|
|
Post by kernowsqueen on Aug 7, 2012 13:03:41 GMT
Joyceinva and KMK,
I have to agree on retrospect about the awkward language ( the use of "that" word just troubled me but I think it was meant to be provocative) ...I certainly will give this film another viewing!
|
|
|
|
Post by jamolivej on Aug 7, 2012 15:03:48 GMT
I still have not been able to buy In A Savage Land but thanks to LTM who very kindly invited me to her home last W/E I have now seen it with her and I loved it. Without analysing this film in any way I just watched it and enjoyed it and I truly loved it. I still hope to find a copy of this at some point and will watch it again. We also watched Victory which is also hard to find now, and some others that I had not seen so I am a bit more up to date with Rufus past catalogue than I was, all thanks to LTM.
|
|
|
|
Post by kygal on Aug 7, 2012 20:44:39 GMT
I bet its more fun to watch with a friend! Glad you all had a great weekend!
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Aug 8, 2012 6:50:02 GMT
"Victory" is funnily quite easy to get in Germany, but IASL remains really hard to get. Fingers crossed that you'll come across an affordable copy. Have you tried ebay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Petruchio - Good God on Aug 9, 2012 4:22:05 GMT
jamolivej - On ebay you have always a chance to get IASL... amazon also... that's not very difficult. But could bit a bit expensive meanwhile ...
For me is it still very difficult to get the "spanish" edition of IASL ...
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Aug 17, 2012 16:46:32 GMT
I just found a nice review of IASL: pinartarhan.com/blog/in-a-savage-land-with-rufus-sewell/ (wonder if she's one of us! ;D ) My favourite bit: Rufus Sewell plays Mick Carpenter (...) I don't think Evelyn's husband would stand a chance even if he wasn't a jerk. Do you?Oh, and the only "con" argument she finds is that it's too short and leaves you wanting more  |
|
|
|
Post by francesca on Aug 17, 2012 20:10:28 GMT
As for the N word - I would have been more shocked if Mick hadn't used it. He's a creature of his times and at that time the N word was common parlance even among some upper classes. Good point. (I wonder why I haven't thought of that myself, as often as I normally use the "creature of his times" explanation ...) I think we tend to think that if women characters wear short skirts or trousers, then it is a 'modern" film, whereas IASL set in 1940 is as much a period piece as 'Downton Abbey in 1914'. In fact IASL is nearer in time to DA, than to us , now in 2012. People thought and spoke differently then |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 18, 2012 2:27:52 GMT
Very nice! She made a nice defense of Mick in the comments section too. If she isn't one of us, she should be! ;D  I think we tend to think that if women characters wear short skirts or trousers, then it is a 'modern" film, whereas IASL set in 1940 is as much a period piece as 'Downton Abbey in 1914'. In fact IASL is nearer in time to DA, than to us , now in 2012. That's a really good point, Frannie. I don't know about other people, but I never think about how long ago 1940 was, I guess because when I was growing up the WWII vets were my friends' dads or grandads, so it doesn't seem like ancient history to me. And it doesn't help that I keep forgetting it's 2012! I fall over in a faint when someone tells me something from the 1970s is 35 or 40 years ago. Regardless, I never understand when people gripe about people from the past (in films and books) behaving within the norms of their times. You don't have to like how they behaved or spoke, but you have to accept that it's a fact that they did actually behave or speak that way and then try to understand why. |
|
|
|
Post by kernowsqueen on Aug 18, 2012 3:39:30 GMT
Rueful, you make a good point and as Francesca commented it this film was set in another time with standards and beliefs that are not our own now...
I suppose I'll have to try harder to let go of my 21st century biases when I watch this film again.
I admit that I can accept the inaccuracies in some films without trouble - but in other films they bother me too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Aug 18, 2012 9:53:23 GMT
She made a nice defense of Mick in the comments section too. If she isn't one of us, she should be! ;D Oh, yes, definitely. Thanks for pointing out the comment, I hadn't read it - but of course I agree with all she said. The beauty of Mick's character is that he keeps surprising us whenever we think we've seen through him. When I first watched IASL, I took him for the usual rough outdoorsy adventurer type with nothing but contempt for the other whites in the beginning, kind of arrogant in his own way (and not at all sure whether I liked him - imagine that! ;D - but I loved being proved wrong! I think we tend to think that if women characters wear short skirts or trousers, then it is a 'modern" film, whereas IASL set in 1940 is as much a period piece as 'Downton Abbey in 1914'. In fact IASL is nearer in time to DA, than to us , now in 2012. Excellent point! Somehow, maybe because I've read so many books and watched so many films set in that time, and because my own parents were born in the 1940s, I have to remind myself how long ago that really was now  I admit that I can accept the inaccuracies in some films without trouble - but in other films they bother me too much. That's a funny phenomenon, isn't it? There are films that sweep me along so much that I don't even notice inaccuracies or illogical bits, while there are others that have me griping about tiny details from beginning to end. |
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Aug 18, 2012 13:28:11 GMT
The topic of what constitutes "historical" has been discussed on a mystery-discussion list I belong to. It was something of a shock to me to read that some considered a novel set in the 1970's historical. Hard as it is for some of us to believe, that time period WAS over 40 years ago. One thing that puts a lot of this into perspective is a Beloit College (in the US) that gives the mind-set of the entering class of college freshmen. It is fascinating what these kids accept as normal or never experienced. www.beloit.edu/mindset/2015/As for KQ's and Kate's comment. Totally agree, if a movie is well done in terms of pacing, acting, and dialogue, I can skip over quite a few plot holes or inaccuracies. |
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Aug 18, 2012 16:50:36 GMT
Great link - I'm torn between ROFL-ing and quietly slinking off into a corner to weep about my old age. Reading this bit ... ... really makes me feel ancient |
|
|
|
Post by francesca on Aug 18, 2012 17:24:02 GMT
Rueful said [/quote] You don't have to like how they behaved or spoke, but you have to accept that it's a fact that they did actually behave or speak that way and then try to understand why. [/quote] Well put Rueful. My point exactly Not to the point. why is it that everyone can produce lovely neat boxes for their quotes every time whereas I can only do it now and then? Duh |
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Aug 18, 2012 17:38:55 GMT
Just eliminate the backslash in the first bracket and it should work |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 19, 2012 18:01:12 GMT
Rueful, you make a good point and as Francesca commented it this film was set in another time with standards and beliefs that are not our own now... I suppose I'll have to try harder to let go of my 21st century biases when I watch this film again. KQ, I'm sorry if I seemed like I was addressing your comment specifically. (Because when I look back at my comment it looks rude and forceful. Sorry  ) I totally understand the dislike of THAT word (and others like it). I do think you have to try to judge characters by the standards of their times though. I was actually thinking even more about Hollywood studios, producers, and writers, who love to give historical characters modern viewpoints and behaviors, because they think that people can't handle (or understand) the past. An example I can think of is in the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice. The crisis when her younger sister runs off, unmarried, with Wickham takes about 5 minutes of film time, start to finish. That was a social disaster of epic proportions in those days--it could have affected the futures of all the sisters, and the book and 1995 tv version made that clear. But in the 2005 version, they glossed over it. I seem to remember reading that was because they thought modern audiences couldn't relate to the idea that a premarital affair would be shocking. Well, that was sort of off topic. (Where are the moderators when you need them? ) I'll bring it back on topic by saying, that's why I appreciate IASL, where the people seem to mostly behave in a way that's appropriate for their time. For example, many films might show the minister to have a modern attitude and relate to the islanders as noble people whom he can help with material improvements, like clothing or medicine. But in IASL, he thinks of them as "savages" whose souls he is trying to save on behalf of God (although he doubts his efforts will work). I think that's more likely how it would have been in those days. I admit that I can accept the inaccuracies in some films without trouble - but in other films they bother me too much. This is true for me too. Sometimes, like you all said, a film is well made so you can accept it. Other times I can't accept it because of the topic. (We all have our areas of history that we know about and are protective of.) And in some cases, you might just be willing to overlook problems because of a certain curly haired actor. ;D The topic of what constitutes "historical" has been discussed on a mystery-discussion list I belong to. It was something of a shock to me to read that some considered a novel set in the 1970's historical. Hard as it is for some of us to believe, that time period WAS over 40 years ago. Are you sure?  But then how can I still be so young.... One thing that puts a lot of this into perspective is a Beloit College (in the US) that gives the mind-set of the entering class of college freshmen. It is fascinating what these kids accept as normal or never experienced. www.beloit.edu/mindset/2015/Oh, Joyce. Now you're just being mean. |
|
But then how can I still be so young....