These days we have a lot of celebrities, and we know way too much about their pointless lives. But history is full of great people with great deeds. Some of them deserve a little screen time.If you could see a miniseries made about someone’s life, who would it be?
Panelist: Tennessee Jed
Queen Elizabeth the Second. I think she is the ultimate classy person and queen. Definitely leave in the scene where she is given an ipod of Obama’s speeches.
Panelist: T-Rav
Pope John Paul II. I think there’s already been one or two made-for-TV movies about him, but he had such a full life, it really deserves a more extended look. Plus, he had a more important role in defeating Communism than a lot of people realize, and that aspect of his achievements--and his spiritual way of looking at the world in general--needs more attention.
Panelist: AndrewPrice
This one is tougher than it seems because there are so many. I'd love to see a series on Napoleon. . . the inventor of the modern state and the man who started what should really be considered the first world war. Shakespeare fascinates me too -- he wrote that thing. . . or didn't. But right now, I'd go with J. Edgar Hoover (sans the smear job). He is one of the most important men when it comes to shaping the modern federal government and I'd be fascinated to see that story.
Panelist: ScottDS
Teddy freaking Roosevelt! If HBO doesn’t want it, then give it to Showtime or ReelzChannel. Bring in Edmund Morris (author of an excellent three-part biography) as a consultant and John Milius (TR fan and director of TNT’s Rough Riders movie) as a producer and possibly director as well. Some subtle CGI can bring turn of the century New York City and D.C. to life.
Comments? Thoughts? Who would you choose and why?
79 comments:
how could one argue about any of these lives. I suppose one could say that given the proclivities of Hollywood, any of their lives are subject to progressive revisionism.
Andrew - I'll second Napoleon. He was definitely considered, but it has to include at least two hours on Waterloo! ;-)
John Paul II is a great choice. Let me propose a follow-up question. Who gets the starring role? Probably need different people for different times in their lives. I certainly enjoyed the job Helen Mirren did, but will have to think hard about a youg Elizabeth.
Scott - I'd have to say that I likedthe job Tom Berenger did in the movie about the rough riders. Struggling at the moment for Hoover and PJPII casting choices.
For John Paul II, I could see Josef Sommer or Steven Hill (an orthodox Jew, ironically) as both being great visual choices for his latter years.
When I look at a young Hoover, I sure don't see Leo. He looks more like Herbert Hoover. Actually, Treat Williams as a young man looks a bit like him and played his in a mini-series decades ago.
Perhaps Naomi Watts for the young Elizabeth. She has the chops to pull it off.
Great choices, everyone! I think all of those would make excellent miniseries.
Jed, I don't know Sommer or Hill. I remember there was a made-for-TV movie about him a few years ago, with Jon Voight starring. I can't think off the bat who might be best.
Andrew, when you say "Shakespeare," obviously you mean "Sir Francis Bacon" or whoever else actually wrote the plays ;-)
T-Rav: Steven Hill played in the first season of Mission Impossilber, but is better known for his role as D.A. Adam Schiff for the first ten years of Law & Order. Josef Sommer, a German, is a wonderful character actor who has been in a ton of films. For some reason, I think of him in his role as Harrison Ford's crooked cop boss in the movie Witness.
Great choices, everyone!
Jed - I actually haven't seen Rough Riders, save for a few clips on YouTube - Berenger appears to have done an excellent job. I saw Edmund Morris interviewed on Conan a while back which is what triggered my interest.
Andrew - we've talked about it before but Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon is considered one of the best movies never made and much of his research was compiled in a hardcover book as big as a shoe box. (I bought the smaller cheaper retail version myself!) It's endlessly fascinating and I hope that any future filmmaker who attempts to make a Napoleon movie will continue where Kubrick left off, so to speak.
Shakespeare and J. Edgar Hoover are also excellent choices. I'll probably Netflix Clint Eastwood's movie later. A filmmaker named Larry Cohen directed a film titled The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover which I'd like to see one day. One of the links I sent to BH last week was Cohen's essay on what Eastwood and Co. got wrong.
Excellent choices everyone!
And Jed, yeah, how could anyone argue with any of these choices?
I would love to see a Napoleon miniseries. I know they've done a couple, but they always seemed to turn into fluff.... romances rather than a telling of the good and bad things he truly achieved.
T-Rav, Is that the guy? LOL!
I have to say, I find the controversy about who wrote his stuff to be rather silly. It strikes me as something a grad student came up with the find some basis upon which to write a thesis and there's no there there.
Jon Voight is an excellent choice for John Paul!
Scott, Rough Riders was good, but it was also more narrow than what you're talking about. I also think Teddy R. would be a great candidate for a miniseries!
Yeah, you mentioned the Napoleon thing before. I would really love to see that done. Only, I'd rather see it done on HBO as a 5-6 hour event than a 120 minute film because there is so much going on in his life. I've actually studied a good deal about that period and there was just so much to him and what he did and all of it was consequential. He essentially invented the modern state.
On J. Edgar, I'll see it when it comes to HBO. My concern however is that people are calling it "a lifeless gay love story." That sounds like they really veered far afield of the story I want to see. I personally don't care what his sexuality was because it didn't influence him -- also, every FBI agent with knowledge of the subject says there really is no evidence it's true. (And I know the more salacious parts are a scandal put out by one person who hated him.)
As for casting....
John Paul: I'm going with T-Rav's choice, Jon Voight.
FDR: Actually, I think DiCaprio fits the bill.
I've got to get back to you on Teddy R and QE2.
Mrs. Jed threw out Abraham Lincoln. Sure he has been done, but a really good detailed exam would work for me. I'd want to cast the hopefully single termed former president Barrack Obama because Abe was from Illinois, and these two great statesmen had so much in common. :)
Shakespeare would be tough in one respect I think, because I don't know how much detail there is of his early life.
Jed, Lincoln has been done, but not right.
I'd like to see Lincoln done from an intellectual/philosophical perspective. In other words, for once, I'd like to see the approach taken of what the man believed because he had an incredible mind. Instead, all we ever get is him having a poor childhood, acting humbly, and then suffering stress throughout the war. There is so much more to him!
Shakespeare would be hard because little is known about him -- hence, the belief that he didn't exist or that he was just a figurehead for some other writer.
I think a series about the life of Neil Armstrong, how he grew up, learned to fly and then became the first man to walk on the moon (allegedly) would be fascinating.
Additionally a movie about the life of the late BG Robin Olds (USAF)would be awesome as well. An ace in WWII, led the 8th Fighter Wing to shoot down more Migs than any other unit during the Vietnam War. Married to a movie star...you can't make stuff like this up. Look up fighter pilot in the dictionary and you will see a picture of Robin Olds.
Outlaw, "Allegedly" -- LOL! I have to say I get a kick out of the moon conspiracy because it really shows how gullible people can be.
In any event, great choices. I really enjoyed The Right Stuff and films like Apollo 13 and I would like to see a longer look at someone like Armstrong. After all, being the first guy (and one of only a handful) on the moon is just an incredible thing.
Also I would like to see "To Hell and Back" the movie about the most decorated Soldier in our history, Audie Murphy to be re-done. The action which resulted in his being awarded the Medal of Honor lasted 8 hours alone. If you haven't ever read it I would recommend reading the book, it will give you a greater appreciation of what a WWII infantryman went through.
Outlaw, That was already a decent movie, given the limitations of war films at the time. So I would imagine it would make a pretty darn good film if remade today!
And on that point, I think there is probably a treasure trove of truly amazing stories among the Medal of Honor awardees. Every one of those stories I've heard has been truly compelling.
I'd like to see a complete life of James Madison, the true father of the Constitution. They've done movies with Madison as a character, but not as the main character. Dolly Madison seems to have drawn more attention than James. Most attention in movies has been given to him over the War of 1812 rather than his role as a key Founder and author of the greatest government document ever written. The writers and producers who did the John Adams mini-series would be a good choice to put it together.
Andrew - Spielberg is doing a Lincoln bio which is going to be released next year (AFTER the election, Spielberg has said). It will star Daniel Day-Lewis as the titular president. Spielberg's been wanting to do a Lincoln bio for years - originally, he wanted Liam Neeson to play the role.
I'd like to see a John Adams-style miniseries about each Founding Father. It'll never happen but I'd love to see HBO round up the same cast/crew members every other year to do it. I mean, if they could maintain consistency over a decade for the Harry Potter films, why not? :-)
And this probably goes without saying but I'd love to see a Gene Roddenberry bio, warts and all, though I doubt his estate will let that happen.
Lawhawk, That's because Dolly Madison makes such great little desserts! ;)
Yeah, it would definitely be interesting to see Madison as well. In fact, as Scott says, I'd love to see them do 4-5 of the founders -- Franklin, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc. and then maybe continue do the line and do some of the more important presidents! That series could really become a national treasure!
Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln? Good choice. He was great in "There Will Be Blood."
Scott, It would really be interesting to see a Roddenberry show, especially if it focused on his political evolution. He honestly strikes me as a man who fundamentally changed the things he believed somewhere between the 1960s and the 1980s -- and not in a good way.
What makes you think his estate won't allow it?
DUQ, I liked that too. And Lewis is an interesting choice. My bigger concern is honestly Spielberg. He has never demonstrated ANY ability to handle "deep" subjects. So can't see this as being anything more than a down-homey telling of the basic facts of Lincoln's life.... which is a lost opportunity.
They just strike me as very protective of his legacy, but that certainly isn't unique to them. I recall reading some DVD extras for one of the films were edited to remove some light Roddenberry criticism.
Wow, I hadn't heard that. That's actually kind of strange given the massive worldwide fan base he has, you would think they would trust their fans to see through the bad?
.... unless he was secretly a puppy molester or something.
Hmm... so many...
From the Bible... Joseph, Moses, King David, Apostle Paul or Peter.
Charlemagne
King Alfred aka Alfred the Great.
The artist Caravaggio... wanted for murder, raconteur, tough guy, great artist.
Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Pirates -- that whole conflict would be AWESOME.
A Marine named Smedley Butler would be awesome maybe stopping before he went batshit insane (OWS type crazy) -- he participated in a lot of America's small wars in the early 20th century... Phillipines, China, Nicaragua, et al.
Floyd, Great choices!
The Barbary War is one of those things that has fascinated me for decades. I think that would be a great story to tell, especially as so few Americans even know anything about.... "to the shores of Tripoli."
I would love to see something on Charlemagne as well. He's someone I've always wanted to know more about, but just never got around to reading about him.
I would like to see a movie done about Aristotle and Plato (or Socrates - you could start your own conspitracies by posting that Plato had no ideas of his oown and just ghost written for Socrates - not true but if it sells tickets).
The reason I'd like to see this is we have socres of movies about Greek Mythical heros, Oedipus, Ulysses, Achilles and also movies about actual Greek Warriors, the 300, Alexander etc. but there is very little attention given to the philosphers that were the backbone for western thought, good or bad.
Mind you I want an entertaining movie that attempts to showcase their lives and maybe the ideological conflict at the time but not a dry documentary giving a succession of facts in a hushed narrated monologue.
Great call Indi! I too would love to see that. I am fascinated by the Greeks, but you're right that all we ever get is the mythology. I would love to see more, and seeing the guys who really laid the foundation for Western culture and Western philosophy in action would be great. And I agree, I would like to see a movie, not just a retelling of facts. In fact, I would suggest using the trial of Aristotle as a way to retell his life and philosophy.
That would be a heck of a project!
Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr
Christopher Columbus
Medici Family
Mary Magdalene after the Crucifixion
Charles Darwin
Great list Bev, especially the Medici family. They are fascinating people!
Do a Socrates bio-pic starring Leo and focus on his homosexuality ;-) If I were doing a film on the Greeks, I'd consider Steven Pressfield's Tides of War about the Pelypenesian War.
I agree, Spielberg is not the guy I want doing Lincoln. At least he isn't using Tom Hanks, thank goodness.
Neil Armstrong bio pic. Yeah, I like that. Probably would use Chris Pine (if he can do a young JTK, why not Armstrong!)
Hawk - Madison is never given enough credit among the founding fathers. Actually, a mini-series based on the David Nevin trilogy (Eagle's Cry, 1812, and Treason) would do a nice job for Jimmy Madison, Alex Hamilton, and Aaron Burr.)
Bev -
Paul Bettany starred in a Darwin movie titled Creation a couple years ago. You should be able to find it on Netflix but I'm not sure it was ever given a wide release in the U.S.
Andrew -
Ridley Scott was in pre-production on a Tripoli movie but it was scrapped and he went on to do Kingdom of Heaven instead.
Jed, Yeah, that's what we need... Leo playing a gay Greek! LOL!
I agree about Spielberg. Could you imagine Tom Hanks playing Lincoln? That would be aweful.
Chris Pine as Armstrong would be great!
By the way, on QE2, the only name I can think of is Helen Mirren -- she even looks like her.
Scott, That would have been great. And frankly, it makes me think Ridley Scott is a conservative. The Barbary war story goes against everything liberals want to believe.
I can see why he did Kingdom of Heaven instead, though that didn't turn out all that great. It's an ok film, but not enough to make me want to see it again.
I would like to see a truthful, honest Che Guevara bioseries so that all the lefties could actually get to know their oversung hero and not the phony legends that have sprung up about him.
Same goes for Mao, Marx, Fawkes, and a whole host of others not coming to mind momentarily. You'd think these guys are such great heroes, the studios would be clamoring to make the pics. Of course, we here know why that isn't so.
Mirren would definitely be the later QE2. She was wonderful in that role, but as a younger Elizabeth, Naomi could work or for the earlier still years, perhaps Emily Watson.
Tryan - we better not hold our breath on truthful leftist biopics :)
tryanmax, You evil man. That would ruin everybody's image of these guys as noble advocates of the poor and downtrodden! LOL!
I think most leftists would be stunned.
Also, I'd like to see one done on a local Omaha figure, "Boss" Tom Dennison. He had a huge hand in shaping the city into what it is today. Check out his Wikipedia page.
Jed, Yeah, the odds of a fair portrayal of leftists are pretty close to 0%.
I agree Watts could do QE2 when she was young.
tryanmax, I thought Omaha was invented by Warren Buffet! ;)
Andrew, "Kingdom of Heaven" grates on me more than it used to. I give it props (or at least I did) because it portrayed some Christians as being good, rather than just a "good Muslims vs. evil Christians" sort of thing. But then, the protagonists weren't exactly orthodox believers, they were more of the pantheist, anti-organized religion angle. It's still not a bad movie, but just kind of meh.
I think another historical figure you could do a miniseries on is George III. Obviously not a popular figure in American history, but he was a much more complicated and sympathetic character than is generally portrayed.
Now his would be a boring biopic.
By which I meant Buffett, not George 3.
One biopic that I really liked was the one about Jim Morrison starring Val Kilmer. Maybe it surprised me into liking it, because my expectations were low, but I think it was good. (I don't know about accurate.)
For a miniseries,as opposed to a standard two hour movie,the people who come to mind for me are; King Saul, George Washington,Robert E Lee and Benedict Arnold.I've always been fascinated by Saul and if you had the right actor and director you could make a fascinating miniseries.His relationship with Johnathan. His discovery of,and then mistrust and rejection of David.His rejection by God.The trip to the Witch of Endor seeking Samuel.His suicide on Mt Gilboa.Washington's life wasn't the cakewalk that we all learned about in elementary school.He lived through the whole Revolution with death and financial ruin hanging over his head.Lee didn't believe in slavery or secession.But "Virginia is my home,and I cannot raise my sword against her." He must have had some dark nights of the soul pondering his choice.Arnold was a very complex man.One of the most fiery patriots at the beginning of the war who put his money and body where his mouth was.His march on Montreal was one of the landmarks in human suffering. Wounded twice,going from a guy who could do a running flip over a wagon to a man with a permanent limp.His mental and emotional path toward his final decision would be fascinating in the hands of the right actor and director.
I agree with Scott, a John Adams-style miniseries about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton etc. would be really fascinating. Watching what they did with Adams (who in some people's opinion, did for conservatism in America what Burke did for it in Britain) gave me an appreciation for him as a president and as a man that I had never had before.
My only caveat: in the case of Jefferson, I DO NOT want to see a solid third of it devoted to whether or not he had kids with his slave Sally. I'm not saying don't bring it up, because it's obviously important to point out his status as a slaveholder and the implied hypocrisy there. But come on, he wrote the Declaration, was our third president, and opened up the American West. I think there are more important things to talk about than Sally Hemmings. (I know, I know--I denounce myself.)
Gypsy, I hadn't thought of that. Benedict Arnold would be a truly fascinating study. Supposedly when he was on his deathbed in England, he had his servant help him put on his old American uniform, his last words being, "May God forgive me for wearing any other." How's that for a dramatic ending?
On R.E. Lee, I agree but I'm not sure how effective any portrayal of him would be, at least with regard to conveying his true emotion. Shelby Foote once remarked that on meeting him, you felt you knew him completely--"everything but the heart. He kept that a secret to the end." But I would still like to see it done.
T-Rav, Kingdom of Heaven just didn't strike me as anything more than the generic stereotype -- stupid, divided, not-really-believing Christians versus savage, but smart Muslims, with the one noble character being a very modern character. It just wasn't that interesting to me.
tryanmax, Yeah, Buffett doesn't interest me.
GypsyTyger, Excellent choices with some fascinating personal decisions they had to make! That's exactly what makes these kinds of stories so interesting to me -- the hard choices they had to make. Sadly, too often I think biopics and miniseries overlook the hard moments and just give you a bunch of facts surrounded by generic drama about their spouses or kids, etc. To me, the really interesting story is in the conflicts they experienced and the moments they had to make difficult world changing decisions.
T-Rav, I agree. And I particularly agree because that's the most irrelevant moment in his life. Whether he had kids with her or not has nothing to do with the things he did that moved the world. I hate the fact they always focus on the salacious but pointless instead of the things that really mattered. This is a man whose decisions would affect hundreds of millions of people. To focus on whether or not he had an affair is idiotic.
On Arnold, that is a dramatic ending!
It could be cool to see a series on each of the Founders, but if it was done, I wouldn't be surprised if they started rehashing one another at some point. But the concept is fascinating.
tryanmax, That would be the problem -- it would quickly become a pattern.
So either you would need to do them all at once, maybe over the course of something like 2-3 seasons, or it would take some really solid writing to make them all feel unique.
That's also why I think it wouldn't be possible to do them ALL and instead, you would need to focus on 3-4 tops.
Gypsy - What about Jefferson Davis. Now that would be interesting too.
I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be an interesting choice; he has been more in the public arena lately because of his biography which came out recently. A couple of others that came to mind are Clara Barton, and I have always found Harriet Tubman fascinating. Someone who was good with westerns could make a compelling series about Calamity Jane or Belle Starr.
Bev, That would be fascinating, especially considering all the problems he faced unifying people who would not be unified, dealing with foreign countries who flirted with supporting the South, and dealing with the reality that they just couldn't compete with the North in terms of manpower or a manufacturing base.
Tink, Interesting choices! Calamity Jane in particular would be interesting to me -- I love westerns and I think it would be great to fill in more pieces. And Barton really changed the world with the Red Cross!
Ah yes.Calamity Jane - that reminds me of the musical film done with Doris Day and Howard Keel ( oh the Deadwood stage is a comin' round the bend . . . .whip crack away.) A favorite from the early 5o's.
Andrew
I doubt I will see Anonymous but I have seen the commercials for it. I don't know the claim but I think I can figure out the polt of the movie based on the correct political thinking as dictated by the left.
Shakespeare was involved with the wealthly and came from a noble background and thus if his name were attached to the plays why then they would be accepted by the masses.
The anaonymous writer was poor and downtrodden and therefore understood the needs of socieity and would be able to write "great plays" because of his underclass insight. So he teams up with Shakespeare who takes credit and then has the anonymous guy killed after stealing all his plays cause he is an evil rich noble capitalist after all.
The problem I see with this motiff is that the plays Shakespeare wrote were stories others had done as well and required an education in history, probably Latin and French, not to mention an understanding of not just the nature of nobility to how they reacted.
In Much Ado About Nothing for instance I don't think a peasant dirt farmer of the day woulkd understand how the characters would deal with the situation.
But I guess when you are channeling your inner Orwell a little deception is in order to be3 able to tell the real truth.
Biographical note for Calamity Jane: While the source of her nickname is a matter of hot dispute, even during her lifetime, it might be worth noting that a common Victorian euphemism for all manner of venereal disease was "the calamity."
To go only slightly off topic:
I know nothing about him but I read an interesting pitch for a film about the Emperor Constantine. In fact, it was a fan's pitch for an Indiana Jones sequel involving the Soviets finding Constantine's shield, which was emblazoned with a "heavenly divine symbol."
This was posted in the comments in a Script Shadow blog article. It sounded very interesting (and better than the last Indy film).
Imagine what an original miniseries could do with this. :-)
Indi, Actually, this theory goes back many years and it's based on questions about whether or not Shakespeare had the education and background to have written the plays he wrote.
The theory is that a royal (someone like a Duke -- there are multiple candidates) was the actual writer and Shakespeare was basically just a front or figurehead who took the credit.
Why would someone like a Duke agree to that? Well, the thinking is that it was unseemly for royal personages or people of level to engage in something as "low" as writing. Thus, they couldn't have release this themselves. So they used Shakespeare as a conduit.
My problem with this theory is that it's all premised on huge leaps of faith based on modern ideas of what the past was like. It's also one of these theories that starts backwards -- "we can't disprove my theory, ergo it must be right." But that kind of logic will let you prove anything. It's garbage thinking. And there is no hard evidence whatsoever to suppor this theory. In fact, there aren't even hints to suggest it. So I don't buy it.
It's the same kind of BS theory created to deconstruct the past as the way some gay college professors have tried to claim in papers that Shakespeare was gay. Their evidence is basically that IF you read all the women he refers to as secretly meaning men, then Shakespeare is pretty clearly a flamer. Well, yeah, but that's ridiculous logic. If we read them as meaning monkeys, then he's into beastiality. If we read them as himself, then he's the world's biggest egotists. Etc.
tryanmax, That's interesting. That gives new meaning to the phrase "national calamity." LOL!
Scott, Interesting. Scriptshadow is an interesting place. I wasted a couple hours reading stuff there last night. Constantine might make for a very interesting Indi 6 (which I've heard they're making).
Andrew....
Hmmm....
I am only going by the movie trailers which suggests that Shakespeare is having the real writer imprisoned or executed.
Well I guess if anonymous was a Noble then he must have been one tf the enlightened who saw the plight of the poor and the evils of society and wrote to correct it becasue we all know that in the end it must be about how capitalism is wrong and capitalists can't understand true artistic insight.
Sorry I saw IN TIme today... O
K enough movie but the badguy was a Darwinian Capitalist so obsessed with the Strong Surviving that the combination to the safe was Darwin's Birthday. Oh well.....
Indi, I haven't seen Anonymous, so that could actually be the plot -- nothing would surprise me out of Hollywood today. But the actual conspiracy theory (and that is exactly what it is -- a conspiracy theory) is that Shakespeare was just a face for some noble who wanted to write but couldn't in that society.
When I first saw the trailor for In Time, it struck me as a possibly interesting film. But the more I've seen, the less interested I am. Your point about the bad guy just adds to the pile of reasons I'm getting less and less interested.
I just thought of this: I'd like to see a doc on Herman Cain's early years. What he accomplished by my age puts most young adults to shame.
True. Rocket scientist for the Navy... that's pretty cool!
How about Chiang Kai-shek?
Interesting choice. China would be furious if Hollywood did a fair version. LOL!
Andrew
I guess this is where I am a little different. I watched in Time because I was very intrigued with the concept of how you handle immortality and procreation. It creates very unusual moral questions. I will forgive a lot in a movie if they present a good question.
For me the clocks on the arms were enough to see the movie. It was OK. The parts in the beginning of the movie showing the life of the working Joe was very well done I thought. It was when they gopt to the wealthly people the movie started to fall apart.
The ending was a little far fetched as they tried to turn the show into Bonnie and Clyde. The way they dealt with the villians was not completely cartoony but I thought they could have tried to make a much more intelligent ending.
In the end the movie was B- at best but you may be more offended at some of the obvious plot problems. Movie did start out very well however.
Indi, I haven't seen it so I can't comment, but for me, the problems began with the second trailor. Initially, the concept looked really interesting like it would raise a lot of neat moral and philosophical questions.
But then the second trailor started to make it look like a very generic "chase" movie and it didn't look like they really were going to do much with the premise.
Anderew
I think you are half right....
They did a very good job with setting up the premise however at the end they made it into a "noble outlaws" take on theworld
Ah. Like I said, I haven't seen it so I'm just judging it based on the trailors at this point.
Andrew
I think you should eventually see the movie in order to critique it. But maybe when it hits TV.
I was thinking about your post explaining how Hollywood always has to have a villian and that great movies of the past actually did not.
I think this movie could have been great if instead of making the father a villian they instead made everyone a basically decent person caught in a flawed system.
I think it could have been a much better film.
Indi, I'll check it out when it comes to DVD or the movie channels, I usually catch most everything. I'm just saying the trailors dampened my enthusiasm. But don't worry, I look beyond the marketing because I know better than to trust what I see in that regard and you never know when you might find a hidden or ignored gem. :)
Kit here, linked to here from Threedonia.
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.
A warts-and-all production. Showing also the political backdrop (disatisfaction of German princes w/ Rome and the distance between Rome and Germany) as well as comparisons of him and Emperor Charles V and Erasmus.
No idea who should play who.
Another: Lincoln, of course.
If you want someone young, Zachary Levi (Chuck) perhaps?
Churchill, a full mini-series based on his "The Second World War" (always wanted to read them).
I've read a bit of PUBLIC ENEMIES and thought a mini-series about the early days of the FBI would be fascinating, as well as (accurate) depictions of the various criminals.
Interestingly, I thought CRIMINAL MINDS did a pretty spot-on depiction of Bonnie and Clyde in the episode "The Thirteenth Step"
Hi Kit! And welcome! :)
Excellent choices! Martin Luther is fascinating especially given the time period when he acted and the effect his actions had. I can't imagine he had any idea what he would cause.
Churchill is one of my favorite historical figures. He had a truly brilliant mind and strong insight. I've read some of his early writings like his about his trips to Africa, but never his later work. I've always meant to read more but like everything else in life, I just can't ever find the time I need.
The thing about Martin Luther is that a truly accurte depiction would show both the Protestants and the Catholics somewhat sympathetically. Granted it would probably lean anti-Catholic but they would (and should) get some sympathetic treatment, at least the loyal Catholics in Germany.
Rome, however, was rife with corruption.
It would also be good to show his slip at the end, possibly his anti-semitic rants at the end.
And you are right, he had no idea what effect he would have.
Kit, I agree, it would require both the good with the bad and it couldn't take sides in the Catholic/Protestant debate, though some of it obviously is indefensible (like indulgences).
I recall reading a book about his life decades ago where the author was pretty clear that ML has no intention of breaking the church apart, but only wanted Rome to mend its ways. Imagine his surprise!
Post a Comment