3 ms·

Because in the typical movie setting the Romans were upper-class foreign rulers. That's why they don't have Cockney or Glasgow accents.

by em500 8y ago

benj111 8y ago
There doesn't seem to be a line of reasoning here. I don't see how: 1)Romans were upper-class foreign rulers 2) ??????? 3) Romans have English accents.
- em500 8y ago
  2) The British Empire is the closest analog to the Roman Empire in living memory. For hundred of millions of people in the past 3 centuries, British aristocrats were the upper-class rulers, both hated and admired by many of the ruled (including Americans in the colonial era).
  - benj111 8y ago
    I would put more stock in the American Colonial side, rather than living memory side. Western cinema is after all western biased. I'm biased anyway, being British and not upper class.
- rlucas 8y ago
  Even if a story is set within imperial (or republican) Rome, the whole idea of an ascendant Rome is based on the colonies and provinces. So showing the Roman upper classes (or even the wealthier urban merchants) being "Romans" means implicitly that they are the top crust of a vast empire feeding them wealth and power. That leads to 3) above pretty easily, since in the mind of the hegemonic movie-producing culture (Americans), their archetype of a foreign empire was, of course, the British (English). A more interesting criticism would be hearing how, say, the Spanish language is rendered in Latin American films about Rome or other historical empires. Do they put a Yankee accent in the Spanish language as such a marker? (I suspect it's probably more of a continental Spanish, though.) Would be interesting to know of other non-Anglosphere cultural products that use implicit (e.g. American accents) cues of the new Rome to denote the class status of historical depictions. Global HN'ers?

3 ms·

Because in the typical movie setting the Romans were upper-class foreign rulers. That's why they don't have Cockney or Glasgow accents.

by em500 8y ago

Because in the typical movie setting the Romans were upper-class foreign rulers. That's why they don't have Cockney or Glasgow accents.

benj111 8y ago
There doesn't seem to be a line of reasoning here. I don't see how: 1)Romans were upper-class foreign rulers 2) ??????? 3) Romans have English accents.
- em500 8y ago
  2) The British Empire is the closest analog to the Roman Empire in living memory. For hundred of millions of people in the past 3 centuries, British aristocrats were the upper-class rulers, both hated and admired by many of the ruled (including Americans in the colonial era).
  - benj111 8y ago
    I would put more stock in the American Colonial side, rather than living memory side. Western cinema is after all western biased. I'm biased anyway, being British and not upper class.
- rlucas 8y ago
  Even if a story is set within imperial (or republican) Rome, the whole idea of an ascendant Rome is based on the colonies and provinces. So showing the Roman upper classes (or even the wealthier urban merchants) being "Romans" means implicitly that they are the top crust of a vast empire feeding them wealth and power. That leads to 3) above pretty easily, since in the mind of the hegemonic movie-producing culture (Americans), their archetype of a foreign empire was, of course, the British (English). A more interesting criticism would be hearing how, say, the Spanish language is rendered in Latin American films about Rome or other historical empires. Do they put a Yankee accent in the Spanish language as such a marker? (I suspect it's probably more of a continental Spanish, though.) Would be interesting to know of other non-Anglosphere cultural products that use implicit (e.g. American accents) cues of the new Rome to denote the class status of historical depictions. Global HN'ers?