OT: Movie Thread

[24giovanni]

I'm not going to see it. For starters you're right, it's not possible to effectively cover such a life in so short a time. The French-made Napoleon mini-series from about 20 years ago had a decent crack over the course of 6+ hours and did a reasonable job of it, despite a relatively small budget, but even that had to cut quite a few corners.

And from what I've read some of the characterizations and depictions of events in the film are miles wide of the mark. I don't expect full historical accuracy in these things, but changes from the reality that are plain lazy or seem to have no real justification should be avoided. Casting a 49-year-old man to portray someone who's career started at 24 and was done by the time he was 45 probably wasn't the smartest decision either. So I think I'll save my money.

I'm not sure any biopic that tries to cover a large portion of a person's life has ever been very good. I much prefer a film like Spielberg's excellent Lincoln that hones in on one or two particular episodes and uses those to make a thoughtful character study of the subject. Oppenheimer was more expansive but was still built largely around a couple of key periods in his story. That's the way to go IMO.

Your a great poster.

 

[Guelph Bruin]

watched "The Holdovers" last weekend. It's a great little film based in the 1970s and shot with 1970s equipment ...nostalgic, great acting (Paul Giamatti is so good as are the other actors), thoughtful plot about life, based at Christmas time so can pass as a Christmas movie ...well done, it's not a Hallmark movie ..deeper by far than that but reminds me of plot driven movies (no special effects) I watched back in that era on a Sunday afternoon. Plus it's based in New England.

Plot description "Nobody likes teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) -- not his students, not his fellow faculty, not the headmaster, who all find his pomposity and rigidity exasperating. With no family and nowhere to go over Christmas holiday in 1970, Paul remains at school to supervise students unable to journey home. After a few days, only one student holdover remains -- a trouble-making 15-year-old named Angus, a good student whose bad behavior always threatens to get him expelled. Joining Paul and Angus is head cook Mary (Randolph)-an African American woman who caters to sons of privilege and whose own son was recently lost in Vietnam. These three very different shipwrecked people form an unlikely Christmas family sharing comic misadventures during two very snowy weeks in New England. The real journey is how they help one another understand that they are not beholden to their past-they can choose their own futures"

 

[RoccoF14]

I'm not going to see it. For starters you're right, it's not possible to effectively cover such a life in so short a time. The French-made Napoleon mini-series from about 20 years ago had a decent crack over the course of 6+ hours and did a reasonable job of it, despite a relatively small budget, but even that had to cut quite a few corners.

And from what I've read some of the characterizations and depictions of events in the film are miles wide of the mark. I don't expect full historical accuracy in these things, but changes from the reality that are plain lazy or seem to have no real justification should be avoided. Casting a 49-year-old man to portray someone who's career started at 24 and was done by the time he was 45 probably wasn't the smartest decision either. So I think I'll save my money.

I'm not sure any biopic that tries to cover a large portion of a person's life has ever been very good. I much prefer a film like Spielberg's excellent Lincoln that hones in on one or two particular episodes and uses those to make a thoughtful character study of the subject. Oppenheimer was more expansive but was still built largely around a couple of key periods in his story. That's the way to go IMO.

You nailed it.

You could literally turn that 20 year period into a Game of Thrones type of series if you wanted to. its got all the components: Unique characters, massive battle scenes, political intrigue, rise and fall of European empires....

 

[GordonHowe]

I'm not going to see it. For starters you're right, it's not possible to effectively cover such a life in so short a time. The French-made Napoleon mini-series from about 20 years ago had a decent crack over the course of 6+ hours and did a reasonable job of it, despite a relatively small budget, but even that had to cut quite a few corners.

And from what I've read some of the characterizations and depictions of events in the film are miles wide of the mark. I don't expect full historical accuracy in these things, but changes from the reality that are plain lazy or seem to have no real justification should be avoided. Casting a 49-year-old man to portray someone who's career started at 24 and was done by the time he was 45 probably wasn't the smartest decision either. So I think I'll save my money.

I'm not sure any biopic that tries to cover a large portion of a person's life has ever been very good. I much prefer a film like Spielberg's excellent Lincoln that hones in on one or two particular episodes and uses those to make a thoughtful character study of the subject. Oppenheimer was more expansive but was still built largely around a couple of key periods in his story. That's the way to go IMO.

The French Are Not Happy About “Napoleon”

An English-speaking Bonaparte has provoked a surreal cultural dislocation and some unintended comedy among French audiences.

www.newyorker.com

 

[GordonHowe]

I'm not going to see it. For starters you're right, it's not possible to effectively cover such a life in so short a time. The French-made Napoleon mini-series from about 20 years ago had a decent crack over the course of 6+ hours and did a reasonable job of it, despite a relatively small budget, but even that had to cut quite a few corners.

And from what I've read some of the characterizations and depictions of events in the film are miles wide of the mark. I don't expect full historical accuracy in these things, but changes from the reality that are plain lazy or seem to have no real justification should be avoided. Casting a 49-year-old man to portray someone who's career started at 24 and was done by the time he was 45 probably wasn't the smartest decision either. So I think I'll save my money.

I'm not sure any biopic that tries to cover a large portion of a person's life has ever been very good. I much prefer a film like Spielberg's excellent Lincoln that hones in on one or two particular episodes and uses those to make a thoughtful character study of the subject. Oppenheimer was more expansive but was still built largely around a couple of key periods in his story. That's the way to go IMO.

I'll see it, but not in theater. I'm no expert but Bonaparte is, as noted previously, an interesting case.

I would like to see a meditation per exile on Elba.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

I'll see it, but not in theater. I'm no expert but Bonaparte is, as noted previously, and I'm interesting case.

I would like to see a meditation per exile on Elba.

Ah, now that could be a clever way of going about making a solid film - Napoleon on Elba, weary, defeated, jaded, reflective. He talks to someone about his career, his decisions, his achievements and regrets, Could be his mother or sister, who were both there at times, or an officer or some visiting 'tourist'. Have extended flashback scenes to 5 or 6 key moments, but always come back to the conversation, on how Napoleon perceives these events in hindsight, on the meaning of what he did, on the realities of lost glory and love and exile.

Finish the movie with him deciding to stake everything on one last bid for power and triumph, closing with a postscript of text noting the initial re-claiming of the throne, but then defeat at Waterloo, and eventual ending in a far worse exile on St Helena. Something like that could perhaps work. No attempt to tell his full life story, more a reflective piece with some main themes or threads that drive the narrative and are held up for examination over the course of the film.

 

[GordonHowe]

Ah, now that could be a clever way of going about making a solid film - Napoleon on Elba, weary, defeated, jaded, reflective. He talks to someone about his career, his decisions, his achievements and regrets, Could be his mother or sister, who were both there at times, or an officer or some visiting 'tourist'. Have extended flashback scenes to 5 or 6 key moments, but always come back to the conversation, on how Napoleon perceives these events in hindsight, on the meaning of what he did, on the realities of lost glory and love and exile.

Finish the movie with him deciding to stake everything on one last bid for power and triumph, closing with a postscript of text noting the initial re-claiming of the throne, but then defeat at Waterloo, and eventual ending in a far worse exile on St Helena. Something like that could perhaps work. No attempt to tell his full life story, more a reflective piece with some main themes or threads that drive the narrative and are held up for examination over the course of the film.

Elba or St Helena.

You are an auteur, sir.

By gum, it could work!

 

[smithformeragent]

Elba or St Helena.

You are an artour, sir.

By gum, it could work!

Chugging along reading the Napoleon biography I snagged for the Kindle and it’s infinitely better than the movie.

I taught US History, and never delved too much into European history or politics, so I’m a bit naive on the topic.

I’m digging it.

 

[TinyRivers]

Was always one of my favourite movies. 1982.

I remember watching Forrest Gump and feeling like it wouldn't exist without this existing.

 

[GordonHowe]

Chugging along reading the Napoleon biography I snagged for the Kindle and it’s infinitely better than the movie.

I taught US History, and never delved too much into European history or politics, so I’m a bit naive on the topic.

I’m digging it.

Amazon.com

No library is complete, and again, when it comes to Bonaparte, I am hardly a scholar. Here's a good one though.

May I ask, what was the focus of your teaching relative to American history?

 

[smithformeragent]

Amazon.com

No library is complete, and again, when it comes to Bonaparte, I am hardly a scholar. Here's a good one though.

May I ask, what was the focus of your teaching relative to American history?

I taught primarily 8th grade US History. European Exploration through the Civil War.

I also taught a bit of 7th grade World (Roman Empire through European Exploration), Freshman Civics and US History Reconstruction through 9/11.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Chugging along reading the Napoleon biography I snagged for the Kindle and it’s infinitely better than the movie.

I taught US History, and never delved too much into European history or politics, so I’m a bit naive on the topic.

I’m digging it.

Which one?

 

[smithformeragent]

Which one?

 

[Aussie Bruin]

View attachment 778233

Nice. Haven't read that one, will do so at some point. My favorite Napoleon biography, just, remains Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life. Highly recommended.

 

[Thomas 11]

watched "The Holdovers" last weekend. It's a great little film based in the 1970s and shot with 1970s equipment ...nostalgic, great acting (Paul Giamatti is so good as are the other actors), thoughtful plot about life, based at Christmas time so can pass as a Christmas movie ...well done, it's not a Hallmark movie ..deeper by far than that but reminds me of plot driven movies (no special effects) I watched back in that era on a Sunday afternoon. Plus it's based in New England.

Plot description "Nobody likes teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) -- not his students, not his fellow faculty, not the headmaster, who all find his pomposity and rigidity exasperating. With no family and nowhere to go over Christmas holiday in 1970, Paul remains at school to supervise students unable to journey home. After a few days, only one student holdover remains -- a trouble-making 15-year-old named Angus, a good student whose bad behavior always threatens to get him expelled. Joining Paul and Angus is head cook Mary (Randolph)-an African American woman who caters to sons of privilege and whose own son was recently lost in Vietnam. These three very different shipwrecked people form an unlikely Christmas family sharing comic misadventures during two very snowy weeks in New England. The real journey is how they help one another understand that they are not beholden to their past-they can choose their own futures"

Great movie, with wonderful performance’s by the 3 lead characters. Well worth your time!

 

[GordonHowe]

Great movie, with wonderful performance’s by the 3 lead characters. Well worth your time!

Will check. Thank you.

Grand Appetites and “Poor Things”

In Yorgos Lanthimos’s film, Emma Stone plays a young woman who was created by a scientist, and is forever tasting the world—eating, dancing, travelling, having sex—as if it were freshly made.

www.newyorker.com

 

[GordonHowe]

I taught primarily 8th grade US History. European Exploration through the Civil War.

I also taught a bit of 7th grade World (Roman Empire through European Exploration), Freshman Civics and US History Reconstruction through 9/11.

What are your favorite American and European historical periods? Your favorite political/policy figures?

 

[smithformeragent]

What are your favorite American and European historical periods? Your favorite political/policy figures?

Love the early days of the American Republic, the rise and fall of the Federalist Party.

The events leading to the Civil War. I’ve gone pretty far down the rabbit hole with a number of topics. Can’t get enough of the stuff! It’s all super interesting to me.

With the recent passing of Kissinger, I have a renewed interest in the Cold War as well. Read John Farrell’s Nixon biography about 5 years ago, which was excellent.

 

[GordonHowe]

Love the early days of the American Republic, the rise and fall of the Federalist Party.

The events leading to the Civil War. I’ve gone pretty far down the rabbit hole with a number of topics. Can’t get enough of the stuff! It’s all super interesting to me.

With the recent passing of Kissinger, I have a renewed interest in the Cold War as well. Read John Farrell’s Nixon biography about 5 years ago, which was excellent.

Keenly interested in colonial, revolutionary and post revolutionary America.

Favorite founders: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton (I was Hamilton before Hamilton was cool).

Least: Thomas Jefferson. Thereby hangs a tale.

Not a Civil War buff. If reincarnation is a thing, I suspect I skipped that era.

Western Europe: Britian, France, Deutschland. (Ask and it will be revealed.)

U.S., Mostly 20th C.: TR, FDR, Eisenhower, the Kennedys, Johnson, RN and Reagan. (You don't want to ask; you won't be rid of me.)

Per Nixon, Understanding his many faults, mistakes and yes, crimes, I retain empathy and respect for the man. He, JFK, RFK and Johnson were Shakespearian characters.

A friend of my brother-in-law, I have not read John Farrell's Nixon bio.

There are many, many RN books I could inflict upon you. Let me know if you'd like a partial list.

For now,

 

[GordonHowe]

Love the early days of the American Republic, the rise and fall of the Federalist Party.

The events leading to the Civil War. I’ve gone pretty far down the rabbit hole with a number of topics. Can’t get enough of the stuff! It’s all super interesting to me.

With the recent passing of Kissinger, I have a renewed interest in the Cold War as well. Read John Farrell’s Nixon biography about 5 years ago, which was excellent.

What history, specifically, are you interested in?

Lay it out, Lincoln,

 

[smithformeragent]

What history, specifically, are you interested in?

Lay it out, Lincoln,

View attachment 778852 View attachment 778854

A couple of summers ago, I read Congress At War, which really got into the politics of the Civil War through a non-Lincoln lens.

I read Chernow’s Grant biography, which is excellent.

I also read The Emancipator and the Zealot which contrasts Lincoln’s pragmatism with the firebrand approach of the radical abolitionists.

The political stuff is typically what’s most appealing to me.

 

[GordonHowe]

A couple of summers ago, I read Congress At War, which really got into the politics of the Civil War through a non-Lincoln lens.

I read Chernow’s Grant biography, which is excellent.

I also read The Emancipator and the Zealot which contrasts Lincoln’s pragmatism with the firebrand approach of the radical abolitionists.

The political stuff is typically what’s most appealing to me.

Final OT here: Have you read Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life? It's my favorite. That's two Pulitzer's for Chernow.

 

[smithformeragent]

Final OT here: Have you read Ron Chernow's Washington: A Life? It's my favorite. That's two Pulitzer's for Chernow.

View attachment 779852

I’ll add it to the list!

Maybe we need a book thread!!

 

[LSCII]

Anyone see The Iron Claw yet? Weirdly interested in seeing this because of the nostalgia factor from my childhood. Loved me some WCCW back in the day

 

[McGarnagle]

Anyone see The Iron Claw yet? Weirdly interested in seeing this because of the nostalgia factor from my childhood. Loved me some WCCW back in the day

Not yet but I really want to. The Von Erichs are a fascinating story.