11-05-2006, 11:29 AM
Well, are we more serious now that we participate in the RAT forum?
Wether or not you are serious by participating in the forum is not important. That you participate and share views and opinions, is.
I am a Roman re-enactor who has not done a lot of re-enacting these last few years due to various circumstances, and am also engaged in forming a samurai re-enactment group. That doesnt mean i am not still following new theories, leads, or participate in discussions.
You can write about the director's and film company people who dont want to portray historical accuracy because of money, but that is still no excuse for opening the vaults of cinecitta and using anything at hand.
There is enough budget in most films to warrant proper(ie as we now understand it probably was during roman times) gear, equipment and armour. Even re-enactors around the world would gladly participate.
however a lot of re-enactors cannot keep their mouth shut on a set in general, which might hamper filming. (first hand experience)
I personally think that Ars should join the debate, and present itself as a totally experimental group for that matter.
Only then is it valid to be proud of what you have done in the past, the films you participated in, and whatever strange costumes you come up with... If I would want to walk around as a legionary with a katana, or a sea-shell squamata, i could as well say listen, it was never found, but there is no proof they didnt use it! This attitude is totally wrong if you are trying to re-enact or are engaged in experimental archeology.
Experimental archeology is the testing of archaeological theories to practise, wether something works, doesnt work, is plausible, not plausible.
an example: we know we are not far off with our reconstructed caligae because we lose hobnails in the same spots Romans lost them, we have found hundreds of examples.
we see that some theories about how Romans wore their scvta during march are implausible due to the fact that when tested, some theoretical ways of wearing a scvtvm are totally impractical.
that is experimental archaeology. wearing a leather segmentata is not!
we use the sources to derive a theory, test a theory, or find clues to possible explanations of finds and practical uses of equipment.
I for one would love to take LIVIvS literally, however....... that doesnt work.
So yes, be welcome, and be happy you get critisised. help us, and we help you, and the other way around for that matter. But do not say you are totally accurate and present yourselves as people who know what it was like back then.. no one knows. we all have a calculated guess.
do not say that you cannot do anything about filmmakers, studios, and the difference between documentaries and drama..... there also is DOCUDRAMA!!!
You and everyone participating in the discussion, and scientific debate can make a difference, and that is exactly what Oliver Stone also said, and why he relied heavily on re-enactors and scholars worldwide to make Alexander into what it is... and yes... he also stated that due to the studio and the general public he couldnt make his film as Hard, homosexual, tough and historically accurate as he might have wanted. but it is by far the best attempt so far!
let that be an example on how to do it slightly better.
M.VIB.M.
Wether or not you are serious by participating in the forum is not important. That you participate and share views and opinions, is.
I am a Roman re-enactor who has not done a lot of re-enacting these last few years due to various circumstances, and am also engaged in forming a samurai re-enactment group. That doesnt mean i am not still following new theories, leads, or participate in discussions.
You can write about the director's and film company people who dont want to portray historical accuracy because of money, but that is still no excuse for opening the vaults of cinecitta and using anything at hand.
There is enough budget in most films to warrant proper(ie as we now understand it probably was during roman times) gear, equipment and armour. Even re-enactors around the world would gladly participate.
however a lot of re-enactors cannot keep their mouth shut on a set in general, which might hamper filming. (first hand experience)
I personally think that Ars should join the debate, and present itself as a totally experimental group for that matter.
Only then is it valid to be proud of what you have done in the past, the films you participated in, and whatever strange costumes you come up with... If I would want to walk around as a legionary with a katana, or a sea-shell squamata, i could as well say listen, it was never found, but there is no proof they didnt use it! This attitude is totally wrong if you are trying to re-enact or are engaged in experimental archeology.
Experimental archeology is the testing of archaeological theories to practise, wether something works, doesnt work, is plausible, not plausible.
an example: we know we are not far off with our reconstructed caligae because we lose hobnails in the same spots Romans lost them, we have found hundreds of examples.
we see that some theories about how Romans wore their scvta during march are implausible due to the fact that when tested, some theoretical ways of wearing a scvtvm are totally impractical.
that is experimental archaeology. wearing a leather segmentata is not!
we use the sources to derive a theory, test a theory, or find clues to possible explanations of finds and practical uses of equipment.
I for one would love to take LIVIvS literally, however....... that doesnt work.
So yes, be welcome, and be happy you get critisised. help us, and we help you, and the other way around for that matter. But do not say you are totally accurate and present yourselves as people who know what it was like back then.. no one knows. we all have a calculated guess.
do not say that you cannot do anything about filmmakers, studios, and the difference between documentaries and drama..... there also is DOCUDRAMA!!!
You and everyone participating in the discussion, and scientific debate can make a difference, and that is exactly what Oliver Stone also said, and why he relied heavily on re-enactors and scholars worldwide to make Alexander into what it is... and yes... he also stated that due to the studio and the general public he couldnt make his film as Hard, homosexual, tough and historically accurate as he might have wanted. but it is by far the best attempt so far!
let that be an example on how to do it slightly better.
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
