Jump to content
Phantis Forums

Documentary Discussion Thread


Tzatziki

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, athinaios said:

Many advanced societies have given up believing their ancient history. I don't think the Norse today are destroyed because they don't believe in Thor and Odin.

It's not about believing it or not. It's about defending it. There's a place for science in the world. But we would have to agree that it is not science that shapes people's consciousness of belonging to a greater group, it's not science that helps forge values and culture. It is folklore and myth that has shaped the face of a people and has instilled values to the masses. Yes, in today's world, we all know what is folklore and what is myth, but that doesn't mean we should not celebrate their place in human culture.

But speaking of Thor and Odin, have you seen them anywhere 'artistically' portrayed by black actors? Do you think they should be?

Quote

Lastly, when it comes to artistic license, I don't think we have to stick to tradition, or history. Of course, this should not be presented as history or a documentary.

Again, I haven't seen the series, but just because it's released by the BBC doesn't make it "artistic." What message does it communicate? Why the retelling of a classic?

This is their promotional narrative: " An 8 part TV series commissioned by the BBC to retell the story of the 10 year old siege of Troy, which occurred in the 12 or 13th century BC. "

Creator David Farr said: ‘I’m delighted we’ve assembled such a high-quality ensemble cast, mixing some exciting new faces with experienced actors whom I have long coveted and admired.’  ‘The story we’re telling has an epic and political sweep but is also deeply human and intimate. I look forward to seeing these actors take you on the journey,’ he said of the big budget historical drama, which is still filming in Cape Town, South Africa.

It's like reading somebody say, "we came across this two paragraph idea and turned it into a masterpiece."  Personally,  I find his statement very arrogant. And speaking of artistic, it's like taking a can of red paint and spraying across the Van Gogh masterpiece "The Starry Night" and then saying "it needed a little red!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

But speaking of Thor and Odin, have you seen them anywhere 'artistically' portrayed by black actors? Do you think they should be?

Again, I haven't seen the series, but just because it's released by the BBC doesn't make it "artistic." What message does it communicate? Why the retelling of a classic?

It's like reading somebody say, "we came across this two paragraph idea and turned it into a masterpiece."  Personally,  I find his statement very arrogant. And speaking of artistic, it's like taking spraying a can of red paint across the Van Gogh masterpiece "The Starry Night" and then saying "it needed a little red!"

If the Norse god were portrayed by purple or green people, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I wouldn't take this as a history lesson either. If I cared enough, I'd read some reliable sources on Norse mythology and history.

I meant "artistic license" would allow the creators to veer off historical facts and established culture. It really doesn't bother me. Granted many people learn history from the movies, but is shouldn't be the responsibility of the artist to educate them.  Like any other expression, producing art isn't necessarily tasteful or ..non-arrogant.  If the BBC billed this series as a historical piece, then BBC should be criticized.

Please don't spray-paint the original Starry Night. But if you're so inclined to spray paint a ..copy, I may even buy it from you!:artist:

  • Like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, athinaios said:

If the Norse god were portrayed by purple or green people, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

It would bother me if there were no justification in doing it. Now, if those purple or green people added a twist to the story (i.e. Odin was a Martian), then I'd say "OK. give this one a chance. Let's see what the movie has to say." But having a person painted green for no apparent reason, and performing his character in a traditional interpretation, would have either an ulterior motive of some kind, or the director had 100 buckets of green paint stashed in his garage and wanted to dispose of them. See where I'm headed with this? Let's say we put together a play where Odin was green and Zeus black. [Now comes the important part.... ] Why so? What is the reason for taking this initiative?

If somebody does watch the BBC series maybe they can answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the skin color was not a consideration for the persons in charge of casting, and choco and vailla faces both auditioned and choco played a better Zeus?

Reminds of this clip for whatever reason...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...