SRB School 6th Grade History Class Notes - Ancient Greek Hoplites (2/27/14

    

Ancient Greek Hoplite Shields

6^th Grade History Class – 2/27/14

Each City-State maintained an army of citizen soldiers who served in the army only when called upon.  After basic training (usually between the ages of 18-20) these citizens worked as farmers, merchants, and craftsmen.  They were not professional soldiers, however, because the Greek City-States were constantly fighting with each other, many of these citizen soldiers served with the army for a few months every year.

Each citizen was expected to provide his own armor and weapons, which could be quite expensive.  The cost of the full panoply for a foot soldier was about the same as the price of a modern automobile.  Thus the very rich would serve as cavalry (because they could afford the cost of a horse) while poor citizens would serve as light infantry (with simple weapons and little or no armor).  It was the middle class, citizens just like your parents, who formed the backbone of the army – the heavy infantry called Hoplites.

The word hoplite comes from the word hoplon, which is the name for the soldier’s distinctive shield.  (The word hoplon also refers to the hoplite’s complete panoply of armor & weapons).

The Hoplite’s shield was 3 feet in diameter and weighed from 15 to 20 pounds!

It was made of wood covered in bronze with the inner side covered in leather.  The arm and handgrips were made of leather reinforced with bronze.  The shield was carried on the left arm and protected the hoplite’s left side as well as the right side of his neighbor.  So it was then that each hoplite depended upon his fellow soldiers for protection.

The Hoplite also wore a bronze helmet, often with a horsehair crest to make the Hoplite appear taller, and greaves made of bronze to protect his legs.  Over his body he wore a cuirass made of linen or leather sometimes reinforced with bronze scales.  The very rich could afford armor made of bronze or brass, but the linen cuirass (called a linothorax) was favored by the hoplites because of its lightweight and easy maneuverability. 

Although the Hoplite was well armed with a thrusting spear (6-8 feet long) and a sword (about 2’ long) there was a problem.  These weapons were, generally speaking, not strong enough to penetrate a Hoplite’s shield.  Thus most battles between hoplites became a shoving match, much like a modern day rugby scrum – the first formation to fall apart or to be knocked over lost the battle.  Most soldiers did not die in the battle itself, but were killed when they broke ranks and retreated.

A typical Greek Hoplite who might be from almost any City State in Greece, except for Sparta.

Sparta

Unlike his fellow Greeks, the Spartan Hoplite was a professional soldier – all he ever did, throughout his entire life from the age of 7 until he was 60, was train for war.  Although armed like other Hoplites, the Spartan did have two very distinctive items: his red tunic and cape. 

What set the Spartan Hoplite apart from those of the other City States was his superior training and discipline.  The Spartans did sometimes lose a battle and on very rare occasions they did retreat, but their reputation as formidable soldiers was well earned.  At Thermopylae, the Spartans did hold their ground and fought to the death.

The Persian Immortals

By contrast, consider the Persian Immortals.  Like the Spartan Hoplites, the Immortals were professional soldiers who spent their days training for war.  During times of peace the Immortals were the King’s bodyguard, while on campaign they were the elite backbone of the entire Persian army.

This sculptural freeze from the royal palace at Susa shows the Immortals in their parade uniforms richly adorned with silver, gold and precious stones.  Each Immortal was armed with a bow & arrows, a short sword and a thrusting spear with a counter weight of sliver (gold for officers).  There is no doubt that the Immortals looked impressive on parade. 

Were they really immortal?

No, not exactly.  They were called ‘The Immortals’ because whenever they suffered casualties those soldiers were immediately replaced so that there were always 10,000 soldiers on duty.  The Greek historian Herodotus was the first to use the title ‘Immortals’ but it is possible he confused the Persian word for Companions with that for Immortals.

(See Jona Lendering’s excellent website for details http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html )

How did they compare to the Hoplites in battle?

The Immortals were professional soldiers, well trained and highly motivated.  They always displayed great courage and steadfast discipline as did their officers.  They were good soldiers, however …

The Immortals were ill equipped for fighting against the Hoplites.

Their arrows were ineffective against the Hoplite’s armor and although their spear points were made of iron, they could not penetrate the bronze shields of the Hoplites.  The Immortals did wear scale armor underneath their tunic, but unlike the Hoplites they had no protection for their legs.  Instead of bronze helmets the Immortals wore a cloth cap.

As for their shields, the Immortals carried shields made of wicker and covered in animal hide.  These were lightweight and easy to handle but offered little protection against the heavy weapons of the Greeks.

Now About Those Hoplite Shields …

The Hoplites often decorated their shields with images and symbols that held a special meaning to them.  Some cities, like Sparta, used the same symbol on all their shields, while others displayed a wide range of images taken from mythology or nature.

As you can see from these examples mythical creatures like the Cyclopes, Medusa and Pegasus were very popular.  So too were animals like the dolphin, octopus, horse and bull.  Some hoplites favored geometric patterns while others used the image of a ship or a soldier.

Today’s Exercise

Design your own Hoplite shield.  You may use a classical image from mythology or something more modern.  The choice is your, but it should be an image that has a special meaning to you.  Perhaps something from your family history (where you were born) or an item you really like (a family pet or your favorite hero).  The design and colors are totally up to you.  However …

Be prepared to explain your shield and its meaning.  

This assignment is due at the beginning of the next class and you may be called upon to explain your shield’s meaning to the rest of the class.

     

     

Sources, Further Reading and Links of Interest

Books

Warfare In The Classical World by John Warry, ©1980  ISBN: 0-312-85614-8

Greece And Rome At War by Peter Connolly, ©1981 ISBN:0-13-364976-8

The Spartans by Nicholas V Sekunda, ©1998 ISBN:1-85532-948-4

Ancient Greece by Anne Pearson, ©1992 ISBN: 0-7894-5724-4

The Greeks by Susan Peach & Anne Millard, ©1990 ISBN: 0-7460-0342-0

Thermopylae The Battle For The West by Ernle Bradford, ©1980 ISBN: 0-306-80531-6

Websites

Hoplite Shield Construction          http://larp.com/hoplite/hoplon.html

The Hoplite / Hoplon Controversy  http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekweapons/g/Hoplite.htm

Hoplite in the Ancient History Encyclopedia            http://www.ancient.eu.com/hoplite/

The Immortals & Spartans            http://www.300spartanwarriors.com/battleofthermopylae/theimmortals.html

The Immortals or The Companions http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html

One of the very best websites for Ancient history and in particular Ancient Persia is Livius created by Dutch Historian Jona Lendering.  His command of the ancient sources is remarkable and his analysis always insightful.  His web site should be your ‘go to’ source on the internet.

http://www.livius.org/persia.html

   

Hollywood Romans #4 Box Office Gladiators

Of Charioteers, Gladiators and George Lucas

By David L Reinke

George Lucas’s Blockbusting

Edited by Alex Block & Lucy Wilson

(c)2010  ISBN: 978-0-06-177889-6

Noted scholar Adrian Goldsworthy recently remarked that gladiators are one aspect of ancient Rome everyone knows about. “Hollywood has this strange obsession, with virtually every epic or drama set in the Roman period there will be a gladiator or two, hanging about somewhere.”1

Indeed, Hollywood has fed us such a steady stream of Roman gladiator movies that it is now impossible to conceive of one without the other.  Is it any wonder that the Colosseum, the premiere venue for gladiatorial combat, is the iconic symbol for the city of Rome?

More properly known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, it is truly a marvel of engineering, able to seat over 50,000 spectators and housing a sophisticated system of trap doors and mechanical lifts in the theatre’s floor. Even the ruins themselves are impressive and one can easily understand why the Colosseum was selected to represent Rome.

And yet …

If you were to ask a citizen of ancient Rome what their favorite sports venue was, they would most likely answer the Circus.  Rome contained several, the most famous being the Circus Maximus.

Known throughout the empire, the Circus Maximus could seat over 380,000 spectators who watched Wild Beast Hunts, gladiatorial combats, and, most importantly, Chariot Races.  There was perhaps no more popular entertainment in ancient Rome than the chariot races.  In fact the fans were so devoted to the various teams (or factiomnes) that it was not usual for fights to break out, sometimes requiring the intervention of the Guard to restore order, often at considerable loss of life among the civilian populace. (Imagine dispatching the Grenadier Guards in full battle kit to quell the crowds at a soccer game.) 2

It is interesting to note that modern stadiums, like that in Michigan, seat a mere 110,000 and even the largest in the world, in North Korea, tops out at 150, 000.

So it should come as no surprise that with modern movie audiences too, chariot racing is more popular than gladiator fights.

What?

How can that be true?  Wasn’t the film Gladiator a big hit?  Didn’t Peter Graves ask Billy if he liked Gladiator movies?  And what about Spartacus – both the film and the current series on the Starz Network?  Besides, Professor Goldsworthy just said that Hollywood is obsessed with gladiators …

Yes, but the numbers tell a different tale.

In his new book, Blockbusting, George Lucas and his editors, Alex Block and Lucy Wilson, have put together a compendium of statistics, facts, figures and some behind the scenes trivia, about 300 of the biggest films in Hollywood history.  Although the list is limited to US made films, ranked by their US Box Office receipts, it is none the less an impressive assembly, one in which films about the ancient world are well represented.

The book is divided into decades with each chapter examining different aspects of the film business as well as taking an in-depth look as representative films from that decade.  These in-depth examinations include all the vital information about the film (costs, domestic box office, cast & crew, award nominations, etc.) as well as a short essay dealing with the struggle to bring that film to the screen.

Hollywood thinks of the ancient world as two film genres: Biblical Extravaganzas and Sword & Sandal Epics.  Of course, not all such films are set in Rome, however the Roman Empire has been the most often used backdrop for these epics and it is well represented in this book.

A few of the films given the “in depth” treatment in Blockbusting:

Intolerance 1916

Cleopatra 1917

The Ten Commandments 1923

Ben-Hur 1925

Cleopatra 1934

Samson and Delilah 1949

Quo Vadis 1951

The Robe 1953

The Ten Commandments 1956

Ben-Hur 1959

Spartacus 1960

Cleopatra 1963

Gladiator 2000

Passion of the Christ 2004 

The associated essays are lively and informative, brimming over with interesting trivia such as:

Kirk Douglas wanted Spartacus to have its premiere in Rome, at the Baths of Caracalla, after the Olympics finished. However, Paramount’s publicity department needed additional time so the film had a more traditional opening in New York on October 6^th. (Page 443)

Quo Vadis, MGM’s extravagant answer to the threat posed by television, was first considered for film back in 1935 with Marlene Dietrich as Poppaea.  For the aborted 1942 attempt both Orson Wells and Charles Laughton were considered for the role of Nero.  Even Gregory Peck was briefly cast.  When the cameras finally did roll, in 1951, there were 200 speaking parts, 30,000 extras and 120 lions. (Page 349)

For his 1934 production of Cleopatra, Cecil B. DeMille did extensive research that included ordering a copy of the sixteen-volume French Military Survey of Egypt.  A stickler for authenticity, when he learned that the Romans used snow to cool their wine, DeMille decided to use real frost scraped from the studio’s refrigeration pipes.  Likewise, he insisted that real grapes be used on set and had them flown in from Argentina where they were still in season. Even the Asp was real. (Page 185)

For the 1963 Fox remake, director Joseph L. Mankewicz, having shot over 120 miles of film, wanted to release two 3-Hour movies: Caesar and Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra.  However, Fox’s new leader, Darryl Zanuck insisted on a single 4-hour epic. (Page 461)

 Given the list above, Cleopatra would seem to be the most popular ancient history topic and even now Hollywood has two more biopics about that fabled queen in development.  However, modern audiences, like their ancient counterparts, prefer their entertainment fast and bloody.  In the battle for box office laurels, according to Lucas, charioteers not only beat the Queen, but the gladiators as well. (Ben-Hur ranks at #9, while Cleopatra comes in at #34 and Gladiator a distant #202.)

Blockbusting takes a detailed look at the production costs and box office revenues of several films, two of which just happen to be Ben-Hur and Gladiator.  In fact the book directly compares the two, and the numbers are fascinating.3

                                    Ben-Hur                                 Gladiator

US Box Office            $704.2                                     $223.2

Foreign Box Office     $608.6                                     $321.0

Total Box Office         $1,312.8                                  $544.2

Production Cost          $106.7                                     $116.8

Print & Ads                 $98.4                                       $59.5

Distribution                 $155.7                                     $94.6

P&L                            $230.0                                     -$20.6

Length                         217 minutes                             154 minutes

Principal Photo            200 days                                  89 days

Oscar Nominations     12                                            12

Oscar Wins                 11                                            5

It would appear from the chart above that Ben-Hur was bigger than Gladiator in everyway, and in fact there was much more riding on the success of the former than the latter.

As the 1950’s drew to a close MGM, as a working studio, was in serious trouble.  Yes, their library of past films was impressive, but unless they could turn out a new hit the Studio faced bankruptcy.  Noticing the success Paramount was enjoying with their remake of The Ten Commandments (still the box office champ of Ancient Epics) MGM also turned to history, and, staking their future on a single throw of the dice, bankrolled a “go for broke” remake of their own Ben-Hur.

Despite Paramount’s success, MGM was still taking a huge risk given that their original production of Ben-Hur had been fraught with problems and had garnered only modest box office returns.  Indeed the new production, besides being expensive, had its own challenges and set backs, not least of which was the death of the film’s producer, Sam Zimblest, who left the set with chest pains and died forty minutes later.4

However, the gamble paid off and paid off big.  Ben-Hur received 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, and is still ranked in the top ten of All Time US Box Office Champs. 

By comparison, Gladiator, though credited with reviving the Sword & Sandal genre in post Star Wars Hollywood and despite receiving five Oscars out of 11 nominations, has yet to turn a profit.  Its US Box Office ranking is 202, well below Ben-Hur at #9 or even Spartacus at #158.

It seems that, when it comes to putting down one’s own money, audiences would rather watch the slave turned charioteer than the slave turned gladiator.  No doubt it is a matter of personal taste, but in Hollywood taste doesn’t matter, only Box Office does.

If there are failings with this book they are acts of omission.  Blockbusting focuses exclusively on US made films, and only covers films released prior to 2006.  We can hope that future volumes will take a look at films made outside of the US and those made after 2005.

George Lucas’s Blockbusting is a fascinating book and recommended for anyone who views film not as a simple entertainment, but as an art form where money often trumps both artistic merit and critical acclaim. 

Notes:

1.         Lecture by Adrian Goldsworthy at the Kansas City public Library 2009

A link to the lecture may be found here:

 http://www.kclibrary.org/event/adrian-goldsworthy-how-rome-fell

2.         Seating capacity for the Flavian Amphitheatre and the Circus Maximus are found in Connolly’s superb book, The Ancient City – Life in Classical Athens & Rome, c1998 ISBN: 0-19-917242-0.  See pages 176 and 197.

Perhaps the largest and most spectacular fan riots were the Nika Riots of 532 at the Hippodrome in Constantinople.  Once the racing fans moved from hurling insults to hurling stones at the Emperor Justinian, the Imperial Army was called in.  They had to take the Hippodrome by storm resulting in 30,000 dead and nearly half the city burned to the ground.  See: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/circusmaximus/nika.html

3.         George Lucas’s Blockbusting, c2010, p.324

4.         Blockbusting, p.411

This Review was first posted on the Ancient Warfare Magazine website in September, 2010

(c) 2010 David L Reinke

10th Imperial Regiment - The Soul Eaters

Friday, February 17, 2006

 

The Soul Eaters

The Soul Eaters

In the black of night
Through a starless sky
Under the blood red moon
We fly.

Abandon all hope.
Your time is neigh.
Now like the Furies
We come.

To dine upon your flesh
And feast upon your soul.
Ask us for mercy,
We answer.

Betray us.
Resist us.
Deny us.
We kill.

Throughout the empire
Until the end of time
His will alone
We serve.

No enemy too far
Nor friend so dear
Will stay the sword
We hold.

In oceans of blood,
Our thirst never quenched
Until victory is ours
We fight.

Worlds beyond number,
Time without end,
As the Emperor commands
We obey.

No questions asked.
No reasons given.
In victory or death
We believe.

In the black of night,
No sound do we make.
Upon the Wings of Death
We fly.

Text c2006 All Rights Reserved
Image Hasbro Toys / LFL

Hollywood Romans #14 Coriolanus

“Coriolanus has grown from man to dragon.”

Coriolanus

(2011) 123 minutes

Directed by Ralph Fiennes

Screenplay by John Logan based upon the play by William Shakespeare

Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave

“Oh mother what have you done to me?  You have saved Rome, but you have ruined your son.” – Caius Marcius Coriolanus

Caius Marcius (527—490 BCE), later given the name Coriolanus in honor of his heroism at the Battle of Corioli, was a patrician general from the earliest days of the Roman Republic.  Indeed, his first heroic exploits, for which he won the Civic Crown, were at the Battle of Lake Regillus, where the victorious Romans ended once and for all the efforts of their former king, Tarquin the Proud, to regain his throne. 

Hailed as a hero, Coriolanus embodied those martial virtues that all Romans aspired to while at the same time he exuded the particularly Patrician arrogance that the Roman people despised.  Like Scipio Africanus, who outfought every opponent in battle but was constantly out maneuvered by his political enemies in the Senate, so too Coriolanus had no skill for politics.  To say he lacked ‘the common touch’ is an understatement.  His disdain for the people coupled with his rigid inflexibility allowed Coriolanus to be easily ambushed by his opponents, the newly created Tribunes of the People, who contrived to have him exiled from the city.

Unlike Scipio, also forced into exile by his political foes, Coriolanus did not “go quietly into this good night.”  Instead he joined with Rome’s enemies, the Volscian tribes, leading them from victory to victory until they stood before the very gates of Rome.  The Romans sent numerous embassies to treat with Coriolanus, but he rebuffed them all.  It was not until the women of Rome, lead by his mother and his wife, came to the Volscian Camp and prostrated themselves before him, that Coriolanus relented.  Moved by this show of humility and sacrifice, Coriolanus withdrew his army. 

Some stories say the Volscians assassinated Coriolanus for this change of heart, while others tell us that he lived out his life in solitary exile, a broken man.

From this story Shakespeare shaped his play, and although Coriolanus may be more fiction than fact, he was accepted as real by the Romans and considered an integral part of their history.  His story speaks to the early struggles between the Patricians and the plebs to find the balance that would allow the Roman Republic to not only survive but to thrive, and indeed flourish into the Empire so well known today.

In an earlier review I commented that, sometimes, dramatic writing trumps historical accuracy.  This was never truer than with the plays of William Shakespeare.  A poet who often plumbed the depths of history for his plots, Shakespeare was never one to let history get in the way of drama.  In this he is very much like the film producer Darryl Zanuck who once opined, “There is nothing duller on the screen than being accurate but not dramatic.”  Indeed, Shakespeare has proven to be so dramatic and durable a playwright that his works have endured an endless parade of adaptations, re-interpretations and translations into new languages, cultures and media.  Some of these have worked better than others.1

Hollywood has always approached Shakespeare with some trepidation, for despite their critical acclaim, these films rarely make any money.2  (The one noteworthy exception being Shakespeare In Love which won the Oscar for Best Film against very stiff competition.)  So it is a testament to the persuasive powers of Ralph Fiennes that he was able to find funding for his film of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. 

Written late in Shakespeare’s career, long after his more famous plays, Coriolanus shares some of the same themes found in those earlier works: ambition, hubris, betrayal and manipulation by loved ones both subtle or not.  Where it differs, and significantly so, is in the conception of Coriolanus himself.  Unlike say Hamlet, or Richard III, Coriolanus is not given any long soliloquy in which he reveals his musings and motivations.  We have no ‘window into his soul’ and so Coriolanus remains something of an enigma.

T.S. Elliot thought Coriolanus superior to Hamlet or Macbeth for the very reason that he is not dissected and laid out for us, but rather remains opaque and difficult to pin down with any certainty.  Coriolanus is a slippery customer, in more ways than one, so it comes as no surprise that so many actors have sought to play this character on stage.3   Interestingly, Ralph Fiennes is one of the first to attempt a feature film of this particular play.

Lawrence Olivier as Coriolanus.  His

1937 performance, and 1956 reprise are

still considered by many critics to be the

definitive portrayal of this character.

In deciding to both direct and star in this film, Ralph Fiennes has taken on a momentous challenge, that, I am happy to say, he meets with great success, for the most part.

One of the first challenges that confronts any artist approaching Shakespeare is the language. How do you make the play accessible, understandable and dramatic to a modern audience?  Do you keep the setting and language intact (ala Joseph Manckiewicz’s Julius Caesar) or drop both while retaining the basic plot (Robert Wise’s Westside Story) or some combination there of?

For Fiennes, the language was key.  In an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Fiennes noted that he was first attracted to acting by the beauty and rhythm in Shakespeare’s language, so for him there was no question but that it would remain intact.4   Of course, the text has been edited, Coriolanus being one of Shakespeare’s longest plays, but on the whole the language is as Shakespeare wrote it. 

The other major challenge is setting, and here Fiennes has shown a deft imagination.

A subtitle early in the film tells us that we are in “A place that calls itself Rome.”  This one simple sentence is the perfect preamble and makes the meshing of ancient and modern much less jarring than it otherwise might be.

Fiennes has opted for a contemporary setting and in doing so he has eliminated many problems that plague films set in Ancient Rome.  Instead of armor and shields, Coriolanus and his legionaries wear 21^st Century ‘digital’ camouflage, ride armored IFV’s and wield assault rifles and RPG’s rather than gladius and pilum.

This design sensibility extends to the civilian characters as well, with tribunes and senators in business suits rather than togas, and the plebs in standard work-a-day clothing.  For the Romans, dress uniforms are the order of the day for soldiers not on the battlefield while the Volscians favor a potpourri of different camouflage patterns, on and off the battlefield, as seen in many newly formed armies and militias in the world today.

Consistent with this concept, Fiennes has assembled a first rate cast that is as racially and ethnically diverse as the population one might find in almost any city today.  Many of the actors are well known and, generally speaking, they all acquit themselves admirably. 

Of special note is Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus.  Either in her be-medaled uniform, or simple civilian attire, it is clear Volumnia is a women to be reckoned with.  When she physically assaults the Tribunes on the steps of the Senate, even though their persons are inviolate, no one dares to stop her.  Even the Tribunes themselves seem feeble next to her.  It is no wonder then that Coriolanus is no match for his mother’s manipulations of him.  She is in fact as driven by Patrician pride as is Coriolanus, and it is only at the end, when Coriolanus tells her, “O my mother, You have won a happy victory to Rome; But for your son …” that she realizes the true cost of her ambition.

Throughout the film Fiennes uses several styles of cinematography, including hand-held ‘you are there’ shaky-cam (thankfully kept to a minimum), faux news footage, and more traditional shots.  To his credit, Fiennes eschews the rapid fire quick cut editing found in so many films today.  Instead, he allows scenes to build and develop over time, and while some might find this pacing to be too slow, I found it a refreshing and welcome change.

Not surprisingly, the color palate is subdued, with the only really bright colors being those of the Roman dress uniforms festooned with ribbons and medals. 

Of course, as Shakespeare tells us, ‘the play’s the thing’ and here we have a mixed result. 

At its best, the film is riveting.  This is not surprising in the combat scenes, all of which are well choreographed and expertly shot.  Clearly Fiennes and his cinematographer, Barry Ackroyd, have been paying attention to current events.

At its worst, character motivations are unclear and confusing.  This may be due in part to the editorial decisions Fiennes made with the original text.  However, in this case the problem is often due, most annoyingly, to lines being lost either in the hurly-burly of the scene or simply delivered too naturalistically, resulting in their being neither distinct or, in some cases, even heard.  In their film adaptations Oliver, McKellen and Branagh took care to insure that all lines were delivered and heard clearly and crisply.5   This is not always so in Coriolanus, and while this may be more of a technical issue than one of acting, clearly the issue rests at the feet of the director.

However, in all other aspects Fiennes does an excellent job as both actor and director.

One scene merits special attention.  It is a scene not found in the play, but rather one devised by Fiennes and his screenwriter John Logan, and it serves to tell us much about Coriolanus the man.6

Now exiled, sporting shoulder length hair and unkempt beard, Coriolanus has traveled to the Volscain capital, looking for his rival, Aufidius (Gerard Butler).  He spies the enemy general walking down the street with a few bodyguards.  As he strolls with casual ease the people greet Aufidius warmly and though clearly on his way somewhere, he takes time to return their greetings and to make small talk with diners at an outdoor café.

As he watches this transpire, we see Coriolanus hit bottom as he realizes how truly miserable his fate is.  Here is Aufidius, loved by the people even though he has lost many battles, while he, Coriolanus, who has brought the Romans victory after victory is hated and despised by his fellow Romans. It is then that Coriolanus resolves to join with Aufidius, and avenge himself on the Romans, or to let Aufidius take his life and so end this wretched exile.

The scene works perfectly because Fiennes has the confidence to let the images speak for themselves, and they speak volumes.

In contrast, the final scene, when Aufidius kills Coriolanus, does not work as well.  Although this scene is in the play, in the film the motivations of the various characters do not seem clear, particularly Aufidius’s several changes of heart.  Again I think this more a problem with Fiennes’ concept of the scene rather than Butler’s performance.  In fact, I wish Fiennes had, once again, strayed a little more from the text and instead given us a final shot of Coriolanus, sitting by himself, staring into space.  Much like Michael Corleone at the end of the Godfather, we would see Coriolanus as a victim of his own success – victorious and defeated all at the same time.

All in all, Coriolanus is well worth making the effort to see and in fact may work even better on television, giving it a more visceral reality. 

Coriolanus is now available on Blu-ray and DVD.

Notes:

1   In several interviews Fiennes has related how he was inspired to take on the challenge of Coriolanus by Baz Luhrman’s film adaptation of Romeo And Juliet.  Likewise, working with directors like Anthony Mingehlla (The English Patient) and Steven Spielberg (Schindler’s List) built in him a desire to direct. 

Of course there have been many feature films adapted from Shakespeare and everyone has their favorites.  Wikipedia has a long, but by no means complete, list of screen adaptations.  For me, the best are those by Olivier, Branagh, McKellen and Kurosawa, to which I would also add Forbidden Planet, a Sci-Fi reworking of The Tempest, and Shakespeare In Love.

2   The production budget for Coriolanus was reported to be $10 million. To date, the worldwide box office is just over $1 million.  Sales of Blu-ray and DVD as well as to Broadcast and Cable Television might bring in another million or so.  Clearly this is a case of a film made for the sake of art, not profit.

One side note: With a production cost of $40 million (on an original budget of $25 million) Shakespeare In Love has grossed over $300 million (including both box office and ancillary markets like DVD and Cable TV).

3  “The most famous Coriolanus in history is Laurence Olivier, who first played the part triumphantly at the Old Vic Theatre in 1937 and returned to it to even greater acclaim at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in 1959. In that production, he famously performed Coriolanus' death scene by dropping backwards from a high platform and being suspended upside-down (without the aid of wires), a death reminiscent of Mussolini's. In 1971 the play returned to the Old Vic in a National Theatre production directed by Manfred Wekwerth and Joachim Tenschert with stage design by Karl von Appen. Anthony Hopkins played Coriolanus, with Constance Cummings as Volumnia and Anna Carteret as Virgilia.

Another notable Coriolanus of the twentieth century was Richard Burton, who also recorded the complete play for Caedmon Records.

Other famous performances of Coriolanus include Paul Scofield, Ian McKellen, Toby Stephens, Robert Ryan, Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman, Colm Feore, and Ralph Fiennes. Alan Howard played Coriolanus in the 1984 BBC production.”

--from: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus

4   The Jon Stewart interview on December 7, 2011

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/ralph-fiennes

5   Reportedly, Olivier purposely spoke his first few lines slowly and distinctly to give the audience time to adjust to the rhythm and cadence of the language.  Fiennes notes too that it takes a few moments to adjust one’s ear from modern language to the poetry of Shakespeare.

Likewise, with the possible exception of Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, every director edits Shakespeare’s text, usually to meet contractual obligations for a film less than two hours in length.  Some edit for reasons of focus or pacing, but generally the main narrative thrust remains intact as it does with Coriolanus.

6   John Logan’s screenwriting credits include: Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Rango, Hugo and the new James Bond film Skyfall.

 This Review was first posted on the Ancient Warfare Magazine web site June, 2012

(c) 2012 David L Reinke

Cinema Caesars -- A Streetcar Named Antony

Julius Caesar (1953)

120 min.

Director: Joseph L Mankiewicz

Writer: William Shakespeare (adapted by Mankiewicz)

Starring: Marlon Brando, James Mason, John Gielgud, Louis Calhern, Greer Garrson, and Deborah Kerr

After watching the 1970 film of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar it was suggested that I look again at the earlier John Houseman production staring Marlon Brando in the pivotal role of Mark Antony.  In fact I had seen the film many years ago, and remembered it as being quite good, however a “refresher” viewing did seem in order.

Unlike the 1970 film, which was more of a low budget ‘labor of love,’ this earlier effort was a prestige production, given a large budget with the intent of making a first class film of Shakespeare’s play, while also riding on the coat tails of the recently popular Quo Vadis and beating The Robe to theatres by several months.

Although the title is Julius Caesar, the play and the film are more concerned with Brutus and his interplay with Cassius and Antony.  In this Mankiewicz has cast well.

As Brutus, James Mason displays the brooding intelligence of a man clearly swimming in political waters far deeper than he is qualified for, either by training or temperament.  Likewise Gielgud, as Cassius, is appropriately manipulative.  Cassius has his own agenda and is happy to use Brutus to reach that end.  In a similar manner, Mankiewicz has filled the other roles with excellent actors who are uniformly comfortable with Shakespeare’s language to the point that they can use it as a means of investing their characters with a reality that is both honest and entertaining. 

All of this is to the good and serves the production well, but it is in the casting of Marlon Brando as Mark Antony that Mankiewicz and Houseman show true genius.  Originally the director had sought Paul Schofield (A Man For All Seasons, Quiz Show) for the role of Antony, but changed his mind when Brando’s screen test came in better than expected.  Brando was an actor of immense talent and is not only comfortable with the language but more than holds his own with the classically trained actors in the cast who have far more experience with the Bard.  Brando’s timing and dramatic sense are impeccable.  What’s more, Brando infuses Antony with a pugnacious air that seems completely appropriate to Antony both dramatically and historically.

In terms of screen time, Antony might be considered a secondary character, for he really has only one scene to call his own, but what a scene it is and Brando plays it for all that it's worth!  Antony’s speech alone, as played by Brando, is worth the price of admission.

That being said …

In all other considerations this production is no better than the 1970 film.  Costumes are standard “Hollywood Roman” with many of the legionaries wearing armor we will see again in 1959’s Ben-Hur.  The same holds true for the sets (portrait busts of Hadrian are everywhere present) and once again, as with the 1970 film, the Battle of Philippi bears no resemblance whatsoever to history or indeed to anything particularly Roman.   Of course, one does not watch this film looking for historical insight, or even fidelity, but rather for excellence in acting and in this the viewer will not be disappointed.

More to the point, how does the 1953 film compare to one from 1970?

The key to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is the triumvirate of Brutus-Cassius-Antony.  The balance among these three characters is both critical and delicate – the play rises or falls on this and it is here that we see the big difference between the two films.

I admire the 1970 film for the energy and effort of the cast and crew working with their limited budget.  In many respects the film feels like a good community theatre production and one appreciates the work and commitment on display.  However, in that production the critical triumvirate, as played by Robards-Johnson-Heston, is wildly out of balance.  Despite the good work done by many of the actors they cannot restore the balance upset by Robards’ poor performance.

In contrast, the acting triumvirate at the center of the 1953 film, Mason-Gielguid-Brando is perfect.  The strength of the acting talent on display here is so good that, rather than being impressed with how well the actors recite Shakespeare we are caught up in the story itself and wonder what the character will do next (even though we know the play line by line).

The key scene in both the play and the films is the Forum oration given by Brutus and Antony.  The play turns on this scene.  Heston, as Antony, works hard to restore the energy sucked out of the scene by Robards, but despite his best efforts he is not up to the task.  Mason’s Brutus, on the other hand gives a superb speech, setting the stage perfectly for Brando who does not waste his fellow actor’s efforts. Brando builds upon that well laid foundation, his smoldering rage barley kept in check as he turns the people of Rome from rejoicing at the death of a tyrant to mourning the loss of their father.  It is a performance for the ages.

Much has been written about Brando as the premier American Actor, but most viewers, who are familiar only with his later films, may wonder what all the hoopla is about.  Watching his performance in Julius Caesar leaves no doubt as to his talent.

In an earlier posting I gave the 1970 film a favorable review, and I stand by that – I enjoyed that film with the caveat that Jason Robards is terribly miscast as Brutus.  However, I have no such misgiving about the 1953 production.  Indeed, if you are looking for acting at its finest you need look no further than the Mason – Brando speeches in the Forum. 

The film is currently available on DVD from Amazon

This review was first posted in January, 2011 on the Ancient Warfare Magazine website

 (c) 2011 David L Reinke