier I didn't much care for Baz Luhrmann's efforts - but I fogot that he directed "Strictly Ballromm' which I quite enjoyed).