Review: Dragon Blade (DVD, Blu-Ray and HDX)

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2015

Last night I had the dubious "opportunity" to view "Dragon Blade" starring Jackie Chan, John Cusack and Adrien Brody.

I think the 1/2 star rating I gave this epic misadventure on Vudu says it all - mainly, just a convoluted string of choreographed fight scenes. The villain, Tiberius, played by Adrien Brody, is a fictional son of Marcus Licinius Crassus, the 1st century BCE triumvir, who is chasing down his baby brother Publius, a child of about 9, because the senior Crassus preferred Publius over Tiberius as his heir. (in history Publius, a fully adult cavalry commander, died fighting with his father at the battle of Carrhae).

Perhaps Tiberius is supposed to be a nickname for Marcus Crassus Jr. who was the eldest son of Crassus Sr but was so undistinguished that historians have argued maybe, despite his name, he was not the eldest after all. Anyway, Crassus Jr. never made it to the east as far as we can tell from history. Instead he spent a rather lackluster career serving under Julius Caesar in Gaul then was later appointed governor of Cisalpine Gaul. Marcus Crassus Jr. is mainly remembered as the man who married the Caecilia Metella whose tomb remains along the Via Appia is so popular with tourists. Supposedly he had a fearsome reputation among the Parthians, though. The Augustan historian Pompeius Trogus, of the Celtic Vocontii, said that the Parthians feared especially harsh retribution in any war won against them by Caesar, because the surviving son of Crassus would be among the Roman forces, seeking revenge for the deaths of his father and brother. But, as we all know, Caesar never made it to Parthia and Crassus Jr. didn't either.

John Cusack plays "the greatest warrior in the empire" (a la Gladiator's Maxiumus) who whisked young Publius out of the clutches of Tiberius and, with a small contingent of legionaries, has fled with the child east along the Silk Road to the outskirts of the Han Dynasty.

Jackie Chan reprises his often played role as the wise but good-natured leader of a band of battle-weary warriors charged with keeping the peace along the Silk Road. Chan's character no longer believes that violence settles anything so each time he is forced into fighting someone who is striking viciously at him with swords and other nasty weapons, he fends them off with comical facial expressions accompanied by deft deflections off of his breastplate and a small metal shield worn on his forearm.

After one such encounter, Chan's little troop returns home to find their villainous greedy governor has framed them and sentenced them to forced labor repairing the fortification walls of a Han outpost. There they collide with John Cusack's group, make friends then face off together against the evil Tiberius.

I was hoping this was going to be a more realistic story about the so-called "Forgotten Legion" (of Ben Kane fame) from the Battle of Carrhae that were rumored to have been taken captive by the Parthians and subsequently traded to the Han Chinese and settled in Liqian in the north central province of Gansu. After all, I've seen the History Channel, Nat Geo and PBS programs about the Chinese villagers with European physical traits and the European-looking mummies found in China, too. But, instead we get a ridiculous story with theatrically flamboyant characters wearing totally unrecognizable armor (except for the helmet crest) in slashing battles with short swords (?) like ill-trained barbarians singing soaring arias supposedly in Latin that sound more like the vocals of a Byzantine church choir.

I must admit, the sword fights between Cusack and Chan then later Chan and Brody were impressive. Cusack was even convincing as a physically powerful hero type even though he usually plays characters more adept with their brain than their brawn. But that is about the only praise I can give this historical disaster of a movie. And to think I actually purchased this frivolous fantasy sight unseen when it was offered in digital HDX format on Vudu for only $7.99. It's now in my Ultraviolet library so I could actually watch it again if I should ever need historical shock therapy in the future!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

300 Sequel Stylishly Lays Waste To History

An ancient history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2014

Note: although this article refers to historical sources, film viewers unfamiliar with history may consider some of the examples provided as spoilers.

Years ago when I went to the theater to see "Troy" and within the first few minutes saw Menelaus skewered by Hector, I muttered to myself, "So much for Homer". To me, that plot point signaled that I shouldn't expect much as far as literary parallel was concerned. I felt the same way watching 300: Rise of an Empire" when Themistocles drew a bead on Darius and skewered the great king with an arrow during the battle of Marathon. At least Menelaus was at the siege of Troy! Darius wasn't even present at the battle of Marathon and I'm afraid Xerxes wasn't either!

However, at least Themistocles is thought to be was one of ten strategoi (generals) that rotated command at Marathon. But, It was Miltiades who was credited with the charge that ultimately succeeded in routing the Persians.

Relief of the Persian king Xerxes (485-465 BC) in the
doorway of his palace at Persepolis, modern-day Iran.
The bearers of the parasol and the towel-and flywhisk
symbolize the royalty and power of the monarch.  Image
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Remembering the appearance of Xerxes in the original "300", I was surprised to see an average-looking Xerxes at the beginning of this sequel. The battle of Marathon, of course, preceded the battle of Thermopylae so this little flashback is provided to give us insight into Xerxes development. The backstory reveals how the rather ordinary princeling is bullied by Artemisia into undertaking a mysterious religious rite that converts him into the towering God-King dripping with gold chains attached to a plethora of body piercings that we first encountered in "300".

Bas reliefs at Persepolis do depict Xerxes as significantly taller than his servants but size differences were often used in ancient art to indicate differences in social status. And as for Xerxes fashion sense, he is shown wearing the traditional royal robes of an Achaemenid ruler and sports the intricately curled beard in fashion with Persian nobles at the time - a far cry from the hairless punk rocker pictured in the film.

As for Xerxes deification, there is some disagreement among scholars as to Xerxes religious beliefs. But, Herodotus reports Xerxes claimed he ruled by divine rite bestowed by Ahura Mazda - a clear reference to the Zoroastrianism adopted by his father Darius and an acknowledgement of a power greater than him.

So, what of his fetish for gold? Xerxes actually punished his subjects in Babylon by destroying their temple of Marduke and melting down the god's golden statue. None of the ancient sources say what he did with it.  I suppose the imaginative among us could propose he ordered a pair of gold speedos but I seriously doubt it. The gold was most probably used to finance Xerxes' ambitious building projects. According to Herodotus, Xerxes oversaw the building of the Gate of all Nations and the Hall of a Hundred Columns at Persepolis, which are the largest and most imposing structures of the palace. He oversaw the completion of the Apadana, the Palace of Darius and the Treasury all started by Darius as well as having his own palace built which was twice the size of his father's.  He also maintained the Royal Road built by his father and completed the Susa Gate and built a palace at Susa. With Xerxes' taste for projects even more gigantic than his father's I doubt that there was a lot of that gold left by the time Xerxes was assassinated in 465 BCE.  It's too bad the film makers couldn't have worked that into the story to lend at least a little authenticity to the "god-king" claim.

Xerxes I lashes the sea for destroying his first
bridge across the Hellespont during the second
Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BCE.  Image
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

I was surprised, though, that Xerxes played a much more minor role in this film than he did in the original. He appears to have been used by the filmmakers as a visual linchpin to the original film but little else. Most of the action is centered squarely on Themistocles and Artemisia. We get a little backstory on Artemisia that is pure comic book fantasy in which she is captured and abused until near death. Then a kindly passing Persian saves her and trains her up to be a great warrior. This fictional background is provided to explain Artemisia's bitterness and rather homicidal behavior.

But, in fact, Artemisia's father was the king of Halicarnassus, Lygdamis I and she was probably raised in a palace. How she developed her leadership skills was not divulged in the ancient sources.  Herodotus does not describe her martial prowess either, just her considerable cunning. But I doubt Xerxes would have entrusted the care of some of his offspring to Artemisia after the battle of Salamis if she had been the female psychopath portrayed in the film.

The film makers do not provide any significant backstory for Themistocles. This is where the film makers drop the ball. Themistocles' mother was born in Hallicarnassus - a countrywoman of Artemisia. His mother's ancestry was a major obstacle to Themistocles in his rise to political prominence in Athens and it could have served as a basis for heightened tension between Themistocles and Artemisia if Themistocles psychologically transferred his deep seeded resentment of his mother's heritage to Artemisia. But, perhaps this would have been considered too "intellectual" for the film's targeted demographic.  Instead we get a revenge-crazed female super warrior taking on a representative of male martial superiority.

Of course anytime you have a contentious male-female relationship, Hollywood cannot pass up the opportunity to inject a lascivious sex scene. The one in " Rise of an Empire" is nothing short of raw brutality. There is no seduction and definitely no submission - just a vicious wrestling match with each participant trying to end up on top. I certainly hope young male viewers do not idolize this approach to human sexuality.

The climax of the film is even more comic book fantasy. Rather than portray Artemisia's actual hair-raising escape from the Greek trap at Salamis by ramming friendly ships that got in her way or quickly switching flags to confuse pursing Greek ships, film makers give us a fight to the death that simply never occurred.

I was also dumbfounded by the appearance of a Spartan fleet that supposedly saved the day. Spartan warriors were admired for their prowess on the battlefield but Sparta was not a formidable sea power. In fact, I didn't even think they had any warships but found in my research that they did contribute a meager 16 ships to the Greek allied fleet. In contrast, Athens manned about 180 ships at Salamis.

I was also exasperated by the film makers inferring that Themistocles did not really plan the trap in the straits of Salamis but merely fought the battle as it developed out of sheer desperation - a great disservice to the genius of Themistocles!

In summary, I admit that I enjoyed the male eye candy as much as any other female viewer, but I would encourage anyone truly interested in the actual events and the amazing female admiral that survived the real battle of Salamis to check out Herodotus' actual account.

Related articles

• Five things 300: Rise of an Empire gets wrong
• The Many, Many Sins Against History in "300: Rise of an Empire"

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Review (sort of): Coriolanus (2012 DVD)

Well, after waiting for months to finally get my hands on a DVD of the new remake of "Coriolanus" starring Ralph Feinnes and Gerard Butler, I must confess that I was disappointed.  I had so hoped that, with the star power of two of my favorite actors, the film makers would give us a motion picture based on the general plot line of the Shakespearean play but give us more modern and natural dialogue.  (Sorry, Will, but your 15th century prose is so stilted and difficult to grasp at times it is REALLY distracting with the backdrop of a modern-day action movie).

As expected the acting was superb, especially with such acting veterans as Vanessa Redgrave playing Coriolanus' mother.  Gerard Butler was also back in fine form.  But the modern sets, costume and attitudes just served to emphasize the antiquated dialogue.  My husband and I usually watch any disks we get from Netflix together and despite the action, he revolted and demanded something else after only about 30 minutes.

I have actually seen a modernized version of "Coriolanus" before at the Oregon Shakespearean Festival down in Ashland a couple of years ago.  There, since I was prepared to hear Shakespeare, I enjoyed the performance despite the fact that I prefer my historical epics to be costumed for the period.  (As costumes are such an integral part of a live performance, I am always a bit disappointed when the producers opt for St. Vincent de Paul leftovers instead of burnished Roman cuirasses and dashing crested helmets.)

But I was taken off guard by the latest big screen version.  The trailer had succeeded in building up my expectation of an action packed thriller with a twist of political duplicity.  If you notice, there is no long rambling Shakespearean passages, just short phrases containing words that could have been spoken in modern dialogue.



 Instead I got “Know thou first, I loved the maid I married; never man sigh’d truer breath; but that I see thee here, thou noble thing more dances my rapt heart than when I first my wedded mistress saw bestride my threshold.”

Maybe "Coriolanus" will eventually make it to Netflix instant streaming and I can watch it alone without spousal distraction.  Maybe my appreciation for it will grow.  However, I do hope someday a filmmaker will actually take the legend of "Coriolanus" and produce a box office smash.  I'm afraid this wasn't it.

For a more thorough (and positive) review of Ralph Feinnes directing debut, I recommend the following:

Related articles

• Non-Review Review: Coriolanus

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Brits announce new ancient history curriculum

I wish curriculum in the United States would incorporate a similar study of ancient history that has been announced in Britain. When I was young, the paltry 200 years of American history consumed most of the history curriculum taught in K-12.

"Teenagers will be able to study the history behind Hollywood blockbusters like Troy and Alexander for a new GCSE it has been announced.

The OCR exam board is devising the ancient history GCSE to cater for a surge in interest in the Romans and ancient Greeks.

Pupils will learn about literature and art and study archaeological evidence for the qualification, which will be taught in schools from September next year.

Clara Kenyon, director of qualifications at OCR, said: "Now GCSE students can study the real history behind the movies and increase their understanding of the great ancient empires."

The course will cover the foundation of Rome, Greece and the Persian wars, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Cleopatra and Agrippina the Younger.

Teenagers will focus on the study of original sources, such as archaeological evidence and literature in translation.

Pupils will also be able to study aspects of other ancient civilisations, including the Egyptians, the Minoans, Mycenae, the Persian Empire, the Hellenistic world and the Celts.

Hollywood has produced a steady stream of big budget films based on tales from the classical world in recent years, including Troy, starring Brad Pitt as Achilles, and Alexander, in which Colin Farrell played the title role.

Professor Tom Harrison, chairman of the Joint Association of Classical Teachers, welcomed the new course.

He said: "This confirms the growth in the popularity of ancient history as an academic subject. With the huge public interest in the ancient world, classics nationally is buoyant and this new qualification will bring the subject to a younger, even broader, audience."

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!