+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: References & Reviews (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff (/showthread.php?tid=18463)
Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - ParthianBow - 03-03-2011
I was surprised to find that there was no review (that I could find) on RAT of this amazing book. Here's my little effort:
Few books are immune to the unforgiving test of time, or the passing of the generations. Most fall by the wayside within a few years, to be forgotten by all but a small number of dedicated readers. The Eagle of the Ninth is without doubt, one of the handful of books to retain its appeal long term. It has sold more than a million copies worldwide, and is still in print more than five decades after its first publication. While the book was written for children, it appeals to all readers: as Sutcliff herself said, ‘from eight to eighty-eight’. In February and March 2011, The Eagle of the Ninth arrived in movie theatres all over the world as The Eagle, guaranteeing countless thousands the chance to find the book and fall in love with one of the most magical historical tales of all time. (No comment on the historical accuracy or otherwise of the film!)
The book’s central character is a young Roman centurion by the name of Marcus Flavius Aquila. Sent to serve in a fort in south-western England in the first third of the 2nd century AD, he is grievously wounded in his first battle and discharged from the legions. During his recovery at his uncle Aquila’s house, the lonely and embittered Marcus buys Esca, a British slave he sees fighting as a gladiator in the local arena. Gradually, the two become friends, and their comradeship is deepened by Esca’s gift to Marcus of a wolf cub he finds during a hunt. The two main characters are warmly drawn and lifelike. Importantly, they are also likeable.
Not long after, Marcus hears a rumour from the far north, beyond Hadrian’s Wall, of a legion standard held by one of the tribes hostile to Rome. Tortured by the knowledge that many years before his father marched north into Scotland with the Ninth Hispana legion, which never returned, Marcus determines to try and find the eagle. He is driven by his desire to retrieve the legion’s honour as well as his own, to lay to rest his last memories of his father, and to remove a banner that might one day unite the tribes against Rome. The only person to accompany him on his perilous quest northwards is Esca, who has become his closest friend. No one expects the pair to succeed, or even to return, and thereby hangs the rest of the tale.
The Eagle of the Ninth is essentially a tale of the pursuit of honour and redemption in the face of great danger. The story moves along at compelling pace throughout, but it reaches breakneck pace after Marcus and Esca steal the eagle from the tribe which seized it from the Ninth Legion. Strong themes of duty, loyalty to others and courage are woven seamlessly into the rich prose, which conjures a magical picture of 2nd century Roman Britain in general, and of the highlands and people of ancient Scotland in particular. Sutcliff possessed the all too rare skill of being able to impart subtly large amounts of historical information while writing a fantastic story. Even when she had to invent material (such as the scenes with the tribes people in Scotland), it was done with a real sense of authenticity.
In short, The Eagle of the Ninth is a wonderfully crafted novel that will appeal not just to lovers of history, but those who consider comradeship, honour and loyalty to be important qualities. Pick it up and be converted!
(as previously published on www.commandposts.com)
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - bachmat66 - 03-03-2011
Salve,
nice
Perhaps I can get my 9-year old son to review it too, when he finishes it - some 80-odd pages left, or draw his review - little man is quite a comic/comix artist
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - qcarr - 03-03-2011
Great review, Ben. I read this book for the first time last year and found it thoroughly engaging. I can attest that "from eight to eighty-eight" is true, and I'm hoping to get my 10-year old son to give it a try.
Thanks for starting this topic!
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Eceni - 03-04-2011
Great review - thank you....
The Eagle of the Ninth is the reason I write what I do: I wrote the Boudica: Dreaming series because Ninth (and the other Rosemary Sutcliffe books) never seemed to look behind the scenes of the 'native savages' and I desperately wanted to know what happened *inside* the mounds and in the heart of the ceremonies...
Having said that, I re-read it again this summer as a prelude to writing 'The Eagle of the Twelfth' which is third in the ROME series - and found it enchanting as ever, but incredibly dated - desperately colonial in its outlook with the Britons cast as a mix of noble savage/barbarian and women relegated to a home-caring role on both sides of the civilised/uncivilised divide. What struck me was how I had failed to notice that as a child, and had accepted it all as the way of the world. And how I wouldn't want to write like that now.
None of which stops it from being one of my 'Desert Island books' (along with Mary Renault's 'Alexander' trilogy and Dorothy Dunnett's 'King Hereafter', plus, of course, the amazing 'Wolf Hall') and something to read again annually for the rest of my life.
m
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Narukami - 03-05-2011
So then Manda, have you seen the film yet, and if so, what did you think?
(Keeping in mind, of course, Kurt Vonnegut's dictum concerning films based upon books.)
Just curious... :?
:wink:
Naruakmi
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Eceni - 03-08-2011
not yet - but will do.... on the grounds that if we're writing in this field, we need to know what's current - on the whole, it doesn't matter if the film is accurate or not when the overwhelming majority of those who watch it will *think* it's accurate and so we need to be ready to explain they 'why nots' of those things we choose not to include, or the 'why's of those we do when they jar with people's perceptions.
sad, but true.
I'll post when I've seen it. Don't hold your breath, though...
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Nathan Ross - 03-08-2011
Quote:if we're writing in this field, we need to know what's current
True enough. But we should also bear in mind that Sutcliff was writing nearly half a century ago, and we're still reading and discussing her work today. In 50 years time The Eagle will, at best, be regarded as a cinematic curiosity of the early CGI era, while people will still be reading and enjoying The Eagle of the Ninth...
mile: - Nathan
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Robert Vermaat - 03-09-2011
Hi Manda,
Good luck.
Like you, I read this book when Young, and it shaped my future. I have the very book itself and it has a proud place in my bookshelf, despite its worn look.
I say ‘good luck’ because I fear the movie will, at some level, kill the story. I don’t really mind whether it’s accurate or not, but I do mind that certain elements of the story will be lost.
Rosemary Sutcliff had a few themes that appeared in most of her books, and in this one, Friendship is the main one. I’ve already heard that serious changes have been made in the relationship between Marcus and Esca, which bother me. And as yet, no-one mentioned the girl nor the dog, two very important characters..
Another theme which often occurs is the coping of the main figure with a disability. Marcus had to leave the army due to his injury, and not only is this the main reason why he eventually is able to look for the lost eagle, it’s also of continuing importance. His dreams were shattered with the end of his military career, and his despair about what his future will be is to some extent eased only by his new friends. His battle against the limits of his physical abilities is in part one of the reasons why he and Esca set out on their journey, and his reward at the end of his adventure is fitting in more than one aspect, because it also ends his worries about what will become of him.
My biggest worry is that the story is altered too much, and loses elements that for me are far more important than accuracy, or whether Marcus’ father was the primus pilus or the legate of the Ninth legion.
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Narukami - 03-10-2011
Robert,
I did not mention those elements in my review but ...
*** SPOILIER ALERT ***
If you want to be surprised by the movie then DO NOT read on until after you have seen it. And if not, well then ...
Indeed, many of the story aspects you hold dear have been "adjusted" "modified" or simply left out completely in keeping with the action movie format.
Wolf is gone.
The young neighbor is gone (as are the neighbors)
The visiting legion commander is no longer "The Egyptian"
Although the injury Marcus suffers in the initial battle does play a part throughout the film, it does not seem to be the critical factor that it is in the book.
The relationship between Marcus and Esca, while central to the film's plot, still feels different from that in the book. Indeed, novel Marcus is a far more complex and interesting character than film Marcus. There are hints of depth if film Marcus, but only hints that are never played out or investigated. (I should note that it is not Marcus who buys Esca but the uncle who does so.)
The entire interplay between Marcus and the Britions at his first command is left out so that his confrontation with the chariots, while exciting in its own right, loses the emotional resonance it had in the book.
Once again, the words of Kurt Vonnegut ring true.
I just read the novel for the first time last month (in preperation for seeing the film) and although it was written for 'young adults' I found it to be a thoroughly charming novel that held my interest from start to finish.
Because of the time constraints of feature films, and the deep richness of the novel, this story would have been better served as a limited series on HBO where time could be spent on these details for story and motivation that make the novel so engaging and enjoyable.
There are aspects of the film I did enjoy, but I was disapointed most by the lost potential for a great series.
My review of The Eagle is posted on the Ancient Warfare Magazine web site (under Hollywood Romans).
:wink:
Naruakmi
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Robert Vermaat - 03-10-2011
Quote:Wolf is gone.
The young neighbor is gone (as are the neighbors)
The visiting legion commander is no longer "The Egyptian"
Although the injury Marcus suffers in the initial battle does play a part throughout the film, it does not seem to be the critical factor that it is in the book.
The relationship between Marcus and Esca, while central to the film's plot, still feels different from that in the book. Indeed, novel Marcus is a far more complex and interesting character than film Marcus. There are hints of depth if film Marcus, but only hints that are never played out or investigated. (I should note that it is not Marcus who buys Esca but the uncle who does so.)
The entire interplay between Marcus and the Britions at his first command is left out so that his confrontation with the chariots, while exciting in its own right, loses the emotional resonance it had in the book.
I expected much, but not that much. Did the encounter with the surviving soldier (and his dilemmas with surviving and choosing the life of a Briton) survive at all?
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Narukami - 03-12-2011
Yes, the old veteran north of the Wall is in the film, but his character is much truncated and the dilemma of helping the son of his old commander or remaining "hidden" in his new life is lost almost completely. I fact, the film's final battle (*** Spoiler ***) pits the Seal People against Marcus, Esca, and a dozen survivors of the Ninth wearing bits & pieces of their old kit.
The film ends with our two heroes dropping off the Eagle to the Legion commander (his uncle's old friend) and then walking off with disdain in search of their next adventure in true Hollywood 'Buddy Film' fashion.
Most of the depth and subtlety of the book and the characters is lost in the film. As we all know, this is not unusual for film, and indeed it is the rare film that incorporates depth and subtlety into its mix of action and spectacle.
I wish I could be more encouraging, and I do hope you see the film (even if only on DVD) for I will be interested in your thoughts and reactions.
:?
Narukami
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Robert Vermaat - 03-26-2011
Quote:Most of the depth and subtlety of the book and the characters is lost in the film. As we all know, this is not unusual for film, and indeed it is the rare film that incorporates depth and subtlety into its mix of action and spectacle.I think that is a severe understatement. I finally saw the movie and now I understand why they only used half the title of the book: they only use half of the book. Everything from the moment they leave Calleva to find the eagle is a total fabrication. Guern is indeed still in the movie, but apart from his name everything is different: how they meet, his story about the end of the Ninth, etc. etc.
Frankly, I was disgusted. Even the first half was totally superficial, we are rushed through the story from short cut to shortcut, butchering the book at every angle. None of the characters is developed, there remain only snippets but even there a lot is altered without any real reason. the end, I must say, is ludicrous, and an insult to the writer. Nothing is left, to be frank, that reminds me of the story and how it managed to enthrall me. Rosemary Sutcliff, I have no doubt, would be disgusted as well.
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Chock - 03-28-2011
Not having read the book The Eagle of the Ninth, I was able to watch The Eagle without any preconceptions. So whilst I am sure that, as with any book which gets adapted into a screenplay, there will be things chopped and changed (which may dismay fans of the original source material) to make it work in under two hours, I don't know what these would have been. This has certainly happened with books I do know well that have made it to the screen, but I think one has to be somewhat forgiving when considering how the different mediums of film and the written word go if they are to work properly.
Most dramatised stories (i.e. films and plays) are wise to attempt to fit within the confines of Classical Aristolean Unities, and if Rosemary Sutcliff is aware of these (which I hope she would be as a writer), then I find myself disagreeing with suggestions that she would be disappointed with the film based upon her book, as she would almost certainly be well aware of how the Classical Unities work.
'Roman Hollywood' in the broad sense has come in for a bit of stick with how the Unities are handled on occasion, not least with Gladiator, which uses a speedy three act structure as opposed to the five act structure of more epic film of the same genre such as Spartacus and Ben Hur, and this has led to accusations of it being lightweight. This is a criticism which both Centurion and The Eagle will also no doubt have to endure, but I don't always think it is a fair one, since big screen films are always a mirror of the audiences of the time and their expectations. For one thing, the film industry is suffering a lot of late, with output hugely diminished in comparison to the recent past. The trend for 're-imaginings' (i.e. crap remakes), no-brainer summer blockbusters, or 3D CGI kids movies and very little else, means it is something of a miracle that The Eagle and Centurion were even greenlighted for production, and then even more of a surprise that they should get a cinema release with something of an advertising budget thrown at them.
It is easy therefore, to be overly critical of films which touch a subject close to one's heart, but we have to remember that these kind of movies are few and far between, and they have to have at least some appeal to the wider cinema-going audience. Or to put it another way, if you want to see historical actioners continuing to be in with a chance of being made, 'if they build it, you'd better come'.
So anyway, not knowing the book, what did I think of The Eagle?
First up, I have to say it was a welcome return to see some 'old school' editing, direction and cinematography (not surprising since it is courtesy of Oscar-winner, Anthony Dod Mantle), which eschews the need to have four-second edit limits and the tiresome jump cutting we normally see in modern action movies. This probably won't help to endear it to the MTV generation, but there you go. So, lighting and camera work in general is very good, managing to convey the damp and, doubtless to a Roman, frightening alien look of Ancient Britain.
The soundtrack is particularly worthy of note (Atli Örvarsson). It fuses more traditional orchestral stuff with heavy Celtish and tribal-type influences, using Northumbrian pipes to good effect. The musical transition of these styles taking place to accentuate the journey into unknown lands which, in combination with some beautiful cinematography, makes for a compelling audio and visual backdrop to the story.
As far as set design and equipment goes, there is quite some effort at maintaining an authentic look. Of course history buffs will spot what may be regarded errors, i.e. we get the Persian-style scythes on the wheels of the Ancient Briton's chariots and other Hollywood-esque touches, but then again, who is to say this was never done in Britain? Neither you or I were there, so we can't say for sure, and as far as Roman equipment goes, there's only so much we can suss out from Trajan's Column. So on the whole I think it has rather good look to it for trying to portray 140AD.
Character development and introduction is speedily handled to aid pacing, but is not bad for all that with well-chosen dialogue that aids exposition rather neatly. The inclusion of prayers to the cult of Mithra contrasting the more pagan aspects of the Ancient Celtish factions to help set up the notion of a cultural clash, although much of this is clearly pure speculation, of necessity a combination of 'best guesses' and dramatic license, but within the confines of a movie, it is certainly one of the better attempts at covering the matter. Little is made of what would inevitably have been a language and culture barrier between main protagonists Esca and Marcus in reality, but of course this would have slowed the pacing somewhat and interfered with the story's flow, so it is forgivable when we consider how other features highlight such aspects. Supporting roles from some big name A-listers are useful in conveying a more old-school epic feel to the movie despite its rapid pacing.
It is interesting to note that Kevin MacDonald has American, Channing Tatum, in the role of the chief Roman protagonist, as well as some other Yanks cropping up in Roman roles. This is clearly alluding to the American forces in Helmand Province, the Roman fort quite obviously being an allegorical version of a firebase in Afghanistan. We can see other filmic influences of American allegories to preceding wars, with the Celts looking a lot like Col Kurtz's clan of deserters up the river in Cambodia from Apocalypse Now, which might jar with some people, but I thought that was a nice touch and was still within the confines of what such warriors might have looked like.
The story itself cranks along at a pretty rapid pace, and rounds off with a slightly Hollywood-esque buddy movie ending which neatly glosses over the cultural differences that would doubtless remain between Marcus and Esca. However, it ties it off quite well for modern cinema-going audiences and would doubtless meet such expectations. Of course, it would have been braver to end the movie with this still not neatly settled in order to better reflect the Afghanistan allegory, but I think what we can see in that is the pressuring hand of the studio and probably US preview audiences, so it's quite possible that a nice rounded ending was a prerequisite for the thing getting a greenlight in the first place. Some films which touch on Afghanistan have been braver on this score, for example The Beast (aka The Beast of War), which has the Afghani Mujahideen character and the Russian soldier character parting after a similar team effort, unable to reconcile their cultural differences in the longer term.
So, despite the fact that there are clearly some concessions to film-making, The Eagle is not bad on the whole. Yes, I think it could have done with a more thoughtful and challenging ending, but I'm willing to accept why it probably didn't get one. If nothing else, it's definitely worth it for the visuals and the soundtrack, both of which one hopes get some attention from the film industry at large.
Certainly worth a look.
Oh, and one last thing: This film has a 12 certificate rating (which means you could probably get away with taking a nine-year-old to see it), and frankly, it's a miracle that it got away with that because it is pretty violent in places. A beheading is depicted as well as a child getting his throat slit, so just bear that in mind if you are considering taking a child to see the movie. It's never gratuitous, after all battle is a violent affair, so it can be explained as being historical to any child whom it might frighten, but if you have kids that would be scared by such things, keep this in mind.
Al
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Robert Vermaat - 03-28-2011
Hi Al
Quote: Not having read the book The Eagle of the Ninth, I was able to watch The Eagle without any preconceptions. So whilst I am sure that, as with any book which gets adapted into a screenplay, there will be things chopped and changed (which may dismay fans of the original source material) to make it work in under two hours, I don't know what these would have been. This has certainly happened with books I do know well that have made it to the screen, but I think one has to be somewhat forgiving when considering how the different mediums of film and the written word go if they are to work properly.Oh, I’m quite familiar with screen adaptations. But there is a huge difference between a screen adaptation and butchering a book. Like I said, half of the book was left unused, but even what was used was heavily altered. Surely, you have to agree with me that ‘adaptation into a screenplay’ is a bit different? When I look at the Harry Potter movies, or the altered LOTR movies, the conclusion is that this ‘adaptation’ can be used with care. In this case, it was not. The director clearly disliked where the plot was going.
Quote: Most dramatised stories (i.e. films and plays) are wise to attempt to fit within the confines of Classical Aristolean Unities, and if Rosemary Sutcliff is aware of these (which I hope she would be as a writer), then I find myself disagreeing with suggestions that she would be disappointed with the film based upon her book, as she would almost certainly be well aware of how the Classical Unities work.I cannot for the world agree with that. But then, you have not read the book (have you read any other of Rosemary Sutcliff’s works?), or else you would know how she wrote, what her main themes were, and that each of those elements were removed. No writer would be happy with such adaptations. Many writers have declined the ‘adaptation’ of their work into movies, or else kept a close control on them, to agree with the result. Since Rosemary Sutcliff passed away many years ago, neither option was open to her. But this movie does not fit into the genre of her books, as her readers can vouch for.
Quote: we get the Persian-style scythes on the wheels of the Ancient Briton's chariots and other Hollywood-esque touches, but then again, who is to say this was never done in Britain? Neither you or I were there, so we can't say for sure, and as far as Roman equipment goes, there's only so much we can suss out from Trajan's Column.Ah, what can I say, there are such little things as history and archaeology, but since we are making a movie for a modern audience, why not disdain to use that? After all, who needs such details, when they are always in the way of a good story?
Quote: So anyway, not knowing the book, what did I think of The Eagle?Fair enough, looking at the movie itself with knowing the story is difficult enough once you know the book, but if it possible to review the movie without having read the book, it can be done the other way around.
My first impressions were those of a Vietnam movie, and I was not surprised later to read several reviews which mentioned that as well. The story took a rapid pace from the beginning, with the fresh commander almost overnight (one gets the feeling that the attack happens during the very first night of Marcus’ arrival in the fort) being confronted by an overwhelming attack. Of course, Hollywood elements such as in Gladiator crept in within minutes, such as the covering of the ditch and lower wall parts in extremely flammable material. Supposedly this scared off the attackers, but as the fort is built of wood, anyone could see that the fort itself would have been burned down if this had been real. I’ll refrain from mentioning more of such details, which were many throughout the rest of the movie.
The quick pace even picks up more speed after Marcus has been wounded, and one feels that weeks (?) must pass within minutes, before Marcus and Esca gallop away to the North of the wall ‘where no Roman can survive’. Even with just the two main characters in view, one does not get any idea of how they really think. Is Marcus angry with the army for being sacked? Is he deploring the loss of his career? Although he seems very concerned with his family honour, is he angry with his father for leaving him, or for ‘losing the Ninth’ (as some soldiers joke)? None of that is disclosed. Esca, too, is not letting anything by about his status of a slave, his attitude to Marcus (his actions speak louder than his words), although sometimes a conflicting tribal pride shines through. Oddly, Esca cannot fathom why Marcus is after the eagle, describing it as a worthless object, and butchering Britons a useless act, while at the same time he describes the killing ground of the Ninth as a place of heroes and tribal pride. The fact that he apparently knows that place is of course an act of betrayal, but apart from a quick fight it’s never mentioned again afterwards. Also, perhaps, because Marcus is taken prisoner and Esca poses as his master, secretly searching for the eagle, although how that happens is hidden from us, the modern audience which is apparently already bored with this part of the movie, wondering why they are not fighting anyone.
After a quick turn of events involving, unsurprisingly, even more violence, the eagle is found, almost lost but then rescued, before it’s dropped, disdainfully, on the desk of a fat civil servant. After which the heroes, honor regained, turn about and almost ride into the sunset. The end of course reminded me of another Vietnam movie: Rambo II no less. Talk about quality.
Did we see much of Roman Britain? Hardly. Apart from the besieged fort, a quick shot of the outside of a villa, the rest of the movie showed brown grasslands and rocks, which could have been Iceland for all I know. The music was nice but very modern ‘Celtic’, with un-Roman drums heard in the Roman fort (but then, we a re a modern audience, and we of course expect Romans to beat drums). The language was odd. Why the Seal People looked like painted African warriors is beyond me, but even more odd is why they spoke modern Gaelic, while the Romans did not speak modern Italian. It sounded like the director taking a look at the Passion of the Christ’ but deciding to use English after all.
Quote: big screen films are always a mirror of the audiences of the time and their expectations
Quote: However, it ties it off quite well for modern cinema-going audiences and would doubtless meet such expectations.I doubt it. I think it agrees with what Hollywood assumes is right for a modern audience. The book, however, was written for a younger audience, decades ago. Which would, perhaps, have made it unfit to be forced into a Hollywood blockbuster. The BBC made a very different TV series out of it years ago, proving that it’s possible to do that. Perhaps it was unfit for the big screen from the beginning, and attempting to ‘adapt’ it to make it fit nonetheless was a mission impossible from the start.
Re: Review:The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff - Chock - 03-28-2011
In being critical of The Eagle, one has to be careful not to fall into the trap of wishing for a movie to ideally suit one's wishes, for if we want that, then we'd better not hold our breath whilst awaiting it. Technically I daresay it would be possible to include every element of a more complex book and perhaps cover it in a series of movies, but there is simply no way a production company will ever commit to that kind of long term investment risk with any book or series which doesn't have a massive commercial following already (i.e. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or some such). If you truly are familiar with screenplay adaptions, then you will indeed know this is the case. If not, trust me on this, I have had works of fiction published, and I can assure you that this is how it works.
Yes it is depressing that this is the case when there is much better literature around, but you have to look at the alternative, which to put it bluntly, would no movie at all, and as a consequence, less interest in a subject which appeals to us. Of course an ardent fan of a book might prefer no movie at all if it isn't done in the way they specifically wanted, but The Eagle is what it is, a movie that has managed to make it to production taking into account the concessions which have to be made in order for that to happen. That is the reality of the movie business, i.e. it is a business first and an art most definitely second. Yet there can be little doubt that it will have ignited an interest in Roman history for some who will see it.
So if one is a fan of the book upon which The Eagle is based or indeed of Roman history, then one can take heart in the fact that, as with most books, when a film is adapted from it, people who would otherwise never have considered reading about the subject material might then do so. Take Blade Runner for example; doubtless many people have since read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? having seen the film, similarly, look how lightweight and poor Starship Troopers is as a movie, but there can be little doubt that thousands of people have now read Robert Heinlein's work as a direct result of that rather lightweight treatment of what is his really rather provocative book.
If The Eagle widens interest in Roman history or finds a new readership for the author of the book upon which it is based, it will be no bad thing.
Al