Comments on: Ship Fever

By: Steve (Bookworm hubby)

Steve (Bookworm hubby) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:54:25 +0000

I can think of earlier movies that had a very ‘real’ feel to them–

Blackrobe [1991]
(http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/dvds/blackrobe.htm)

but also–in the 70s?–seems like there were a ton with a ‘real’ feel (though I’d say their production values were not as high as what we expect now):

(Revolution [1985] –oops! I thought this was a 1970s movie ’til I looked it up. )

Barry Lyndon [1975]
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/)

M*A*S*H [1970]
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066026/)

I can’t say I’ve watched either of the latter two with this particular aspect in mind, but I’ve heard M*A*S*H was a ‘break through’ movie in this respect–it used natural lighting, and treated sound in a certain way (allowed a mix of sounds? less folio work? or maybe more folio-produced sound?)

I also think of the Merchant-Ivory films (first one I’m aware of ‘A Room with a View’ but they had earlier movies) as rich in period-authenticity and so, historically accurate.

My list is pretty random–just whatever I remember.
Do these spark memories of earlier movies for others?

By: Julie

Julie — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:35:35 +0000

Steve, I just googled her. She studied both biology and history before she ever thought of writing fiction! Also I learned that Voyage of the Narwhal came after Ship Fever.

Would you say the production values of historical movies have increased more than the production values of other kinds of movies? My first thought was that production values are higher because of improved technology, CGI, etc. I have noticed in recent years — and I think it’s a wonderful thing — that movies are much closer to the books they’re based on. Maybe it started with Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter (which came first, I can’t even remember). Before CGI there’s no way they could have made those movies so true to the books.

By: Steve (Bookworm hubby)

Steve (Bookworm hubby) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:00:14 +0000

I wonder about the science focus of the stories. Given the other work you mention, I’m guessing Barrett had some sort of interest in science of that era before starting this particular work (assuming this was written after ‘Voyage’)–but at some point she must have started a first story or book, and I wonder if she did so for the sake of the writing or the science? How would a person well-versed in the history of 1800s-era science write, as opposed to someone with an idea for story, who then studies 1800s-era science so as to accurately tell that story? Seems like the former might write so as to convey the science, while that latter would use the science to support the story/plot.

As a history-buff, I’m happy either way.

A (possibly) related question–why are movies made in the last few decades so much more historically accurate than those of earlier eras? What led to the higher production values? Did that come from better/more accurate history being available–or did presenting the context of a story more accurately somehow serve to the writer(s)/director(s) purpose in telling the story of a movie?

Seems like history is very ‘in’, nowadays. (But maybe someone ought to look into that–see how ‘in’ it was in the past… :-)

—Steve