Modern Depictions

[caldrail]

I was watching some episodes of 'Ancient Rome' (The with Sean Pertwee in it) last night and something struck me about their depiction of Rome. Its not that it wasn't entirely incongruous at all, it looked very good, but there are some aspects that I noticed had changed since the days of swords and sandals epics.

 

Haircuts - The modern tv doesn't seem too concerned about hairstyles. Its a shame really, and does take some of the atmosphere away. I suppose its a lot of effort to go to (and thus expensive) plus the actors might not be too keen to have their style savaged by roman ideals! Or would that cost the producers more?

 

Class - We all remember Laurence Olivier at his shakespearean best, portraying the senatorial Crassus. How many actors on modern tv even attempt to portray class? There's a distinct lack of social differentiation in the actors on screen apart from the amount of dirt on their faces. Rome was intensely concious of its class system and really that ouight to be addressed.

 

Colour - Look how drab modern depictions are. To some extent thats just trying to be realistic - the Romans lived two thousand years ago and the garish colours we use now weren't available then. Nonetheless, the legionaries are shown in muddy brown tunics which we know isn't entirely accurate. Statues and tombstaones are left in bare stone when the originals were painted - even trajan's column was painted in its original condition. The houses are also left in natural brick and plaster when we know some effort was made to whitewash or apply colour, at least to the more well to do buildings.

 

Behaviour - Has anyone noticed how 21st century the actors are? Now whilst I often draw parallels to the modern day it has to be said there must be many subtleties in behaviour that aren't addressed. Sometimes you see things that have been deliberately accentuated - like when Vespasian greets his son Titus with kisses on the cheek - which is probably closer to roman behaviour. But these are little set pieces designed to make the entire production seem roman. What about the senate? Almost always the senators sit there as a passive audience. We know from roman writers that senators weren't slow to make their opinions felt, and there's indications that speeches were conducted in a somewhat theatrical manner. I'm reminded of those tales of senators ripping open their togas to display war wounds in order to give their views more credibility.

 

For an actor it must be difficult. Most haven't a clue about the roman period anyway and try as hard as they might, you get the impression the program makers aren't much more knowledgeable either, despite the advice given by experts. It is of course entertainment, and one arguement is that people watching the program will be better able to enjoy the program if the actors behave in familiar ways. But isn't that distorting the story they're trying to replicate?

[Ludovicus]

Caldrail, I agree with you entirely. While HBO's "Rome" made some great strides in accurately depicting the architecture and grittiness of ancient Rome (loved the grafitti) , many of the actors had a modern day gait and comportment. With regard to social differences in the ancient city, in my opinion, the British-made "I, Claudius" has achieved the most success with showing class distinctions.

[The Augusta]

Agreed! And at the risk of repeating myself and boring all non-theatricals rigid, may I address you to many of my bugbears regarding the performances in 'Rome' in that particular thread!

 

I'm glad I'm not alone Calders and Ludo!

 

It's the same old chestnut I have about historical novels. Both theatre/TV and books should have a modern enough flavour to save the work from being laughably old-fashioned, but there is a true art and skill involved in rendering authenticity.

[Ludovicus]

Augusta, thanks. I'll refer back to that thread.

Don't you think that one of the challenges in making a movie set in a period long ago is the wardrobe...and how it's worn. Authentic threads and colors are a must as well as non-machine stitching. But the real hurdle is to make the actors comport themselves naturally in their period costumes.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ludovicus

[Northern Neil]

As I type, I am listening to 'The Moral Maze' on BBC's Radio 4. It is a programme in which a panel discuss the moral aspects of modern day life, and 'Popular Culture' is currently under discussion. Michael Buerk, the presenter, asked a 'Celeb Magazine' editor about the moral aspects of dumbing down and presenting material in a trashy way. The magazine editor said that the bottom line was getting enough people interested in buying the magazine, and that often taste and accuracy were compromised in order to make money.

 

Film makers are no different, and when it is in their interests to present material authentically, if it makes a picture more exciting, they will do it, whilst compromising authenticity in areas most of the watchership will not notice. This can happen in the same film. I will mention two films here, which nonetheless seem to follow a format which many other films also seem to follow, in which authenticity is so treated.

 

Saving Private Ryan shows very graphic and authentic vistas of weapon effects and human suffering, because that draws an audience and most cinema goers find it enthralling. It also shows soldiers in the height of excitement shooting defeated enemies whose hands are up, because again it goes against the traditional 'John Wayne' view of the American soldier, and provokes interest and comment.

 

What is less enthralling to audiences is that RAF typhoons and Mosquitos did all the ground attack missions in support of the D-Day invasion. Mustangs were high altitude fighter escorts - but, there are more (and therefore cheaper to hire) Mustangs around, and the Mustang is more recogniseable to most of the people watching the film. Therefore Mustangs were used in the closing scenes saving the day.

 

Just about every commercial movie made today with a historical theme does this. In Braveheart for example, great efforts were made to render the weaponry and armour authentic for the late 1200's. Less effort is taken to point out that Wm.Wallace was actually a nobleman, who himself wore high medieval armor and rode a charger, and who as often fought with the English when his interests demanded it. Again, the real medieval Scots army was small but very effective, and its ranks did not just include peasents with spears, but highly trained armoured crossbowmen who were very good soldiers. But that would have damaged the impact of the film on a watchership with a vague sense of underdog support for the Scots, or respect for the 'noble peasant' depiction of Wallace by Gibson. Further, the 'Nation State' had virtually no meaning at that time for peasent soldiers who were depicted as being so patriotically Scottish in that movie. But that would have spoiled the movie further. Although depictions of Rome is the topic here, I believe that history generally receives this treatment from the film industry which is why I used those two movies as examples.

 

So unfortunately this state of affairs is here to stay, because money talks.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Northern Neil

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

There is an article by Dr. Diem at al in the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 334: pg 1578-1582 June 13, 1996) where the researchers analyzed how three popular television programs of the time (Rescue 911, ER and Chicago Hope) depicted cardiopulmonary resuscitation. They concluded that their survival rates were significantly higher than the most optimistic in the current medical literature, and that the portrayal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on television may lead the viewing public to have an unrealistic impression of its chances for success.

 

The affected TV networks defended themselves by arguing their primary mission was entertainment, not medical information.

I must agree, and I would think we're here in an analogous situation. The public pay their tickets to watch an entertaining story, not for a History course.

 

Besides, we are always walking over that border so well described by Emil Ludwig in his wonderful biographies: where does "historical reconstruction" ends and "historical fiction" begins? After all, we are talking about events two thousand years away from us.

 

No one was more aware about historian's relativity than Titus Livius Patavinus himself, writing on events happening mere two centuries ago (ie, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXII, cp. LXI):

Mirari magis adeo discrepare inter auctores quam quid ueri sit discernere queas.

"It is easier to feel astonishment at such discrepancies amongst our authorities than to determine what is the truth".

 

Another nice example would be that recent thread discussing about How Victorian restorers faked the clothes that seemed to show Hadrian. Those "Victorians" tried to do what they believed was the closest to "historical reality", according to the edge of their knowledge.

Haircuts, class behaviour, colour use; how sure can we be now of how all of these and more will be depicted in the future, after additional archaeological and historical research appears?

 

If we really try to depict any major ancient battle the closest we can to our known facts, we will get a perpetual gore carnage; Gibson's The Passion of Christ and Apocalypto come to my mind. I guess that wouldn't be the best for everybody's filmic taste.

[caldrail]

Saving Private Ryan shows very graphic and authentic vistas of weapon effects and human suffering, because that draws an audience and most cinema goers find it enthralling. It also shows soldiers in the height of excitement shooting defeated enemies whose hands are up, because again it goes against the traditional 'John Wayne' view of the American soldier, and provokes interest and comment.

The opening sequences of that film are quite honestly some of the best depictions of WWII combat you are ever likely to see - it inspired the Band of Brothers series in the same vein.

 

What is less enthralling to audiences is that RAF typhoons and Mosquitos did all the ground attack missions in support of the D-Day invasion. Mustangs were high altitude fighter escorts - but, there are more (and therefore cheaper to hire) Mustangs around, and the Mustang is more recogniseable to most of the people watching the film. Therefore Mustangs were used in the closing scenes saving the day.

Woah... Whilst I'm definitley a patriotic brit, the work done by the USAAF should not be overlooked. The Mustang was a great escort fighter, but like every other operational fighter crossing the channel in those days, they were committing themselves to ground attacks too. It was common practice to engage targets at random on the flight home, bearing in mind that after combat the mustangs were away from the bomber stream and very likely at a much lower level. This also applies to P47 and P38 aircraft, not to mention the attacks made by bomb toting spitfires, some of which were flown by american squadrons in the Italian campaign. Check out the various plastic models - many have optional rocket racks to glue under the wings.

 

So unfortunately this state of affairs is here to stay, because money talks.

It is pretty inevitable.

 

PS - I should also add the Mustang was designed in 120 days to british air ministry specification, and disappointed the RAF with its mediocre performance from its Allison engine at altitude. The original version was relegated to ground attack duties, and it wasn't until the mustang was adapted to fit the packard merlin engine that the aeroplane came into its own.

Edited July 4, 2008 by caldrail

[DecimusCaesar]

Finding a balance is important. I've read that many of us here at UNRV first became interested in ancient Rome after watching some old Hollywood epic like Spartacus or Ben Hur, and I think that if those two films had been completely realistic they would have ended up alienating and boring their audience. Only the most knowledgeable Classicist would have had the dedication to watch a truly realistic Roman movie. Interested kids who wanted to see a good Roman adventure might have been so put off they might have never picked up a book on the subject.

 

Let's face it Zack Snyder's '300' piqued more interest in all things Ancient Greece among teenagers than Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'.

 

The program that Caldrail mentioned is an exception considering it's a drama-documentary. Those have an obligation to stick to the truth a lot closer, considering the program's aim is to educate.

 

The other problem is drifting too far to the other side. You often find a film or tv show that strays so far from the truth you can't help but wonder why they didn't bother to make it into a fantasy picture.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Let's face it Zack Snyder's '300' piqued more interest in all things Ancient Greece among teenagers than Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'.

 

The other problem is drifting too far to the other side. You often find a film or tv show that strays so far from the truth you can't help but wonder why they didn't bother to make it into a fantasy picture.

Salve,DC.

 

Actually, that's a fine description of "300".

 

It piqued more my interest for Frank Miller's work in comics (ie, Batman's "Dark Night Returns", Daredevil's "Born Again") than "Sin City".

[Ingsoc]

Another aspect of recent portray of Rome is that they tend to ignore Christianity (unless it's important part of the plot) in contrast to older portrays like "I, Claudius" which mention Jesus even thought it had nothing to do with the plot.

[Northern Neil]

Another aspect of recent portray of Rome is that they tend to ignore Christianity (unless it's important part of the plot) in contrast to older portrays like "I, Claudius" which mention Jesus even thought it had nothing to do with the plot.

..unless we take films such as Quo Vadis, The Robe, Ben Hur, and Barabbas?

 

EDIT:

 

I notice now you said 'Recent'. Point taken!

Edited July 13, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Saving Private Ryan shows very graphic and authentic vistas of weapon effects and human suffering, because that draws an audience and most cinema goers find it enthralling. It also shows soldiers in the height of excitement shooting defeated enemies whose hands are up, because again it goes against the traditional 'John Wayne' view of the American soldier, and provokes interest and comment.

There are other things problematic about that movie. There were no Waffen SS troops on Omaha Beach, nor were there any panzers there on the 6th of June 1944. The British and Canadian sectors are virtually ignored. And these are just some things I can remember.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[caldrail]

The british and canadians weren't entirely ignored. The script contained at least one disparaging comment. The only really problematic thing about that film is that is was telling an american story about retrieving an american from the combat zone. It was not an account of D-Day.