MovieChat Forums > The Woman King (2022) Discussion > Spot on review of this historically inac...

Spot on review of this historically inaccurate “feminist fantasy”

posted 2 years ago by jk90us (7341)
13 replies | jump to latest

“To portray Dahomey as a kingdom of freedom fighters would be akin to producing a movie about the Confederacy as an anti-slavery republic, starring Robert E. Lee as the primary abolitionist.”

They should have just admitted up front that this is an alternate universe feminist historical fantasy instead of passing it off as true. But they knew no one would see it if they did.

https://reason.com/2022/09/30/the-woman-king-rewrites-history-for-a-feminist-twist-on-the-slave-trade/

[–] Keelai (34972) 2 years ago

If you want history, read a book. A movie is to entertain.

[–] jk90us (7341) 2 years ago

Not it’s based on actual history.

[–] Keelai (34972) 2 years ago

Very loosely based. It's obvious that you didn't see the movie.

[–] Darren (1344) 2 years ago

Nope. That's a cop out.

A movie is to entertain, yes. But when it is based on something historical, they shouldn't distort history out of any recognizable resemblance to recorded fact, and it damn well should not make a bunch of slavers the heroes, which is precisely what they did here.

[–] Keelai (34972) 2 years ago

You're talking nonsense. It's obvious that you didn't see the movie and only want to criticize a rare movie made by black women.

[–] Darren (1344) 2 years ago

Horse crap. The kingdom of Dahomey is presented in this film as being a heroic fighter against slavery, when in fact it was one of the chief enslavers of other Africans, who were then kept as slaves within the kingdom of Dahomey, or sold on to European and Middle Eastern slave traders. That is rewriting history and no amount of denial on your part will change this. This is a movie which makes some of the worst people on earth -- people who kidnapped other people, stole their lives and liberty from them, and condemned an existence of suffering in bondage -- into the heroes.

That is the very worst kind of historical revisionism, and it's done entirely in the service of some leftist, girl-boss fantasy version of history. I don't give a rat's ass if it's a film made by a black woman, or an orange one with pink polka dots. It still makes bad guys into heroes, and that should not happen. Period.

[–] Keelai (34972) 2 years ago

"The kingdom of Dahomey is presented in this film as being a heroic fighter against slavery"

Nope! You're completely clueless about the movie's story and plot as well as Dahomey's history. It's obvious that you didn't see the movie and your only motivation is racism and misogyny.

YOU are the bad guy!!!

[–] Darren (1344) 2 years ago

And you are a stupid troll. I'm not going to argue with a moron who is simply wrong on his facts.

You have,/i> to know you're wrong, so I think you must be a troll. What's the appeal of trolling? Honestly. How is it fun to make complete strangers think you're an utter moron? I don't get it.

[–] Keelai (34972) 2 years ago

You didn't see the movie, therefore you have no facts. I watched the film twice.

You're the troll since you're criticizing a movie you haven't watched and completely clueless about it.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

A movie is to entertain, yes. But when it is based on something historical, they shouldn't distort history out of any recognizable resemblance to recorded fact

Plenty of films do this. It's fine.

[–] Darren (1344) 2 years ago

No. It's not fine. It's not any remotely resemblance to fine. It's dishonest -- i.e. immoral. As the quote from "A Man for All Seasons" goes "a practice may be common and remain an offense."

Historical movies should at least try for an modicum of accuracy. A certain degree of looseness is acceptable; a total inversion of facts is not. It's really not. When you make a kingdom of slavers the hero in an anti-slavery story, it really is as though you are making a movie of an abolitionist Confederate States, or a philo-semitic Nazi Germany. This isn't bending history; it's inverting it. It is lying. Not stretching the truth. Not exaggerating. Not putting an positive spin on something. That is outright lying. That is NOT okay.

That's just not on. If you want to tell a totally fictional story, at least have the honesty, the decency, to present it for what it is:total fiction. Don't try to dress it up with a facade of historical legitimacy that it absolutely does not deserve.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

acidraindrop,

What about when a movie like Song of the South distorts history? Is it fine for all films that do this or just the ones that distort history in a political correct direction?

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

Keelai,

What about a movie like Song of the South? Is it okay for a movie like that to entertain? Or is historical inaccuracy only okay for politically correct movies?