"From a historical pov Gladiator is total bullshit. This extends from the =
equipment Roman soldiers fought with, the manner in which they waged =
war, to the historical narrative itself."
So what? I don't understand this shock horror reaction to a rewriting/rethinking of history on the part of a film maker. Shakespeare's history plays are historically inaccurate, does that mean they too do not convey a moral or a broader meaning? Aside from a Discovery Channel pedantry, Bill also reveals a naivety that this kind of accuracy should be a prerequisite to a film having anything to say, or for that matter is even possible. Gods and Generals and Gettysburg are both slavishly accurate in their recreation of the American Civil War and they are likewise films that are dramatically turgid and reveal very little. And although they get the chronology and the costumes right, do they really show us what it is like. Similarly all the reviews of Saving Private Ryan that talked about the realism of the first twenty minutes (not because it was how it actually was but because it ticked those generic markers that denote realsim and added a few new ones
(super shaky camera effect).)
"What possible moral--apart from =
the Hollywoodian faux-hero schlock--can be drawn from such nonsense is =
beyond me."
I can't believe this is beyond you. I think you've simply decided not to try. I make no grand claims for Gladiator, but why not look at popular culture?
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|