10-14-2010, 02:13 AM
Hi again
Matthew's cautionary note on methodology is well taken. Key questions lie in and around the practices of Roman artists and their attitudes toward representation. (And how time and Renaissance artists may have subsequently fiddled with those representations - in the famous case of the Paris Praetorians, very directly).
Can I just clarify, I wasn't trying to assert HBO's prop was a sincere attempt by filmmakers to be historically accurate. As I intimated long ago in a thread far, far away, as long as there are awards for costume design, it'll be a cold day in hell before we see conscientious historical accuracy in "historical" costuming on film. My intent was more to bury HBO's helmet than to praise it.
But filmmakers do influence public beliefs and attitudes and, in the HBO helmet, they have created a very plausible suggestion of a reality. The overarching idea from which they have created it comes from perceptions and traditions of representation stretching back to the Renaissance. And it's valid to explore this area.
Still, I have to say mea culpa and admit it doesn't serve proper inquiry to wave an artifact and say: "I betcha this is what the Romans copied to make the picture that HBO copied." It ignores the fact there isn't a clear consensus about what the picture was that the Romans created (quite aside from the effects of time and abuse on the clarity of that picture).
On the other hand, I can feel good that a beautiful example of the antique armourer's craft has doubtless been appreciated for its own sake (whether or not its own ring is original - I really hope it is though!). Sadly, we must all feel bad that filmmakers will continue to assume Roman military headgear is Roman enough for consumers as long as it has "a familiar ring to it". (Sorry - had to say it :wink: )
Cheers
Howard/SPC
Matthew's cautionary note on methodology is well taken. Key questions lie in and around the practices of Roman artists and their attitudes toward representation. (And how time and Renaissance artists may have subsequently fiddled with those representations - in the famous case of the Paris Praetorians, very directly).
Can I just clarify, I wasn't trying to assert HBO's prop was a sincere attempt by filmmakers to be historically accurate. As I intimated long ago in a thread far, far away, as long as there are awards for costume design, it'll be a cold day in hell before we see conscientious historical accuracy in "historical" costuming on film. My intent was more to bury HBO's helmet than to praise it.
But filmmakers do influence public beliefs and attitudes and, in the HBO helmet, they have created a very plausible suggestion of a reality. The overarching idea from which they have created it comes from perceptions and traditions of representation stretching back to the Renaissance. And it's valid to explore this area.
Still, I have to say mea culpa and admit it doesn't serve proper inquiry to wave an artifact and say: "I betcha this is what the Romans copied to make the picture that HBO copied." It ignores the fact there isn't a clear consensus about what the picture was that the Romans created (quite aside from the effects of time and abuse on the clarity of that picture).
On the other hand, I can feel good that a beautiful example of the antique armourer's craft has doubtless been appreciated for its own sake (whether or not its own ring is original - I really hope it is though!). Sadly, we must all feel bad that filmmakers will continue to assume Roman military headgear is Roman enough for consumers as long as it has "a familiar ring to it". (Sorry - had to say it :wink: )
Cheers
Howard/SPC
Spurius Papirius Cursor (Howard Russell)
"Life is still worthwhile if you just smile."
(Turner, Parsons, Chaplin)
"Life is still worthwhile if you just smile."
(Turner, Parsons, Chaplin)
