Misnomers

I'm going to stop apologizing for delayed posts. For some reason I feel this overwhelming need to write something every day for this blog, but the fact is I don't need to. I have a fair amount of people who read this, but not so many that they're demanding new material every day... plus I'm just exhausted. It's physically hard to keep my eyes open and stay awake most of the time these days. I'm trying to get things done, but my body is rebelling against me. Anyway, new stuff is in the works, so if you've had ants in the pants regarding my lengthy between-post pauses, you will soon be sated.

Anyway, now that that's out of the way, I have many pet peeves. Many. I rarely voice them or make them apparent, but they're there. And one of the things that annoys me most is when a title or name gives a false impression. I find it misleading and unfair, and generally it is an intentional decision to try and gather more of an audience.


mis-no-mer: [mis-noh-mer] noun
1. a misapplied or inappropriate name or designation.
2. an error in naming a person or thing.


This week's movie releases are a perfect example: Paranormal Activity 3 and Three Musketeers. Paranormal Activity 3 is a prequel to the first film... how does that warrant a 3? Clearly this was not a planned trilogy, otherwise the first film would have been dubbed Paranormal Activity 2; that would have confused a lot of people, but at least it would have been consistent. This type of thing bugs me.

The misnomer of Three Musketeers is more subtle. First of all, everyone knows (or at least everyone should know) there are more than three musketeers, but that is neither here nor there. The real issue here is that this crosses from misnomer to just plain misappropriation. I read Three Musketeers back in high school, and I can guarantee you that this movie has almost nothing to do with that book, aside from the period and most of the names. The book is an adventure tale, but it's also quite political. Several plot details relate to class disparity, sexism, legal justice - the action scenes are an extension of the underlying political text.

This film just looks like a travesty. Milla Jovovich is, apparently, playing the part of Milady, whose role in the book is quite limited... how is she the star? Also, my memory may be a little fuzzy, but the whole "steampunk" element involving jewelry heists, air battles, and other ridiculous machinery is just plain not there. The story, really, is a coming-of-age tale: d'Artagnan coming into a situation naive and ill-prepared, but then discovering himself and his abilities through his encounter with the musketeers. That looks to be lacking in this version

I know, I know - it's just a movie. I get that. My point, though, is: why bother to make a film called "The Three Musketeers," the title of a well known piece of classic literature, if said film has nothing to do with aforementioned book? You could save yourself a whole lot of time and just name it something else altogether, then there would be no issue. You can't tell me studio execs are trying to capture the Literati by adapting a classic novel. When have films of this sort shown any interest in being literate, much less literary? And it's not as though they're trying to encourage the young audience to read by bringing a piece of French literature to the screen; if they were, they wouldn't have altered the plot so much.

So really the question is: who are they trying to fool?