Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Bruce, you should know better than to blow coke in a crowded thater; it's waaaay too public! ;^)

12.238.114.147

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

In Reply to: Re: Well, like you said, it's "another matter of opinion, of course." posted by Bruce from DC on January 23, 2002 at 13:50:38:

Seriously, I beg to differ with you on many of your views here, not that you aren't entitled to 'em! Gladiator is much better than you've indicated and truer to historical Rome than Sparticus, although admittedly I like Sparticus and we have it in our DVD collection as well!
As for your comments about the first two Alien films, Bruce, please consider your mouth washed out with virtual soap.
As for your comment about Thelma & Louise, I would concur that taken specifically as role models for BEHAVIOR that isn't what society is seeking for assertiveness, but as a statement or a reaction against perceived gender abuses, I can understand it's appeal to women. How is a film like this any less acceptable than macho-male buddy pictures with their over-the-top improbabilities? Is it because women aren't "supposed" to act aggresively in these situations or what? If that's your view we should burn all copies of the unrealistic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and run Burt Bachrach out of town on a rail [Hey, that last thought isn't such a bad idea anyway! ;^)]
Bladerunner, is indeed cool and a superb visionary tale with underlying ideas woven into it about isolation, the risks of cloning, the fleeting nature of love and the claustrophobic realities of life in an overcrowded society.
BTW, after seeing BHD you should rent the Duelists too!
Cheers,
AuPh

Follow Ups:

Gladiator was truer to historical Rome ? What's BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in Latin ? - john dem 22:59:53 01/23/02 (7)
Gladiator is a piece of fiction.
Emperor Commodus reigned for some 17 years after his father's death- he even shared the title and duties of Augustus (emperor) with his aging father Marcus Aurelius for some 3 years prior to that.
Therefore, there was no question he would become Emperor. He wasn't a bad general either- though he was a nut in the fine tradition of Roman Emperors.
In fact- he was the first emperor to inherit the title in Rome for 80 years- those that preceded him were appointed on merit.
He died after nearly being poisoned by his no.1 concubine Marcia (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia !)- he vomited and foiled the plot by purging himself of the poison. His wrestling partner finished the job and strangled him that same night.
There was no General Maximus- they may as well have called him Biggus Dickus.
Spartacus is a piece of historical fiction- the plot revolves around characters and events which actually occurred and were well documented. Sure- they took some latitude, but they stuck to the important facts- and even some minor ones such as Spartacus' body never being found.
- Ah, but you're reading into my post what you want to read... - Audiophilander 00:44:43 01/24/02 (6)
  ... rather than that which was stated. If I had said "Roman history" or "the history of Rome" or anything pertaining to the caesars, your assessment would've been entirely correct. BTW, the same complaint might be made of Sparticus if absolute historical accuracy is any criteria, but after all we are talking about movies and they should be entertaining, right?
  Nevertheless, the exact quote is as you read or *ahem* misread it (i.e., in your mind). I stated "historical Rome" meaning the details of daily life (i.e., clothing, foods, behavior, and the city itself), including such fine attention to what might seem like unimportant minutiae. For instance, only those with a fairly advanced knowledge of ancient Rome would be aware that the retractable awnings depicted on the coliseum are in fact historically accurate. IMHO, the atmosphere of any fictional or historical dramatization is greatly enhanced by such attention to detail, it's what involves the viewer and promotes the suspension of disbelief. One of the most impressive aspects of Gladiator to me are those details, which anyone who has studied the lifestyles and culture of ancient Rome should appreciate, at least from a historical context.
  BTW, Mr. dem, the "Latin" phrase most appropo for this comic scenario is: ickeringsnay ackbay atta ouyay! ;^)
  Cheers,
  AuPh
  - ps- Your definition of "historical Rome" vs Roman history is nonsense- and you know it. - john dem 06:34:35 01/24/02 (3)
    How can historical Rome differ from Roman history or the history of Rome ?
    "Historical" is the adjective form of HISTORY.
    Your personal definition is sheer nonsense- you think Gladiator is more realistic but you cannot justify that opinion with a single fact.
    "For instance, only those with a fairly advanced knowledge of ancient Rome would be aware that the retractable awnings depicted on the coliseum are in fact historically accurate."
    This is a recent hypothesis- and you know that too. The actual mechanism is unknown- and there is only one fresco (in Pompeii I think) that depicts an awning. At the time Kubrick made Spartacus- this was not known.
    Given that Gladiator fucks up on ALL MAJOR historical facts- all you are left with are the tiniest of details.
    "One of the most impressive aspects of Gladiator to me are those details, which anyone who has studied the lifestyles and culture of ancient Rome should appreciate, at least from a historical context."
    Name these details Auph- and how are they more accurate than in Spartacus ?
    You can't- because they're not.
    You like Gladiator- leave it at that instead of being silly about it.
    - Look up the word "historical" -- it has a number of meanings, including but not limited to: - Audiophilander 07:53:11 01/24/02 (2)
      ... "based on or suggested by events of the past" as in a historical novel and "famous in history" as in occuring in a place such as HISTORICAL ROME (now often shortened to the word historic, but it applies the same emphasis). Furthermore, the word "historical" is an adjective used to limit or qualify the noun which follows it. Sheeeesh! It never occured to me that I'd be required to provide lessons in grammar in order to defend a good movie! My intent was simply to suggest why Gladiator is a fine, enjoyable film that's rich in detail in spite of the liberties it takes with the protrayal of historical and fictional characters. If you weren't entertained by it, that's not my problem.
      AuPh
      - Hysterical Rome. - john dem 08:27:43 01/24/02 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Look up the word "historical" -- it has a number of meanings, including but not limited to: posted by Audiophilander on January 24, 2002 at 07:53:11:
        
        I really ought to use smiley faces more often-
        8--> ~)D..bah.......humbug !
        Anyway- I didn't say I didn't like the film- I did !
        I really like Oliver Reed (the world has lost a truly dedicated drinker- and a fine actor)and Richard Harris and Russel Crowe. (As far as Spartacus goes- it was ok but Kirk just does not convince)
        I don't mind seeing big- budget blockbusters- they are films to be enjoyed or not based on whatever criteria you choose.
        It was colorful- had a hero and a villain- had some plot, the underdog triumphed even though he died in the end- good ol' Hollywood fare.
        You don't have to give grammar lessons- but don't expect that a film like Gladiator should be judged on its accuracy- leave that out of it.
        And your defense of your use of historical is hysterical.
        nyuk nyuk nyuk
        
        Hee, hee! - Audiophilander 09:36:14 01/24/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Hysterical Rome. posted by john dem on January 24, 2002 at 08:27:43:
        
        Yeah, at times it's hard to pick up on the virtual tongue-in-cheek, especially after feeling obliged to rain on Victor's tirade, but it was fun sparring with ya anyway. :o)
        Cheers,
        AuPh
  - So you liked the film- but don't pretend it's something it isn't. - john dem 04:19:18 01/24/02 (1)
    Gladiator is a fiction- a mere fantasy.
    The costumes were WRONG (Praetorians NEVER wore black- they wore red just like in all the other Hollywood films- also, the Romans did not upgrade uniforms en masse throughout the army- various styles were used )
    The armor was WRONG. (There's a visored helmet from Saxony in one shot- popular in 1000 AD)
    The weapons were WRONG.(The gladius was the main infantry weapon- and the personal multi- shot crossbow must have been a joke by one of the prop guys.)
    The livery was WRONG.( Stirrups ? Breastplates ?)
    The depiction of the Emperor Commodus was WRONG.
    The "facts" in the film were WRONG- (Marcus Aurelius NEVER banned gladiatorial fights.)
    As for the CGI Roman buildings- Foggedaboudid .
    You can like the film for whatever reason you choose- but don't try and pass it off as anything but a VERY inaccurate portrayal of Rome.
    It's a film- not a documentary.
    - Finally, there's some light at the end of the tunnel vision! - Audiophilander 07:59:45 01/24/02 (0)
      > > > "It's a film- not a documentary." < < <
      Eureka! We have comity; I couldn't agree more!
      AuPh
Re: Bruce, you should know better than to blow coke in a crowded thater; it's waaaay too public! ;^) - Bruce from DC 16:32:14 01/23/02 (0)
Wasn't in a theatre, AuPh. Was at home, watching teevee.
Face it, AuPh, you're a sucker for sci-fi. So am I but not quite as much. All of the "Alien" movies relied too much on two operations: (1) "where is the monster now?!! and (2) "I thought the monster was dead!!!" That's why I got bored. Also the yucky, gooey stuff. Lots of yucky gooey stuff -- the eggs, the worm coming out of the guy's abdomen. Reminded me of the monkey's brains and eyes in the 2nd Indiana Jones flick (the really sick one, IMHO).
For me T&L just jumps the tracks. Butch Cassidy and The Sting are what I call "goof" movies. They're just a good-time goof. You watch 'em with a beer in hand and one eye open, with your arm on your honey's shoulder.
I could certainly accept the idea of a female goof movie. In fact, I would readily pay to see one that's as well-executed as "Butch" or especially "Sting."
But T&L isn't really a goof movie although at first you think its gonna be. Its bleeping serious. But these gals respond to their problems in a totally adolescent way (trust me, I know adolescents, I own two of em. Actually, one is 20+, so she's moved out of adolescent territory, bless her little heart.) See, AuPh, one of my big beefs with American movies generally is the skew towards the adolescent audience, even with non-adolescent actors (believe me, Susan Sarandon, who is my age, is way far from adolescence), non adolescent characters and non-adolescent stories and themes. One of the ways this skew manifests itself is that the characters respond to problems and situations like adolescents.
For that reason, I'm a sucker for contemporary movies where people actually behave like adults, regardless of their other merits or lack thereof. For example, the current "Shipping News" or the not-too-old "Horse Whisperer."
I mentioned "All about Eve" as a grown-up movie about a woman with similar problems. Another example that comes to mind is Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious." Women in a box, who refuse to stay there.
I have a vague recollection of Duellists -- I might take your suggestion and check it out.
BTW, you should definitely see "Gosford Park." Altman -- now there is a director -- doing what he does best, which is very, very good. Congruent with your politics, too; although I can't really disagree.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.