Hate the portrayal of Celts in Hollywood

Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
Hello,

The opening scene of Gladiator was straight out of Zulu Dawn.
Yes I know Mr. Scott said this at every occasion possible. It is called quote in art, not to be mistaken with copy-cat or plagiarism. I hope you do know the difference, as I can not tell on your sentence what you try to imply or if you talk to me? That is all I can respond to that.^^
Or I do not get it? IDK you tell me.

Perhaps but none of the armour in the movie was ever worn in Europe. It seems to me that they grabbed whatever looked cool from the costume department regardless of whether it was appropriate or not.
I do not know which movie you mean, but that is not really how costumes departments work.

Here: Wagner for example: The Ring is the opera called, Tolkien based his LOTR on.
Just saying, in case you are not familiar with this. A lot of stuff you know from LOTR is part of that opera blah blah - let's skip that:

You are maybe familiar with the stereotype of the Valkyrie opera singer – who wears a helmet with wings. The opera mad that stereotype popular.
This comes from that in the 19th century, in Scandinavia, they had a German revival and artists created pictures with Germans who had stuff on their helmets; horns, wings all kind of stuff.

Now Wagner hired a top-notch costume designer (like Spielberg of the costume department) and that guy really researched what was accurate and tossed everything he found from the entire Germanic group together.
Even – if not everything was taken for accurate during those times – and Wagner - was so disappointed with that costume approach that they sold after the premier the costumes – because he was a researcher himself and said: They look like American natives.
He had a fall out with the costume designer and would have fired him if he would have the money to start all over. So it was really an issue.

Now what happened was – that the one who bought the costumes went with the opera on tour. That was not Wagner himself.
So while the artist himself distant himself from these costumes on a level that he said: This is contradicting to my work here – everybody in entire Europe and finally the world saw the play/opera with these costumes, so that till today you have that picture.

So who do you want to criticize now? Wagner the artist? He sold the costumes, because he hated them.
The costume designer? Who put them together based on research with archaeologists and historians?
OR the historians and archaeologists who are actually responsible that artists of their time got the impression that these are accurate German outfits?

This is why – you never know how such stuff can come together. On such movies you mostly have some supervisor. And even if that guy is very good – he can say: Actually we do not know. There are some things that are just more likely and unlikely. If I hire you – I trust your expertise.
There are fools of course, too – but not everybody is a fool or incompetent.
Here, take Wagner. There are people who do not know this – who think that guy was an idiot. While he was a researcher himself and no bad one.^^

Well the Italians didn't march straight over the Picts. They retreated too Hadrisns wall & gave up trying too conquer Caledonia. What does the climate in the Appalachians have too do with Pictish champions fighting naked? BTW though the climate here is nothing like Southern Italy. You are going by latitude. Elevation has its part too play. Maybe like the Italian Alps.
Of course is your area different. They know snow in Italy as well.^^

It is about to understand how north these people like Germans and "Celts" are living and what environmental problems they have to overcome to make even a living, that shows in all different forms like here warfare.

Let's say you have such a custom – how do you do this in winter? How do you do this in ice-rain in April? Or are these nice-weather champions?

While – as they do this for a reason by that thesis – do these cultures here fight 30 Year War style warfare. That is very common if you have a lot of conflict that is not separated from society.
An outcome of that is – again – that you do not have much room for fancy ideas, because you know peace is only if all enemies are dead.

Even the Romans, who had a kinda Geneva rule set, who are our leading high-civilization here, fought that way. They were capable of doing it. And that guys north of them (like Gauls, Britons, Germans) became a problem for them. They would not be able to become a problem for them, if they would run on a level where they would try to prevent conflict, like you have at other places around the globe, where people started dancing or did other stuff.

You do not impress somebody of your own culture with a picture on your body and on the other hand give German; Italian and "Celtic" boys (officially all Roman) a hell of a fight. This is contradictory to each other. That British boys were not on the same development level of continental Europeans, because on an island you do not have so much conflict like in the middle of a continent, but what the Romans required to get Britain under control – shows you – that these guys ran on a high developed warfare already.

That Picts are during a time – when the equipment development was in Europe on a level – of Japanese Samurai of the 15th - 16th century. It looked different, but what they got there – is similar to what we had in Europe during that time.
That is why all that knight vs. Samurai comparisons are so nonsense, because that knights are ca. 300 to 500 years ahead. So if you got all that people like Picts, like Saxons, like Franks, Danes^^ (or for you Scandinavians) you think stereotype Samurai. On that warfare level they run on.
Now go with your pictures on skin and try to impress a Japanese of that warring states period.^^
If you can do this – that guys do not run on that warfare level. They did that 800 years before (don't nail me onto that - I try to take short cuts here) and skipped that already from 50 BC to 100 AD.

It originated much earlier than that. The first occurrence of this is in the Epic of Gilgamesh and reoccurs in various literary texts from then until the end of the Middle Ages. But you are right that there is no evidence of it ever actually occuring.
Oh, you did not told me that I am right - you just said it to Mr. Gibson. So thank you for proving my point I made above.

While I really do not understand the concept of taking sentences out of context and comment on them. How you do it I do not have problem, because you use a nice language, but please understand that I just do this here out of politeness - this is all common knowledge to me and I am in the lucky position to have such conversations on a daily base, but I can not promise to hold this up - so interesting I think such stuff is - to specific degree that is talking about basics.
Fun yes - for long - not.

In many cases it is not a mistranslation of the Latin; it stems from a misunderstanding of the English word "naked". It did not refer to one who was completely unclothed until fairly recent times. Naked used to simply mean "bare chested" or even "unarmoured".
That is a guess that has a flaw, because English is not the only language on our planet and I do have my doubts if (despite metaphors where the words can be used to your liking) this is really the case. Because German is older than modern English and we still talk that way: "Bare, naked hands." Is a very common saying.
As you can see on that, we do use both words, because naked is not bare.

So on what is that assumption based that naked in English means unarmored or specifically with a bare chest?

It is perfect example: If you would speak German and write: Bare chest – Germans would not understand that you mean naked.^^
You would have to write: Naked chest, because bare means 'without something (you would expect)'.
And we do have the same translation mistakes in German of Latin texts, you do not have to go to England for that.
 
Sep 2012
1,109
Tarkington, Texas
Ha! See what a luck I totally forgot that thread, that it showed up on first page.



That is not the point, Spike.

My point is the arrogance to believe only because pop-culture does exist that every artist is an idiot, and it is absolutely hypocritical.
Like the guy saying – they had no form of strategy in that movie. Somebody who says this has not seen the movie.

It does not matter if that is accurate or not. You can not say that this is somehow a downgrade of people in Scotland or 'Celts' in general.
That is totally absurd.

And from a historical/archaeological perception – if you – like the one I was referring to – comes up with Celt in connection to Scotland – that is modern.
If you go to a Celt expert and say Celtic high-culture the last thing he thinks about is Scotland.
That is deadly give away to see from whom such accusations come from.

That is hypocrisy to argue movies are not accurate. It is not their job to be. They deal with mythology.

And if you (random name) think you spotted something in a movie – you have been lied to 2000 times before and in all modern media you are lied to everywhere on levels the average Joe is not even aware about without any problem.
Take sound. You hear sound effects even in animal documentaries and at the Olympics.
That shows how random that accusations are and what they are actually after:
It is about I do know more than the people who did the story – translates to: I am better than them.

And that is already a give away for actually everybody who deals in that fields that you do not.
If you start in f.e. Gladiator with the fire on arrows trench – and not that this a pine-forest, that are not natural to Europe and only existed in specific environments – you give away on what level you are. You are bombarded with fiction in picture and sound – but only spot one thing? There are 1000 and most can not even name them.
And then you (not talking to you – the guy I am referring to or anybody who does this) explain to me in the same breath how incompetent and lazy story-tellers are?
This is where I wake up and that is my point. That is what I am targeting.

Knowledge is power. Like I know you do not know much about Braveheart and have never seen Gibson's commentary as well. Nevertheless are you arguing with me about that?
Do I argue with you about baseball? I know nothing about baseball.
Would you think that is a little strange if I would start with you a baseball debate, while giving away that I know not much about baseball?

What you refer to as : Excuses of the main-actor...

He is the flipping director of that movie. He is the guy in charge of every artistic direction, who explains to you 1.5 hours which artistic decisions they made despite knowing that they were not accurate, with the reason why it would handicap the fictional story they try to tell.
That is to you an excuse?^^ Or should we both agree that you have not seen it and have no clue what is in it, while you seem to be very interested into the accuracy, too.
You got the material at hand – where the maker, the guy in charge explains his position in detail and shows an extreme knowledge and you did not even care to listen to him first and I have to do the PR job of Fox now or Mr. Gibson's agency, who will not give me one cent for it.

That is all info you give me – if you write this sentence:



I say it constantly here: Dealing with historical sources is paying attention to details. And that works in RL as well.
Director of the movie explains 1.5 hours what is inaccurate in his own movie, downgraded to: As a PR stunt the main-actor tries to sell his movie.

Seems to be an extreme incompetent guy, because he destructs his own mythology.^^
Or watch it with a girl and go: "Prima Nocte did never exist, That is something from French novels of the 15th century. They made it up, to add drama to the story."
Free dating pro-tip: Don't!

Means: He does the opposite of what you accuse him of. While we both know – you have never seen it.

So let's talk baseball! The Cincinnati Bengals are the best baseball team...
Yeah? Wut? I do have an opinion on baseball, too. And I know very well that now a lot of you US guys sitting there with itching fingers to inform me about a mistake I just did.

And my answer to that is: Only because they do not play this – does not matter that they are not the best. I am talking here based on my opinion not on things I do know, even if they are factually wrong no matter how absurd it becomes... It is the same thing...
While: It would take me - one second - to figure out who is actually in what sports – if I really so interested in that to make such a claim (best baseball team), instead of guessing in the dark and based on this develop thesis.



Where I am here:

We wear armor in Europe since the bronze-age. The popular mistake comes from the misleading latin translations for the word 'bare'. Bare does not mean just 'naked' it means 'without something you would expect'. That is where all that naked guys come from in Europe up to the medieval time. We are here on the height of Canada. We do not have the same impact of weather – because of the streams of the Atlantic ocean, but we have the same temperature-rise and falls.

You in the Appalacian mountains do live in Italy down to Africa. The guys on Britain are living in Canada. With no problem can you take guys from Scotland and put them onto Alaska, they have all the stuff that they can survive there. They only do not need it as as long as people in Alaska. That is the only difference.

And that naked displays you always see from Germanics and the like are deities. That are no real people.
If you think you can impress me with your naked body in the iron-age – specifically in a society where everybody does it, I know who will win the war. The Italians would have marched straight over you. Most about the Picts comes from the 15th, 16th century and is economical marketing that used "nationalism" as justification, that corrupted the whole picture of that people.
You should have checked the Cincinatti Bengals. They are the American Football team in Cincinatti. The BASEBALL Team are the Reds (once Red Stockings). There are several Baseball Teams named after Stockings/Sox. Many Teams have also relocated over the years. The Dodgers were once in Brooklyn. The Oakland Raiders are now relocating to Las Vegas after stays in Los Angeles and Oakland.

Pruitt
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
You should have checked the Cincinatti Bengals. They are the American Football team in Cincinatti. The BASEBALL Team are the Reds (once Red Stockings). There are several Baseball Teams named after Stockings/Sox. Many Teams have also relocated over the years. The Dodgers were once in Brooklyn. The Oakland Raiders are now relocating to Las Vegas after stays in Los Angeles and Oakland.

Pruitt
Thank you, Pruitt, to give us a real life impression how that would look like.
Very good. That is what I am talking about.
 
Sep 2017
757
United States
Even the Romans, who had a kinda Geneva rule set, who are our leading high-civilization here, fought that way. They were capable of doing it. And that guys north of them (like Gauls, Britons, Germans) became a problem for them. They would not be able to become a problem for them, if they would run on a level where they would try to prevent conflict, like you have at other places around the globe, where people started dancing or did other stuff.

You do not impress somebody of your own culture with a picture on your body and on the other hand give German; Italian and "Celtic" boys (officially all Roman) a hell of a fight. This is contradictory to each other. That British boys were not on the same development level of continental Europeans, because on an island you do not have so much conflict like in the middle of a continent, but what the Romans required to get Britain under control – shows you – that these guys ran on a high developed warfare already.

That Picts are during a time – when the equipment development was in Europe on a level – of Japanese Samurai of the 15th - 16th century. It looked different, but what they got there – is similar to what we had in Europe during that time.
That is why all that knight vs. Samurai comparisons are so nonsense, because that knights are ca. 300 to 500 years ahead. So if you got all that people like Picts, like Saxons, like Franks, Danes^^ (or for you Scandinavians) you think stereotype Samurai. On that warfare level they run on.
Now go with your pictures on skin and try to impress a Japanese of that warring states period.^^
If you can do this – that guys do not run on that warfare level. They did that 800 years before (don't nail me onto that - I try to take short cuts here) and skipped that already from 50 BC to 100 AD.

Oh, you did not told me that I am right - you just said it to Mr. Gibson. So thank you for proving my point I made above.

While I really do not understand the concept of taking sentences out of context and comment on them. How you do it I do not have problem, because you use a nice language, but please understand that I just do this here out of politeness - this is all common knowledge to me and I am in the lucky position to have such conversations on a daily base, but I can not promise to hold this up - so interesting I think such stuff is - to specific degree that is talking about basics.
Fun yes - for long - not.

That is a guess that has a flaw, because English is not the only language on our planet and I do have my doubts if (despite metaphors where the words can be used to your liking) this is really the case. Because German is older than modern English and we still talk that way: "Bare, naked hands." Is a very common saying.
As you can see on that, we do use both words, because naked is not bare.

So on what is that assumption based that naked in English means unarmored or specifically with a bare chest?
As far as I know, the Romans didn't have a "Geneva rule set". They slaughtered, burned, pillaged, raped and enslaved just like everyone else, and when they felt compelled to do so for honor-based or practical reasons, would provide clemency and spare destruction.

There is no denying German influence on English or modern Western culture. It was largely Germans that displaced and replaced the WRE.

Ha! See what a luck I totally forgot that thread, that it showed up on first page.

That is not the point, Spike.

My point is the arrogance to believe only because pop-culture does exist that every artist is an idiot, and it is absolutely hypocritical.
Like the guy saying – they had no form of strategy in that movie. Somebody who says this has not seen the movie.

It does not matter if that is accurate or not. You can not say that this is somehow a downgrade of people in Scotland or 'Celts' in general.
That is totally absurd.

And from a historical/archaeological perception – if you – like the one I was referring to – comes up with Celt in connection to Scotland – that is modern.
If you go to a Celt expert and say Celtic high-culture the last thing he thinks about is Scotland.
That is deadly give away to see from whom such accusations come from.

That is hypocrisy to argue movies are not accurate. It is not their job to be. They deal with mythology.

And if you (random name) think you spotted something in a movie – you have been lied to 2000 times before and in all modern media you are lied to everywhere on levels the average Joe is not even aware about without any problem.

And that is already a give away for actually everybody who deals in that fields that you do not.
If you start in f.e. Gladiator with the fire on arrows trench – and not that this a pine-forest, that are not natural to Europe and only existed in specific environments – you give away on what level you are. You are bombarded with fiction in picture and sound – but only spot one thing? There are 1000 and most can not even name them.
And then you (not talking to you – the guy I am referring to or anybody who does this) explain to me in the same breath how incompetent and lazy story-tellers are?
This is where I wake up and that is my point. That is what I am targeting.

Knowledge is power. Like I know you do not know much about Braveheart and have never seen Gibson's commentary as well. Nevertheless are you arguing with me about that?

What you refer to as : Excuses of the main-actor...

He is the flipping director of that movie. He is the guy in charge of every artistic direction, who explains to you 1.5 hours which artistic decisions they made despite knowing that they were not accurate, with the reason why it would handicap the fictional story they try to tell.

That is to you an excuse?^^ Or should we both agree that you have not seen it and have no clue what is in it, while you seem to be very interested into the accuracy, too.
You got the material at hand – where the maker, the guy in charge explains his position in detail and shows an extreme knowledge and you did not even care to listen to him first and I have to do the PR job of Fox now or Mr. Gibson's agency, who will not give me one cent for it.

That is all info you give me – if you write this sentence:

I say it constantly here: Dealing with historical sources is paying attention to details. And that works in RL as well.
Director of the movie explains 1.5 hours what is inaccurate in his own movie, downgraded to: As a PR stunt the main-actor tries to sell his movie.

Seems to be an extreme incompetent guy, because he destructs his own mythology.^^
Or watch it with a girl and go: "Prima Nocte did never exist, That is something from French novels of the 15th century. They made it up, to add drama to the story."
Free dating pro-tip: Don't!

Means: He does the opposite of what you accuse him of. While we both know – you have never seen it.

Where I am here:

We wear armor in Europe since the bronze-age. The popular mistake comes from the misleading latin translations for the word 'bare'. Bare does not mean just 'naked' it means 'without something you would expect'. That is where all that naked guys come from in Europe up to the medieval time. We are here on the height of Canada. We do not have the same impact of weather – because of the streams of the Atlantic ocean, but we have the same temperature-rise and falls.

You in the Appalacian mountains do live in Italy down to Africa. The guys on Britain are living in Canada. With no problem can you take guys from Scotland and put them onto Alaska, they have all the stuff that they can survive there. They only do not need it as as long as people in Alaska. That is the only difference.

And that naked displays you always see from Germanics and the like are deities. That are no real people.
If you think you can impress me with your naked body in the iron-age – specifically in a society where everybody does it, I know who will win the war. The Italians would have marched straight over you. Most about the Picts comes from the 15th, 16th century and is economical marketing that used "nationalism" as justification, that corrupted the whole picture of that people.
You can say it is a downgrade. It displays the Scottish as all 'noble savage highlanders'. And the tactics are absurd. It doesn't have to be entirely accurate or even authentic, but the fighting of Braveheart is too far off the mark for my taste. It doesn't make it a bad movie- but you said that it showed the brilliance of the Scottish. And it really didn't.

I'm not sure who said that Scottish and Celts were synonymous. Celt is such a broad word, it's like saying Greeks. Celts were found from Asia Minor to Britain in various tribes across different time periods.

Gladiator had tons of inaccuracy as well, but battle sequence achieved the purpose of showing why the Romans were successful: combined arms, chain of command, combat engineering, and discipline. Braveheart's was more flippant.

I'm not saying that Gibson isn't unskilled, unimpassioned, or so on. I'm just saying Braveheart isn't historically accurate OR a good movie. His transgressions in The Patriot are way worse than Braveheart though.

Europeans did wear armor, and the 'naked barbarian' is an inaccurate trope. Although they were proficient metalworkers, they didn't have the industrial capacity to arm more than their more elite warriors with heavy armor.
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
As far as I know, the Romans didn't have a "Geneva rule set". They slaughtered, burned, pillaged, raped and enslaved just like everyone else, and when they felt compelled to do so for honor-based or practical reasons, would provide clemency and spare destruction.
Nearly ended Caesar's career. You are familiar with that the Helvetii are back in the Swiss and the Eburoni in Belgium were destroyed?
The reason for that is based on Roman war-laws. You could not just take how you wanted to onto an opponent, there had to be specific conditions fulfilled

There is no denying German influence on English or modern Western culture. It was largely Germans that displaced and replaced the WRE.
I do not understand to what you refer here, or why you think that this was anyhow in doubt?

You can say it is a downgrade. It displays the Scottish as all 'noble savage highlanders'. And the tactics are absurd. It doesn't have to be entirely accurate or even authentic, but the fighting of Braveheart is too far off the mark for my taste. It doesn't make it a bad movie- but you said that it showed the brilliance of the Scottish. And it really didn't.
Exactly. Now read the OP.
Should I quote for you: "They have NO (!) tactics and strategies (…) as well as lack civilization.

You just said it for yourself "they are noble savages and the tactics they do (so there are tactics in Braveheart) are absurd."

I said that tactics and strategies are a huge part of Braveheart. Absurd or not does not matter. They are a huge part of that movie.

Now you say to me: But they are absurd. That is a different point. I talked to OP - now I talk to you:

And then I argue: You are nitpicking. As long as you do not have a problem with pine-wood forests in f.e. Gladiator opening – or the grass-plains in Braveheart – or every sound you hear – you are nitpicking.
That should be first on your list – before you even start to complain what any character does in a movie if we talk authenticity.
That shows how arbitrary that historical problems are.

I'm not sure who said that Scottish and Celts were synonymous. Celt is such a broad word, it's like saying Greeks. Celts were found from Asia Minor to Britain in various tribes across different time periods.
Again: OP. Come on. I write 10 pages a day and I can keep track.

I quote for you again: "portrayal of Celts" in following films: Braveheart, Brave, King Arthur, The Eagle.

All these movies are set up in Scotland from ca. 100 AD to 1100 AD.
While asking (quote again) "why Hollywood Script writers knew nothing about Hallstatt and La Tene."

Hallstatt is up to 400 BC – so 500 years before any of these movies and Latene is ca. 100 years and 17 hours and 50 minutes away from Scotland if you would take a car today. 1000 miles.

It is in the first post – if you want to check.

I really curse FB for that. Remember times on the internet where 3 pages per post was a piece of cake.
And I speak here English - you should see me in German.

I'm not saying that Gibson isn't unskilled, unimpassioned, or so on. I'm just saying Braveheart isn't historically accurate OR a good movie. His transgressions in The Patriot are way worse than Braveheart though.
You make the same mistake again. Roland Emmerich is the director of The Patriot. Mel Gibson is only the lead actor.

Mr. Gibson has no saying whatsoever about what happens in The Patriot. His job is to portrait a character. He says his lines. If he is lucky somebody wants to hear his opinion onto something, but his opinion does not matter at all, because he can not make any decisions.
That decisions are with Mr. Emmerich and the producers and the executives (the guys who gave the money).
So whatever happens in The Patriot has nothing to do with Mr. Gibson.

In Braveheart he is the director. So he is fully responsible for everything that happens. He has the final word – what happens in that movie (with the producers and executives). Only because he is the lead (actor) does not mean that you automatically are in control.

That is why I say: Guys, better listen to what the director of Braveheart (Mr.Gibson) has to say, specifically if you think people who do such movies have no clue what they are doing (we are still in OP's thread), as he specifically dismantles his own movie, by saying - I am not doing here a documentary – I tell a mythological story for a wide blockbuster audience. And while he does this – he always talks about what they made all up in Braveheart and how that looked in reality and why they decided to go against reality.

You can love or hate him – again I am not his PR-manager – my point is: That you should not underrestimate people who deal with such things 24/7 for month and years - what you see in 1,5 hours for the first time. Even if they give a damn – then they gave a damn for a reason.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,646
Spain
I didn´t know Hollywood portraited Celts in movies... I think it is a very old culture... I don´t think so Hollywood interested in Keltoi...