5 Disturbingly Common Historical Inaccuracies In Movies About The Ancient World

By Darragh O'Connor /

1. Famous Art Cameos

Advertisement
Gladiator is a truly great film, but it has done so much damage to people's idea of Ancient Rome, which I fear cannot be undone. The above picture is meant to be Rome during the reign of Commodus, 161- 177 AD, and features the Prima Porta Augustus statue and the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, both of which do exist, and would have existed in Rome at this time. The Marcus Aurelius statue was erected in 175 AD, two years before the fall of Commodus, and the Prima Porta was created sometime in the first Century AD. However, they would never have appeared this close together, or indeed in this manner: the Prima Porta is made of marble, and it is also no where near as big as the film makes it out to be. Want proof? You can still see it in the Vatican. This shot is suppose to be the via dei Fori Imperiali in Rome, and it is a decent attempt to create the Rome of the 2nd Century AD, but the shot is ruined by shoe-horning famous works of art for the sake of it. Ridley Scott was doing what the Star Wars prequels did, before it was cool. At least Scott chose items that actually existed within the time of the film's event. In 1967, they were not so careful. The above scene from The Greatest Story Ever Told is meant to be a Roman Camp circa 32-35 AD, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Why is there a statue of Emperor Claudius, who reigned from 41AD until 68AD, in right-hand corner of this scene? Why did they pick the most famous statue of a Emperor who wouldn't rule for another 20 years for their shot? Seems somewhat careless. They thought that you'd never notice, or care, because through familiarity, this is your idea of a Roman camp/outpost or colony settlement, right? It has laid the foundation for others to follow, and every film has something similar in their décor for a "Roman" setting, non painted white or grey copies of marble statues, and random busts. These confuse the viewer, and will make a complex series of events blur together. In short, it dumbs you down without you even noticing.

Conclusion

I understand that films are made to be entertainment, and that for most they are an escape, and as such I can let a lot of things slide in regard to Horror or Sci-Fi films, as they are genres designed to suspend disbelief. "Historical" films however transcend those lines, and can become a person's actual view of this time: for most, Achilles is Brad Pitt, the Spartans were homoerotic bad-asses, and the Romans loved their white marble and going to the Coliseum. Do you see how dangerous this is? Barriers are thrown up for people, before they even open a book about the Classics - their warped perspective becomes firmly fixed at a young age, and is very hard to undo later in life. Hopefully these historical inaccuracies will be corrected in films, sooner rather than later. What else gets your goat about historical films? Share your thoughts below.