Reference guides for Film and TV

[Susanna]

Maybe...but getting money for a movie or documentary is only availible if you sell the producer a product that they think the crowd wanna watch.
:wink:

[Cornelius Quintus]

Hi Jim,

good question. But I think the movie makers want to be on the ‚safe side’ :

Old ‘proven’ stereotypes are a trigger for emotions, feelings and atmosphere. The audience was trained by Hollywood movies and other media for many decades. So showing the stereotypes pulls the triggers. They want to play ‘organ’ on the spectators, not tune them up or issue new instruments… Okay, a director can achieve the same or better effect or result by his own work. But he has to be very good then and it needs a lot of effort. So they avoid any ‘risks’ and march the old beattracks. I think IF a director will make a successful movie with decent (and different!) costumes, others will follow.

Susanna mentioned another point: entertainment. Perhaps intelligence is decreasing more and more? Many modern people have to process a lot of different data every day. Others are just able to consume bite-sized or pre-chewed information. The TV and movie industry seems to consider the latter type being representative for all…

Sunday I saw a surviving copy of the Gutenberg bible (great!), reminding me that 550 years ago an ingenious craftsman printed that masterwork and books became available to common people. How much modern people have problems to read and are used to mouse-click and watching the TV screen instead?

A friend and Viking re-enactor is a worker by profession. He’s very skilled in making bows and archery equipment. Some weeks ago he asked me: Did you notice, that workers and ‘common people’ are becoming rare in Viking re-enactment? There are lots of doctors, architects, jurisprudents, freelancers, officers, entrepreneurs. And even when dressed in their dark age kit, they act that way. Where are all the ‘John Doe’s gone?

[Tarbicus]

The thing is that there is no such thing as a safe side. The general worldwide populace haven't got a clue what a real Roman legionary looked like.

If you presented them with a wrong version and a right version, I would put money on 99% saying they haven't got a clue.

My money is also on costume designers not updating their references, and the old books based on old knowledge still being generally used for reference. Plus the often misleading monumental record and the difficulty they possibly have in knowing where to even start.

Alexander proves it can be done. Was there an uproar of "Wrong costumes!" from the world when that came out?

No

:wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I staunchly believe that the public only usually knows what it doesn't want, but doesn't know what it wants until it's seen it.

Maybe...but getting money for a movie or documentary is only availible if you sell the producer a product that they think the crowd wanna watch.

Both true. It's looks like the dog that eats his own tail here...

Anyway, some producers seem to be sensible to the Jim's statement and to the directors attempts to show something of previously unseen, if not, we'd always see the same movies with just little adjustments, while, spotted in the history of the cinema, we have seen several movies that visually got in the public important cultural shocks, and that after them the cinema was not the same anymore: The Killing (yes, a flop, but very good), 2001 a space odissey, Clockwork orange, Barry Lindon, Full metal jacket... Oops! Sorry, all by Stanley Kubrick... :wink:

Anyway again, about our period (Roman), even if almost totally wrong, Gladiator has been a visual turning point for the public and the producers too. We have seen the effects (even if always wrong) in King Arthur, Alexander and Rome...

Valete,

[Tarbicus]

Gladiator was on TV the other night, so I watched the opening battle. One thing we never bear in mind when discussing the armour is the overall effect within the film itself. The 'armadillo' side-less segs can only be seen for that if you look at a photo of the costumes out of context. The scuta and other garb, and camera angles, actually made them very effective. If they'd have put the peaks further up the helmets they would have been, within context, 90% there.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

True. It was a turning point about the visual rendering of a roman battle. It does not care of absolute accuracy, the public has seen something that believed as "real", and that's an important step more.
I think that now the public is ready enough for seeing the "true" real. But look out! The "true" real it's not just to show accurate equipment, it's more: it's showing the best general "fresco" of the roman Empire ever seen, according to the most recent updates about discoveries and findings. Communicating a fresco by showing just the right details is also possible.

But again, it's not enough, there should be still more to show: the real spiritual "soul" of the Romans (or of the Ancients), their methaphisics, their religion, in a word, their Weltanschauung as appears from the tons of literary material we have.

Only by showing a good sinthesys of all those elements getting a good fresco is possible. Although, that's could be frightening for the average "Joe".

Scott has been able to show a little bit of this fresco, mostly wrong yes, but effective as trojan horse for those will do it better next. Sometime, I've the impression that Scott tasted somehow the vision of the real but then decided to dilute it for the public (Joe) could not be ready... Anyway and maybe, unexpectedly, "Joe" liked exactly those so far unknown (for him) and tipically roman things and atmospheres (with some Shakespeare's help...).

Vale,

[Susanna]

All you ever can show...beside from a nearly 90% authentic equipment is a modern interpretation of the knowledge we have about ancient cultur.

A "Weltanschauung" can therein be reflected, but never shown!
All we can offer is a good role-playing, but more or less we do not have the slightest idea of their souls.

[Tarbicus]

All we can offer is a good role-playing, but more or less we do not have the slightest idea of their souls.

Act like a modern football hooligan gang and you have a Roman century IMHO :wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Susanna wrote:

All you ever can show...beside from a nearly 90% authentic equipment is a modern interpretation of the knowledge we have about ancient cultur.

I don't understand could you explain better?

A "Weltanschauung" can therein be reflected, but never shown!

Why? If you please...

All we can offer is a good role-playing,

If we are sticky to the surface, that's sure...

but more or less we do not have the slightest idea of their souls

That's all? Wow! hock: The Ancients left a lot about that! Unless you mean the Hermetism, the Alchemy and the Mysteria matters (or all in one) where you have to be initiated, among all, to your interior resources discovering for doing improving steps and where, on purpose, nothing is clearly written...

Maybe, if you red the Julius Evola's works (if you don't already know him), avoiding common places, prejudices and the Wikipedia bullshit, you could taste some new flavours about the Myth and the Ancients "Weltanschauung"... I mean not to be argumentative, but constructive...

I'd love to debate it in a new topic, if you like...

Vale,

[Severus]

What about Gibson's recent epic, the passion of the Christ.

The gear the Roman soldiers wore in that movie seemed wholly incorrect.

The segmentata seemed to be made of leather
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion2/21.jpg

the helmets they wore were not matching and were like nothing I've ever seen. (edit to add more photos)
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion2/06.jpeg
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion2/72.jpeg
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/ga ... ges/06.jpg

[well the helmets are matching in these pics, but they look to be made out of leather. . . any comments] -Matt
I came away from the movie feeling that Gibson raided a prop room in Hollywood to garb his Romans. Of course knowing that I know nothing I wonder what other people who are experts in Roman military gear (especially in the east) had to say. . .


Matt Webster

[Tarbicus]

They look based on Trajan's Column (spit) - a century too late, and dodgy beyond dodgy anyway, IMHO.

[Marcus Julius]

What about Gibson's recent epic, the passion of the Christ.

The gear the Roman soldiers wore in that movie seemed wholly incorrect.
....
[well the helmets are matching in these pics, but they look to be made out of leather. . . any comments] -Matt
.....
Matt Webster

Yup, first thing I noticed, too - all leather.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I just read through the posts above and have the following comments:

1. The other wars (Napoleonic, WWI, American Civil War) lasted less than a hundred years. So the uniforms did not change a lot from day one to VJ day.

That does not keep Follywood from using Korean War era tanks in the battle of the Bulge film.

2. Follywood has to market it movies to an audience who think that Roman Soldiers wore Peacock feathers in their Attic helmets on the battle line.

If you portrayed them as the Roman soldier was, they would have most of the views walking away asking "Who did their costume research?"

3. Because Rome lasted almost 2,000 years their uniforms changed considerably. Often the soldiers who did participate in a given battle were Aux, not Legion soldiers.

4. Follywood has a budget. They also have a Gezillion Roman-like costumes already in their warehouses. Why make more?

Just my opinion.

Me.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Lothia wrote:

2. Follywood has to market it movies to an audience who think that Roman Soldiers wore Peacock feathers in their Attic helmets on the battle line.

Ignorance could be defeated without wasting more money than the money necessary to make new fake equipment and scenes.

If you portrayed them as the Roman soldier was, they would have most of the views walking away asking "Who did their costume research?"

I think it's enough putting before the titles a very short brief (text plus voice) about the accuracy, according to the last researchers' works, used for the costume making, pointing it as the best ever in a roman (or other) movie and moreover faithful to the specific period.

3. Because Rome lasted almost 2,000 years their uniforms changed considerably. Often the soldiers who did participate in a given battle were Aux, not Legion soldiers.

See above.

4. Follywood has a budget. They also have a Gezillion Roman-like costumes already in their warehouses. Why make more?

Well, it seems that in Gladiator, King Arthur, Troy and Alexander all the costumes were new made.

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

2. Follywood has to market it movies to an audience who think that Roman Soldiers wore Peacock feathers in their Attic helmets on the battle line.

If you portrayed them as the Roman soldier was, they would have most of the views walking away asking "Who did their costume research?"

I have to disagree thoroughly with that. The public doesn't know what they want until they see it, nor do you have to add any introductory explanation at the beginning. Where there any complaints about the Alexander costumes or armour at all?

4. Follywood has a budget. They also have a Gezillion Roman-like costumes already in their warehouses. Why make more?

In fact the higher the movie's budget the more they will be charged to the point where getting supplied by Deepeeka would save them probably half of their armour budget (first question from suppliers across the board is "What's the movie's budget?"). There are no major studio systems any more, as seen in the 40's, etc, so it's all about who they buy or hire from.