Gladiator movies like Spartacus and Gladiator are a lot of fun to watch, but how historically accurate are they? Do the films correctly depict the culture, technologies, and aesthetics of the ancient world? An analysis of one or more of these films would be interesting to read.
300 isn't about gladiators either. It's about the Battle of Thermopylae between the Greek Spartans and the Persians so there were no Romans or gladiators involved. The movie Spartacus would fit better instead with the gladiator theme because it's set in Rome about a gladiator slave. – dsoumilas9 years ago
I am wondering what you would refer to this genre of movies as? A google search revealed to me that all these films (300 and Troy included) were popularly lumped into the "gladiator epic" genre. Perhaps that is an issue that could be included in the article. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
I think this can also open a broader discussion about the way we approach classical history. Has it become too remote and therefore uninteresting so we have to spice it up? – DClarke9 years ago
What this topic is dealing with ("gladiator films") could lead into mentioning the sword-and-sandal genre of films from the mid-20th century. Those films were also period pieces set in ancient times (or Roman times in this case) whose main focus was likewise on battles, adventure, and entertainment value with historical accuracy not necessarily mattering as much as the former traits. – dsoumilas9 years ago
The beloved 90s rom-com "10 Things I Hate About You" rips off of the play "The Taming of the Shrew" in an updated way that caters to a female audience. In the Shakespearean play, Kat is deprived of food and sleep for many days as a method of "taming" her. What may have been suitable treatment of a wife during the Renaissance Period is reflected as Stockholm Syndrome now. This would make an interesting article, looking at Shakespeare's famous stories and how Hollywood is taking steps to modernize them.
An interesting example, that through modernizing also heavily dated itself: Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet (1996). I personally love this film but it feels like a 90s film. – Celeste Reeb9 years ago
The easy answer is yes, Shakespeare is dated. It's just so dated that we don't even recognize the dated aspects of it. The reason we can notice that a 90s movie is a 90s movie is because we've seen enough 90s movies to recognize the common tropes of the time. With Shakespeare, though, we have very little to compare it to. The vast majority of us are not familiar with much, if any writing contemporary with Shakespeare. Shakespeare uses a lot of jokes, tropes, and such that seems clever and original to us, because we've never seen them used before. Imagine if there was only one 90s movie that most people had seen. People would probably see it as artistically unique and special, even though it's just another 90s movie. Not to belittle Shakespeare, just a thought to keep in mind. – OddballGentleman9 years ago
Technically speaking, William Shakespeare's works can't ever be truly "dated" since he invented so many words/phrases we still use ("cold-blooded" and "off with his head" etc.) besides the aforementioned story themes and hidden word puns. And of course, plays such as Othello touch upon issues like racism which further help to keep Shakespeare current today. With the more problematic plays like "The Taming of the Shrew, as mentioned in the topic, maybe they could be modernized in an ironic way, highlight how offensive the sexism and abuse are now to contrast their dated origins of the 1500s. – dsoumilas9 years ago
Interesting topic, though a few points you should consider is that Shakespeare is still popular and still being played because most of his pieces contain subject matters that are still relevant today: love (and what it does to a person), hate (and how one deals with it), revenge (Is revenge justifiable? And at what point? What is it that makes someone feel like they have to get back at someone to feel at ease?), death (What is death? What does death mean to a living, breathing human, and what is it that makes death so frightening?) , etc, etc. I think for this subject, you'd need to dig very deeply and cover different countries with different cultures that still preform and love Shakespeare, and what factor connects it all in the end. What is it that makes actors want to preform such dated theatre? Why is it, that even though we all have different backgrounds, speak different languages, and come from different countries, Shakespeare still manages to amaze us all? And as a last thing, it's really important to consider the differences between modern Shakespeare performances and original preformed plays. Because that is the one thing that will probably make the difference in your article. – AyakaHoshina9 years ago
Every performance/adaptation of Shakespeare that you see today is being interpreted from a modern perspective and we will take the bits of it we recognise and change the bits we don't. The most fabulous version of Taming of the Shrew I saw was by a company called Propeller - an all male theatre company (like the original context) that turned Shrew into a tragedy with Kate a broken women at the end, saying her speeches out of fear. If we look at versions such as Luhrmann's (best Shakespeare on film ever, btw) or, indeed The Lion King (kind of based on Hamlet) it is placed in a heightened world where the plot makes sense, (gang war, the animal kingdom...) but Shakespeare, like fairytales, will never be dated whilst we can still recognise aspects of it in the modern world (like misogyny, racism, the overwhelming need for love at all costs...) – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Interesting. But how is the body of this topic related to its title? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyse the shortcomings of the movie adaptation over the novel, and the inherent benefits a movie adaptation brings with it over its novel counterpart. There's a great deal of debate about the movie toning things down — here you can discuss the role of censorship. And this might bring you to conclude that apart from the lack of motion, action, and music, the book is better than the movie adaptation.
This is a broader argument in the original work vs adaptation department (usually noted in novel vs movie arguments). How can one compare two radically different treatments of the same origin material, especially if the adaptions aren't done by the original creators? While always a good idea for debate, the actual idea that one can be better than the other comes down to comparing the original to like-material and the adaption to like-treatments of other work. Example: You should talk of how a successful adaption like "Lord of the Rings" works while an unsuccessful one, say "Super Mario Bros." doesn't and why. Recreating the book in movie form is not the goal, making a film feature inspired by the book elements is, don't fall into the trap of being able to compare a movie to a book. You wouldn't compare "Citizen Kane" with "Fahrenheit 451", so it becomes about seeing whether a movie adaption of a novel has successfully presented the original material in film form effectively with the techniques available and true to the intention of the novel (going back to "Lord of the Rings" note while the story is the same, the films are almost nothing like the books). This can easily address the idea of "lack of motion, action and music" by showing how it's not the techniques an art form lacks that make any difference, but the effective use of the ones at hand (the ways of using written word for books, and the ways of utilizing visual and audio methods for film). The idea of censorship is a great starting place. – smartstooge9 years ago
In the recent horror film titled Babadook, it is clear that the main character suffers hallucinations and eventually goes through insanity because something we all experience; a toothache. This would be an interesting article to write, since something so human that pertains to all of us, causes this insanity, and leads to a perfect psychological thriller. Examine how many other horror films can be humanized, and the events of horror films can be explained by natural human behavior/actions.
It would be really cool to look at films like Silence Of The Lambs and Hannibal because of the extremely unique main characters. They too have scarily very realistic human qualities, which is what makes a story so brilliant and plausible. – Nof9 years ago
This could be a good article, especially if you examine both the psychology of the villains and of the victims. – Winter9 years ago
It would be interesting to note how said humanity affects the protagonist(s) in their treatment of the antagonist. – smartstooge9 years ago
Whoever writes on this topic should be sure not leave out a good analysis of the mother and her son. The complexities of their relationship drive the movie and really ground it on something tangible that the audience can grasp onto. – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
What is interesting to me is that I recently heard another interpretation of The Babadook, that the monster was the young boy's way of explaining his mother's depression and mental strife after the death of her husband. Another angle for a topic like this could be to present the different humanizing theories to a film and maybe do some sort of analysis. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
Isnt that what all good writing does, makes us wonder how we would respond given the characters same circumstances?
– NovaHammer4 years ago
That sounds interesting, but a single example is not enough for me to believe there is a trend that can be found in "many other horror films." – T. Palomino2 years ago
Explore the filmography of M. Night Shyamalan, i.e. what marked his growth in popularity as a director/film-maker and why he has fallen so far and so rapidly to become, essentially, a joke of the film industry. Analyse what makes some of his most notorious films (i.e. The Happening, The Last Airbender, After Earth) both bad, but entertaining to watch. Is there is still a place for his well-intentioned film-making in modern Hollywood or should he be dismissed as an anomaly of the 90's which happened to be lucky twice in a row with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. Will 'The Visit" be worth seeing or will it fail both financially and critically, and potentially, mark the end of his career? Or is he invulnerable from this sort of flak?
There's also Signs and the reception behind that. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This would make an interesting read. M. Night Shyamalan's works seem to be either a hit or a miss for most people, depending on taste. Signs and the The Sixth Sense are two of my favourite films. I cringe whenever someone mentions The Happening though. It might be of interest to take a look at his personal life during the making of some of the films as well.
– Lexzie9 years ago
There's this book called, "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M Night Shymalan Risked His Career for a Fairy Tale" that chronicles his struggle to get "The Lady in the Water" made. I've never read it myself but I'm told it really spells out his creative process. – Cagney9 years ago
Joel Edgerton's directorial debut film "The Gift" (2015) shows how a small rumor can ruin someone's life and how the past eventually catches up with us. Analyze and discuss the psychological and emotional effects of bullying. Also discuss whether or not time actually heals all wounds and if people actually change as a result.
This article would take a look at biopics from within the past two decades and discuss which ones were successful commercially and/or critically, and which ones have failed in those respects. The article would discuss the subjects of the biopics, the accuracy with which they are presented, and whether or not these films received enough publicity at the times they were being made.
I think it would also be interesting to look at who the biopics are about and if they are relevant in the times that the movies were made. By this I mean if a particular scientific breakthrough has made popular news is there a biopic made about somebody in that field. This topic could definitely say something about social history. – DClarke9 years ago
There's no doubt that talking about the historical veracity of any given biographical film will be difficult since, ultimately, they are only an interpretation of history rather than a clear record of it. With that said, I figure this article does have a lot of potential and could be taken in a number of different directions. One could write a list about the best and worst biopics and what made them good or bad. Another possible angle would be to talk about all the things that biopics have left out. The 1982 film Gandhi didn't make any mention (from what I can recall) of Gandhi's relationship with Hitler, and how he conducted an eerily formal correspondence with him. DClarke also has a solid suggestion; are there some biopics that shouldn't be made on the grounds that their subject doesn't really matter? The only angle I'd stay away from is whether historical accuracy matters in movies seeing as how John Wilson is currently writing a piece about that very topic. – August Merz9 years ago
This would be a very interesting topic to write about, since biopics tend to always receive less publicity than high action Hollywood movies. Good films to talk about would be "Girl with a pearl earring" and the relatively new "Theory of Everything". Both didnt recieve much publicity, but both were received very well by critics. Perhaps this article could also discuss how directors and producers find their sources and their information for these films. – Valeria Sharivker9 years ago
When Affleck was announced as the new vigilante hero, the blogosphere exploded. "How could they?!" the writers screamed. What have they done? What is the root of our upset? Are we comparing him to other Batmans or comparing him to his own body of work?
In addition to his body of work, maybe fans are upset with his skills as an actor? – Tanner Ollo9 years ago
On a broader note it may be helpful to look at re-castings of popular characters, especially recently. How many Hulks have we gone through? Will Spiderman ever have an iconic actor play him? The case of Batman is very interesting too because he's almost never been played by the same actor more than twice in the movies, does that make him a special case, like James Bond? These are all important points to look at, beyond Affleck himself. – smartstooge9 years ago
I think it might help too if you compare this to the last time he played a superhero, Daredevil, and why people are critical to the idea of him being Batman considering that Daredevil bombed. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
I agree with the idea that this topic should be expanded. Perhaps how to cast for superhero films? However, if we are staying with the Batman universe - it should be mentioned that Heath Ledger received negative reactions from fans when he was first cast as the Joker. Heath then went on to win an Academy Award for his performance. – cdenomme969 years ago
This is an interesting topic, but perhaps this should be used as an example or a starting point instead of the entire topic. I would advise broadening it: why does the internet seem to blow up about these things? Why was Jared Leto's casting of the Joker so controversial? Why was Heath Ledger's for the matter? And why did people freak over the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman, but not Henry Cavill as Superman? It could be an interesting commentary on internet culture, if you broaden it's scope just a bit. – MIKAILARUSHING9 years ago
I think that's a fair point-- but covering all of the characters would give the article breadth, but not necessarily depth, if the writer were looking to do a shorter piece. – meganhennessey9 years ago
They will be casting new Batmans time after time and people will be complaining every single time. – T. Palomino2 years ago
