EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
An English film? I thought it was a Russian director who made it, one who had just made a film about War and Peace before that. It has been pointed out to me by our friendly neighborhood Russian expert that he used some of the same sets including all the costumes and the set pieces with soldiers lined up at a distance. The Russian expert says that Russian film audiences like extreme close ups, and the director keeps on focusing on Napoleon's and the Duke of Wellington's faces. The Russian audiences also like films that move slowly, and this moves VERY slowly. It almost creeps. Gary says he saw it once before, and they cut out much of the beginning of the film including the part about the ball and fast forwarded to the beginning of the Battle of Waterloo.
In particular I am disappointed by the ball scene. The actress playing the Duchess of Richmond looks absolutely NOTHING like the real Duchess whose portrait I have on my Edward Ware Thrillers Pinterest Board. She doesn't even act like the Duchess of Richmond who was several degrees more silly than the one in the film. My novel isn't a battle novel and isn't the same sort of thing as the film. It has a female point of view, but still I make a huge deal about the ball scene and the scene afterwards where the Duke of Wellington is talking to his staff and pointing out on a map where Napoleon could be and where he could attack him.
This film shows you the superiority of films made from novels. Actually that isn't strictly true. I think some top notch films have been made from scripts. I'm sure I could think of one if I really try. But it really does help to have a point of view character. Just showing a lot of miscellaneous action is rather boring. By the way novelists have an advantage here. There have been far more successful novels especially in the nineteenth century with multiple viewpoints than films. Tolstoy's War and Peace is one of them. Tolstoy takes the point of view of God, not something most novelists can get away with.
There doesn't seem to be a Hollywood film on Waterloo.
Linda wrote: "An English film? I thought it was a Russian director who made it, one who had just made a film about War and Peace before that. It has been pointed out to me by our friendly neighborhood Russian ex..."It is an English made film with mostly English actors made from an English book. The Duchess of Richmond's ball is historically famous and the best bit. It is a cultural difference between the old
and new worlds which leaves Americans cold but which we love.
Linda wrote: "There doesn't seem to be a Hollywood film on Waterloo."If there were it would be utterly ghastly. The first thing they would do would be to change the whole battle sequence to make it more exciting, then their fictional hero would be instrumental in the victory in order to get an Oscar nomination for their star.
Ted Turner (CNN) might be okay. His Civil War trilogy is very accurate and well made, but I don't think it was that popular in America.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with including the Duchess of Richmond's ball. I just don't like the way the director handled it. He spent too short a time on it (unlike most everything else where he dragged it out) and he didn't make it dramatic enough. A soldier announced that Napoleon has broken through, but it falls flat. There is no build up, no anticipation, nothing going on in the film at the time. And I don't like the portrayal of the Duchess of Richmond herself. As I said, the Duchess didn't look like that. Nor did she act like that.
I still say though the actors were mostly English and Ameircan, the director was Russian and it shows. He has no dramatic sense. He drags things out and doesn’t build up to a climax very well. He insists on filming every page the way he filmed War and Peace right before that. He has too many close ups of people’s faces for no particular dramatic reason and has multiple points of view that don’t fit in well with the action.
I have a hero in my novel who is instrumental in the battle. I won't say how. But he is certainly fictional. He is not the point of view character. The point of view character is female. I manage to edge her into a position where she witnesses part of the battle the way I got Dora onto the battlefield in North Africa with Edward in Captive at the Berghof. You have to go for what is dramatic. That is all that matters in a film, and it is not cultural. What makes a good film makes a good film anywhere in the world. For instance, have you ever seen the Japanese Macbeth? That was made in Japan but follows all the principles of good film making. I've seen lots of foreign films thanks to Vinegar Hill Theater in Charlottesville when I used to live there. They all obeyed the same rules, thank you.
I think the most dramatic part of the Battle of Waterloo was the part about Closing the Gates at Hougoumont. That is the centerpiece of my novel about the battle and helps build up to the conclusion.
Linda wrote: "I have a hero in my novel who is instrumental in the battle. I won't say how. But he is certainly fictional. He is not the point of view character. The point of view character is female. I manage t..."Yes but what Americans think is a good film is not always the same as the British view. If it is an historical film based upon an acclaimed biography the British taste is for accuracy and sub plots that annoy Americans. We generally think American films are over done and over acted. That does not mean we don't enjoy them but we acknowledge they are American and they like it that way. indeed Rod Steiger over played Napoleon.
You are always very censorious and critical of British ways and preferences. You need to accept us as we are. Incidentally the film had an Italian producer. And we like the Russian director's pace.
I am sure you handle the drama in your novel well. The difference i think between the two styles is that Americans are more literal and Brits are more nuanced. And America likes action where Brits love reflection. So do the Russians.
I am very busy at the moment and now to cap it all we have the biggest government crisis since the Thatcher era. There are several blogs about it if you want to catch uphttp://malcolmblair-robinson.com/word...
If you start four down from the top you will pick up the story.
What I am saying is that it is not the American view or the British view of how to make a movie about any subject at all let alone Waterloo. When you are talking about fiction there are certain rules you might say. The plot must build up to a climax no matter what unless you are doing stream of consciousness or something from the 20th century that wouldn't make it into a film. For instance, William Faulkner who wrote the Sound and the Fury (stream of consciousness without a structured plot, without punctuation and without structured paragraphs) also was a script writer. He knew how to write. He was just trying to be stylish for the time period.
My favorite director of all time is Alfred Hitchcock. I believe he was British. He even made certain films before going to Hollywood. He certainly doesn’t drag along with his plots. He knew how to create suspense and build up to a climax. So certainly all British directors don’t believe in slow plots.
British literature and American literature (even Italian and French literature or German literature, too) believe in fiction that starts fast and builds up to a climax. What you call American I think is just pop culture and commercial fiction. Remember we are not talking about literary fiction, though before the 20th century writers including Shakespeare knew that they had to entertain people and have fast plots that exploded into action. P.S. Even Homer seemed to realize this.
Linda wrote: "British literature and American literature (even Italian and French literature or German literature, too) believe in fiction that starts fast and builds up to a climax. What you call American I thi..."I agree with all of that. My only caveat is that when it comes to filming a true story the Americans are far more inclined to change it to make it more dramatic to please their audiences, whereas the British are more focused on historical accuracy.
Linda wrote: "My favorite director of all time is Alfred Hitchcock. I believe he was British. He even made certain films before going to Hollywood. He certainly doesn’t drag along with his plots. He knew how to ..."Yes Hitchcock has no equal. Although Psycho, my favourite, does make a slow start and then kills off the lead character half way through. All of that flew in the face of the right way to do things, but because of his genius it works.
Historical accuracy is fine, but it can't interfere with the plot or the build up to the climax. If one thing has to go it is the historical accuracy, not the plot. You have to favor action over scholarship in popular drama or movies just as in books. It is called artistic license, I believe.
I don't like Psycho that much. It is not one of my favorites. I like 50's Hitchcock and before, not 60's. I don't really like The Birds as much either for that matter. I used Hitchcock all over the place when I was writing YA fiction. For instance, once I used the premise of The Lady Vanishes (early film) for a novel that ended up being called The Mysterious Surfer. The heroine goes to a beach party and falls in love one night. The next morning she heads for a meeting with her new boyfriend on the same beach, but the guy is not there. She asks her friends who were at the party last night. They say they never heard of the guy before. He wasn't at the party. Why do you think that Psycho starts slowly? I think of it as building up suspense and atmosphere.
My former editor at Cora Verlag, Christine Boness, once asked me to do an interview for a YA magazine in Germany. They asked me what was the greatest influence on my writing. At the time I said Alfred Hitchcock and gave examples. For instance Rebecca, both the novel and the movie, is the very definition of romantic suspense with the emphasis on suspense. That formula guided more of my YA novels than anything else. I even used Psycho believe it or not in a novel called Murder at Hilton Head. Remember this is YA, not adult, and by definition is lighter. I had a reverse shower scene. I couldn't resist the temptation. The heroine is alone in the house taking a shower. She hears someone creeping around outside the bathroom. The light even goes off and casts her into darkness. But at the end of a huge build up she finds out it is only the repairman!
The incident in Brussels creeps me out because I just visited Belgium. That is the closest incident to someplace I have visited recently. (I have been to Paris, too, but only as a kid). I was only 8 miles away. In Tucson 8 miles would put me at Reid Park or the zoo where I used to go all the time. It is just down 22nd Street. If there were a terrorist incident there I think I would move out into the country more. In Brussels you could flee to Wallonia or the Ardennes. I recall hillsides with lots of trees there. You could find a hotel or place to stay in a forest. You would feel more concealed there. But there isn't much room in Belgium. It was teeny tiny and crowded. I remember rest stops with restaurants over the highway! Shall I show you a picture?
Yes do show me a picture. The thing is when you look at a globe the whole of Europe is still tiny by comparison to the US. Not only does it make security more difficult but it also affects how people react to each other and view politics etc. You can always do your own thing in America because there is always more space. There is room for everyone, whereas Europe is very overcrowded in places. England is one of them. Scotland less so.
By the way, in the Waterloo movie one of our objections was that the setting for the battle did not look like Waterloo. It was far too hilly. The hills were more precipitous than the ones in the actual Waterloo area which were slight. It was easy to look across the field toward Napoleon's Headquarters even on a rainy, dreary day as it was the day we visited last June. We looked it up and I think they filmed it in the Ukraine.
Today I will look back through the pictures of Belgium to find the ones I'm looking for. It was a crowded place. They did have restaurants suspended over the road on the main highway. Where would you go to flee terrorists? As I said, I didn't cover every square inch of Belgium, but the part just over the border from Trier and Luxembourg was Wallonia. That is where we stayed at the Ry d' Ave which is the model for the Inn at the Crossroads in my novel. Supposedly the King of Belgium has a castle just down the road from the Ry d' Ave, the country inn in the town of Ave which is near Rochefort and also near the tiny town of Auffe. But Wallonia would be the most obscure, countrified place in the whole country, I think. The trees were impressive and very, very dense on the hillsides. In the days of Julius Caesar this is where he encountered the Belgiae, the tribe. But in those days there were only pirates, not full-fledged terrorists.
Linda wrote: "By the way, in the Waterloo movie one of our objections was that the setting for the battle did not look like Waterloo. It was far too hilly. The hills were more precipitous than the ones in the ac..."Yes I think it was filmed partly in eastern Europe. Mind you it was made in 1970 when that was all behind the Iron Curtain.
I think the sense of space contributes to American thinking on several fronts. For one thing there is the American philosophy of transcendentalism about people communing with nature. Think of Thoreau. This is especially true out west where you have the most space. That is where you had John Muir who came to California from Scotland. He set up camp in Yosemite and founded extreme environmentalism as a political movement. Because of so much acreage and space you had the sense of local power and states rights (though I think part of this came from England). You started out with a loose confederation of states especially in the era when travel was difficult. So much space contributed to the Civil War and the expansion to the West.
That is how Napoleon touched American history. It wasn't with the Battle of Waterloo which meant nothing to Americans. It was with the Louisiana Purchase. Some people here would say forget the Code Napoleon. What matters most of all the things Napoleon did was to sell the Louisiana Territory to Jefferson kicking off the Westward Movement and making the US what it is today. No wonder Napoleon wanted to flee to the US after his defeat at Waterloo. He would have been welcomed here as were his brothers later.
I could go on and on including my sense that I can escape terrorists just by moving farther out into the country. For all you and I know, this sense of space contributes to many Americans thinking they can carry guns around. It is just an extension of thinking that you can defend your house from intruders. Now you can defend your turf and your own community from outsiders. Ultimately the sense of space creates and expands the sense of American Isolationism.
This is one of the wisest articles that you have ever posted and it all makes perfect sense and explains a great deal. I will have to leave it there for now as I have to get ready for a family dinner in town at a fish restaurant. Will tell you tomorrow what I ate!
Yes, space and American thinking go hand in hand. It even contributes to a feeling of individualism, a feeling that you want to be by yourself and do not want government interfering. It is all about the influence of geography on civilization. It goes back to the Cradles of Civilization and how all of them developed along major rivers such as the Nile where the river provided not only water for crops but a means of transportation and communication. And the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers kept on changing course contributed to the instability of Middle Eastern politics. Sound familiar? And this was in ancient times! In Latin class I remember the made up Latin phrase "Britannia est insula" which means Britain is an island. The fact that Great Britain is separated by water from the Continent has contributed greatly to its history and sense of independence. It also helped develop the British Navy. Much of this sounds almost scientific and seems to be a much more objective field of inquiry.
What town did you go to? What did you eat? Don't tell me it was fish and chips. That is what I usually associate with Great Britain in the way of fast food. But you never seemed to be the fast food type. it must be something more elegant with a sauce of some sort. And then there is the question of what you ate with it.The only place I ever have seafood is at the seashore. But then in Britain you are never very far away from the shore, are you?
In Latin class there was also the made up Latin phrase "Italia est paeninsula," which means "Italy is a peninsula". Like Britain which is an island, Italy has lots of shoreline and beaches. They also like fish. It goes back to ancient times there. The Romans ate lots of fish. They had a favorite fish sauce or flavoring that scholars equate with modern ketchup. Apparently the Romans did not like beef which they didn't raise in Italy. That was for the barbaric Germans to prefer.
Linda wrote: "What town did you go to? What did you eat? Don't tell me it was fish and chips. That is what I usually associate with Great Britain in the way of fast food. But you never seemed to be the fast food..."Here is where we went
http://www.sevenfish.co.uk/
We used the specials of the day menu which is not on the website. I had fish and tomato soup with pearl barley to start and fillet of pollock (like cod) steamed with Italian vegetables and pasta for mains. There was home made bread and olive oil included for everyone.
It is a very nice ambiance, quite upmarket but with lot of young people, which I like.
As the crow flies we are about 9 miles from the sea.
Linda wrote: "In Latin class there was also the made up Latin phrase "Italia est paeninsula," which means "Italy is a peninsula". Like Britain which is an island, Italy has lots of shoreline and beaches. They al..."Italian cooking is much lighter than German and not so rich as the French.
Seven Fish Canteen on the edge of the South Downs sounds like a stylish address near the sea. The menu looks innovative. It sounds as if the food might be just as innovate as their ads. If I ever drop by the South Downs, I will look them up.By the way, do you dye Easter eggs? That is something we've always done and just did again last night. We're having some for breakfast this morning. Tomorrow, too. But then tomorrow is Easter. Have a nice Easter. Anything special to eat tomorrow? We're making a banana cream pie for dessert with a turkey for the main dish.
Last night during dinner from 5 to 7 we tuned in to a live broadcast from Centennial Hall at the University of Arizona. What was going on considering that we've never done this before? Edward Snowden, the guy who used to work for the CIA and copied classified information to reveal to the press about the NSA was being broadcast live from an undisclosed location in Russia. There was a moderator and two other panelists. One was a University of Arizona linguist Noam Chomsky and the other was Glenn Greenwald, a journalist. They started by talking about what the NSA is up to and why it violates privacy. I liked this part, and I will quote from it later. But then they got to foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a super liberal freak, and he said exactly what you have on many occasions. He said that we started with Osama bin Laden back in 2001 and everything about terrorism was confined to Afghanistan. Now since the US has retaliated and bombed, terrorism has spread all over the world. The more we bomb the more terrorists spring up everywhere. He even implied that they have a right to since they are defending themselves, which I think is going farther than you do. But that part made me groan. They didn't have an historian as a speaker. Nobody mentioned that all this goes back to WW1, the Turks, and Lawrence of Arabia. Nobody mentioned that it is all a process of westernization and industrialization, and when that process runs its course there will be peace in the Middle East and only then. Of course I think that the problem is that we don't retaliate enough. I'm not talking about the sort of thing the Ottoman Turks used to do with cruel repressions that killed off whole villages and all the relatives of every terrorist and protestor. I'm talking about occupation for generations the way the British did in India. But of course we don't have the same economic motive that the East India Company had. You could say the motive would be oil, but America has its own oil. Maybe it is a good strategic location with the Suez Canal and all.
Snowden was all fired up and was speaking in quotable phrases such as “if you don’t care about privacy because you don’t have anything to hide is the same as saying don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say." That sounded pretty good to me especially since lately we've been concentrating on trying to hide ourselves more, surround ourselves with walls and fences, put our house and car in an LLC, etc. Another phrase was: “if you don’t care about rights because you don’t use them is probably the most anti-social thing I can imagine." He explained: "Rights exist to protect the minority against the majority." He accused the government of: "creating god from a machine" and "creating omniscience just in case at some point we want to go back and see what they did” as a justification for snooping on email. At the end of the program Snowden gave advice about using Tor, which means Anonabox to hide your identity online, which is something we've been trying to figure out how to use. So far we've been able to attach it to the main desktop computer but not to the laptops. I'll let you know what we find there.
I was amazed after 9/11 how quickly the public reaction turned away from attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and towards taking measures inside the country instead. They came up with Homeland Security, and it got worse from there. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. It's American Isolationism all over again. America thinks that almost all foreigners are bad and suspicious, odd because they are a nation of immigrants. So the preoccupation becomes with examining everything that comes into or leaves the country even if it is electronic. Snowden, Chomsky, and Greenwald all acted as if the government was becoming tyrannical and grabbing power, but I think that it is the people of America who are behind it. I also think that the reason the American population concentrates on surveillance inside the country is that they are glued to their computer screens. They never object to the President carrying out bombing raids especially now that you can do it with drones. I met a drone pilot here in Tucson who works at the Davis Monathan Airforce Base. He described how it is like a computer game. What the American people don't want to do is send real people abroad.
That sounds a really interesting evening. Your analysis is also very well developed. We have explored the American endemic suspicion of government, especially on home territory. As you say Presidents who project power overseas are left to get on with it, but once they turn their attention inward there are never ending problems.I think we are much less fussed about Snowdon and relaxed about any measures the government takes to keep the country safe. People trust our government because they own it but there is a big groundswell that does not like or trust EU governance, even though we are part of it. This and the desire to close our borders to EU migrants is a driver which excites the Leave campaign and may just take us out.
We dyed eggs for the children but not as adults. I am going to my second son in East Sussex for Sunday lunch tomorrow. It will be a tricky journey since although it is spring we are in the midst of stormy weather.
Hopefully the stormy weather will abate long enough for you to visit your second son in East Sussex for Sunday lunch. You don't want to get washed out along the road. As far as dying Easter eggs goes, we used to do it even before Kenny was born for some reason. And we continue to do it even though Kenny is no longer a little kid in kindergarten or first grade. I even put out an Easter basket or two for the dog and cat and for a six inch bear called Lou if you remember photos of what sits on the dashboard of our car. Lou always gets a new sand bucket for Easter. He poses with it near any pool he can find or any time he sees sand. Yesterday we got a truckload of mulch dumped in the front yard. Monday we're supposed to get a load of white play sand for the dog. Naturally Lou will think of it as a photo op. I might just be zany enough to send you a photo of Lou posing with his sand bucket and shovel and the pets with their Easter baskets. By the way, Happy Easter!
Another thing they didn't focus on Friday evening with Snowden was the origins of the internet and computers during WW2. They accused the government of collecting data and spying on people as something very recent, but really it had its origins trying to decipher the Nazi code. It started in England and spread here. On Friday night they were complaining about secret government organizations such as what the NSA was doing and I guess is still doing. But what about a secret city such as Los Alamos? This is what happens when you take a war time technology and apply it to civilian life.
We have purchased Tor technology ourselves in the form of an Anonabox Pro, a kind of software connection for your computer that makes you anonymous. If nothing else hopefully it will cut down on the amount of spam we get and eventually the commercial mail we get. We also just purchased a book about the subject on Kindle called Hiding from the Internet by Michael Bazzell. On Monday we are going to call the county recorder and try to get our houses taken off the public data base that is displayed online. This is also being abused by people who send you constant ads. It also could be used by somebody like the mover to find out where you live or what your assets are worth, etc. By the way this is something that Snowden suggested on Friday night during the interview. But we had started to do it anyway.
Yes had a lovely visit to Matthew, but now tired after busy day and driving so cannot contribute much.A piece of info for you. Britain has the most intrusive and complete surveillance and security system in the free world. but the population feels comfortable and protected. America is not as intrusive yet the people feel threatened. I suppose it is the same thing as feeling threatened by the government generally.
As I have said before Brits may not like the actual government and want to change it, but government as an institution is seen as a benefit, not a burden. People are pleased that it is snooping to keep them safe.
What Snowden was saying, what the other panelists were saying, was that they suspected that the people in the government were engaged in some sort of illicit power grab. But what I say is that the majority of people in America probably like or at least are willing to tolerate the government snooping to "keep them safe" also. They probably buy the government line. That is why the government does it in the first place.
But still there is a significant minority of people who don't like it and who protest it and who are taking actions to circumvent it. The panel of three --- Greenwald, Chomsky, and Snowden --- also mentioned that you have to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority which is something else that American government was supposed to be set up to do. It is called the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. If the majority of people want to spy on you, you are supposed to have a defense. You value your privacy even if the average Joe doesn't. And the average Joe might not have the acumen to realize that at some point he wouldn't like it either. He doesn't appreciate that there is a slippery slope. Give the government the power to snoop on all its citizens by collecting all their email and recording all their phone conversations and one day somebody might take advantage of it in an illicit way. You don't have to have a future dictator or tyrant. You could have something as simple as somebody in the future deciding to sell government data to commercial enterprises even though he isn't supposed to and that sort of thing.
Also if you are getting a divorce or you have a credit card after you because you didn’t pay your bill or if somebody is bringing a lawsuit against you, all these government data collection programs could spell disaster. Particularly the one about having your house listed online in a local government data base is bad. All anybody needs to know is your name and what city you live in and voila they can look up what you own and where you live and even whether you have paid off your mortgage. If you are sitting on top of a huge financial asset they will find out about it and will try to sue you for it. Also having your address listed publicly is an invitation for prowlers and thieves. It is also bad for identity theft.
I’m reading a book called Hiding from the Internet published this year. The author reveals that companies can be as bad as the government in their attempts at data mining and collection. In fact the two can work together. For instance Amazon seems to collect information about what you order on Kindle and even how much of a book you read. Apparently this sort of information can be used against you in a child custody case. The other party says you are unfit to have custody because of the kind of books you read and that sort of thing.
Linda wrote: "I’m reading a book called Hiding from the Internet published this year. The author reveals that companies can be as bad as the government in their attempts at data mining and collection. In fact th..."I am not sure you are right about this. Yes we do have in the UK, like everybody, masses of data collected by everyone, but we also have a Data Protection Act which makes it a criminal offence to release it for external use or publication. In other words a bank has to have a lot of detail about its customers but it cannot disclose that. We also have a Human Rights Act which offers huge protection of the individual as part of the European Convention on Human Rights (not part of EU). UK is signed up to that and the Human Rights Court is superior to national courts.
I am beginning to realize that the UK, although it does not have a written constitution, has some very powerful legal protections of individual liberty. The only way data can be released is by court order at the request of the Home Secretary and then only to security agencies in the event of a perceived threat to national security. It would be a crime with a tough prison term for it to be released to solve a trade dispute.
I can't believe that companies in Britain don't mine data and sell it for a profit. For instance you have Amazon.co.uk. That is part of what I am talking about. The cruise company I'm involved with sells information to other cruise companies, and Cunard has a headquarters in Britain at Southampton. I saw the building. There is even a traditional building at the port of Liverpool at the pier. It is part of a world heritage site. The grocery store rewards card gives you % off your order just so that the company can send you ads in the mail or online. I have an AT&T cell phone plan. They are constantly bombarding me with ads, etc. I could go on and on. Facebook is one of the worst. They sell advertising. You have a Facebook page and they sell ads to you. Goodreads also bombards you with ads all directed at you based on data they have gathered about you. Even the mortgage company does it, and they are a bank called Wells Fargo.
Much of it comes from letters and reports at the time. And remember also that the English underplay everything they do, including battles. The frantic excitement which Hollywood produces always amuses British audiences. It is a cultural difference. Also in this kind of historical drama Brits do not like a single hero. They see themselves as team players and they like to follow a team.
I consider Gone With The Wind the best film ever made. The acting is outstanding at every level. I have a digitally reworked DVD which makes the whole thing so fresh it could have been filmed yesterday. You can see how good it really is. But it is based on a novel. Waterloo is based on a very carefully researched biography of Wellington and the battle by a top historical author.