Spartacus:BBC2

[caldrail]

I just knew this program was going to be awful. Promoted in the tv guides as a docu-drama made with the advice of historians (and she was credited at the start of the show), it portrayed the short career of Spartacus from the perspective of Oenemaus as he recalls his tale by voiceover as he hangs from a crucifix on the Appian Way.

 

It simply didn't look roman. The great unwashed mass of plebs were indeed long haired and unwashed, looking more like apache indians in some scenes. A politician named Lentulus looked extremely uncomfortable in armour and horseback, and the guy who played Crassus simply played him as a hissing villain. As for Spartacus, he actor spent the whole hour looking bemused at being given a starring role.

 

Historically the show gave a very abbreviated version of the rebellion. There was no mention of the pirates who Spartacus had contracted to carry him to safety and the camapign was shortened to a finale at the Wall of Crassus built across the toe of Italy. That said, the Wall of Crassus sequence was an interesting spectacle which actually looked reasonably authentic and something that hasn't featured in other versions of screen portrayals. What really spoilt it was Spartacus meeting Crassus for a parley before he breaks out over the wall. The script was woeful and neither actor had the gravitas to carry it off.

 

So then, the major points of disagreement with this program...

 

1 - Spartacus is shown fighting in the arena. There's no record he advanced beyond training.

2 - The rebels are shown escaping at Spartacus's command from the school at Capua - He was one of a bunch of ringleaders.

3 - The rebels find weapons at the school - In reality they found gladiatorial weapons in a wagon outside the school after the escape.

4 - Gladiatorial equipment, particularly armour, was hoplessly incorrect.

5 - The betrayal by pirates is not depicted.

6 - Oenemaus, the commentator, broke away from Spartacus and was killed early in the campaign in real life. It was a little odd to hear his voiceover whilst he's shown dying on the crucifix.

7 - Guards are shown with leather lorica segmentata - erm... No.

8 - Spartacus and Crassus never met.

 

Come back Kirk Douglas - all is forgiven.

Edited March 1, 2008 by caldrail

[Lanista]

I did write out a massive long post in response to this, but then just deleted it because there's absolutely no point.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Come back Kirk Douglas - all is forgiven.

Speaking of the Kirk Douglas movie - I remember the last crucifixion scene struck me as rather odd when I first saw it because I don't remember reading anywhere that Spartacus himself was crucified. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ursus]

Come back Kirk Douglas - all is forgiven.

Speaking of the Kirk Douglas movie - I remember the last crucifixion scene struck me as rather odd when I first saw it because I don't remember reading anywhere that Spartacus himself was crucified. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Spartacus was presumed dead on the battlefield. The Douglas movie was a classic as far as acting, but took many liberties as far as history.

[caldrail]

I did write out a massive long post in response to this, but then just deleted it because there's absolutely no point.

 

If you want to say something go ahead. Its not going to bother me if you disagree with what I've said. I was fairly negative about the program but then it glossed over a great deal of the story, it romanticised Spartacus whilst trying to give itself historical credibility, and Crassus came across as a pantomime villain.

 

Regarding the fate of Spartacus, there is a story from roman sources that on the final battlefield, he spotted Crassus on horseback at a distance and attempted to reach him in order to slay his nemesis. He was beaten down by sheer weight of numbers.

[DecimusCaesar]

Is this drama-documentary part of a new series on heroes and villains of history? If so, did anyone catch the episode about Attila the Hun a few weeks back?

 

In terms of costumes and sets it was the most realistic depiction of the Late Roman Empire ever seen, but unfortunately the content was very poor. There were huge generalisations and plenty of omissions to the story. About half of the episode was dedicated to Attila and Bleda's siege of Naissus - yet there was no depiction of his invasion of Italy at all.

 

It sounds to me as if the Spartacus episode was very similar - if this really is part of a series.

 

Here's the trailer to the episode anyway:

Edited March 2, 2008 by DecimusCaesar

[caldrail]

In some ways the Spatacus prgram tried to depict Rome on a budget, but details like hairstyles were ignored. Thats why it never really looked convincing Also, the program made the classic mistake of depicting gladiators with leather breastplates. Sorry but they didn't equip themselves this way. By 73bc gladiatorial combat was into its golden age, it had become big business (yet to increase further under Augustus), and the earlier classes of fighters were well established. Such men fought bare chested because the idea was an exciting swordfight that might end in a dramatic clean kill, with plenty of blood from a fatal chest wound rather than disabling injuries to limbs and 'cuts above the eyebrows' to stop the fight. The notion that two men fought to the death and that the crowd always condemned a loser to death is wrong. True, the editor of the games was wise to listen to his crowd, but a sizeable number of fighters walked away alive after losing a fight. On the other hand some fights were clearly below par - suetonius describes how caligula was annoyed at a poor performance. The winner also had the right to spare his opponent - we know this from an inscription at Pompeii which says something like "Take heed from my fate and show no mercy, whoever he may be". Somehow I suspect this sort of respect was rare and if the editor called for an execution of a loser, it generally took place. In this instance this script was ok in that Crassus got upset when Spartacus hesitated to kill his opponent. As editor, he had ordered a death to please the crowd and got miffed at his wishes being ignored. Not historically accurate to Spartacus's real story, but correct in behaviour apart from the fact that gladiators were professional fighters even in his day who took great pride in providing entertainment. Sure, not all were highly paid celebrities and many of the cannon-fodder were derided by an audience for cowardice or clumsiness. We know some men committed suicde rather than fight, we know some tried to run away in the arena, and that others tried to fake a death, because the games organisers had taken precautions to prevent this sort of thing. I really would like to see portrayals of gladiators to be more accurate. Helmet, padded forward leg, padded sword arm, shield. Even if it isn't quite correct to the last detail, at least they'll look like gladiators rather than greek leather clad tribesmen.

Edited March 5, 2008 by caldrail

[Nephele]

It would be interesting to see the original script for this docu-drama, and how the vision of the scriptwriter (and consulting historians) may have been altered in the process of story development from written page to screen.

 

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that such changes have been made. I have it on very good authority that the second season of Caroline Lawrence's Roman Mysteries (due to air on the BBC this summer) has a number of historical inaccuracies slipped in, which were certainly not Caroline's doing.

 

Regardless, I still expect the next Roman Mysteries season to be entertaining, and likely to instill in young viewers a certain enthusiasm for ancient Rome -- perhaps even inspiring many of them to head to their local public libraries to find out more.

 

And, of course, if there weren't at least a few historical inaccuracies in many of these teevee presentations such as HBO's Rome, BBC2's recent Spartacus, etc... well, then, bang goes your movie nitpickin' fun.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

 

But of course you're right. These programs are made by people essentially ignorant of roman history for people even more so. That means they try to depict a popular 'expected' vision of Rome. The problem is this docu-drama was advertised as being historically accurate - it wasn't - and simply because historians were consulted doesn't mean they were listened to. At the end of the day program makers want to sell their work and they twist the story to suit themselves. This program was part of a 'Hero and Villains' series and therefore (inevitably) Spartacus is portrayed as a hero. He was one of the ringleaders of the escape from Capua (not the only one), and only became the sole leader of the revolt after he, Crixus, and oenemaus had squabbled. As a heroic icon, like say.. King Arthur, or Robin Hood, Spartacus has all the romantic elements. Fighting for freedom, the underdog, etc. What this docu-drama fails to address is that Spartacus was not the hero of legend. He was a rebel. He couldn't handle army discipline, he couldn't bear the discipline of the ludum. Make no mistake, Spartacus was no coward, he was a bold and courageous fighter, but he just wasn't a hero.

 

Crassus of course bears the label of villain. Well, ok, he was avaricious to the point of larceny, but evil? He's shown ordering a decimation as proof of his villainy, and the manner the decimation is carried out doesn't ring true. Problem is, Crassus wasn't so different from leading romans of his time. The fact he ordered a decimation was to punish his new command for their previous 'cowardice' - a standard roman punishment if one used rarely. Therefore the program is portraying these men in a modern light, and fails to make the viewer understand that these men did things this way two thousand years ago.

 

The accent therefore is on drama, not documentary, and the fact a historian was asked some questions about Spartacus doesn't give the program any more credibility if the makers simply draw stereotypes for entertainment.

 

Uhh... I'm nit-picking aren't I?.... Anyhow, if anyone else has seen this show, feel free to comment.

[Nephele]

The problem is this docu-drama was advertised as being historically accurate - it wasn't

 

When I see the word "docu-drama" (a lofty descriptive in the entertainment industry, if ever there was one) tacked onto any television presentation, I already know to expect dramatic license, speculation and, often, over-simplification. And so I'm rarely disappointed, as I keep in mind that the "drama" may outweigh the "docu."

 

The accent therefore is on drama, not documentary, and the fact a historian was asked some questions about Spartacus doesn't give the program any more credibility if the makers simply draw stereotypes for entertainment.

 

Yes. Best to derive one's entertainment from tee-vee, and one's history from books.

 

And, historical nit-picking can be frequently entertaining.

 

-- Nephele