Posted on 07/20/2004 9:45:48 AM PDT by quidnunc
From my female viewpoint, Xena is better. Not only just looks better, but doesn't have that stupid paint. ;-) This 1 looks like death warmed over - and the mold is starting to grow.
"film industry hasn't had a tendency to be kind to Christianity at all, period."
Oh absolutely! But Catholics w/their very visible stand-out clergy and structure are easier targets.
He also believed in radical free willism and works righteousness.
I am not attempting to defend the historical inaccuracy of the film's portrayal of events. I know Rome invaded Britannia long before there were Christians in Rome.
I was making that remark against the idea that conquerors and empire-builders that use a religion as their front are worthy of that criticism.
Hollywood types NEVER get the Arthurian mythos right. Although...visually "Camelot" was well done. Still, that was just a musical...
Maybe they should have put Whoopi Goldberg in this one. No doubt she would figured out a way to cuss at Catholic Christians.
I throw down the gauntlet for Mel Gibson and Icon to take up the challenge and make a correctly Celtic and Christian Arthurian/Holy Grail film.
I respectfully disagree. Keira Knightley is more attractive. And I kinda like the paint! ;o)
He did not. Men who decided they wanted to speak for him did.
The roots of the anti-Catholic bigotry among Hollywood types are not exactly a deep arcane mystery buried under some mountain in the south of France. And they pre-date existing church scandals of the last few years.
I just love these new movies with the pretty women actresses WITH SCRAWNY LITTLE ARMS who play a gladiator or judo expert who takes out 10 large beefy men at a time.
In real life they would get their a** kicked, then raped.
I saw it in LORings, Van Helsing etc. Every new movie today has the female as an expert killer of some type who takes out men at ease. No wonder the violence rate of females is going throught he roof.
That would be from the Koran.
It was awful! Totally destroys the King Author story, and I am sorry I saw it. Just sad.:-(
Actually, they can't. Only people who actually know the history of Roman Britain can judge whether or not your brother misrepresents that history.
The historical Arthur (Artorius Castus) was a Romano-Celtic leader of the fifth century, who helped repel Saxon invasions for 30-40 years. His true biography is not known, but the events in the film were quite possible.
The historical Lucius Artorius Castus did not live in the 5th century. He lived in the 2nd century. He was the leader of the Roman legion known as VI Victrix which was sent to defend Hadrian's Wall in 181 AD. This is a matter of historical record.
He also served Rome in France and Croatia.
The Saxon invasions of England did not begin until the 4th century at the very earliest, so Castus died 200 years before the Saxons reached Britain.
He did not serve in Britain for 30-40 years, he served in Britain for 4 years before he was reassigned to Armorica (northern France) in 185 AD.
The historical Arthur does seem to have been based near Hadrian's wall, not in Cornwall or Glastonbury as legend tells.
This is true, but Hadrian's Wall was abandoned before the Saxon invasions, and the Saxons did not invade England from the North over Hadrian's Wall. No one in the 5th century had any knowledge of the Wall except as an abandoned ruin.
Sarmatians (from Russia) were used as mercenaries or pressed into service, and they were stationed at Hadrian's Wall.
This is false. The Sarmatians were enemies of Rome when Castus was alive. There is no record that any Sarmatians were recruited forcibly for the Roman Army until 374 AD at the earliest. Hadrian's Wall was no longer of military importance by then.
We don't know anything about Arthur's followers (the familiar names, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. were borrowed from medieval accounts for the film), but it is entirely possible that some of them were Sarmatian.
We know very well that Castus' VI Victrix legion came from Campania in Italy. There were no Sarmatians living in Campania in 181 AD.
Merlin as leader of the Celtic "Woads" is also fine. "Merlin" was a title, not a name, and referred to a druid or shaman in an advisory or leadership capacity.
There was no such tribe as the "Woads", we have very little knowledge of how Druidic "shamans" fit into Celtic society since they left no records and the word "merlin" is neither a title nor a Celtic word. It is a Germanic word and it means "falcon."
The Pictish peoples of the north and the Celts did paint themselves with blue woad. The women were as fierce as the men in combat (attested to in many Roman writings); boys were sent to women for combat training.
Celtic peoples did paint themselves with woad. But there are no Roman texts that suggest that Celtic women regularly took part in combat or that women trained Celtic boys in the military arts. This is made up out of whole cloth.
The depiction of Arthur as a Pelagian was brilliant and undoubtedly lost on 99.9% of the movie-going public.
It is about as brilliant as depicting Abraham Lincoln as Britney Spears fan.
Pelagius was born almost 200 years after Castus died.
Pelagius was a Celtic monk (and possibly a former druid) who advocated greater individual freedom of thought.
Pelagius was not an advocate of "free thought" - this is a silly modernization. He was an advocate of his own opinions and harshly criticized others for daring to disagree with him.
His ideas were very popular in Britain, but his movement was crushed by the authoritarian Church.
His ideas were not popular in Britain, which is why he left there as a young man and came to Rome to try pushing his ideas in a more cosmopolitan setting. Pelagianism was never a popular movement in Britain - its stronghold was North Africa.
The Church was neither authoritarian nor did it crush his ideas. Pelagius lived freely for decades within walking distance of the Papal court. He was never arrested or bothered in any way - but his ideas were preached against. Pelagianism existed for more than two hundred years after he died, it was hardly "crushed."
The depiction of the Church as corrupt and greedy even at that point was highly accurate.
It was actually highly inaccurate. The Church was probably the only institution in 2nd or 5th century Rome that was not corrupt. This is simply a bald asserion without evidence. The Church of that period was led by Roman nobles (like Ambrose, Leo, and later, Gregory the Great) who had renounced their family fortunes and donated them to the poor in order to live purer lives.
The sets were authentic, the costuming very good, even the use of the fragmented Pictish language was a nice touch.
The sets were highly inauthentic. Romanesque architecture 500 years too early? The use of Germanic symbolism and motifs among Celtic peoples? Please.
Additionally, there are no remaining records of the Pictish language, other than their name and the guess that certain Scottish place names might have been originally Pictish.
We have no idea how to translate any word of Pictish into any other language - we do not even know any definite Pictish words.
The only anachronism I spotted was the Saxon use of the crossbow, a weapon not found in Europe, I believe, until the 12th century.
Wow, sharp eyes.
I was just commenting on her appearance. Obviously to each his/her(?) own!
But now that you bring it up....Xena is better that way, too! LOL she actually had some beef!
If you know absolutely nothing about history, then don't make such ignorant, sweeping statements.
(1) The Romans who invaded Britain were pagans, not Christians.
(2) The Romans who Christianized Britain 300 years after the original conquest came as unarmed missionaries who set up schools and monasteries in the wilderness.
These missionaries never raised a weapon in anger against pagans - to the contrary they were the victims of violence.
See #65.
Yes, of course. [irony] As Hollywooders and card-carrying liberals know, All Catholics everywhere are always corrupt and greedy, right?
Lot of torture of heretics going on out at Notre Dame...
She hot. I just recently learned that the name "Jennifer" is the modern version of the name "Guinevere." I thought that was interesting, and made me wonder how the old version was actually pronounced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.