New Bonnie and Clyde mini series on the History Channel

[Dixon Cannon]

Why so (darned) critical about these kinds of productions? Geez, most people couldn't produce a High School play yet they are armchair critics about professionally produced television and movie dramas! Just enjoy it for what it is or don't watch it at all.... somebody(s) have put a lot of time, expense and talent into creating a little glimpse into the past.... it's just ENTERTAINMENT, for ****** sake. Save your pennies and produce a movie of your own and see how difficult perfection is to accomplish, there Mr. DeMille! I for one plan to enjoy the broadcast and fantasize about what it might have been like back in that era - not expecting a 'Gone With The Wind' or a 'Citizen Kane' - just a budgeted TV piece. Try to do the same, you might find an hour's enjoyment!

-dixon cannon

 

[Zombie_61]

Why so (darned) critical about these kinds of productions?

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, so here's my reasoning.

First, they're making a movie about real people and real events. If it takes just as much time, effort, and money to do it right as it does to do it wrong, why not do it right? Is the story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow as-is really so uninteresting that they feel the need to "jazz it up"? And if it is, then why bother to make a movie about them in the first place if they're so uninteresting? Consider James Cameron's Titanic, for example. 1,517 people died when Titanic sank, but that's apparently not interesting enough--he had to add a completely fictional love story and fictional characters.

Second, and more important, the majority of people who see these movies view them as though they're watching a documentary. They walk out of the theater, or change the channel, thinking they now know everything there is to know about the subject matter. Now, I fully realize movies like this are made for entertainment and are not supposed to be a history lesson, but why can't they be both? People aren't going to watch movies like this if they're not already interested in the subject(s), so why not educate as well as entertain?

As I wrote previously, I'll reserve judgement until after I've seen it, but the trailer that was posted gives me the impression that the people involved in this production aren't overly concerned with facts and/or authenticity.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, so here's my reasoning.

First, they're making a movie about real people and real events. If it takes just as much time, effort, and money to do it right as it does to do it wrong, why not do it right? Is the story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow as-is really so uninteresting that they feel the need to "jazz it up"? And if it is, then why bother to make a movie about them in the first place if they're so uninteresting? Consider James Cameron's Titanic, for example. 1,517 people died when Titanic sank, but that's apparently not interesting enough--he had to add a completely fictional love story and fictional characters.

Second, and more important, the majority of people who see these movies view them as though they're watching a documentary. They walk out of the theater, or change the channel, thinking they now know everything there is to know about the subject matter. Now, I fully realize movies like this are made for entertainment and are not supposed to be a history lesson, but why can't they be both? People aren't going to watch movies like this if they're not already interested in the subject(s), so why not educate as well as entertain?

As I wrote previously, I'll reserve judgement until after I've seen it, but the trailer that was posted gives me the impression that the people involved in this production aren't overly concerned with facts and/or authenticity.

But.... that IS the difference between a documentary and a work of historical fiction..... E.L. Doctorow and 'Ragtime' come to mind. It is "poetic license" applied to drama and is practically the entire output of 'Hollywood' since the inception of motion pictures. It is just entertainment for sale, nothing more. When I want historical accuracy I watch a Ken Burns production, but I don't expect that every TV show or movie is going to be true and accurate in every detail. Like much of popular entertainment today, music included, it's just VAUDEVILLE, man!... a few hours of fantasy for the masses. I know that going in.

-dixon cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Historical Fiction: Historical story presents readers with a story that takes place during a notable period in history, and usually during a significant event in that period. Historical fiction often presents actual events from the point of view of fictional people living in that time period.

In some historical fiction, famous events appear from points of view. Historical figures are also often shown dealing with these events while depicting them in a way that has not been previously recorded. Other times, a historical event is used to complement a story's narrative, occurring in the background while characters deal with situations (personal or otherwise) wholly unrelated to that historical event. Sometimes, the names of people and places have been in some way altered.

As this is fiction, artistic license is permitted in regard to presentation and subject matter, so long as it does not deviate in significant ways from established history. If events should deviate significantly, the story may then fall under the genre of alternate history, which is known for speculating on what could have happened if a significant historical event had occurred differently. On a similar note, events occurring in historical fiction must adhere to the laws of nature.

Though its rise is bound to the new understanding of history in 19th century, the character and the importance of historical fiction is national specific. Hence historical fiction in English differs from German, Canadian, Slovene etc..

"...They demonstrate that history, however disorderly, remains meaningful. History can still enable humanity to know itself and its condition, and in the historical novel, especially the type devoted to recapturing the way it was, history often finds its most legitimate realization." (Cowart, 1989)

-dixon cannon

 

[Zombie_61]

The problem with using Historical Fiction to support your opinion is this: Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were real people who led real lives, and this is what this upcoming miniseries is allegedly recreating. If they wanted to tell a fictional story that was similar to that of Bonnie and Clyde they could just as easily have called it something like "Jimmy and Susie Rob Liquor Stores in the 1930s" and done whatever they wanted to with the story. That, a fictional story in a historical setting, would qualify as Historical Fiction; the story of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow does not.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

I'm into history. I've read several books about the 1930's outlaw era, prohibition, and the mobs etc including at least two on Bonnie and Clyde. Don't ask which ones, I don't have that available, but one was written in the last 5 years or so.

Bonnie and Clyde lead VERY interesting lives, in this case, there is no reason to use poetic license on anything more major than what Bonnie was wearing when the police found them in the motel in Missouri.

Just my $10.00 and might be worth it.

 

[Feraud]

I hope the writers ( John Rice and Joe Batteer ) did their homework and read the fantastic 2010 book Go Down Together: The True, Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde by Jeff Guinn.
That book detailed the crushing poverty of the times Barrow & Parker sprang from. Guinn also discusses the horrible prison system in place at the time which Barrow was subjected to.
While none of this excuses their behavior, it certainly paints a more understanding picture of why these two young people made the bad choices that ended badly. It's a hell of a lot better than claiming so-and-so loved the media attention and/or was pushed into crime by a gal pal.

I'll expect the worst but hope for the best on this one.

 

[RBH]

I do like the way William Hurt looks in this....

 

[Zombie_61]

...Bonnie and Clyde lead VERY interesting lives...

From a historical perspective, yes; I doubt they would have described it that way. lol

...That book detailed the crushing poverty of the times Barrow & Parker sprang from. Guinn also discusses the horrible prison system in place at the time which Barrow was subjected to...

Both of which led to Barrow's "life of crime", from what I've read. Although he held legitimate jobs, near constant harassment from local police meant he couldn't hold those jobs long. And his incarceration in Eastham Prison Farm from 1930 to 1932 was anything but pleasant; fellow inmate Ralph Fults said he watched him "change from a schoolboy to a rattlesnake." Those who knew him after his release have stated his true motive for the subsequent robberies was to amass enough money and weaponry to stage a raid on Eastham Prison Farm to free some of the friends he'd made there, a plan he put into effect in January of 1934 when he and his "associates" freed Raymond Hamilton, Henry Methvin (who would later play a pivotal role in Barrow's and Parker's demise), and a number of other inmates. Although the "raid" was reasonably successful, it led to Federal law enforcement's involvement in the manhunt, including Frank Hamer, and the rest is history.

I do like the way William Hurt looks in this...

He does look more like Frank Hamer than Denver Pyle did in the 1967 movie.

 

[RBH]

Another of William Hurt...

Frank Hamer

This is a good site for info on The Barrow gang.

http://www.babyfacenelsonjournal.com/barrow-revisited.html

 

[Formeruser012523]

I hope the writers ( John Rice and Joe Batteer ) did their homework and read the fantastic 2010 book Go Down Together: The True, Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde by Jeff Guinn.
That book detailed the crushing poverty of the times Barrow & Parker sprang from. Guinn also discusses the horrible prison system in place at the time which Barrow was subjected to.
While none of this excuses their behavior, it certainly paints a more understanding picture of why these two young people made the bad choices that ended badly. It's a hell of a lot better than claiming so-and-so loved the media attention and/or was pushed into crime by a gal pal.

I'll expect the worst but hope for the best on this one.

:eusa_clap

 

[RBH]

I like this photo.

 

[Zombie_61]

...By the way, IMDb.com lists the "release date" as December 2, 2013, so I'd guess we'll start seeing television ads for this some time around mid-November.

Boy, was I off on the timing with this guess. I've been seeing commercials for this miniseries for the last week and, unfortunately, every one looks worse than the last with regards to telling the true story. Some of the footage shown in the ads was clearly filmed only for promotional purposes, but there have also been brief scenes like Bonnie firing a shotgun by Clyde's side. I've seen bad trailers before and, taken out of context, these scenes could be misrepresented, so I'm still reserving judgement until after I've seen it.

 

[Formeruser012523]

I've seen bad trailers before and, taken out of context, these scenes could be misrepresented, so I'm still reserving judgement until after I've seen it.

I won't.

It's gonna be BAD! :eusa_doh:

 

[Zombie_61]

I won't.

It's gonna be BAD! :eusa_doh:

Well, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. But...yeah, I think so.

 

[Effingham]

Thanks for posting that, Rusty.

This tendency of ours to glamorize criminality and gunplay really needs a reality check. I say "ours" because I include myself in that number. I'm fascinated by Prohibition and Depression era gangsters and robbers (and more recent ones), too, just as youngsters these days glorify their swaggering "ganstas." But it's a miserable life, and often a short one. And the characters are usually quite stupid, too. Those rare smart crooks are the ones you never hear about.

Or manage to move on -- like Joe Kennedy.

Why so (darned) critical about these kinds of productions? Geez, most people couldn't produce a High School play yet they are armchair critics about professionally produced television and movie dramas! Just enjoy it for what it is or don't watch it at all.... somebody(s) have put a lot of time, expense and talent into creating a little glimpse into the past.... it's just ENTERTAINMENT, for ****** sake. Save your pennies and produce a movie of your own and see how difficult perfection is to accomplish, there Mr. DeMille! I for one plan to enjoy the broadcast and fantasize about what it might have been like back in that era - not expecting a 'Gone With The Wind' or a 'Citizen Kane' - just a budgeted TV piece. Try to do the same, you might find an hour's enjoyment!

-dixon cannon

You do realize that this is one of the most basic of logic fallacies, right?

One needn't be a master chef to know the brown stuff in the sandwich is kaka, not peanut butter.

 

[flat-top]

[video=youtube;Rjx1-kiWPHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjx1-kiWPHA[/video]

 

[Blackthorn]

I won't.

It's gonna be BAD! :eusa_doh:

Yeah, doesn't look like a quality production. Sadly.

 

[Feraud]

The printed ads I've seen around town look awful.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

One glance at the commercials, with the pretty-boy actor as Clyde Barrow and the actress playing Bonnie Parker looking like a photo ad on a cosmetic counter in a department store, told me that I would skip this, no, give this a wide berth.

The actual subject were, well, to call them "plain" or "homely" would be generous. I think the casting director could have easily found talented, ordinary-looking actors for the roles, but the choice of these two immediately shouted "extra cheesy" to me.