Been piling through Hollywood battle speeches for reference for the next blog and it is striking to me just how poor most of them are. Nearly all of the work is done by the soundtrack. Howard Shore or John Williams can make anything sound inspiring. But as speeches...eh?
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
I mean, obviously, any decent rendition of Henry V's St. Crispin's Day Speech is bound to be good, because of Shakespeare - but it's so clearly a speech set from the perspective after the battle, when the outcome is known. Death or defeat aren't considered possibilities.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 10 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
But take Troy (2004), "Let no man forget how menacing we are" - how well is that going to work after your 'menacing' comrade takes an arrow to the face right next to you? Pretty sure everyone has had a parent tell them 'the animal is more scared of you than you are of it.'
5 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 9 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
I don't recall that ever making me feel better. And Gladiator (2000) "Think where you'll be in a week, unless you're dead, if then just lulz" - hardly encouraging?
4 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 9 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
And those are some of the better ones. So many of these damn movie battle speeches are basically football pep talks, "I'm with you, you got this, winning is fun, go get 'em!"
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
I mean, have you read the ancient speeches that inspire these? Lendon (2017) memorably describes most literary examples as "cold, unbuttered toast."
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @Roelkonijn
I'm not sure that's fair to the genre (Lendon is speaking only of Appian there, as I recall?). Lendon concedes the genre is fundamentally tethered to actual delivery, even if the speeches themselves are inventions....
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @Roelkonijn
...I'd suggest that the purpose of those speeches is suited to their conventional, somewhat boring delivery. Civilian rhetoric was meant (as Cicero says, over and over) to stir the emotions. Whereas I think the ancient battle speech is meant more to calm them.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @Roelkonijn
The basic structure of "here is why the enemy is scary, here is why we can still win, here is why we must win" is a pretty effective way to calm terror. There's elements of CBT in it (validate the feeling, present a more helpful mode of behavior, explain its value).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
And if you are trying to calm, rather than inspire, boring and stately rhetoric is the way to go. Less great for the modern reader, mind you, but probably more effective in the moment than the faux-inspirational Hollywood battle speech.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.