Why do we only criticize the historical accuracy of movies, and not of any other art?
How come I never see threads on this board like:
>Excuse me Petipa, The Sleeping Beauty is set in a baroque-era French court. Women would not have danced ballet, and no one would have danced en pointe.
>Excuse me Shakespeare, why is a Renaissance-era Danish prince dating a Roman guy's daughter?
>Excuse me Wagner, but knights were not known to ride swans into battle.
Why do people want to hold movies to a standard of realism that we don't care about in other art?
>>922070
people now days have the internet and libraries to research.
presumably shakespeare couldn't go on to his computer and google that shit.
>>922078
You seem to be implying that Shakespeare gave a shit about historical accuracy in his plays.
>>922070
>The Sleeping Beauty is set in a baroque-era French court. Women would not have danced ballet, and no one would have danced en pointe.
No one says this because dancing ballet is the medium of... ballet. It would be like saying "Madama Butterfly is inaccurate because no one would have sang opera!"
when you read, you can stop and think. When you watch TV, you are engrossed, you have to switch off in order to get absorbed.
sometimes it feels like modern TV/film is pushing an agenda too, which people don't like.
>>922070
Because historical accuracy wasn't the point of those works.
Nowadays, lots of movies specifically stress their historical accuracy as an advertising point. Those who don't aren't really criticized for not being historically accurate.
Historical accuracy doesn't usually come into play unless it's a depiction of a specific, real-life event and/or specific, real-life people. No one cares that much if a random film about a random Tudor person is inaccurate, but when you've got Anne Boleyn trying to fuck her brother and being a crazy bitch in a film, people are more apt to care.
I see criticism regarding historical plays, especially modern plays. (David Adjmi, here's looking at you.) Not so much historical but people don't usually care once something is old.
Also, regarding ballet, the medium itself is so removed from tv/books/theater that historical accuracy can't really be a criticism unless you're specifically advertising your ballet as a historical accurate piece. The manner of ballet, or who dances, can't be a criticism because it's necessary for the medium.
>>923243
Do you even read?
>>922070
>Why do modern people mostly criticize modern media?
Is this a serious question?
>>922070
>Why do we only criticize the historical accuracy of movies
Because people nowadays are supposed to know better and people who end up watching said movies might be getting out dumber than they were before because now they believe to be informed about a subject they formerly knew little about and wouldn't have opined on but were actually taught a lot of nonsense.
>>923316
>they believe they are informed...
This really triggers a lot of people. I'm not entirely sure why. Sure, it's bad, but not that bad.
>>923333
>I'm not entirely sure why.
Because a smug dumbass spouting bullshit is infinite times more irritating than a clueless guy saying nothing.
This is especially disturbing when talking politics, since people's misinformed stances on shit have consequences.
>>922070
Fun Fact: Leopold Von Ranke - who was into objective history- hated the SHIT out of one of the first english-language Historical novellists: Sir Walter Scott.
>SHUT THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE DID NOT APPLY NATIONAL IDEAS BACK IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES, THERE WAS NO "REBEL RESISTANCE GROUP" OF MUH PROUD SAXON NATIONSLIST VERSUS THE NORMANS IN 1200'S ENGLAND, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
Autistic German historians generally hated the emerging historical fiction scene in all countries, including their own.
Because people only watch movies.
>>923414
At least they are interested in the topic and want to discuss it. I get the feeling that the people who really hate people who "think they know about X" are people who care less about educating others and more about lording over others with their knowledge.
That's just my theory. Like I said, I don't admit to entirely understand where this hate is coming from.
How recent is archaeology and studying ancient cultures to a meticulous degree?
>>923583
I'm not sure whether or not your question is rhetoric.
Archaeology is extremely recent. One might argue it only really started in the postwar period. We've studied ancient cultures meticulously since there have been ancient cultures to study, but our efforts haven't been exactly scientific until the early 20th century.
I always get a kick out of medieval/Renaissance biblical art depicting people in the contemporary dress of the time. It's like if someone today drew Jesus on the cross wearing jeans and a t-shirt.
