Spartacus

[hoom]

I just watched Spartacus the other night http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Its got about the best battle scene I've seen.

Thousands of people in formation with shields marching around some hills etc...

Sparticus is within the R:TW time period right? 71-73BC.
I guess it'll be a Senate mission.

[Nowake]

First, it's 73-71 BC.

Second, I heard that it'll be there as a mini-campaign.

[Sir Robin]

Last I heard Spartacus will be a mini-campaign.

It may also be a historical event like the Golden Horde in MTW.

[Nowake]

Should be easy to put out. He started from scratch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]First, it's 73-73 BC.According to my OED it's 73-71 BC (OK so I got mixed up, I really don't think BC timeperiods often so please excuse me for that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif )

Anyone want to comment on how far from reality the movie is? Enlighten me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I thought Senate Missions pretty much took the place of Mini Campaigns for R:TW?

[Sir Robin]

Its as far off as most hollywood movies are.

That being said, the only related works on the subject were done by the victors, roman, and their accuracy is probably skewed.

Been a while, but if I recall, the movie skips the whole "go north" thing, leaves out the wall across italy, and brings up the escape by sea which I don't think happened.

Still an amazing story of a unique historical figure.

[Barkhorn1x]

Spartacus, IMO, wasn’t so hot as it was more a vanity piece for Kirk Douglas than a faithful historical recreation. The acting was totally uneven - from excellent (Ustinov, Laughton), to good (Douglas, Olivier) to just awful (Curtis, that guy who gets whipped by Spartacus the first time).

The screenplay was written by a black-listed Communist (Dalton Trumbo) who made Spartacus out to be some slave hero crusading for social justice. Historical accounts seem to indicate that he was a Roman army deserter turned gladiator that was more interested in booty than in social justice.

The final battle was not at all historically correct since neither Pompey nor Lucullus were even close to Crassus’ army. It is true that Pompey “mopped up”, but this was DAYS after the dispersed forces of Spartacus had fled to the north – into the army of Pompie.

I suppose the screenwriter wanted to get his point across – that it took massive Roman forces to eliminate Spartacus - rather than a competently handled army as was historically the case. After all, Crassus was no military genius.

Barkhorn.

[Hurin_Rules]

Sure, there were some inaccuracies.

I did like the Roman legionary deployment part. The different cohorts moved forward and then deployed into line, in lock-step. It was beautiful. It showed how disciplined and intimidating the Roman legion could be.

I liked the movie. So it was made by a communist (what, does that make Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin crap? I don't think so), and maybe he did overplay the social justice angle. But it was a slave revolt, after all, and I'm sure many of them weren't too hot on the whole institutional slavery thing. Many marxists still hold to the view of the revolt as an expression of class conflict, and undoubtedly there is some truth to the idea. Kubrick may have exaggerated it a bit, but remember that he was making this just after the McCarthy era. I'm glad he erred on the side of emphasizing the need for personal freedom. Compared to other hollywood movies of its generation, Spartacus is a classic.

[Mount Suribachi]

Speaking of Hollywood movies about Rome, anyone else see Quo Vadis on BBC2 the other week? A young Peter Ustinov camping it up as Nero? Not sure about the popular revolt and Neros suicide being historically accurate though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Foreign Devil]

If you can, get the Criterion Collection DVD. It's worth the extra cost.

Find it here on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005A8TY/qid=1064367468/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-8335985-4424844?v=glance&s=dvd)

[hoom]

Since we're diverging from Sparticus, there was a BBC miniseries on TV here recently on Boudicca.

I thought it was quite nicely (though cheaply) done http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Anyone else seen it?

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Sep. 23 2003,12:47)]
Sure, there were some inaccuracies. [/b]

Some? Try dozens.


Quote[/b] ]I did like the Roman legionary deployment part.[/b]

Yes, that was my favorite part as well.


Quote[/b] ]So it was made by a communist (what, does that make Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin crap? I don't think so), [/b]

Did I mention that movie?? Which, now that you bring it up, was in fact a piece of Communist propaganda. That it was a well-made film was a bit beside the point Lenin and his cronies.

I brought up the issue of the screenwriters political leanings because it suffuses the entire film and paints what were little more than a rag tag bunch of brigands as a symbol for everyman under the Imperialist boot. This POV is not well supported by the facts.


Quote[/b] ]Many marxists still hold to the view of the revolt as an expression of class conflict, and undoubtedly there is some truth to the idea. [/b]

Really?? This interpretation contradicts the known facts. The slave revolts in Sicily some years earlier come a bit closer to this sort of thing. But they lacked a charismatic leader and didn't threaten Rome itself. I guess this means they get overlooked by the Marxist propaganda machine.


Quote[/b] ]Kubrick may have exaggerated it a bit... [/b]

Kubrick was hired to direct - according to the script - and Kirk Douglas. Spartacus is by no means a "Kubrick film". Just watch Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove and you'll know what I mean.

Barkhorn.

[Hurin_Rules]

Quote
Many marxists still hold to the view of the revolt as an expression of class conflict, and undoubtedly there is some truth to the idea.


"Really?? This interpretation contradicts the known facts. The slave revolts in Sicily some years earlier come a bit closer to this sort of thing. But they lacked a charismatic leader and didn't threaten Rome itself. I guess this means they get overlooked by the Marxist propaganda machine."

What 'known facts' does it contradict? There was a slave uprising, it marauded around Italy for a while and was finally quelled. Are you saying that the slave revolt was NOT a result of a class system in which one group of people becomes human chattel able to be bought and sold by another group?

Quote
Kubrick may have exaggerated it a bit...

"Kubrick was hired to direct - according to the script - and Kirk Douglas. Spartacus is by no means a "Kubrick film". Just watch Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove and you'll know what I mean."

I didn't know that. Strangely enough, I just watched Paths of Glory a couple of weeks ago. I can definitely see now why you wouldn't want to classify Spartacus as a Kubrick movie. How in the world did they get him to direct this thing, then, when it is so foreign to all the rest of his films? Interesting. So he didn't have much control over the script then? That must have made a control freak like him crazy. I remember some actor talking about working with Kubrick. He said on his first day on the set he came in as they were filming a scene. Kubrick demanded the actors do 78 takes. After they had done all 78, Kubrick used take 6. Can you imagine that???

[Mithrandir]

Moved to the Monastery, home of 'historical' movies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.