|
> Help me to understand something...
> About this
>"creative license" thing. Do you
>believe that it is to
>some degree "wrong" to alter
>facts for a fictional story?
* standing a safe rhetorical distance from uta... and his frankensteinesque social experimentation *
there is fiction and then there's fiction. most fiction contains elements of truth. the issues lie with what's fabricated, and why. the storyteller has the right to tell his story, but massive repetition of the same story, or the enforced absence of other stories can change the equation.
>I always considered "fiction"
>to mean " not true
>". Basing a fictional story
>upon true historical events or
>figures could just be an
>easy way for writers to
>provide a setting for their
>stories/screenplays. Personally I do not
>see the harm in it,
>as long as it is
>made understood that the movie/book/story
>is fictional.
people, by and large, don't understand the idea of 'license', or even context. take stories of the nativity, for instance. how many of us know (including christians, i only found out recently -- reading is fundamental) that the three wise men, according to scripture, were not at christs' birth, and came to hit him off w/ the frankinsense and myrrh when he was 2 years old?
similarly, there's mad people who watch the 10 Commandments every year, and swear that Charleston Heston and crew are scripturally correct (let alone historically correct, but i digress).
> Also, the
>example that you used, a
>movie about Mother Teresa molesting
>children... This may have
>been a little extreme for
>your purposes.
Agreed. Gnat + Sledge Hammer = overkill.
> How you can compare
>your made up movie to
>movies like "The Mummy" and
>"Stargate" is leaving me with
>some questions as well. What
>historical figure(s) was/were slandered in
>these films? And how so?
there are posts in archives (you can probably search on imhotep to find) where more has been written, and actual sources provided, but in brief, he was the architect of the first pyramid, the vizier to the pharoah zoser/djoser, was a poet, astronomer, AND a prodigious physician, whom the Egyptians and later the Greeks deified. the greeks referred to him as the god aesculapius, and his name is part of the so-called Hippocratic Oath which every modern doctor swears. many of Hippocrates credited writings have been proven to be copies of egyptian medical papyrii which pre-existed them by at least 1,500 years, and are presumed to have been authored by Imhotep.
so, to reduce this cat to some evil sorcerer type in Mummy 1 & 2 is like, completely overboard. i don't know enough about the writers producers of the movie to determine whether this was a deliberate pimp-slap of afrocentric scholarship, or merely some guy searched for all the egyptian names he could find and thought it sounded neat, lemme throw this in there.
still, this is considered ancient history, regardless of your viewpoint, political slant, background, etc. maybe utamoroho should have created a movie defaming charlemagne or some ish like that (instead of mother teresa) for the comparison to have been more apples/apples.
peace & blessings,
x.
peace & blessings,
x.
www.twitter.com/poetx
=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Activist Archives
