Spartacus ― the Cubrick Movie

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
How accurate is it in terms of depiction (weaponry, battles...)? The plotline is irrelevant but you may as well comment on that if you wish.
.

[Hurin_Rules]

I liked the way the Romans deployed from the cohorts into a line before the final battle. And AFAIK the rebels were in fact crucified along the road (was it the Via Appia?).

I once watched a lecture by historian Natalie Zemon Davis who argued that one of the glaring inaccuracies was the lack of any religious dimension to the revolt. I would have to disagree with her there, though. She acknowledged that none of the contemporary sources mention any religious element, but was simply arguing that is MUST have been there. A bit weak, I thought.

[Geoffrey S]

The via Appia it was, I think. The main plot element which is glaringly incorrect is that the escaped slaves were almost certainly not against the principle of slavery, unlike the movie tries to portray.

[Watchman]

Heck, a great many of them (like the Germans and Celts) of them were from cultures with a well-established parallel institution in the form of thralldom, or whatever the exact variant was called. They may have disagreed with being slaves or how Romans treated their slaves or something along those lines, but it is extremely unlikely they had any particular issues with the practice itself.

I seem to recall the combat gear carried by the Romans (and by extension the rebels, who after all mostly looted theirs) put me off at the time, though it's been a while since I saw the movie so the recollection's a little hazy.

[Mouzafphaerre]

The via Appia it was, I think. The main plot element which is glaringly incorrect is that the escaped slaves were almost certainly not against the principle of slavery, unlike the movie tries to portray.

.
That and Spartacus most probably was killed in action. He wasn't a prophet-like leader as portrayed in the movie, he himself crucified his prisoners more than once. The ideal Spartacus is a modern day myth etc. etc.

I was really wondering about how military action, costumes et al were depicted, such as the mad professor replied to.
.

[TinCow]

For the record, it's not proper to consider that a Kubrick film. It was taken out of his hands by the studio and edited by another person. When you are watching Spartacus, you are not watching Kubrick. That's why the film bears no artistic resemblance to any of his other work.

[Mouzafphaerre]

For the record, it's not proper to consider that a Kubrick film. It was taken out of his hands by the studio and edited by another person. When you are watching Spartacus, you are not watching Kubrick. That's why the film bears no artistic resemblance to any of his other work.

.
Correct. I learned about that after making the thread. Actually I was going to post "the Kirk Douglas movie" but after seeing Kubrick's name in the credits, that I hadn't been aware of before, I preferred to use it instead, out of respect.
.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I liked the way the Romans deployed from the cohorts into a line before the final battle. And AFAIK the rebels were in fact crucified along the road (was it the Via Appia?).

Yes, those were the two historically accurate parts of the movie I noticed most. As for disposition, dramaturgy and plot I think they never achieved any real climax feeling and some of the psychology of the characters was a little weak at points, although the message was good and insightful. But the plot was a little one-sided towards Sparatacus.

Spartacus was really what some modern viewers would have called a terrorist, had they lived at the time. He murdered, pillaged and burnt in anger and revenge - many innocent people were harmed - while he tried to escape and find a new homeland to defend and make a free state of. This makes the roman fear, anger and hatred and the resulting counter-actions easier to understand from a biological/psychological perspective, even though they, obviously, had no just claim to a right to hold slaves for killing games. But roman policy made it ridiculous and impossible for a Spartacus to even think about expecting the romans to make a deal with him or negotiate, so he obviously had no choice against an empire that never negotiated, never changed it's policy.

Another thing is that in reality the fights to death in the gladiatorial arena were less common that popular misconception says, something the movie didn't imply. The love story put into the movie felt pointless and out of context. I preferred the darker Gladiator by Ridley Scott. A movie about Spartacus or any other gladiator needs to be dark IMO. The movie was too bright both in plotline (the end being an exception, of course) and scenography. But all in all it was a great movie, especially with the technology available at the time. The first 30 minutes were of higher quality than any minutes of Gladiator. The breakout "battle" was a very strong and well made scene IMO. The ending battle with accurate quincunx formation impressed me more than the random melee and breaking ranks of the Gladiator opening battle. But after the breakout the movie got very messy and unclear IMO, the ending battle was the only part of the latter half that was good.

[Kraxis]

Another thing is that in reality the fights to death in the gladiatorial arena were less common that popular misconception says, something the movie didn't imply.

Yes, but that is so boring.

One has to consider that gladiators were highly trained individuals, often the best and strongest slaves (when they were taken). Clearly to waste such expensive comodities on casual games, is just foolish. Sure the Romans were getting very rich at the time (they were getting to that point around 140 BC), but the money was concentrated in few families and the number of gladiators could never be sustained by them alone (for their funirary games and various other events). There has to have been lots of 'cheaper' games where the fighters didn't kill (unless by luck/bad luck).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, but that is so boring.

One has to consider that gladiators were highly trained individuals, often the best and strongest slaves (when they were taken). Clearly to waste such expensive comodities on casual games, is just foolish. Sure the Romans were getting very rich at the time (they were getting to that point around 140 BC), but the money was concentrated in few families and the number of gladiators could never be sustained by them alone (for their funirary games and various other events). There has to have been lots of 'cheaper' games where the fighters didn't kill (unless by luck/bad luck).

Quite possibly Krax', but then again, maybe not. Consider modern prize fighters. Champions may have a career with only a few dozen fights scattered over the course of two decades -- with most of those coming early on during their "up and coming" days. E.G. Marciano had only 49 fights and some of the great English "Mill Artists" may have fought as few as 10 fights (Though I acknowledge that others olden and modern fought in hundreds). Those funerary games may well have been it -- at least during the republic.

[Kraxis]

Perhaps... But if you look back at the fistfighters prior to boxing you will see that they had up to 80 matches in a career which was only a few years long. And these guys could draw massive audiences too (not compared to today or the big games of Rome of course).

The number of very wealthy Roman families in the Republican era was very limited. But they had almost all the wealth, leaving the lesser nobles or wealthy people with comparably nothing. We are talking a few thousands at most. Not enough would die to keep the numbers of gladiators going, the others, the fairly rich and prosperous, would also have games. But they couldn't afford to kill their gladiators each time a familymember died.