Germanicus
Aktives Mitglied
Ich habe einen Beitrag von Kathleen M. Coleman gefunden, die damals beim Film Gladiator als "Historische Beraterin" mitgewirkt hat. Der Bericht ist wirklich interessant, da es einen kleinen Einblick gibt, wie "ernst" es Hollywood mit Hinweisen von Historikern nimmt.
In response to David Lupher's message to the Classics List entitled "K. Coleman on Gladiator" I would like to make a statement of my own, to correct the impression created by views compiled from selective quotations out of a newspaper article that was composed on the basis of answers to specific questions. The article from which Mr. Lupher was quoting extracts was written by a journalist after a telephone interview in which he wanted to know specifically about the accuracy of the portrayals of gladiatorial combat in the film. Hence the "specific inaccuracies" mentioned in that article represent only a fraction of the distortions and errors in the film that appall me and all other classical scholars. Mr. Lupher's message to the List gives the impression, whether intentionally or not, that in my opinion historical authenticity does not matter, whereas the point that came out of Mr. Beck's article is that consultants have no control over the use that a movie company makes of their advice. So, here is what happened.
My job was to advise DreamWorks on the authenticity of the script with which they presented me. This script was based on a fictitious plot involving historical characters, so from the outset I emphasized that it was crucially important to have statements on the screen at the beginning and the end summarizing the historical facts of Commodus' reign and making it clear that the film was not a "true story". In the belief that it should be possible to recreate an authentic atmosphere even in a work of historical fiction, I tried to identify and comment upon every detail in the script that pertained to authenticity. Some of these were issues arising from the plot, some arose from the dialogue, and some were embedded in the stage directions. It was clear that the stage directions represented just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the distortions and inaccuracies that could be perpetrated in the actual process of filming, and so I constantly emphasized the vital importance of having consultants present throughout the filming process. I also recommended that DreamWorks should bring in experts on specific aspects to be present on location to guide the director and producers in the filming of the relevant scenes. For example, it was clear to me that, in addition to those aspects of ancient warfare that came up in the script and on which I did my homework and commented in detail, the process of filming the opening battle-sequences would need the in-put of an expert on the Roman army. The scenes involving gladiatorial combat are another case in point. The script could reveal very little of what these scenes were actually going to look like, although it did contain references to which I repeatedly objected (e.g. multiple opponents for a single protagonist). Having seen the final product, I can only assume that no scholar was consulted during the filming of those scenes, or indeed of any other sequence in the entire film.
I read three successive drafts of the script, did extensive research in all sorts of areas in an attempt to recommend alternatives where there were anachronisms, and sent in very detailed reports on each version of the script, plus explanations of technical issues such as Roman nomenclature and the importance of getting it right. The response to my comments was entirely eclectic. Some issues were addressed, so that clearly there was some attempt to take advantage of my recommendations; but many were not, and I was repeatedly commenting upon the same problems in successive drafts. Also, inevitably, each fresh draft introduced new distortions. In addition to my reports, I sent photocopies of material that I thought might be helpful, and recommended various resources, but I had no means of telling how much use was being made of any of this, apart from the evidence contained in the drafts of the script that I saw. I also tried to anticipate elements that weren't evident in the script but would impact on the authenticity of the film, and alert DreamWorks to the necessity of taking expert advice on such matters as sets, costumes etc., but there is no evidence that they did so. I also answered questions on individual points from two of the script-writers and some members of the production team when things occurred to them; but clearly far, far fewer things occurred to them than the sum total that they should have been seeking advice on throughout the entire process of making the film. One other very serious flaw in the way the consultancy process worked was that the script continued to evolve throughout the shooting of the film, so that the screenplay of the final version is radically different from the last version I had seen; add to that all the visual effects, and the result is protean in its capacity for distortion.
In the world of scholarship a scholar stands over everything published under his or her name; if I publish an article or a book, I take responsibility for the mistakes in it. But a consultant for a film has no control over the use that is made of his or her advice. A clause in my contract was supposed to protect me from being named on the screen if I could not stand over the final product and put my imprimatur to it, though when that clause was drafted I had no idea quite how great the chasm would be between my input and the resulting artefact. When I was invited to a preview and saw the film that had evolved out of the last version of the script that I had seen, I made it plain that I did not wish to receive a credit; but my name does appear in a list of persons thanked for their contribution. Mr. Lupher says in his message to the List: "I trust she blushes all the way to the bank." I do not feel ashamed of the way in which I executed my tasks in connection with this film, since I worked very hard to give the most accurate advice possible, and responded as conscientiously and promptly as I could to every version of the script and every query, verbal or written. I am deeply disillusioned by the final product, which makes virtually no attempt to represent an authentic Roman past. But the film is attracting large audiences and generating a large amount of interest in the Roman world, and if it at least brings students into our classrooms we shall be able to engage them in responsible study of Antiquity, even if we have to disabuse them of a great many erroneous pre-conceptions engendered by the film. I wish I could think of a way to ensure that film companies would make responsible use of the advice of consultants; but in the meantime if any of you on the Classics List are approached by a film company saying that they want to make an authentic film about Antiquity, I suggest you shed any illusions that your contribution will have any discernible effect. At best, some flaws that were in the original version of the script may have been excised from it; but what stays in, and what is added, is determined by a range of priorities, of which the advice of the consultant clearly comes right at the bottom.
Edit by Leopold Bloom: Der Beitrag wurde auf Wunsch von Germanicus aus dem Pfad "Der 13te Krieger" (http://www.geschichtsforum.de/showthread.php?t=4184) hierher verschoben.
In response to David Lupher's message to the Classics List entitled "K. Coleman on Gladiator" I would like to make a statement of my own, to correct the impression created by views compiled from selective quotations out of a newspaper article that was composed on the basis of answers to specific questions. The article from which Mr. Lupher was quoting extracts was written by a journalist after a telephone interview in which he wanted to know specifically about the accuracy of the portrayals of gladiatorial combat in the film. Hence the "specific inaccuracies" mentioned in that article represent only a fraction of the distortions and errors in the film that appall me and all other classical scholars. Mr. Lupher's message to the List gives the impression, whether intentionally or not, that in my opinion historical authenticity does not matter, whereas the point that came out of Mr. Beck's article is that consultants have no control over the use that a movie company makes of their advice. So, here is what happened.
My job was to advise DreamWorks on the authenticity of the script with which they presented me. This script was based on a fictitious plot involving historical characters, so from the outset I emphasized that it was crucially important to have statements on the screen at the beginning and the end summarizing the historical facts of Commodus' reign and making it clear that the film was not a "true story". In the belief that it should be possible to recreate an authentic atmosphere even in a work of historical fiction, I tried to identify and comment upon every detail in the script that pertained to authenticity. Some of these were issues arising from the plot, some arose from the dialogue, and some were embedded in the stage directions. It was clear that the stage directions represented just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the distortions and inaccuracies that could be perpetrated in the actual process of filming, and so I constantly emphasized the vital importance of having consultants present throughout the filming process. I also recommended that DreamWorks should bring in experts on specific aspects to be present on location to guide the director and producers in the filming of the relevant scenes. For example, it was clear to me that, in addition to those aspects of ancient warfare that came up in the script and on which I did my homework and commented in detail, the process of filming the opening battle-sequences would need the in-put of an expert on the Roman army. The scenes involving gladiatorial combat are another case in point. The script could reveal very little of what these scenes were actually going to look like, although it did contain references to which I repeatedly objected (e.g. multiple opponents for a single protagonist). Having seen the final product, I can only assume that no scholar was consulted during the filming of those scenes, or indeed of any other sequence in the entire film.
I read three successive drafts of the script, did extensive research in all sorts of areas in an attempt to recommend alternatives where there were anachronisms, and sent in very detailed reports on each version of the script, plus explanations of technical issues such as Roman nomenclature and the importance of getting it right. The response to my comments was entirely eclectic. Some issues were addressed, so that clearly there was some attempt to take advantage of my recommendations; but many were not, and I was repeatedly commenting upon the same problems in successive drafts. Also, inevitably, each fresh draft introduced new distortions. In addition to my reports, I sent photocopies of material that I thought might be helpful, and recommended various resources, but I had no means of telling how much use was being made of any of this, apart from the evidence contained in the drafts of the script that I saw. I also tried to anticipate elements that weren't evident in the script but would impact on the authenticity of the film, and alert DreamWorks to the necessity of taking expert advice on such matters as sets, costumes etc., but there is no evidence that they did so. I also answered questions on individual points from two of the script-writers and some members of the production team when things occurred to them; but clearly far, far fewer things occurred to them than the sum total that they should have been seeking advice on throughout the entire process of making the film. One other very serious flaw in the way the consultancy process worked was that the script continued to evolve throughout the shooting of the film, so that the screenplay of the final version is radically different from the last version I had seen; add to that all the visual effects, and the result is protean in its capacity for distortion.
In the world of scholarship a scholar stands over everything published under his or her name; if I publish an article or a book, I take responsibility for the mistakes in it. But a consultant for a film has no control over the use that is made of his or her advice. A clause in my contract was supposed to protect me from being named on the screen if I could not stand over the final product and put my imprimatur to it, though when that clause was drafted I had no idea quite how great the chasm would be between my input and the resulting artefact. When I was invited to a preview and saw the film that had evolved out of the last version of the script that I had seen, I made it plain that I did not wish to receive a credit; but my name does appear in a list of persons thanked for their contribution. Mr. Lupher says in his message to the List: "I trust she blushes all the way to the bank." I do not feel ashamed of the way in which I executed my tasks in connection with this film, since I worked very hard to give the most accurate advice possible, and responded as conscientiously and promptly as I could to every version of the script and every query, verbal or written. I am deeply disillusioned by the final product, which makes virtually no attempt to represent an authentic Roman past. But the film is attracting large audiences and generating a large amount of interest in the Roman world, and if it at least brings students into our classrooms we shall be able to engage them in responsible study of Antiquity, even if we have to disabuse them of a great many erroneous pre-conceptions engendered by the film. I wish I could think of a way to ensure that film companies would make responsible use of the advice of consultants; but in the meantime if any of you on the Classics List are approached by a film company saying that they want to make an authentic film about Antiquity, I suggest you shed any illusions that your contribution will have any discernible effect. At best, some flaws that were in the original version of the script may have been excised from it; but what stays in, and what is added, is determined by a range of priorities, of which the advice of the consultant clearly comes right at the bottom.
Edit by Leopold Bloom: Der Beitrag wurde auf Wunsch von Germanicus aus dem Pfad "Der 13te Krieger" (http://www.geschichtsforum.de/showthread.php?t=4184) hierher verschoben.
Zuletzt bearbeitet von einem Moderator: