Gladiator

[phil25]

Claudius, I can sympathise with your view.

 

To me there are three types of adaptation. Two of these I am OK with (usually):

 

- those like "Troy" which are intelligent and "interpret" their source;

- and those which are simply fun, like the latest "Mummy", and which make no pretence to reality. (Some of the design in "Mummy" was incredible!!)

 

The type of film I heartily dislike is those which claim to be authentic but then betray the trust of the viwer - my pet hate is "Braveheart" (not only because it denigrates one of the, in my opinion, greatest of English kings - Edward I), but because it interprets Scottish culture of the time in a way that insults the Scots. Painting yourself with woad was (if anything) for ancient Brits and Picts, NOT C14th Scotsmen!!

 

I am concerned (seriously) by the tendency to actually misrepresent facts on screen as in "Elizabeth". This put on screen in words (not dramatised) that Burghley was dismissed (he served until almost the end of the reign and died in harness); that Walsingham served loyally until the end of the reign (he died c 1590); and that Robert Dudley was banished (he remained the Queen's principal favorite until his death in 1588).

 

I wonder how much difficulty this poses for history teachers seeking to get their students to understand the truth of the Tudor period?

 

Gladiator's heart was in the right place, I think (though as I have said in earlier posts, I prefer "Fall"). On the other hand, Scott's more recent epic on the crusades (with Orlie Bloom in the lead role) looked fantastic but had a rubbish plot and probably lost its point because "political correctness" undermined the Crusader/Saracen enmity.

 

Alexander (more our period) I found an intelligent attempt to tell a diffuclt story - and while the lead didn't have the technique to carry some of the rousing speeches, I thought he got to the emotional heart of Alexander as near as anyone can. I don't know whether anyone else felt this, but to me, the more one knows about the subject the more one gets from Alexander - there are all manner of unexplained and subtle hints and references. A bit like "Fall". Above all, Alexander gave me a visual reference for the period which I don't think will ever leave me. I'd give it 75 out of a 100 , though as a film it is deeply flawed - as is the earlier (50s) Richard Burton version, which I also like for Frederick March's Philip above all.

 

Going back to Troy, there was much I disliked about the film, but more that I loved - for instance, Brad Pitt's charismatic Achilles with his amazing leaping technique in battle. I liked the way he was shot several times, but the arrows removed except for that in his leg - one could see the origins of a legend straightaway. Nice touch. The way certain aspects of the story were telescoped so that it was true to the spirit if not the letter of the myth was also clever. But at the end of the day the film was aimed at a "fantasy" audience, NOT historians.

 

On the other hand the escape of Paris (inevitable, I suppose given the overall treatment) was not something I admired.

 

Film is about drama and thus one has to understand why writers and directors have to be ruthless in moulding their material. But there is a difference to me in editing "King Lear" for time and a changed medium, and re-writing it to have a happy ending; or making Cordelia evil and Goneril good. While film involves the former I am usuaklly happy; when the latter, I have concerns.

 

Phil

[frankq]

Phil, good points all, but I have to disagree with you about Troy. The writers really messed up the legend. For starters, I thought Brad Pitt was horrible. His elocution was a joke, of the ''let me imitate Sean Connery'' variety. This guys has trouble with diction, and is better suited to portraying psychotic rednecks, not Greek warriors. Secondly, turning Agamemnon and Menelaus into cardboard villains undermined the story. To better purpose was a Warner Bros. 1950's version (with a score by Tiomkin), basically same approach, no gods present, in which the script stayed true to Homer's storyline. Indeed, even that rat Paris got killed and Helen dragged back to Greece. In the modern version Paris signs off by killing Achilles during the siege. Achilles got X'd outside the walls, before the horse was sent in. Indeed, that's the grand moment in the epic, after killing Hector and flaunting his body around, Paris offs him with his prize shot. But, nooo, the modern script writers have to drag him along into the aftermath. Exploit Pitt's presence at all cost.

 

One thing I did like in Troy was the fight choreography. It was excellent, unique.

 

I have never seen Burton's Alexander. Nor Victor Mature's Hannibal. Strange this, growing up a TV nut and in NY during the 50's.

 

Oh, one last note on historic accuracy. Rumor is afoot that Denzel is going to be playing Hannibal. If so, this will inflict extreme damage to the credibility of black revisionist history. It should be avoided.

 

Oh, and yes, Braveheart. What a joke. Where's the bridge and how dare they treat Edward that way! Again, post modernist diatribe. ''Freedom!'' Yeah, we've heard it before. It gets old.

[phil25]

Frankq:

 

I largely agree with your criticisms of Troy, I was simply seeking to draw attention to what i felt were some of it's good points in my earlier post, not least the adaptation. Bad accents don't worry me if used properly - I suspect the Mycenaeans were probably pretty uncouth. I have always had a soft spot for the Trojans though, and Troy itself - to be there sent goose-shivers up my spine. To touch those sloping walls and stand within the citadel.... something I never expected to be able to do. Hissarlik is such a seemingly remote spot.

 

I just took the recent "Troy" as - "this is how it might have been, the myth changed things". But films do have to recognise that writing out a star name too early is a bad thing. It's a fact of life, especially for blockbuster films. (I thought that in "Kingdom of Heaven" killing off Liam neeson after 20 minutes robbed the film of all his vitality and talent - and Brad Pitt is a talented actor too. on the whole I liked his Achilles - quite brave of a star like that to essay an anti-hero who may be charismatic but is ultimately unlikeable and unsympathetic.

 

I have often discussed with friends (who know much less about all this than you, Frankq) that adapting the epic of Troy for the screen is almost impossible. If you make Helen and Paris the "good guys" then they loose and the whole thing an anti-climax or a tragedy. Paris is also a problem character. If you make the Achaians the heroes, then either Agamemnon or Achilles has to be a villain. All very intractable.

 

Mycenae was also an experience to visit, simply because I had read so much about it in my youth. To walk through the Lion Gate and later to enter the Tomb of Atreus was to go back in time. But Tiryns gave me a great thrill too, such a wonderful fortress, EXCATLY as i had imagined it when I was 11. Did you ever read Leonard Cotterill's books (he was very popular in the 60s)? Best of all was Pylos,where you could imagine that old Nestor had just risen from his throne and left the room.

 

Back to films though, I DO very much like the 50s "Helen of Troy" - superbly cast with Cedric Hardwick (a great Seti I too) and Harry Andrews. But I thought Jacques Cernas very wooden as Paris. It used the trojans as heroes, but became a tragedy in the event. Not an easy love-story.

 

There is a version made within the last 10 years with Rufus Sewell as a very evil and ruthless Agamemnon, and John Rees Davis as Priam, which is worth watching. I have it on dvd so it should be available. It's a made for TV spectacular, but better than most of that ilk. It certainly had a brave shot at tackling some of the adaptation problems i discussed earlier.

 

Mature's "Hannibal" impressed me when I saw it aged 10. Now, I have an old video of it, it looks cheap. It's an Italian sword and sandals/peplum film (with some of the usual cast of such things). Mature is badly superimposed on the elephants as the cross the Alps!! But he does bring something to the role (as he did to Horemheb in "The Egyptian"). I suppose it is his face I see in my mind's eye when Hannibal is mentioned!! Cannae I thought wonderful in memory - a vividly green battlefield with Romans in red and white as far as the eye can see. It's not bad on re-viewing it, but not up to modern standards. Worth seeing if you have never seen it before.

 

Burton's Alexander (actually Roberto Rosselini) has the same problems of adaptation. the pre-story (Alexander's youth) takes too long before you get to the meat - his conquests - but is too essential to the character to lose (Olympias and all that). I like the film for many reasosn and in my humble opinion it stands up well. It's out on dvd in the Uk.

 

Phil

[Lost_Warrior]

I just bought a used version of Troy but I've yet to watch it.

 

I've for the most part given up on historical accuracy of movies. I simply watch them for entertainment value and I don't usually think about the history that much.

[Pertinax]

I made a lot of comments in a previous "Gladiator " thread about really VERY BAD Romans being played by Britons,(Ustinov as a splendidly oily Nero in particular, MacDowell as a totally gonzo Caligula, Burton as a grim Welsh Antony ) Troy looked great but I cringed at the acting ( other than the usual white bearded ( Trevor Eve, Nigel Terry)British actor's as "wise sears "). Gladiator in the "full " version (3 disc) has a lot of very interesting Romanophilic extras ,its not very good history but it certainly looks grungy enough in the Marcomannic conflict section to be a great "imagining" and likewise in the various grades of arena conflict. I reiterate my admiration for Oliver Reed.

 

I have just ordered the directors cut of Alexander despite the dire reviews, and if I get my courage up I will order Hopkins in Titus Andronicus.

[Pertinax]

could someone nail this to the other "Gladiator" thread please?

[Ludovicus]

Gladiator......who became interested in Rome by watching that movie? I think my first intrest in Rome came along with that movie. In your opinion do you think it is a good movie? If you don't think its a good movie tell us why not.

 

I think it also got alot of other people thinking about the idea of Rome.

 

Comments?

 

Zeke

 

 

I like the movie's point of view. You saw the Roman presence in Spain? thru the eyes of a non-Roman. It was touching to see him with his ancestral gods. What a different perspective.

[Ursus]

could someone nail this to the other "Gladiator" thread please?

 

 

Your wish is my command. *bows*

 

 

 

Your friendly neighborhood Praetor

[phil25]

The "Alexander" Director's cut is the only version of a film so labelled that I have ever found worse than the original.

 

 

It is a re-ordering of scenes rather than an "extended" version (it may even actually be shorter than the cinema release!!) and in my opinion, the re-ordering does not work.

 

On the use of Brits as villains/Roman conquerors, I think this was natural in the 50s/60s when the Uk was still an imperial power (so there was a modern association with the ancient empire) and the view was that classical actors such as Olivier, Laughton, Hawkins could handly the dislogue better and in a more sugical way than their American counterparts. In some films (Ben-Hur) there was, I believe, a deliberate attempt to differentiate races: British accent = Roman; US or other accent = Jews, heroic rebels, noble slaves, etc.

 

More recently the habitual use of brits as villains in any film (Rickman in Die Hard etc) has a more sinister impact - I think it may actually have damaged the view of the British around the world. Just my view, of course.

 

British can be used quite loosely in some ways though - a GREAT screen villain (again just a personal opinion) was Frank Thring (Vikings, Herod Antipas in King of Kings; Pilate in Ben Hur) who was Australian. Titus Andronicus was mentioned by a previous poster, and Thring played a memorable Saturninus to Olivier's great Titus in Brook's memorable production in the 50s.

 

Christopher Plummer is, I think, Canadian by origin. Where did Hurd Hatfield hail from?

 

"Titus", by the way is very imaginative and enjoyable, but mixes costumes and styles at random. Nothing to do with history in any sense, but a powerful and adult film.

 

When discussing films about Troy earlier, I forgot to mention the Italian "peplum" versions from the 60s. Steve Reeves (best known as Hercules) played Aeneas in two interesting films called (I think) "The Wooden Horse of Troy, and the "Last Men of Troy" the latter based on Vergil and Livy. They are interestingly done and not bad for their type. Anyone else seen them?

 

Phil

[frankq]

On the use of Brits as villains/Roman conquerors, I think this was natural in the 50s/60s when the Uk was still an imperial power (so there was a modern association with the ancient empire) and the view was that classical actors such as Olivier, Laughton, Hawkins could handly the dislogue better and in a more sugical way than their American counterparts. In some films (Ben-Hur) there was, I believe, a deliberate attempt to differentiate races: British accent = Roman; US or other accent = Jews, heroic rebels, noble slaves, etc.

 

 

British can be used quite loosely in some ways though - a GREAT screen villain (again just a personal opinion) was Frank Thring (Vikings, Herod Antipas in King of Kings; Pilate in Ben Hur) who was Australian. Titus Andronicus was mentioned by a previous poster, and Thring played a memorable Saturninus to Olivier's great Titus in Brook's memorable production in the 50s.

 

Christopher Plummer is, I think, Canadian by origin. Where did Hurd Hatfield hail from?

 

 

Phil

 

The attempt was deliberate. Wyler and Zimbalist planned it that way. I, for one, would like to see an end to Brit dominance in Roman parts. Romans didnt speak Oxford English, they spoke Latin. And the average soldier would be better portrayed by tough Italian American actors. Why not?

 

Good case in point is the centurion tough in The Robe. He tells Burton, in Western accent, that he ''earned'' his medals the hard way and then puts him to task with the sword. Great scene.

 

Frank Thring blew my mind out as a kid as the English king in The Vikings. He was noted for a great wit, too.

 

Hurd Hatfield is American, I think. My father's business partner went to a party he held out in the Hamptons. He shook the hand of the partner's wife and kissed him. After K of K's he kind of faded from the scene. Ron Randall, too---another good case for an American playing a Roman.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Having the British play Romans has a nice benefit though--different British pronunciations are strongly associated with class, which was obviously important in Roman society. Plus, you can have non-Roman Italians speaking a kind of affected, posh accent to indicate their attempt to appear more Roman than the Romans (like the pronunciation of the Iron Lady). How could you accomplish that with American pronunciation?

[Lost_Warrior]

Having the British play Romans has a nice benefit though--different British pronunciations are strongly associated with class, which was obviously important in Roman society. Plus, you can have non-Roman Italians speaking a kind of affected, posh accent to indicate their attempt to appear more Roman than the Romans (like the pronunciation of the Iron Lady). How could you accomplish that with American pronunciation?

 

I don't know, americans who want to seem high class usually use British accents

 

There is one accent, the southern accent which is in some parts of america considered definitely low class (in fact I knew someone who moved up north and intentionally disguised her voice so as not to be a laughing stock)

 

There are also some dialects, like the "gangsta" dialect often found in the cities and among rappers (you know what I'm talking about) but i'm not really sure what class that would belong to. I don't really associate it with any class.

 

Actually, I don't really associate accents with class at all, though I know many do. It never really crossed my mind.

 

I can't honestly figure out why they don't just use Italian accents. If they want to differentiate between say, Italians and those in the non-Italian provinces they could use say...a German accent for the provinces. Or Irish or Scottish (Celtic)...use a Greek accent for Greeks, etc.

[Zeke]

Alexander was a preety horrible movie.....I think they were more intrested in bisexualism then anything else. And they cut larges amounts of the good history out of the movie. I mean without the seige of Tyre its like.....WHat?!?!??! You need to have the seige of Tyre.

Just wanted to add a comment.

Zeke

[phil25]

Zeke - I am not sure that leaving out Tyre comletely destroys any account of Alexander's life. I'd rate the trip to the oracle at Siwa higher. The burning of Persepolis is also crucial.

 

But to me the main "beats" were present - Bucephalus' taming; the early friendship with Hephaestion, Olympias dominant role; Philip and the love-hate relationship with his son; the assassination of Philip and Alexander's ambiguous role; at least one major battle; Xerxes; India, Roxanne; the deaths of Clitas and Hephaestion; and finally the question was Alexander murdered. Not bad on the whole. Shame that Hopkins was such a lousy Ptolemy - a more inteligent reading of that part (Hopkins appeared to have given no thought to it and to be reading his lines from cue cards!!) might have bound the film together more strongly.

 

Neither do I think the filmmakers were "more intrested in bisexualism" (whatever that word means). Alexander lived by different moral standards to western people today. His closest relationships appear to have been with other men - Hephaestion/Bagoas so is it not right that is depicted rather than ignored (as in the 50s Burton film?)

 

But even so - bisexuality is not a term that Alexander would have understood (nor homosexuality for that matter) - it was not unusual for n older man to have a younger male lover. But it would have been unusual for two men to be lifelong, exclusive partners. Indeed, that would have been frowned on. Alexander seems to have been inclined more heavily towards men (emotionally perhaps as much as physically - we do not know) and this attracted comment in his own day. Even that could be explained by a jealousy arising from Hephaestion's unique [/u]political position. But even so, Alexander married and had a child as would have been expected of him.

 

Do you not find it distorts our understanding of history to impose C21st morals onto the past? Surely we have to seek to perceive and understand the past in its own terms. I felt the Alexander film was a brave attempt to do this. It is immensely flawed, but the life of Alexander is not easily compressed into 3 hours!!

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

I just watched the "directors cut" of Alexander. Visually great, especially the combat sequences.The fractured time sequences didnt help me with the narrative , the "sexual" element was totally immaterial, the real unhealthy theme ( in this film)was his mothers smothering, poisinous mental proximity. Everyone looked the part when they were killing ( or dancing, or getting drunk), but the dialogue was cringeworthy.Beautifully made with some memorable images ,(and I mean gloriously and honestly imagined ,visualised and lit) , utterly horribly mis-cast ( and im sorry Jolie has the emotional range of a plank), perhaps the cheesy "modern" emotional dialogue could have been saved if delivered by other actors. HBOs Rome is "total realism" in comparison.

If Richard Burton had been in this version he would have brought the required grim brooding darkness to get away with the dialogue, can someone cgi him in?

Edited January 6, 2006 by Pertinax