Hate the portrayal of Celts in Hollywood

Oct 2016
70
Ashland
#31
An interesting discussion!
My son teaches Archaeology and History, using The Human Past as a text.There is an interesting focus-article in it titled, 'Who Were the Celts?'
The author's conclusion is that the word is used to describe wildly differing cultures at great distances in time, one from another.
The word itself came from an old Greek term for 'barbarian' which, come to think, is also an old Greek term for--anyway, there seems to be no single culture or society that is 100% congruent with the term 'Celt.'
The inhabitants of Southern England(demarcated later by Hadrian's Wall) were apparently quite primitive at the time of J. Caesar's arrival. The Jute raiders from areas beyond that were even more so.

None of my ancestors have been tracked as coming from other than the British Isles: mostly Galway, Lincolnshire, Wales and Kent. I am more 'Celt' than 'Saxon' in my genetic make-up, according to DNA of my Y and Mito. This means nothing to me at all, for from the Med came my cultural heritage, not from mere biology.
 
Aug 2018
27
Australia
#32
The question is. Do you think that your brand of Celts would have advanced without the cultural heritage from the Med influence? Would Celtic genetics and culture have been enough?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#33
'Braveheart' was just another of loopy Mel Gibson's violence obsessed offerings. However, it's not just the Celts Hollywood gets wrong, it gets most things wrong to some degree whenever it tackles anything allegedly 'based on a true story'. Most historical movies contain at least a couple of face palm moments.

These days I watch movies for enjoyment, not to really learn anything.

We have traced my family back to Clare (on both sides) for about 200 years. Before that, Galway. The family names centuries old, not. sure it's the 1000 years my family like to claim.
 
Sep 2017
610
United States
#35
'Braveheart' was just another of loopy Mel Gibson's violence obsessed offerings. However, it's not just the Celts Hollywood gets wrong, it gets most things wrong to some degree whenever it tackles anything allegedly 'based on a true story'. Most historical movies contain at least a couple of face palm moments.

These days I watch movies for enjoyment, not to really learn anything.

We have traced my family back to Clare (on both sides) for about 200 years. Before that, Galway. The family names centuries old, not. sure it's the 1000 years my family like to claim.
Braveheart and the Patriot I think are some of the worse offenders. Big, evil English/British Empire murder poor working man's family who doesn't want to go to war but does because tyrants hurt his family. The bad guys are all sadistic, stupid snobs and their grunts are all stupid expendables.
 
Likes: bboomer
Nov 2018
105
Idaho
#36
I hate the portrayal of everything in Hollywood. I basically stopped watching new movies, they're made for an audience that buys into all sorts of things I do not and they have no regard for stuff I actually care about. Whatever Hollywood thinks is 'cool' is usually some tired cliche based on a fallacy; I would rather watch an accurate representation of a phalanx press (granted we don't know exactly how they fought) than see a bunch of naked dudes running around in the mud ala 300. I suggest the next director to use slow motion be crucified.
 
Sep 2017
610
United States
#37
I hate the portrayal of everything in Hollywood. I basically stopped watching new movies, they're made for an audience that buys into all sorts of things I do not and they have no regard for stuff I actually care about. Whatever Hollywood thinks is 'cool' is usually some tired cliche based on a fallacy; I would rather watch an accurate representation of a phalanx press (granted we don't know exactly how they fought) than see a bunch of naked dudes running around in the mud ala 300. I suggest the next director to use slow motion be crucified.
To be fair, not every movie I think is slop. For example, from what I can tell, Zulu is a pretty alright representation. Films like Ravenous also take a peak at a point of history that might be glossed over and overlooked, especially in more average people or non-important events (in this case, Westward Expansion across the Sierra Mountains).

Also, to give a little reprieve to 300, it is framed as a Spartan telling the story and embellishing it. But, most audiences wouldn't pick up on that anyway.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#38
I hate the portrayal of everything in Hollywood. I basically stopped watching new movies, they're made for an audience that buys into all sorts of things I do not and they have no regard for stuff I actually care about. Whatever Hollywood thinks is 'cool' is usually some tired cliche based on a fallacy; I would rather watch an accurate representation of a phalanx press (granted we don't know exactly how they fought) than see a bunch of naked dudes running around in the mud ala 300. I suggest the next director to use slow motion be crucified.
I'm so glad it's not just me.

.Although I have free to air TV and Netflix, it's not alway easy to find anything worth watching . I tend to watch a lot of documentaries and old sci-fi series. It is my opinion, that Hollywood has taken on the log-held attitude of TV producers; rather than make good quality programmes, they set out to offend as few people as possible. That produces some aweful pap. Plus, falling TV audience has led to the horrible, cheaply made oxymoron of"reality television'

Hollywood still produces a few good films each year. Increasingly, over the last 20 years or so, massive hits ,as often as not, are an inverse indicator of quality.

What to do? Find other ways to spending my time; reading is great,I paint, garbage mainly, for my own entertainment, currently also at the beginning of making a documentary about my city and surrounds, from my perspective. It's gonna take a while, a VERY steep learning curve.
 
Nov 2018
105
Idaho
#39
Also, to give a little reprieve to 300, it is framed as a Spartan telling the story and embellishing it. But, most audiences wouldn't pick up on that anyway.
I don't care what the excuse is, I just think it looks stupid and would rather see men with spears in a battle line.

The Russian film Waterloo is extremely accurate and much of it is a full-scale reproduction. However, most accurate military movies came out almost 50 years ago - or more (remember, 1970 was 48 years ago!) That has absolutely no bearing on the present crop of troglodytic pond scum, half-wits and career doggerel bards that populate The Great Satan aka Hollywood. Almost everyone who ever made a decent movie in American cinema is dead, and that ratio is not likely to change any time soon.
 
Likes: bboomer

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,433
#40
Braveheart and the Patriot I think are some of the worse offenders. Big, evil English/British Empire murder poor working man's family who doesn't want to go to war but does because tyrants hurt his family. The bad guys are all sadistic, stupid snobs and their grunts are all stupid expendables.
The were many historical inaccuracies with the Patriot, but the worst is the filmmakers deciding to make Mel Gibson's character an affluent Southern planter who not only does not own slaves, but employs free black laborers that he treats as his social equals. This was done purely to make the protagonist palatable for modern audiences who thankfully find white supremacy and slavery abhorrent. Nevertheless the protagonist of the film is a 21st Century man in period clothing and not an authentic portrayal of an 18th Century South Carolinian planter.

It was a bizarre writing decision. If the filmmakers didn't want to highlight the hypocrisy of planters crying out for liberty while keeping other Americans in chains, they should have had the protagonist be someone from a much less affluent background, or from a colony other than South Carolina where slavery was much less common...Vermont for instance, which abolished slavery in 1777.
 

Similar History Discussions