[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='21 May 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1274450418' post='106487']On a side note, have you seen Agora about the life of Hypatia and if so what did you think of it, good/bad?[/quote]I've not seen it.
But can't say that watching a film where the beautiful Neoplatonist mathematician ends up cut to death by a christian mob wielding shards is my sort of movie... It's sad enough to think about. But on the other hand, one wants to encourage films that present such suppressed parts of history - even if it is only to an exclusively (already) interested audience. I might keep an eye out for the DVD or look for it in rental.
[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='21 May 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1274450418' post='106487']
Interesting that AFAIK no movies have been made on the interesting character of Julian who could have changed the course of human history had he succeeded, one can see which forces would falter if the truth ever came out in the form of a popular mass product like a movie and I would not be surprised if they are blocking any such movie ideas.[/quote]They don't intend for it to ever happen.
Even Thomas Paine remains unknown - even to literate people from his country of origin... <- To publicise him would require having to explain how the church kept thwarting his anti-slavery writings, his Rights of Man, his support for women and his standing up for animal rights etc all in the face of christian opposition. Not to mention his works refuting christianism.
Anyone can - and will - draw their own conclusions as to who is on the side of right (Paine) and what isn't (christianism). Also christianism can no longer take credit for 'abolishing' slavery when it becomes clear it was what instituted it and was determined to keep it going.
Julian is a matter many orders of magnitude more serious.
The church is freakishly scared of him even now. It's affected by him to the same degree that he has the opposite effect - also, even now - on others:
Some 1700 years since, and his voice - his writings - and the memory of his person still inspires amazing loyalty and understanding. Discovery of him even causes some proper reversions, it seems. (Which explains the books of psy-ops to convey a false and unlikeable image, so contrary to reality.) It's not just the people a few centuries after his passing. His influence apparently continues. Learning about him inspired Gibbon to realise he is the Hero in the history of the fall of Rome - and hence ever since. (We're all stuck in "christian history"(-writing) after all).
Apparently Gibbon's accuracy in conveying Julian captured the sympathy/interest/mind of others, including the kind who would similarly be motivated to expend energy on righting the public/educated view of a person - and perhaps more importantly, *that* which motivated that person - long after he went off to Elysium or Olympus or wherever the Great Heroes of his Gods go.
No one - but the most determined christist (the Lying For Gawd kind) - who is made aware of the facts will remain impartial. And their sympathies can also be predicted.
That's next to how Julian existed for a while in a period of history about which any accurate history-telling would expose christianism. Including how it didn't "preserve" GrecoRoman 'culture' but destroyed GR Hellenismos (=religioculture).
Those are the reasons why
1. there's practically no general knowledge about him
2. there's moreover false info being produced about him, his times and Hellenismos for those who finally get interested to learn about him/his religion or study the history of the period
And apparently the fear-struck church does not want to be reminded of him at all. He remains a very real and very vivid nightmare to them. Great achievement to have christianism spooked so - and so permanently.
A film, though, might not be the best medium for presenting who he was and what he means. (However, if anyone does attempt an honest one, it would be heathens alone). His life is not film-material, even if his character deserves it: it's a tragedy and there's no sense of resolution, there's no romance, the action (battles) and intrigues are actually a side-plot to the main point, the main points are not really filmable: his intentions, motivations, etc.
One could show some of the latter through dialogues. But they'll have to be orchestrated and that would make it fake.
Actually Vidal wrote a more filmic version. The drawback is that it's not accurate.
But can't say that watching a film where the beautiful Neoplatonist mathematician ends up cut to death by a christian mob wielding shards is my sort of movie... It's sad enough to think about. But on the other hand, one wants to encourage films that present such suppressed parts of history - even if it is only to an exclusively (already) interested audience. I might keep an eye out for the DVD or look for it in rental.
[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='21 May 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1274450418' post='106487']
Interesting that AFAIK no movies have been made on the interesting character of Julian who could have changed the course of human history had he succeeded, one can see which forces would falter if the truth ever came out in the form of a popular mass product like a movie and I would not be surprised if they are blocking any such movie ideas.[/quote]They don't intend for it to ever happen.
Even Thomas Paine remains unknown - even to literate people from his country of origin... <- To publicise him would require having to explain how the church kept thwarting his anti-slavery writings, his Rights of Man, his support for women and his standing up for animal rights etc all in the face of christian opposition. Not to mention his works refuting christianism.
Anyone can - and will - draw their own conclusions as to who is on the side of right (Paine) and what isn't (christianism). Also christianism can no longer take credit for 'abolishing' slavery when it becomes clear it was what instituted it and was determined to keep it going.
Julian is a matter many orders of magnitude more serious.
The church is freakishly scared of him even now. It's affected by him to the same degree that he has the opposite effect - also, even now - on others:
Some 1700 years since, and his voice - his writings - and the memory of his person still inspires amazing loyalty and understanding. Discovery of him even causes some proper reversions, it seems. (Which explains the books of psy-ops to convey a false and unlikeable image, so contrary to reality.) It's not just the people a few centuries after his passing. His influence apparently continues. Learning about him inspired Gibbon to realise he is the Hero in the history of the fall of Rome - and hence ever since. (We're all stuck in "christian history"(-writing) after all).
Apparently Gibbon's accuracy in conveying Julian captured the sympathy/interest/mind of others, including the kind who would similarly be motivated to expend energy on righting the public/educated view of a person - and perhaps more importantly, *that* which motivated that person - long after he went off to Elysium or Olympus or wherever the Great Heroes of his Gods go.
No one - but the most determined christist (the Lying For Gawd kind) - who is made aware of the facts will remain impartial. And their sympathies can also be predicted.
That's next to how Julian existed for a while in a period of history about which any accurate history-telling would expose christianism. Including how it didn't "preserve" GrecoRoman 'culture' but destroyed GR Hellenismos (=religioculture).
Those are the reasons why
1. there's practically no general knowledge about him
2. there's moreover false info being produced about him, his times and Hellenismos for those who finally get interested to learn about him/his religion or study the history of the period
And apparently the fear-struck church does not want to be reminded of him at all. He remains a very real and very vivid nightmare to them. Great achievement to have christianism spooked so - and so permanently.
A film, though, might not be the best medium for presenting who he was and what he means. (However, if anyone does attempt an honest one, it would be heathens alone). His life is not film-material, even if his character deserves it: it's a tragedy and there's no sense of resolution, there's no romance, the action (battles) and intrigues are actually a side-plot to the main point, the main points are not really filmable: his intentions, motivations, etc.
One could show some of the latter through dialogues. But they'll have to be orchestrated and that would make it fake.
Actually Vidal wrote a more filmic version. The drawback is that it's not accurate.