Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Ah, but you're reading into my post what you want to read...

12.238.114.147

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

In Reply to: Gladiator was truer to historical Rome ? What's BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in Latin ? posted by john dem on January 23, 2002 at 22:59:53:

... 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

Follow Ups:

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)
    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)
      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

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

Parts Connexion

You can not post to an archived thread.