“Six days in August” needs an audience

[Kishkumen]

So it seems there’s an imperative to get the main “blocks” of a story recounting historical events materially accurate, even if some poetic licence is taken here and there. To not do so damages the films credibility. The biopic of Steve Jobs (the one with Fassbender) relates the main blocks of his story, his relationships, materially accurate in their essence. But the director chose to set those building blocks within the setting of backstage to all his main stage appearances - which clearly isn’t factual history. The film stands as a good one because it doesn’t take a side on Jobs. It just recounts how he was as a person in his relationships.

Witnesses doesn’t do that, and Six Days won’t either. So in terms of the key block of who the Witnesses were, and who Brigham Young was, as people - how they treated others etc, the Producers and Directors have chosen to “whitewash” history and produce propaganda instead. That decision damages the films credibility, and damages its success at the box office.

LOL!!!

OK, IHAQ. I am sure you have all kinds of professional experience to back up your reading of this situation. Yes, it is true that the movie Gladiator gets the "main blocks" of the historical events materially accurate. So, too, does Robert Graves' novel, I, Claudius, and the BBC series based upon it. In the first case, there was a philosophy-loving emperor named Marcus Aurelius who fought in the latter years of his reign and died in the provinces. He was succeeded by his loser son Commodus, who did like to perform in the arena. The film is passingly authentic enough to immerse its audience, and yet there are some real howlers of anachronisms in it. The idea that Marcus Aurelius wanted or planned to restore the Republic is ludicrous. The main character of the film, Maximus the Spaniard general who was betrayed and sold into slavery to fight as a gladiator, never existed. I mean, it does make the modern person with a passing understanding of Roman history feel transported back in time, but it is also, in some respects, kinda dumb.

I doubt Witnesses and Six Days are worse than Gladiator. They're probably better, and that has something to do with the fact that the period is better documented and you have people working on the film who know a lot about the historical events in question. I may disagree with with their interpretations and many of their choices, but I think it would be highly arrogant of any one of us to put our knowledge of Mormon history above the people who advised on these films. It has become a habit to ridicule DCP's efforts here, but they are pretty good considering the budget and resources put to the task. Enjoying these movies for what they are requires no apologies.

[drumdude]

I doubt Witnesses and Six Days are worse than Gladiator. They're probably better, and that has something to do with the fact that the period is better documented and you have people working on the film who know a lot about the historical events in question.

This is a good point. DCP for all his faults has at least read probably all of the relevant scholarship about the era.

I think the film will be similar to the LDS church's recent Saints church history books. They're real scholarship, but still presented with a faithful bias.

“Saints” is not for scholars or even sophisticated Mormons, said Patrick Mason, chair of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University. “This is for the person who has never picked up a book of church history or a volume of the Joseph Smith Papers Project — and is never going to.”

It’s for members whose only exposure to Latter-day Saint history is the fictionalized series “The Work and the Glory,” he said, “or for new members who live in Brazil or Ghana.”

It’s an internal document “for the faithful,” Mason said, “like a Sunday school.”

Witnesses and August are similar in this way.

[I Have Questions]

I doubt Witnesses and Six Days are worse than Gladiator. They're probably better, and that has something to do with the fact that the period is better documented and you have people working on the film who know a lot about the historical events in question.

Better than Gladiator? What the hell are you smoking?

[malkie]

...
Ancient historians learn to enjoy the movies and are just grateful that their subject is getting popular attention. If we got too worked up about Marcus Aurelius being depicted as intent upon restoring the Republic and the like, we would miss the bits where the filmmakers actually listened to our colleagues advising them. Film is usually entertainment first.

I believe that you're not a proverbial spring chicken, Rev, but I'm surprised that you'd apply such an adjective to yourself. I would have gone with "mature".

[Kishkumen]

Witnesses and August are similar in this way.

Witnesses is hagiographical up to a point. It probably airs just a bit too much dirty laundry for the Brethren’s vision of Sunday School material.

[Kishkumen]

I doubt Witnesses and Six Days are worse than Gladiator. They're probably better, and that has something to do with the fact that the period is better documented and you have people working on the film who know a lot about the historical events in question.

Better than Gladiator? What the hell are you smoking?

Better in terms of historical accuracy. Obviously I enjoyed watching Gladiator a lot more. I am a sucker for Ancient Rome in film, even bad film.

[Kishkumen]

I believe that you're not a proverbial spring chicken, Rev, but I'm surprised that you'd apply such an adjective to yourself. I would have gone with "mature".

I dunno, I have been feeling pretty ancient as of late!

[drumdude]

Witnesses and August are similar in this way.

Witnesses is hagiographical up to a point. It probably airs just a bit too much dirty laundry for the Brethren’s vision of Sunday School material.

I heard that was partially the point of the Saints books, to offer members a little less whitewashed view of church history. Have you had a chance to read them?

[Kishkumen]

I heard that was partially the point of the Saints books, to offer members a little less whitewashed view of church history. Have you had a chance to read them?

Nope! That didn’t sound like what Mason was saying, but I suppose I am mistaken. I was not aware of that purpose behind Saints, and I have not read these books.