Movies and Edged Weapons Pt. 2

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Manolo

The book by Arturo Perez Reverte was good, and I heard the movie was all right.

It kind of depends on who you ask...

The sword and dagger duels were fairly OK, though, given the circumstances.
The final battle... well, let's not go into that.

[ariel]

The only superb Perez Reverte's book was " The Club Dumas" and it was mangled cinematographically into something beyond awful.
"Flanders Panel" was good. " The Fencing Master" was very good.
But the Alatriste series.... very disappointing. Did not see the movies; are they "straight on DVD" releases?

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

I have only one word for you:
"300"

When i think of 300 i can only remember corny, wooden dialog, tedious narration, obnoxious characters that are more stupid than heroric, bad CGI effects that looked just plain "fake" instead of the graphic novel "stylization" they were hoping for, extremely bad history that maligns an entire culture of people and portrays them as monsters and enslavers, really bad pacing that breaks the action up with long boring segments that make a pretense at trying to be an actual story and lots of dumb talk about the glory of dying a "good" death in the heat of sensless battle. The fight sequences (the only real reason to watch this flick) became kinda tedious after the first couple with it's repetetive start/stop/start action. I couldn't find a single character in the entire movie that i could care enough for to worry about their impending death (in fact i couldn't wait until they were all dead). I could go on and delve into the not so subliminal political propaganda and comparisions to our (the west) battle with the "Persian" empire today, but i will leave it at that.
My only hope, since i have no real knowledge of the weapons of the time, would be that they might have got the arms and armor right, but somehow i have my doubts.

[Emanuel]

Originally Posted by David

My only hope, since i have no real knowledge of the weapons of the time, would be that they might have got the arms and armor right, but somehow i have my doubts.

Your doubts are well founded, David. The scimitars they used were nonsense, and I somehow doubts that Spartans ever fought naked (with loincloth and mantle).

[David]

Originally Posted by Manolo

Your doubts are well founded, David. The scimitars they used were nonsense, and I somehow doubts that Spartans ever fought naked (with loincloth and mantle).

But how else would we get to see their fabulous (and CGI identical) six-pack abs?

[ariel]

Perhaps, an opinion from the American pre-eminent military historian, Victor Davis Hanson, could be of help.
http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...5421-8261r.htm

[David]

From the above mentioned article:
True, 2,500 years ago, almost every society in the ancient Mediterranean world had slaves. And all relegated women to a relatively inferior position. Sparta turned the entire region of Messenia into a dependent serf state.
But in the Greek polis alone, there were elected governments, ranging from the constitutional oligarchy at Sparta to much broader-based voting in states like Athens and Thespiae.
Most importantly, only in Greece was there a constant tradition of unfettered expression and self-criticism. Aristophanes, Sophocles and Plato questioned the subordinate position of women. Alcidamas lamented the notion of slavery.


And yet is is my understanding that at that time Persia had already banned slavery and gave far more rights to their women than the Greeks or any other Western culture did at the time, much to the distain of the Greeks.
Pederasty was also the norm in ancient Greece. I didn't see any of that depicted in the film though.
Hey, it's a comic book. I wouldn't argue with anyone about many of the more detail oriented inaccuracies in the film. Exact numbers are unimportant here. 300, 600, 1500, who cares. And yes, the story line was basically taken from the writings of the greeks themselves. Of course the Greeks would depict their attackers as being lesser beings then themselves. This is the way of all war, to depict ones enemy as less than human. But i also see using that skewed Greek viewpoint as dangerous propaganda for our modern times.
But politics and accuracy aside, this film still sucked!
BTW, i didn't find the line, "Then we shall fight in the shade." in reference to the Persian arrows blotting out the sun to be among the corny ones as the author suggests. Rather it was probably the best line in the whole film.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by David

But how else would we get to see their fabulous (and CGI identical) six-pack abs?

Hey, how do you suppose they got all those actors packed with those abs? Or was it just CGI? Most even had 8-packs, let alone the few unlucky with 6

[FenrisWolf]

Originally Posted by Manolo

Your doubts are well founded, David. The scimitars they used were nonsense, and I somehow doubts that Spartans ever fought naked (with loincloth and mantle).

Oddly enough, given all its numerous other flaws, in this area it's relatively accurate, although a loincloth and mantle counts as overdressed. Friezes, mosaics and pottery from the time depict Greek warriors going into battle with helmet, shield and spear, sometimes with a sword -- and not a stitch of clothing, let alone armor. Oh, I suppose the generals and nobles might've had a bit more, but the average warrior? Not a bit.

The classical Olympic games were held as a celebration of the art of war, and the athletes competed in the games as they would on the battle field -- in the nude. That's one of the reasons why women were banned from attending.

[katana]

The 300 spartans were Hoplites, heavily armed infantry.
"Hoplites wore tunics under other armor that included breastplates, helmets, and greaves. They carried spears and swords to use in their close style of fighting. Spartan hoplites also wore a short red cloak and long hair."


http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/g.../g/Hoplite.htm

Without the shields or armour the greeks would never have survived the initial onslought of arrows. Not widely known is the fact that the 300 spartans were aided by 1000 Thespians (no not actors ) and Thebans who elected to stay and fight...although the Thebans surrendered just before the final slaughter.
The Greek armour/shield and military skill with the spear easily kept the 'Immortals' back as they were lightly armoured and had 'wicker' shields.

The spartans were true warriors....their 7-8 year old sons would be taken away from their families and trained in millitary schools, severe injury and death during training was not uncommon. One test on the young boys was to be publicly flogged until they uttered a sound.....the last boy to cry out was the winner Even the women were taught how to fight ....with or without weapons One of the tasks to prove their manhood was to sneak out of the military school ...unseen ...and strangle (to death) a male slave (being a military state much manual labour was done by captured soldiers whom were enslaved) and return...undetected. If caught they were severely punished.

[David]

Originally Posted by FenrisWolf

...Friezes, mosaics and pottery from the time depict Greek warriors going into battle with helmet, shield and spear, sometimes with a sword -- and not a stitch of clothing, let alone armor. Oh, I suppose the generals and nobles might've had a bit more, but the average warrior? Not a bit.
The classical Olympic games were held as a celebration of the art of war, and the athletes competed in the games as they would on the battle field -- in the nude. That's one of the reasons why women were banned from attending.

Romanticized depictions in Greek art should not be confused with the realities of common sense combat. As stated in Ariel's source:

The warriors of "300" look like comic-book heroes because they are based on Frank Miller's drawings that emphasized bare torsos, futuristic swords and staged fight scenes. In other words, director Zack Snyder tells the story not in a realistic fashion -- like the mostly failed attempts to recapture the ancient world in recent films such as "Troy" or "Alexander" -- but in the surreal manner of a comic book or video game.
The Greeks themselves often embraced such impressionistic adaptation. Ancient vase painters sometimes did not portray soldiers accurately in their bulky armor. Instead, they used "heroic nudity" to show the contours of the human body.

In other words, this nudity wasn't a true representation of Greek warriors in battle, but artistic license meant to show the beauty of "heroic nudity".
Likewise, nudity in sports was an extention of that artistic sense into the actual world. And then, the ancient Greeks also found the male body attractive for completely different reasons outside of it's prowess on the battle or sports field.

[Emanuel]

Originally Posted by David

Romanticized depictions in Greek art should not be confused with the realities of common sense combat.

The Greeks themselves often embraced such impressionistic adaptation. Ancient vase painters sometimes did not portray soldiers accurately in their bulky armor. Instead, they used "heroic nudity" to show the contours of the human body. [/B]

In other words, this nudity wasn't a true representation of Greek warriors in battle, but artistic license meant to show the beauty of "heroic nudity".

yup

[ariel]

David,
You seem to be implying very heavily ( twice already) that the homosexual practices of ancient Greecs somehow were peculiar to them and cast doubt on their fighting ability and masculinity. Homosexuality was with us for ages, and was widespread. Persians, from antique times to Abbas-ian era and to now were equally involved: they always had brisk market in pretty boys ("surker") and castrated their young captives to preserve their "youthful" appearance.
Even in modern Saudi Arabia, the bastion of consevative Islam, it is so widespread, that the country is regarded as "gay heaven"
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/...y-saudi-arabia
It is not what one does in bed, but what one does on the battlefield that determines military prowess: bisexual Alexander's Macedonians utterly destroyed equally bisexual Darius' Persian army despite numerical inferiority.
Let me assure you: there is "sin" even in Cincinnati

[David]

Sorry Ariel, but you greatly misinterpret the intention of my remarks. This was not at all a commentary on the lifestyle having anything to do with the fighting abilities of the Greeks or anyone else for that matter. I was merely mocking the story for being so homophobic as to leave out this very well know aspect of that culture. Likewise with the film Alexander strongly down played this side of his life. My point is that if you are going to do historic films, even in comic book form, why leave out these aspects of the culture. They might have actually added some depths to the otherwise 2 dimensional characters of 300.
In my second remark i was merely stating the obvious to help support why i felt nudity was common in sports, though not in warfare. Again there was no slight of masculinity implied. I see nothing unmasculine about homosexuality. In fact, i would think that it would have to be quite the opposite, masculinity pushed to it's extreme.
As for "sin" in Sinsinnati....you don't know the half of it my friend.

[Emanuel]

I recently saw the Russian movie "Day Watch" - sequel to "Night Watch". The story happens in the present, more or less, but there is a scene involving Timur-i-Leng (Tamerlane) attacking a fort. He bears what looks like a well-depicted shamshir with a very nice crossguard. This doesn't agree with Timur's 14th century does it?
Could anyone post some pics of Timurid sabres?

Emanuel

[Rick]

Is now out on DVD in US format .
Accurate or not; I just loved this film ..

[josh stout]

I love the swords in Ashok a Bollywood (Mumballywood ) movie with many extras who seem to have brought their own swords. The only really bad one is the one held by Ashok himself.
Josh

[Bill M]

How about "Real Glory?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031842/

Moro, kampilan, Barong, Kris, Krag.

[Yannis]

I saw "300" just few days ago and as a Greek allow me to say few things

1. It is not the first time, and I suppose it is not the last, that Hollywood makes its own "version" of history and mythology. I am glad that, at least this one, it had no "happy end" as usual, against the known facts.

2. There are plus and minus in the film accuracy. For example, there was no pro Persian conspiracy and traitors for gold inside the city. Spartan culture had no value for gold, even their coins were very heavy iron ones.

3. There are a lot of mistakes on battle. Spartans superiority was not the kung fu style of the movie, but the strong chain of heavy armored warriors (phalanx), unusual or unknown at the time, were one covers with his shield the next in the chain. This tactic with "othismos" (push against the enemy) could break big armies of lone wolfs. This tactic was used and developed further later by Alexander and Romans.

4. Of course they were not naked on battle, but... Generally in Greek armies they were some naked soldiers named "psili" or "gymnites" (same root with word Gymnasium, were athletes were naked).

5. Spartans were naked only before the battle, to wash themselves and fix their hair. They wanted to fight in a celebration

6. Spartan women, against the belief, were possibly the most free women of the era. They had their own property, they had speech on public matters and they had a lot of sports, like javelin and wrestling. If they had too, they could fight in battles and actually they had win, without their men, Pyros, the mighty king of Epirus, who came to conquer Sparta a time where men where in other war!

7. The phrase "Then we shall fight in the shade" is not Hollywood script. It is supposed said by Diinekis as Herodotus wrote.

Etc. etc. We were not there, the history was written by Greeks (but not all of them loved Spartans) etc etc

The real thing is that this battle, and few more after that, gave to this world something important: The chance to Athenians to build their culture (theatre, drama, history etc) and Democracy so, at least, we have a name for our modern political systems

I have a sympathy for Persians, who also gave too much to the world, but I dont personally like pyramid style empires. And of course Xerxes (the great) was not this kind of freak that the movie shows.

more about the battle in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

How about "Real Glory?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031842/

Moro, kampilan, Barong, Kris, Krag.

Love this movie .
Of course the U.S. imperialistic slant to everything is obvious; still it is the only movie that I am aware of thar covers any aspect of the Moro Wars.

Lots of Hollywood legends in this flick.

I believe it may still be found in VHS format.

[CharlesS]

Great old movie, and is still on VHS.

Surprising attention to detail in Moro weapons, though not 100% of the time....so much so that I think many real kampillan and barong may actually be props.

[Rick]

Oh God,
Let's not go there; if that's the case just think about the leftover props from Zulu .

[Bill M]

The barongs, kris and kampilans did look authentic. There was one VERY shiny kris.

But the "Datu" was a Russian actor and carried a Balinese keris. The leader of the Moro was a Japanese actor. He did have a big honking kampilan.

But I think they pulled it off rather well. Really liked the movie.

[Bill M]

Maybe a few of those Zulu spears found their way up to the Sudan?

Grand scale of a movie with Charlton Heston playing General "Chinese" Gordon and -- no kidding -- Sir Lawrence Olivier as the "Mahdi" aka the "Expected One."

Quite a few kaskaras and some really good spears.

1966 -- cast of thousands that were not digital! Real guys on camels and horses. Remington rifles.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060588/

"In this epic tale of the British Army's travails in North Africa, two acting giants appear together for the first and only time: Charlton Heston portrays General Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who in 1883 led the defense of the Sudanese garrison against a Muslim rebellion. And Laurence Olivier plays the instigator of that uprising -- Mahdi, the "spiritual leader" of the Sudan. Robert Ardrey received an Oscar nomination for his screenplay."

[Rick]

Got that one on DVD, also the early version of The Four Feathers; the recent version is junk.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

The barongs, kris and kampilans did look authentic. There was one VERY shiny kris.

But the "Datu" was a Russian actor and carried a Balinese keris. The leader of the Moro was a Japanese actor. He did have a big honking kampilan.

But I think they pulled it off rather well. Really liked the movie.

Vladimir Sokoloff specialized in "exotic" roles: he was the wise elderly Mexican in the " Magnificient Seven"
Sometimes, it is good to have an unidentifiable accent

[Bill M]

OMG! Could not stop watching! Gripping, intense deep, disturbing images. Anne and I LOVED it.

Wonderful weapons, knives, spears, bone armor on several warriors. Shoulder armor/decorations made from human jawbones But, historically maybe not great (better than 300, historically speaking).

The people are supposed to be Mayan. My subtitles all show "Speaking Mayan" and the an English translation. Turn on the subtitles!

However it is my understanding that the Mayans were not so bloodthirsty. The Toltec were worse and as Barry said in another thread, it was the Aztecs who met the Spaniards, not the Mayans or Toltec's.

Artistic Movie License, possibly. Also I guess it could have been some later spanish guys.

Whatever, the movie is immensely worth watching! I would be careful with children and otherwise faint of heart. Not only is it violent and bloody, but as fast-paced as any episode of "24."

A continual out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-fire pace. Just when you think "Jaguar Paw" (the movie's Jack Bauer in a loin cloth) has gotten away, here come the bad guys ---- again.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=Apocalypto

[Bill M]

Just finished Rashomon again. Anyone want to comment on the Chinese jian Toshiro Mifune wielded? Could it have been a ken?

Nice Tanto the woman had.

GREAT MOVIE! Surprised no-one has mentioned it here before. I did a search, but could not find any references that it has been mentioned here.

[ariel]

It is a Ken.
I last saw it many years ago and read Akutagawa's stories at about the same time, but somehow I recall that the bandit lures the samurai deep into the forest to show and sell him Korean-style weapons from a tomb. Well, the Hyunday was a lemon
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is
How about the "Samurai" trilogy, also with Mifune?
And, of course, the Polish trilogy: Deluge, By Fire and Sword and Pan Volodyewsky?
And, again, if you want to see swords, yataghans and kilijes galore, find an old Russian movie " The Sword and the Dragon" ( Real title was "Ilya Muromets"). Kievan Rus against the Tatars.

[Emanuel]

Just saw a trailer for this Hindi epic http://www.jodhaaakbar.com/ a big period production about Akbar. Seems to have loads of tulwar action, fights between Rajputs and Mughals, along with the ubiquitous love story.
I'm looking forward to it.