![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quite a few of the British reviews of March of the Penguins have commented on the "overly sentimental" narration and said, more or less, "trust the Yanks to tack that on".
What they don't appear to know is that the original French narration had actors as the "voices" of the penguins, and by all accounts was even more sentimental and anthropomorphised than the American one!
But of course, it was the Americans who had to tack on a sentimental narration; could never have been the French....
What they don't appear to know is that the original French narration had actors as the "voices" of the penguins, and by all accounts was even more sentimental and anthropomorphised than the American one!
But of course, it was the Americans who had to tack on a sentimental narration; could never have been the French....
(no subject)
The British may be a down-on-its-luck ex-imperial nation, but we are still Gods of the Wildlife Documentary, and we will brook no foolishness in this, our last bastion of world supremacy!
(no subject)
Eg this quote from Saturday's Guardian:
"The March Of The Penguins is a re-edited, rescripted, rescored, re-imagined Americanisation of a film shot in Antarctica by Frenchmen who might not have stayed at the south pole for 13 brutal months if they knew what lay in store for their footage once Hollywood got its hands onto it."
(no subject)
Have you considered that the Guardian piece is in no way inaccurate about the American version, and if there's an assumption that the Guardian is making here, it is not that America ruins things, but that the French film industry can do no wrong, an assumption that the Guardian is often guilty of making.
In addition, your quote from the Guardian completely fails to support your argument. "Hollywood" is not "America"; the Guardian is consistently full of praise for American independant filmmaking, and you can't say that this is anti-American unless you are being so blindly patriotic that you believe any criticism of any American corporate institution is a criticism of the country.
I would also point out that if a collection of Frenchmen spend 13 months in Antarctica filming penguins, they are arguably within their rights to write a script that reflects that experience. If their experience was that they identified with the penguins, and ascribed them names, personalities and motivations, then that probably makes them poor naturalists, but that is the experience being committed to celluloid. Less convincing is the right of a Johnny-come-lately film producer (of whatever nationality) to "re-imagine" the thing on the basis of having simply watched the footage. The original team lived the experience, and have something to relate; not so the late-coming film producer.
(no subject)
(no subject)
2. "Trust the Frenchies to tack on the overly sentimental narration" is just as likely were they to review the French version.
And of course, we conveniently forget Johnny Morris & "Animal Magic". :)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Of course, if the film is aimed at an overly sentimental market, it's entirely legitimate to stick some overly sentimental narration in there. Does anyone think these things are really still for educational purposes rather than making money?
Also, don't expect a critic to like anything. That's not their job.