Posts: 106
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
"Indeed you are correct, 'Fall' did end with the Guard taking bids for the throne."<br>
<br>
Not coincidentally (considering the behind-the-scenes charges of plagarism), I've read the original script for Gladiator- it also ended with scrawl over the bidding for the throne (and the Maximus character survived to return to his homeland with young Lucius).<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Just to return us to the original topic...<br>
<br>
I have just taken a look at the coffee table book for Mel Gibson's film and I am now even more confused by what I see. Now, I will admit I am but a student of the topic (Roman Army) and a relatively new one at that, (My rank, on this site, of 'Recruit' is quite appropriate.) so perhaps I've missed something here, but could Gibson, who claims to have spared no effort in making this film as authentic as possible be this wrong about the Roman Army?<br>
<br>
After looking at the photos of the Romans from the film I went back to check my books. (I have but a small collection of 30 or 40 titles.) Now one could make the case that the Roman Army, like most armies, did not follow the uniform regulations 100%. One point that Brian L. Davis makes about researching the uniforms of the German Army is that it is possible to find photographic evidence of exceptions, sometimes widespread, to every uniform regulation. Likewise, one need but look at the US Army in Vietnam, or in the two Gulf Wars, to see wide variations in uniforms and equipment. And, it is quite common to have much 'mixing -n- matching' going on when units are issued new uniforms.<br>
<br>
All of that not withstanding, I thought that perhaps that could happen with the Legions stationed in the east in the 30's CE. So there might indeed be a variety of helmets in use, along with some relaxation or tolerance in the wearing of uniforms. And yet, the Romans in this film seem so far off the mark as to make one wonder just what was Gibson thinking? No doubt, as Dan pointed out above, Gibson was probable so involved with other issues that he put his trust in his costume designer who in turn put their trust in the costume shop in Rome. After all, who would know better what the ancient Roam Army looked like than the modern Romans?<br>
<br>
What a mistake.<br>
<br>
Now, if some one can make a plausible case for these costumes being correct I would be most interested in listening. But I have my doubts. In fact, these look so bad as to make the Romans from 'The Life Of Brian'<br>
seem like the very apex of historical accuracy.<br>
<br>
And then there is the behavior of the Roman soldiers...<br>
<br>
Of course, it is an old saw that movie villains tend to be one dimensional, but you watch these sadistic buffons and you have to wonder: "How did these guys ever conquer an empire and hang on to it for as long as they did?"<br>
<br>
Using the Nazis as villains is convenient because they are easy to hate. Using the Romans this way though is a bit more problematic. In the case of the Passion Gibson has cast the Jewish High Priests as the real villains who used the Romans as their 'blunt' instrument with which to destroy a perceived threat to their power. This of course is an entirely different area of discussion that I am not ready to venture into. However, on the question of the depiction of the Roman soldiers, again I think Monty Python may actually have been closer to the truth than many realize and certainly much closer than Mel Gibson.<br>
<br>
Now, having said all this, I await the slings and arrows of comment, outrage and dismay as may be offered.<br>
<br>
Hail Caesar!<br>
<br>
Narukami <p></p><i></i>
Salvete comilites.<br>
<br>
I have been thinking of Life of Brian a lot since the Passion passion has been building to a thundering drumroll. The Python Romans were actually quite good, for movies. Better than Gladiator's Praetorians. The shots I've seen of Gibson's Roman soldiers keeps reminding me of the "costuming" in Jesus Christ Superstar, which I managed to watch for as long as it takes to cook asparagus. Sic. I thought it was that bad, but it might have been my prejudices kicking in. [Religion. Music type. The Period it was made, what I remember of it.] The artistes in costuming seem to always need a tight rein kept on them, no matter what the movie or the period it portrays. Few movies are 100% visually accurate. One i use as an example is The Godfather. Such things probably need a maniacally dedicated producer/director. Nuf sed.<br>
<br>
Bene valete.<br>
Ave Roma Immortales.<br>
C. Aelius Ericius. <p></p><i></i>
The Passion... Ah..<br>
I've read the script already. Too many times. <p></p><i></i>
I just saw the movie last night. One of the best damn movies I've ever seen, easily. The Romans were portrayed in wonderful fashion, particularly Pontius Pilate, Abanander, and Longinus. The rank-and-file soldiers were brutal animals, but this portrayal is softened by the sympathetic Pilate, et al. As for the Roman costume, I thought it looked just fine for how the movie was supposed to work, not necessarily accurate but it did not bother me one bit (nor should it you -- the thought that inaccurate costumes can ruin movies for people makes me roll my eyes).<br>
<br>
The costumes of the Jewish soldiers were spectacular, though, and look to have been based on the Herodian soldiers presented in the Osprey book 'Rome's Enemies: The Desert Frontier.'<br>
<br>
Every Christian should see this movie. Period. Everyone else should too, because quite simply it is a work of art. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 622
Threads: 26
Joined: Jan 2002
Reputation:
0
The Roman soldier's costumes are only the 'tip of the iceberg', for virtually EVERTHING in that movie is "wrong" save for faithfully quoting Biblical dialogue in Aramaic, though even here, each Gospel has a slightly different slant. Architecture, the dress of the Jews in general, even the very fact that latin was used instead of the lingua franca of the Eastern side of the empire (which we know was commonly used by the Roman soldiers there, nearly all of which used Greek as their first language).<br>
From a religious standpoint I would also say a completely ridiculous 'Satan' as well. We also know exactly how crucifictions were really conducted in Judea, from the discovery of a crucified Jew from the time of Jesus, and it wasn't like that, (though having the garden hose blood pump hooked to the animatronic rubber Jesus so he could bleed out more than a Bull African Elephant was a clever inovation indeed).<br>
<br>
While I mean no disprespect for the subject, I earnestly believe that if a movie about ANY other human being in the history of the entire world were so devoted to over an hour of graphic torture and bloodletting of that individual as seen in this film, said film about anyone other than Jesus would be dismissed as some kind of repulsive display of unremitting gratuitous violence and sadism and would likely be banned in many cities,and even countries.<br>
<br>
Since most of us are inherently sinful and violent creatures, could this have been Mel's insidious scheme all along? To give us a full dose of technicolor, special effects, blood drippping, skin, ripping, ultra-violence, in an acceptable, 'Sunday School' package we can even take our children to, and no one will think we are sadistic perverts for doing so? On the contrary, by going back again and again for more, your Christian peers will think you all the more 'religious' for it. Truly I say unto you, Mel is a genius.<br>
Dan<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Having just seen Mr. Gibson's film I think it not as bad as some critics have made it out to be, but not as good as many of it's supporters claim.<br>
<br>
Since this is not a film review web site I will not comment save to say that on the question of 'Is this art?' I do have my doubts. I prefer the more poetic to the literal.<br>
<br>
And, as this is not a religion web site, nor am I a scholar of religion or the Gospels, I will make no comment.<br>
<br>
This is a site devoted to the Roman Army and on that I will say that yes, poor or inaccurate costumes should not detract from a well told story, and indeed the costumes do not distract from the story at all in a film like JC Superstar.<br>
<br>
However...<br>
<br>
When the director makes the claim that he is going to make a historically accurate film then he invites close inspection. And such an invitation should be accepted.<br>
<br>
Spielberg made such claims about Saving Pvt Ryan, and his costumes were very well done. His history though was not. In the end he made a film that was authentic to the times without being accurate to the history.<br>
<br>
So too with Mel Gibson. If he is going to make a claim of authenticity then he should endeavor to get the details right. With a small budget (and by Hollywood standards $25 million is a modest budget) there are limits to be sure. He probably could not afford to CG the thriving metropolis that was 1st century Jerusalem. But for what he did pay he could have gotten something as simple as the costumes right.<br>
<br>
Now I am not as studied in Roman military history as I am that of the Second World War and therefore turn to this site with my questions. One only learns by asking.<br>
<br>
It is also important to point out that such questions do not call into question Mr. Gibson's sincerity of purpose nor the emotional impact of this film on true believers. Some may question his motives -- I will pass on that one.<br>
<br>
From a dramatic point of view, the Romans were the most interesting because they were the most conflicted about what was happening. In this Mel Gibson may have hit upon a salient point, even if unintentionally. The Romans seemed to have a hard time understanding the Jews, and later the Christians, because of their unrelenting monotheism. All over their vast empire they had been able to absorb the locals and make them 'Roman.' But in the east the Romans were frustrated in that aim, a frustration we see quite plainly on the faces of Pilate and his officers.<br>
<br>
But to the point at hand -- if you have a Centurion in charge then why not put him in a helmet with a transverse crest? With his vine staff? And why on a horse? Why not give the soldiers shields of the proper size and color? Why leather armor?<br>
<br>
Dan (in the above comment) has already raised many good points. And again, all of these objections may seem minor compared to the story in and of itself, but then why not get them right? If they are not important than why not save some real money and do the film in modern street clothes? (Which brings us back to JC Superstar. Poetic rather than literal.)<br>
<br>
Of course, I exaggerate to make a point, perhaps too indelicately. Just trying to keep the conversation lively.<br>
<br>
I am glad that I saw this film (as I am many others this past year) but I do agree with the critics--this is not a film for children. Why would anyone want to expose a child under the age of 16 or 17 to the violence depicted here? <p></p><i></i>
Funny, cause Gladiator won the Academy Award for Best Costume Design back in 2000, and I am quite certain The Passion of the Christ will at least get nominated in the same category next year <p></p><i></i>
That may well be and, indeed you are probably correct about next year's awards season. However, do you think the uniforms of the Praetorian Guard as depicted in Gladiator were even good, let alone accurate?<br>
<br>
Again, I have (as I'm sure many others have) seen worse costumes -- like the BBC TV show about the revolt in Britain against the Romans. And I have seen better -- like Das Boot, or Star Wars, or Fifth Element.<br>
I'm still waiting for Romans.. (And I did like Spartacus, even though the Romans were obviously from a later time period or I Cladius for that matter. Yes I will take story over history.)<br>
<br>
It is an old saw in Hollywood that just as much hard work goes into a poorly done film as into a great one. And again, no one, or at least I do not, doubt that Mr. Gibson and his crew worked very hard on this film. Even so...<br>
<br>
It was Mr. Gibson who said he was making an historically accurate film, and that's where this entire line of questioning springs from. Film is a powerful medium, and right now there are thousands of people who know as historic fact the the Emperor Commodus was killed the arena by a Roman general, that the Praetorian Guard wore black armor, and that a former American Army officer fought with the last of the Samurai against the Emperor of Japan.<br>
<br>
Perhaps I have taken this topic as far as it can, or should go. There is an excellent book out "Past Imperfect - History According To Hollywood" which points out oh so well the problems of using Hollywood films as history lessons. In the final analysis these are but films, meant as entertainments. When they aspire to be more than that they open themselves to criticism beyond that of cinema. Sometimes they raise above the fray and become art, and sometimes they do not. Perhaps the Passion will. As always, time will tell. <p></p><i></i>
I remember reading an article a few years back that stated that all depictions of crusifixions from early times were in error. Supposedly a nail through the palm of the hand will not support the weight of a body, and this was proved in tests using corpses. The spikes should historically go through the wrist, Anyone remember something on the lines of this? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=mtnspit>mtnspit</A> at: 2/29/04 6:07 am<br></i>
Posts: 106
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Just saw "Passion" today- not nearly as gory as I thought it would be from all the reviews. Yes, it was definitely more violent than your average flick, but "Saving Private Ryan" was as equally graphic, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
Although, as Dan pointed out, I was beginning to wonder just how much blood Jesus' body contained!<br>
<br>
The most jarring thing for me was the use of ecclesiastical Latin! Egads!<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Posts: 622
Threads: 26
Joined: Jan 2002
Reputation:
0
Hottoq,<br>
If it gets an academy award for costumes it will only prove how ignorant the academy is, as they were the previous year for Gladiator. If Stone's Alexander is released this year, from the few stills I have seen, it should deserve to win for best costumes over Passion hands down. Alamo will be another contender, a lot of historical details are in this film.<br>
<br>
Mtnspit,<br>
Yes, that is what I was referring to in my previous post. An early 1st century crucifiction can now be accurately reconstructed based on the skeleton of a circa 26 year old man whose remains were found near Jerusalem. The nails went thourgh the wrists, and the legs were bent upward, so the victim assumed a kneeling position with knees thrust outwards, then a single nail was driven through both heels.<br>
Human anatomy as it is, nails through the palms would likely tear through the hand until the victim fell off his cross. I believe the only way Jesus could have been crucified through his palms would have been a "special case" for unknown reasons, and had his arms securely tied to the cross first. In all liklihood the Biblical account may have originally said "wrists" and was later changed to "hands". Many things like this have occured over the years, some books of scripture which Jesus knew, were later removed by the Church. Remember too, that originally the Christians did not use the sign of a crucified Jesus as the symbol of their religion. Originally the Chi-Rho, fish, etc. were used. By the time Christ's crucified form was used as a religious symbol, crucifixion had been outlawed for many years, and the actual techniques forgotten. This is why the full length speculaive version , far more aesthetic, may have been used instead of the authenticated, "kneeling" version. But these little technical differences should be nothing to question faith over.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
btw, a new book by Marcus Junkelmann about the way Romans are/were shown in Hollywood-movies ("Hollywoods Traum von Rom") will be published soon (again quite expensive )<br>
<br>
[url=http://www.buch-buecher-shop-versand.de/3805329059.html" target="top]information about the book[/url]<br>
<p>---------------<br>
<br>
<img src="http://home.nexgo.de/berzelmayr/hadrian.gif"/> Est vita misero longa, felici brevis.<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Hadrianus,<br>
<br>
This book looks very interesting...<br>
<br>
Will it ever be translated into English?<br>
<br>
<br>
Also...<br>
<br>
There was an interesting Op-Ed piece in the LA Times of Sunday last (2/29/04) by Ms. Charlotte Allen, author of 'The Human Christ' which deals with some of the historical lapses in Gibson's The Passion and postulates some reasons why he may have avoided consulting any historians of the period other than Dr. William Fulco of Loyola Marymount University here in LA. It is an article members of this site might find of interest. <p></p><i></i>
|
