Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: greene66

To be honest, if they made the film using authentic dialogue from the day, the educated classes would be so verbose as to become baffling and tiresome to listen to, whereas the lower classes would be virtually unintelligible with their thick accents and use of words that have long since fallen into disuse. Unless their name is Mel Gibson, most Hollywood directors are going to make a compromise so that audiences can actually understand what the characters are saying...


16 posted on 12/06/2012 10:50:48 AM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: sinsofsolarempirefan

True, as far as language goes. But I’m referring more to comportment and manner, which I personally find undercuts my acceptance of ‘buying into’ such period films. Even if the period being represented is as recent as the 1940s or 1950s. Actors nowadays tend to have that sloop-shouldered appearance, and the air of ‘detached irony’ which tend to wildly conflict with vintage eras. That just don’t jibe.


22 posted on 12/06/2012 11:00:17 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

>> the educated classes would be so verbose

Even something as recent as Atlas Shrugged from half a century ago. In the audiobook version read by Scott Brick,
John Galt’s speech lasts about 2 and a half hours.

Seriously.

I did see the film and enjoyed it; I can imagine maybe some profanity may have occurred when not in mixed company. Lincoln
was telling a story about a portrait of George Washington in a toilet in Britain: “there’s nothing that makes an
Englishman s-— faster that seeing him”. He is among
men in a telegraph room, I believe (or a “situation room”?)

Interesting story though one review wondered if it should have been called “Passage of the 13th Amendment”. The assassination isn’t covered other than Tad Lincoln getting the news while at a children’s performance but for those
curious about it there’s Killing Lincoln, a book by Bill
O’Reilly and Martin Dugard.


24 posted on 12/06/2012 11:01:17 AM PST by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
To be honest, if they made the film using authentic dialogue from the day, the educated classes would be so verbose as to become baffling and tiresome to listen to, whereas the lower classes would be virtually unintelligible with their thick accents and use of words that have long since fallen into disuse. Unless their name is Mel Gibson, most Hollywood directors are going to make a compromise so that audiences can actually understand what the characters are saying...
I noted two things about the language the characters used:
  1. Lincoln using profanity. Not much, but any at all seemed out of character.

  2. Black soldiers who were willing to risk seeming impertinent to the POTUS, on the one hand, and who were well-spoken and without southern accent on the other. That struck me as out of character given the backgrounds of the people in question.
In reality, even as late as the 1960s, blacks had enough difference in their backgrounds from whites as to make them seem unintelligent. Affirmative action’s rationale was to transcend that apparent discrepancy. But now, of course, it is simply a racket in which peoples’ rice bowls are entailed. When a black can be elected POTUS, exactly where is the glass ceiling supposed to be??

47 posted on 12/06/2012 3:21:13 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson