|
Post by roverpup on Jul 22, 2019 15:24:10 GMT
Well, IMO there is a large amount of revisionist history going on when it comes to Edison vs. Tesla. And just like it is so popular today some people seem to bent on tearing down someone just to build another person up. So Edison is the chosen one to get trashed because the new hero has been designated to be Tesla now.
Unfortunately no one seems to believe in looking fairly at BOTH men for their strengths and fairly looking at BOTH of them when it comes to their foibles.
In about a week Dan and I will be going to Dearborn MI to the Henry Ford museum of Innovation which features exhibits centred around the actual Menlo Park lab of Edison (which Ford had transported to Dearborn). I have been aware of Edison's story all my life (I live just across the river from his childhood home, from the age of 7, of Port Huron MI). He was a fascinating, complicated man who definitely is worthy of people's interest and study in artistic endeavors like this film. Doesn't mean Tesla should be ignored but at the same time I don't think Edison needs to be relegated to the trash heap as some seem want to do, either. Both deserve examination and appreciation IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jul 22, 2019 16:33:15 GMT
I’ve mentioned this before, I know. In the city where I live, Westinghouse is very well-known! In 1897, he opened his first factory outside of the US here. The factory originally built air brakes for the rail system, but in later years they built stoves, fridges and washing machines. During each war, they produced guns and ammunition. At its peak in 1955, they employed 11,000 people!
Tesla is also quite popular here, and a street has been re-named after him in the industrial part of the city.
Edison, though, was someone we learned about in our history books at school. And I will always associate his name with my mother’s sewing machine! When we came to Canada from Italy, my mother brought along her pedal-operated Edison sewing machine. It sits in a fancy wooden cabinet. Eventually, she replaced it with a modern electric machine, but she still has the old Edison.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Jul 22, 2019 21:52:13 GMT
He was a fascinating, complicated man who definitely is worthy of people's interest and study in artistic endeavors like this film. Doesn't mean Tesla should be ignored but at the same time I don't think Edison needs to be relegated to the trash heap as some seem want to do, either. Both deserve examination and appreciation IMO. Well, Edison is certainly not portrayed as the trash heap, even if the script doesn't give B. the chance to show all sides of his complicated character. Edison as the "family man", especially, is rather one dimensional here. The problem lies more with Westinghouse, I think, he is just not enough fascinating character (although played very well in the film) to be a fair rival of Edison on the screen. Making Tesla more prominent character would give the plot better dynamics, IMO. As I said, the film is "Inspired by" not "based on" real facts, so I was not looking for documentary value.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jul 25, 2019 13:09:29 GMT
There are a few new reviews out there but they aren't very different to the originals so I won't post them (also I'm kind of busy!) It seems the changes weren't enough to change the mind of critics.
The only thing I don't agreed it's something I read in two reviews about BC that I know it's not true (also show how modern film critics are lazy and/or the tall poppy syndrome in UK journalists is really strong: "both actors are great but the American is better because he is going against type"), yes, BC has played a lot of scientists or intellectuals with no social skills but the actual performances are actually very different! His Sherlock is almost a fantasy character played in a bombastic manner that goes from supernatural stillness to the quick and graceful movements of a ballet dancer. Also he speaks quick in a purposeful irreal way; In Parades End, a character that was compared with Sherlock because is called "the smartest man in London", he is slow almost heavy looking in his movements (even when the actor is thin) and talks with a very arcaic posh accent; his Alan Turing moves awkwardly, look people mostly to the shoes and talks with a very subtle realistic stutter. Yes, they sound alike on paper but they aren't played in the same way!
Now I don't have anything on actors who always gave the same performances. Having a defined personality it's actually in cinema acting genes. From classic Hollywood stars to a good number of French new wave icons without mentioning the "real people" playing themselves in naturalistic films. But BC is a theatrical trained actor and it shows! He isn't doing the same thing even if the description of the character sounds similar on paper! If you will compare performances at least don't be lazy and watch and put attention to them!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Jul 25, 2019 13:22:15 GMT
God, sgev, I totally agree! I wish they would study the performances more carefully. Beyond the superficial “smart, awkward,” descriptions, each characterization is a completely different, fully realized person. It’s actually a testament to BC’s acting that he can inhabit the same “genre” of character with such astoundingly different results.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jul 25, 2019 13:49:46 GMT
And again nothing bad with giving the same performance all the time! The idea that just transformative performances are valuable is actually very anti-cinema and shows a total ignorance of film history. Something big considering it's professionals saying it!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jul 25, 2019 15:19:41 GMT
Benedict isn’t playing a good guy here, and that’s a change for him. I know that Khan was supposed to be a villain, but he was also sympathetic because he believed he was right and set out to destroy someone even worse. Maybe Benedict himself is too likeable to be believable as a bad guy. Edison is portrayed as a scheming businessman who is wrong, and lies and charms his way to success.
The common complaints about the movie seem to be that the women don’t have big enough roles, there isn’t enough Tesla or Spider-Man, and the subject matter doesn’t interest them. At least no one has complained about Benedict’s American accent this time!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jul 25, 2019 22:38:55 GMT
Why would anyone bitch about going to a movie whose subject matter didn't appeal to them? I mean, if you go to a movie that is about something you don't care about, isn't it kind of a given you aren't going to like it?? You'd think it would only be noteworthy if you DID like it! Unless of course you HAD to go to that particular movie (like you were a professional critic). I don't go to movies that I don't have at least some interest in.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jul 25, 2019 23:43:33 GMT
Benedict isn’t playing a good guy here, and that’s a change for him. I know that Khan was supposed to be a villain, but he was also sympathetic because he believed he was right and set out to destroy someone even worse. Maybe Benedict himself is too likeable to be believable as a bad guy. Edison is portrayed as a scheming businessman who is wrong, and lies and charms his way to success. The common complaints about the movie seem to be that the women don’t have big enough roles, there isn’t enough Tesla or Spider-Man, and the subject matter doesn’t interest them. At least no one has complained about Benedict’s American accent this time! One critic did say BC’s accent “needed work.” I don’t know because a) I haven’t seen the film and b) I’m not from the US so not in a position to judge. In general though I don’t think accents are a particular forte of BCs. But he gets by. 😀
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jul 25, 2019 23:58:01 GMT
Ha! Poor Benedict can’t even voice a character that no one alive today ever heard speaking! Usually, though, the critics just want him using his own (gorgeous) English accent. But then when he does, they compare him to Sherlock.
|
|