Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Despite what real Sparta was about, the movie is a lesson of civility, in the sense of value of citizenship, where spartans represent the stand of free man against tyranny. It might be bullshit in a historical point of view, but the movie never try to be an accurate recreation of history.

I knew from start the movie has no historical pretension, still I was kind of irritated with the number of liberties taken, especially with the Persians. A king thinking to be a God in a Zoroastrian society? Immortals with Venetian carnival masks? Considering the number of black people subject to Xerxes, do anyone in production actually knew the difference between Africa and Asia? No wonder the iranians are pissed with the movie -- although their idea it might be an american pre-war propaganda effort is clearly absurd.

Even so, trying to judge the movie by itself, disregarding the historical inaccuracies, I found it lacking. First of all, it looks small. I don't recall any scene where there were more than 20 actors appearing, which is probably a limitation from filming completely in studio. The 300 looked more like 30. What about the acting? Is there any shouting school of acting? The abusive use of slow motion also showed some lack of imagination from the director. Perhaps he was trying to capture the feeling of reading a graphic novel. That would be fine, unless for the fact that I entered a theater to watch a movie, not to read a graphic novel. Sin City had the same problems, but I believe it was better executed. Perhaps, it is the beginning of a new kind of media, a mix of graphic novels and cinema, but if this is the case, I may be a little be old fashioned.

Ron wrote:Despite what real Sparta was about, the movie is a lesson of civility, in the sense of value of citizenship, where spartans represent the stand of free man against tyranny. It might be bullshit in a historical point of view, but the movie never try to be an accurate recreation of history.

Then why start with an historical event in the first place? If you intend fiction, why not write your comic book *ahem*, excuse me, "graphic novel" as a work of fiction in the first place?

Ron wrote:Despite what real Sparta was about, the movie is a lesson of civility, in the sense of value of citizenship, where spartans represent the stand of free man against tyranny.

And this, the value of citizenship, the unique community represented by the polis governed by rule of law, is civilization. This is what was at stake.

[quote]Don't see how anyone could confuse it with any sort of attempt at a historical accounting, nor an accurate depiction of the Spartan peoples at any level. It's a film version of a graphic novel, which was itself a story which took inspiration from an actual event. Nothing more.//if you need even so much as a molecule of historical accuracy to enjoy a film, then you'd best skip this one. There's more cowshit in this movie than a Kansas City stockyard.

I could not agree more.

I hated the part where he kills the wolf to show he could be accepted as an adult Spartan. I believe historically it was supposed to be a slave.

I recommend ROME for those who want accuracy that is a little more historic.

Shalaban wrote: I recommend ROME for those who want accuracy that is a little more historic.

If you're referring to the HBO series, then I agree. It was awesome.

Yes, I am.

Not only was I impressed with its historical content, but with how the writers told the story while comparing and contrasting the social lives of the main charters.

A brilliant use of historical story telling with no need of fictional events that did not happen and no need of over rated ‘Special Effects’ to placate the masses into watching.

For once, the makers of film have placated me and what I want to see in a historical epic.

Yeah, Rome is awesome. In fact, I hadn't ever known that the defeated kings were killed in a triumph, looked it up, and dang if they weren't on the money (well, they killed them afterwards, apparently - they took a little license there).

If you are referring to the two-year imprisonment and ritualistic estrangement of the French King Vercin Getorix at Gaius Julius Caesar’s coronation that was shown in the first two or three episodes of ROME, then there was no creative licensing taken there. That actually happened to poor Getorix.

The battle to capture Getorix should have been shown as it highlighted Caesar’s battle tactics genius. IMHO.

Shalaban wrote:If you are referring to the two-year imprisonment and ritualistic estrangement of the French King Vercin Getorix at Gaius Julius Caesar’s coronation that was shown in the first two or three episodes of ROME, then there was no creative licensing taken there. That actually happened to poor Getorix.

The battle to capture Getorix should have been shown as it highlighted Caesar’s battle tactics genius. IMHO.

I thought he was strangled in a chamber under that sort of open-air prison they had (I've forgotten the name of it). Yes, definitely strangled, though. Which I hadn't known at all.

I’m not too sure where he was strangled either, but if I were Caesar, I certainly would have done it in the most public way I could think of.

Were you thinking of under the Flavian Amphitheatre? I think that was called the hypogeum. (Literally meaning "underground") Although the hypogeum was not open air as you described.

Shalaban wrote:I’m not too sure where he was strangled either, but if I were Caesar, I certainly would have done it in the most public way I could think of.

Were you thinking of under the Flavian Amphitheatre? I think that was called the hypogeum. (Literally meaning "underground") Although the hypogeum was not open air as you described.

No, it wasn't an amphitheater, it was completely unconnected with the games. I draw a complete blank ... wherever I looked it up (and it wasn't about Vercingetorix) there was a reference to an underground area not much more than a pit where the vanguished leader exhibited in a triumph was ritually strangled. The time period was before Caesar, so this might have been a religious thing that actually did change by the time of the Vercingetorix triumph.


EDIT!
The Tullianum. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/enc ... ianum.html

Beats me.

I guess that is one of the things I love about history and science; there are always new peaces of the puzzle being found.

Let me know if you find the answer, I would love to know.

Seen the hyperlink after last post.

Thanks! I can always use more knowledge.

Shalaban wrote:The battle to capture Getorix should have been shown as it highlighted Caesar’s battle tactics genius. IMHO.

Yeah, its my one complaint about Rome: too few battle scenes. It's not like there hasn't been opportunity.

I was really disappointed when the naval action against Antony and Cleopatra featured only as dialogue ...

But, there are enough redeeming qualities about the show that this ends up being a small failing, overall.

I was really disappointed when the naval action against Antony and Cleopatra featured only as dialogue ...

Yea, I felt like putting in my 1963 version of Cleopatra at that point as it has the sea battle in it.