Jump to content

From Now On - The Greatest Showman


Recommended Posts

Eric

I was reminded of this song from a Youtube channel I watch (CinemaTherapy, I definitely recommend) and dammit if I didn't get the misty eyes watching this scene again. While I find The Greatest Showman itself to be just an okay movie overall, this part tends to get me.

I noted this once already when Bobby mentioned this song in his dream thread, but this is a song (and scene) that for me resonates with something deeply, wonderfully human. There's the context of the song itself (recognizing and redeeming/returning to what matters in life, namely loved ones), but part of me could see a reflection on humanity in it.
 

Michael has mentioned that, above all else, humans are primarily an expressive species and that music and related arts are profoundly important to us. So there are times like this that I come across an instance of people singing and dancing together (and in this case drinking too, because we are drunken monkeys after all :P), that give me the tingles and feel like a glimpse into that true collective heart of humanity.

And then you have this song's lyrics of "and we will come back home, home again...from now on, home again," which on its own is a common sentiment, but takes on a whole other layer if considering the narrative of humanity's Sirian to Earth history.

All of that is way beyond the actual scope of this song, but hey, my mind goes to some interesting places sometimes. Anyway, below is the scene from the movie with the dancing (sorry about the on-screen lyrics, it's the only youtube version available), and then just the music.

Edited by Eric
  • LIKE/LOVE 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
Amanda

 

On 4/20/2021 at 12:26 AM, Eric said:

While I find The Greatest Showman itself to be an okay movie overall, this part tends to get me.

 

I counter that it's due to the songs that the movie is great.  Plot, meh. Historical context, meh. The emotions conveyed in the musical numbers, YAS QUEEN.

 

This one sparks in me a fire of hope and growth and drive to live my most authentic life:

 

 

This could just be my emotional centering coming out to play with my Sage role lol of course musical theater will be a wonderful delivery system for emotional comprehension LOL 😄

 

And yes, my eyes were misty af while watching From Now On😄

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Amanda said:

I counter that it's due to the songs that the movie is great.  Plot, meh. Historical context, meh. The emotions conveyed in the musical numbers, YAS QUEEN.

 

I would definitely agree with that wholeheartedly. The song sequences were awesome (even though "Never Enough" is one that kinda grates at me). The plot is indeed quite meh, and the historical context is VERY meh, to the point where it's better to treat it as more fiction than anything. There was also a lot of hype when it was released, which I think added to that feeling of meh when I first watched it.

 

In the end it's a fluff movie, but having that in mind without the hype made later viewing more enjoyable.

 

Maybe it's my emotional centering getting plucked at too. Musical theater is an emotive mistress. 😛

 

 

Edited by Eric
  • LIKE/LOVE 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • HOST & RESIDENT CHANNEL
Troy

This film is a great example of complete and total propaganda and rewriting of history to romanticize a horrible horrible man and his exploitation of humans and animals. I will never watch this film or enjoy the music from it because it just makes my stomach turn to see it celebrated. No offense to anyone who enjoyed it. But romanticizing enslavement of women, trafficking humans, torturing and enslaving animals, all as a way to get rich and to "entertain" is just not my thing. He was the Christopher Columbus of entertainment. I really hate that this film was not met with more educational retaliation.  Below is a link that covers a bit about this awful human being.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pt-barnum-greatest-humbug-them-all-180967634/

 

And what the fuck is up with Hugh Jackman romanticizing the horrors of animal exploitation. He did another film about a true story where a gorilla was captured, enslaved and forced to entertain in a mall along with other exotic animals that had no place living in a garage by a mall. And they made it all into a "cute" film with CGI animals crying and grieving and trying to escape and then showing their spirits being completely broken and destroyed... and somehow this was determined by them to be their purpose. Fucking disgusting.

 

Ugh, sorry, I just can't stand when this shit flies under people's radars.

  • LIKE/LOVE 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
Connor

I found out about this movie from one of @SharvariJ's "awful movie" rants. Her past life was Jenny Lind, so it is quite understandable why she loathes this film, considering what the screenwriters did to Jenny's character.

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
  • SAD 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
4 minutes ago, Connor said:

I found out about this movie from one of @SharvariJ's "awful movie" rants. Her past life was Jenny Lind, so it is quite understandable why she loathes this film, considering what the screenwriters did to Jenny's character.


That's interesting to know! And yes, that is indeed quite understandable.

Oh, I am aware of the problematic nature of the movie. I debated even posting this because of that, but I figured it was more about the song and my own musings around it. The movie basically got the Disney Pocahontas treatment...good music and cinema, but using historical figures to tell rather fluffy fictitious stories that ignore the actual troubled history. It's one of those moment that I can appreciate parts, but I understand why it is loathed as well.

  • LIKE/LOVE 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharvariJ
1 hour ago, Connor said:

I found out about this movie from one of @SharvariJ's "awful movie" rants. Her past life was Jenny Lind, so it is quite understandable why she loathes this film, considering what the screenwriters did to Jenny's character.

Well, yes, I was Jenny in a past life and I loathe this film. They turned sweet, generous, pious Jenny Lind into a adulterous strumpet and attention-whore. Jenny would never have kissed a married man, DEFINITELY not in public, and she certainly wouldn’t have done it for revenge. In fact, the historical Jenny was so disturbed by Barnum’s shameless promotional techniques that she ended her contract with him and finished her tour of America under her own management. She even married her pianist, Otto Goldschmidt, while they were touring the US. So the representation of a beautiful woman, whom people like Chopin and Hans Christian Andersen had wished to court, was utterly butchered in the movie. 
 

Even if I ignore the offence to my past life, the plot of the movie sucked. Sorry guys, but we’ve seen the prodigal-father-has-an-epiphany-and returns-after-being enlightened-by-a-song formula for decades in Bollywood. If I wanted another musical like that, I’d would rather rewatch a Bollywood classic. It’ll probably be less offensive than The Greatest Showman anyway. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian

Cinema Therapy is a great channel.

Haven't disliked an episode yet.

  • LIKE/LOVE 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
12 minutes ago, Christian said:

Cinema Therapy is a great channel.

Haven't disliked an episode yet.

 

Indeed. I can thank the YouTube algorithm for turning me on to them. Every now and then it pops up something good. 😄

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Becca the Student

@Troy Strange, I've actually seen a ton of educational backlash to this film, especially in the year it came out. Perhaps it's just that my youtube algorithm is attuned to that stuff or something. 😉

 

I think there's something to be said for the thematic intention and expression of a story, even if it's dressed in ugly trappings. I certainly don't shame any who can't enjoy this story because its roots are ethically heinous. I haven't actually seen the film, only listened to the music. (My friend is friends with the composers, and I've been supporting their work since they were all back in college.) Through the music, I can appreciate the thematic intention of the film ("celebrating difference"), and resonate with the fundamental truths its songs express. I find the music very moving, and appreciate the healing its sound and lyrics bring to my life. And it brings a lot of healing for me. 

 

Should this theme have been expressed through a different, entirely fictional story? Absolutely. I'd bet big money the only reason this film was pretending to be "based on a true story" about P.T. Barnum was because that was the only way Hollywood would pay for it to get made. (Don't get me started on the politics of getting an original story funded in our current Hollywood environment. It has caused me numerous headaches. A big fuck you to the tech firms and big business stock owners that bought up our studios.) That doesn't excuse it from its choice in historical subject. 

 

There's another argument here to be made about how we discuss fictional adaptations of real events, about how we lift the responsibility off the viewer/reader and pile responsibility onto the writer. I'm not saying the writer is not responsible for what they write. But I do think the viewer bears an equal weight of responsibility in validating what they're consuming, especially when it's a work of historical fiction, and pretending that's not the case makes for an imbalanced discussion. Especially when you're discussing a work of art or story, the purpose of which isn't about the dissemination of information but the healing subconscious wounds through myth and symbolism. But I'd want to talk about that more as it regards art like the Hamilton musical -- not this popcorn film.

Edited by Becca the Student
  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • HOST & RESIDENT CHANNEL
Troy

And don't get me started on Forest Gump... I. will. go. off. LOL

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • LOL 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • HOST & RESIDENT CHANNEL
Troy
9 hours ago, Eric said:

I debated even posting this because of that, but I figured it was more about the song and my own musings around it.

 

Awww, I'm totally going off on the movie and historic context, not whether someone liked the movie, or not. I can totally separate those things. Art is art and if it means something to someone, it means something. That's something I can't judge or condemn. I feel like art is something that becomes your own when you love it and resonate with it, even if the artist is problematic or historic context is disregarded. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
17 minutes ago, Troy said:

And don't get me started on Forest Gump... I. will. go. off. LOL


Oh no. I am so tempted now 😈, but that may turn this thread into a box of chocolates and I might have to run, Puff, run! But then Mama always said dying was a part of life. 😄

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • LOL 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric

Sorry, I couldn't help it! Poking stick withdrawn now. I can already feel the astral *Squish* coming from Geraldine for that. 😛

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • PRIEST
Maureen
49 minutes ago, Troy said:

And don't get me started on Forest Gump... I. will. go. off. LOL

 

Ditto!!! Don’t get me started on the movie Argo where it was actually the Canadians who were the real heroes. I won’t watch the movie — even though it won Best Picture Academy Award. I’m so fucking tired of the truth taking a backseat to entertainment. I had a great chat with Michael about truth vs entertainment here in my blog entry Argo, The Truth, and A Dream.

 

John Wayne at Vimy Ridge.jpg

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian

@Becca the Student much of what you said is stuff I have talked about before.

 

We don't just have art.

 

We have art, the artist, the consumer of the art, the funder, the society the art was made in, the time the art was made in, etc.

 

Just looking at the triad of artist, art, consumer....and looking at like JK rowling,harry potter and fans in relation to Rowling's TERFness.

 

Or Picasso and his misogyny.

 

It really becomes messy and nuanced in ways I can't unravel.

 

Picasso anf other artist benefit from being dead in that they don't have Twitter.  Rowling on the othet hand needs to remove herself from the internet.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric

Lol, sounds like, alongside "Movies That Move Us," we could start a whole new forum on "Movies That Piss Us Off." 😛

 

Although in fairness, there does seem to be plenty discussion to be had regarding fictional adaptations of real/historic events, interaction between creator/creation/consumer, etc, or even just the good/bad/and ugly of art entertainment in general. And indeed, given the insights in @Maureen's channeling, the mention of moving beyond binaries including the example of ternary Fact/Art/Fiction mentioned in Diane's post, as well as the current societal instabilities regarding Truth mentioned in recent channeling, it all dovetails together and would probably be quite a relevant topic. I can think of a number of ways to explore that, though it would take up its own forum or thread at this point.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • WARRIOR
Bobby

I honestly wasn't educationally aware of the whole story behind PT Barnum and it's unfortunate that some of the really powerful moments of this film had to be included in that sort of distorted story.  But man, those powerful moments do stand out as something just on their own.  One of my favorite back stories of the music was when Keala Settle was explaining how she came into the song "This Is Me."  My God... the goose bumps, especially so if you know anything about her part in the movie!  You know "she got it" when she throws back that hair  😄   This song seems like such an Old Soul themed song.  Slam some doors, Keala!

  • LIKE/LOVE 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Becca the Student
9 hours ago, Christian said:

@Becca the Student much of what you said is stuff I have talked about before.

 

We don't just have art.

 

We have art, the artist, the consumer of the art, the funder, the society the art was made in, the time the art was made in, etc.

 

Just looking at the triad of artist, art, consumer....and looking at like JK rowling,harry potter and fans in relation to Rowling's TERFness.

 

Or Picasso and his misogyny.

 

It really becomes messy and nuanced in ways I can't unravel.

 

Picasso anf other artist benefit from being dead in that they don't have Twitter.  Rowling on the othet hand needs to remove herself from the internet.

 

 

True, there are a lot of subtleties involved. I tend to believe art is something that can't be owned. As Troy put above, if you get something out of a piece of art, it's there for you. I also understand not wanting to support a living author committing harm, or only being able to see the harm an artist perpetuated while viewing/reading/consuming their work. But the conversation about consuming work by authors who've committed harm and the conversation about fictional adaptations of history are separate things, I think.

 

Take Hamilton. 

 

Lin-Manuel Miranda is a sweetheart. So is his artistic crew. (I can say this with confidence because I have friends who've worked with them; they're fairly unanimous in how lovely the crew are.) So Lin reads a book about Hamilton, and sees in its pages the story of his immigrant father. Inspired, he sets out to write an epic musical that intentionally re-links the Story of America with the Story of the Immigrant, two stories that are battling each other out in the modern world. He writes a myth that attempts to heal our collective vision of what America could be. A commentary on the present moment, viewing now through the lens of the past, presenting an idealized Potential and asking us, "isn't this who we want to be? Isn't this what we're aiming for?"

 

And while it does all this, it also barely touches on the fact that most of the men on stage were slave owners. It totally ignores Native Americans.

 

So how do we talk about this piece of work? He wrote a new founding myth that resonated with millions of Americans, that took ownership of America's story and handed it to the immigrants, the young, the brown, the black, that took ownership of theater and attempted to hand it to BIPOC (the latter was less successful). It's not an entirely truthful account -- it's mostly historically accurate, but it leaves some complex and disturbing things about its subjects on the cutting room floor, and changes some things for dramatic effect. But the musical doesn't market itself as a true story. The marketing materials only tell us this is "based on the book by Ron Chernow."

 

I don't really have an answer to how we talk about this, but I do think it's much more than just "Hamilton glorifies slave owners and is thus terrible." I think there's more to the story than that. 🙂

Edited by Becca the Student
  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
DianeHB
17 hours ago, Becca the Student said:

@Troy Strange, I've actually seen a ton of educational backlash to this film, especially in the year it came out. Perhaps it's just that my youtube algorithm is attuned to that stuff or something. 😉

 

I think there's something to be said for the thematic intention and expression of a story, even if it's dressed in ugly trappings. I certainly don't shame any who can't enjoy this story because its roots are ethically heinous. I haven't actually seen the film, only listened to the music. (My friend is friends with the composers, and I've been supporting their work since they were all back in college.) Through the music, I can appreciate the thematic intention of the film ("celebrating difference"), and resonate with the fundamental truths its songs express. I find the music very moving, and appreciate the healing its sound and lyrics bring to my life. And it brings a lot of healing for me. 

 

Should this theme have been expressed through a different, entirely fictional story? Absolutely. I'd bet big money the only reason this film was pretending to be "based on a true story" about P.T. Barnum was because that was the only way Hollywood would pay for it to get made. (Don't get me started on the politics of getting an original story funded in our current Hollywood environment. It has caused me numerous headaches. A big fuck you to the tech firms and big business stock owners that bought up our studios.) That doesn't excuse it from its choice in historical subject. 

 

There's another argument here to be made about how we discuss fictional adaptations of real events, about how we lift the responsibility off the viewer/reader and pile responsibility onto the writer. I'm not saying the writer is not responsible for what they write. But I do think the viewer bears an equal weight of responsibility in validating what they're consuming, especially when it's a work of historical fiction, and pretending that's not the case makes for an imbalanced discussion. Especially when you're discussing a work of art or story, the purpose of which isn't about the dissemination of information but the healing subconscious wounds through myth and symbolism. But I'd want to talk about that more as it regards art like the Hamilton musical -- not this popcorn film.

 

FYI, I have the movie on Blu Ray and watched the making-of videos, and the producers had open submissions for songs for the film. Benj Pasek and Justin Paul's songs kept getting chosen, so they ended up getting brought in to do all the songs. Essentially, they were budding artists who had no choice what story their music got paired with. 

 

I happen to think the songs are fairly agnostic, but I also came here to say that I have some of the songs from the film on repeat. As I've been working on self-employment and creating work that aligns with who I am, songs from that movie (A Million Dreams in particular) help rekindle my inspiration and encourage me when I feel discouraged. I also love the reimagined version of the soundtrack with pop artists -- A Million Dreams by P!nk is amazing, as is Never Enough by Kelly Clarkson.

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
DianeHB
1 hour ago, Becca the Student said:

True, there are a lot of subtleties involved. I tend to believe art is something that can't be owned. As Troy put above, if you get something out of a piece of art, it's there for you. I also understand not wanting to support a living author committing harm, or only being able to see the harm an artist perpetuated while viewing/reading/consuming their work. But the conversation about consuming work by authors who've committed harm and the conversation about fictional adaptations of history are separate things, I think.

 

Take Hamilton. 

 

Lin-Manuel Miranda is a sweetheart. So is his artistic crew. (I can say this with confidence because I have friends who've worked with them; they're fairly unanimous in how lovely the crew are.) So Lin reads a book about Hamilton, and sees in its pages the story of his immigrant father. Inspired, he sets out to write an epic musical that intentionally re-links the Story of America with the Story of the Immigrant, two stories that are battling each other out in the modern world. He writes a myth that attempts to heal our collective vision of what America could be. A commentary on the present moment, viewing now through the lens of the past, presenting an idealized Potential and asking us, "isn't this who we want to be? Isn't this what we're aiming for?"

 

And while it does all this, it also barely touches on the fact that most of the men on stage were slave owners. It totally ignores Native Americans.

 

So how do we talk about this piece of work? He wrote a new founding myth that resonated with millions of Americans, that took ownership of America's story and handed it to the immigrants, the young, the brown, the black, that took ownership of theater and attempted to hand it to BIPOC (the latter was less successful). It's not an entirely truthful account -- it's mostly historically accurate, but it leaves some complex and disturbing things about its subjects on the cutting room floor, and changes some things for dramatic effect. But the musical doesn't market itself as a true story. The marketing materials only tell us this is "based on the book by Ron Chernow."

 

I don't really have an answer to how we talk about this, but I do think it's much more than just "Hamilton glorifies slave owners and is thus terrible." I think there's more to the story than that. 🙂

 

Hamilton also came out in 2016 and written in the Obama years. Pre-Trump and pre-awakening to our blind spots, you could say, and it shows. I saw a video of Lin-Manuel Miranda respond to this question as asked by young musical theater students, and his response was that it was their opportunity to write a better musical that addresses these issues (not facetiously). I think it's good that we see the problems with Hamilton--that means we're waking up and evolving. But how many of us haven't made mistakes and committed faux pas and had blind spots? When someone does things big, their mistakes and blind spots are also amplified. I think it's a mistake to condemn someone who tried his best and didn't get it perfect when we have the Trumps and Fox News and QAnon in the world. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Becca the Student

@DianeHB Absolutely agree with everything you said. 🙂 It's important to recognize problems in a piece of work, or art and social conversation would never grow, and it's also important to recognize the good and the great alongside those problems, because those are also truths.

 

There's also a thing to point out in this case where, if he'd put focus on those things we're noticing aren't there, it would have been a different story than the one he wanted to tell, and hit on different emotional truths than the ones he wanted to convey. Which is an important conversation to have, too: you tell a story because you see a truth or a message or a meaning in it, and you generally tend to strip away anything that doesn't highlight that meaning in order to make it clearer to the audience what you see. So making art out of history necessitates a focused lens... and that might mean all art made out of history will be in some way entirely fictional or romanticized.

 

So should we just not make art out of historical events? Should we only make documentaries? (I freaking love documentaries.)

 

Or is making art out of history one of the ways we draw meaning from it? If we draw meaning from a sliver of truth in a swamp of pain and oppression, and we amplify the sliver and clean off some of the swamp to show that meaning to others, is that the wrong way to go about it? I have no idea, but I do think it's something we eventually need to have a cultural discussion about. What is allowed, when drawing meaning out of the past? At what point do we say "everything that is fiction is myth," and teach the viewer to recognize the difference between mythic truths and fact? And at what point does a fictional story about a historical fact perpetuate harm?

 

EDIT: Sorry for the essays, folks. Lol I think about this a lot, being a writer, and it's one of the reasons I've never dipped a toe in that "based on a true story" pool.

Edited by Becca the Student
  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • PRIEST
Maureen
1 hour ago, Becca the Student said:

So should we just not make art out of historical events? Should we only make documentaries? (I freaking love documentaries.)

 

@Becca the Student, I love documentaries, as well, and even when I watch them I know I'm getting a specific viewpoint and can imagine what I'm not seeing and hearing. I admire and respect the sheer endurance and quietude, the listening, that it takes to make a documentary. I also love fiction. As said in another Q&A with Michael, oftentimes fiction (posted as a comment in Diane's latest blog entry about our expansion beyond binaries including the example of ternary Fact/Art/Fiction) can tell a story that gets closer to the truth than non-fiction can.

 

1 hour ago, Becca the Student said:

Or is making art out of history one of the ways we draw meaning from it? If we draw meaning from a sliver of truth in a swamp of pain and oppression, and we amplify the sliver and clean off some of the swamp to show that meaning to others, is that the wrong way to go about it? I have no idea, but I do think it's something we eventually need to have a cultural discussion about. What is allowed, when drawing meaning out of the past? At what point do we say "everything that is fiction is myth," and teach the viewer to recognize the difference between mythic truths and fact? And at what point does a fictional story about a historical fact perpetuate harm?

 

As Eric said, there are many discussions that are intersecting with truth vs lies/myth-making/fiction and our expansion away from a binary focused world. I had a great discussion with Michael on this very thing (see post above on Argo) in 2013. It's in Argo, The Truth, and A Dream. Here's the Q&A on "The Truth" part of the session.  

 

Maureen:  What is going on with all the passionate viewpoints about the veracity of Ben Affleck’s movie Argo? Argo is a fictionalized account of the escape of six Americans from Iran, with the help of the Canadian Embassy, the head of the Canadian Embassy Ken Taylor and the Canadian Government in 1979/80. The CIA had some involvement but the movie depicts them as the heroes when it was actually the Canadians who were the real heroes. Even Jimmy Carter who was President at the time said: “90 per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian,” but the film “gives almost full credit to the American CIA.”

 

MEntity:  In response to the first part:

 

MEntity:  The amplification of your reaction was heightened in proportion to the celebration of reckless treatment of the truth. It is not that these things are differentiated as one having priority over another as you come across misinformation, lies, distortions, or "bullshit," but when it is paraded on such a global display, the distraction is proportional.

 

MEntity:  We do not see this as being related to any Chief Feature, as this is not based in fear or self-protection, but more of Realism and the typical shock that can sometimes come when others cannot see something as "obviously" as you do/can.

 

Maureen:  Yes – I felt like the courtier who saw that the Emperor had no clothes on.

 

MEntity:  There will always be variations on the truth, and variations on the sense of credit due, and while Canadians did not contribute "90%" to the heroics, it was far more than is depicted. This inaccurate depiction was not for any other reason than what we can see as a sense of entitlement to creative license for sheer dramatic effect.

 

MEntity:  There are many parts that have nothing to do with credit due to any side, but simply, completely fabricated for effect. We see the entire project as being more for that purpose than for educational or historical accuracy.

 

Maureen:  What was the percentage that Canadians contributed?

 

MEntity:  The fact that it was marketed as a depiction of revealed, historic documents is the only thing that makes the film a lie, rather than a simple, creative project or artistic interpretation.

 

Maureen:  Yes – that's what I felt as well Michael. If they had just said it was loosely-based on a true story – but they passed it off as "the truth".

 

MEntity:  Keep in mind that the lines between "based on" and "this is a true story," etc, has come to be lost as a meaningful reference in film as the claims of origin for footage, ideas, history, etc. are now an acceptable part of the marketing and creativity to provide a compelling experience, rather than as legitimate context.

 

MEntity:  Argo, then, could be said to have done nothing more than the equivalent of a Blair Witch Project type of marketing.

 

MEntity:  This does not appease the sense of lies, of course, since one is entirely a creative project and one is exploitative of sensibilities.

 

MEntity:  The percentage of contribution from any part of this story is difficult to quantify, but for the most part, the entire unfolding of events went rather smoothly, even if tensely at times. If we were to attempt to quantify the impact from "Canadians" as it affected the results, we might say 70%.

 

Maureen:  Thanks. I have been seeing whatever I can on this, since all this started last week, and that number seems right to me.

 

Maureen:  How did my dream fit into all this?

 

MEntity:  Is there more to the first part that you may prefer further response?

 

Maureen:  If you think so – then yes please continue.

 

Maureen:  I can see that this still needs to be answered: Is this an attempt, from those around this movie, to try to reclaim the “top-dog” position for the U.S.? Is the country working through this using the negative/positive poles of their Idealist Attitude?

 

MEntity:  We are fairly complete in our response, but will say that it is Good Work to examine your own interpretations of what you presumed were the motivations for making a film of such distortion of truth. In many cases of lying, it is for the sake of self-serving effect far more than it is for any elaborate, far-reaching effect. In other words, it was the project of creative people who feel they were being creative for effect, not for educational purposes or indoctrination purposes.

 

MEntity:  We would say it is tied to Naivety, indeed, but not with any grand intention. It is more the other way around: these kinds of creative motivations without sense of responsibility to the truth is a result of American indoctrination of entitlements and naivety/Idealism.

 

MEntity:  Only that it was more a result of such Idealism, rather than a promotion of that.

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian

This has been a question since forever.

 

The opening to Shakespeare's Henry V, apologies to the audience about how meagre the stage is for showing such an epic battle.

 

If hamilton or greatest showman told anything close to the real story...it would be less than flattering.

 

Miranda talks about meeting with other playwright while writing Hamilton and being overwhelmed with the scope of his life.  The elder playwright told him to tell the parts that are a musical.

 

So that's what we got.

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...