Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   General Movie Discussion (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms? (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=61921)

KeyserCorleone 07-14-20 03:09 PM

When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
Anachronisms are extremely common in cinema, but we don't always notice them. One of my favorite movies, Forrest Gump, is teaming with them. The movie carries items and logos that were created and invented a few years before their appearance in the movie.

Now I've come to forgive this for several reasons:

1. The anachronisms have little to no say in the full plot.
2. Can we really bother Zemeckis to look up every ****ing logo?
3. Anachronisms are incredibly common in cinema.
4. The movie takes a different view on history anyway, so do the anachronisms really take that much away from the realism?

What we have here is a series of constant minor mistakes which bear no relativity or effect on the plot or make the film's realism suffer dramatically. Maybe I haven't forgiven Back to the Future for its childish manner of handling time travel yet, but the difference is that anachronisms aren't really plot elements in either movie.

So, are you willing to forgive this common but minor oversight the way I do? Do you do it all the time, or does it require specific conditions? Or are you gonna lift yr skinny fists like antennae to heaven and go "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore?"

AgrippinaX 07-14-20 03:49 PM

Your use of ‘anachronism’ is a bit odd. Maybe I understand the term differently.

What do you mean by this?
The movie carries items and logos that were created and invented a few years before their appearance in the movie.
Why is that a problem? Would you rather it used ‘authorial‘ logos devised by the director? If so, I’m quite fond of that approach too, but you can’t replace every single Facebook with ‘Persona’ as in Black Mirror’s Smithereens.

An ‘anachronism’ to me is something belonging to a different period/context that seems old-fashioned now. Now, if you watch something taking place in the ‘70s, of course a lot of it will seem anachronistic.

The only reason anachronisms are problematic in science fiction is because they sometimes use outdated science, and once we know better, we can’t take it seriously. A typical issue with science fiction is that it’s rarely possible to predict in which direction science will evolve. Back to the Future seemed to think we would all be using hoverboards to move around town. Something like that has actually been developed in Dubai, but the bigger issue is that such technologies are nowhere near as widespread as the film assumes they would be. That will take many more decades. However, they still had very old-fashioned-looking phones in that version of the future, whereas we have smartphones. So the director is betting on the wrong thing evolving.

It’s an inevitable risk one takes when portraying the future. You can argue there is an issue with Blade Runner(1982) which depicts 2019 (the same applies to Back to the Future), but that’s only because we’ve seen what 2019 looks like and that’s nothing like it.

I think this will always be a problem with any speculative genre. It’s entirely possible that in 20 years some of Alex Garland’s films will be seen as laughable due to their bad science. But at the moment, it’s the best he can do using the data he has on current cutting-edge scientific developments.

KeyserCorleone 07-14-20 07:35 PM

After reading the first paragraph, it's clear that you didn't read the OP. I said I DID NOT have a problem, multiple times, and I asked others out of curiosity. I won't be reading the rest of your post if the basis is a misconceprion of my statement. I'm tired of people doing this.

Mesmerized 07-14-20 07:47 PM

When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
Anytime after 10pm is fine with me.

Yoda 07-14-20 08:26 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
I think the word forgive might complicate the answer. I think it's a non-issue unless:

1) you notice, and
2) you noticing takes you out of the experience.

Takoma11 07-14-20 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by KeyserCorleone (Post 2108869)
After reading the first paragraph, it's clear that you didn't read the OP. I said I DID NOT have a problem, multiple times, and I asked others out of curiosity. I won't be reading the rest of your post if the basis is a misconceprion of my statement. I'm tired of people doing this.
She is asking for clarity on your use of the term "anachronism", contextualizing with her understanding of the term, and then giving her point of view based on her understanding of the term. She's not deliberately misleading or misinterpreting your post.

Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2108808)
Maybe I understand the term differently.

An ‘anachronism’ to me is something belonging to a different period/context that seems old-fashioned now.
I personally almost never notice anachronisms, and especially not something like "Hey, that's the Pepsi logo from 1985 and this film is supposed to take place in 1983!!" I'm sure some people notice that stuff and are irked by it, but mostly it just passes me by.

One of the only anachronisms I tend to notice is in movies/shows that take place in much older times and yet everyone (even the peasants!) have bleached white, straight teeth. Like, I did not realize that in King Arthur's day everyone had access to Crest whitening strips and braces!

Captain Steel 07-14-20 10:03 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
This wasn't from movies, but on the TV series MASH there's an episode where we glimpse some of Radar's comic books (many references were made throughout the series about Radar's love of comic books, Teddy Bears and other things considered childish).

We see several issues of Spider-Man.
The show was supposed to take place during the Korean War (although we all know it was a commentary on the Viet Nam War).
Spider-Man didn't appear until 1962.

It might have been appropriate for Spider-Man comics to show up in a MASH unit during the Viet Nam War, but not during the Korean War. :)

gbgoodies 07-14-20 11:26 PM

I rarely notice anachronisms in movies, and if I do, they almost never bother me unless it somehow affects the plot.

KeyserCorleone 07-14-20 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Takoma11 (Post 2108878)
She is asking for clarity on your use of the term "anachronism", contextualizing with her understanding of the term, and then giving her point of view based on her understanding of the term. She's not deliberately misleading or misinterpreting your post.



I personally almost never notice anachronisms, and especially not something like "Hey, that's the Pepsi logo from 1985 and this film is supposed to take place in 1983!!" I'm sure some people notice that stuff and are irked by it, but mostly it just passes me by.

One of the only anachronisms I tend to notice is in movies/shows that take place in much older times and yet everyone (even the peasants!) have bleached white, straight teeth. Like, I did not realize that in King Arthur's day everyone had access to Crest whitening strips and braces!

I never said "deliberately." I said "misread." Here we go again...

skizzerflake 07-15-20 10:12 AM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
Life is too short to worry about anachronisms unless they have a substantial role in advancing the plot or setting. It it's something truly awful, like jet aircraft in World War I, that's a problem, but if it's something like a soup can label on a store shelf in a movie that's wrong for the period....who cares. It's easy to get too OCD to enjoy the movie once you go down that road.

Citizen Rules 07-15-20 01:10 PM

It depends on the tone and style of the movie to whether or not the anachronism is a temporal breach in continuity that can impact the overall quality of the movie...A film that strives to be a serious period piece but gets set pieces, costumes and language vernacular out of phase with the portrayed time period, is a failing. If it's a light comedy and a few things are out of whack then that might be a pass...That's how I view it anyway.

Stirchley 07-15-20 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by AgrippinaX (Post 2108808)
An ‘anachronism’ to me is something belonging to a different period/context that seems old-fashioned now.
That’s not the meaning of the word. An anachronism is something that is shown in a period in which it did not exist. For example, showing the Empire State Building in a movie depicting the twenties. Or someone using a mobile phone in a movie depicting the sixties.

AgrippinaX 07-15-20 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stirchley (Post 2109118)
That’s not the meaning of the word. An anachronism is something that is shown in a period in which it did not exist. For example, showing the Empire State Building in a movie depicting the twenties. Or someone using a mobile phone in a movie depicting the sixties.
Well, to be fair, it has two definitions, one of them being a term/concept that has fallen out of use (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.c...sh/anachronism).

But I have since realised I interpreted it as a linguist would. Long day yesterday. At no point was I being aggressive.

skizzerflake 07-17-20 11:40 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
In the movie context, it's generally used in regard to those bloopers like 1970 cars in a movie about 1968 or popular songs out of their era. Movie crews include people who are supposed to look for those problems, but they also know that most audiences miss a lot of that if the rest of the action and plot are engaging. If you're looking at the labels on soup cans to see if the year is right, you're probably bored with the rest of the movie. If it really IS glaring, like in a classic western with a pickup in the background, then someone is asleep at the job. Personally, I don't worry too much since looking for all that is a useless distraction. Fortunately, they usually are fairly unusual.

I was watching The Artist tonight and when I looked at the trailer, the trailer music was an anachronism....Benny Goodman music from several years after the movie setting.

jal90 07-18-20 08:41 AM

There's never a proper time. They are, uh, anachronisms.

But I'd say they are forgivable as long as they don't unwillingly break your suspension of disbelief. You don't watch a historical fiction for accuracy, but for its ability to evoke that setting to you. An anachronism becomes bad when it interferes with that, and it is not an exact science, it depends on your knowledge of the subject and your ability to abstract your mind in the way the movie intends.

skizzerflake 07-18-20 02:35 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
"But I'd say they are forgivable as long as they don't unwillingly break your suspension of disbelief. "

Exactly. And, there are big ones and little ones. Most of the big ones are clipped out before a movie is released, but little anachronisms are of little consequence. When I see "historical fiction" I always remember the second word, which is fiction. Most viewers have little sense of history prior to their own time, so questions like what china pattern Thomas Jefferson would have eaten from or the type of telegraph key that would have existed in 1890 seem pointless. As long as they're plausible in the context of the story line, my view is that, if you're looking at the telegraph key, the movie must be boring.

In the case of the trailer for The Artist, fortunately that was NOT in the actual movie. That WOULD have been bad because part of the charm of that movie is the late 1920's ambience, which seems so long ago and far away. The frantic late 1930's Goodman song (swing music hadn't been invented in the 1920's) would be completely wrong, not unlike the pickup truck in the distance in the western.

ironpony 07-18-20 04:11 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
I keep reading that A Night's Tale is anachronistic. I'm no expert, but I don't remember seeing any obvious ones, that a non-expert would spot unless I am wrong?

Takoma11 07-18-20 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2109986)
I keep reading that A Night's Tale is anachronistic. I'm no expert, but I don't remember seeing any obvious ones, that a non-expert would spot unless I am wrong?
I mean, there is this scene where they all dance to a Bowie song. Even if you argue that the song isn't happening "for real" in the scene, the dance moves are certainly modern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yygNdTxoHus

Or the opening sequence in which the crowd claps along and sings along to "We Will Rock You".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hi8IWqic0U

But I think it's important to note that this muddling of pop culture and history is very intentional and was actually a big part of the marketing of the film (which prominently featured the modern dance scene). No one who'd seen a single trailer for the film should have walked into it expecting historical accuracy.

ironpony 07-18-20 06:19 PM

Re: When's the proper time to forgive constant anachronisms?
 
Oh okay, with the music yeah that's true. I suck at knowing dance moves, so what do I know.

Does Captain America: The First Avenger count as being anachronistic, because it has things in it like a woman being promoted to a sergeant (if I remember correct), in the army, which a woman would not be promoted to in WWII, so does that count?

Takoma11 07-18-20 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2110010)
Oh okay, with the music yeah that's true. I suck at knowing dance moves, so what do I know.

Does Captain America: The First Avenger count as being anachronistic, because it has things in it like a woman being promoted to a sergeant (if I remember correct), in the army, which a woman would not be promoted to in WWII, so does that count?
Are you talking about Peggy Carter? If so, she was part of a (fictional) scientific group that worked closely with the military, I believe, and not actually military.

And while in reality it would have been a man who did most of the talking when meeting with the military officers, it is realistic to have a woman in such a job. Women worked as scientists, mathematicians, and code-breakers during WW2. Carter is often also referred to as an "Agent" (though I haven't seen the film in a long while, so my main frame of reference is her TV show), so I figured she existed outside of the official military structure.

But maybe someone who's better acquainted with the Marvel universe can give more insight.


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 11:06 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums