you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]marmorsymphata 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Society in general is far too sex obsessed. Why the great need to pick apart Anning's sex life? Why is it so vitally important that every facet of fiction involves romance or sexuality? Like what is the goal here?

The most respectful way is not to make shit up at all. People should be allowed to be uninterested in romance or to keep their romantic life private. People have got to learn how to keep their preoccupations out of biographical work. Maybe the director can fool himself into thinking he's being altruistic, but what has that got to do with Mary Anning? Why use her life as a soapbox?

I decided not to pursue a relationship in my teenage years because I wanted to work on myself first, and didn't want to become someone else's fixer-upper because of my mental illness. Now that I am approaching 30, I've realized the drive has mostly left me. Maybe I'll meet someone, maybe I won't. It doesn't really matter to me anymore. Some people are just like this and the need to pick them apart for it shows just how oversexxed people are. They can't find a stranger's sex life and their only reaction is "this needs to be fixed"

[–]just_lesbian_things 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The most respectful way is not to make shit up at all.

Are you against all historical fiction? Are there no respectful ways of portraying a historical or contemporary figure in film? This isn't a documentary. The filmmaker is going to take some liberties.

[–]panderichthys 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Historical fiction is not the same as a biography. Obviously an original work set in the same historical period would be all right, but this isn't that. If you're going to make shit up about your historical figure anyway, why bother? Just use your imagination. And I completely agree that Anning's romantic proclivities are no one's business until and unless someone somehow discovers a lost manuscript or what-have-you detailing every sexual interaction of hers. Which is very unlikely to say the least as she had a life and career beyond all that.

[–]just_lesbian_things 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you're going to make shit up about your historical figure anyway, why bother?

Historical figure probably captured someone's imagination? Historical drama has been a staple of human story telling since there were stories. The Iliad, Antony and Cleopatra, Three Kingdoms, all contain re-imagination of historical figures. Hollywood regularly churn out hits based on real people- The Social Network, Twelve Years a Slave, American Sniper, Imitation Game. Do you hate all works of fiction based on real people? Or do you only take issue with this example as you find it egregious and distasteful? Because I'd like to remind you that Xuanzang the monk was given a magical monkey sidekick in Journey to the West, King Odysseus got raped by a magical nymph in the Odyssey, and King Richard III ordered his nephews' assassination in Richard III.

[–]panderichthys 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Now that you brought it up, it's really not the fantastical elements that bother me, just the fact that we can't leave real people well enough alone. So in answer to your question, no, I do not take issue only with Ammonite. But people will be people. I can hardly confront Homer and Shakespeare about their livelihoods, and even if I could, they would rightly tell me to fuck off.

[–]just_lesbian_things 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd argue that lots of people go great lengths to be remembered, and that it's generally considered a great honor if people are telling stories about you long after your death, even if they're taking some liberties with the details.