To be or not to be, that is the question

User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Hello one and all,

Let's gee things up a little, as it seems to have gone a bit quiet.

You are now the biggest name in the industry, and you are approached by a mega film company to see what part you would like to play in their forthcoming epic movie about the history of the world… What character from history or legend would you want to play? and why?

I am looking forward to your answers.

Regards and remember to think ‘BIG'

Steve


  • 14 years ago
  • 3,488
  • 51
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Deliberately I fear, Peter ... in all good stories there has to be a baddy. Wronged by the politics of the new Christian faith whose media gurus wove magical stories ... some based on myth, some on fact ... but who can separate the two ??????. All in all, Pilatus handled himself very well.


  • 14 years ago
  • 21
Farah Sardar
Actor

The virgin Mary. I was going by the look. But the story of the birth of Jesus is pretty much the same in the Quran. Would be a spiritual experience in itself filming in a beautiful dessert- and all those people who wouldn't offer me a room when I'm just about to give birth........Oooooh, I'll punch them!


  • 14 years ago
  • 22
Alan Brent
Actor

Tubby or not tubby....that is my question...whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous pie eating...or by avoiding end them.


  • 14 years ago
  • 23
Lee Ravitz
Actor

It is sadly true that the primary limit placed on producing historical pieces is that the majority of producers are scared of the cost involved! It certainly has nothing to do with history lacking good stories or dramatically engaging characters.

It must be said, whilst some history done blow by blow would be a *little* dull, it does annoy me that many modern producers/writers play massively fast and loose with *actual* history in order to 'improve' the story. I think it sells, but this has always seemed to me to miss the point which is precisely that what is interesting about historical figures is that they were real people, and the decisions they therefore made weren't always coherent, sensible, likeable or decent. 'The Tudors' is a bit of a case in point with me; very lovely to look at, broadly well acted, and undeniably entertaining, but really missing the entire point of the actual history it's relating. For a start, the fact that Jonathan Rhys Myers is never allowed to age makes a total mockery of the fact that part of the fascination of Henry VIII's story is that, rather like a good Shakespearean villain, he seems to have started out beautiful, respected and virile and gradually, as he got older, degenerated into a sadistic, paranoid, syphilitic tyrant. Rhys Myers has *always* been asked to play Henry as if he was a Machiavellianly minded 30 something with a pantomime villain leer, and that has been the basic character note for four seasons. And that barely scratches the surface of its historical inaccuracy, which includes casting many of the real players at the wrong ages, conflating 'characters' so they become, in effect, imaginary people, and frequently inventing entire subplots. I suppose there is a grand old tradition of this - after all, something like 'The Three Musketeers' isn't entirely 100% accurate in its depiction of 17th century France! - but, really, 'The Tudors' is just the 16th century 'Footballers Wives', and will hardly stand to enlighten anyone about real history! For me personally, whilst it might seem ponderous by some of today's standards, I miss the commitment to accuracy that used to be shown by serials like 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII,' to use the obvious comparison.


  • 14 years ago
  • 24
Farah Sardar
Actor

You can't really tell if it's accurate Lee, unless you were actually there.


  • 14 years ago
  • 25
Farah Sardar
Actor

...riding ones motorbike through the set and squashbuckling the heads of the cast????? Yes, quite a few of my daughter's irritating American teen dramas full of spoilt brats would most certainly qualify there
'My name's Lizzy Mcguire and I'm like Eeeeeeeewwww.'
Well said Splat Cat. True words of wisdom from an intellect.


  • 14 years ago
  • 26
Toni Brooks
Actor

There are documents that are deemed to be accurate accounts of what happened. OK, so history is written by the victors but we're talking about historical facts that can be backed up. Obviously, the further back in time we go, the harder it is to be absolutely sure of what really happened. My beef is when they make the people too contemporary in speech and dress (the latest Robin Hood for example!). That's not to say we should try to make the language exact as we'd fall flat on our faces but to have historical characters talking in a sort of street patois is irksome. Just my take on it :-))


  • 14 years ago
  • 27
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Splat...That sounds great fun...Can I ride pillion?...Theres a few buckles I like to swash, I can tell you...hehe

Captain Black (well grey 'ish' to be honest!!!) beard...ARRrrrrrrr


  • 14 years ago
  • 28
Farah Sardar
Actor

Don't forget me, in that side car thingamy ....Hey we gonna look sooo cool!
'My name's Lizzy Mcguire and I'm like Aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh'


  • 14 years ago
  • 29

I for one would like to see the John Wycliffe story - or better still, be in it!!
x


  • 14 years ago
  • 30
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Eliza .... thanks for your interest.
But .... would you believe, as written, there is but ONE female part. I know, I know ... what else is new ???.
Please bear in mind that back then, women had but two reasons to be around..... cooking and .. yes, it rhymes !!!.
That period was totally male dominated.
Even the 'Players' of the time, were male, hence the lack of female parts in 'my' John Wycliffe.
"So what else is new, nothing's changed there then ??". I can hear you say.
Thanks again for the interest. Allan.


  • 14 years ago
  • 31
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Forgot to mention .... in the midst of cleaning out my 'Office' .. a helluva job ... will send you a coupla scenes when I can get around to it. Allan.


  • 14 years ago
  • 32
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Ode to lute and lyre ... Yes, Soggy Mog.


  • 14 years ago
  • 33

Story of my life Allan - still like it though.


  • 14 years ago
  • 34
Lee Ravitz
Actor

Have been away for a little bit, and missed the thread of this one, so I won't derail it too much. Still, I feel that, as an ex-historian, I have to stand up in support of the idea that we have some idea of what happened in the past even if 'we weren't there'. Sure, we can't say what it would have *felt* like to have been an individual in that environment, and, in truth, assessing people's motives and personalities is, at best, subjective when we have only written evidence to go on, but we can reliably know things like the fact that Henry VIII's (wrongly named) sister did not marry a fictitious character ten years after she was married in real life (as was shown in the opening episode of 'The Tudors'). Pointing that out is pedantic, I would agree, not in the spirit of the programme etc., but it doesn't detract from the fact that 'The Tudors' is literally making history up as it goes along...which puts it on a par, historically speaking, with things like 'Robin Hood' and 'Merlin' (they have more excuse, in my opinion, as most of the material they are drawing on was legendary in the first place).

As to Splat's suggestion, well, fair enough - times have changed, and the feel of broadcasting is different...and it is very difficult to be both (relatively) honest to historical material and still entertaining...a lot of history is pretty dull, enlivened by moments of violence or passion that brighten it up for us. Also, I don't think that any historical film or Tv programme I've *ever* seen has been precise - there is always some kind of telescoping of the time scale (after all, how boring would it be to have events play out in real time?), reduction of number of significant figures involved etc. But I just appreciate it when historical works take the time to do their research properly and work from that, rather than making stuff up and pretending that it has some kind of accuracy behind it. Still, there's a place for everything: I was always a bit partial to 'Plunkett and Maclaine' myself...


  • 14 years ago
  • 35
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Lee, If you didn't like the Tudors please don't watch The Other Boleyn Girl! Talk about making up history!

Anyway...back to original thread. I'd like to play Borte, Genghis Khan's first wife (he had several at the same time). I don't look right for the part (being the wrong race and all) but if Colin Farrell can do Alexander then I can do this!!


  • 14 years ago
  • 36
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

You are quite right about Colin Farrell 'doing' Alexander .. he did so right royally !!!


  • 14 years ago
  • 37
Lee Ravitz
Actor

I thought the great shame about 'Alexander' was that, actually, the landscape shots, the attention to costume accuracy, the set piece battle scenes etc. were breathtakingly magnificent - some of the best reproductions of ancient opulence that I have ever seen - but the acting was almost universally appalling. About the only good thing in it was Anthony Hopkins and he truly proved something inasmuch as he didn't have anything to do other than recite a couple of speeches to camera whilst he doddered around a library. Farrell was terrible, Jolie was terrible, Val Kilmer was terrible, and it was some of the worst story structure I think I have ever seen in a mainstream Hollywood film - you could clearly tell that Stone hadn't managed to shoot the entirety of the film he wanted and so he cobbled the footage he'd got together any old how. Though it was certainly not his best work, Scorsese had massive problems getting the footage he needed for 'Gangs of New York' in the can, but still managed to make a half decent film out of it, I'd say. But 'Alexander'? What was Oliver Stone doing??

I repeat: I loved the concept, that's why I so bitterly regret the quality of the execution...


  • 14 years ago
  • 38
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Must be a jinx on Alexander, Lee. Even Burton couldn't pull it off ... has to lie in the script, ... with both !!.


  • 14 years ago
  • 39
User Deleted
This profile has been archived

Lee...I fully agree with your comments.

I remember watching the trailer and thinking "what a great film it looked"...It was only after I watched the film that I realised what a great trailer it was...!!!

Prehaps they should have called it 'Alexander the Grate (coz it did on my nerves...lol)

Steve


  • 14 years ago
  • 40
You must login as a candidate to participate in the forum.
Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of The Mandy Network, nor have they been vetted by The Mandy Network staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.