When In Rome

[Steve Butts]

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 Now (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.

Well, at least I'm glad Dr Strange gets some Love!

You raise a good point and, yes, Dr. Strange is clearly awesome. I don't think expecting historical fiction to speak to our contemporary life is self-centered.

First, the movies you're talking about all treat periods and points of view that are not that far removed from our own, so there's not much of a stretch for us to understand 20th century gangsters or soldiers as it would be to understand Roman gladiators, medieval Muslims, or even early American colonists. In the movies you mentioned, we're talking about worlds in which our parents and grandparents walked and we've inherited a lot of the attitudes and perspectives required to instantly understand what's going on.

It's so fundamental to our point of view that we don't even consider it. A fish may live in the water but it doesn't necessarily feel wet. Likewise, you may watch a 1960s movie about the Cold War and not even realize how much understanding we take for granted until you contrast it with something really alien, like Beowulf or Antigone.

The second thing is that entertainment is made for contemporary audiences. Those which survive to speak to new generations do so on the basis of their universality. We may still love Alice in Wonderland or The Marriage of Figaro or Casablanca but we do so because, in spite of the different worlds in which they were created, they speak to our current situation. That could be, as you say, because we recognize in them a familiar part of the universal human drama.

I was a history major in college, so I absolutely believe it's possible and worthwhile to appreciate a timeline for its own sake. But when it comes to using history as a vehicle for entertainment, you have to express its relevance to contemporary audiences. Yes, Hollywood glosses over accuracy for the sake of cheap plot and character points, and I still complain about revisionist movies like Troy or Robin Hood, but films and novels based on history are not meant to BE history.

 

[RA92]

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 Now (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.

Well, at least I'm glad Dr Strange gets some Love!

You raise a good point and, yes, Dr. Strange is clearly awesome. I don't think expecting historical fiction to speak to our contemporary life is self-centered.

First, the movies you're talking about all treat periods and points of view that are not that far removed from our own, so there's not much of a stretch for us to understand 20th century gangsters or soldiers as it would be to understand Roman gladiators, medieval Muslims, or even early American colonists. In the movies you mentioned, we're talking about worlds in which our parents and grandparents walked and we've inherited a lot of the attitudes and perspectives required to instantly understand what's going on.

It's so fundamental to our point of view that we don't even consider it. A fish may live in the water but it doesn't necessarily feel wet. Likewise, you may watch a 1960s movie about the Cold War and not even realize how much understanding we take for granted until you contrast it with something really alien, like Beowulf or Antigone.

The second thing is that entertainment is made for contemporary audiences. Those which survive to speak to new generations do so on the basis of their universality. We may still love Alice in Wonderland or The Marriage of Figaro or Casablanca but we do so because, in spite of the different worlds in which they were created, they speak to our current situation. That could be, as you say, because we recognize in them a familiar part of the universal human drama.

I was a history major in college, so I absolutely believe it's possible and worthwhile to appreciate a timeline for its own sake. But when it comes to using history as a vehicle for entertainment, you have to express its relevance to contemporary audiences. Yes, Hollywood glosses over accuracy for the sake of cheap plot and character points, and I still complain about revisionist movies like Troy or Robin Hood, but films and novels based on history are not meant to BE history.

Thanks for the insight. The point on inheriting a lot of the attitudes/perspectives of the bygone eras was particularly enlightening. I didn't necessarily get them from my parents, but from a rather large volume of reading since an early age (that reminds me: I need to look for my copy of The Dark Valley).

As for history being a vehicle for entertainment, I guess I see your point on historical significance being irrelevant to contemporary audiences. And yes, directors should have reign on revisionism - and I concede this solely because of Kubrick's liberal attitude at handling source materials. It just pisses me off when apathetic people go sprouting 'history' after seeing movies ("No. Harrison Ford was never President").

And finally I agree with you that "it's possible and worthwhile to appreciate a timeline for its own sake". For me, this itself is a vehicle for entertainment. Nothing is quite as enthralling as reading on Hitler's utter obsession with breaking down the morale of the British public (thus the V2 project) at the obvious expense of inflicting zero military damage. Let's face it, life can sometimes extend beyond the ultimate absurdities. Reality should dictate such awesomeness as <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemenceau,_Georges>Georges Clemenceau shouldn't exist. Yet he did.

 

[Ghengis John]

Unquestionably, Rome was the more popular of the two - its social structure was more immediately familiar to mainstream audiences (translation: Rome had more white people)

I lol'ed. Then again after seeing Charlton Heston as a Mexican and John Wayne as a Mongol, I doubt that sort of thing really bothered them.

 

[commodorejohn]

I hate to get all nitpicky (okay, that's a lie,) but you do know that the title character of Ben-Hur is Judah ben-Hur, not "Ben," right?

 

[MagnusShalefist]

There's one classic television series that neither Bob or any of you have mentioned; I,Claudius from 1976. It's based on a couple of books by Robert Graves and I highly recommend it. Mainly because it's full of awesome actors like Derek Jacobi, Brian Blessed, Patrick Stewart, John Rhys-Davies and John Hurt.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

Here's a sampling of the biggest and/or most-infamous ones that made the genre what it is:

Ummm... What's missing from this list? What's that movie that took ancient Roman sexual debauchery to new heights and earned the undying hatred of most film critics? What's the movie that ended up being an inspiration for the most current Rome-centered TV show (Sparacus: Blood and Sand & Gods of the Arena)?

CALIGULA (1979)

 

[Pumpkinmancer]

Roman epics may not have started with Gladiator, but modern Roman epics, Roman epics for the generations after the Baby Boomers, certainly did.

 

[Outright Villainy]

pre-Code knockout Claudette Colbert skinny-dips in a pool of milk,

OK, I had to track that clip down [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wBlFDHD1A]. Yowza!

I like how they carefully introduced the idea that she is in a pool of milk, not water - it's pretty hard to tell with that awful 1932 camera tech.

Well that probably worked to their advantage, because I'm pretty sure that's not a pool of milk.

pre-Code knockout Claudette Colbert skinny-dips in a pool of milk,

OK, I had to track that clip down [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wBlFDHD1A]. Yowza!

Holy cow! For the 30s, that was almost pornographic!

Yes. Yes it is.

Hell, at 3:09 I was like "Woah! They really got away with this?"

 

[Yokai]

Here's a sampling of the biggest and/or most-infamous ones that made the genre what it is:

Ummm... What's missing from this list? What's that movie that took ancient Roman sexual debauchery to new heights and earned the undying hatred of most film critics? What's the movie that ended up being an inspiration for the most current Rome-centered TV show (Sparacus: Blood and Sand & Gods of the Arena)?

CALIGULA (1979)

Yeah, I was wondering where that was. Goes to show you shouldn't attempt to film an accurate movie with a porn magazine's money.

 

[WaderiAAA]

I remember reading the book after watching the movie, and it was really lame in comparissin.

 

[Urh]

Great classic epics, but I didnt see my favourite here, Quo Vadis?, I loved that movie to pieces.

Well, Signs of the Cross is based on a play which is *very* similar to Quo Vadis. Heck, even Bob's summary of Signs had me thinking of Quo (as both stories share essentially the same premise and even setting). Plus, which version would Bob discuss? By the time the Hays Code was in place, Quo Vadis had already been filmed three times (two of those while Sienkiewicz was still alive), and I'm guessing that you're thinking of Mervyn LeRoy's version from 1951, or one of the several films or TV mini-series that have been released since 1951.

The fact is, there's about a fuckton of sandal-and-sword epics that got released during that era, and discussing a decent sampling of them in the confines of a small article is nigh-on impossible. Personally, I'm kinda surprised that none of those low-budget Italian Hercules movies from the '60s got a mention. I would've thought that schlock like Hercules vs. the Moon Men would be right up Bob's alley.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

Great classic epics, but I didnt see my favourite here, Quo Vadis?, I loved that movie to pieces.

Well, Signs of the Cross is based on a play which is *very* similar to Quo Vadis. Heck, even Bob's summary of Signs had me thinking of Quo (as both stories share essentially the same premise and even setting). Plus, which version would Bob discuss? By the time the Hays Code was in place, Quo Vadis had already been filmed three times (two of those while Sienkiewicz was still alive), and I'm guessing that you're thinking of Mervyn LeRoy's version from 1951, or one of the several films or TV mini-series that have been released since 1951.

The fact is, there's about a fuckton of sandal-and-sword epics that got released during that era, and discussing a decent sampling of them in the confines of a small article is nigh-on impossible. Personally, I'm kinda surprised that none of those low-budget Italian Hercules movies from the '60s got a mention. I would've thought that schlock like Hercules vs. the Moon Men would be right up Bob's alley.

You guessed right. I was thinking exactly of the 1951 version.