What films have you been watching? (XII/IB) - CFC's Dirty Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's really weird to me that you couldn't do a black Achilles but Cleopatra played by a woman of Northwest European descent doesn't bother you

Maybe she doesn't bother me when playing a greek role, cause she looks greek.
That said, if you follow my reviews of Bbc's Troy, you'll see that (imo) actually their Achilles actor was very far from being the worst in that garbage-fest. At least the actor playing Achilles did have stage presence.
 
Great Acting trumps casting any day of the week (for me anyways).
 
^Immersion has to be also a consideration, as long as we are talking about a movie/ series. In a stage production it wouldn't matter.
That said, as noted, black Achilles really was nowhere near what doomed this new bbc series to ridicule. In fact the actor playing Achilles was among the relatively positive things in the show. I do really hope he will easily find more (and better) work after this bbc fiasco ^^
 
It's really weird to me that you couldn't do a black Achilles but Cleopatra played by a woman of Northwest European descent doesn't bother you

Cleopatras ethnicity is still highly disputed, though the scholarly consensus if that she was majority macedonian greek - so neither Northwest European nor African. However there is some evidence that parts of her lineage were indeed Egyptians.

It has been suggested – although generally not by credible scholarly sources – that Cleopatra was racially black African. To be blunt, there is absolutely no evidence for this, yet it is one of those issues that seems to take on a life of its own despite all indication to the contrary. What follows lays out the evidence for Cleopatra’s racial ancestry, but one must not forget that this is of little importance in assessing the legacy of the queen in world history.

Duane W. Roller, Oxford University Press

Spoiler :

Let us consider exactly the evidence for Cleopatra’s racial background. It’s a little complicated, so do follow closely! She was born in early 69 BC as the descendant of a line of Egyptian kings in a dynasty that went back 250 years. Her ancestor Ptolemy I, a companion of Alexander the Great, founded the dynasty in the late fourth century BC. Ptolemy was Macedonian Greek in origin (he grew up at the royal court of Alexander’s father in Macedonia, the northern part of the Greek peninsula), and established himself as king of Egypt in the convulsive years after Alexander’s death. The descent passed through six successor Ptolemies until it reached Cleopatra’s father. So Cleopatra was no more than eight generations away from being pure Macedonian Greek.


Image Credit: ‘Sarah Bernhardt (1844 – 1923) in the role of Cleopatra’, by Georges Jules Victor Clairin (1843 – 1919), Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
But what about the mothers? Women are always difficult to find, even in royal dynasties, and it is here that questions of her racial background have been raised. For the first six generations the wives of the ruling Ptolemies also came from the same Macedonian background as their husbands. So until the time of Cleopatra’s great-grandfather, the ethnic makeup of the dynasty was still pure Macedonian Greek. In fact two of her ancestors married their sisters, thus reinforcing the Macedonian ethnicity.

It is with Cleopatra’s grandfather that uncertainties develop. Although he had two wives of traditional Macedonian background, he seems to have had at least one concubine of uncertain origin, who may have been Cleopatra’s grandmother. But this is by no means clear, and some sources indicate she was her husband’s sister, and thus pure Macedonian.

Assuming, however, that Cleopatra’s grandmother was not from the traditional Macedonian Greek stem, the question arises as to just what she was. Sources suggest that if she was not Macedonian, she was probably Egyptian. So by the time of Cleopatra’s grandparents, there may have been an Egyptian element in the racial stem.

Cleopatra’s father also had several wives. One was his sister, but again there is evidence that some of his five children had another mother. Yet the geographer Strabo (one of the few contemporary sources for the life of Cleopatra) wrote that all the wives of her father were women of significant status, which rules out any slaves or concubines, and makes it possible that Cleopatra’s mother was of the traditional Macedonian Greek stock. But this may not have been the case, so one may need to look elsewhere for the ethnic background of Cleopatra’s mother. Yet there is only one other ethnic group that produced women of status in contemporary Egypt: the Egyptian religious elite, which in fact had a long history of intermarriage with the Ptolemaic dynasty. So Cleopatra’s mother may have been Egyptian, but she probably also had some Macedonian background.

There are three other matters worthy of consideration. One is that Cleopatra was the only ruler of her dynasty who knew, in addition to her native Greek, the Egyptian language. This suggests close association with an Egyptian speaker, perhaps her mother. Secondly, Cleopatra’s daughter, who became queen of Mauretania (and was mixed ethnically herself, as her father was Roman), honored the Egyptian religious elite at her far-off capital of Mauretanian Caesarea (in modern Algeria). This makes sense if they were part of her ancestral family. And third – especially relevant in demolishing any suggestion that Cleopatra had black African blood – the representations of her in Greek and Roman art and coins do not show anything other than traditional Mediterranean ethnicity, although artists were perfectly capable of showing other ethnic groups.


To sum up: it is quite possible that Cleopatra was pure Macedonian Greek. But it is probable that she had some Egyptian blood, although the amount is uncertain. Certainly it was no more than half, and probably less. The best evidence is that she was three-quarters Macedonian Greek and one-quarter Egyptian. There is no room for anything else, certainly not for any black African blood.

Yet all this argumentation is rather silly. What is important about Cleopatra is that she became one of the most powerful rulers of her era. She was a skilled linguist, a naval commander, an expert administrator, a religious leader who was seen by some as a messianic figure, and a worthy opponent of the Romans. She was worshipped in Egypt for at over 400 years after her death. Race seems irrelevant in such a situation, and it goes without saying that people should be judged by their abilities, not their race. But sadly, even in twenty-first century America, this is far from the case. It is unlikely that Cleopatra cared about her racial makeup, but people over 2000 years later still obsess about it, thus trivializing her accomplishments. /end quote
 
Cleopatras ethnicity is still highly disputed, though the scholarly consensus if that she was majority macedonian greek - so neither Northwest European nor African. However there is some evidence that parts of her lineage were indeed Egyptians.

Interesting info, but I don't actually have any stake in the argument over Cleopatra's race. I'm certainly not going to die on the hill of "she was black." All I was doing was pointing out what seemed to me a bit of a double standard. And incidentally I said "northwest european descent" rather than "white woman" precisely because Cleopatra afaik was ethnically Greek.

a worthy opponent of the Romans.

As I learned it, she was largely an ally of the Romans, not their opponent.

It is unlikely that Cleopatra cared about her racial makeup,

Also it's anachronistic to even apply the concept to her time. Race is a modern and early modern phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Also it's anachronistic to even apply the concept to her time. Race is a modern and early modern phenomenon.
I'd think she'd have a harder time with the concept of "movies."
 
As I learned it, she was largely an ally of the Romans, not their opponent.

She was an ally of Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius, but the Senate by and large despised her and Octavian went on to annex the kingdom of Egypt after defeating the Egyptian forces at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC.
 
She was an ally of Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius, but the Senate by and large despised her and Octavian went on to annex the kingdom of Egypt after defeating the Egyptian forces at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC.

Very VERY local trivia: At some point some useless student in highschool answered the history teacher's (a relic) test question "Where was the naval battle of Actium fought?" with "At Actium", and got the relic to accept this was an answer which should be marked with a perfect score.
I, much like other serious people, gave a lengthy answer (topography etc). It is likely i got even part of the mark taken out, eg for spelling :lol:

rant: this is the teacher who made me hate history. Up to then it was among my favourite subjects, likely only second to math.
 
Clearly that teacher wasn't up to much, since "at Actium" is useless to telling anyone where it is. Even something as anodyne as "at the mouth of the Ambracian Gulf, off the coast of Western Greece" would have been better.
 
Clearly that teacher wasn't up to much, since "at Actium" is useless to telling anyone where it is. Even something as anodyne as "at the mouth of the Ambracian Gulf, off the coast of Western Greece" would have been better.

Well, she had mental issues, and was already old and a loner. She did seem to have at first picked me as her prize student, and kept asking me to read stuff in class, or answer all questions. The other students took notice. I thought that it was bad, but at least i would get a good grade. She even would mention me when talking to parents of other students! Then she gave me a mark of 16/20, which was really ridiculous given all course work was at least 18/20 ; in fact 16/20 was lower than any decent student's mark :lol:

Yes, i hated the lesson after her ^^
 
She was an ally of Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius, but the Senate by and large despised her and Octavian went on to annex the kingdom of Egypt after defeating the Egyptian forces at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC.

Yeah, but her picking the losing side in the Roman civil war, imo, doesn't make her an "opponent" of the Romans. But that is a very minor quibble with what is otherwise a very informative and excellent piece (I do want to thank @yung.carl.jung for posting it again).
 
Moderator Action: I've moved the discussion about Cleopatra and Catherine de Medici in Civ 6 into the Video Games thread.
 
Except that we were discussing Liz Taylor who was certainly not in the video game… :rolleyes:
 
Right, can we get back to discussing movies we watched recently, as per the thread title?

The Death of Stalin has the same kind of humor as the coffee I drink. People summarily getting shot point-blank is played for laughs. And like black coffee, I like it a lot. Highlights include motions being passed unanimously, pointless bureaucratic procedures, and Georgy Moderator Action: <SNIP> Zhukov (HERO OF THE SOVIET UNION). Nicky Khrushchev was also great. Stalin with a British accent is weird, but still grievously funny (like a movie counterpart of Wolfenstein: The New Colossus' Hitler on Venus). The movie makes lasting impressions of the ruthlessness and amorality of power-hungry politicians. I cannot speak for how historically accurate the movie is, as I only know the basic facts of that period.

Moderator Action: Warned for inappropriate language and avoiding the language filter. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderator Action: Please include some original text in each post. Thank you.
 
I've been going through all the Marvel movies and watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers this weekend.

Winter Soldier - Better than I remember. I liked the spy-thriller angle that the first 3/4ths of the movie has. The interactions between Captain and Black Widow were the best parts. However there were too many leaps in logic/reality and nonsensical moments that took me out of the film.

The Avengers - I don't think I've seen this in full since it came out in theaters so I had forgotten most of it. Anytime Robert Downey Jr. wasn't on the screen it was...I don't want to say boring...less entertaining? The writers and/or actors didn't seem to know how to make all the characters interesting given their limited screen time. The best part was when everyone was in the room arguing with each other while the scepter was in the background. It was an interesting bit of foreshadowing without explicitly calling out the mind stone.

Next up: Age of Ultron.
 
Coco was pretty awesome. The songs were good and the animation was great and of course it tugged on the heart strings.
 
Speaking of songs, my daughter was home for the Holiday so we had to watch something besides a superhero film. So I was forced to watch Pitch Perfect III. After the second one being not very good, I was pleasantly surprised to find this one entertaining. More like the original but with a superhero feel. ;) I did keep expecting football players to break out in song.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom