I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Rating ⭐
I can't stand historical fiction when it is based on real people, especially my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine. I am the person who constantly corrects books and movies on their inaccuracies. So, a book doing the same? I should have LOVED this then, right? Here's the premise, from Goodreads:
Film studios have been making historical movies now for over a century. In that time, thousands of films have been made covering not just centuries but millennia. Did Neanderthal woman really look like Raquel Welch in her bearskin bikini? Did 6,000 rebellious slaves claim that they were Spartacus? Did Berengaria complain to her husband, Richard the Lionheart, ‘War, war; that’s all you think about, Dick Plantagenet’? Was El Cid strapped to his horse’s saddle to lead his army after he was dead? These aren’t questions of history; they are questions of Hollywood.
Charlton Heston was a foot too tall for General Charles Gordon. John Wayne was a tad too American for Genghis Khan. Eric von Stroheim’s bald head was an odd choice for the perfectly hirsute Erwin Rommel. And Warren Beatty and Fay Dunaway were far too gorgeous for bank robbers Bonnie and Clyde.
Hollywood never gets it right. History and its characters are endlessly complicated, and producers, directors and screenwriters have a simple story to tell. They have a maximum of two hours to explain what happened over weeks or months or years and many of it give it their best shot.
Yet for all Hollywood’s shortcomings in recreating the past, it has managed to evoke eras and people long dead in a magical way that has kept millions of us enthralled for generations
Sadly, it was not to be. The author was incredibly snide and condescending throughout the entire book. This is especially evident when the author discusses Titanic. Yes, I love that movie, and have since it came out when I was 15. I will defend it until I die, and while there are certainly parts that were not historically accurate (Murdoch killing himself remains my biggest issue with the film), it was still incredibly well done. But for the author to say it was incomprehensible that Titanic won eleven Oscars is simply stupid. It was an incredible tribute to a piece of history that we continue to be enamored with, over 100 years later.
The author was also inaccurate with some of his history concerning the Tudor period, in comparing it to Hollywood depictions. This is an era I know very well, so I was able to identify those parts pretty quickly. This caused me to question his facts and what was accurate regarding the periods I know less about.
I also found that the scope of the book was simply too massive and unwieldy. So many movies were introduced, that the author's analysis was superficial and there was not much room to actually dive into any of the movies in question.
Overall, this was a disappointment. I was expecting to learn new things about the movies and the history they were based on. Instead, the author's tone made it unenjoyable and I can not recommend it.
Titanic didn't do my boy Lighttoller right, either.
ReplyDeleteHow?
DeleteThe film has him threatening a mixed crowd -- women, children, men -- to prevent them from swarming a lifeboat, and threatening to shoot them like dogs. His own account has him ordering a group of Italian immigrants to clear a boat to make room for women and children. Movie Lights is a panicked bully, memoir Lights is an officer doing his duty.
DeleteHe wasn't portrayed as a panicked bully at all. Things were out of control and he did what he needed to so he could maintain order. And who is to say his own memoir is entirely accurate? He was the highest ranking officer and only one of four to even survive. No one would contradict him.
Delete