On May 7, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Ron Andrico <praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say that > trivial details like historical facts are often purged from any story > based on historical drama in favor of popular appeal during the process > of adapting for the screen. And why not, when the audience wouldn’t know the difference, and even smartalecky critics can't distinguish between history and fantasy? Four years ago, his annoyance with The Tudors fresh in his mind, Ron gave us a link to a review of Camelot, the Starz (at least that’s who aired it in these parts) series, by Sarah Dempster in The Guardian, who intoned: "Two months after The Tudors staggered off on its 16th century pantomime cow, along clumps Camelot to remind us of the enduring appeal of the appallingly rendered historical epic.” Critics are as entitled to make fools of themselves, but I wonder why some editor didn't elbow her in the ribs and tell her that Camelot is no more “history" than Lord of the Rings is. And no, I haven’t seen her review of Game of Thrones (which, BTW, while set in a nonexistent world, nonetheless features some authentic-looking-and-sounding Renaissance-period instruments, particularly in scenes just before a king meets a violent end.) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
