[
Quote:
|
Sorry, but in my opinion, this is just a tad overly pejorative. Mel Gibson is an artist, working in a field of art. As with all artists, representation is a matter of opinion, interpretation and choice of what to present in the work of art.
|
Well, my problem here is that we have an "artist" denegrating "historians" in a very broad-brush kind of way. Secondly, the distinction between "history" and '"pre-history" is important to acknowledge. These are certainly problematic terms, but Mel seems to allude to the idea that their is NO difference (kinda like his father with the holocaust).
Also, because I am historian, I'm prone to defend my profession : )
Quote:
|
I personally don't see why movies like these create such polarization based on "true history" and "fact." There have been so many wonderful movies made based on history with all sorts of composites to represent far more than could ever be presented if we kept it strictly to the facts.
|
You gotta consider the historians, pre-historians, archeologists, and anthropologists are so immersed in their work that when they see what they consider mis-interpretation, they get mad; they believe, and they may be correct, that the most accurate interpretation would always be more interesting (even with a little embelishment).
[quote]If Mel were really so worried about the moral decay of the cities typical of our civilization, he would chuck that Hollywood mansion, luxury cars, and hot women he is so fond of and move back to the jungles of New Zealand.
Yeah, I thought about that, but considering his behavior in the city, perhaps he's conflicted. He's torn (not Rip Torn). Hypocricy is a symptom of confliction.