From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #196 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, July 18 2000 Volume 09 : Number 196 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: every time he goes away [Eb ] [none] [rand ] Re: and now, we're talking about... [Michael R Godwin ] Re: shopping spree!!! [Michael R Godwin ] RE: and now, we're talking about... ["Brian Huddell" ] Re: kitty comment [Michael R Godwin ] I wish I liked it [" Brian Hoare" ] Re: and now, we're talking about... [steve ] Re: and now, we're talking about... [Christopher Gross ] Soft Boys (big news!) [Bayard ] Re: I wish I liked it [plpalmer@ix.netcom.com] Anglio! Twoje dzielo! [Christopher Gross ] Re: shopping spree!!! [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: shopping spree!!! ["elizabeth " ] even more disgruntled than Eb! [Natalie Jacobs ] The Crow ["Randy R." ] Re: Anglio! Twoje dzielo! [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Soft Boys (big news!) [Vivien Lyon ] Re: and now, we're talking about... [Bayard ] Glass Fish [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Soft Boys (big news!) [Jason Thornton ] Re: and now, we're talking about... ["JH3" ] Re: and now, we're talking about... [Christopher Gross Subject: Re: every time he goes away >so Ian Curtis will not be taking the time to kick his miserable ass for >what he did to "love will tear us apart," i take it. I'm still getting over what *Ian Curtis* did to it, myself.... Eb http://www.citymorguegiftshop.com/shopping/5.htm ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 2000 05:12:01 -0400 From: rand Subject: [none] Bonjourno, I'm sure I spelled that wrong ... sorry 8-} I have posts coming about Quebec and Hear Music ... for those of you care ;-) But right now I need some info for my super-special Robyn surprise ... Does anyone have "Driving Aloud" - with "allright yeah" - cd in a gatefold picture sleeve ...? And / or "Driving Aloud" - single track cd in a different picture sleeve ...? As seen at: .................................................. http://www.robynhitchcock.com/promodiscography.htm .................................................. I'm also searching for "live death," for a veeeeeeeeeeeeery special reason - you can loan them to me and I'll send them back a.s.a.p. more to come from nick winkworth's studio room ... havin' fun while nick's away ;-P ... what scares you most will set you free, randi *having been a devout fan of various people myself ... i've probably produced similarly 'enshrinable' music. ... but i don't think this is a healthy thing ... people who idolize musicians are trying to stop up a black hole with band-aids* ~ robyn hitchcock _____________________________________________________________ please ... do not --> ________________________________________________________________________ - --> get your free, private gURLmail account at http://www.gURLmail.com !! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:53:20 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 digja611@student.otago.ac.nz wrote: > >Hey....my Scottish relatives were poachers. Buckalew (Buchleuch in its > >native, I think?) means "Vally of the Deer" in Scottish supposedly. > Buccleugh, probably. There is a Buccleugh Street here in Dunedin (which was > originally settled by the Scottish Presbyterian church, hence all the > Scottish place-names. Well, the LMS Pacific 'Duchess of Buccleuch' spelt it with three Cs (four if you count the one in 'Duchess'). I guess that this is one of those 'Loch' / 'Lough'-type alternatives. - - Mike Godwin PS A lot of angry stuff in the UK papers last w/e concerning the anti-British tone of the new Mel Gibson film. The German director apparently thought it would be a keen idea to use Nazi atrocities and pretend that the British did the same things 200 years earlier (maybe he has some evidence, but I doubt it). The US ambassador to London has been making regretting-type noises and Spike Lee said he thought the film was offensive to Brits. Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:00:31 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: shopping spree!!! On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Eleanore Adams wrote: > Now I know about all of these items except Travis. I hear it is good > brit pop (and they are a one name band, which tends to be a little > reliable for some reason) Do any of you have this CD????????Have not put > it on yet....... Yes, I've got it. Travis are young, Scottish, tuneful and just slightly fey. 'Driftwood' is my favourite song of the last XX years. Medium tempos and fairly high voices, and they come over as quite sincere. Imagine the New York Dolls and then think of the reverse. Buy it and tell me what you think... - - Mike Godwin PS The last decent song I heard before it was a Marc Cohn thing about a picnic or something that I heard once on the radio - can anyone enlighten me? A bit in the Rick Nelson 'Garden Party' vein. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:04:19 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: and now, we're talking about... > Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone > coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? Two words: "Spice World". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:15:23 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Rock mega-news Sorry to send a third post in rapid succession, but I have just received this rock mega-news: WOMBLES ON PARADE: Composer Mike Batt has been asked to assemble a Wombles guard of honour for the Queen Mother's 100th birthday celebrations. http://ananova.com/go/34136 As long as they play 'Remember you're a womble', I don't really care whether they include 'Wombling Merry Christmas' or 'The Wombling Song'. - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:31:43 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: kitty comment > --- Michael R Godwin wrote: > > There was a totally horrific programme on langur monkeys in Jodhpur(?) > > where a gang of disaffected males hung out in the back streets On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > Do you literally mean "streets" and "wall"? Are these city monkeys? > Yipes! Yup, the most amusing part of the programme was when they decided to hit the vegetable market. While the stallholder was chasing one monkey, three or four others grabbed as many bananas etc as they could hold, then they headed for the rooftops, leaving the traders thoroughly exasperated. - - Mike "no more posts today please" Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 06:36:43 -0700 From: " Brian Hoare" Subject: I wish I liked it Is it just me or is "I wish I liked you" just a really bad track. There are thankfully few RH tracks that I actively dislike and these are mostly at the end of albums (eg Blues in A) or bunched up on GD and so can be avoided. But this is sitting there in the middle of an otherwise decent album. Can anyone give me guidance on how to approach this song to find less ugly. Brian - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:52:39 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... Michael R Godwin: >PS A lot of angry stuff in the UK papers last w/e concerning the >anti-British tone of the new Mel Gibson film. The German director >apparently thought it would be a keen idea to use Nazi atrocities and >pretend that the British did the same things 200 years earlier (maybe he >has some evidence, but I doubt it). The US ambassador to London has been >making regretting-type noises and Spike Lee said he thought the film was >offensive to Brits. Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone >coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? Look, it's the ID4 guys that made it - you can't expect anything that might resemble a good screenplay. They needed a reason that Mel would go all Last Of The Mohicans and a character that he could go one-on-one with at the end of the film. It's about making money, not doing History. There's a reason one wag called the film Lethal Hatchet. So, I don't think there's anything anti-Brit going on, but I'm open to being corrected. - - Steve __________ Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut And Buddah, he's no fool Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:33:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Michael R Godwin wrote: > PS A lot of angry stuff in the UK papers last w/e concerning the > anti-British tone of the new Mel Gibson film. [snip] > Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone > coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? I haven't noticed this as a general phenomenon. (U-666, or whatever it was called, did show Americans doing something actually done by the Brits, but it wasn't otherwise anti-British.) Personally, I blame the Oscars. Since the last historically inaccurate anti-English Mel Gibson vehicle did so well, naturally Hollywood was eager to do another. Come to us, comrade, in the collective farm! (I love those posters.) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:08:39 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: The Limey Mike Godwin writes, >PS A lot of angry stuff in the UK papers last w/e concerning the >anti-British tone of the new Mel Gibson film. Well . . . I mean, it *was* about the Revolutionary War. I mean, it's not really going to be pro-British, is it? Of course, I realize that a better film will tend to humanize the enemy -- such as "Saving Private Ryan," "Stalingrad," etc., but "The Patriot" was hardly in that league. Though I do think there was a really good movie buried under a sickening amount of cliches and terrible dialogue. I mean, the whole massacre in the woods -- that was a very powerful sequence. (Please note: I thought "The Patriot" was TERRIBLE at times, especially the entire second half. I am not defending it!) >The German director >apparently thought it would be a keen idea to use Nazi atrocities and >pretend that the British did the same things 200 years earlier (maybe he >has some evidence, but I doubt it). That's a bit of an exaggeration -- I don't recall seeing any death camps. The Nazis do not have a monopoly on atrocities, and the British have a fair scorecard of their own. As do the Americans, both colonial and post-Revolution. And, actually, part of what I did like about the film is that Mel Gibson's character took part in a horrifying revenge-motivated atrocity as part of the back-story. But the fact is, that evil British fellow in the movie is loosely based on amalgamated fact, and there *were* commanders that shot enemy wounded, and burned down plantations and such. It was war, after all. One of my favorite lines in the movie was by Cornwallis, when he told Evil Guy to go easy, as after the war they would have to have commerce with the Americans. I only wish the rest of the film could have been as well-versed in realpolitik. >The US ambassador to London has been >making regretting-type noises and Spike Lee said he thought the film was >offensive to Brits. Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone >coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? Yeah, I have noticed that too -- but then again, the British have committed quite a few atrocities against the Scottish and the Irish, and we Americans tend to naturally sympathize with the Celts -- and it makes better action pictures than "Howard's End." That being said, I don't think there's a conspiracy, per se. It's just the windfall of colonialism. Makes me wonder what kind of blockbusters American Indians would make.... - --The Great "Next thing you'll tell me is that 'Gladiator' wasn't accurate" Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:15:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Soft Boys (big news!) Some news from Robyn via a reliable source: ___ Some news that is better going to the list from you rather than me! Soft Boys to tour Britain in Feb 2001 and America in March. Underwater Moonlight to be reissued on Editions PAF! early 2001 to coincide with this. RH also didn't rule out the idea of new material...but said he wanted them to get the Underwater Moonlight stuff right first. Apparently they've had one rehearsal so far that went pretty well, but Morris isn't used to drumming that hard, and has gone away to build up his strength! _____ Finally! I look forward to it - and this should be announced on robynhitchcock.com soon too. =b np: RH, 'pink moon' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:43:45 -0700 From: plpalmer@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: I wish I liked it Listen to the live version from Largo 2-19-00 and it might change your mind. Peter Brian Hoare wrote: > Is it just me or is "I wish I liked you" just > a really bad track. There are thankfully few > RH tracks that I actively dislike and these are > mostly at the end of albums (eg Blues in A) or > bunched up on GD and so can be avoided. > But this is sitting there in the middle of an > otherwise decent album. > > Can anyone give me guidance on how to approach > this song to find less ugly. > > Brian > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Anglio! Twoje dzielo! On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > That's a bit of an exaggeration -- I don't recall seeing any death > camps. The Nazis do not have a monopoly on atrocities, and the > British have a fair scorecard of their own. As do the Americans, both > colonial and post-Revolution. And, actually, part of what I did like > about the film is that Mel Gibson's character took part in a > horrifying revenge-motivated atrocity as part of the back-story. But > the fact is, that evil British fellow in the movie is loosely based > on amalgamated fact, and there *were* commanders that shot enemy > wounded, and burned down plantations and such. It was war, after all. True, there were real atrocities, but the movie *still* managed to exaggerate. (Disclaimer: I haven't seen it yet and am basing all this on reviews. Plus, I'm not as omniscient as I sometimes pretend.) For example, the murder of the entire population of a village did not happen in the Brit vs. Colonist struggle (though it did happen in the white vs. Indian struggle). And the *way* the village was wiped out, with the men being shot and the women and children burned alive in a church, paralleled the real-life Nazi massacre of the Czech village of Lidice during World War II. This is probably the source of the Nazi comparison. Meanwhile, the political issues behind the American revolution are completely ignored. I guess Hollywood figures a true American patriot fights for blood revenge, not representative government or national self determination, let alone anything as wimpy as freedom. The Patriot makes an interesting comparison to Michael Collins, another Brit-bashing film that refused to humanize the enemy, but also refused to go the easy route of attributing any wholly fictional crimes to them. - --Chris "What the October Revolution has given to the workers and peasants" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:24:02 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: shopping spree!!! But isn't Hear Music owned by Starbucks? Nice environment, generally hip and friendly employees, good recommendations, sometimes a little pricey. I was sad to see the Portland store fall by the wayside, but it was a terrible location (right neighborhood for them, but just off the beaten path). I was just at the one in Santa Monica a couple of days ago! Cool people there. Made one employee grumpy by not buying any of the discs I listened to, but jotting down the names in my notebook (hoping to either find them used during my record store tour of L.A. or figuring I'd buy them from an indie store upon my return to Portland, which is what I'll now have to do (damn! I was just *positive* I'd find a used promo copy of the new Neko Case somewhere, too!)). At any rate, I just wanted to defend Hear Music as a nice store and also vilify them as being associated with a corporate monster :-) - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:49:33 -0400 From: "elizabeth " Subject: Re: shopping spree!!! - ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Reply-To: MARKEEFE@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:24:02 EDT > But isn't Hear Music owned by Starbucks? Well, they weren't when I worked there (up to last year), nor had they been before then. The company was owned by an individual and wasn't affiliated with anything else. I suppose they could have sold out by now, but frankly, I have a hard time picturing it. - -- Elizabeth ************ listen to SmartToons Radio at http://www.fringehead.com/smarttoons - -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:41:22 -0700 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: even more disgruntled than Eb! I got this review off Wilson & Alroy's site (www.warr.org) - quite a good and comprehensive archive of reviews, though I think this particular one is a little harsh. (I do agree with some of the points, however.) **1/2 Robyn Hitchcock & Grant Lee Phillips, West Hollywood, 20 June 2000 A frustrating exercise in artistic generosity and pseudo-authenticity, Hitchcock's mostly-acoustic, stripped-down tour isn't going to win him any new fans. Despite having a quarter-century of prolific songwriting under his belt, he chose to play hardly any of his best stuff. Instead, he (a) pushed weak material from his new solo album - a mediocre love song ("I Feel Beautiful"), a flippant satire ("Gene Hackman"), par-for-the-course nonsense ("Antwoman"; "Mexican God"); (b) left out his better new tunes ("Jewels For Sophia"; "The Cheese Alarm"; "No, I Don't Remember Guildford"); (c) ended the set with a long series of jokey covers - a dull "Across The Universe," and solid but tongue-in-cheek recreations of "Sound And Vision/Ashes To Ashes" (the excuse for some silly Bowie-style posturing), "Satellite Of Love," "All The Young Dudes ," and even the Everly's super-sweet "All I Have To Do Is Dream"; and (d) alternated tunes with singing partner du jour Grant Lee Phillips. Maybe Hitchcock is just wowed by Phillips' immense vocal range, over-the-top, extroverted stage patter, and substantial commercial and critical success. But the guy is a total drag; his tiresome stage-hog antics contrast bizarrely with his dreary, melodramatic, unintelligibly enunciated country-folk balladry. Hitchcock's stream of neo-Zen nonsense was crystal clear by comparison. It's all a damn shame, because his vocal and instrumental performances were fine, the few old numbers were rousing ("Queen Elvis"; "Birds In Perspex"; "Trams Of Old London"), and sidekick pianist Jon Brion added some interest ("All The Young Dudes"). With no rhythm section, no opening act, and such a thin set, this was on the verge of being a $15 ripoff. (JA) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:27:13 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: The Crow From: The Great Quail > Yeah, I have noticed that too -- but then again, the British have > committed quite a few atrocities against the Scottish and the Irish, > and we Americans tend to naturally sympathize with the Celts -- and > it makes better action pictures than "Howard's End." That being said, > I don't think there's a conspiracy, per se. It's just the windfall of > colonialism. Makes me wonder what kind of blockbusters American > Indians would make.... There have been a couple of feeble attempts, such as "Squanto-A Warriors Tale" and another one about Crazy Horse. It's a nearly impossible feat. *White* America would rather forget about the past and continue building condos rather than saying, "you know what honey? Lets go to a movie and watch evil Europeans slaughtering entire villages of Indians, and then we'll have a barbacue for the kids!" I don't groove on those types of movies either. I dig more contemporary flicks like Sherman Alexies "Smoke Signals" and the awesome road movie, "Pow Wow Highway". Both are highly recommended by the token Injun in the feg community, "Vince". Strangely enough, I love tales of revenge in movies. But when it becomes too political I seem to tune out. Best Revenge movie I'd seen. "The Crow". Vince ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:19:11 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Anglio! Twoje dzielo! On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > True, there were real atrocities, but the movie *still* managed to > exaggerate. [omniscience disclaimer snipped here] > For example, the murder of the entire population of a village did not > happen in the Brit vs. Colonist struggle (though it did happen in the > white vs. Indian struggle). And the *way* the village was wiped out, > with the men being shot and the women and children burned alive in a > church, paralleled the real-life Nazi massacre of the Czech village of > Lidice during World War II. This is probably the source of the Nazi > comparison. Yes, this was the incident I was referring to. And apparently the general to whom the film attributes most of the atrocities was a well-liked MP for Liverpool with an extremely silly name (can't remember it, though - it was one of those Bastable K Freebody sort of names). - - Mike "Mahatma Kane Jeeves" Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Re: Soft Boys (big news!) - --- Bayard wrote: > Some news that is better going to the list from you rather > than me! Soft > Boys to tour Britain in Feb 2001 and America in March. > Underwater Moonlight > to be reissued on Editions PAF! early 2001 to coincide with > this. Right on! Oh man! Hot damn! Hot dog! Natalie and I no longer have to form a Soft Boys cover band (Vyrna Knowl and the Headbangers) in order to hear the songs live! This leaves only our Elvis Costello cover band (Shabby Doll) to concentrate on. Oh yes, and our XTC cover band (Brainiac's Daughter). Not to mention our Neutral Milk Hotel cover band (Two-Headed Girl) and our Minders cover band (Chatty Patty). Vivien __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... at the end of u-571, on-screen text gave the details of two british missions to aquire the Enigma devices, and one american mission (i don'tknow/don't think the film expressly depicted any one real mission) i'm not disputing that it is, but how was _braveheart_ innacurate, aside from glorifying wallace more than he perhaps deserved (reports are he was not as noble a savage as he was portrayed) =b "man those german destroyers really explode big" On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, SquiDog wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Michael R Godwin wrote: > > > > PS A lot of angry stuff in the UK papers last w/e concerning the > > anti-British tone of the new Mel Gibson film. [snip] > > Has anyone else noted an increasingly anti-Brit tone > > coming out of Hollywood recently? If so, who is behind it and why? > > I haven't noticed this as a general phenomenon. (U-666, or whatever it > was called, did show Americans doing something actually done by the Brits, > but it wasn't otherwise anti-British.) Personally, I blame the Oscars. > Since the last historically inaccurate anti-English Mel Gibson vehicle did > so well, naturally Hollywood was eager to do another. > > Come to us, comrade, in the collective farm! (I love those posters.) > > > --Chris > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. > chrisg@gwu.edu > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Glass Fish Hullo, I was wondering if anybody could tell me what the difference is between Glass Fish and Ryko CD releases of the same album? Is there a sound quality difference? Thanks Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:13:28 -0700 From: Jason Thornton Subject: Re: Soft Boys (big news!) At 10:45 AM 7/18/00 -0700, Vivien Lyon wrote: >Natalie and I no longer have to form a Soft Boys cover band >(Vyrna Knowl and the Headbangers) in order to hear the songs >live! This leaves only our Elvis Costello cover band (Shabby >Doll) to concentrate on. Oh yes, and our XTC cover band >(Brainiac's Daughter). Not to mention our Neutral Milk Hotel >cover band (Two-Headed Girl) and our Minders cover band (Chatty >Patty). For whatever it's worth, if you do form a cover band, you are obligated (by law, I think) to use the phrase "A TRIBUTE TO" *whenever* you are referring to the original artist whose work you are covering. - --Jason "Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what." the Jasonster "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:23:34 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... >i'm not disputing that it is, but how was _braveheart_ innacurate, >aside from glorifying wallace more than he perhaps deserved >(reports are he was not as noble a savage as he was portrayed) I suspect one thing that gets the UK folks especially annoyed is the fast-and-loose re-arrangement of the chronology surrounding the (heavily implied) parentage of Edward III, who was born in 1312, long after Wallace's death in 1305. So while it's hardly certain that Edward II (whose sexual preferences were, at least, portrayed somewhat accurately) was the father, it almost certainly wasn't Wallace - Isabelle was only 13 at the time of his death and didn't even marry Edward II until 1308. (What's more, she didn't look *nearly* as hot as Sophie Marceau.) John "the H is for History-nerd" Hedges PS. "Greedy Napsters"! Brilliant! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:58:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: and now, we're talking about... On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Bayard wrote: > at the end of u-571, on-screen text gave the details of two british > missions to aquire the Enigma devices, and one american mission (i > don'tknow/don't think the film expressly depicted any one real mission) True, the whole mission was fictional, not just the nationality of the sailors involved. That makes it more forgiveable, in my opinion. (BTW, lest we let the English complain too much about being slighted, we should also remember the Polish officers who brought early data about the Enigma machine to England as their country was being overrun in 1939.) > i'm not disputing that it is, but how was _braveheart_ innacurate, aside > from glorifying wallace more than he perhaps deserved (reports are he was > not as noble a savage as he was portrayed) Well, here are a few items: - -the "ius primae noctis" (is my Latin right?), or "law of the first night," was not used by King Edward I as a major incentive for his knights in Scotland. In fact, there is no evidence that it was *ever* practiced *anywhere* by *anyone*. It's a myth. - -Wallace and his followers were lowland Scotts, and therefore did not wear kilts or other Highlander garb. (And while we're at it, the whole division between Lowlanders and Highlanders is glossed over.) - -and speaking of appearances, woad (the blue face paint) went out of fashion many centuries before Wallace was born. He and his men had probably never even heard of it. - -others more knowledgeable than me say that the tactical details of the battles are wrong. - -Wallace was killed several years before Isabelle came to England, so it's rather unlikely that he had an affair with her or fathered her child. - -Likewise, Wallace was killed several years before King Edward died, not at the same time as portrayed in the movie. I guess if you forgive the historical inaccuracies, Braveheart is a fairly good action flick. However, since nationalist propaganda annoys me (with partial exceptions for the Irish and Czechs), I find it hard to forgive Braveheart's historical boo-boos. But then, I'm a grouch anyway. - --Chris "Women in the collective farms are a great power" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #196 *******************************