| Author |
Topic:
History vs Movie: Now Disc. Spot the Anachronism: "American Graffiti"
|
Zaz
Title: Manager: The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
1/29 4:19pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Gladiator"
|
|
Yes; a very nice touch.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Process
Registered:
Jan '08
|
Date Posted:
1/29 4:32pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Gladiator"
|
Wiki posted: The novels are written as if Claudius were telling his own story and that of his family, with the inclusion of some of the historical Claudius' own words and thoughts contributing to the plausibility of the narrative. The emphasis on the details of history is especially evident in Claudius the God, wherein the major part of the book covers the works of Claudius' reign before delving into his personal life. The historical Claudius' extant speech to the senate on voting and juries, his translated letters to the residents of Trent and the Alexandrians, and the text of the Lyon Tablet are all included. In addition, Graves worked in arguments said to have been made by the historical Claudius in favour of his policies, such as the reasoning for the Claudian letters, as outlined by Tacitus.
However, Graves was selective in his use of the ancient sources (primarily Tacitus and Suetonius), not always following their assessments. For example, the worst allegations against Tiberius and Caligula are repeated as fact, while similar allegations against Augustus focus on Livia's influence. Livia is made to confess to murders (of Marcellus, Agrippa, Augustus, Gaius, and Lucius) that she is alleged to have performed in only a single ancient source (Tacitus). Augustus, meanwhile, is depicted as a kindly man, even something of an amiable buffoon and dupe, who is sadly misled by his megalomaniacal wife.
A common charge of the ancient historians against Claudius is that he was easily ruled by his wives and freedmen. Graves rejected this assertion when it came to Claudius' major works and good deeds – as do modern historians. However, he does accept this explanation as an excuse for the less acceptable or understandable actions of the historical Claudius. Most of the capricious executions and blunders that marred his reign are blamed on the scheming of Messalina, Agrippinilla, Narcissus, and Pallas. Graves pushes this interpretation to the point where nearly all those tried or executed seem to be innocent of any crime or undeserving of a harsh sentence. This is clearly at odds with the record. The historical Claudius was the subject of more assassination attempts than any previous emperor, perhaps because Caligula's death revealed that an emperor could indeed be killed and replaced. Undoubtedly, some of those condemned for treason were guilty.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Process
Registered:
Jan '08
|
Date Posted:
1/30 1:12pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Gladiator"
|
Next for discussion is Troy.
I have seen this movie multiple times but never actually loved it. I saw it in theatres and a few times on TV. Brad Pitt does a good job as Achilles but it feels as if Orlando bloom is just thrown in there for sake of getting women to come see it. But enough about the movie itself, we are here to talk about historical accuracy.
Troy -- Historical Accuracy
This site states that even though Troy is extremely Hollywood, it is also very historically accurate (According to Homer) in many ways. Sure, all of the soldiers didn't have enormous biceps, and the rest of it, but we are talking about a Demi God here people. As far as Achilles goes, the story is accurate.
The trouble with finding the historical accuracy for this movie is that we are relying on philosophers from 2,500 years ago to tell us what happened. In Illiad, most of the fights are exaggerated, and we don't know for sure if many of them exist.
This of course made it very hard for the directors, but they did what they could to maintain accuracy.
The problem with the Trojan Horse :
Q. How about the Trojan horse -is that myth or history?
A. Some scholars have speculated that the horse was actually a siege machine designed to break down the walls. But there's an intriguing new theory as well. Archaeologists have found evidence that a powerful earthquake occurred in ancient Troy, seemingly coinciding with its attack and destruction by the Mycenaeans. Perhaps Troy was rocked by an earthquake while under siege, which damaged its famously strong walls enough to be breached. The Greeks seized the opportunity and conquered the city. Then in gratitude to Poseidon-the god of earthquakes-the Greeks left him an offering in the shape of a huge horse, the symbol most associated with that god.
But while new theories continue to emerge, there's still so much we may never know about the Trojan War, primarily because of how long ago it occurred. Consider that when Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. made a pilgrimage to gaze upon the ruins of Troy, he was honoring an event already close to 1000 years in the past.
So really, they can never really know for sure. It could have been a Trojan Horse or a seige machine. IMO, the trojans would never have fallen for that but hey, what do I know?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jango10
Registered:
Sep '02
|
Date Posted:
1/30 1:25pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
I think most historians agree that Troy existed, but was not the size the Iliad makes it out to be. I'm pretty sure they also believe that the Trojan War was fought over control of trade routes in the Agean (as was Agamemnon's goal in the film) rahter than over Helen (which was Menelaus's goal in the film, and what was the cause of the war in the Iliad).
I don't know if there is any historical relevance in the characters of Hector, Paris, Achilles, Helen, Odysseus, etc.
-----signature-----
"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." McCain/Palin '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager: The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
1/30 4:44pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
|
Troy did exist, because they excavated it.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Process
Registered:
Jan '08
|
Date Posted:
1/30 4:50pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
|
That is true. I think it was around 100 years ago they began excavating the site (i'm not entirely sure)
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager: The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
1/30 5:04pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
It's hard to tell, because of the possible chicanery of Schliemann, the excavator in question:
The Discovery of Troy
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Process
Registered:
Jan '08
|
Date Posted:
1/30 5:47pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
Meanwhile Heinrich published Troja und seine Ruinen in 1875 and excavated the Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos. In 1876 he began excavating at Mycenae. Discovering the Shaft Graves with their skeletons and more regal gold, such as the Mask of Agamemnon, the irrepressible Heinrich cabled the king of Greece. The results were published in Mykena, 1878.
Although he had received permission to excavate in 1876, Schliemann did not reopen the dig at Troy until 1878-1879, after another excavation in Ithaca designed to locate the actual sites of the Odysseus story. This was his second excavation at Troy. Emile Burnouf and Rudolph Virchow joined him in 1879. There was a third excavation, 1882-1883, an excavation of Tiryns in 1884 with Wilhelm Dörpfeld, and a fourth at Troy, 1888-1890, with Dörpfeld, who taught him to stratigraphize. By then, much of the site had been lost to unscientific digging
Make that 132 years ago.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi Anne
Title: FanForce RSA Europe
Registered:
Nov '98
|
Date Posted:
1/31 9:11am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
|
One thing I really like with Troy was that they had actually taken care to use bronze age weapons instead of weapons that might look better, but be from another time period. I also saw it as a nice nod that in the scene where you have the women lookin down on the battle they are all wearing copies of these jewels that Schliemann found in Troy and marketed as "Helen's jewels". It has turned out that they were in fact much older than the time period where the Illiad is supposed to take place, but it's still a nice nod to our constructed image of Troy.
-----signature-----
Tea one, proud member of the Tea Squad, FanForce Meeting 2006, Berlin GSADMINCOACHEMPERORRULERPRESIDENTTSARMINISTERQUEEN liuba
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Process
Registered:
Jan '08
|
Date Posted:
1/31 7:33pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Troy"
|
Wow, these ancient civilization topics really are getting a lot of replies!
I have decided to go modern with our next topic, into WWII. More specifically, we will be starting with Pearl Harbour
The director clearly is not terribly concerned with historical accuracy, and he doesn’t pretend to be. He simply wants to tell a story in an entertaining and cinematic way. The problem arises when we consider the asinine and unrealistic images of war and politics that the movie presents. President Roosevelt is treated as such a saint in the film that even Newsweek magazine commented on the excessive hero worship. Critic David Ansen commented that the audience should expect to see a halo appear over FDR’s head any moment. The flag waving, the Saint Franklin worship, and the "paybacks are a bitch" attitude all add up to a pretty irritating film to anyone who can appreciate to the excesses and tragedy of war.
This film is really quite out of place in a time when some very good war films like The Thin Red Line and Enemy at the Gates are focusing on the individual experience in the tragic play of war. Of course, this does not play well with many audiences. Critic Lisa Schwartzbaum criticized Enemy at the Gates for being too hard on Stalinist Commies and not hard enough on Nazis while giving the audience no one to root for. Apparently, the fact that the movie was trying to point out the futility of fighting for an abstract ideology and how individual families cope with war apparently did not win many audience members over. The Thin Red Line was way over a lot of people’s heads, and I can’t say I blame a lot of people for being a little taken aback at the movie’s bizarre scenes.
Well, I must say I am quite surprised!
I knew it wasn't completely accurate, but I would've never gone this far... Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsdale and Cuba Gooding Jr just seem to be there for the sake of hollywood IMO. I thought the naval scenes and the bombing of Pearl Harbour was fairly accurate though..
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Zaz
Title: Manager: The Amphitheatre
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
1/31 9:02pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Pearl Harbour"
|
|
All I remember is the aerial trick, which I thought was stupid.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Yodas-evil-twin
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
1/31 9:10pm
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Pearl Harbour"
- Date Edited:
1/31 9:10pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Yodas-evil-twin
|
Process posted:
This film is really quite out of place in a time when some very good war films like The Thin Red Line and Enemy at the Gates are focusing on the individual experience in the tragic play of war.
Does not compute.
As for Pearl Harbor, I have never bothered to see it.
-----signature-----
"Who watches the Watchmen?" "The JCC is pretty much Lord of the Flies without the healthy outdoorsy atmosphere." -soitscometothis
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi Anne
Title: FanForce RSA Europe
Registered:
Nov '98
|
Date Posted:
2/1 1:25am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Pearl Harbour"
|
|
Just go to any WWII forum and I'll bet you'll find Pearl Harbour to be the most hated film ever. I actually think it's a decent film, but I don't like the changes to what actually happened.
-----signature-----
Tea one, proud member of the Tea Squad, FanForce Meeting 2006, Berlin GSADMINCOACHEMPERORRULERPRESIDENTTSARMINISTERQUEEN liuba
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Chancellor_Ewok
Registered:
Nov '04
|
Date Posted:
2/1 6:05am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Pearl Harbour"
|
|
Pearl Habour was nothing more than Titanic with explosions. It was pretty to look at but beyond that its not worth your time. I must admit that the air strike was a well executed action sequence.
-----signature-----
For more information about the crack spider's bitch contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa. I robbed the second largest bank in France using only a ballpoint pen I killed a man with this thumb.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediTrilobite
Registered:
Nov '99
|
Date Posted:
2/1 9:40am
Subject:
RE: History vs Movie: Currently Disc. "Pearl Harbour"
|
|
Utter garbage. The attack scenes are interesting to watch, but even those are pretty historically laughable. Bleh.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|