Octavia Posted July 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 I think this discussion is awsome. I've never real the novel. Have to read that sometime.I'm not sure about the jewish friend in Sparticus, but I think that would have been a good thing to add to the movie. Also if you guys like, I posted my comment in the movie quo vadis as well, but that's another topic. Lol. And I also have to add, I'm sparticus! Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaecus Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Bits of the movie can be found in YouTube such as the final battle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OXjt57s7Po And the "I'm Spartacus" scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F07q5CR0HOc...ted&search= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Salve, guys & Ladies! With 198 neverending minutes (Director's cut), this would be the second longest film I have ever watched. I really love it. I believe it is a turning point in film history... But believe me, it's tooooooo looong. Cheers and good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Here's another difference between the movie and novel, which I've come across for you, Ursus. While both the movie and the novel depict Spartacus as having been taken from the mines as a slave to be trained as a gladiator, in the novel (which tells Spartacus' story in a series of flashbacks) author Howard Fast has Cicero pointing out the conflicting stories as to Spartacus' origins: "But everyone knows of Spartacus and his war.""Do they? I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure that even Crassus knows a great deal. Spartacus is a mystery as far as we are concerned. According to the official records, he was a Thracian mercenary and highwayman. According to Crassus, he was a born slave out of the gold mines of Nubia. Whom do we believe? Batiatus, the swine who kept the school at Capua, is dead -- his throat cut by a Greek slave who was his bookkeeper -- and so is every other contact with Spartacus dead or gone. And who will write about him? People like myself." So, Fast does acknowledge the "official records" regarding Spartacus having been a disgraced soldier rather than a slave, which is more than the movie did. And, of course, as I pointed out previously, in Fast's novel Spartacus isn't crucified at all, but is instead killed on the battlefield (as opposed to the movie version which shows Spartacus crucified). And, another difference between the movie and the novel, which you may have noted in that quote from the novel I included above: Lentulus Batiatus doesn't survive the slave revolt, and has had his throat cut by his slave bookkeeper. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 The point is that Kirk Douglas was inspired to make the film after reading the Howard Fast novel, but it wasn't based on the book, merely using it as a starting point. In typical hollywood fashion, scenes and plots were changed with 'artistic license' for dramatic effect. It remains a cracking good film though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Interesting, Nephele. Poor Lentalus. Such a loveable swine to have his throat slit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 The point is that Kirk Douglas was inspired to make the film after reading the Howard Fast novel, but it wasn't based on the book, merely using it as a starting point. In typical hollywood fashion, scenes and plots were changed with 'artistic license' for dramatic effect. It remains a cracking good film though. The point is that the film isn't based on history. The differences I'm noting here between the film and the novel are a response to Ursus' question as to whether author Howard Fast also "ignored and embellished several things." I'm still reading the novel (it's slow going as this is my commuter train reading), but so far I'd say that Howard Fast had done his research and was familiar with the historical Spartacus before writing his novel, and didn't fail to acknowledge the historical accounts while including his "embellishments". I don't think that anyone denies that the film is a "cracking good" one. (Personally, I think the novel is better.) HBO's Rome series was also "cracking good" -- but certainly not for its historical accuracy. Wait till Ursus' Spartacus movie review is published on this site. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.