Films and books that TRULY capture behaviours of the past?

[Knygathin]

Berkeley Square (1933) and The Queen of Spades (1949), perhaps? Both beautiful films. Barry Lyndon (1975)? But anyhow, seeing the GENUINE behaviour of people in the 1800s, 1700s, 1600s, and further back, I think there is great potential for HORROR, if capturing it truly, its subtle and not so subtle difference from our own. The romantic desire to visit the Past, through a time-machine, would likely result in a CHOCK. Or, through a very good book, or film; has any such truly re-captured the past? The safest bet must be in the form of a historic document, i.e. written in the same era it portrays, ... but is still likely to be insufficient in imagery to make us truly see.

I suspect, if we could TRULY look into people's behaviour in the 1700s, 1600s, their ingrained culture, we would be disgusted by their arrogance, and feel contempt with their complete ignorance of things we understand. And be CREEPED out by their clothing, naivety, sybaritic revelling, nonchalant, mindless glee, and rumbling in the gutter. And they would react negatively to us as well, with fear, aggression. An incongrous split would stand between us, a difference that is nightmarish, caused by the gap in time and social evolution. What I am getting at, I guess, is if it would even be possible for Art in our time, for an actor, to TRULY portray those distant times, a window into the past of their EXACT behaviour, in all its bizarre variances and grotesque eccentricities, completely freed from the actor's everyday ordinary behaviour, ... and whether this would fill our minds with HORROR, ... even existential TERROR, like a waking nightmare?

Ironically, we ourselves are also very naive and stupid, although we like to think we live in an enlightened age.

[𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr]

Barry Lyndon was based on a historical novel, so the source isn't even contemporary. So it is two steps removed from the age it is set.
The answer must surely be no, as the actor comes from a completely different period and she/he is molded by that period, and even if he or she did succeed, how would you be able to know, as you wouldn't have any criteria to judge? Having read a lot of literature from the 1600s and 1700s I don't see anything to suggest I'd be filled with existential horror meeting someone from the period, the worst would probably be the smell and the more than occasional faux pas. The language would be OK mostly, as it is after the 1400s.

[helrunar]

I still recall Alistair Cook, a British gentleman who kindly came on TV to explain UK serials to us culturally lacking Yanks*, telling viewers at the start of an episode of the classic story of the life of a sixteenth century British monarch, Elizabeth R, that if they were somehow able to reproduce the smell of a typical afternoon at court, the raw stench would knock us all backwards on our behinds due to the extreme rankness of the foetor. At least, he said something like that--it was half a century ago, but the remark has lodged itself immovably in my brain.

Hel.

*Alistair Cook was a wonderful presenter, very down to Earth and never patronizing. I'm just having some fun here.

[enoch]

Sept 30, 2023 13:34:14 GMT 𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr said:

The answer must surely be no, as the actor comes from a completely different period and she/he is molded by that period, and even if he or she did succeed, how would you be able to know, as you wouldn't have any criteria to judge?

I remember reading something by George MacDonald Fraser in which he recounted how he was the historical advisor on a World War II movie, and try as they might, he and the other advisors (who had actually been there in WW II) simply could not get the actors to move, talk, or otherwise behave as soldiers from the 1940s would have.  The actors' contemporary mannerisms were simply too baked-in to change.

That said, we all know the difference between movies that "ring true" or at least seem to be more historically accurate than others.  An effort can be made to at least get details of costume, setting and so forth correct and the actors can at least try to act "non-contemporary."  Even if it's impossible for them to know exactly how people in the past did act, it's a safe bet that they acted differently.

[andydecker]

What about reading works by contemporary writers set in then contemporary times? Dickens, Doyle, Stoker, Collins, Verne?

[Knygathin]

I am not a complete stranger to the idea that it would NOT not result in existential horror to meet someone from the 1700s or 1600s, but instead rather be the complete opposite, an overall pleasant and innocent sensation. It is difficult to conjecture either way, and many unforeseen factors may be involved. A mental chock to the nerve centra at taking in the unaccustomed on several levels, is conceivable. Faux pas, certainly. Lovecraft perhaps has some interesting philosophical declarations on the subject in one of his many letters.

Nature would be clean and pastoral, and lovely to stroll in, before industrialisation started in the 1800s, and long before global corporations like McDonald's were allowed to cut down the forests on a grand scale and pollute our seas.

[𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr]

Maybe I misunderstood  your original question. I am, after all blonde.

Another interesting question would be how would someone from the past react to being projected into our world? Not just to the people but to the surroundings? Imagine wandering one of those Chinese megacities they throw up every few years, and being constantly bombarded by noise and visual sensations; pop music blasting and adverts playing, the constant strange traffic going by, the scale of it, and dealing with technology like mobile phones, computers, and using Alexa. Maybe they would think they were in a layer of Dante's Hell, or whatever Hell some firebrand preacher preached. It could conceivably drive you round the so-called bend, maybe we have gone fully round the bend and just not realised; we (particularly in the West) are certainly exhibiting some weird behaviour recently, which COVID has exaggerated. A lot of it goes against commonsense. I'm sure the idea is common with SF writers, maybe there are a few good stories that deal with it. Actually would someone going back to that period have a problem with the lack of outside stimulus? How would an average person fill their time? For most people back then it was an everyday struggle for survival, so boredom wasn't really a problem. Maybe that's our trouble, we have ended up being so bored that we will even watch reality TV, and reaction videos, or Gogglebox, or even actually watch paint dry, just to fill in the passage of time. And the people on them can become famous (in mostly a Z-list way). Its dispiriting. If I was forced because of a coming natural disaster to go back to live in a different period (like in some Star Trek episode I saw once and don't remember the title of, but some of you will) I'd learn the art of perfume making, then at least the past would smell nicer to my delectable 21st Century nose. That is, naturally, the most delectable nose of all-time.

[Deleted]

Republic Films did a T.V. mini series based off of the book "Son of the Morning Star". It centers around General Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a battlefield that I have visited twice thus far.

It tells us the story not only from the racial prejudices of the white man at that time towards the American Indian, but also how the Indian viewed the white man.

It brings us back to a not so long ago bygone era and to a lifestyle that we will never see again. A lifestyle where people were self sufficient and lived off of the land in the open.

[helrunar]

That story from George MacDonald Fraser is quite revealing, Enoch.

When I watch historical dramas produced in the Seventies, it does seem as if that was an era where there was more of an effort to present a version of the past that did "ring true." Of course I am thinking of British dramas (both films and television serials) and I wonder if in part, the effect is because of the techniques in which classically trained actors were versed, that could school them to achieve a sense of "otherness," to present facets of human experience divorced from the time and place of the mid to late 20th century, in their performance.

Nowadays, not only in acting but also in writing about past eras, anachronism rules. And so it goes.

Hel.

[𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr]

Oct 1, 2023 12:45:55 GMT @wicca said:

Republic Films did a T.V. mini series based off of the book "Son of the Morning Star". It centers around General Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a battlefield that I have visited twice thus far.

This sounds interesting, it says it is told from the viewpoint of two women. I see Buffy Sainte-Marie plays the voice of Kate Bighead.
Republic Pictures who co-produced was a reboot of the earlier Republic Pictures, a studio that mixed serials and B-movies alongside more high quality efforts. It was formed from several so-called Poverty Row studios, producers of small budget, quicky productions for the most part.

[enoch]

Oct 1, 2023 13:16:44 GMT helrunar said:

That story from George MacDonald Fraser is quite revealing, Enoch.

When I watch historical dramas produced in the Seventies, it does seem as if that was an era where there was more of an effort to present a version of the past that did "ring true." Of course I am thinking of British dramas (both films and television serials) and I wonder if in part, the effect is because of the techniques in which classically trained actors were versed, that could school them to achieve a sense of "otherness," to present facets of human experience divorced from the time and place of the mid to late 20th century, in their performance.

Nowadays, not only in acting but also in writing about past eras, anachronism rules. And so it goes.

Hel.

I agree.

[Knygathin]

Sept 30, 2023 16:35:03 GMT enoch said:

I remember reading something by George MacDonald Fraser in which he recounted how he was the historical advisor on a World War II movie, and try as they might, he and the other advisors (who had actually been there in WW II) simply could not get the actors to move, talk, or otherwise behave as soldiers from the 1940s would have.  The actors' contemporary mannerisms were simply too baked-in to change.

That said, we all know the difference between movies that "ring true" or at least seem to be more historically accurate than others. An effort can be made to at least get details of costume, setting and so forth correct and the actors can at least try to act "non-contemporary." Even if it's impossible for them to know exactly how people in the past did act, it's a safe bet that they acted differently.

And this was close in history, only a few decades back. People of Europe and the US spoke and moved quite differently in the first half of the 20th century, compared to now. Imagine then how big the difference must have been 200 - 300 years back in time. That is why I wondered if we would react in chock to actually see it, along with their almost otherworldly cultural attributes.

Yes, I believe with imaginitive and calculating conclusions about their culture and behaviour, interesting results are still possible for actors of today to portray. One sure conclusion to start with, is that it must have been quite bizarre in contrast to now.

But certain nuances of their behaviors are probably lost, too elusive to be discerned from their old books.

And ๓гร. к, I agree, it would have been much much worse for them to look into our time. I would certainly NOT like to look into the future 200 years from now.

[Jojo Lapin X]

Oct 1, 2023 19:59:25 GMT Knygathin said:

Sept 30, 2023 16:35:03 GMT enoch said:

I remember reading something by George MacDonald Fraser in which he recounted how he was the historical advisor on a World War II movie, and try as they might, he and the other advisors (who had actually been there in WW II) simply could not get the actors to move, talk, or otherwise behave as soldiers from the 1940s would have.  The actors' contemporary mannerisms were simply too baked-in to change.

That said, we all know the difference between movies that "ring true" or at least seem to be more historically accurate than others. An effort can be made to at least get details of costume, setting and so forth correct and the actors can at least try to act "non-contemporary." Even if it's impossible for them to know exactly how people in the past did act, it's a safe bet that they acted differently.

And this was close in history, only a few decades back. People of Europe and the US spoke and moved quite differently in the first half of the 20th century, compared to now. Imagine then how big the difference must have been 200 - 300 years back in time. That is why I wondered if we would react in chock to actually see it, along with their almost otherworldly cultural attributes.

Yes, I believe that with imaginitive and calculating conclusions about their culture and acting, interesting results are still possible for actors today to portray.

But certain nuances of their behaviors are probably lost, too elusive to be discerned from their old books.

And ๓гร. к, I agree, it would have been much much worse for them to look into our time. I would certainly NOT like to look into the future 200 years from now.

For a convincingly alien depiction of ancient times, try Fellini's SATYRICON.

[PeterC]

The behaviours of the past - surely 'wokeness' has put paid to any accurate portrayal of them?

[𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr]

Nooo!

As a princess I declare politics/religion/culture wars to be banned.