Hercules: The Problematic Hero

Hercules is a problematic hero because of Hera's wrath placed upon him. Although, he completed many heroic deeds he suffered fits of madness as a result of Hera's jealousy of his birth. These fits of madness can be seen as his tragic flaw. In addition to his fits of madness however, was his lack of faithfulness for his wife Deianira which leads to his death. Another, more modern, representation of a problematic hero can be scene in the character of Jon Snow in the popular HBO series "Game of Thrones". Jon Snows problem lies in the conditions of his birth; being born the bastard of a king results in lack of respect and therefore authority. This results in his membership to the Night's Watch, similar to that of the twelve trials Hercules faces. It is there that he proves himself a natural leader and remarkable warrior. Similarly to that of Hercules it is there that those closest to him lead to his death by betrayal. The Night's Watch murder of Jon Snow parallels that of Deianira's murder of his husband has they were convinced by someone else. Lastly, is the parallel to Hercules becoming a god; Jon snow is revived through magic where he then leaves the Night's Watch to go and help his family. That is where the series left off and as you can see the story of Jon Snow as a problematic hero has parallels to that of Hercules.

Heracles

Heracles was doomed from the beginning. He faced the wrath of Hera from before his birth until after his death. Plagued with fits of madness that would claim the lives of those closest to him, Heracles led a troubled life. However, his life was filled with great deeds and feats of cunning and intellect as well as brute strength. What makes Heracles a problematic hero are the downfalls in his morals and those brought on with madness he is forced to endure. Most heroes in any book or movie are problematic. It allows the reader or viewer to connect with the hero. Watching a movie or reading a book would be far less interesting with a "perfect" hero. The most common example of a problematic hero would be any number of superheroes. They try to help humanity from a great evil and in the process they leave great destruction on their city and its inhabitants.

A Problematic Hero

Hercules is a very problematic hero because of his curse from Hera. He ends up saving a lot of lives but because of this curse he ends up killing his wife and children, and hurting many other people without any consequences. Heroes being immune to backlash is a common occurrence in epics and stories, but it still shows that Hercules was not all he was talked up to be. The fact that Hera cursed him at his birth, because she didn't want him to be born, reminds me of the movie Ella Enchanted, even though she isn't a hero, she is also cursed when she is born and has to overcome this. If i were to compare Hercules to a superhero though, Spiderman comes closest because, even though his heart is in the right place and he ends up saving people, he causes destruction everywhere and gets away with it.

Hercules- A Problematic Hero

Hercules was a problematic hero because the goddess Hera resented the fact that her husband Zeus had a kid with a mortal. She was so upset that she even tried to prevent his birth all together. When this failed, she decided to curse Hercules every now and then, rendering him completely insane. These fits of madness that he occasionally experienced often ended with Hercules killing at least some if not a number of innocent lives. However Hercules often performed many heroic deeds that helped many people stay alive. These conflicts made Hercules a problematic hero. He saved many innocent lives but at the cost of other innocent lives. He reminds me of the Star Trek next generation character named Q who enjoyed wrecking havoc on people's lives through out the galaxy, but who also played an important role in saving the Enterprise on many occasions.

Hercules: A Problematic Hero?

Hercules is a problematic hero because sometimes he kills people or hurts people and there are minimal consequences for him. For example, he killed his wife Megara and his children and he only had to get purified by King Thespius. Even though he kills them because of a madness that was brough on by Hera, I don't forgive him for this act because he marries again, and makes it possible for the exact same thing to happen again. In addition, he hurts the wise centaur, Chiron, putting him in eternal pain and for this he also recieves no consequences. I think there are quite a few modern heroes that experience the same thing, Superman, Spiderman, Batman, etc, all wreck havoc in their cities when fighting evil and for the most part don't experience the consequences of the havoc that the wreck.

Hercules: A Problematic Hero

Hercules is a problematic hero because Hera had made him such. Hera would cause Hercules to have fits of madness and rage, she did this through her magic and powers as a goddess. These fits by Hercules did not just affect himself, they also harmed people and things around him. By not being able to control his mentality and actions at times Hercules was a tool for death and destruction towards the undeserving. A hero would not harm or kill a person that does not deserve it. His lack of consistent stability, and his strength of arms but not of mind also makes Hercules a problematic hero. The character Hercules can be compared to the character Hulk from Marvel Comics.

Death of Maximus's Family

This scene was one of the most powerful scenes from the film in my opinion. As the camera panned up to show the feet of Maximus's family I audibly gasped. The position of Maximus kneeling to the group beneath his hanging family shows his absolute loss of power and confidence as he loses everything he had left to live for. The angle of the camera looks down upon Maximus while also showing his family's feet, it makes the audience feel as though they are almost the one he is kneeling in front of. This gives the audience the impression of the main character not only being below his previous self but the audience as well, this sets him up to rise above his lowest point until the final scene when we look down upon him once again and he finally succumbs to death. It also shows the feet of his family to express to the audience that they are dead without being overly gory. Overall I found this scene to be powerful due to it's portrayal of the main character and the shock effect of seeing the feet of his dead family.

Gladiator

What's interesting to me about this scene, and plenty of others, is that the camera was not strategically manipulated to make Commodus seem taller than his sister Lucilla. It is something that bothers me every time I watch Gladiator. I always feel like someone who has the kind of power he has should be tall so that others have to look up at him, particularly those who are around him all the time. However, having his sister be taller than him might have been a decision the director made in order to have the viewers question Commodus' authority. Especially since Lucilla always looks so elegant and poised, and next to her Commodus looks like a trash bag. Again, I believe this was a conscious decision to make us question him and his position as emperor.

     This is the scene where Maximus has just beaten the the famous gladiator known for being undefeated. In this shot the audience is looking up at Maximus to show how powerful he is. The sun is shining on him and the handle of the axe is now golden and shining. His skill in battle is so good that some could even call it god like. The spectators chant his name as if he is some sort of divinity amongst them. He also makes the choice to not kill the man even though the emperor has motioned him to do so. The crowd seems to love this act of kindness and uproars even louder chanting his name. Also in this scene he is somewhat playing god because it is ultimately his choice if the other gladiator lives or dies. Symbolically he is taking the role of emperor away from Commodus because it is the emepors choice who lives or dies and Maximus makes that decision rather than the emperor.

This scene is when Commodus is feeling the crowd for how they think the fight should end. The camera angle gives power to him because we are looking up at him while he looks down on the gladiators. Their fate is in his hands and the smug look on his face means he knows how much power he has and he loves it. The way the lens focus is not on the hand but on his face makes the audience pay attention to his expressions as he makes his decision, playing up the suspense just for the sake of the crowd. His dark clothing and dark background gives the appearance that Commodus is in a dark shadow, which is fitting because he is about to seal the deal on whether a man is killed or not. Also his dark outfit shows his evil character and you can't really see his body, only his hand and his head, the two important, decision making focuses of the scene.

Gladiator Screenshot Analysis

This screenshot shows an up close picture of Maximus right before he is going to kill the other gladiator.  At least that is what the crowd and viewers think, but instead he lets the other go to chants of "Maximus the merciful!!!"  looking back on this shot we could have guessed that he was about to do something good because of the light shining in behind him.  Light like this shining down upon someone in a movie is always a sign that the person is good or will do something good. The way Maximus is looking down, with a look of part pity and part sadness, shows really well the conflict in Maximus' mind between killing to be set free, or not killing out of morality.  Just after this shot, Maximus drops his axe and wins the crowd over further, setting up his final duel with Commodus by angering him further.

Gladiator.

The scene above shows Commodus confronting Maximus before the final combat scene. The scene seems to embody the continuous theme of "squaring off" as it undoubtedly resembles scene from movies as far back as Ben-Hur (1925) where Messala and Ben-Hur puff chests at each other before the race. However, Gladiator is true to its claim of being visually different in that for one of the first times the evil villain is clad completely in white, contrasting later with Maximus' characteristic black armor. In the specific scene above, Maximus is intended to resemble Jesus. His arms are spread in the pose of crucifixion and his garment is simple light colored cloth. Thus, his death makes him a martyr of the cause of the Roman Republic rather than Christianity. Additionally, the use of lighting in this scene creates a stronger contrast between the enemies. The light hits Maximus in streaks over his face, illuminating him, while Commodus is left in the dark to mirror his character. Hopefully the filmmakers hoped by slightly blurring the background that nobody would notice Maximus not securely chained. In fact it looks like he is holding himself there. 

This scene depicts Maximus prior to his first fight in the Coliseum in which he is intended to loose. More importantly is the fact that the main character wears a helmet. In almost all other movies the main character always has their face revealed to the audience. However, his face being covered helps build the tension in the following scene in which he reveals his identity to Commodus. As a result, of this clever use of facial protection the director more effectively gets the emotional response from the audience that he intended

Gladiator Scene Analysis

This shot depicts Maximus's reaction to all the carnage around him after the battle is over. While the battle was won, Maximus is not celebrating as though he has won some great victory that will bring about a lasting peace. On the contrary Maximus looks appalled by the carnage that he see's all around him. His face appears darkened and even slightly mangled by the battle he just fought. He looks like a man who has suffered from the violence just like the rest of his men. In my opinion what this scene depicts is that Maximus is not a conflict first sort of a man. I think this scene tells us that he is an ordinary man who simply cares for his farm and his family. In addition it also shows that Maximus cares for his soldiers and men who are under his command and that he feels responsible for them. Overall the shot is used to portray Maximus as an ordinary man even though he holds the distinction of being one of Rome's best generals.

Gladiator Scene

I believe this scene is after his fight with the gladiator Tigris of Gaul. My reasoning for this is that this was the first fight where he was actually struck by his opponent. We can see that the sunlight is directly on Maximus, which is to most likely indicate he is the hero. What I find most interesting is his armor. This is the armor that was given to him by Proximo before they traveled to Rome. My point is that he was given the armor before anyone knew his identity or story, yet on the left side it happens to have woman and child holding hands. Coincidence?

Gladiator Scene Analysis

Like most toga movies, Gladiator is filled with political subtext.  Along with serving as a warning for government corruption, Gladiator comments on the mob effect of politics and the power of the people.  In the film, both Maximus and Commodus must gain and retain public favor to achieve their goals.  Maximus needs the support of the people to kill Commodus and avenge his family and Commodus needs the support of the people in order to rule Rome.  This need for support can be seen in the scene where Commodus tries to orders his Praetorian Guard to execute Maximus after he revealed himself.  Due to Maximus’s incredibly entertaining performance in the ring,  the people in the stadiums angrily yell at Commodus to spare the gladiator.  Commodus quickly realizes that executing Maximus would damage his already rocky popularity and orders the Praetorian Guard to stand down, causing the crowd to cheer.  From this scene, it becomes clear that even Commodus, one of the most reviled Roman emperors in history, can be swayed by the pressure of public opinion.  Interestingly, Maximus is able to defy the crowd by sparing the life of Tigris.  Instead of this turning the crowd against Maximus, the crowd’s support for Maximus increases.  This can be interpreted as commentary on how easily swayed public opinions can be, especially when dealing with a popular and exciting figure.  Ultimately, Gladiator shows that the power of the people and public opinion can be just as powerful as the sword.  

   

Gladiator Scene Analysis

The movie, Gladiator, spins into this scene after a gladiator fight in the Zucchabar Province. There is a striking color contrast from the province to Rome. Zucchabar is full of deep reds, and browns and blues. The first scene in Rome, however, almost appears to be exclusively tints and shades of gray. From this long shot it is impossible to distinguish other colors. It is not until the close up shots until brighter colors appear. This color scheme is similar to that of the scenes on the battlefield in Germania. Which alludes to the battle that will be raging through Rome. This battle is more political, but there are still many gruesome deaths in the arena. Commodus and his supporters stand on one side while Maximus, senators, and the republic are on the other. The lack of light and color also show how evil has a strong hold on Rome. The darkness reflects the sinister ambitions and tyranny that exists in Rome. The parade is also reminiscent of those fascist totalitarian states like Italy and Nazi Germany in WWII. Another feature that shows the corruption of Rome.

Gladiator Scene

This is the scene of Commodus's arrival to Rome. This is a long and wide shot that has a focus on the front and the back. In the back stands the Colosseum of Rome. In the middle is citizens of Rome, large rectangles of nameless people. In the front is Emperor Commodus, his nephew Lucius, and two Senators, Gracchus and Gaius. Gracchus and Gaius are wearing white with black stripes, while Commodus is wearing white under his armor. The Colosseum behind Commodus shows what he will use for support. Support for his image, and his love for and from the people of Rome. However the Colosseum behind Commodus also shows that it will stab him in the back, betray him and cost him his life. The middle is what he wants acceptance and love from, Romes citizens is what he hopes to have standing behind him. And the the front is the Senators whom Commodus despises. In between Commodus and the Senators is Lucius, wearing brown, is acting as a barrier between these two opposing forces.  The majority of color in this shot is black and white, this makes the shot look drab and simplistic. The shots colossal background and animation makes it impressive as well. This is also a high angle shot, the camera is well above Commodus, Lucius and all Roman citizens. The Colosseum is the main object in the shot that is above the camera. This represents the prominence and importance of the Colosseum. This shot also says that the Colosseum is paramount when compared to other forces in Roman society.

Gladiator scene analysis

In this scene Maximus is walking through the fields to his family in the afterlife. The entire film we are given these flash backs of What looks like Maximus's hand grazing over this wheat. Initially in the opening scenes we are given the impression that he is reliving happier moments in his life and that is portrayed by the uplifting light sound of the music. we are never given a clear image of where Maximus is or what he is walking towards until the end of the film where the paths of reality and these visions cross. Upon Maximus's death we finally see his body walking through the fields and and we see that he is walking towards his family. It is now clear to see that Maximus's day dreams of a better time were really his visions of being with his family again and the difference between life and death is his being with his family

Was Nero Evil?

I myself do not believe that anybody is inherently evil, it is not something that somebody is born with but rather something that they develop. Nero was not purely evil however he did have evil qualities. He was responsible for the death of his brother, mother and two wives, and potentially thousands more in the Great Fire. The death's of his family members and wives were very personal killings that it takes a great amount of malice to perform, such as kicking his pregnant wife to death. Despite Nero's lack of respect for death and evil acts he was not an evil man. He was loved by most of his people and was respected and loved even after his death. Nero's evil deeds may have been a result of a poor childhood, being raised by a power hungry single mother and being put under the pressure of an entire empire at such a young age. This possibility that he was raised to be ruthless may be why Nero was capable of such evil deeds. Overall, I do think that Nero had evil moments in which he acted ruthlessly or poorly but he was not entirely or inherently evil.

Was Nero Evil? I believe that people are innately good and have good intentions. Although Nero is highlighted for his evil deeds, I don't think he was an all around evil person. An evil person only intends to do harm in this world, and I don't believe that any person could ever only intend to do harm. People supported him as Emperor so he must have done something at least somewhat good.  I'm not trying to say that Nero was a good person because he definitely wasn't. He killed members of his own family and evidence shows that he raped and abused many people. So there's no way he's a good person by any means but I'm still not convinced that he is an evil person.

A Perspective on Nero

Emperor Nero of Rome carries a preconceived notion of persecution, cruelty, and insanity. However, he is historically attributed to the execution against his own family the most. In 55 he poisoned his brother and in 59 he was responsible for the murder of his own mother. Consequently, the deaths of two of his wives followed in the years of his rule. While Christians were heavily persecuted by Rome, Nero is not an outstanding example of that or the only cruel emperor. The people of Rome actually supported him throughout his reign. If he had not alienated the Senate, he may be remembered in a kinder light than he is now. Although Nero was supported by some, the concept of him as an embodiment of evil is plausible to those after his rule. Stories of rape, mugging, murder, and homosexual abuse tend to conjure negative connotations. Therefore, Nero is certainly responsible for evil deeds and should in no way be idolized. However, if there were people who supported him he must have been a decent emperor in the public eye, at least at the time. A film representation of Nero as punishing and malicious could very easily slip out of accuracy and take the evil actions much further.

Evil Nero

Nero seemed to always be causing trouble to someone somewhere. He had several people close to him killed including his mother Agrippina, his wives Octavia and Poppaea, the natural son of Claudius, and others. The only decent act he seemed to do, whether it was genuine or for personal gain, was organize relief measures for the public after the fire. His kindness here was quickly overshadowed by the construction of his new Golden House. His passion for music was even quite selfish because he hired the greatest living master of the lyre as his personal teacher. From the article it would be easy to say Nero is evil, but unfortunately we don't know how much is true or written by a very biased author.

Was Nero Evil?

I think that you can never truly say that a person was absolutely evil. Everyone has redeeming qualities, it isn't inherently evil to like all things Greek or to have a love a music, plus the general populous loved him. However, it is very clear that Nero was not a good person, considering how his opponents, perceived or no, dropped like flies, even his mother. In addition, it is very unlikely that a good person would have a rumor about them going out at night to mug, attack, rape people, etc. Therefore, I would say that no, Nero was not evil through and through but he did a lot of evil thing and that makes him a bad person.

Nero

You could argue that Nero was not all bad.  At the beginning of his reign, he was viewed as a good ruler who held up democratic ideals, and gave speeches saying so.  But, he did not write these words, they were written by Seneca, his tutor and caretaker.  Later was when Nero started to show what I believe were his true colors.  He had his mother killed, then exiled his first wife (later having her killed) because he wanted a prettier wife.  Then, when his second wife was pregnant with their second child, he beat her to death.  Nero was clearly mentally unstable, and a very dangerous person, not just to those close to him but also to the general populous of Rome.  It is widely believed that he set a giant fire in Rome just so he could build a new house, then blamed it on the Christians.  So, Nero was really only bearable when he had Seneca keeping him in check.  After that he was able to let loose and do all of the crazy evil stuff he really wanted to do without opposition.

Is Nero evil?

Nero was a man plagued with power. At the age of 16 having the title of dictator of Rome is very overwhelming. However; it seemed he handled it fine with the guidance of his mother. This leads to his first burst of evil in a way as he orders his mother killed. This along with some other occurrences display the crazy and evil nature of Nero. Forcing the people to watch his plays and similar occurrences show how crazy Nero was. Yet Roman history was recorded by the wealthy. Nero raised taxes and pissed off the senate meaning that what we know of Nero may be biased and therefore I cannot determine if Nero is pure evil but rather a man of the common people who pissed off the wrong rich people.

Nero is evil

Nero was an evil man. Under his authority people with religious affiliations such as Christianity where tortured and morals destroyed. this being something that came with Nero’s amounts of overwhelming power. He was very cut throat and his expectations were not met, who ever responsible would suffer severe punishment. It was even said that Nero killed several family members including multiple wives and his own mother. This kind of ruthless instinct is something you see present in wild animals not human beings. As an emperor Nero was at fault for several horrendous actions leading up to his death and that is why we remember him today   

Does Nero deserve his reputation?

Nero certainly had a dysfunctional relationship with his mother Agrippina, even by modern standards.  Agrippina’s controlling relationship over her son reportedly bordered on incest and resulted in Nero becoming a paranoid, insecure and violent emperor.  The unhealthy relationship Nero had with Agrippina reminded me of the unnatural mother-son relationship in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, especially due to the early death of Nero’s father.  However, kicking to death a pregnant woman and many other crimes, such as his violent persecution of Christians, cannot be excused by a sympathetic childhood or a devotion to the Roman arts. Ultimately, Nero earns his infamous reputation.             

Was Nero Evil?

This question is a difficult one to answer because the history of Nero and his reign could be alternate to what actually occurred, to some degree. History is written by the victors and Nero was at the end, a loser. From what I do know of Nero through historical account he was an evil man. By his ruling Christians were tortured and their safety and comfort destroyed, Nero abused the Christians so much that sympathy for them was established by people that stood by. Nero's reign also accounted for the mistreatment of civilian's livelihoods, and the carelessness of the empire's economics. Along with his love of his own arts and the controlling of others, whether it be another mans genitals or a large audiences required attendance, by all this Nero is a through and through evil leader with selfish intentions.  

Nero is Absolutely Evil

Emperor Nero is in my view the very definition of evil. He was man who was so consumed by the executive power that he wielded that if something did not meet his expectations he would see fit to simply terminate by any means necessary. He killed two wives simply because they couldn't bear children for him. He even kicked one of his wives to death while she was pregnant with a child. Is that not the very definition of evil? While he may have been razed by a power hungry mother and brought up in a wealthy atmosphere, isn't Nero in the end responsible for his on actions? He murdered his own mother, I highly doubt that's what she razed him too do with his life.  Every individual is accountable for his own actions. Society or more specifically Nero's mother are not the guilty parties. Nero is solely responsible for his actions. Nero committed some horrific actions while he was Emperor of Rome and his ineffective rule and failure to get along with the Roman Senate led to his eventual assassination or suicide. I'd say he was a failure as both an emperor and especially as a person.

Is Nero Really Evil?

I do not think that I would go as far as to say that this emperor was evil. He started his reign when he was very young and he was under the influence of a controlling, power-hungry mother. I think the influence from his mom was what triggered the horrible things he decided to do. From the little information that is given about her, she seems more evil than him since rumor has it she tried to seduce him to gain more power for herself, and when she heard news of Nero planning on killing her she says "Let him kill me, only let him rule!" She was obsessed with her family having power and I think that planted those thoughts in his mind. Nero seems like he was quite flamboyant, and very self absorbed. These traits led to the events that made his reign come to an end. His paranoia made him make rash decisions and led him down a dark path that he believed was inevitable. Many Roman emperors did horrible things for their own gain, and hurt many people. Nero was not an outlier in this way. I think his actions were, not exaggerate, but accentuated and emphasized to be more horrendous than they actually were, because of the hate he had from the senate. So, I don't believe he was evil but he definitely was not a good man.

Evil Nero

From the information given on Nero, I would say he is entirely evil. In the reading it is said that Nero alienated the senatorial elite, and the aristocrats and wealthy men of Rome despised him. The historians of Ancient Rome were typically wealthy Romans who were biased against Nero. Knowing this, the rumors talked about in the text (e.g. mugging, attacking, and thieving at night), and other negative images of Nero could come from that bias. That being said during the first of two assassination conspiracies made on Nero, Nero's guards were complicit in the plan. Which means the people in charge of protecting him did not think he was worth protecting.  Nero orchestrated the deaths of nearly everyone in his family. Including the deaths of his wife, mother, and brother. During his second wife's pregnancy Nero kicked her to death. This man is obviously deranged and villainous. No mentally healthy person would willingly kill his wife and child. Nero is also described as narcissistic by his passion for performing music and on stage. This accumulative information on Nero's character shows how deplorable he is. However, it is said he still had the wide popular support of the common people of Rome. This means he was a talented actor (although reviews of his performances state otherwise) or he had some redeemable qualities. These qualities would have been glossed over by authors who hated Nero. Considering Nero's track record, though, it is unlikely there is any quality or qualities that would've balanced his murderous and vile tendencies.

Is there merit in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"?

Although the movie contains many offensive and stereotypical references to women the movie still achieves its goal: comedy. Even when it is most offensive it never goes to far; however, it does test its limits during the presentation of the races of the slave women. Nowadays people do take more offense to such pieces but I still feel that the movie is worth showing as it is interesting and funny. I feel this movie should still watch movies like this because they are very telling of the development of film and levels of comedy accepted in society. In any movie you can find offensive material this film is just straight up with it. How do you expect a director to even closely recreate Roman society if they are not true to the conditions of the time?

a funny thing happened on the way to the forum

In the film " A funny thing happened on the way to the forum" many stereotypes are used against every character. It wasn't until this prompt that I actually sat back and thought about them. while watching the film I enjoyed the humor and did not pay attention to negative connotations each character portrayed. all of the woman are giving the stereotype of sex objects and men of all ages and social status are pigs and perverted. on top of this the men are all stupid and are easily fooled for our entertainment and the woman who are not seen as sex objects are all smarted than men and more powerful. looking at this film as a comedy is the most you can expect, anything more this film can be very offensive.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

Throughout the movie, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, many jokes are made at the expense of the characters. The characters were typically an extreme stereotype of the type of person the actor was portraying. Senex, the old man who was the father of Hero and husband of Domina, was an grumbling obedient husband who was always eyeing the girls in the house next door and muttering complaints about his wife. Hero was a clumsy, fool. Philia main quality was being "lovely." Gloriosus was a narcissistic soldier. Most of the jokes are made the characters expense based on whatever their flaw was. The jokes and characters are used to critique the epics of Ancient Rome and Hollywood and the grandeur they put in their movies. Which makes it worth watching.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

A Funny Thing, while quite sexist, is still part of history. I believe that as long as viewers recognize the inherent issues in movies such as A Funny Thing, there is no real harm in watching it. Besides which, if we ignore the flaws apparent in our past then we cannot learn from our mistakes nor others mistakes and then we may well make the same mistakes again, like that Winston Churchill quote, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In addition, we can learn a lot from A Funny Thing as all movies are a commentary on the time period, and also we can learn how much the film industry improved since the 1963 epic Cleopatra.

I think we should still watch this movie because it doesn't only attack women, it attacks everyone. It's similar to the show "South Park" because it gets away with being sexist by attacking all sexes and groups. It wasn't specifically targeting a certain group. Also, we need to understand that we are in a new era of morals, it's important for us to understand that people thought differently and thus had different morals 50 years ago. It would be more obnoxious of us to be offended by every little thing in this movie than to try and understand their point of view and see the actual quality and benefits this movie has to offer. This movie offers an educational view point from the 1960's and offers that view point in a fun and hilarious way.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way the the Forum

I think that this film should still be watched nowadays because even though the whole movie is degrading towards women, it is also degrading towards men. Almost all of the characters are portraying stereotypes and that is what type of comedy people were looking for when this movie was made. However, this movie is still funny to this day, because those stereotypes are still relevant. In modern films you always see a shallow, dumb blonde girl and a stupid jock. Also, the characters to which we find most funny are not the dumbed-down prostitutes, or the stickler of a wife, but the klutzy son and the over masculinized warrior. The fact that the women are shallow and sexualized beyond belief is not the main source of entertainment. As the movie progresses, it is the men who cause all the problems that have to be dealt with and it is the men who have to deal with them. The ironic events that send the characters into problem after problem are entirely due to the men's poor judgement.

Sexism: An Outdated Fan Favorite

Sex is an essential piece to the composition of theater and motion picture works. Comedy often capitalizes on sexist themes that drive sexual and stereotype humor. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, directed by Richard Lester, is a prime example of sexist comedy. However, even though sexism is a disputed and harshly rejected practice today, it is still worth viewing in older films when sexism wasn't a successful social movement yet. In the film, there are scenes of women being sold as sex slaves and the entire variety of plots are centered around an ancient brothel. While the male characters are understandably clumsy and foolish, the main female character Philia is a very classic portrayal of 'dumb blonde.' These stereotypes saturate the comedy and add to the humor derived from the sexism. As Margaret Malamud says, the Jewish-American humor is the basis of a comedy emerging just as sexual pleasure is entering the film world at unprecedented levels. The sexism in Funny Thing is a step in the overall sexualizing of Hollywood. Therefore it is a piece of film history to be appreciated as such regardless of the latent prejudice. The humor is still funny to men and women both and does not solely objectify women. After all, one of the most terrifying figures, Domina, is a women. Millions will always enjoy Austin Powers and James Bond movies in the future even though their misogynistic tendencies may not be continued in future films. It still happened and it is still good comedy that makes for a good laugh.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum makes many sexist jokes directed towards both males and females. Since both sexes are victims of the movie's humor I think that it is more than tolerable. The amount of funny comments made in this film sets a very different tone than what we are used to in the previous movies we have watched. In Cleopatra all of our characters have to work through serious issues, which left very little room for humor. Even though A Funny Thing happened on the Way to the Forum is a comedy, the perspective of Roman life through the eyes of servants, brothel owners, and others not of the nobility gives a view of basic Roman life. For that reason, although historical accuracy should be questioned, this movie should be watched by any audience interested in the genre.

A Funny Thing That Happened On The Way To The Forum

I believe that we should absolutely watch a funny thing on the way to the forum. One must concede that the movie does repeatedly make some sexist remarks about women. However we most also recognize the time that this movie was made in.  It was made in the year 1966, since then we have seen  significant progress in the way women are integrated into movies and the way they are portrayed. In this movie and many of the past movies we have seen them portrayed (with the exception of Cleopatra) as very servile. While this and the jokes they make in the movie may look appalling to us now, think of how far we have come since. Since this movie was made we saw the Title IX legislation enacted which greatly enhanced the role of Women in society and in the movies since then. I think that this movie is great to watch because it shows how much society has changed and evolved from the time this movie was made, to how society is today.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM

This film contains sexist jokes towards women, and portrays the inequality and possessiveness that was present in ancient Rome lightly. In the movie women are unintelligent, Philia says that she cannot count or write. And women are only present or useful for sex this is obvious and easy to be seen with the whorehouse in several scenes. Women are also shown as followers, however one is shown as powerful and to be holding the reins in the marriage. Men are shown as leaders but themselves are not saved from sexist scrutiny as men are shown to lack physical capabilities for sex and are also seen as sexual objects. The married couple lie to each other and set out to cheat on one another. In this film both sexs are critizied and not given an advantage. However in history women have less rights and power over their own lives than men in ancient Rome and this is not ignored in the film. This movie should shown to those who value ancient comedy. It was made 54 years ago and many of its messages are still relevant to modern times. The comedy in the film is not one to be outdated easily and will continue to be a valued film, because of this it should continue to be seen with comedic and entertaining purpose or educational purpose for those young or old, there is little reason for this film to be blacklisted.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" is certainly different from "Spartacus" or "Cleopatra", largely due to it being a comedy. In contrast to the strong portrayal of Cleopatra or Varinia, the main women of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" are either ignorant prostitutes (Philia) or cruel and narcissistic nags (Domina).However, I wouldn't exactly call this portrayal entirely sexist. The male stars of the film (Pseudolus, Hero, Senex and Gloriosus) are also portrayed as incredibly flawed characters. Pseudolus is a lying pervert, Hero is an idiot, Senex is an unfaithful husband and Gloriosus is an incredibly cruel and foul tempered Roman. In particular, the scenes of Philia and Hero interacting show that both characters are narcissistic and unintelligent. Philia even sings a song about how her only character trait is being attractive. She can't even count! I attribute the motivation of this portrayal more to a gleeful lampooning of romance stories like Romeo and Juliet than sexism. Like "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum", romance stories such as Romeo and Juliet usually have two people madly falling in love right away. While most stories portray these spontaneous romances as positive, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" calls both Hero and Philia idiots for their narcissistic love affair. I also find it difficult to call the characterization of the women sexist when the characters are clearly designed to be self parodies. Philia is the Greek work for fondness and is often used to designate an abnormal love of something, hence its use for words such as pedophilia. By literally naming their character Philia, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" mocks the vapid romance of fictional love stories. The dominating and vain character Domina also holds a hidden joke as "domina" is very similar to dominate or dominant. In the film, Domina clearly holds the reigns in her marriage with Senex (whose name in Latin means "old man"). The constantly abused and stressful character Hysterium has a name very similar to the word hysteria and the overly intense Roman captain Gloriosus has a name that is only one extra letter removed from glorious. The young character Hero is literally named hero. Literally naming the main character "hero" is a clear mockery of the hero trope in fiction. Even the overly sexual dancing of Lycus's prostitutes can be interpreted as anti-sexist as it shows how much of a pervert Pseudolus is. The mute prostitute that Pseudolus lusts over can also be interpreted as making fun of Pseudolus and sexism due the cruel and pig-headed nature of Pseudolus liking that his wife doesn't talk. Ultimately, if we look at the jokes and characters in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" closely, we can see the true intent and message of the film.

Sexism in A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum

In A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum, several jokes are made at the expense of women, female sexuality, and female intelligence and worth. On several occasions women are highlighted as unintelligent and worthless for anything other than sex. However we do see that similar jokes are made at the expense of the men in the film. The concept of masculinity is fragile as the men search for potions to give them passion, dress as women to get themselves out of tricky situations, and try to kill themselves in outlandish ways with barely any proof of reason. So while women are always portrayed poorly throughout the film, men are not always portrayed wonderfully either. Overall the film was amusing and gave an entirely different perspective on Roman life that didn't focus exclusively on the nobility and instead followed the life of the common people. This different perspective is the reason I believe that A Funny Thing is still a relevant film to watch for modern audiences. So often we see Roman life shown exclusively through the eyes of kings, queens and other noble individuals, that the perspective of slaves and brothel owners is a refreshing take on Roman life. While the scenes may not be entirely historically accurate, they take the essence of Roman life and put a spin on it that can be useful to audiences interested in the history of Rome and its portrayal in film over time.

"Casina v Braggart soldier"

Both plays offered different levels of entertainment and had their own levels of value I enjoyed Casina more. The Braggart soldier offers a more precise description of the surroundings and uses very descriptive language to fully engage me and explain what is happening but in twice the amount of words as needed. In Casina the dialogue and script in general is filled with fun whited blurbs and makes it more enjoyable to read with its tone of humor.