|
| Out of time |
| Jai Arjun Singh / New Delhi Jan 31, 2010, 00:55 IST |
|
Historical films suffer from a lack of authenticity.
Watching the promos for Anil Sharma’s Veer (with Salman Khan looking decidedly unlike a 19th century Indian warrior) and Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes (in which Robert Downey Jr removes his shirt to reveal that the sleuth had four-pack abs), it occurred to me that there can be many different varieties of anachronisms and incongruities in period films.
The most obvious types are the blink-and-miss bloopers, which are of interest mainly to trivia buffs and compulsive DVD frame-freezers: the tiny jet plane crossing the sky in Cleopatra; the distant red van in Ben Hur; the extras sporting hippie hairstyles and 1970s clothes in The Godfather (a film set in the 1950s).
At the other end of the spectrum are the deliberate anachronisms, in cases where an old story is updated for contemporary sensibilities. Into this tradition fall the many modern-dress Shakespeare films that retain the original dialogue (e.g., Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet) and movies such as The Other Boleyn Girl, which was a consciously feminist take on Henry VIII’s boudoir romps. The new Sherlock Holmes belongs here too, being more Ritchie than Arthur Conan Doyle (and making no attempt to conceal it).
Occupying a greyer zone are movies where the star system takes control — like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which was intended not so much for Sherwood Forest purists as for Kevin Costner’s fan base (the actor’s mid-American drawl was intact, he was clean shaven and wore a dream-boy expression that matched the Bryan Adams soundtrack). Closer home, Jodha Akbar —to all intents and purposes a straight-faced portrayal of Emperor Akbar’s reign — cast the lean and muscular Hrithik Roshan in the lead role and gave him a smart contemporary hairstyle and a topless swordplay scene. Roshan is a charismatic actor, very good in certain types of roles, but he speaks Urdu as if he had received tuition from Chewbacca during the limousine drive to the sets. This muddied the historical waters somewhat.
However, what really interests me is when a movie sets out to be sincerely faithful to its time but ends up compromised for little reasons. Perhaps because the script can’t resist throwing in a couple of over-clever references that are intended to give viewers “Aha!” moments. (“One day men will look back and say I gave birth to the 20th century,” says Jack the Ripper in From Hell, showing an improbable interest in posterity as well as an uncanny prescience about the century of horrors that lies ahead.) Or, more intangibly, because the actors look or behave too modern. As a film-buff friend pointed out during a recent discussion, it’s difficult for young actors of today to truly grasp, much less portray, the sexual reticence of an earlier era. During our chat we also compared the classic 1960s movie Inherit the Wind with its recent remake. The film is about the 1925 Scopes Trial, which pitted Evolutionists against Creationists, and part of the reason why the old version seemed more authentic was that its actors had firsthand recollections to draw upon: they had seen the way their own parents and grandparents talked and behaved, and had some understanding of the prejudices and cultural assumptions of people who lived in the 1920s. Whereas the actors in the remake are four or five generations removed from the mores and mannerisms of that world.
This is not to suggest that the best period films of yore were authentic in every detail; in many cases, they merely perpetuated stereotypes. So, assuming the species is still around 200 years hence, I wonder how historical films made in 2200 will portray our times. One can only hope they’ll have the good taste to eschew authenticity when it comes to depicting certain cultural trends — low-waist jeans and reality shows among them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
