Nobody Cares about History

Free · Jan 28, 2024

This one caught me by surprise.

Govi · Jan 28, 2024

Dakota Tebaldi said:
Free your article reminds me of a movie I watched in a high school class called The Lion in Winter. The movie really made an impression on me for a couple of reasons; firstly, it was the first time I was genuinely entertained by an OLD movie (like VERY old, to me, the movie was made in the 60's), especially just a plain drama. Like most kids older movies were just boring and unexciting to me, and while I never complained about getting to watch a movie in school it was very "meh, whatever" most of the time if it was an older movie like this. But this one was different. The movie stars Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole as Eleanor and Henry II and is about this whole extreme love-hate thing they had going on; there was much scheming and backbiting and insulting going on but they were both so happy to be with each other while doing it, and it was honestly hilarious at times. It was the first time I'd seen that kind of character dynamic and I loved it.

Anyway the plot and all their scheming involve their three sons, Richard, Geoffrey (neglected middle child, lol) and John. The second reason the movie made an impression on me was because I was like, "Wait - is that the eventual Richard and John from the Robin Hood stories?" and the answer is yes!, although that has nothing to do with this movie. And another supporting character in the movie as Phillip II, and this brings up the third reason the movie made an impression - I only vaguely recognized Katherine Hepburn but not really any of the other actors in the movie EXCEPT for Richard and Phillip II, who were played by a very young Anthony Hopkins and Richard Dalton - yes THAT Anthony Hopkins and THAT Richard Dalton, and I definitely recognized them. And I found out that this movie was the first major movie role for both of them!

But yeah anyway, at one point in the movie it's not-merely-suggested that Richard and Phillip II had had a gay moment, at least once. And it isn't just mentioned in passing, like it's a focus of conflict and tension in a couple of scenes. Meh whatever, I don't know enough about the historical basis of any of it; but if your article is right about the incident that it mentions, it kind of makes sense to me that incident was where this whole minor plot point must have come from. The movie was based on a play that was also written in the 1960's, so at least by that point whatever had happened between Richard and Phillip was being perceived as romantic, not platonic. It makes me wonder if this was a debated thing and for how long, or whether it was just the author of that play who thought of the incident that way.

King John was eventually forced to sign the Magna Carta. Yeah, that John.

Free · Jan 28, 2024

Govi said:
Yeah, that John.

Not this one, then:

Dakota Tebaldi · Jan 28, 2024

The PHONY king of England!

Dakota Tebaldi · Jan 28, 2024

Situationally relevant:

Brook Miles (@brook@sunny.garden)

I got an email about my Win32 programming tutorial (circa 1999) from a 12 year old girl whose hobby is making "programs in languages used way before i was born" ... First of all yes, excellent, this is a good hobby. Secondly, don't mind me, I'll just be over here crumbling to dust. :blobimfine:

sunny.garden

CronoCloud Creeggan · Jan 28, 2024

Free said:
I'll note this is probably more a thing of time and place. but before then what I could find on UHF channels out of Chicago and (after a family move) Boston, which programmed a lot of nights and weekends with films from the 30s through the 60s. Meet Me in St Louis, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (Badges?), Philadelphia Story, various Errol Flynn and Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant films. All kinds of flicks we now think of as classics, and some not so much so. It's what we had available

Too far away from Chicago for me, but the local stations did themselves show older movies, especially WILL-TV out of Urbana that had the Silver Screen show. So I was pretty familiar with the classics. Not to mention the old SFM Holiday Network syndication package full of classic films.

Free · Feb 1, 2024

Happy St. Brigid's day!

Innula Zenovka · Feb 1, 2024

Free · Feb 1, 2024

part of a refurbishment attempt in the XVI century

Roman tweeters...

Khamon · Feb 1, 2024

Innula Zenovka said:

The hole was cut as part of a refurbishment attempt in the XVI century to keep rodents under control. Historians report that the bishop cut the hole to allow his cat to "catch rats and mice".

Lexxi · Feb 1, 2024

Dakota Tebaldi said:
Free your article reminds me of a movie I watched in a high school class called The Lion in Winter. The movie really made an impression on me for a couple of reasons; firstly, it was the first time I was genuinely entertained by an OLD movie (like VERY old, to me, the movie was made in the 60's), especially just a plain drama. Like most kids older movies were just boring and unexciting to me, and while I never complained about getting to watch a movie in school it was very "meh, whatever" most of the time if it was an older movie like this. But this one was different. The movie stars Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole as Eleanor and Henry II and is about this whole extreme love-hate thing they had going on; there was much scheming and backbiting and insulting going on but they were both so happy to be with each other while doing it, and it was honestly hilarious at times. It was the first time I'd seen that kind of character dynamic and I loved it.

Anyway the plot and all their scheming involve their three sons, Richard, Geoffrey (neglected middle child, lol) and John. The second reason the movie made an impression on me was because I was like, "Wait - is that the eventual Richard and John from the Robin Hood stories?" and the answer is yes!, although that has nothing to do with this movie. And another supporting character in the movie as Phillip II, and this brings up the third reason the movie made an impression - I only vaguely recognized Katherine Hepburn but not really any of the other actors in the movie EXCEPT for Richard and Phillip II, who were played by a very young Anthony Hopkins and Richard Dalton - yes THAT Anthony Hopkins and THAT Richard Dalton, and I definitely recognized them. And I found out that this movie was the first major movie role for both of them!

But yeah anyway, at one point in the movie it's not-merely-suggested that Richard and Phillip II had had a gay moment, at least once. And it isn't just mentioned in passing, like it's a focus of conflict and tension in a couple of scenes. Meh whatever, I don't know enough about the historical basis of any of it; but if your article is right about the incident that it mentions, it kind of makes sense to me that incident was where this whole minor plot point must have come from. The movie was based on a play that was also written in the 1960's, so at least by that point whatever had happened between Richard and Phillip was being perceived as romantic, not platonic. It makes me wonder if this was a debated thing and for how long, or whether it was just the author of that play who thought of the incident that way.

Side note: The Lion in Winter came out in 1968.

This reminds me. The other day I saw a fascinating really really, I mean really old film. It had this quaint notion of showing what the world would be like in it's own far far future of 2015. Almost 10 years ago as I write this here. It really taught me . . . well, nothing, I was more interested in being entertained, but still. We had flying cars and hover boards back in 2015? Neat.

I don't know when you saw the 1968 The Lion in Winter as a kid. Or your age at the time. Was it twenty years later in 1988? 30 years later in 1998? 40 years later in 2008?

That far future look into 2015 came from a film released in 1989. 26 years in between 1989 & 2015. 35 years between the time the film was released and today. So, did you see The Lion in Winter when it was 'only' 35 years old or less?

Oh, the 1989 film I'm referring to above is Back to the Future II.

I wasn't alive in 1968. So I wanted to get in on feeling old. *nods*. Oddly, my 'old film' that meant a lot to me at the time that I saw as a kid in school was also from 1968 (film would have been 22 when I saw it in school). Romeo & Juliet. The one with Olivia Hussey & Michael York (okay, the one with Hussey as Juliet & Leonard Whiting as Romeo; York was Tybalt; I knew who York & Hussey were when I saw the film, I still have no idea who Whiting might be).

Soen Eber · Feb 1, 2024

Most of the original Star Trek had been released by 1968

2001: A Space Oddysey was released in 1968

The Man Who would be King was released 7 years later in 1975

Roman Polanski's Romeo & Juliet came out in 1968

Funny Girl came out in 1968 (ignore the subtitles)

In 1967 was The Graduate, A Man for All Seasons, and Bonnie & Clyde

The 60's was a great time to be alive.

In 1952, the Hayes Code, which had stratified movies into inoffense twaddle was being chipped away due to free speach argments, and was finally repealed in 1968. That is why so many old movies sucked.

Star Wars killed the movie industry as it had been. After that rising costs, and marketing to teens (who would sit and watch the same movie multiple times) took over. I suppose it's finally starting to tip a bit because it's easier and cheaper to buy a DVD then to pay box office admission 25 times.

Essence Lumin · Feb 2, 2024

Lexxi said:
I still have no idea who Whiting might be).

Me neither but imdb indicates Romeo & Juliet was his only major role.

Innula Zenovka · Feb 5, 2024

Æthelswith: The Mercian queen whose gold ring was unearthed by a Victorian ploughman

A thousand year old treasure unearthed a thousand miles from the body of the queen who had it made

florencehrs.substack.com

Innula Zenovka · Feb 8, 2024

Is this Spinoza's death mask?

The (alleged) Spinoza death mask was an exciting pandemic find in Columbia University's Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Are we closer to a solution to this mystery?

helendecruz.substack.com

Innula Zenovka · Feb 14, 2024

Bartholomew Gallacher · Feb 14, 2024

Free said:
Roman tweeters...

Actually the ancient Romans had two interesting customs, namely:

1. in many populated cities having your own kitchen was a type of luxury. Roman anti fire regulations, yes this was already a thing back then, forbid that. So if you wanted to eat something warm, most people went into a taverna or similar venue.
2. Romans just loved to tweet. But instead of using Twitter, they engraved graffiti literally everywhere. So if you wanted to read the newest gossip, you had to read fresh graffiti spread everywhere near tavernas and such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti