Reference guides for Film and TV

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

nor do you have to add any introductory explanation at the beginning

Anyway, let me say that it helps and it's cheap.
I can easily imagine what the average people could say as soon as, in the beginning of the roman movie they're going to see, an officer of the Costantinus' army appears with his "alien" IV century equipment (looking medieval), drawing his long sword (looking medieval), or fixing his tiny black and light "palace" shoes (looking sooo medieval)... Average Joe should burst out: "What a fake! That's not roman... Ahahaha..., where is Lancelot?"
Without knowing that his presumed quip could be closer to the historical reality than he can guess...

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

Average Joe should burst out: "What a fake! That's not roman... Ahahaha..., where is Lancelot?"
Without knowing that his presumed quip could be closer to the historical reality than he can guess..

No he's not. He's more likely to blurt out "This film's boring!" There hasn't been a single instance of a film bombing because of it's historical accuracy in costume and production design - only because the film's boring or crap :wink:

THE PUBLIC HAS NO PRECONCEPTION OF HOW THINGS SHOULD LOOK.

NONE!!!!!

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

bombing because of it's historical accuracy in costume and production design

The problem is in the discerning. Why the public has to trust the director about the accuracy for Barry Lindon and not for Troy? The public trusted Kubrick because of his well known maniacal accuracy in his works, but a director can capitalize the ignorance of the public making a sumptuous movie fullfilled of mistakes... Making the public discern is fundamental for the growing of the public. The director with an explaining caption signs a contract with the public where he bets his own reputation. That gives penetration, depth and public appreciates this form of respect.

What against a simple caption like those ones of "Star Wars" that justifies even if it does not explain everything of course, that, when in the movie you see "strange things", make the public understand that those oddities are not just funny "creative inventions" of a director in the mood for amazing at all costs?

Of course I don't know deeply the behaviour of the anglo-saxon average public, as well as I don't know the asian one, but I know very well the behaviour of the average italian (latin too?) public, and believe me, when you are on "historical" mode, a caption (or more captions within the movie) is better and costs nothing. After it, they'll follow you everywhere yuo'll be so crazy to bring them. It's like a warranty about the quality of a part of the movie. They'll think: "ok, you've started seriously, now I follow you: thrill me, teach me and move me... and I'll see the movie many times, and I'll buy the DVD and the tee-shirts too, and maybe I'll get closer to the History, and maybe I'll become a roman re-enactor too, and..." wink:

Just you have to make good captions and put them there in a nice way, along the action, many cinema masters did so, even if for other purposes...

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

But isn't there a danger of alienating or scaring off your audience by making them think they're to be fed a history lesson, rather than watch a good drama? The opening Star Wars caption is quite different, in that it merely gives a summary of prior events and back story so the audience can understand why the good guys are being chased by the bad guys, etc.

The director with an explaining caption signs a contract with the public where he bets his own reputation.

I think you'd be over-complicating it for yourself. It's enough to get it accurate, and by presenting the film anyway you've already signed the contract and you're adding smallprint.

The public trusted Kubrick

LSD gave 2001 its box office, but overall Kubrick was a bit of a box office flop (money taken over many years doesn't count - a hit takes loads of money in its first few weeks).
[url:3mcguo3m]http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/0SKUB.php[/url]

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

But isn't there a danger of alienating or scaring off your audience by making them think they're to be fed a history lesson, rather than watch a good drama? The opening Star Wars caption is quite different, in that it merely gives a summary of prior events and back story so the audience can understand why the good guys are being chased by the bad guys, etc.

Could something like this below scaring off the audience or firstly reassuring it a little bit about the cost-benefit ratio of the movie?
Of course the movie has to be an overall fine movie for any other reasons we know.


[size=150:137hann5] Beyond an incredible story,
this movie is also the best cinematographic reconstruction ever
of the civil and military roman world in the IV century AD,
strictly according to the present state of archeological knowledge.[/size]

Vale,

P.S. Barry Lindon reconstruction of the period was bought sight unseen by the public for the very Kubricks' good records in his previous movies, even where flops, their quality of reconstructions/atmospheres was almost (and repeat "almost") matchless... :wink:

[Narukami]

The public trusted Kubrick

LSD gave 2001 its box office, but overall Kubrick was a bit of a box office flop (money taken over many years doesn't count - a hit takes loads of money in its first few weeks).
[url:p0rgfvut]http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/0SKUB.php[/url]

Akira Kruosawa too was noted as a fanatic for historical accuracy and, like Kubrick, his films were never box office block busters even in Japan. (The Japanese considered his films 'too Western.')

And yet...

His films are considered high water marks of cinematic art.

Kurosawa declined to direct the TV mini-series "Shogun" because it was not authentic enough for him.

I do think that story is essential, but it is often the case that the history is more fascinating than the fiction even though many directors do not seem to believe that. They feel the need to "improve" upon history for dramatic effect, politics or reasons both financial and personal. So Commodus dies in the arena, Henry V does not execute the French prisoners taken at Argincourt, and the US Navy captures the German Enigma machine.

Whenever I watch a movie trailer I take the words "Based Upon A True Story" as a warning. The way that phrase is used so widely in Hollywood one might apply it to any film, even Star Wars.

Star Wars -- Based Upon A True Story (only with more Clones!)

:wink:

Narukami

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Obviously, I haven't good sense because I'm choosing to jump into this fray. Many good points have been made. I happened to think of one that has yet to be mentioned. As Jim said, the people don't know what they want until it's shown them. O.K. But there is one very large factor to the equation. The Producer. The man with the bankroll.
I believe he has very preconceived notions about what he wants to see.
I imagine a team of people doing good research and at the meeting being told," What the hell's this crap. Those aren't Romans. I want ---, I want---
I'm not putting my money behind something that looks like that."
S'good t' be da' King. But it still doesn't make him right. Think Caligula or Nero.

[Narukami]

I think you are quite right Andy, and that is one reason why we keep seeing the same old 'Hollywood Romans' film after film after film.

It does not matter what the history books say, or what the researchers uncover, or even what the conscientious costume designer comes up with, if the director or the producer walk in and say "That doesn't look like an Ancient Roman...!"

In the old Jack Benny Film "To Be Or Not To Be" a stage actor makes his entrance dressed as Hitler. The play's director stops the rehearsal. "Who did this make up? He's all wrong. He doesn't look like Hitler."

The director then spots a painting of Hitler hanging on the set. "There," he points, "that's Hitler!"

"But Mr. Director," replies the exasperated actor, "that painting was made of me."

The director, not to be confounded by an actor, replies with finality, "Well, the picture's wrong too."

This is not to say that the idea of a Film/TV costume reference guide is a bad idea for it is not. It is in fact an excellent idea. Some directors do care and do try (as noted in previous posts in the thread) and having access to a ready reference like this might help. I doubt it could make the situation any worse.

Narukami

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Thanks, David. Glad to know I'm not out here alone.
I think the guide is a great idea, too. I hope everyone in the industry will at least give it consideration. If it influences just one picture the could be the start of something.

("to be or not to be" is two of my favorite films).

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Andy you're not alone, look at the first page posts, and at the several topics talking about this problem. A lot of people here thinks like you that the producer is the "evil"...

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

Producers aren't exactly evil (except for one or two), but simply put and raise money into very risky ventures, money they are responsible and accountable for (most of the time). They can also act as a buffer to some outrageous demands from directors :wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I think that that's clear enough, Jim. Seen that anyone of us knows that most of producers are simply entrepreneurs, even if sometimes they have more fun than other kind of entrepeneurs:

Carlo Ponti and Sophia Loren

They can also act as a buffer to some outrageous demands from directors

That has not to be happened in Gladiator, where the Scott's heavy siliconed wife Gianina Facio played a ridicolous Maximus' wife character, or did the Romans surgeons already use silicon for swelling lips?

Ridley Scott and Gianina Facio



Coming back to the topic, as told above I believe that:


a) Making accurate historical movies does not cost more

b) Accuracy has not to be, of course, the only quality of the movie

c) Well done captions are not boring

d) Captions can help a great part of the average public to get better (and immediately) into the story right atmosphere

e) Captions, if true and fair, give a historical "brief" to go on the movie and briefly "legalize" in someway its accuracy

f) In the Internet era where anyone can always more easily check in real time the accuracy of practically everything, so, cheating about historical quality it's really stupid and surely will not pay in the future

g) The "old" producer figure, ignorant but sharky, sly and just able to get money is very probably decreed to disappear in the big movies bussiness, where the aware and really competent producers will have an edge over the others, and that is always more perceived by the public

h) Producers face so many quick changes that just who will understand that only taking care of "any" aspects of the movie and perfectly balancing them, they can get a good to sell product

i) From the "low", a flood of skilled newcomers is filling the screens of tons of movies of any size and quality and soon the technology will allow them to level with the Bigs. Five, ten years? Maybe less and the main problem will be just getting visibility among zillions of movies (historical too), but what is a problem now, could not be so soon...

l) So, is not to care about the quality of the recostructions really worth being continued? Or it's better having that easy shrewdness to take a look here since before writing a roman or greek script or making the whole movie? Avoiding anyway to choose the wrong "experts", of course... :wink:

Valete,

[Tarbicus]

Well, if you're making a movie, it's your movie :wink:

I wouldn't presume though that because a producer is a "fat cat" type he/she doesn't live, breathe, etc, movies, and doesn't appreciate or support the non-financial side of them, and don't forget they're the ones who usually hire the director and writer. Just look at the Weinsteins and Scott Rudin - classic modern mogul types who have taken some very risky and laudable projects from idea to paper to screen.

[petrinus]

so what is the definitive work or works on arms and equipment for the legionaire thus far? i should like to order it very much. -gratis

[ambrosius]

Hi Jim,

good question. But I think the movie makers want to be on the ‚safe side’ :

Old ‘proven’ stereotypes are a trigger for emotions, feelings and atmosphere. The audience was trained by Hollywood movies and other media for many decades. So showing the stereotypes pulls the triggers. They want to play ‘organ’ on the spectators, not tune them up or issue new instruments… Okay, a director can achieve the same or better effect or result by his own work. But he has to be very good then and it needs a lot of effort. So they avoid any ‘risks’ and march the old beattracks. I think IF a director will make a successful movie with decent (and different!) costumes, others will follow.

That's right. And to be fair to the media, a lot of the more recent T.V.
documentaries have made huge improvements in how they portray
late Romans of the Principate versus early Imperial, for example.
The BBC recently ran a series of doccos from the time of Caesar up
through Constantine and Honorius. And the late Roman equipment
was more or less right. For the Battle of Milvian Bridge, for example,
Constantine's forces were dressed in mail with Intercissa(?) helmets,
carrying spathas on the left and even throwing plumbatae rather
than pila. The standards were dracos and the Labarum (of course). 8)
Curiously, though, they'd obviously done a deal with our friends at
Deepeeka for a job-lot of the Imperial Cavalry Spatha, rather than the
late Spatha, figuring that nobody would notice the difference (even
Constantine, himself, was carrying one). But it was mostly a big
improvement on what's gone before, only a few years earlier.

Susanna mentioned another point: entertainment. Perhaps intelligence is decreasing more and more? Many modern people have to process a lot of different data every day. Others are just able to consume bite-sized or pre-chewed information. The TV and movie industry seems to consider the latter type being representative for all…

That's true. Entertainment is definitely geared for those with only a
passing interest in any given historical period and (so the producers
obviously assume) a short attention span. But audiences are becoming
more discerning all the time, and producers have to cater for that
by being more authentic in their portrayals. But it will take time to
get the bulk of Hollywood to accept that Roman soldiers at the battle
of Chalons were not running around in Segmentata and Attic helmets
(and nor would most of them have even been Italian in origin).

Sunday I saw a surviving copy of the Gutenberg bible (great!), reminding me that 550 years ago an ingenious craftsman printed that masterwork and books became available to common people. How much modern people have problems to read and are used to mouse-click and watching the TV screen instead?

Then its just up to people like us to get the facts out there onto the
internet and the T.V. screen. :wink:

There was a historical epic of the English Civil War made a couple of
years ago called: To Kill A King. The musketeers were wearing
pikemen's helmets. The producers didn't think to ask the Cromwell
Association - we could have told them (and the authentic felt hats
would even have been cheaper to make than the helmets, too)! 8)

Ambrosius / Mike