"I got the snippet from another blog. But the problem is... who the fuck is Brian Ian Gordon? We have an A/P Brian Farrell and an A/P Ian Gordon. They have combined two of the department's most beloved professors and created a whole different person! Hurhur...nice."
*******
Posted this entry on IVLE forum for Culture Industries...
*******
"When does artistic license become historical distortion?"
I read yesterday's article in Life! that mentioned about, among other things, Kit Chan's portrayal of Empress Dowager Cixi. Traditional Chinese history describes her as a wicked, cunning woman who hindered China's growth, but in "Forbidden City", she is portrayed as loving and doting.
The more general issue here is that the consensus among the artists interviewed by Life! is that when they embark on a work related to a historical figure or events, they should at least get the basic facts and figures right.
Personally, I'm concerned about this issue of artistic license, because with the growth of culture industries, there's always the temptation to pander to the audiences by rewriting standard historical texts under the guise of "artistic license" with the intention of making the shows less boring to the audiences - to spice up the story, if you will, so that it appeals more.
So want to ask this question:
From the perspective of the culture industries, do you think that it is possible for artists, writers, filmmakers and other creative workers to make compelling dramas that are historically accurate? Or is it inevitable, that in the course of dramatization of historical events, that some facts must get twisted?
I'm concerned, because a history professor from NUS, A/P Brian Ian Gordon, was quoted in the Life! article, saying, "If you go to a musical or a movie that deals with a historical subject and expect historical accuracy, then you should have spent your money on a book."
But the problem is, just how many people, out of this population, will actually be interested in going to read up about it? Hence, the need for historically accurate portrayals.
A counter-argument to this, however, would be that the dramatization of historical events, when well-done, will actually spur people on to be interested to find out more what actually went on, regardless of how well they stick to the facts.
I remember playing the old game "Civilization" by Microprose - even though it was an obvious dramatization, it sparked my interest in world history, to find out more about these civilizations that I was role-playing.
So in conclusion, perhaps we can take a look at culture industries, not only as profit-makers, but also as history-makers (literally) which act as cultural transmitters, not just producers.
What do you guys think?
No comments:
Post a Comment