Hollywood goes to Ancient Rome!

[gorgik9]

I've said it before, but once again I'll have to say it seems to me that posting threads of which I'm not entirely sure in what area to post it is sort of my destiny:blushing:

This thread will be a tread about two of my biggest interests - Hollywood cinema (oh, maybe not only Hollywood, but predominantly) and ancient classical culture (but this time more Roman than Greek). In particular I'll look into two specific aspects of the movies:
a) what the movies takes for granted about Roman sexuality;

b) the movies visual presentation of Ancient Rome, in particular it's colors.

But I wanted to start the thread on a deeply personal note to "excavate" - to use an archeological methaphor - some of the drives behind most things I do, on GH and in life in general. I want to "un-earth" my personal fight with western heteronormativity, speaking in academese.

So let's take a stroll down memory lane together with me, to the 1970s and to the deep Swedish countryside!

In my childhood and youth, I grew up in a small village - and we're talking seriously SMALL, about 350 people - dominated by working class people and farmers, and I got into puberty in the early 1970s. Ahhh...those were the horny days...So I had a small group of close friends, wanking together, sucking together, fucking together...

In many ways my teenage days were great, lots of fun, lots of sex, lots of friendship. But I didn't say "and we were all gay" - we really didn't care. First of all, we were horndogs. I had my own band of horny brothers.

But at the same time, I grew more and more alienated from Swedish culture and society. Why? Well, what about all stories and images that SHOULD have been there. I KNEW better than all the teacher's and grown-up's and doctors and journalists and politico's etc etc etc, that boys like to look at boys, touching boys, having sex with boys - but there weren't any stories, and no relevant images. (Why is this important? Well go read philosopher Charles Taylor, or cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz : Man is, for fuck's sake, Homo Narrans, the Storytelling Animal.)

Instead I had to wallow in inane pop songs, and movies and TV-series and magazines, all about boys and girls and boys and girls and boys and girls....and on and on and on and on...

Good Lord, I was totally uninterested in Carol...


...I definitely didn't run around Sue...


...and I couldn't care less about Barbara Ann...


...and no, I didn't become a believer just because I saw her face...


What I wanted? TUTTI FRUTTI :rofl::rofl::rofl:


(But the original Tutti Frutti-text, please...)

OK, I was incredibly naïve, but I wasn't stupid. There's really something fishy going on, when the whole of Western society "tells the truth" to teenage boys, that the "only thing" they should be interested in is houling as a teenage wolf after girls...:duh:

In my twenties, I went to the university and soon could start connecting new themes and do some serious questioning.

I had been fond of movies and TV-series already as a kid, but getting into a bit of film studies gave me possibilities to engage in some more structured thinking, and from another direction came a rather newfound love: Classical Greek and Roman culture.

Now I definitely KNEW that there were so many other stories that could be told. Well, those interests and thoughts laid the earliest foundations to the thread I'm about to start!

 

[gorgik9]

As I said before, we'll be dealing with two distinct aspects of movies with Classical themes.

The discussion on ancient sexuality will have close connection to what I talked about in the post above, but I'll start with the visual presentation of ancient Rome in Hollywood movies.

To be more precise, take a good look at the representation of Roman architecture and sculpture in the following series of YouTube-clips, where most - but not all - of the clips are trailers.

Quo Vadis 1951, director Mervyn LeRoy.


The Robe 1953, director Henry Koster.


Demetrius and the Gladiators 1954, director Delmer Daves.


Ben-Hur 1959, director William Wyler.


Spartacus 1960, director Stanley Kubrick.


Cleopatra 1963, director Joseph L. Mankiewicz.


Fall of the Roman Empire 1964, director Anthony Mann.


Gladiator 2000, director Ridley Scott.



The most important thing is so common and taken-for-granted in most popular visual representations of ancient greco-roman cities, that you maybe don't notice it at all - the almost blindening whiteness in architecture and sculpture, all those mountains of white fake marbles. Even if it's sometimes not purely white (let's say pale blue-gray or pale light green), the important thing is - NO INTENSE SPLASHY COLORS!
In particular the sculpture must be strictly monochrome white marbles. Absolutely no splashy polychrome sculptures. Never. Ever.

But this monochrome whiteness was and is totally unhistorical, totally fake.

 

[W!nston]

Thank you once again gorgik for an fascinating thread gorgik

I look forward to more about this subject.

 

[garth33]

So let's take a stroll down memory lane together with me, to the 1970s and to the deep Swedish countryside!

In my childhood and youth, I grew up in a small village - and we're talking seriously SMALL, about 350 people - dominated by working class people and farmers, and I got into puberty in the early 1970s. Ahhh...those were the horny days...So I had a small group of close friends, wanking together, sucking together, fucking together...

In many ways my teenage days were great, lots of fun, lots of sex, lots of friendship. But I didn't say "and we were all gay" - we really didn't care. First of all, we were horndogs. I had my own band of horny brothers.

But at the same time, I grew more and more alienated from Swedish culture and society. Why? Well, what about all stories and images that SHOULD have been there. I KNEW better than all the teacher's and grown-up's and doctors and journalists and politico's etc etc etc, that boys like to look at boys, touching boys, having sex with boys - but there weren't any stories, and no relevant images.

I don't want to sidetrack this gorgy but I'm very interested in hearing more about your experiences growing up in rural Sweden. I grew up in rural area of the US (If you throw a dart at a map of North America a bullseye would be where I grew up) Like you - my friends and I had fun and experimented but it was also frowned upon by society and NEVER EVER talked about either. I would have thought Sweden was more "liberal" - even back then. (and NOT just because of the Sauna thing)

peace!
g33

 

[brmstn69]

It can all be traced to the rise of Abrahamic religions and monotheism. Hedonism was considered a trait of paganism and thus an affront to the one true God. Sex was for pro-creation only, not for pleasure. Therefore, sex between anyone other than a husband and wife was sin.

Pagans such as the Roman and Greeks pretty much believed that girls were for marriage and boys were for fun...

 

[gorgik9]

Hello guys!

I'm very happy if you like my new thread, since it's one of the most personal I've written.

And especially to g33 - I'm so glad having a fellow country boy reading this stuff!!!

 

[gorgik9]

But how, when and why did all this white marbles-nonsense come about?

I'll give you a series of videos dealing with those questions.
The first is about the fundamental question: How do we KNOW that ancient greek and roman sculpture and architecture were "in color".

The second is about why the knowledge of colors has been forgotten, and how "a white Europe" could emerge.

Then there's two small vids with color-reconstructions, the first with Greek sculpture mostly from the sixth century B.C. (i.e from the archaic period); the second from Imperial Rome.

1) How do we know?


2) Why was it forgotten?


3) Greek archaic sculpture.


4) Roman Imperial sculpture.



And then a few famous American "end results" of the forgetfulness of colors.

The aptly named White House and Congress in Washington, D.C., aren't the only examples of big mountains of white marbles in public representative architecture in the U.S. The same goes with most state capitols.

The White House and federal Congress


Minnesota State Capitol


Virginia State Capitol


Kansas State Capitol


Georgia State Capitol


But my next post will - at last, finally!!! - be about much foxier and funkier business: Roman sexuality. Or rather: Hollywoods fundamental misunderstandings of Roman sexuality.

 

[haiducii]

Oh, what a great

present

Gorgik has finally released his long-awaited thread about american misunderstandings of ancient cultures. :thumbs up:

Thanks a lot for your knowledge and for sharing it with us!

I look forward to reading your next discussion. :nail biting:

 

[bigsal]

Do not forget that the colors fade away with time.

To be able to see some colors from the Roman period, you have to visit the archaeological sites of Pompeii and Herculaneum, preserved thanks to many years have remained buried by the ashes of Vesuvius. (See link)

http://anon.projectarchive.net/?http://www.pompeiisites.org/

As for the photos of the palaces congress, apart from the "Virginia State Capitol," rather than palaces of Imperial Rome, are more like palaces of the Vatican State.

 

[trencherman]

Ah, right up my alley Gorgic9. We are almost exact contemporaries and I too sharpened my gay teeth on so called historic epics, peplum sagas and sword and sandals flicks as others call ‘em. I eagerly await the entirety of your
commentaries.

Dwight Macdonald in his review of the movie Ben Hur also wondered about the gleaming whiteness of the buildings in Rome at the start of its decline. Aside from his snicker about Haya Harereet’s name, here is how he summarily blasted the blockbuster.

"I found 'Ben-Hur' bloody in every way -- bloody bloody and bloody boring. Watching it was like waiting at a railroad crossing while an interminable freight train lumbers past. ... There was not even a decent, or indecent, Roman orgy, the only valid excuse for making a Biblical picture. Instead of sex, 'Ben-Hur' gives us sadism. ... In short, here is a film that tries to debauch whatever taste, feeling or simple common sense Hollywood and religion have left us."

 

[ihno]

(...)

 

[ihno]

(...)

 

[gorgik9]

I had to post a few words of gratitude to Bigsal and ihno. I've read your posts with great interest, but - alas! - GH has been on a very quirky mood with lots of Database error and/or Gateway timeouts today (or rather yesterday)...not very funny...and when I finally could login again it was just a short while ago, I realize I'm so tired I'll have to go to bed...

So I hope that the forum will have a better mood tomorrow, so I can give you the serious response you deserve!

 

[Dendood]

And to think just the other day I had a chuckle thinking of Tony Curtis barreling his way through "ancient" sets with his heavy east coast accent.

"Spartacus. Spartacus." Indeed.

Great thread. (I love it when there are pictures.)

 

[gorgik9]

I couldn't just leave the important comments from Bigsal and ihno without some serious response from my side.

First of all, your comments have pointed to my need to clarify some things and I'll do my best to handle this need.

Secondly, if there's any real disagreement between me and the two of you, it's probably that I think you both have a tendency to look upon the problematic of monochromy versus polychromy as if it was only a question of historical facts. But I think the really tricky business is monochromy as not only the artistic-aesthetic ideal for a very long time, but also the powerful symbol of Western/European identity: Looking at monochrome sculpture and architecture, that's when "we" truly know that "we're" Europeans, Westerner's, and not Egyptians, Indians, Chineese etc.

But at the same time, I think it's my own fault that I haven't been clear and explicit enough on this important point.

So to hopefully clarify a few things and since I couldn't be more in agreement with Bigsal on the immense importance of the excavations of Pompeji and Herculaneum from the mid-18th century on, lets talk about what one early visiters to the excavations said and wrote.

I'm talking about Johann Joachim Winckelmann who in the first edition of his magnum opus "Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums" (1764) wrote about the very well preserved and painted sculpture of Artemis/Diana: "Since it's obviously painted, for that reason it cannot be Greek work. It must be something else. It must be Etruscan."

Since it's painted, it cannot be Greek.

But shortly before Winckelmann was murdered in 1768, he got back to that tricky subject of the painted Artemis/Diana from Pompeji, and wrote about his profound change of opinion: This work, in spite of what I said before, must be Greek, and I think we'll have to accept that the Greeks painted their sculpture even in the classical period.

But this change of mind was of no avail, in particular not to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and others who couldn't accept Wickelmann's new polychromist position.

But let's move on to 1814, when the french architect Quatremère de Quincy published a book where he had collected and analyzed all the existant ancient texts that spoke of the subject of painted sculpture.

Quatremère's conclusion was clear: The Ancient's themselves didn't see monochromy.

At the same time - in the middle of the 1810s - a German archeological expedition went to the Afaia-temple on the Greek island of Egina, with some quite spectacular results: Lots of sculpture fragments, and many of them with obvious painting.

But this was just the first archeological excavation in the 19th century that found painted ancient sculpture. The most important of these was the big excavation on Parthenon, Athens, Greece in the mid-1880s: So very many sculptures, so well preserved sculptures, and so obviously painted sculptures.

What happened was, that monochomy in Ancient Greek (and Roman) sculpture and architecture was killed off as a viable scholarly-scientific opinion.

And what has happened during the last few decades is mostly a question of two things:
1) New possibilities to analyze colors on ancient materials where there's no traces of color visible to the human eye, which is a question of sophisticated microscopy and the use of UV- and/or IR-light.
2) Museum curators has stopped thinking it's hunky dory to still exhibit nothing but white marbles when it comes to Ancient sculpture.

I know there's much more to be said, but I seriously think it's time to move on in this thread, from colors to sexuality :cheers:

 

[gorgik9]

Oh I just forgot I should show this example of a contemporary attempt to do something about the popular representations of monochome white Rome.

It's from an episode of the HBO TV-series Rome, season 1.

 

[bigsal]

Dear Gorki, my not wanting to be a criticism to you, on the contrary I really appreciate your posts competent.

I try to be as clear and hoping for a good translation of Google Translator:

in the general ruin of ancient painting, the Romans assimilated in large part by the very civilization Greek painting, imitating the models and techniques and creating countless copies that, as has happened for the sculpture, often allow us to know with a certain approximation the originals .

The extraordinary knowledge of Roman painting is mainly due to the unique conditions of preservation of the Vesuvian cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae, where were found huge quantities of paint, especially wall frescoes. The Pompeian paintings are dated between the second century BC and the date of the eruption, the 79 A.D.

Another big tank Roman paintings are portraits on wood of the mummies of the Fayum in Egypt, dating from the end of the first century BC and half of the third century A.D.

Apart from these wonderful and important finds, little remains of Roman painting, with the exception of the finds (few actually) found in the necropolis and catacombs, places sheltered from sunlight and from the elements of weather phenomena.

Rest of the opinion that the architecture of the palaces US government, is most similar to the Roman basilicas, that the ancient buildings of imperial Rome.

 

[garth33]

Thanks again Gorgy for a great interesting international topic!:big hug:

You actually nailed the main point in your subject line....HOLLYWOOD goes to Ancient Rome...BINGO!

As Americans, our history is nothing compared to the great historic cultures of the world. Our history only goes back 250 years or so...our oldest buildings are mostly white (and NOT totally attractive in a classical sense but that's just pissy gay me) Bottom line - We're total newbies on a world culture scale and any American should freely admit that.

The mistake you made was assuming Hollywood was actually trying to doent real history instead of just making an interesting EPIC movie that could make money. From Day1 Hollywood knew buildings don't put butts in seats...actors and stories do! (Capitalism101 in the movie industry The epic movies of the early years of Hollywood cost a fortune in relative terms and it was much easier to recreate epic sets in cheap (ie white/cheap) materials and focus on the actors and storyline rather than worrying about being historically accurate on an architectural scale.

At the time, the international market was secondary and, frankly, didn't bring in much significant money after the movie had it's US run. The original epic movie was intended for internal consumption and for Americans who only knew a hard life on the farm or a small town....an epic movie about Rome was an AMAZING escape from real life! They never gave a second thought to what color the buildings were. It was almost like traveling to mars for Americans of the day - a totally alien world.

The legacy is these movies are still around for everyone in the world to watch (and judge) but you have to remember our context as well as yours...there's enough blame to go aroundp

Just my opinion - I love you all buddies!:heart:

PEACE!
g

 

[garth33]

Oh I just forgot I should show this example of a contemporary attempt to do something about the popular representations of monochome white Rome.

It's from an episode of the HBO TV-series Rome, season 1.

LOVED that series! I wish it would have gone more than 2 seasons but blame ENGLANDERS (sorry SJ!) for the inaccuracies please

It was a BBC production...as evidenced by a Roman/Irish soldier repeatedly saying...."Idn'it":blushing: (sorry again Jimmy:heart

 

[gorgik9]

Let's talk about "oysters" and "snails"....



This is a clip from the movie Spartacus (1960) where Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier) has a conversation with his slave boy Antoninus (Tony Curtis). Crassus (115-53 BCE) was a historical figure considered the wealthiest man in Rome, but also a general and one of the main actors during Spartacus' slave rebellion in 73-71 BCE.

The conversation is doubly veiled, both literally and metaphorically veiled, since of course the topic isn't "oysters" and "snails". (Oh and it shoul'd be noted, that this scene was censored and edited out before the premiere in 1960, and didn't get edited in until the movies re-release in the early 1990s. 1960 was still in the era of the famous/infamous Production Code, when any kind of mentioning of same-sex sexuality was one of the biggest NO-NO-NOs)

The topic is weather they're sexually into girls/"oysters" or boys/"snails", and what Crassus tells Antoninus (and us) is, that he's bisexual; he likes both oysters and snails, while it seems that Antoninus is only into oysters/is heterosexual.

So this conversation in the 70s BCE is astonishingly modern, and without any problem thinking in modern concepts concerning sexual orientation - heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual.

So we modern viewer's have no real problem understanding what Antoninus and Crassus are talking about.

But the much more interesting question is, if an authentic Crassus or Antoninus would have used and understood the modern concepts of sexual orientation. Could Crassus have not only said but also understood the phrase :"I'm bisexual" ? And what could he have said instead if he couldn't have uttered the phrase "I'm bisexual"?

Something to think about for the next post. The forum is getting hopelessly slow again, and posting is a real pain in you-know-where...