I praise Peter Watkins and his crew for creating the film Culloden, but I found it hard to take seriously, try as I might. Although the subject matter was serious and valid for a docudrama, I felt that the way in which it was portrayed was lacking a solid base - a base that would allow the film to be looked at objectively. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it - of course I did! But then I wonder, did the director want the film to be 'taken seriously' or was it a historically driven farce?
Whomever designed the look of the film - i.e. costumes - did a wonderful job with really researching the different clans and nobility, how each clans' attire differed from one another's - that really was a big part of the historical aspect of it. The makeup and hair were also really well done - very realistic from my point of view.
The individuals that were 'interviewed' on the battlefield were fantastic - I would love to learn more about their involvement in the film...were they local actors? Did they improv a lot? Their performances were really a highlight of the film, and their honesty when answering questions (When did you last eat? sleep?) was funny and refreshing. Well done on the casting. Culloden, as an entertaining film, receives high marks from me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also enjoyed Culloden, and much like you stated, I had a little trouble trying to take it seriously. The film does a good job at recreating the events, but the entire idea of a documentary style film about events in the far past just takes me out of it. At some points, Culloden almost felt like a comedy which I think hurts its purpose. Also, by faking something like that, all the genuine responses are immediately discredited. For example- the part where the clan member is asked "when did you eat last?" and he just stares at the camera. A response like that in an actual documentary would have been much more powerful, but in Culloden it feels contrived. Kudos to Peter Watkins for creating a nice hybrid film of recreation and documentary, but I think the premise is too complex to make a strong point.
I really like your question if Culloden was meant to be taken seriously or if it were a historically driven farce. One thing in the film that raised a similar question for me was the conituous side line commenting by some sort of war expert just off the battle field looking through a small telescope to watch and relay information to us. I couldn't help but think of a sports announcer by the way he was talking and it kind of tainted other parts of the film for me.
Post a Comment