Historical stories not covered enough by Hollywood
- Thread starter crookeddy
- Start date
Why was he buried in Arlington?
From the USS Indianapolis website:
Up until "King Of Kings" in 1961 it was customary in Hollywood not to show Christ's face or have him speak as a character in American films. What would have to be done with Mohammed would at most be a step beyond that.
I would dearly love to see a serious piece, not some Hollywood-ized fluff or Tudors style soft porn with its numerous historical fictions, about the dissolution of the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and the legal excuse he used to justify it, that she had consummated her marriage to his older brother Arthur who had died at the age of 15, slightly less than five months after the marriage took place in November 1501.
I feel great sympathy for Catherine because of Henry's cruelty to her. Her heartfelt plea at Henry's feet at the trial of The Great Matter is well documented. She did love him dearly and is regarded as a near saint. The interesting thing is that when more modern historians (like David Starkey) were actually allowed to look at material from Spanish archives and whatnot which haven't been allowed to the public for many, many years, it becomes clear (though not 100 percent proven) that Catherine almost certainly lied about consummating her first marriage. This idea that Prince Arthur was a sickly little boy incapable of getting it up is a myth supported by nothing. It was mentioned in the Tudors and Anne of the Thousand Days but nothing supports it. It's recorded that he was born prematurely and sick for his first two months of life as a baby, but that's all.
Two points--
First--Spanish ambassadors who helped negotiate the betrothal between Arthur and Catherine--ambassadors sent to "evaluate the prospect"--wrote many letters home to Spain, letters which survive and were previously unknown to the academic public. They describe Arthur as tall for his age, vital, healthy and intelligent. Not the sickly youth referred to in popular media. Their job was to evaluate a proper match for Ferdinand and Isabella's daughter, not to suck up to Henry the Seventh. They weren't going to deliberately choose an unhealthy prince as a husband for the infanta of Spain. These matches weren't arranged out of pity. They were arranged out of political alliance and hopefully to produce children.
Second--a letter from one of Catherine's older female relatives to another relative in Austria, a letter which was previously not allowed to be seen. Many Spanish elite like their historical figures to be viewed in the best light. Hiding this letter seems to confirm that desire; translated from Spanish--it's pretty obvious that Catherine's relative says in the letter that she hopes Catherine keeps her secret about herself and Arthur for the sake of her future. It doesn't say "that they consummated" but what other significant secret could there have been about Catherine and Arthur which would have affected her future? Catherine hadn't yet turned 16 when Arthur died. Her own confessor stated later that she'd "confessed" consummation. Her duenna stated otherwise, but her duenna later betrayed Catherine and plotted against her father politically. She had much to gain by Catherine not returning to Spain and being able to remarry in England.
Does any of that make Catherine "bad"? No. She wasn't even 16 when it was all set into motion She didn't want her daughter Mary to suffer the humiliation of being declared a bastard. Certain people don't want Catherine to be portrayed as anything less than perfect, but why distort history? A thoughtful script and detailed story on why this happened would be fascinating. It would explore the values and sexual politics of the time. Both of Catherine's sisters were married to the young King of Portugal. One died, then he married the other. His second marriage wasn't "punished" by them not being able to have sons. Far from it. Did the infamous passage from Leviticus not apply if the genders are reversed? Perhaps that also occured to Catherine. Fascinating subject.
Would Hollywood be capable of producing such a movie? No, we get dreck like The Other Boleyn Girl with Mary Bolyen taking princess Elizabeth out of the palace to raise herself after Anne's execution. Riiiiiiight. Like you could just take a royal child and run off. Anne told Mary to stay away. They never saw one another again. She wasn't even present at the execution.
I feel great sympathy for Catherine because of Henry's cruelty to her. Her heartfelt plea at Henry's feet at the trial of The Great Matter is well documented. She did love him dearly and is regarded as a near saint. The interesting thing is that when more modern historians (like David Starkey) were actually allowed to look at material from Spanish archives and whatnot which haven't been allowed to the public for many, many years, it becomes clear (though not 100 percent proven) that Catherine almost certainly lied about consummating her first marriage. This idea that Prince Arthur was a sickly little boy incapable of getting it up is a myth supported by nothing. It was mentioned in the Tudors and Anne of the Thousand Days but nothing supports it. It's recorded that he was born prematurely and sick for his first two months of life as a baby, but that's all.
Two points--
First--Spanish ambassadors who helped negotiate the betrothal between Arthur and Catherine--ambassadors sent to "evaluate the prospect"--wrote many letters home to Spain, letters which survive and were previously unknown to the academic public. They describe Arthur as tall for his age, vital, healthy and intelligent. Not the sickly youth referred to in popular media. Their job was to evaluate a proper match for Ferdinand and Isabella's daughter, not to suck up to Henry the Seventh. They weren't going to deliberately choose an unhealthy prince as a husband for the infanta of Spain. These matches weren't arranged out of pity. They were arranged out of political alliance and hopefully to produce children.
Second--a letter from one of Catherine's older female relatives to another relative in Austria, a letter which was previously not allowed to be seen. Many Spanish elite like their historical figures to be viewed in the best light. Hiding this letter seems to confirm that desire; translated from Spanish--it's pretty obvious that Catherine's relative says in the letter that she hopes Catherine keeps her secret about herself and Arthur for the sake of her future. It doesn't say "that they consummated" but what other significant secret could there have been about Catherine and Arthur which would have affected her future? Catherine hadn't yet turned 16 when Arthur died. Her own confessor stated later that she'd "confessed" consummation. Her duenna stated otherwise, but her duenna later betrayed Catherine and plotted against her father politically. She had much to gain by Catherine not returning to Spain and being able to remarry in England.
Does any of that make Catherine "bad"? No. She wasn't even 16 when it was all set into motion She didn't want her daughter Mary to suffer the humiliation of being declared a bastard. Certain people don't want Catherine to be portrayed as anything less than perfect, but why distort history? A thoughtful script and detailed story on why this happened would be fascinating. It would explore the values and sexual politics of the time. Both of Catherine's sisters were married to the young King of Portugal. One died, then he married the other. His second marriage wasn't "punished" by them not being able to have sons. Far from it. Did the infamous passage from Leviticus not apply if the genders are reversed? Perhaps that also occured to Catherine. Fascinating subject.
Would Hollywood be capable of producing such a movie? No, we get dreck like The Other Boleyn Girl with Mary Bolyen taking princess Elizabeth out of the palace to raise herself after Anne's execution. Riiiiiiight. Like you could just take a royal child and run off. Anne told Mary to stay away. They never saw one another again. She wasn't even present at the execution.
I remember seeing a film a few years ago that our local rental store had was related to this. It was a tv movie if I remember correctly and titled Mission of the Shark
You know, I'd love to see a light-hearted musical comedy set in the era of the suffragettes. Fill it with anachronisticly modern references and in-jokes, lots of catchy tunes. It could be a camp classic. Of course, you can include something more meaningful at the heart of it too, as an emotional core. There are some already some comic movie gems in this vein: Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins, Maggie Dubois in The Great Race, etc.
I never found it difficult to empathise with the British. though I suppose being British simplifies the decision-making process...
That's true, I suppose, which partly explains why the earlier Hollywood ones I mentioned before felt more stagey/artificial than current movie-going audiences would probably accept. Still, I think it's possible to compress timelines and simplify events enough for it to work. Audiences will follow the gist, even if they don't get all the nuance/detail. Sort of like how you're just thrown into the middle of the plot at the start of Star Wars, to take a fictional parallel.
From the USS Indianapolis website:
That's nice, but how is the Navy going to put the kibosh on a hollywood film?
I recall seeing this TV Movie as well a number of years ago
Agreed.
There was one with Mike Hammer and John-Boy: Mission of the Shark: The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
There's also news of a film in the works: http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/172923-robert-downey-jr-producing-a-uss-indianapolis-movie
Napoleon does appear to be a more sympathetic character than other more recent tyrant megalomaniacs. I'm never exactly sure why given some of his actions. Perhaps it's down his full complement in the trouser department and lack of silly moustache.
There are a lot of Napoleonic era movies.
I'm disappointed that Master and Commander didn't have any sequels - I guess it just didn't do well enough. It still remains the best Star Trek movie IMO.
It seems that Hornblower-esque movies are regarded as box-office poison.The Seven Years' War (French and Indian War) doesn't have a lot of movies devoted to it. I can only think of The Last of the Mohicans, Nothwest Passage, and Barry Lyndon offhand. I think there's scope for something based on the Battle of Quebec (1759) - you could even work in a certain James Cook. In fact, we could do with a new biopic miniseries for him. One was made in 1987 but I've never seen it.
ETA: Horatio Nelson could also do with a biopic.
Yevetha
Commodore
Watch Braveheart.
Russel Crowe has been trying to get one off the ground for years but I'm not really optimistic.
And I second the Seven Years' War, the whole period is fascinating, it was practically just one theater in a global war.
Lets have a film about the Suffragists, so we can remind ourselves that, were it not for the Suffragettes, the Franchise would have been extended around about 1912!
And all other South American countries share the sentiment...well, Brazil does, at least. Ask them how much they love Argentinians.
How about the 30 Years War? That was pretty ugly.
