12857 réponses à ce sujet

[tklivory]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

MY MONEY is on 20 years from now most people will be saying, "Remember whe everyone thought China was finally going to become a world power?"

They got where they are today in 30 years, hell the real drive began just one decade ago for real.

Don't underestimate them.

I'm with Costin on this.

China has never been a hegemonic (is that even a word? hegemony - hegemoniacal - ah, screw it) world power because, culturally, it didn't fit into their ethos or amibition to look beyond their borders.

In the last 90 years, that has begun to shift, and an Imperial expansionist outlook is slowly, ever so slowly, creeping into their viewpoint.

They have more people, more resources, and more arable land than any other country.

So no, I don't think they're going away any time soon. I think the first real space colony will most likely speak Mandarin because the English speakers will still be arguing about whether we need to balance the ****ing budget.

Modifié par tklivory, 05 décembre 2011 - 09:55 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Hanz54321 wrote...

The notion that the Roman Empire was nothing special is borderline trolling.

I mean c'mon - most of Western Society is still modelled after the Roman Empire today. That's two millenia plus a couple centuries.

You're just trying to ef with Costin, right?

People give them credit for everything.  Most of western society is not modeled after them, and their influence was bad as well as good.

I am curious, what influence do you deem bad? And is it bad to the point where you think that Europe and the world owuld have been better off without the empire?

Objectively speaking, no morality please.

[Addai]

For instance, the revival of Roman law in the 16th century overturned a lot of customary law that was more fair and equitable. This wasn't the dead Romans' fault, of course- but is an example of "credit" that is a mixed bag.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I agree. But such is the fascination for golden ages. Many fall into that trap of refusing to adapt to a new world or failing to distinguish between inspiration and rigidity.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 décembre 2011 - 12:30 .

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I agree. But such is the fascination for golden ages. Many fall into that trap of refusing to adapt to a new world or failing to distinguish between inspiration and rigidity.

Tell me about it.  My favorite "let's bring back olden times" gone wrong trend was the whole "neo-classical" architectural movement a couple of centuries ago... All grey and lifeless buildings patterned after Greek architecture without the vibrancy of the paint and color that we know was part of all Greek public statues/buildings/etc. 

They were trying to pull austerity from a culture that was anything but austere because that's what they thought was important.

Modifié par tklivory, 06 décembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[tklivory]

Hanz54321 wrote...

edit:  And not just on these boards - this is a topic of discussion that comes up a lot in my life.  At work, during social gatherings, when I travel.  I used to think China was going to be the next superpower but the more information I got, the more I realized I don't believe that.  Anyway - the majority of people I talk to are runnin scared from China because of the media and the US supposed debt to the Chinese.

I'm not scared of the Chinese because of the supposed debt issue - that is an issue that in the long run will dissipate and no longer be important.  My concern is that, when the Chinese decide to do something, it will eventually happen.  These are a people who have a history of being able to plan and execute plans on a generational scale, regardless of who gets affected (within or without).  There isn't a single additional nation who, on a national level, established a family control option as successfully as they did - whatever the results were in terms of personal loss and (as is now) the extreme over-abundance of males in the population.

So, I'm not worried about them 'taking over the wurld' or whatever.  I just worry that they'll decide to do something that we should be concentrating on and do it while we're busy bickering about things that seem so vital now, but in 100 years people won't even remember.

Modifié par tklivory, 06 décembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I watched a movie I never knew existed. About Augustus, which is rare. You can watch it here.

It's not bad actually. I hate what they did to Maecenas. The tactics and battles were just wrong, and the uniforms are wrong (HBO's Rome nailed it on both counts on the otherhand). While I like how they didn't make Augustus a mastermind from the very beginning (like in HBO), I dislike how they sometimes make him sound like an idiot who is way too dependent on Maecenas for political advice. There are quite a few historical innacuracies and ommissions. And some of the acting is bad or just plain annoying (young Livia. Old Livia is awesome).  

But despite all this, I like it. Peter O'Toole (old Augustus) is a powerhouse. The character was done subtly (as opposed to Augustus in HBO's Rome) and was developped. A common trap is to look at things in hindsight and assume that the players involved knew exactly what they were doing. This movie offered a different and perhaps more real interpretation of Augustus, though like I said earlier they sometimes overdid it imo.

I am on the fence when it comes to the ambiguity surrounding some of his acts. For example: I think it's pretty much accepted that when Augustus sent Octavia to Antony in Egypt, he knew exactly what was going to happen but still used and manipulated his sister to get his war. In the movie, Octavia accuses him of that but he keeps on denying. Now he could be lying, but the movie perhaps keeps it too ambiguous. In the movie, Antony is shown as the aggressor and betrayer of the Triumvirate while Octavian was loyal and did not wish war, whereas it's also accepted that Octavian always wanted to be the sole ruler of Rome and wanted to eliminate Antony by all means.
 
That all being said, since movies on Augustus are very rare or non-existent, I will take what I can find. It's enjoyable if one can look past these flaws. I very much like how they interpretted the relationship between Augustus and Livia when they were old (on the other hand, I did not like how their relationship is portrayed when they were young). It's sublte and multi-faceted.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 décembre 2011 - 02:46 .

[tklivory]

Peter O'Toole... Maker, that man is an amazing actor, although I love his two portrayals of Henry II the best. Although even his stint as Tiberius in that otherwise not-so-good movie that shall remain unnamed was a bright spot in an otherwise ?? movie. I shall definitely have to watch this when I have 3 hours time to do so... Thanks for finding it, KoP!

What do you think of I Claudius vis a vis the portrayal of the same historical figures? Obviously a far different animal, but it starts with Augustus and then uses fictional tropes to analyze his legacy. It's why I still think of Brian Blessed when I think of Augustus...

[Costin_Razvan]

A MOVIE about the most demonized guy in our history and the most demonized Empire?! HERESY!

[tklivory]

 BLASPHEMY!  poppycock!  TREASON!  (sorry, i just... can't... resist... silliness sometimes...)  Also, curious if BSN will auto-correct that second word. 

Wait, the Italians made that movie?  Huh, way cool!

And you're right... a movie is not *nearly* long enough time... 
 
And if you want demonization of evil dictators done right, well, i have a little movie clip I'd like to you to watch...

EDIT: it didn't edit it out, but lowered the case from upper to lowercase?   I love the filters here...

Modifié par tklivory, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
What do you think of I Claudius vis a vis the portrayal of the same historical figures? Obviously a far different animal, but it starts with Augustus and then uses fictional tropes to analyze his legacy. It's why I still think of Brian Blessed when I think of Augustus...

I watched it a very long time ago and didn't like it. But I do not remember it that much.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

A MOVIE about the most demonized guy in our history and the most demonized Empire?! HERESY!

One that is for the most part positive to boot.

I'd like to watch a movie about Diocletian. Now there's a hated demonized guy.

[tklivory]

The variance in portrayals of historical figures intrigues me. Even absolutely absurd ones (like Genghis Khan in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" or Napoleon in Woody Allen's "Love and Death"), while not in any way accurate to the character, show what the tropes and expectations regarding the character are (Genghis Khan was a mighty warrior dude, and Napoleon is short and horny).

And then you get different 'serious' portrayals based on who made the movie/series. I Claudius is British/BBC, Rome is Hollywood/British combined (a lot of Brits wrote/directed/acted in it), and then the movie you found, which is Italian, so they view Augustus as their own.

And I can't remember, was Augustus in the movie Cleopatra? Like, at the end?

Anyway, moving on...

Diocletian... Ancient BAMF. But, demonized *mostly* for wrong reasons. In that case, history was truly written by the winners.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yes Augustus was in Cleopatra. It was historically inaccurate at some points. And Augustus is of course portrayed as the evil conniving heartless politician, as opposed to the romantic nice guy that was Antony (roll eyes).



Still was my favorite character and I was happy that he won. Cleopatra and Antony annoyed me to no end in that movie.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[tklivory]

How could I forget that Augustus? I love Roddy McDowall *facepalm*. Hmmm, I might have to watch the last few minutes of that now.

Ooh, don't get me started on Antony as a romantic figure. That was one of my favorite parts about Rome the series, was the (more) accurate portrayal of Antony's character (if not the actual facts). I could totally see him taking a shepherd girl in the middle of a herd of sheep just for the S&G. Plus, I like Mark Purefoy a lot (not as much as Roddy or Peter, but a lot).

And, to be fair, it *was* Roddy playing Augustus. Evil and conniving just kinda work with him if he's not wearing a mask.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Antony in Rome was a bit overdone imo. But I think it was deliberate, to shock people who are more likely to think that his portrayal in Cleopatra was accurate. I still like him, but I do not think the real Antony was as much of a horny brute.

I do think that Antony in the movie Augustus was closer to the real one (though Augustus was portrayed as too innocent with regards to their conflict. I love the guy precisely because he wasn't innocent).

As for Caesar, my favorite thus far is the one in Rome.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 08:11 .

[tklivory]

I agree about the overdone bit, but when Antony is in the minds of most Americans as the Antony from Cleopatra, I also agree with the choice of the producers to introduce a bit of a shock. I remember talking to someone in college who thought Caesar was a romantic hero and Antony was the Roman equivalent of Abraham Lincoln but sexy. Yeah, no. (Wasn't the shepherd girl one of his first scenes? Way to make an entrance. o.O i may be wrong about that, but oh well)

And there's no way Octavian could have been innocent in politics, because he was part of one of the great Roman families to whom politics was bread and butter. That'd be like expecting a someone born to power in the Fujiwara clan during the Edo period to be clueless of how to work with the daimyo and Shogun. Just... doesn't jibe.

Some English monarchs do come to mind when I think of political cluelessness, though...

[Morwen Eledhwen]

tklivory wrote...

What do you think of I Claudius vis a vis the portrayal of the same historical figures? Obviously a far different animal, but it starts with Augustus and then uses fictional tropes to analyze his legacy. It's why I still think of Brian Blessed when I think of Augustus...

Brian Blessed's portrayal of Augustus was as of a sort of overgrown Head Boy, if I recall, who then quickly degenerated into Cranky Old Man in his final years. The books by Robert Graves do give him both of those characteristics, but of course they also have the luxury of adding several other layers that the films just don't catch. The BBC series is entertaining, of course, but that portrayal of Augustus did always bother me. If he was truly like that (and only like that), I don't think we would still have a month named after him.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antony in Rome was a bit overdone imo. But I think it was deliberate, to shock people who are more likely to think that his portrayal in Cleopatra was accurate. I still like him, but I do not think the real Antony was as much of a horny brute.

I do think that Antony in the movie Augustus was closer to the real one (though Augustus was portrayed as too innocent with regards to their conflict. I love the guy precisely because he wasn't innocent).

As for Caesar, my favorite thus far is the one in Rome.

Pretty much this.

However, much as I love Ciaran Hinds as Caesar (ROME), Rex Harrison had that touch of genius AND dry wit, charm, dignity and hinted vulnerability package....most of which Hinds lacked.

And McDowall remains my favorite Octavian. Esp. in the restored version Of "Cleopatra". (Still TWO hours missing though)

Modifié par Persephone, 07 décembre 2011 - 08:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
However, much as I love Ciaran Hinds as Caesar (ROME), Rex Harrison had that touch of genius AND dry wit, charm, dignity and hinted vulnerability package....most of which Hinds lacked.

I thought Hinds had all of that. Quite well in fact. I found Harrison in Cleopatra to be mostly forgettable. Then again, the entire movie annoys me so it could be why.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...
However, much as I love Ciaran Hinds as Caesar (ROME), Rex Harrison had that touch of genius AND dry wit, charm, dignity and hinted vulnerability package....most of which Hinds lacked.

I thought Hinds had all of that. Quite well in fact. I found Harrison in Cleopatra to be mostly forgettable. Then again, the entire movie annoys me so it could be why.

It is a grand old Hollywood spectacle. Harrison carried the movie IMO. When Caesar died, the movie lost its spark.

And as for Hinds: Slapping Servilia (Not badass but ridiculous....never mind that history's Caesar never left her. That annoys me....) , being far TOO enthralled by Cleo (And a Cleo with zero of the actual one's wit, charm, learning....meh).....things like that annoy me far more than the old Cleo movie. (Which didn't turn Cleo into a drug addict but gave her SOME dignity) 

I loved Ciaran Hinds in "Rome". It's the far more moronic inaccuracies re: his character that make me both love and hate his Caesar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Cleo in that movie had artificial forced dignity not supported by anything else. Sure, Cleo in Rome was ridiculous, but so was Taylor's Cleo imo, in large part because unlike ROME, they were trying to not make her ridiculous. At least ROME did not pretend that Caesar loved her or that this was a romantic story.

There is not a single portrayal of Cleo that I like thus far. I watched a Syrian-Egyptian series about her and it was ridiculous beyond belief (they used the Cleo movie as their source).

I thought the Cleo movie had a lot of moronic innacuracies and romantization of Caesar's "vision" and the events surrounding his death. I thought ROME handled it much better. It portrayed Caesar as a sympathetic tyrant who lost his life because of naivety / stupidity. It didn't attempt to over-glorify him, whereas Cleoptra tried and in my eyes failed.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:09 .

[tklivory]

I *hated* Cleo in Rome, but the writing more than the actress. One of the few characters I didn't like (or at least like to hate) in that series. She just came off... like, well, like Dailana - someone who was in over her head and trying to be clever but failing.

And I do like Harrison better than Burton in the old Cleo movie, but Roddy totally steals the show at the end. Like Roddy does. *hugs him close* I want an ape mask, too!

As for which Caesar is best... I think the writers were going for such different Caesars that they both work within the context of the tropes they were emphasizing. Just like I like the Caligula in Anno Domini (old TV miniseries that probably no one else has heard of) better than Caligula in I Claudius even though John Hurt is, well, John Hurt.