03-21-2004, 06:07 PM
Oh please, you're giving the rowdiness of some troops as evidence that the film is historically inaccurate? I don't think we have to go far to find examples of troops acting disrespectful to their commanding officers, heh, as Quintius Clavus so helpfully pointed out. And the guy who hit his commander's table with the scourge was obviously joking around and, though pissed off, the commander certainly didn't look threatened or anything. You think he's going to have a friend executed for joking around? Please.<br>
<br>
The Romans were not portrayed in a stereotypical light. Far from it. *Some* of the Romans were portrayed as being villains, sure, but the characters of Pontius Pilate, Abenader, and Longinus balanced them quite perfectly. The desire was to show that there are always good and bad people amongst every group, whether they be Jews, Romans, or even Christ's following (i.e. Judas). I guess it's unfortunate that you didn't notice the intended contrast between the characterization of these "evil" soldiers and Pilate, Abenader and Longinus. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
The Romans were not portrayed in a stereotypical light. Far from it. *Some* of the Romans were portrayed as being villains, sure, but the characters of Pontius Pilate, Abenader, and Longinus balanced them quite perfectly. The desire was to show that there are always good and bad people amongst every group, whether they be Jews, Romans, or even Christ's following (i.e. Judas). I guess it's unfortunate that you didn't notice the intended contrast between the characterization of these "evil" soldiers and Pilate, Abenader and Longinus. <p></p><i></i>