Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?
Printable View
Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?
Inaccurate (and I don't necessarily mean this as a bad thing):
Ben Hur
300
Troy
Clash of the Titans (both of them)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (or at least, so I've heard - haven't watched it)
Any of Shakespeare's three Roman plays
Accurate (or at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get):
Rome (HBO)
Passion of the Christ (I haven't seen it, and don't want to, but from what I've heard, it's portrayal of those days is pretty accurate, even down to the torture)
King Arthur (the one from the early 2000's that flopped - it's based on a lot of research about Roman Britain. Granted, it does get some dates wrong)
I, Claudius (some bad costumes, but on the whole a rather accurate portrait of the Julio-Claudian dynasty)
Those are all that come to mind at the moment.
- that's exactly the issue. Hollywood simply isn't likely to endorse historical accuracy and a realistic portrayal of ancient history - neither today nor in the near future. Why hire qualified advisors, spend years researching details and risk an embarrassing box office failure, when you can churn out lucrative run-of-the-mill sword-and-sandal movies, nicely garnished with blood and guts?Quote:
(...)at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get
True - there were/are notably exceptions - 'I, Claudius' and HBO's 'Rome' - who at least tried to fullfill higher standards, but on the whole...
What about Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus? Whilst I don't know nearly enough about that era to make an informed judgment on the movie's accuracy, it certainly seemed convincingly realistic to me.
Also, a question/point: Mulceber includes Troy and Clash of the Titans in one of his lists. If we're going to consider movies based on myth and/or legend, are we primarily concerned with their adherence to the source material or with their realism? I mean, the term "historical accuracy" doesn't even seem applicable to movies/shows based upon documents which are widely considered to be products of imagination more than than fact. Perhaps Mulceber simply meant that anything based upon the myth of Perseus or of the Trojan War are going to be historically inaccurate. But I thought I would ask just for clarification.
don't expect Hollywood to make accurate movie. they just making profit, not historically accurate
@ B_Ray - When I talked about Clash of the Titans and Troy, I meant accurate to the source material, and also accurate to Olympian Theology and Mythology. Sorry about the lack of clarity.
@ Lucretius - I totally agree - that's why I, broadly speaking, avoid watching these movies as history (although I'll admit that I, Claudius formed a good basis for my knowledge of the Julio-Claudian dynasty). To me, they're mainly just drama and entertainment couched in an era I love.
Probably you also meant an 'true to the spirit' approach combining 'historical realism' (eg. accurate Anatolian/Mycenaean Bronze Age equipment for Homers' heroes) and adherence to the 'source material'. But while (at least possibly) applicable to the Trojan War, this is bound to provoke endless controversies when more 'mythical' subjects are touched (Perseus, Titanomachy,...)
@Mulceber: You are perfectly right - but think of millions of people whose only contact whatsoever with classical history was watching 300...
agreed. It's a very difficult subject to broach, since if we wanted to be strict about it we would just have to throw all these shows out as inaccurate. But then, that wouldn't allow us to consider portrayals of ancient society in film on any deep level. -M
you must put this on top of your list. my eyes bleed when watch this. really opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Most accurate
I Claudius
HBO Rome
Those really are the great ones, HBO Rome not only towers over things in historical accuracy, it does it in quality to. The characters are genuine, you feel what they feel and you learn about them and get to like them as the series goes on.
Less accurate but still good, and still a must see
Gladiator (Ironically Cassius Dio agreed that Commodus killed his father because he was getting disinherited)
Kirk Douglass Spartacus (has some anachronisms, but still presents a believable and realistic plot, and who cares that the real Spartacus wasn't an abolitionist and was born free?)
Innacurate trash, ahistorical, below low quality
Spartacus Blood and Sand
Virtually ahistorical, do not see
300
Slight imrpovement at least when compared to Blood and Sand.
Edit- I apologize for the very poor grammer and pathetic spelling in this post, I am unfortunately in a rush.
Also, I'd like to add the History Channel to the "inaccurate" list. -M
How about "The Divine Weapon", which is a movie about the Korean hwacha. I don't know that much about Korean history, so I can't say anything about its historical accuracy, but how can you not admire this:
http://www.hwacha.net/img/hwacha/hwa...ring_photo.jpg
I can come up with no new adds for the period, but for others, films and TV-shows to see are
Band of Brothers (HBO again)
Stalingrad, German, 1993
Das Boot, German ??
The Iron Cross, American or British, so-so in accuracy but the first film to not merely portray Germans as total villains but see things from their PoV and OK portrayal of life at the front
The Duellists, 1997, Ridley Scott's first film (you have to search the cover to find his name). Napoleonic Era.
All Kurosawa's films are good, whether or not they are accurate on all points they are in spirit.
Battle for Algiers, propagandistic but in some ways pretty faithful in its portrayal of at least Les Paras.
1612 is best avoided by historically interested, except for the total badass mercenary Spaniard Alvar. My friend Jan writes a summary here if you scroll down a bit.
Avoid
Ran (Korean)
Mongol (Mongolian or Russian)
Vercingétorix: La légende du druide roi (2001) has legionaries wearing LS, tut tut.
@Macrille: 'Ran' is actually Kurosawa's last epic jidai-geki - certainly you must have confused it with one of these Korean 'historical romances'
Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie.
The Pacific - is said to be good too, though I've not seen it yet, just read the critics about it.
Enemy at the gates - seemed ok too for me, anyone?
Alexander - isnt really accurate as they mix the battles and leave a lot of important events out of the movie.
All Quiet on the Western Front - I like this movie, but I don't really know if it is accurate or not, I don't really like to study the WWs, someone?
That is true, it can't be that difficult to find airworthy P-47s. My main objection to Saving Private Ryan is the fact it makes no mention of the contribution by British Commonwealth, Canadian or Polish forces, even the landing craft drivers (who were actually British) are replaced by Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
SPR is in fact very inaccurate.
Lvcretivs that is true. Damn... there was one really- really bad Korean spin-off of the Chinese "historical" fighting films (which are bad enough in itself, edit THEMselves).
Nothing new... is both quite accurate and, AFAICR, faithful to the book by and large. I forgot that :-( Baaaad Palle.
From all movies about antiquity I like "Alexander" the most. It is not accurate, but it has at least some accuracy in it.
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era. -MQuote:
May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire
I give them props for introducing the theory that the myth of Arthur and his knights has its basis in the Sarmatian auxiliaries, but my impression is that they were muddled about everything else. Lucius Artorius Castus fought off a Pictish rather than Germanic invasion: I can only assume that they made the Germans the enemy because that is what the public expects. That is presumably also the reason for placing the story a century or two after Castus lived, making him a Christian, giving him modern opinions on religion and society, etc. This wouldn't have bothered me very much if it was a typical Hollywood film, but they explicitly claimed to have found the historical Arthur. Especially since the story of Castus is, at best, only one element of the Arthur myth as we known it, and there's several lines of evidence that contradict Artorius playing a significant role in the historical events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.
"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.
Hush you, BAD LUDENS :clown: katanas can block bullets!
Ah how nice of you all to talk about me while I'm gone. :clown:
I do not know about Tora x 3 as it is one of those I have not seen. However, the fighting in The Last Samurai is actually quite well done in contrast to most Hollywood movies. The various Achilleus Duels in Troy as well, the one with Hector is brilliant IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I remember that Tora Tora Tora used real planes & ships, but so long since I watched the movie now.
HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Alexander by Oliver Stone. Persians looking like and speaking Arab...Roxanne was also caucasian. At least Macedonian army seemed accurate enough.
I still can't get it out of my head, the phalangitai and their drills.....the gayness is bad, but I liked the battles with the phalanx...
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!
Yes, and it got some scathing reviews, I hear. Probably because they confused the Saxons with the Chinese and had some "Warrior Chick" (Keira Knightley with a bow. Yeah right. I wonder how she managed to draw the thing) thrown in for fanservice.Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
I remember reading that one as a kid. The novel is quite good.Quote:
"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
Yeah something of a wasted chance with those Ptolemaioi. Though some audiences (read: executives) probably never heard about Galatians or even Diadochs, so they would have claimed it "unhistorical" if the show had actually shown it the way it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.Quote:
Roxanne was also caucasian.
I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
Good point about the church latin, although that basically just means that their pronunciation was inaccurate. As for the LS, not sure how accurate or inaccurate that would be for the period: LS was at its height by the Flavian dynasty, but it's possible that it was already rather common by ~30 AD. Not saying it's right to have ALL the legionaries wearing it, but if those are the only problems with the Passion, it stands pretty well, historically speaking. Even shows like Rome had similar problems - the little Latin that is spoken in Rome is pronounced like Italian, and there's LS in season 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadwalader
Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. AlsoSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
Oh andSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.
Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
Well for all we know some Dravidians migrated to central asia and porked some Afghan royalty a few generations ago. After all, the genetic history of the Pashtun people is actually a rather controversial topic - I mean people are studying how cloesly related to Jews they are and they exhibit pretty much every single genetic trait from Eurasia...Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Interesting - I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, although I suppose I probably should now - who knows, it might make me like Medieval II more. :clown:
I dunno, I can't put my finger on it, but something about the look of Gladiator has always struck me as wrong...it's a fun movie, no denying that, and one of the great modern sword-and-sandals flicks, but I guess it just didn't feel like a real society. There were aristocrats and then there were slaves. They didn't really delve into anyone in between, like Rome did. -M
That is a bad reason though, the concern should be for quality, note that the HBO Rome series that everyone here universally liked never concerned itself with who would be offended, who wouldn't like this etc etc, although I agree that nudity and Crusades aren't the same thing.Quote:
B]Kingdom of Heaven[/B] is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. AlsoSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
Oh andSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
Furthermore Guy de Lusignan was not a villainous jerk, I don't know what you have read but Ridley Scott butchered the love story, which actually was the Leper King allowed his daughter to pick a husband of her free will who she loved, and she chose Guy while the nobility and clergy was pressuring him, and her to pick Balien because his abilities were well known and respected. Muslims and Christians also did get along very well in the Crusader states, there are some very good books about it I could recommend. Saladin just letting everyone go was another change to avoid giving offense, I just don't understand things like that, the middle ages actually happened, and people who go to see movies set in it should be treated to it. It's one thing if it is one of the medieval idealist myths like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but there is no good reason to white wash the Crusades (except where popular perception sees it as worse then it was).
I agree, what he changed he did in order to make his movie more acceptable to the audience, it is clear that while he didn't depict it that he knew who Guy de Lusignan (very well portrayed, he really was a bumbling idiot who lost controll of a vassal)was, and he knew who Saladin was and he does a great job with these things.Quote:
Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.
Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.
It is ironic that Commodus couldn't be depicted as bad as he actually was, compared to Cassius Dio and other historians Ridley Scott gives Commodus a white wash. Respectable historians from the Roman Empire actually did suspect Marcus Aurelius was setting up someone else to rule, although they had no proof for it apart from comparing the reign of Commodus to Marcus Aurelius.
Ridley Scott deserves two thumbs up though, white washing and hesitation to depict slavery and massacres are minor compared to trash like Blood and Sand, 300, and other recently done idiocy :idea2:
A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.
Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.
Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom, but the supporting cast was really great. I loved Saladin.
How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madoushi
A White Wash compared to Cassius Dio, one of the prominent historians of the time, the idea that Commodus killed his father because he learned he wouldn't get the throne otherwise dates back to him.
Some modern historians tend to de-emphasize Italy's part in the Empire, and the Senate, and so Commodus comes across better, others to an example the book Marcus Aurelius a Life by Frank McLynn take a more traditional view of him. Frank Mclynn I think does a good job at arguing in favor of Cassius Dio's work and credibility, not about the death of Marcus Aurelius though which he thinks was a natural one.
I'm reading his books at the moment. That man is a natural Rhomaioktonoi.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohn
Memphis Belle - I've not seen it for a long time, but it seemed ok then, except the attacking messers.
The man from Earth - It's a good movie with an interesting story, though it's not a classic "historical" movie.
Indegious brigantyk - It's totally inaccurate story wise, but the accessories looked ok enough. I don't really like the movie.
Attila - Watched it a few years ago, yet I don't remember to it. Anyone?
I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?
It is NOT accurate, but "don't see, beyond evil, your eyes will fall out, if you watch it"? Come on.
One of the biggest misunderstandings about the crusading era is that Muslims and Christians hated eachother all the time. It's simply not true. The Copts were respected, as were the Armenian and Greek eastern churches. Before the Ayyubids took over control of Egypt, the Fatimids and Byzantine Empire were BFF. ;)Quote:
minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing.
Actually...Quote:
I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?
"world-class historians", yeah right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Snyder
I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It also depended on the individual. Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.
On the Germanic peoples:
Battle of Arminius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBv...layer_embedded
Pretty interesting as they are showing the weapons, especially the club which is cut in such an way to cause more damage. The black dyed guys as well, seem more accurate then how EBI is portraying them. Perhaps some inspiration for EB II.
The Germanic Tribes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55sR...layer_embedded
Going past the warriors, taking several people from different Germanic times and showing how they could have lived and more information. Seems pretty accurate. Also nice is them showing the Germanics attacking the Romans in several wedges/boarsnouts.
Is also going to be an German series called Humanimal from BBC focussing on the Ulfhednar(Germanic/Viking Wolf Warriors) and showing their live.
For more information go to this site: http://www.ulfhednar.org/frame.htm then go to film/tv and then go to Run in with wolfs and see those nice pictures.
http://www.ulfhednar.org/Humanimal/7.jpg (Gaesatae are scary but seeing this...)
Short review of this: (Spoilers, if anyone is willing to waste almost two hours of his life)
http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-con...er3_poster.jpg
- Apparently, it seems that in 460 Rome (actually something vaguely resembling the Forum and not much else) was still the Capital of the Western Roman Empire and that the Emperor lived there.
- Something resembling a druid was still around during this time. Roman upper classes were keen on importing them to educate their sons.
- Looks like the Romans were a monarchy because all the Emperors are the descendents of Julius Caesar, even five centuries after his death. Nero, eat your heart out.
- When the Viking-Goths attack Rome, the depleted Roman Army wears lorica segmentata and fights with the gladius. Naturally, fighting with equipment abandoned for more than a century, they get pwned. The Legions are composed by Romans, Numidians, Celts, Jews... damn, they had plenty of manpower, why did they need the Goths fighting for them?
- Somehow a Roman commander saves the heir to the Roman throne. Then they are betrayed by theSassanidsByzantines, except from an Indian-Keralite female ninja who chooses to fight for them and carries a sword from the future.
- They manage to rescue the kid from Tiberius' Villa Jovis, which was actually an impregnable fortress. The kid finds Caesar's medieval sword there, and they manage to flee all the way from the Bay of Naples to Great Britain. Wise choice, specially when no one in the group is aware that the last Roman troops left the island 48 years ago.
- Amazing! In Hadrian's Wall they find a legion that vanished from history 340 years ago. They were disguised as local farmers and kept their lorica segmentatas bright and shinny waiting for this day.
- Things get complicated when a Saxon warlord-magician allies with the Goths and they all march into Hadrian's Wall to retrieve the boy and his sword.
- Luckily our heroes win the battle heavily outnumbered. The kid throws Caesar's sword into a stone. Roman commander and Indian ninja lady fell in love and adopt the kid, who turns out to be Pendragon. So, Arthur is descended from Julius Caesar, and is informed of all of the previous facts by 700-years old Druid Merlin.
EDIT: Ohhh, and I forgot, it seems that the spread of Christianity never happened, that most of the people living in the WRE and its former lands are either pagans or atheists.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So that's the movie I won't watch on the Movie fanatics' night.
He's done his research, but it is very biased against the Romans. As it says on the cover: this is history from a different point of view. Presumably he wanted to write about the Romans in the same way as the Romans wrote about everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohn
@ NikosMaximilian
~:thumb:
My opinion on Kingdom of Heaven:
There are many historical inaccuracies, the wikipedia page has them summarised quite well, e.g. Templars who were sent to kill Balian wear Teutonic uniforms, Balian probably never visited France, Guy wears a Templar uniform despite he shouldn't, Balduin was more of a warrior king than a peace loving visionary...
BUT I didn't care, I really liked that movie, it was probably the best of all that Hollywood blockbusters I have seen for many reasons. My favourite character was Balduin, he very well played.
ROFLQuote:
Originally Posted by Tenebrous
It also depends on where you are looking. Al Farabi was taught astronomy by a Nestorian Christian in the House of Wisdom. Of course, this was 200 years earlier and in Baghdad, but still.Quote:
I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Also, I think there's a wide gap between inconsistencies historians and history enthusiasts would notice, and those laypeople would notice.
I didn't know hardly anything about Alexander before I saw the movie, so I didn't know any better, whereas Gladiator 'felt' very wrong to me, despite that fact that while I'm enthused about the Roman era, I'm certainly no historian, and honestly, not even the most perceptive or intelligent of people. :smile:
I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.Quote:
I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.
1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.
2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.
3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).
4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.
5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...
The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)
Thanks for the points, Gamerdude. Good to get someone who knows his stuff to review it. -MQuote:
Originally Posted by gamerdude873
You know we should have a historic review thread if this turns into one great, if not we need one with reliable reviews from people who know what they are talking about :)
Great idea, ASM - it could kind of serve as a guide for people going into the movie so that they should know how seriously they should take it. -M
I think Hollywood spin docvtors say "oh and we did heaps of research and its 100% accurate" for any historical film they make.
SPR is a case in point, it was an excellent looking WW2 drama, but they left out details like the British army, (although the criticism of Monty was realistic, the Yanks definitely thought he was overrated) and they cast a bunch of 40 and 50-year old actors like Sammy from Cheers and that lame comedian from Big when the average age in that army was around 25 (IIRC it was a largely green army mostly raised in the States and shipped direct to the fighting). From what I saw Band of Bros was closer, they looked pretty young, even the officers.
AFAIK there was some nice costume design in Gladiator but the storyline was hokum. Marcus Aurelius was a secret republican? Commodus was a nervous self-doubter with a harelip? This is fantasy. The opening batlle scene is a delight and if an historian assures me its a good re-enactment I'll believe them but don't tell me Gladiator was history. Commodus was an overconfident nutjob who bashed animals with a club in the arena (dressed as Hercules) and was strangled in his bath. Once again excellent research on the setting but the story fell into the hands of a writer, for whom hiistory has little value.
Alexander was AFAIK a better stab at it, left stuff out but didn't stray from the accepted storyline, even left a few controversial things deliberately vague. Eg was Al big gay Al? All you see is a bit of a kiss and Bagoas putting out the lights...maybe they were just good friends, its up to the viewer to decide. I especially like the bit where old narrating Ptolemy says something like "Alexander was poisoned we all knew it...no wauit change that, he died of fever" which sort of bundles together the main theories and once again, make up your own mind.
That recent King Arthur was rubbish, Nazi Saxons? Sarmatians using 2-handed axes and weird fist-knives? Roman forces in Britian amojunted to slightly more than half-a-dozen randy Sarmatians. Some vague guesswork about the end-game of Roman rule in Britain is not history, it was wildly speculative.
Kingdom of heavebn is another Galdiator, some nice costumes, a few real names and a real war but the narrative is a fantasty and major lies told for the purpose of the story. EG the last King of Jerusalem was dwarfed and seruiously deformed by his leprosy, it wasn't just a little hole in one cheek, nor did he wear a silver mask. Also he was only about 24 when he died, the actor was a much older man.
The siege was a very bloody affair, and did not end with a peaceful line of pilgrims trudging home. Salah-ud-Din was a very noble and gentle ruler by the standards of the times (and compared to the Christians), but he slaughtered all the templars and Hospitallars IIRC.
If you watched the extended edition, he had no face when his mask was taken off.
I've seen planks act better. He dragged the film down a notch on his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Yeah, I don't really care for Orlando Bloom in any movie, but most especially in Kingdom of Heaven. Though to be fair, I'm not so sure it if it was him or the script. It didn't seem like there was much to his character in the first place. I'd say that out of all the characters in the movie, his was easily the least interesting and most closed. I kept wishing someone else was the protagonist.
@Cyclops I agree with most of your points but in one aspect I have to take position for Kingdom of heavan: they did mention very often that the king is a young man.as they never show anything un changed of him a older man workes quite as wwell
That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade. His documentaries also have a very high tendency towards exaggeration, and he also does a lot of conclusions without evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Frankfurter Schüle?Quote:
That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade.
That's Schule. We don't use umlauts on everything :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
They're not really my taste though, and you could hardly base a historical documentary on their methods.
Bah, I shouldn't be writing posts right after I've woken up (being Dutch myself)Quote:
That's Schule. We don't use umlauts on everything https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/../im.../gc-laugh4.gif
I don't really like the Frankfurter Schule either, but according to them, there is no such thing as objective research.
According to postmodern theory there is no such thing as objective research. The mere fact that you choose the subject of your research makes you and it subjective. That is not just the Frankfurter Schule who says that, it is all postmodern theory. If you are to do valid and viable research you still have to keep as close to objective as you can, and in any case, present the opposite view as well and if possible explore the possibilities of it as well.
Jones' reply would be that most other documentaries about the Roman era are extremely biased towards the Romans (usually because they look no further than Roman sources). His documentary is an anti-dote. I agree with the sentiment, although I do think he could have done better. To someone who knows a bit more about the era, his agenda is very obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M
Quote:
Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M
Define "truth".
Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
This is not necessarily post-modernist. The concept of relative truth is something that has been laid out for over 2,000 years, especially in the Indian subcontinent.
Hence why I added "or at least as close to the truth as it's possible to get." I would argue that there is a concrete reality, but it is impossible for humans to know it because our senses and/or the faculties we use to process sensations are clouded by our ideology and our perception of the way we think things "should be." Thus, all opinions are going to be inherently inaccurrate. However, there's a difference between accidentally being biased while in pursuit of truth and willfully presenting something one knows to be false in the interest of "evening the score." -MQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Maybe he is responding to the "Littkle ladybird Book" version of history. As a kid we had these short illustrated books about how lovely Cromwell was, how bad King John was, how William rightfully conquered England, all the usual Whig tripe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.
Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent. Honestly, as if the cradles of our civilisations haven't been warred over for thousands of years by endless armies of every colour, class and creed.
The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.
Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.
Pontius Pilate was a post-modernist?Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
"What is truth?" he asks Jesus, before sending him to his death, but the Galillean does not answer.
Well you always have me to defame and slander that one! Wes thu hal, Saxnotas!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
In a perfect world, perhaps. But in this world, the general public is so used to seeing the Romans depicted as the bringers of civilization and the Celts and Germans as shirtless savages that did nothing but wage war (and didn't even know how to do that properly) that they consider it common knowledge. You need to be very persuasive to convince them that the barbarians may not have been barbarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulceber
Fair enough. I thought this problem was just with his Barbarian series (I filled several notebooks with comments on the errors and biased reporting in the accompanying booklet), but I know more of this era than I do of the Middle Ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
On final word in his defence, though. His documentaries do seem to work. The reappraisal of the Barbarians in popular history has been going on for about a decade, yet I get the impression that Jones' documentary has done a lot to make this movement more widely accepted. That does not in any way pardon him for his sensationalist presentation, but it seems we need this approach to make the public more receptive for the better documentaries. I would prefer to be proven wrong on this, though. :shrug:
lol I didin't know you were taught stuff this way. Then again, Australia was quite different some decades ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Now that sounds interesting, I wish he would have continued in that direction, instead of taking sides in that conflict and making absurd moral claims.Quote:
I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.
Which is the usual garbage told by non-scientists. Yet another hobby "historian" who confuses peaceful with pragmatic.Quote:
Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent.
I agree with your observations.Quote:
The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.
Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.
Let's not forget that a significant part of his agenda is to make money and have enough clout to be given other projects to do, thus making more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
This is not flippance (flippancy? The act of being flippant?) on my part: if Terry Jones (or anyone) did a documentary series on how everything you ever learned in school was exactly right, and that the state of the art on Roman-era history is Edward Gibbon, it wouldn't be as successful. This kind of thing happens in academic history and archaeology as well: every new PhD looking to make his bones (and get tenure, not to mention a lucrative book deal) has to come up with a new angle, or a total revision of the last generation. Otherwise, so dull, blah blah, we've heard that all before.
I exaggerate a little for effect. But to the extent that history is entertainment and thus business, people are strongly encouraged to stake out controversial and/or revisionist positions just to get noticed. It takes a lot to resist that kind of pressure.
And if you can't sell anything, you pretty much find yourself unemployed soon, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Yes and the pressure to give pride and recognition to people who have been written out or diminished is there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
IIRC in a great film "Once Were Warriors" an admirable Maori mentor tells a troubled lad about that Maori club/lance/wooden thingy and says something like "the English thougt they had the ultimate infantry weapon in the bayonet until they met our warriors with their taiaha" .
I can think of at least two things wrong with that sentence (the English did not think much of stone-age weapons before or after meeting the Maoris, and the bayonet was a cheap mass-produced secondary killing tool for the rank and file, not any sort of "ultimate weapon"), but he was just trying to express some pride in a much derided tradition. It actually sounded quite cool when he said it too.
History is a messy bundle of conflicting points of view. Maybe a fractured narrartive style could reflect contested historical episodes, like they use in Oz where you follow different characters and see different PoV's?
That film Munich was a fictionalised version of events, but made some telling points about a real historical event: tragedy, clearsighted revenge, less clearsighted revenge, pointless murder and disillusion.
I guess the storyteller has to sell his story too, and that means telling lies.
That would just means Jones is horribly uninformed about the field, the 19th and 20th century German universities were filled with praise for the barbarians and extreme exaggerations very similar to the ones he does in his documentaries. The good or evil of Rome has been in constant shift in peoples minds since the rennaisance, Rome was a constant in Papal anecdotes as a warning that no matter how powerful you are being unjust (as the Pope saw it) would get you destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
If that is his version of history he was very much ahistorical. The Islamic World peaceful before the Crusades? Perhaps that is how they conquered North Africa, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete and Spain and half of France, while also managing to burn down Ostia and Rome? Not only that nobody is taught about chivalric Crusaders today, today's education goes in the exact opposite direction. The comparison to the Galatians is true, just remember that every 20 or more years another Christian area was falling to Islamic forces, when Alexius Comnenus made a jesture of reconciliation towards the Papacy the Crusades happened. The Islamic World was intrinsicly violent in a violent world, the fact that people have an axe to grind with the Crusades doesn't negate basic history. It isn't without reason that the Crusades used to be called Christendom's counter attack. I'm not saying wether or not they were justified, but the Jones version of events really is just the fashionable rather then historical version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
In addition to that what is over correct? Pro-Barbarian sentiment over Rome is very old, in fact over a hundred years old, the problem is finding a source for it in ancient texts.
I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales.
There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.Quote:
Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman
This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.
I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.
Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.
Which Caliphate do you mean the Fatamid or Baghdad one? I'm not uninformed about either, I don't pretend to be an expert but I will agree that the East was at the time more "civilized" then the West. That of course is a relative statement, the stage, and a lot of other cultural things that never entirely left Europe were neglected in the Islamic middle east during the middle ages. In addition to that it doesn't prove the Crusaders were bloodthirsty monsters depicted by Terry Jones, or that the Islamic world was peaceful, the emergence of Turkish rule changed the balance of power, hurt the Byzantine Empire greatly, and forced Alexius Comnenus to come to terms with the Papacy so he could get Papal support (in the form of the Crusade). Terry Jones largely skipped the battles in Asia Minor that restored Byzantine power. His Crusades is on par with the History Chanel, tv documentary series have largely been going down hill for awhile it isn't just him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome, to many modern Europeans Rome is the bogeyman depicted by Terry Jones, I would probably guess that the cult of Rome had a resurgence when Gladiator came out and has since gone into a decline.Quote:
There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.
This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.
I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.
Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.