Or we approach a topic with rigour, reason and the research it requires, e.g. Fernhill's series on the indirect public funding of anti-choice groups and thus, the awarding of taxpayers' $$$ to groups fundamentally opposed to women's reproductive rights, engraved in Canadian jurisprudence.
We try to navigate this fine line carefully and usually signal to our readers which mode we are deploying.
Not everyone holds themselves to such standards.
Obtuse self-indulgent mansplainers lack a sense of irony and self-awareness that might alert them to such faux-pas.
Thus Hugo Vickers blathers and blithers, clucks and scolds -- his reaction to the manner in which the relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Thatcher is portrayed in _The Crown_. His remarks are laden with the very hyperbolic fervour which he denounces.
“That's what's so disgraceful, because people always believe it's true, because The Crown is very well put together," said Vickers. "It's lavishly produced. It's beautifully acted. It's a well-written script. So, of course, you can't just dismiss it as tabloid rubbish.”
“People will now go around believing that the Queen hated Margaret Thatcher and wanted the world to know this, which is absolutely untrue.”
One expects a work of fiction to hyper-dramatize some historical facts and even heighten them with hyper-realistic depiction. One hopes that an historian might keep a grip on reality, avoid self-projection and not describe a work of entertainment in histrionic, florid and untruthful terms, alas.
Viewers who watched that episode might have a different take than the one espoused by the testerical Vickers as he virtually and verbally trips on the flowers woven into the Turkish rugs of Buckingham Palace.
No comments:
Post a Comment