Hollywooded

Actually, I was gonna blog about whether it is right to purchase something like The Passion of the Christ since I am more on the agnostic side. It would seem like I value it more for its entertainment than religious value, which makes me feel insulting (not insulted). I thought it is one of the better films I have seen in a while, and thus have considered adding it to my collection. But wouldn't that be similar to objectifying or devaluing a belief that many people live and die by? Have I succumbed to the luring pleasure of materialism and living in the moment? The big machine known as entertainment, where everything is depicted as both personal and distant at the same time, doesn't help. We're constantly being bombarded by shows that try to depict our everyday life (sit-coms like Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc) and on the other hand, what lives could be (drama, reality shows, etc). Using this formula, they've successfully lured us in by having situations we can identify with so we can point and laugh along (and also AT since they also try to distance the absurd so we won't feel too insulted). So they've lured us, where am I going with this? I'm starting to see people start living the life they see in these shows. Shows like Friends setting trends, etc. I don't know if brainwashing is the right word, but it's almost as if our view [of the world] is becoming smaller and smaller, and our knowledge is more dependent on what we see on TV (and I'm certainly guilty of this). But this is nothing new. What really peeves me is the supposed "documentaries" that don't really report the complete truth. From Michael Moore to even news of the documentary on Michael Jackson a while back, I wonder how people could just make up some of these stories and "report" them. But what of this "Hollywooded"? Recently, I have seen many movies that are based on true stories. That's fine and dandy, since they're "based" on true stories, but how many people out there take them for real? Interestingly enough, I wasn't gonna blog about these inaccurate portrayals until I did some digging and came across arguments of the portrayal of Jesus in movies, such as his colour, appearance, etc. I myself don't know anything about this topic, so I can't comment on the accuracies of these arguments, but it just reminded me of other movies like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, The Last Samurai, etc. where supposedly research was done, yet they appeared to disregard their findings. For A Beautiful Mind, John Nash is portrayed as going crazy with a gov't conspiracy instead of he thinks aliens are talking to him. Gladiator, the thumbs up or down for mercy or not is actually thumbs pointing to the throat. At the time, if they were to be killed, it was a quick jab into the neck - hence thumb to the throat. Ridley Scott based it on this one painting that I've no clue what it's called, but it portrayed the thumbs down, so I guess I can't fault him 100%. At least for The Last Samurai, they said how the system was like at the time in Japan in the special features. I also heard similar inconsistancies with The Terminal, but I haven't seen it, so I don't know. Anyway, you get the point - things are changed so it becomes more entertaining. In Troy, Achilles lives until the trojan horse is brought into the city, when according to the poems, he died soon after killing Hector and several other people. In fact, although this is a version, he's said to be lovers with Patroclus. Patch Adam's life wasn't as portrayed in the movie - but I'll admit the changes made the movie better.

So yeah, as people start believing what they see on TV, these tendencies are transferred over to movies which appear to be historically correct. I'm just waiting for the Hollywood movie labelled as "A True Story," cause I know then people wouldn't even bother looking up the facts afterward. Hrmmm, now I wonder if the moon landing really did happen?