posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_dala at 05:48pm on 18/02/2007
the_dala at 05:48pm on 18/02/2007I was just watching DMC again today, and thinking about time periods and timelines. Now personally, I'm concerned with authenticity rather than accuracy, in canon and in fic. I've never tried to pin down an exact date for the movies (although I have occassionally used specific dates to serve my own purposes), and I honestly don't care about the discrepencies in clothing, weaponry,ships, the history of Port Royal, the state of piracy in the Caribbean, the EITC, etc. To me, if it all adds up to the atmosphere of a pirate movie, I'm happy, and I'm comfortable with the idea of a more specific (mid-17th through the 18th century, say) waybackwhenago as opposed to a single year or even a couple of decades, whether I'm writing fic or reading it (although I do enjoy hearing about other people's timelines and where they've gotten them). I feel this way not just because they're Big Damn Pirate Movies, but because inclusion of historical detail or not, inferences aside, they don't include a single reference to an actual historic event, with the exception of Elizabeth's referring to Henry Morgan and Bartholomew Roberts (although she actually says "the pirates Morgan and Bartholomew" rather than "Morgan and Roberts," I think that's who she means), and Roberts wasn't born until 1682. Still and all, I forget about that line all the time, and I certainly don't think it's a strong enough case on which to base a timeline decision. Again, pirate movie. (And for a counter-example of pirate movies with certifiable historical dates, both of Michael Curtiz's take place at specific dates -- "The Sea Hawk" during the couple of years leading up to Hitler's invasion of Poland the Spanish Armada, "Captain Blood" during the Great Depression the Glorious Revolution. Thus, I see two categories: Specifically Historical WRT Piracy and Not So Much, and CoBP falls into the Not So.)
ANYWAY. This being said, DMC actually does give us a range of dates. When Beckett is putting his seal on the letter of marque (and taunting Elizabeth about Jack), there's a brief close-up of the paper, and right above 'Lord Cutler Beckett' we can clearly see 'George.' There's a visible edge of another letter next to it, but it's not enough to make out the whole letter; it sort of looks like a V, but as that makes no sense whatsoever, I think it's probably a I -- could be a II, or even a III, but there's no way to tell, even after watching the shot eight times in a row. I double-checked the scene where Elizabeth shows Jack the letter, but there's no shot of the content.
I can see no reason why there should be a big old 'George' signature, coupled with the line that the letter is signed by the king, other than it is signed by a King George. And what I particularly like is that the shot is filmed such that we can't tell which George -- the first, who ruled from 1714 to 1727; the second, from 1727 to 1760; or the third, the one against whom baby America took up arms, from 1760-1820. Call me generous, but I think the filmmakers did that on purpose. It puts us squarely between Specifically Historical and Not So Much, and in my mind gives us leave to date the films basically anywhere in the eighteenth century -- but remaining subtle enough to be totally ignored if we so choose.
I actually have posted this before, back when DMC first came out -- either on that third theater viewing or when I obtained a *coughillegalcough* pirated copy (to You Know Who You Are, thank you again ::bows::). I'm reposting it because...having seen not one person mention it since then, even in discussions/justifications of timeline, I was actually starting to think I'd imagined it (if you did see it, my bad -- I did not see that you saw it, obviously). Anyway. It's interesting, and to me the most concrete evidence of a canon date, so there you go.
And as a sidenote, here is the thing about Port Royal: from what I remember of my reading (and I confess I didn't look into this in great depth, since I was concerned with the sunken archaeology at the time; I'll be rereading it again soon and then I can confirm), PotC's portrayal is accurate neither to the pre-earthquake city nor to its rebuilding afterwards. The Port Royal that sank in 1692 was called "the wickedest city in Christendom" and looked a lot more like the Tortuga of the films. In fact, it was a notorious harbour for pirates, and the English were actually quite tolerant of the practice -- or at least blurred the line between privateer and pirate -- because the navy had not yet estalished a firm foothold in the Caribbean. The governor did live there, and it was beginning to turn around as the 17th century ended, but then it was completely destroyed -- two thousand people died in the quake, as many more were lost afterward due to disease, and 2/3 of its geography sank into the bay. There was an effort made to rebuild it, but as an economic and political port its status was permanently lost; the capital moved across the bay to Kingston (doesn't help that it was leveled about a great fire about thirty years after the quake). Later it became important as a naval base, and pretty much just as a naval base -- i.e. Elizabeth wouldn't have lived there, although I bet Will could make a great living.
So to say that PotC takes place before or after the earthquake is sort of irrelevant, because it seems to take place in an alternate reality where the initial Port Royal and the second Port Royal (and Kingston) merged and there was no earthquake. What I think is so funny about this is the deleted carriage scene in CoBP, where Swann and Elizabeth are discussing Norrington's promotion and Swann says something about civilizing and/or cleaning up Port Royal -- and then there's an ironic cut to their carriage slopping mud onto a nearby man's food, and he shrugs and eats it anyway. It looks to me like Ted and Terry did their reading and were deliberately referencing the pre-quake nature of Port Royal. I've never watched their commentary, though -- does anyone know if they do mention this? I feel like I'd've heard about it at some point in the past three years, but you never know.
ANYWAY. This being said, DMC actually does give us a range of dates. When Beckett is putting his seal on the letter of marque (and taunting Elizabeth about Jack), there's a brief close-up of the paper, and right above 'Lord Cutler Beckett' we can clearly see 'George.' There's a visible edge of another letter next to it, but it's not enough to make out the whole letter; it sort of looks like a V, but as that makes no sense whatsoever, I think it's probably a I -- could be a II, or even a III, but there's no way to tell, even after watching the shot eight times in a row. I double-checked the scene where Elizabeth shows Jack the letter, but there's no shot of the content.
I can see no reason why there should be a big old 'George' signature, coupled with the line that the letter is signed by the king, other than it is signed by a King George. And what I particularly like is that the shot is filmed such that we can't tell which George -- the first, who ruled from 1714 to 1727; the second, from 1727 to 1760; or the third, the one against whom baby America took up arms, from 1760-1820. Call me generous, but I think the filmmakers did that on purpose. It puts us squarely between Specifically Historical and Not So Much, and in my mind gives us leave to date the films basically anywhere in the eighteenth century -- but remaining subtle enough to be totally ignored if we so choose.
I actually have posted this before, back when DMC first came out -- either on that third theater viewing or when I obtained a *coughillegalcough* pirated copy (to You Know Who You Are, thank you again ::bows::). I'm reposting it because...having seen not one person mention it since then, even in discussions/justifications of timeline, I was actually starting to think I'd imagined it (if you did see it, my bad -- I did not see that you saw it, obviously). Anyway. It's interesting, and to me the most concrete evidence of a canon date, so there you go.
And as a sidenote, here is the thing about Port Royal: from what I remember of my reading (and I confess I didn't look into this in great depth, since I was concerned with the sunken archaeology at the time; I'll be rereading it again soon and then I can confirm), PotC's portrayal is accurate neither to the pre-earthquake city nor to its rebuilding afterwards. The Port Royal that sank in 1692 was called "the wickedest city in Christendom" and looked a lot more like the Tortuga of the films. In fact, it was a notorious harbour for pirates, and the English were actually quite tolerant of the practice -- or at least blurred the line between privateer and pirate -- because the navy had not yet estalished a firm foothold in the Caribbean. The governor did live there, and it was beginning to turn around as the 17th century ended, but then it was completely destroyed -- two thousand people died in the quake, as many more were lost afterward due to disease, and 2/3 of its geography sank into the bay. There was an effort made to rebuild it, but as an economic and political port its status was permanently lost; the capital moved across the bay to Kingston (doesn't help that it was leveled about a great fire about thirty years after the quake). Later it became important as a naval base, and pretty much just as a naval base -- i.e. Elizabeth wouldn't have lived there, although I bet Will could make a great living.
So to say that PotC takes place before or after the earthquake is sort of irrelevant, because it seems to take place in an alternate reality where the initial Port Royal and the second Port Royal (and Kingston) merged and there was no earthquake. What I think is so funny about this is the deleted carriage scene in CoBP, where Swann and Elizabeth are discussing Norrington's promotion and Swann says something about civilizing and/or cleaning up Port Royal -- and then there's an ironic cut to their carriage slopping mud onto a nearby man's food, and he shrugs and eats it anyway. It looks to me like Ted and Terry did their reading and were deliberately referencing the pre-quake nature of Port Royal. I've never watched their commentary, though -- does anyone know if they do mention this? I feel like I'd've heard about it at some point in the past three years, but you never know.
contemplative
There are 25 comments on this entry.