IJBM: The excessive influence of classical antiquity on Western culture and its media applications.

MadassAlex

If you've been to the cinema, anywhere, ever, there's probably a Hollywood film concerning the Romans, Greeks or both playing. At the very least, you'll find at least one each blockbuster season. It'll be a film made by Americans, probably, and the accents will usually be English. And there will almost certainly be the pattern of imperialism -- usually, Rome and her soldiers are righteous. If they are not, then the protagonist will be a Roman working against Roman corruption, or a victim of the same. 

But the protagonist, with little exception, is almost certainly Roman. Sometimes, the story itself doesn't even need to concern Rome. 2004's mediocre King Arthur, drawn from a story of Welsh origin, contains no Welsh people and the titular character is Roman. This is a really interesting pattern, because it's the same essential concept as, say, The Last Samurai -- an outsider to the culture in question becomes its definitive member. And, critically, the outsider is from an aggressive, imperialist movement that sits opposed to the culture. And I can't help but think that Hollywood's interpretation of the reluctantly imperialistic Roman protagonist is a form of social detox, particularly given the military position the USA has been in for the last decade. 

I understand that there's something comforting in the capacity for the aggressors to be the good guys, and that the culture of the USA may well be in need of that anodyne given the very tenuous basis for the War on Terror. But through Hollywood, and through the popularity of these films, the creative professionals of the USA are making a very clear statement -- they are comparing their nation to Rome, and themselves to Romans. While it's well worth considering the virtues of Rome, it's just as valuable to remember that Rome, ultimately, was a violent aggressor to almost all of its neighbours. There is a famous account of a Roman legion, under direct imperial authority, butchering a population of Gaulish Celtic refugees who had been promised mercy. 

It just concerns me that, without question, much of modern society accepts the examples of classical antiquity with little if any question. There's much celebration of the strengths of these societies, and with good reason, but I believe much too little recognition for their failings -- and they certainly did fail, because those societies ultimately died. If anything, they seem mostly preserved by the power of fandom, especially the fandom of powerful and influential people. Which, I suppose, stands to reason. 

/2c

lrdgck

The part about King Arthur the film is that it was based on real theories about historicity of King Arthur. Can't say they did it well, but they tried. There was a real Roman commander in Britain going by the name Artorius or something like that, I think they made the film character his descendant. The problem lies in that for an attempt at re-historizing the story (if I may say so), they did a rather poor job at keeping to these facts that we know of. Plus they threw in something that is always in fashion, some bashing of the Catholic Church, and the hero having a very modern set of opinions.

Zennistrad

You know, now that I think about it I'd really like to see an Asterix movie. It'd be a perfect opportunity to cast the Romans as the bad guys.

lrdgck

You say it like there wasn't an Asterix movie. But Asterix is not a good example. The Romans are more like silly and laughable victims of Gaulish magic potion-powered violence that they brought down on themselves, than truly bad. Caesar himself, for all his pride and desire to conquer the entirety of Gaul, is a pretty honorable guy.

Ironweaver

Eight animated and four live-action ones, in fact.

Kraken

Cultural inertia's a weird thing.

RedEyedAbyss

I guess 300 goes without saying. Speaking of which, I'd like to see an Ancient Persian movie to make up for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_set_in_ancient_Persia

3 about Alexander the Great, 4 about Esther, and 1 based on a fantasy video game. At least that last one is better than nothing.

I do remember the controversy Hero raised about being pro-totalitarianism. Really, though, I don't expect serious critical thought out of a blockbuster movie designed to make buttloads of money. There are bigger fish to fry in regards to ethnocentrism, such as the traditional history of science narrative is overwhelmingly Greco-Roman, with China and the Arab nations getting only footnotes.

Honestly, I don't get your title. It seems by making the point that the USA loves to compare itself to Rome (a fitting analogy in positive and negative senses), American culture has more influence on the portrayal of classical antiquity than anything.

Kraken

China back then was pretty different to current society.

Naas

2004's mediocre King Arthur, drawn from a story of Welsh origin, contains no Welsh people and the titular character is Roman. This is a really interesting pattern, because it's the same essential concept as, say, The Last Samurai -- an outsider to the culture in question becomes its definitive member.

Yeah, like lrdgck said, there is some basis for Arthur being a Roman, although I have no idea whether that's why said movie did that.

I do remember the controversy Hero raised about being pro-totalitarianism.

Which Hero is this? Seems there's a bunch of films with the title.

vandro

The Jet-Li one.

lrdgck

Besides, after all the centuries of fascination with Romanitas, with all the plenty of Americans priding themselves on their no matter how distant Irish roots, it would be unjust to claim Hollywood makes films about Romans simply because it makes them feel better.

 

Edit: I've recently discovered that TVT has an entry about pretty much what we speak of in here - "TheGreatestHistoryNeverTold".