When In Rome
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
OK, I had to track that clip down [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wBlFDHD1A]. Yowza!MovieBob said:
As a student of history, I'm always of two minds about historical epics. On the one hand, I enjoy a lot of them as films, and the sets/locations and costume designs are frequently awesome. Most of the time, the action and dialogue aren't too bad either.
On the other hand, I get quickly irritated the way damn near all of them are used as a commentary on the present-day. Even that wouldn't be so bad, except for the way historical figures are stripped of whatever character or personality they might have had (and granted, we don't have complete pictures of most ancient figures) and forged into one-dimensional avatars for whatever simplistic dichotomy the filmmakers are going for. I find it kind of insulting that someone who was fairly complex and layered in reality is reduced to "hero who represents democracy/secular humanism/Christianity/Western values/self-made man/populist" or "villain who represents national boogeyman du jour/religious fundamentalism/communism or Islam/non-Western culture/aristocrat/elitist".
If someone has to be "the good guy" or "the bad guy" in a historical epic, I'd just rather they come across as human beings instead of ciphers.
I couldn't disagree more. If you look at all forms of popular entertainment, from Homer and Aeschylus to Shakespeare and Spielberg, creators always use historical settings to comment on present circumstances. I'd argue that's actually the entire point of using the past. Whether it's Livy's History of Rome, Michaelangelo's School of Athens, or Copolla's Apocalypse Now, if the creator doesn't have something relevant to say to us about our own present reality, historical accuracy isn't worth much. Now it's true that some artists use this technique more elegantly than others. Arther Miller's The Crucible, for instance, is a darn sight more engaging than Ben Affleck's Pearl Harbor, but both are using the past to shine a light on the present.Falseprophet said:
Don't get me wrong. I spent eight years studying history in college and I get just as upset when Disney gives Hercules mother issues, but historical accuracy is not and should not be an artist's only (or even primary) goal.
Of course, if you're talking about presenting true history in a documentary style, then entertainment should never compromise historical accuracy. But I don't think anyone is confused about whether or not this movie is trying to be factual or not.
Falseprophet said:
Well the problem with things is that if you want to portray things accuratly people tend to find that more offensive than the ciphers. Stereotypes exist because they are true, a stereotype is more or less a checklist where a given person is liable to fit more things on that list than they do not. It's key to things like sociology and advertising. Not all stereotypes are good, and when you decide to deal with things historically, especially with some of the groups involved your going to see a massive outcry about racism and/or bigotry even if it's entirely accurate, dealing with things as they were then and sort of explaining where the stereotypes originated, and why in many cases where they were overcome by the people involved it took so long. This can be hard for some people, especially Americans, to get, since we're very critical of ourselves, where other peoples have difficulty with the same kind of introspection. Inserting modern politics and viewpoints into these things makes them more palatable, especially for a mixed international audience. Picking on whomever the Hollywood leftists doesn't like politically is also a way of fishing for awards.
For an example, let me use a well known example in entertainment. Shakespeare did this story called "The Merchant Of Venice". The bad guy in question was a sadistic Jewish money lender called "Shylocke" which pretty much takes the hero's life as collateral against a loan for a business venture. The whole "pound of flesh" referance you always hear is from this story, because what Shylocke wants and intends to collect is "the pound of flesh closest to the heart". This is a difficult character to do, because it's viewed as being anti-semitic, and without doing the character the way it's intended the story doesn't hold up very well. The thing is though that Shakespeare's plays were designed for the common man of the time (contrary to what many think) and represented the way things were then, and the period in which they were set. At the time of "The Merchant Of Venice" Jews were the only ons who could lend money (for various reasons) and wound up becoming very rich and powerful as a result, while being scorned. They also wound up forming some of the first organized crime synidicates involved in things like loan sharking, real estate scams, and the outright finance of criminal enterprises. A lot can be said of ties between Jewish financiers and the Mafia especially early on, and things like "The Sopranos" even touched upon this to an extent
even if it was never a major focus. Shylocke basically being a gangster/crime boss for the time, a modern version of the same story being some guy borrowing money from the mob and being killed if he can't pay it back. All Jews are not and were not heartless criminals no more than all Italians are or were members of the mafia. Yet if you do this story too close to the original version, or without a lot of disclaimers, your inviting trouble.
See, ascribing accurate, or extremely human motives to someone in a movie, play, or even a book sometimes, invites problems. As political correctness gets more extreme, and international sympathies grow to the point where nobody can be made the bad guy when you ge down to it, you see the problems your talking about. I agree with you, it blows chips, I'd like to see things change myself, but I don't think it's liable to happen anytime soon because pretty much every attempt to rally against political correctness ends the same way: badly.
It is unfortunate when people are stripped of their depth and characterization and made in to one-dimensional stand-ins. However I think this is a separate issue from historical accuracy or the use of historical fiction as an analogy for modern issues. Even characters who don't have a historic basis, or explicitly draw from a specific real-world person, are generally pretty annoying when reduced like this. In my opinion historical fiction that avoids this can still rest heavily on being a modern analogy and be quite good.
Let's not forget the horrible movie "Roman Scandals" (posted below with a modern soundtrack). Notable because it was used as evidence in the adoption of the Hays code.
Naked Slave Parade would be a good Trent Reznor cover band name.
Naked Slave Parade would be a good Trent Reznor cover band name.
Actually, Merchant of Venice is an example of a historical fiction that did humanize the villain. (If it counts as "historical"; I think it was contemporary for the time). For its time, Shylock was a complex portrayal of the stock Jewish villain character, in that he was actually given human motivation (Antonio spent years just throwing racist slurs at him, so when Antonio was in a position where he needed Shylock's services, damn right Shylock tried to screw him over). Like I said, I don't mind having villains (or heroes) in period pieces, I just wish they'd portray them as human beings, not strawmen.Therumancer said:
Well, I did say I'm of two minds on the subject. Like my computer science prof friend who cringes at how computers are used in movies. I suppose, thinking on it some more, my irritation is directed not at the filmmakers, but the viewers who think these films are in any way an accurate representation of history. And that's (usually) not the creators' fault.Steve Butts said:
Yeah, two wayward s and some stuff with slashes and question marks whose intended function I do not know.Sylocat said:
I've heard of Cleopatra before - big-budget flops are a kind of morbid fascination for me.
A fellow Shakespeare admirer!Falseprophet said:
I loved Shakespeare's subtlety. Remember in Much Ado About Nothing, how Claudio actually asked beforehand about Hero's inheritance before professing his love for her? Classic jab at the stereotypical lover! And you nailed Shylock as well: he was simply reacting to Antonio's constant vile racism.
I believe your argument is (correct me if I'm wrong) that without being able to contextualize with our present, we won't be able to appreciate it. Call me weird, but last week I largely enjoyed the Godfather, Dr Strangelove and Apocalypse NowI'm guessing you meant Apocalypse Now as a modern reinterpretation of Heart of Darkness. Though in retrospect it could apply to the West's attempt at spreading 'democracy'... (movies released before I was born). All these movies expected me to know a bit of background history and there were very few things I could connect with them in terms of present reality (except for the very basic human endeavors/ nature which is omnipresent regardless of timeline); yet I loved 'em. Same goes for my friends. Anyway, I think it's sad in a sense that we can't appreciate a timeline for its own sake without making it relevant to ourselves. Kind of... self-centered.Steve Butts said:
Well, at least I'm glad Dr Strange gets some Love!
Great classic epics, but I didnt see my favourite here, Quo Vadis?, I loved that movie to pieces.