Dominic Case writes:I, too, tend to complain about dramatisations of historical events that are inaccurate. All very good for dramatic structure, but unfortunately cinema is often taken as the indisputable truth. That said, I thought this was a good film. Any film that (successfully) makes discussions between 19th C socialist and anarchist thinkers interesting, as this one does, has got to have achieved a lot. It is magnificently set and lit. It is varied in pace. And I think it's a bit far-fetched to claim that characters such as Proudhon and Bakunin are "forgotten by history".
Maxim Karpitsky writes: It's still poorly written and contains some mistakes.
But most importantly, the ideas are incoherent. One can only grasp that the author of this text is dissatisfied with historical inaccuracy and this actually got me somewhat troubled. However, Peck's previous films show that he has a firm enough grasp on Marxism and probably wouldn't make any changes just because he could. So it's probably better to wait for the film. Also, the point about philosophy not being a suitable subject for the film got me intrigued. I can't say I agree even though it's not a subject that directors are often interested in and they aren't usually successful when they get to it. So, sounds like an ambitious film. I hope this doesn't fall flat
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.