A Knight's Tale
Apr. 13th, 2005 05:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseAlso, I need to rant about this one leetle, tiny thing.
Something I've been hearing a bit of lately is people bitching about the film A Knight's Tale: not because it's poorly acted, not because it's badly written (neither of which I personally think it is, but at least I could unserstand of you did) or any of the other problems a film may have. No, what these people have a problem with is... the style of the film, most specifically the soundtrack. And possibly some of the language and references (okay, even I thought the nike symbol was a little overdone, and I happily admit I love this movie.)
Now this. just. drives. me. nuts. If you don't know the movie, well, it's set in the Middle Ages around a series of jousing tournaments. As a consequence we have various MA bits and bobs, including heralds, formal dances, etc. So it's set in this period. But the thing about the soundtrack is it's not period music- it's not gavottes or musettes. It's... I guess Rock and Roll is the best way to describe it? Queen, Clapton, Bowie. So it's modern, or semi-modern; the costuming isn't hugely accurate either (I mean, the way Josselin was dressing in particular, it's wrong, it's not period.) Now, okay, if you totally adore period films and love historical accuracy I can understand why this annoys you- but the thing is, this isn't a period film. It's not about the Middle Ages, it's about- like most things are- people. Now of course that doesn't mean everyone should be wandering around in jeans and tshirts. But a certain amount of license is necessary.
What people seem to have a huge, huge problem with is, as I said, the soundtrack: setting thigns like the dancing scene to modern (or semi-modern) music, and having said dance be not precisely period-accurate. This gets my goat. You know why? Because when people were dancing those dances, or attending the jousting tournaments, they didn't go thinking "Now, I live in the Middle Ages. I must be sure to dance in the style of the Middle Ages to music of the Middle Ages. Absolutely nothing else must contaminate my evening." No, they went to have FUN. When they danced, what they were dancing was modern. The actual dances now, to us, seem old-fashioned and boring: but to them they were modern, often even daring or shocking. They were fashionable. What I think the director managed to do very well was capture that feeling- setting it in the Middle Ages, or close enough, but using the soundtrack especially and changing enough so that we, the audience, can have fun too, and can get an accurate sense of how the participants would have felt. If the audience is bored- and frankly, I hate Middle Age music and formal dancing is generally hideously boring onscreen- they're not getting it. I mean, they may well be able to understand that that's what it was like back then, and people thought it was fun, but there's an element of boredom- like, oh, god, yeah, the Middle Ages were so boring they thought that was fun. When it wasn't really like that at all.
So, you know, people who bitch on and On about spoon feeding and too much Queen- I hear you, and I understand where you're coming from. But I think you're missing the point: it's not about spoon-feeding, it's about feeling. It's about the audience's interaction, not about a point-perfect representation of the period. I mean, let's face it, it's not historical fiction, it's not even fiction: mostly it's fantasy, because nothing about that movie is true, okay? it's awesome, but it's fantasy. So don't get your knickers in a knot, already!
Something I've been hearing a bit of lately is people bitching about the film A Knight's Tale: not because it's poorly acted, not because it's badly written (neither of which I personally think it is, but at least I could unserstand of you did) or any of the other problems a film may have. No, what these people have a problem with is... the style of the film, most specifically the soundtrack. And possibly some of the language and references (okay, even I thought the nike symbol was a little overdone, and I happily admit I love this movie.)
Now this. just. drives. me. nuts. If you don't know the movie, well, it's set in the Middle Ages around a series of jousing tournaments. As a consequence we have various MA bits and bobs, including heralds, formal dances, etc. So it's set in this period. But the thing about the soundtrack is it's not period music- it's not gavottes or musettes. It's... I guess Rock and Roll is the best way to describe it? Queen, Clapton, Bowie. So it's modern, or semi-modern; the costuming isn't hugely accurate either (I mean, the way Josselin was dressing in particular, it's wrong, it's not period.) Now, okay, if you totally adore period films and love historical accuracy I can understand why this annoys you- but the thing is, this isn't a period film. It's not about the Middle Ages, it's about- like most things are- people. Now of course that doesn't mean everyone should be wandering around in jeans and tshirts. But a certain amount of license is necessary.
What people seem to have a huge, huge problem with is, as I said, the soundtrack: setting thigns like the dancing scene to modern (or semi-modern) music, and having said dance be not precisely period-accurate. This gets my goat. You know why? Because when people were dancing those dances, or attending the jousting tournaments, they didn't go thinking "Now, I live in the Middle Ages. I must be sure to dance in the style of the Middle Ages to music of the Middle Ages. Absolutely nothing else must contaminate my evening." No, they went to have FUN. When they danced, what they were dancing was modern. The actual dances now, to us, seem old-fashioned and boring: but to them they were modern, often even daring or shocking. They were fashionable. What I think the director managed to do very well was capture that feeling- setting it in the Middle Ages, or close enough, but using the soundtrack especially and changing enough so that we, the audience, can have fun too, and can get an accurate sense of how the participants would have felt. If the audience is bored- and frankly, I hate Middle Age music and formal dancing is generally hideously boring onscreen- they're not getting it. I mean, they may well be able to understand that that's what it was like back then, and people thought it was fun, but there's an element of boredom- like, oh, god, yeah, the Middle Ages were so boring they thought that was fun. When it wasn't really like that at all.
So, you know, people who bitch on and On about spoon feeding and too much Queen- I hear you, and I understand where you're coming from. But I think you're missing the point: it's not about spoon-feeding, it's about feeling. It's about the audience's interaction, not about a point-perfect representation of the period. I mean, let's face it, it's not historical fiction, it's not even fiction: mostly it's fantasy, because nothing about that movie is true, okay? it's awesome, but it's fantasy. So don't get your knickers in a knot, already!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 06:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:23 am (UTC)Look at Moulon Rouge, that films soundtrack awesome even despite Ewans drippy singing.
But yea, People just need to be able to tell the difference between a period film and, well, romance i guess.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 07:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 10:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-13 10:49 pm (UTC)I also really hate the movie Pearl Harbor.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:20 am (UTC)Okay, fine. But he's not THAT bad. I mean, mimes?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:29 am (UTC)yes, but Troy was bad movie.Sorry. ;)I do take your point, except... the thing is, the reason the Iliad is so famous is because it's, you know, the Iliad. The story as written by Homer is famous and deservedly so: it's an epic. And yes, you're right, it's mostly myth and fiction, it's not all realistic or anything. But we don't know what happened at Troy, do we? And kind of... I don't know, to take this awesome story and then make it less awesome kind of annoys me, I suppose, although I definitely see what you mean (and I've never ranted about it because I haven't actually watched it properly because it was just. so. bad. I read
Wait, where was I? Oh yeah. While I understand that it's not meant to be a faithful adaptation of the Iliad as Homer wrote it, that instead it's more using the Iliad as its primary source text or whatever, it nevertheless seems to me to be a shame that they sacrificed a rocking story with one that... well, one that I found to be much less cool. I suppose some people loved it, and if you liked it free to disagree and all that. ;)
So yeah. Also, the whole "cousin" thing really, really annoyed me, because EWSQUICKINCEST.
Er, obviously the writers didn't mean that... but couldn't they at least have made him not a blood relation?
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-15 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-15 06:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-15 11:56 pm (UTC)The problem is probably that I just detest nonfiction. *self-mocking*