The postmodern and handsome British

In addition they are renewing the usual themes: Vikings, Romans, history of U.K. every X generations and adapting them to the societies of the moment.
I've been watching Isabel I from England with my face powdered white, I want to see something else. What is it that has to be clear generation after generation with the same films always? Anyway, I do not care 25 years ago that I do not go to the movie theater movies.

Carlos said:

In addition they are renewing the usual themes: Vikings, Romans, history of U.K. every X generations and adapting them to the societies of the moment.
I've been watching Isabel I from England with my face powdered white, I want to see something else. What is it that has to be clear generation after generation with the same films always? Anyway, I do not care 25 years ago that I do not go to the movie theater movies.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that it costs an obscene amount of money to make these kinds of films, money that European film industries just don't have, which is why even England concentrates on smaller, more character driven films.

I'm not going to complain too much, though, because "The Gladiator" is one of my favorite films.

Has anyone yet seen Matteo Rovere's latest film, Romolo e Remo, Il Primo Re? Although a budget of eight million is substantial for an Italian film, I don't think it's really enough for this kind of story. Given that it seems Italian youth love American action movies, I also have my doubts that they'll take to a movie with subtitles because it's performed in some sort of ancient proto-Italic. I hope I'm wrong.

Angela said:

Part of the problem is that it costs an obscene amount of money to make these kinds of films, money that European film industries just don't have, which is why even England concentrates on smaller, more character driven films.

I'm not going to complain too much, though, because "The Gladiator" is one of my favorite films.

Has anyone yet seen Matteo Rovere's latest film, Romolo e Remo, Il Primo Re? Although a budget of eight million is substantial for an Italian film, I don't think it's really enough for this kind of story. Given that it seems Italian youth love American action movies, I also have my doubts that they'll take to a movie with subtitles because it's performed in some sort of ancient proto-Italic. I hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

that is a good example

Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.

It's simple marketing.
A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Gladiator is a formidable film indisputably but it will never have the magic nor will it be able to transfer us to the historical moment as I do that the film Caligula does, although it is an Italo-British co-production with most of the cast of main characters, it is not with Italian actors. that bring me closer to how it could be. And much more still the cinema of Pasolini or Jodorosky with much less production know how to recreate and capture past times as the cinema of Hollywood will never capture. It's a pity that Almodóvar does not embark on a historical film, I think it would be one of the few Directors that could recreate an ancient atmosphere and move us there.

bicicleur said:

that is a good example

Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.

It's simple marketing.
A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Click to expand...

Double post.

bicicleur said:

that is a good example

Romole e Remo never existed, it is a myth, it is fiction in the first place.
I wonder then why people accept the myth but are so sensitive about the colour of the actor who's playing it.

It's simple marketing.
A movie is made for a certain audience, and they'll look for a person the audience can identify with.
A movie is an interpretation, it does not claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Click to expand...

No movie of Romulus and Remus has ever been made before. FYI, most of the "mythic" elements, like being suckled by a she wolf, are not included. Rather, he is placing the story in a very realistic context of shepherds trying to found a new village. What the director is doing, according to reports, is quite complex. It's not some nationalistic origin story.

Such movies have certainly been made in northern European contexts, of course. Look at the movie based on the Beowulf poem, or all the Thor incarnations.

What if an actor like Daniele Liotti had played one of the lead characters in Beowulf, or Joe Manganiello played Thor or Vercingetorix, for that matter? Personally, Manganiello would certainly appeal to me more than Helmsworth. However, there would have been an outcry, and you know it, including from you. Would you think, well, it's just a myth, so who cares? I doubt it.





Now, as you say, a lot of this is marketing, and knowing your audience, but not all of it. I think you'd object if Manganiello played that character, even if it was an Italian movie marketed mainly to Italians and Southern Europeans.

Also, just generally, how much suspension of disbelief should a director demand of the audience, no matter the nature of that audience? Are Anglo and Northern European audiences so clueless or so tied to Nordicist myths about Romans that they'd have a problem with Romans who look like Italians? That's sad if true.

Also, in this day and age, movies are international. It's not the 60s. I think a little verisimilitude would be welcome. American movies engender criticism as well as high box office, you know.

There's one auteur who tries to do it right to the extent possible, and that's Mel Gibson. The actor who he cast to play Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ" was altered to look more "East Med", and the other actors were chosen with an eye to what contemporary Judeans and Romans would have looked like. It all contributed to making a better movie, a masterpiece, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm_-kNaPsp4

Likewise, in making a movie about Amerindians, he did a novel thing: he cast Amerindians, not Italians, as Hollywood movies used to do. It's a very good film imo, if not for everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXuwjdQx924

[QUOTE = bicicleur; 566890] que es un buen ejemplo
Romole e Remo nunca existió, es un mito, es ficción en primer lugar.
Entonces me pregunto por qué la gente acepta el mito pero es tan sensible sobre el color del actor que lo interpreta.
Es marketing simple.
Una película está hecha para una audiencia determinada, y buscarán una persona con la que la audiencia pueda identificarse.
Una película es una interpretación, no pretende decir la verdad y nada más que la verdad. [/ CITA]

Carmen also never existed, if the color of the skin does not matter and yet this version is called Carmen Jones. There are many versions of Carmen, and also as Spanish and as for many Spaniards the Opera Carmen does not consider it ours, nor recognize that history nor the characters, it is an invention of a Frenchman and has nothing to do with our culture.

<font style="vertical-align: inherit;"><font style="vertical-align: inherit;">
From a European vision that until recently has been homogeneous and not multi cultural as the North American this film could have been simply called Carmen, but evidently the Hollywood cinema is structured taking into account the color and skin tones. In Carmen Jones perhaps the purpose was the promotion or visualization of the opera singers black. So in the case of films of British history, Romans and Vikings and all played by Anglo-Saxons is not something innocent and by chance and more when it is a cinema that reaches the whole world or almost.

Angela said:

No movie of Romulus and Remus has ever been made before. FYI, most of the "mythic" elements, like being suckled by a she wolf, are not included. Rather, he is placing the story in a very realistic context of shepherds trying to found a new village. What the director is doing, according to reports, is quite complex. It's not some nationalistic origin story.

Such movies have certainly been made in northern European contexts, of course. Look at the movie based on the Beowulf poem, or all the Thor incarnations.

What if an actor like Daniele Liotti had played one of the lead characters in Beowulf, or Joe Manganiello played Thor or Vercingetorix, for that matter? Personally, Manganiello would certainly appeal to me more than Helmsworth. However, there would have been an outcry, and you know it, including from you. Would you think, well, it's just a myth, so who cares? I doubt it.

Now, as you say, a lot of this is marketing, and knowing your audience, but not all of it. I think you'd object if Manganiello played that character, even if it was an Italian movie marketed mainly to Italians and Southern Europeans.

Also, just generally, how much suspension of disbelief should a director demand of the audience, no matter the nature of that audience? Are Anglo and Northern European audiences so clueless or so tied to Nordicist myths about Romans that they'd have a problem with Romans who look like Italians? That's sad if true.

Also, in this day and age, movies are international. It's not the 60s. I think a little verisimilitude would be welcome. American movies engender criticism as well as high box office, you know.

There's one auteur who tries to do it right to the extent possible, and that's Mel Gibson. The actor who he cast to play Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ" was altered to look more "East Med", and the other actors were chosen with an eye to what contemporary Judeans and Romans would have looked like. It all contributed to making a better movie, a masterpiece, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm_-kNaPsp4

Likewise, in making a movie about Amerindians, he did a novel thing: he cast Amerindians, not Italians, as Hollywood movies used to do. It's a very good film imo, if not for everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXuwjdQx924

Click to expand...

So, you think movie directors are not doing their job properly in selecting the right cast for their audience?

I must say, I'm not into movies, if've seen very few.
Like Beowulf, I don't know what you're talking about, I even don't know the story.

I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" , don't know it. I have seen Braveheart, didn't like it, he glorified the main character to much, which he played himself, and the story is very inaccurate, allthough he tried to make it look genuine.

But maybe you're right, because I'm not an expert, and I'm not interested, because I know, they are just stories, the truth doesn't sell.
It's a bussiness, and with very high budgets.
The producers have to know what they are doing, and still it is a gamble.

bicicleur said:

So, you think movie directors are not doing their job properly in selecting the right cast for their audience?

I must say, I'm not into movies, if've seen very few.
Like Beowulf, I don't know what you're talking about, I even don't know the story.

I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" , don't know it. I have seen Braveheart, didn't like it, he glorified the main character to much, which he played himself, and the story is very inaccurate, allthough he tried to make it look genuine.

But maybe you're right, because I'm not an expert, and I'm not interested, because I know, they are just stories, the truth doesn't sell.
It's a bussiness, and with very high budgets.
The producers have to know what they are doing, and still it is a gamble.

Click to expand...

It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?

I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.

Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.

But Gladiator pretends to be Hispanic in the plot but finally it was not. Yes, his wife was an Iberian, when he is training his daughter in the equestrian arts, who then kill them. I've seen it for a thousand years, but I remember it that way.

Angela said:

It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?

I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.

Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.

Click to expand...

This is so far and above any of the usual Anglo films depicting the Christ story, partly because of his sheer artistry, but partly also because it looked REAL.

It almost got me back to Mass.


The previous all Italian version scandalized people but it was also masterful, imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzT6Lwj1yhA

Carlos said:

But Gladiator pretends to be Hispanic in the plot but finally it was not. Yes, his wife was an Iberian, when he is training his daughter in the equestrian arts, who then kill them. I've seen it for a thousand years, but I remember it that way.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't remember that. Maybe I just missed it.

The movie was full of Anglo people playing Romans however. Joaquin Phoenix was a little more believable.

As for the black version of Carmen, I have no problem with it. Let's say that people in Africa want to put on a Shakespeare play. Are they supposed to import Anglo actors? What I object to is pretending that some of these casting choices are accurate phenotypically.

Interpreters of historical films.

Carlos said:

It is a relax and a tranquility without an abuse of the blue eyes that both appear on the screen in Romans, Vikings and history of U.K. Isabel l already knows with the white face ordering to kill Maria Tudor. They are a few decades of too many Anglo-Saxon blue eyes in historical cinema.

Click to expand...

Now you're being as prejudiced as you accuse them of being. NOT COOL, and not acceptable on this forum.

Angela said:

It depends. What is the goal? Making as much money as possible by using "big name" stars who will pull in movie goers, or making the most accurate depiction of a time and of people in that place and time?

I ultimately didn't care that they picked Russell Crowe to play a Spaniard/Roman in "The Gladiator". It was a great story, well made, as it should have been, given what it cost, with good enough acting, and a message that appealed to me, so, it drew me in regardless, but I certainly did have to work on my suspension of disbelief for a bit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is, imo, artistically a superior movie.

Take a look at the you tube clips. It should give you an idea.

Click to expand...

the movie bussiness is about selling, not about accuracy

I liked to watch Vikings, and after a while I went to check some historical details.
To my surprise they were correct.
But history does not give a complete picture, many links are missing.
Then there are also some myths interwoven in the serie.
And when you watch these parts, it is slightly amusing and you immeadiately know it can't be true.
I like it when they don't pretend.

The opposite is about to happen with Cleopatra. They are supposedly going to cast her as an African or at least North African woman. That is totally objectionable. She was a Macedonian.

I don't like when they re-write history.

This is a totally political move.

I'm afraid re-writing history has been done as long as history exists.
It seems they'll extend the effort.

Why there are no movies about Franks, anyway?
Frankish Empire/Holy Roman Empire was the strongest in Europe.
No movies about AngloSaxons either. Or movies depicting AngloSaxons in a bad light.
Lots of movies about Normans, nothing mentioned that some French Celtic warriors joined the Normans.
Lots of prejudice, in Hollywood movies.
Lots of Vikings migrated to British Isles because they feared Holy Roman Empire.

AngloSaxons were certainly more lawful and organized than the Vikings.
Nothing mentioned about the fact that Norse people, Vikings included were fishing a lot in the North Sea.
Raising goats and pigs is a Viking activity, but fishing code in the North Sea, is not.
That is a very strange "logic".
No movie about the Viking that sailed first time in North America, either.
No movie about NorseGaels and them settling Iceland.
In Hollywood movies, unlike in the real history, British Isles Celts and AngloSaxons need to be enemies with the Vikings.
Hollywood Geniuses did not found out yet about Brian Boru, the legendary Irish king,lol, that defeated some Vikings army.

About the Viking series:
Nothing mentioned about Southern Britain Celtic people, like Bretons or Welsh people.
Lol.

^^^^
The postmodern and handsome Vikings in the cinema always win, but in Al-Andalus they were defeated.




The fact that the Vikings discovered America is tiresome. This man of photography presents documentaries, and the treatment of everything related to the discovery and conquest of America by the Spanish is quite negative and yet the treatment of the Vikings is idealized.
In these documentaries, very Amerindian actors are chosen to represent the soldiers and historical figures in the conquest and discovery of America and yet when they do it with actors to illustrate about the Portuguese in America, the casting of actors is totally adjusted, Why in one case and in the other, no?
People come out in those documentaries that go crazy looking for Chinese boats to show that the Chinese arrived before the Spaniards or stones with engraved runes to show that the Vikings came to America before the Spaniards, logically never get results.


Map of the universities founded by the Spanish in America and the Philippines. Why does that man in the photo above never talk about this in his documentaries?

Is not post-modern, is just Hollywood nonsense.
Was not some movie at Hollywood about some hero from Scotland,where he appears with his face painted in current flag of Scotland ?

There is a great confusion between Picts which were already assimilated by the Gaelic Scots when William Wallace actually lived and Gaelic Scots.
Anyway highly doubt there is any historical account about having William Wallace in some battle with his face painted white and blue.
And that is not the only inaccuracy from BraveHeart, are more.
Some person found some inaccuracies in BraveHeart.
https://thehande.wordpress.com/2011...s-you-need-to-know-before-watching-the-movie/