Hollywood Romans - New Feature Film About Pilate

[Narukami]

"He has a wife you know ..."

News out of Hollywood that new new film about Pontius Pilate is currently in development with Bradd Pitt attached to play Pilate.

I would guess this means he will not be playing Antony in his wife's new Cleopatra film. (That is, of course, if either of these films make it out of Development Hell.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/...28Books%29


Brad Pitt ponders Pontius Pilate role
Actor eyeing lead in new Hollywood epic about Roman prefect who sent Jesus to his death, reports say

Ben Child
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 January 2013 09.04 EST


One man, one governor … Brad Pitt. Photograph: Anthony Harvey/Photoshot
Brad Pitt is being lined up for the lead role in a new Hollywood film about the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, who oversaw the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, reports Deadline.

Studio Warner Bros is backing the big-budget project, which is based on a screenplay by Woman On Top author Vera Blasi. Her take, details of which first emerged in the summer, follows Pilate from his youth as the sensitive son of a Roman knight to the reluctant governorship of Judea, climaxing with his decision to order Christ's crucifixion. The screenplay, which Blasi claims to have researched for more than a decade, imagines the Roman prefect as an unfortunate figure caught amid antagonistic religious factions who is forced to make the fateful decision after finding himself in desperate need of popular goodwill. As well as Christ, it features the Roman emperors Caligula and Tiberius and New Testament figures such as John the Baptist, Salome and Mary Magdalene.

In a brief review of Blasi's screenplay, Deadline's Mike Fleming Jr writes: "Rather than a straight-ahead biblical film, Blasi's script reads almost like a biblical-era Twilight Zone episode in which a proud, capable Roman soldier gets in way over his head. [Pilate's] arrogance and inability to grasp the devoutness of the citizenry and its hatred for the Roman occupiers and their pagan gods leads him to make catastrophic decisions."

Biblical epics are currently flavour of the month in Hollywood, with movies based on the lives of Noah, Moses and battling brothers Cain and Abel (under the auspices of Darren Aronofsky, Steven Spielberg and Will Smith) all being mulled by executives. So far only Aronofsky's Noah, with Russell Crowe as the animal-hoarding antediluvian patriarch, has actually entered production.

I wonder if anyone on the production team will take the time to read Graham Sumner's excellent article about Pilate's Bodyguard in the premier issue of Ancient Warfare Magazine?

Probably not -- but hope springs eternal.

:|

Narukami

[AMELIANVS]

" I wonder if anyone on the production team will take the time to read Graham Sumner's excellent article about Pilate's Bodyguard in the premier issue of Ancient Warfare Magazine?

Probably not -- but hope springs eternal.

:|

Narukami

Yes,that was quite enlightening and interesting article and about new feature films,personally I'm more interested in the one about Cleo but I'm curious to see new vesion of Caligula as well.

[MarcusNorwood]

I am not going to get my hopes up on this one. Hollywood rarely puts forth the effort to do any justice by the existing historical record. Is there really ten years worth of research to be done on Pilate? I suspect this film will take a very critical view of Judaism and Christianity. Somehow from the "research" Christ will end up gay or in love with Mary Magdalene or some other "revelation" that will infuriate Christians and create free buzz for the film.

[Narukami]

But wait, there's more ....

From screenwriter Vera Blasi:

“You have the available facts from Roman and Jewish history books and the four gospels, and then you are left to speculate, to interpret the character of Pilate and give him a dilemma,” she said of the project.

“He seemed a great way to offer context to this very famous event, and if you look at it from the perspective of the Roman governor of that time, it allows for an investigation of the politics of Judea at the time, and what it was like to be occupied by Rome.”

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brad-pitt-to-...52272.html

And this from the original Press Release:

"This script follows the evolution of Lucius Pontius Pilate from the sensitive son of a Roman Knight into a ferocious soldier whose warrior exploits make him a general and puts him on a political track under the Roman Emperor Tiberius," Deadline.com shares.

"Promised a military governorship in Egypt, Pilate is instead assigned by Tiberius to become the prefect of Judea, at a time when Jerusalem was a cauldron of religious tensions between various factions of the Jewish faith. Pilate veers from the political fast track into the express lane to hell and historical infamy," report continues.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/bra...hofjdXW.99

Hollywood Romans indeed ...

:wink:

Narukami

[Graham Sumner]

I wonder if anyone on the production team will take the time to read Graham Sumner's excellent article about Pilate's Bodyguard in the premier issue of Ancient Warfare Magazine?


I would be more than happy to act as historic costume advisor David, please pass on my name. :-)

Graham.

[M. Demetrius]

If films made in the last 20 years or so are indicators, I have to agree with Marcus' observations below. Never mind the actual, known history, what they'll make is a politically correct anti-biblical film. (Even Passion of the Christ got so many things wrong, it's just silly in some respects, and it was billed as a pro-Bible movie.)

[Alexand96]

If films made in the last 20 years or so are indicators, I have to agree with Marcus' observations below. Never mind the actual, known history, what they'll make is a politically correct anti-biblical film. (Even Passion of the Christ got so many things wrong, it's just silly in some respects, and it was billed as a pro-Bible movie.)

+1 To all sentiments included here.

If I ever come into serious wealth, the first thing I will do is spend a fortune on making a historically accurate film about either the Punic Wars, or the Roman Civil Wars (downfall of the Republic).

Or would it be better to ignore entertainment altogether and spend that fortune funding archaeological work focused on the Roman military? Better get to work.

[Quintus Aurelius Lepidus]

no we need history accurate movies...

hearing how many of the public think marcus aurelius was murdered by his son Commodus (gladiator) makes me sad...

[Nathan Ross]

I suspect this film will take a very critical view of Judaism and Christianity.

I doubt that - it's a big-distribution popular Hollywood piece, not a maverick job.

Actually, I expect they'll go with the story that Pilate ended up seeing the error of his ways and became a christian himself (prompted by his wife...).

It might be quite interesting, especially if they give Pilate an equestrian military background and have flashbacks of him commanding auxiliaries in Germany or something. But I'm not holding my breath about the benefits of that approach...

[Narukami]

As we all know, far too well, History and Hollywood rarely play well together, and as writer/director John Sayles so cogently pointed out:

"If historical accuracy were the thing people went to the movies for, historians would be the vice presidents of studios. Every studio would have two or three historians."

Likewise, in terms of costumes, I expect standard Hollywood Romans, for as Goldsworthy pointed out in a recent article from the Guardian, Cleopatra would be dressed not in the Egyptian style of a thousand years earlier, but rather "She would have dressed more in the Greek style and the problem for Hollywood is that Greek dress looks pretty much like Roman – lots of people in sheets."

So it will be with the Romans otherwise we might not recognize them as Roman. We can hope at least that they are not wearing black armor (as did the Praetorians in Gladiator) like some proto-SS.

And speaking of gladiators, this new film is sure to feature a couple of them at least, in keeping with Goldsworthy's 1st Law of Hollywood Romans: Thou Shalt Have Gladiators - Even if the story has nothing to do with gladiators.

All that being said ...

It is clear from the initial press release that the screen writer and the production company are already staking out claims to historical fidelity, at least as far as their sources will allow. I have my doubts even to this modest claim.

However ...

The film Centurion did hire members of the RAT Forum to help and maybe, just maybe, one of us can get Graham's article into the hands of this new film's production team. A long shot to be sure, and even if we are successful there is no guarantee they will either read or understand the article. Indeed, all the evidence weighs against us. Even so ...

Hope spring eternal.

As for a film about the Punic Wars, I suspect that your money, Alexander, would be better spent funding research or a dig, though I must admit, I would love to see a film about Scipio (who I still think the noblest of all the Romans) other than Mussolini's film, which is amusing to be sure, but not the epitome of accuracy by any means.

At least Hollywood is still willing to fund films about the ancient world. Perhaps that is the silver lining here, thin though it may be.

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Demetrius]

Any idea of the title, anyone? I'll keep my ear out. I'll probably go, regardless of religious bent, just to help support SOMEthing Roman on the screen. Who knows? They *could* get it right...ish.

[Kegluneq]

Historical accuracy and the Bible don't exactly go hand in hand all the time. There'd be an outrage if Jesus was portrayed as anything other than a muscular, bearded white European for one thing. :/ With that said, a film studying the life of a lower-ranked member of the aristocracy would be quite novel.

Actually, I expect they'll go with the story that Pilate ended up seeing the error of his ways and became a christian himself (prompted by his wife...).

I think at that point we wave goodbye to hopes of historical verism (that's not even a common myth). If they did go this route though, it would be very much a throwback to Gold and Silver Age Hollywood, as most recent major Roman epics have favoured pagan protagonists and belief systems.

Personally, I would hope that they would take a secular route and try to downplay the significance of Jesus in Pilate's life. In the Bible he barely plays much of a role, and it's unlikely that a Roman administrator would care unduly over the fate of one inhabitant of their province. I'd much rather see a broader take on Roman politics from the perspective of a relatively minor player.

[M. Demetrius]

Personally, I would hope that they would take a secular route and try to downplay the significance of Jesus in Pilate's life

The two probably overlapped only that one day. Pilate was concerned with larger socio-economic problems in the region, not what was considered at that time, a "new faction" of Judaism. He mentions that notion in the Gospel account, when he says that if it's a matter of Jewish law, see to that yourselves (speaking to a priest in the crowd). I suspect it made little difference to him which of the prisoners he crucified, Jesus or Barabbas. He would probably have been content with the idea of crucifying both of them, along with the two "malefactors", on the hill.

I'm not starting a religious debate here, friends, so please don't respond in that direction. Pilate in other times had shown no apparent reservation in manhandling the population (such as the time he sent disguised soldiers to a street meeting of the disgruntled). He probably had no particular concern about Jesus' being condemned, but in his own inquiry, he apparently did feel a little internal conflict about crucifying someone who had broken no Roman law, just to please the crowd. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

And while there is some misunderstanding, and afaik no record of why he was recalled, governorships were not a permanent assignment. They were for a term of office. The next governor would have gotten a briefing from the departing one, stands to reason, so Pilate probably just came to the end of his term, and exited. I don't know if we ever hear anything from him again. If word came to the Emperor, otoh, that Pilate had crucified an innocent person, that would probably spark an order for explanation. There was plenty of information (even in the Gospels) that would justify his sentencing Jesus to death for incitement of rebellion against the Law of Rome and assembling a large group of followers. Rome was fairly impatient with that sort of thing, and there was already history of such in Judea and Samaria in those days. One Emperor, one Empire, one Law. Simple.

[Robert Vermaat]

He probably had no particular concern about Jesus' being condemned, but in his own inquiry, he apparently did feel a little internal conflict about crucifying someone who had broken no Roman law, just to please the crowd. That's a dangerous precedent to set.

I agree. Pilate had, first and foremost, internal stability on his mind. In a province rife with rebels, fanatics and similar powder cags with smouldering fuses, crowd control would have been priority number one. That meant tough rule but at the same time trying to please a gazillion of factions. Too bad the Gospels don't show more of those factions, as Josephus does.

[M. Demetrius]

Too bad the Gospels don't show more of those factions, as Josephus does.

Different perspective, different story. Josephus tells about the broader picture, the Gospels just one faction's account. Good point, Robert.