| Author |
Message |
|
William P
|
 Posted: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 5:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Carl Goff wrote: | The 13th Warrior and Centurion are probably my favorite inaccurate movies.
The 13th Warrior botched the costuming horribly and the plot was silly, but they did a good job on the Norsemen's cultural attitudes, and it's still a lot of fun.
Centurion did a better job on the costuming, but the plot was only okay, and the 9th Legion's fate isn't positively confirmed -- although the idea of them getting slaughtered by the Picts does appeal to me. Also, the gore is exaggerated, sometimes to ludicrous levels. |
the scene of the initial attack on the men by the picts has a curious quality that i think almost NONE of the romans die to chest or centre mass wounds, all are cut to the head neck arms and legs i believe... which sees to perhaps have been intentional, suggesting the director maybe thought it looked silly to be stabbed through the armour and went for other shots, by contrast the picts are killed every which way.
could be wrong, its just a thought that occured to me
|
|
   |
 |
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Feb, 2015 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about a series as opposed to a movie? I have found the recent "Vikings" series to be very entertaining.
I have a problem with a few things that could have been done better to be more believable for me, such as
1) The Saxons being invaded seem to have a substantial force of cavalry or "knights".
2) The Vikings are portrayed with no armor, not even helms, while most of the "Saxons" are armoured. It should really be two largely unarmored groups, but with a small percentage of the warrior elite with mail, and a few more helms.
3) The Saxons seem to use archery a fair amount, as much or more than the vikings, this should really be reversed.
4) We should see a lot more scramseax's and less swords from both parties. At least we don't see the 2 handed Danish axe, which was probably still 150+ years in the future in regards to common usage.
But with all that, I still like the series 
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.B. Erickson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the "Vikings" series, too.
The one big armor blunder happened when the Saxon cavalry is shown. They're all wearing BURGONETS!
I also agree with Gary's point #2 above.
|
|
 |
|
Rim Andries
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aah series,
Spartacus, Rome, Outlander, Vikings all come to mind.
And now that I think about it: are there really any movies out there that are at least somewhat acceptable in terms of historical accuracy? I have seen Master and Commander being mentioned... but I would have to see it again to agree or disagree.
I suggested Alatriste, Rob Roy and the Duellists but to be honest that was more about the swordsmanship.
Also, I am by no means an expert on history in general.
How about you guys? Do you know a movie that is true to the time it is depicting?
Finally, the new film Pompei is pretty bad too  and The New World by Malick is beautiful. Cinematic poetry in the purest form. Malick knows how to reach to my subconscious like no other. His films always leave a deep and profound impression on me, that lasts for days if not weeks. As a storyteller he aims to put the human condition under a magnifying glass and he doesn't pull any punches in doing so. Malick: a modern day philosopher armed with a camera.
Sir Dreamin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see that opinions are very divided when it comes to Excalibur.
What is important to stress is that the film is based on the book “Le Morte D'Arthur“ by Thomas Malory published in 1485.
In the middle ages all history was portrayed “modern“. Danish church paintings have Herod's soldiers killing babies in dressed in plate armour and King Herod has a fancy middle age outfit with pointy shoes (Cracows).
“Le Morte D'Arthur“ is a Christian allegory and it is magical. It is not an attempt to write a history book of the past.
So when judging if the armour and fighting is correct in the Excalibur movie it has to be judged from a 1485 point of view, not a Iron Age point of view.
It's then a whole other matter of how well they actually follow his book in the film.........off course they have to leave out a lot.
I let others be a judge to how well the armour and weapons are done (as I'm not an expert), but they are legendary heroes of the past so a bit over the top armour is perhaps not a bad thing. The fight scene between Lancelot and Arthur seems pretty good (especially for the time) as Lancelot goes for weak points in Arthurs armour - and with some halfswording by Lancelot.
The Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPiYBfTE1ec
Anyways I really like it for the atmosphere and music (Wagner: Götterdämmerung - Siegfried's Funeral March and Carl Orff's Carmina Burana). It is also very magical with the strange green lighting and the portrayal of Merlin is also quite daring.
It's so different from films you generally see. It never feels “real“ - you sense you are in another place: The fairy past in the transition period to Christianity.
Same goes with the Iliad: Do you make armour, weaponry and fight tactics Bronze Age (Mycenaean) or Dark Age Greece when Homer (or several people) composed it.
Homer knew very little of the Bronze Age (other than chariots had to be there and duals between heroes) so he wrote it from the viewpoint of his time.
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Fri 20 Feb, 2015 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Rim Andries
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since I already crossed the line on fantasy versus historical on numerous occasions (Arthurian films, Solomon Kane etc.), I would like to add just one more:
The Fountain.
One of my all time fav's in any genre.
Sir Dreamin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | “Le Morte D'Arthur“ is a Christian allegory and it is magical. It is not an attempt to write a history book of the past.
So when judging if the armour and fighting is correct in the Excalibur movie it has to be judged from a 1485 point of view, not a Iron Age point of view.
It's then a whole other matter of how well they actually follow his book in the film.........off course they have to leave out a lot.
I let others be a judge to how well the armour and weapons are done (as I'm not an expert), but they are legendary heroes of the past so a bit over the top armour is perhaps not a bad thing. The fight scene between Lancelot and Arthur seems pretty good (especially for the time) as Lancelot goes for weak points in Arthurs armour - and with some halfswording by Lancelot.
The Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPiYBfTE1ec |
Fully agree here. Excalibur was not an attempt at a historically accurate movie and should not be judged as such. I'd judge it more along the lines of a LOTR type movie.
And I still think it was very good.
An attempt to recreate a largely mythical figure seems doomed to failure anyway
|
|
|
|
|
J. Nicolaysen
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | An attempt to recreate a largely mythical figure seems doomed to failure anyway Big Grin |
Depends on the script and the intelligence of the director.
I could see a very good script set in post-roman Britain focused heavily on historical elements. Have the main character be called Aurelius or Ambrosius or something for most of the movie and as he fights off the relevant bad guys (picts, saxons, so forth) in defense of christian romanized britons, he makes a new battle name for himself which isn't revealed til the third act---Artos.
Bam, Oscar gold baby.
Then of course he visits the Celtic fringe of Wales and falls in love with Gwenhyvar and that's it for the first movie. If it does well at the box office, I've got a sequel with Lancelot but I'll give him a different name too. You ask about Merlin? I've got a plan for that too.
Everything would be heavily informed by relevant historical reenactment groups and fact-checked by myArmoury members of course.
I await the call from the Hollywood gods...
Well, I guess since Guy Ritchie's coming out with an Arthur movie, I'll probably have to wait another 15 years before they are ready.
Last edited by J. Nicolaysen on Thu 19 Feb, 2015 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
J. Nicolaysen
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh hey, no one's mentioned Shogun, tv mini-series. Good acting, nice scenery, based fairly well on Clavell's book which was more historically inspired rather than accurate. One good action scene I remember, maybe more, it's been awhile.
Rim said Last Samurai a while back. I like that one too. I felt like it captured the pathos of the time I guess. Plus I was able to see some of the temple where parts of it were filmed, so that was cool.
And I enjoyed most of The New World, Malick is great once you trust his pacing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Rim said Last Samurai a while back. I like that one too. I felt like it captured the pathos of the time I guess. Plus I was able to see some of the temple where parts of it were filmed, so that was cool. |
Loved the movie, horribly inaccurate though.
The Japanese samurai revolting against the government were doing their best to get their hands on as many firearms as possible, and indeed had not only plentiful rifles, but cannon as well
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Hoard
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Feb, 2015 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't know - Last Samurai reminded me of Dances with Wolves in Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2015 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Nicolaysen wrote: | | Quote: | | An attempt to recreate a largely mythical figure seems doomed to failure anyway Big Grin |
Depends on the script and the intelligence of the director.
I could see a very good script set in post-roman Britain focused heavily on historical elements. Have the main character be called Aurelius or Ambrosius or something for most of the movie and as he fights off the relevant bad guys (picts, saxons, so forth) in defense of christian romanized britons, he makes a new battle name for himself which isn't revealed til the third act---Artos.
. |
The problem is that we almost don't have any access to historical elements; so you always have to decide which source you want to use. If you want to go historical, then there really is no room for Arthur. Then you have to go legendary and base it on the romances and poetry from the high middle ages.
1) Gildas - De excidio et conquestu Britanniæ ac flebili castigatione in reges, principes et sacerdotes (written sometime between 480 and 550 AD) - is the only contemporary source, but it is not a historical, but a religious work.
So that is basically the main source for what we know about Ambrosius Aurelianus [whom may or may not become the later figure Arthur; Arthur might be a later fictive war commander under Ambrosius, turned even later Welsh King and where Ambrosius as Roman is forgotten].
The theme in Gildas’ work is “the Christians under this Roman commander - born of parents that wore the purple (Emperor) - against the pagan Saxons and winning with God's help." Siege of Mount Badon mentioned (Lat: obsessionis Badonici montis), but no mention of any Arthur at all and it is unclear if Ambrosius is still commander at this point! The battle happened in Gildas birth year and he says he is 41 years old when he writes it.
NB: “Viking age“ does not first begin at Lindisfarne, it begins already here, when the ship design was able to launch these long distance attacks and settlements (Nydam boat design made it possible). So Saxon Vikings would be the right term.
Problem is that Gildas is extremely inaccurate with historical details as he has written the text to preach old-testament style and so chooses and creates to state certain theological points, not caring much for what really happened.
2) Beda Venerabilis - Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum from ~751 AD - about the conflict between Roman and Celtic Christianity. “Venerable Bede“ was a Northhumbrian man through and through (with Mercia as the enemy) and defender of the Celtic Church, so his history of the Angles has to be seen through theological glasses. Secular history is only included if they serve a moral lesson. He uses Gildas as one of his sources.
Chapter 40-42 has the story of Ambrosius, Vortigern and the two dragons beneath Dinas Emrys.
Bede mentions the “siege of Mount Badon“ occurring 44 years after the arrival of the Saxons under the reign of Co-emperors Marcian and Valentinian. So arrival of Saxons 449-456 AD and the battle between 493-500 AD.
3) Nennius (Welsh) - Historia Brittonum from ~828 AD - lists the 12 battles (not given dates) won by Duke Arthur (called “Dux Bellorum“ or miles (soldier)) and have more stories of Vortigern: He finds a youth born without a father - Ambrosius ! - whom reveals that two serpents rest below Dinas Emrys. Here Ambrosius and Duke Arthur are two different characters.
The author likely compiled all battles he had heard of in poems, and attributed them to Arthur. Only a few of the battles are mentioned in older sources, so it is likely based on the number -> as Jesus had 12 disciples, then Nennius created 12 battles. The 12th battle is Mount Badon, where Arthur alone kills 960 of the enemy in 1 charge (yeah right!).
4) Annales Cambriae - from the end of the 10th century - gives the first dates of some important battles: [but these dates are set almost 500 years after].
1) 516 AD: Arthur wins the Battle of Badon.
2) 537 AD: Strife of Camlann, where Arthur and Mordred fell.
3) 573 AD: Battle of Arfderydd. Internal Welsh battle where Gwenddoleu ap Ceidio loses and his bard Myrddin Wyltt (Merlin?) goes mad and runs into the forest. Other legends say that he lived like an animal and prophesized his own death by falling, stabbing and drowning. [Remarkably close to the typical triple death in Odin sacrifices of hanging, stabbing and drowning - likely occurring with some bog bodies in Denmark, so probably a common Indo-European theme.]
Then from the high middle ages 1100 AD and continuing today you have an explosion of Arthur works, but they elaborate on information from these older sources and uses a lot of non-historical inventive material on the way. Not any of these works can be regarded as historical. It is poetry and romantic Christian fiction.
See the impressive list of Arthur works here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_King_Arthur
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2015 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary T wrote: | | Quote: | | Rim said Last Samurai a while back. I like that one too. I felt like it captured the pathos of the time I guess. Plus I was able to see some of the temple where parts of it were filmed, so that was cool. |
Loved the movie, horribly inaccurate though.
The Japanese samurai revolting against the government were doing their best to get their hands on as many firearms as possible, and indeed had not only plentiful rifles, but cannon as well |
Whati loved, even if it didnt as much fit the period, was the traininjg and other aspects of the samurai culture
the fights were amazing, and more importantly. the score was BRILLIANT
my favorite scene however is algren showing how green the initial recruits were it's a great scene that shows the importance of practice and discpline in a blackpowder army (great scene to show and explain various aspects of musket warfare
for more recent history i'll add good morning vietnam, a moviue hat i LOVCE bbut horridly innacurate to the source. since they changed adrians character a whole heap to match robins personality
|
|
|
|
|
Rim Andries
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary T wrote: | | Quote: | “Le Morte D'Arthur“ is a Christian allegory and it is magical. It is not an attempt to write a history book of the past.
So when judging if the armour and fighting is correct in the Excalibur movie it has to be judged from a 1485 point of view, not a Iron Age point of view.
It's then a whole other matter of how well they actually follow his book in the film.........off course they have to leave out a lot.
I let others be a judge to how well the armour and weapons are done (as I'm not an expert), but they are legendary heroes of the past so a bit over the top armour is perhaps not a bad thing. The fight scene between Lancelot and Arthur seems pretty good (especially for the time) as Lancelot goes for weak points in Arthurs armour - and with some halfswording by Lancelot.
The Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPiYBfTE1ec |
Fully agree here. Excalibur was not an attempt at a historically accurate movie and should not be judged as such. I'd judge it more along the lines of a LOTR type movie.
And I still think it was very good.
An attempt to recreate a largely mythical figure seems doomed to failure anyway |
I only partially agree The scenery is still Earth right? Not Middle Earth.
The story, fitting since it is an allegory, contains many mystical and magical elements but unlike Narnia or LOTR it still takes place in our world. I know Narnia has connections to the life and story of christ as well, but it takes it much much further. Arthur lives, breathes and exists on planet earth, be it in a somewhat twilight like zone where reality meets fantasy.
I consider it to be neither historical nor completely fictional (though Excalibur is clearly less than historical). It really depends on the director if he wants to take the story down either path. In any case mythologies and legends are a part of history. That makes it hard to pigeon hole these kind of stories. Maybe they are deserving of genre of their own. In my opinion it would share that box with tales like Ilias and Odyssee. Though even that comparison poses more than a few problems.
I know many would perhaps disagree with that assessment, but for now I will stick with it
Sir Dreamin'
|
|
|
|
|
J. Nicolaysen
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2015 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Niels for taking my goofy post more seriously than it deserved. I do know a bit of the historical references and overall lack of hisorical substantiation for Arthur. Still, he has been a hero redefined for the better part of 1500 years, and there now seems to be an arthur for every half-generation. What Edward I did for arthurian traditions was only the start of people trying to find something inspiring.
Those treatments I find most interesting myself are based in the early time-period, though Mallory and Troyes are fascinating writers themselves. I think your points, and Gary's and Rim's are all very good about the challenges the allegorical and fantastical aspects of arthurian legend create for movies.
However, I can see a modern treatment using some fantastical/magical elements like GoT or Vikings series that would work well. Very grounded in so-called realist/historical setting, then a few things like Merlin or Grail legends that throw viewers for a loop. Because of the remoteness of the time perhaps these things could be "believable" if done well. Even in much later times, Joan of Arc and many other figures were ascribed magical powers or incidences.
I don't have much hope for Guy Ritchie's take on it, though I will probably see it. The two recent series Camelot and Merlin were not very well liked and died a quick death.
What should be done is a great movie or series about any of the very historical, but semi-legendary figures like Theodoric, Childeric, Charlemagne, Raedwald, Offa, Alfred. Hell, I'd love to see something about Boudicca. THAT would be an epic movie.
And yes, I would be happy to try to work on a screenplay for any of those! Or be an extra! Please call me, Ridley Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary T
Location: Missouri Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2015 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What should be done is a great movie or series about any of the very historical, but semi-legendary figures like Theodoric, Childeric, Charlemagne, Raedwald, Offa, Alfred. |
A movie about Alfred the great could be interesting, but I feel a chill go up my spine of seeing in essence a remake of Braveheart except Alfred 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rim Andries wrote: | | Gary T wrote: | | Quote: | “Le Morte D'Arthur“ is a Christian allegory and it is magical. It is not an attempt to write a history book of the past.
So when judging if the armour and fighting is correct in the Excalibur movie it has to be judged from a 1485 point of view, not a Iron Age point of view.
It's then a whole other matter of how well they actually follow his book in the film.........off course they have to leave out a lot.
I let others be a judge to how well the armour and weapons are done (as I'm not an expert), but they are legendary heroes of the past so a bit over the top armour is perhaps not a bad thing. The fight scene between Lancelot and Arthur seems pretty good (especially for the time) as Lancelot goes for weak points in Arthurs armour - and with some halfswording by Lancelot.
The Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPiYBfTE1ec |
Fully agree here. Excalibur was not an attempt at a historically accurate movie and should not be judged as such. I'd judge it more along the lines of a LOTR type movie.
And I still think it was very good.
An attempt to recreate a largely mythical figure seems doomed to failure anyway |
I only partially agree The scenery is still Earth right? Not Middle Earth.
The story, fitting since it is an allegory, contains many mystical and magical elements but unlike Narnia or LOTR it still takes place in our world. I know Narnia has connections to the life and story of christ as well, but it takes it much much further. Arthur lives, breathes and exists on planet earth, be it in a somewhat twilight like zone where reality meets fantasy.
I consider it to be neither historical nor completely fictional (though Excalibur is clearly less than historical). It really depends on the director if he wants to take the story down either path. In any case mythologies and legends are a part of history. That makes it hard to pigeon hole these kind of stories. Maybe they are deserving of genre of their own. In my opinion it would share that box with tales like Ilias and Odyssee. Though even that comparison poses more than a few problems.
I know many would perhaps disagree with that assessment, but for now I will stick with it |
I see your point, so this is no critique, just an elaboration.
Well actually the scenario is set in Middle Earth 
Miðgarðr is the place where we live, where the “World“ is the Era of Man. Explanation -> Sorry, now I get very nerdy and will resume my point after this rant:
Here are some germanic cognates:
Eng: World, German: Welt, Dutch: Wereld; Danish: Verden, Swedish: Världen, Old Norse: Verǫld - it should be fairly obvious it all comes from a Proto-Germanic word and that is *wira-alđiz.
Proto-Germanic *wira is from an old Indo-European word meaning Man as can be seen in the Latin cognate Vir = man, as in Virtus = Manliness.
*wira become Wer(e) in English and Var- in Danish, so that's why it's called Werewolf in English and Varulv in Danish, so it is a man-wolf.
Proto-Germanic *alđiz is a noun retained in Danish “Alder“ meaning “age“.
So *wira +*alđiz = “Man-Age“. The world is not the place where we live, but the era - the place is Midgard as it as always been.
The “verald-ar goð“ (God of Man-age) in Old Norse mythology was Frey.
Ok back to business:
The middle age stories of Arthur are set in a magical world with a fairy element losing ground as Christianity takes hold over the land. The more Christian the knight the more virtuous (from Latin Virtus = manly) - just understood in Christian manliness terms of being chaste, truthful etc instead of the Old Germanic virtues of honour, battle-readiness and revenge.
So by making this stories historical you are also losing the point of the story as happened with the film Troy. The whole point of the Iliad is that the Gods are board-gaming with the humans for fun. All man can do is winning eternal fame before ending as a shade of forgetfulness in Hades. Taking away the Gods is removing the core of the story.
The core of the Arthur story is Christianity's victory over the old pagan ways and beings, yet a certain sadness over the loss of the old still lingers in the stories. That is probably why the Arthur story still attracts people today.
Being chaste and honest sitting peacefully by a round table in agreement is also losing the fun of adventure -> where is the fun when the quest is over, the grail is found, Christianity and peace won and Merlin and Dragons have disappeared and with no pagan super knights to test your steel against when they without any logical reason say “None shall pass“ for the goal of winning eternal fame??
Is an Arthur story without the fantastical element really that interesting? This is courtly literature exploding in the high middle ages - bored knights with nothing really to do (?) than largely inventing mythological heroes from the past. “Ah the old days when things were more interesting and heroic.“
I agree with you fully, that when you place the story in whatever century the director chooses (5-6th century to 14-15th century) the armour and weapons have to be correct for that chosen time period, but removing the magical just makes the story boring in my opinion (you advocate it being optional for the director to include it or not, right?).
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Fletcher
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Takashi Mike's 13 Assassins. Pure genius. If you haven't seen it, get a copy asap and prepare to be blown away!
 Attachment: 101.8 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Nicolaysen wrote: | Thank you Niels for taking my goofy post more seriously than it deserved. I do know a bit of the historical references and overall lack of hisorical substantiation for Arthur. Still, he has been a hero redefined for the better part of 1500 years, and there now seems to be an arthur for every half-generation. What Edward I did for arthurian traditions was only the start of people trying to find something inspiring.
Those treatments I find most interesting myself are based in the early time-period, though Mallory and Troyes are fascinating writers themselves. I think your points, and Gary's and Rim's are all very good about the challenges the allegorical and fantastical aspects of arthurian legend create for movies.
However, I can see a modern treatment using some fantastical/magical elements like GoT or Vikings series that would work well. Very grounded in so-called realist/historical setting, then a few things like Merlin or Grail legends that throw viewers for a loop. Because of the remoteness of the time perhaps these things could be "believable" if done well. Even in much later times, Joan of Arc and many other figures were ascribed magical powers or incidences.
I don't have much hope for Guy Ritchie's take on it, though I will probably see it. The two recent series Camelot and Merlin were not very well liked and died a quick death.
What should be done is a great movie or series about any of the very historical, but semi-legendary figures like Theodoric, Childeric, Charlemagne, Raedwald, Offa, Alfred. Hell, I'd love to see something about Boudicca. THAT would be an epic movie.
And yes, I would be happy to try to work on a screenplay for any of those! Or be an extra! Please call me, Ridley Scott |
Well you deserve to be taken seriously as anyone responding to a post I made.....
I would just say that I'm very fond of historical movies but then they should picture historical characters we know enough about to make the story interesting. Arthur does absolutely not fall in under this category.
The problem if we don't have enough info of the character, then the director will have to invent filling, oy vey!
So for filling we sadly almost always get this totally irrelevant love story, that probably didn't matter for men seeking fame. Romance was for dreaming every day men and women, being to poor and lowly to actually achieve anything in life.
Great men and warriors have bigger issues to deal with - Fame and honour.
Women in the viking ages complained they never saw their warrior husbands as they was constantly with their lord. Even if they loved their wives and mistresses, they loved their lord, comrades, battle and adventure more.
This is why the Alexander story fell absolutely flat. One of the greatest commanders and leaders in history and his story is sidetracked by love-stuff. Not that Alexander didn't love and there wasn't jealousy among his men for his attention, it was just pretty low in the list of priorities for Alexander. In the movie he acts like a teenage peasant teenage boy - who would ever have respect for him acting like this? At this time people were attracted to the charisma of the leader, not the office. Alexander lead by example - a walking demigod on earth and with one goal and focus in life: Besting Achilles and be the greatest hero ever and woe anyone who stood in his way.
Any viking that wrote love poetry was no longer regarded as a real man. The cultural social pressure against “love“ (meaning acting like people do when in love) for women was so intense a person was simply un-manly if he lost control over himself for a woman's affections.
As resisting the impulse to flee cowardly in battle, any real man could resist the love for women. You could trust and have utmost respect and admiration for your wife, but you could never act as an idiot “being in love“.
These are regarded as “penetrations“ of “bad stuff“ into the self, the same as men in a passive homosexual act (being the penetrator is very manly as it is active). So that will make you “argr“, an unmanly man (Ergi = unmanliness).
Calling a man “argr“ (variant “ragr“) would force him to kill you in revenge to retain his honour or he would prove to be what the accusation said of him. Being socially recognized as “argr“ would make you lower than a thrall - a níðingr, no longer even regarded as being human and one anyone can freely kill.
Real men are penetrators, not penetrated!
Men being together wrote stuff like this found as graffiti (by Christian Norsemen) in the Maeshowe megalith-grave on Orkney:
1) "Ingebjork the fair widow - many a woman has walked stooping in here a very showy person" signed by "Erlingr" [women had to bend over to enter presenting a good view).
2) "Thorni f*cked. Helgi carved" (the official guidebooks usually tone this inscription down)
3) "Ingigerth is the most beautiful of all women" (carved beside a rough drawing of a slavering dog).
Source: http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/maeshowe/maeshrunes.htm
Thats why we need historical characters with enough information, so to prevent directors filling in this unhistorical nonsense.
“Childhood“ is another recent invention, that didn't exists in former times. So directors often tries to fill in some episodes from their hero's childhood, that should shape them in later life, so typical of the modern psychological view. These things are as unhistorical as using wrong weapons and armour and as irritating.
At least “Sleepy Hollow“ got it right with “Young Master Masbath“, now the man of the house and not treated by Ichabod Crane as a child at all!
From you were 5-6 years old and able to work you had responsibility and were accountable as a young man for your actions. As with Christian confirmation, that is an initiation ritual into manhood when 12-13-14 years of age you were simply regarded as a man. Many heroes in sagas or so far as I remember Musashi in Japan kill their first guy when 12-13 years old. As Men they had to take revenge towards insults.
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Sun 22 Feb, 2015 7:07 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Rim Andries
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2015 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Niels,
You make excellent points.
I will keep it a lot shorter, since I am out of the door with one foot already.
The director can choose to emphasize either side of legendary tales. To either completely ignore the magical or the historical would do the story a great injustice I think. Myths and legends are, for many people at least, so appealing exactly because they contain wizards, gods, demigods, enchanted weapons and the like. But as we both established, they do belong to a certain era (whether that era is the one of the characters or the original writer is up for discussion) and IMO acknowledging that -in the case of a director or art department- will only add to the overall substance of he film. It will give it the backbone it needs. Otherwise everything is up for grabs, which is cool, but it is not my cup of tea.
When I wrote about LOTR and Narnia, I think it is important to add that they share a lot of elements with ancient myths and legends on face value. I mean, again Gods, wizards, portals or doors to other realms, worlds or underworlds, it is all there. The main difference is that the ancients have cemented themselves in history in way that has yet to be achieved by the "newcomers". Sure enough Tolkien and such are hugely popular, but does anyone really believe Sauron exists? Do we believe in hobbits, orcs, snow queens and elfs? I think you know the answer
When it comes to Arthur, Hercules and many more from history, we often see that people DID believe, to a certain extend, in gods and magic. They burned witches. They went to war in name of the same Gods that featured heavily in the myths and legends. The made art in their name, arms and armor too!
So having been birthed in a fashion that seems to try and unite two worlds, the tangible and intangible. Having grown up over several centuries. Being told and retold, going through puberty and adulthood and back again. And most of all: having been, and continue to be a part of the collective human consciousness and heritage for many many generations... I simply have no choice but to look at them in a different light compared to pure fantasy or history.
Needed to be fast on this one, hope it makes sense. Ps it is clear you know much more about than I do. I didn't read LOTR ( barbaric I know). I did read Homerus. But I am still in over my head here. My great love is film. Literature comes second (again barbaric I know). So forgive me if I lack the means to explore this dilemma in depth. Cheers!
Sir Dreamin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic