When I see the little sign "based on true events" at the beginning of a film or series, give me ground shaking. Not that fool you: something "based" on a true story does not have to be real. But make no mistake: for 90% of people who watch television for the sole purpose of passing the time, something "based on a true story" is equivalent to reality.
The problem is when you deceive. Does not seem right to present the public with a story as factual, when in fact a lie. I've talked to people who saw The Woman Pope in A3, a movie, tell me, entertaining, with a romantic history, at least curious, an Englishwoman who, after living like a monk, arrives in Rome and there gained the favor papal court, to the point that she is anointed Pope. The problem is that nobody (or very few) know she is a woman and if she's caught ... caput. I have told the story and I have listened with great interest. The problem has arisen when a person has told me has asked me to find that Pope Joan in the list of the Popes.
Naturally, this character is not on that list, that list is the best known and studied the history of mankind. The truth is that the legend, referring to a hypothetical "papa" circa 800-1100 - depending on the version, "appears in the thirteenth century and until then, there is no document. Historians who are familiar with the popes of that time have wondered where he might come to legend, given the impossibility of the existence of a pope inserted and then deleted (which would no doubt have been claimed by its proponents). Some link it to the weakness of a pope (John VIII, may be, and if not, forgive me) against the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, which at that time rose up against Rome, which would have won the saying that " acts like a woman "or the propaganda tricks of someone gallows, those who always gravitate to power. Others seek their purpose in the reminiscences of the practices of Carnival in the Middle Ages, when women were crowned as "popess" or "obispesas." The truth is that research historic century ago and a half century that legend debunked.
What is interesting is the existence of the legend and how it has been used to discredit the papacy. Is the period of Jan Huss and the emergence of schisms that deny the religious authority of the Pope when he starts talking about the alleged popess and not infrequently guess antipapist intentionality typically in reporting the story. Then the amplified Protestantism to the present day and the romance and literature would be responsible for immortalize.
I think, at least, a curious story has been fictionalized and also made several films, the last of the which has been presented recently in A3. The truth is that I felt guilty to see the disappointment on the faces of those who so eagerly asked me to locate a Pope Joan. The reaction when I told the truth, has been that good, it's a nice story, but a lie. But the problem is not that a lie, but we say it's true. A not so sure that the voice and self-sufficient in the notice says that the "factual" is referring to the existence of the legend and not the events themselves ... something I think is absurd and remote. I do not think aa cheat honest people.
By the way, to see if they make a movie of a character that really did exist and whose life and adventure was so extraordinary or more than the alleged Pope Joan. I refer to English Papa Luna, a man who could be mistaken, but, before God and conscience, convinced he was always right and that led to the end with tenacity (some would say stubbornness English) its claim to be the Pope authentic in interesting times, chivalrous and romantic of the great Western Schism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment