Eric Huffstutler

This goes hand-in-hand with another thread I have been on concerning the upcoming remake of the "War of the Worlds".

There has been an ongoing controversy as to when this version should be set. Keep it true to the book and in Victorian London or something that modern day people can relate to ala ID4?

In any event, I considered "Pearl Harbor" an excellent period piece with stunning photography and effects but it was a flop at the box office... why? Most people panned the fact of a sappy love story and things looking too pristine.

No, things weren't all Ward and June Cleaver back then but at the same time people had different mentalities and morals as well as lack of things we have today. In essence, "Pearl Harbor" was true in all aspects, sappy love story and all.

People didn't live in a disposable microwave cell-phone toting era. Women stayed home to cook and clean and tended to their family. Children played with other children outside of the home, and fathers fixed up the house and washed and waxed the family car every weekend. All of this may seem cornball compared to today but if you want to stay "true" to a period piece you also have to make the characters period characters too.

My question is if you are going to make a period movie, should there be any changes to the time, place, and people to more modernize it for today's audiences. Or to keep a book like "War of the Worlds" written in the victorian era true in every aspect right down to the location and the way people talked, acted, and lived - risking another "Pearl Harbor"?

Eric

Amy Mormino

I don't think that the critical failure of Pearl Harbor was due to being too true to history and the norms of that era. There are plenty of sweet, sapppy stories, modern and classics, that have been very successful with audiences and critics. Titanic was an emotional love story that didn't bring in too many jarringly modern touches, and a lot of people loved it. The emotions and the story in Pearl Harbor just didn't ring true with me.

As for War of the Worlds, I'm not sure if it would be wise for Spielberg and Cruise to go for a period story. They are both too contemporary for a Victorian-set story. I especially hate Cruise's acting in historical films. I could accept a modern updating of Wells' story.

Eric Huffstutler

Thanks Amy.. it's all a matter of view. Here in the states most of the newspapers reviewing the movie when it first hit the screen had one thing in common. They all hated the sappy love story angle. At the same time these same reviewers were mainly in their 20's, way too young to understand or appreciate the reality of the era. But it is their opinions people read.

As far as "Titanic", that is a world interest story that has effected many families in reality even to today. It was also a disaster story which too screamed for special effects and accuracy and Cameron's movie gave it to us down to the screws in the door frames. Yes, there was a love stoy attached but if it was strictly a Titanic movie without a focal interest then we are speaking documentry

Other sappy love stories over time... that's just it, they endured time as they became classics prior to the changing times. If "All About Eve" was never made in 1950 but came out today exactly as it is, no changes, do you think it would be a box office hit? I don't think so despite it was the best movie of 1950. Again, people change as do their tastes.

Chad R

Well, Pearl Harbor was true to the "memory" of the time period, not the actual time. It was a throwback to the WWII movies, not the actual time period. It also played loose with the facts, having its characters perform actions (like dogfighting) that actual herores performed.

The movie failed because it didn't know what it wanted to be. It wanted the best of both worlds; a gritty historical document of the time, and a sappy love story reminiscent of grand old romances. Much of the violence and gore turned off female audiences, and the love story bored male audiences.

War of the Worlds even if based in Victorian England, will live or die on completely different criteria than Pearl Harbor. However, knowing Spielberg, this film will be more a remake of the 50's film rather than a new adaptation of the book.

"If you write a story about a soldier going AWOL and kidnapping a pregnant woman and finally shooting her in the head, it's called searingly realistic, even though it's never happened in the history of mankind. Whereas if you write about two people falling in love, which happens about a million times a day all over the world, for some reason or another, you're accused of writing something unrealistic and sentimental."
-Richard Curtis, Screenwriter and Director

StephenA

I think they should try to stay true to the time period as much as possible, though I think there'll always be inconsistencies. As long as it isn't blantantly obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb, small things and such shouldn't be much of a problem.

My DVD Collection
I met him, fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding; even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blind, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the Devil's eyes! I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up for I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil! - Dr Sam Loomis(Halloween)

Damn you Mop N Glo! - Stewie (Family Guy)

Dan Rudolph

If a movie wants to anachronistic as a joke for humor's sake, that's fine, but otherwise, I'd say be true to the era.

My Collection

Glenn Overholt

The problem with 'Pearl Harbor' was that people expected it to be centered around Sunday morning, and not the relationships betweeen the actors. Sure, the women might have liked the romance, and the men were disappointed because there wasn't that much in the way of action, but going in with no knowledge of the film would give everyone the impression of the the battle. If it had been named - Hawaii in 1941 everybody would be wondering exactly what it was about.

'War of the Worlds' go two ways too. One is the hysteria cause by the broadcast, and from that standpoint, it would have to be a period piece, if for nothing else than the fact that the FCC rules were changed after it, not allwing interruptions of radio plays that were a part of the play. Besides, if that were broadcast today, I think most of us would at least be checking for a second opinion before panicing.

But the contents of the play, the actual invastion itself, could be done in any period. If it were done using today, we could switch channels and all of them would be covering it.

Glenn

MatthewLouwrens

Glenn - You do know that it was a Wells novel before a Welles radio play, don't you?

AFI Top 100 lists:
100 Movies, 100 Thrills - Completed
100 Laughs - 24 to go - last seen: The Freshman
100 Passions - 39 to go - last seen: Breakfast At Tiffany's
100 Heroes & Villains - 10 to go - last seen: Tom Powers in The Public Enemy
100 Songs - 45 to go - last seen: "Moon River" from Breakfast At Tiffany's
100 Quotes - 19 to go - last seen: "Toga! Toga!" in Animal House
100 Years of Film Scores - 3 to go - last seen: How the West Was Won
100 Cheers - 43 to go - last seen: Philadelphia

TOTAL (458 movies) - 145 to go - My AFI movie list here.

My blog / Films watched in 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008.

Glenn Overholt

Yeah, but it really didn't impact anyone until it aired.

Glenn

Rob Gardiner

Except for two things: 1) no one smoked cigarettes, and 2) everybody loved the black guy.

andrew markworthy

Umm... not really. You've got to remember that pre-radio, books had far more immediate impact and HG Wells enjoyed enormous fame in his heyday.

Returning to the original thread, I think there are anachronisms and there are anachronisms:

(1) Anachronisms that are beyond the pale are those that change fundamental facts about history. Objective Burma is a good example, ditto that recent movie about appropriating the capture of the German Enigma code machine to the USA rather than the Brits and the Poles.
These are very bad because for those who absorb information from readily accessible culture such as TV or movies rather than scholarly texts (i.e. the majority of people) they will be taken as fact.

(2) Anachronisms that distort facts about history. E.g. Saving Private Ryan is in itself a worthy piece of cinema, but its belittling of the contribution of British and Commonwealth forces on D Day offended a lot of Brits and members of the Commonwealth. These are bad for the same reason as given in (1).

(3) Anachronisms that are uncessarily wr