Posted By:
Accipiter
in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. Jul 03, 2005
Here's something for those of you with an interest in history:
It seems that there are currently at least two movies being produced about Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian who fought Rome in the Second Punic War. One film company has cast Denzel Washington as Hannibal, the other has chosen Vin Diesel. Now a fuss has started over which actor is more realistic, racially.
Vin Diesel looks medditerranean???? Eh...I suppose he may be better physically...but acting wise, I'd vote Denzel!
LaMa
in Europe Member
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 06:46 AM
Since when do Holllywood movies strive to be accurately portraying people? That's something new...
Captain Al
in Alberta, Canada Member
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 07:28 AM
LaMa has a good point. Look what Hollywood did to the reputation of William Bligh. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, a skilled seaman and arguably the greatest navigator of all time. They assumed that because his crew mutinied he must have been a tyrant. Historical research showed that this is absolutely false. But thanks to Hollywood, no amount of truth will ever clear his name, at least among the uninformed.
So for Hannibal, use Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Mel Gibson. Then cast some up and coming blonde bombshell as a fictional love interest. That way they are guaranteed to make lots and lots of money from the teenage fans.
This was the same technique used by that theatrical whore, James Cameron, in Titanic. Even though the subject was one of the most famous events in history and there were 2500 people on board (some of them being the richest and most famous of the time), Cameron felt he had to invent characters to tell the story. It was an insult to the special effects team who did a fantastic job and the real victims of the tragedy.
Captain Al
in Alberta, Canada Member
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 07:30 AM
Sorry. I drifted off topic.
David B. Member
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 07:50 AM
I always imagine Hannibal looking somewhat like Howard Keel; and let's face it, whatever Hollywood do to the story the result is almost certain to be less entertaining than the Keel/Williams 1955 vehicle Jupiter's Darling
Uh, possibly Cameron used fictional characters because if he told a realistic Titanic story it would be a rip-off of A Night to Remember?
Are you opposed to, say, Saving Private Ryan because the characters were fictional and they could have used real people from WWII? By using what you said, are you opposed to The Grapes of Wrath?
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative.
David B. Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:27 AM
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative.
Yeah, but just about every HW film is. Even when Oliver Stone took pains to be 'accurate' over Alexander to the extent of getting an Oxford Don in to advise, the result was barely passable historically.
Titanic portrayed members of the crew as bullying cowards, when in fact they went down with the ship after helping hundreds into the lifeboats.
U571 portrayed a 'brave american crew' capturing an Enigma machine and helping win the war for the US. In fact naval Enigma had been captured from U110 by the British in May, 1941 (at which time the US was still at peace). Also although U570 was captured (by the British), U571 served to the end of the war.
Not to mention the countless films about the American war of independence that not only overlook the immense amount of aid and material provided to the patriot side by the French, but also glosses over that it was the culmination of a long-term British plan to get the clingy little money-pit of a colony to stand on its own feet for once.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:46 AM
Well, if the movies were accurate instead of entertaining, we'd be paying $8 a pop to watch a segment of The History Channel. Since most people are already paying for cable or satellite (well, except me), which includes THC - I'm sure they don't mind that they just paid $8 to watch Brad Pitt have sex with a temple virgin.
If they wanted accuracy, they would have stayed home.
Are you series. Hannibal was from Africa. The bust of him has African features. He was born in Carthage which is in Tunisia which is in Africa.
Why can't HW give the black community at least one thing about our history to be proud of instead of always tainting it. Africans have a great history of leaders but no one ever depicts it(in the proper way).
Hannibal
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 | 06:58 AM
serious. lol. sorry
Mario T Majors
in Las Vegas Nevada
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 | 03:48 PM
Hollywood movie makers are hardly known for historical accuracy, nonetheless, casting Denzel Washington as Hannibal is an incredible stretch even for an industry that that goes to ridiculous lenghts to be politically correct. Then again, let's not forget "The Shawshank Redemption", which was based on a novella by Stephen King; the character Red played by Morgan Freeman was white in the book (he was called Red because he had red hair). Additionally, let's not forget the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven", it's the USA in the 19th Century and not once is the "N" word used. I could go on and on.
John
in Ireland
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 | 06:33 AM
Hannibal was African, but in the classical period the term "Africa" referred to the North of Africa. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, a people from the middle east. They were Semitic, like the Jews and Arabs, NOT black African. So Hannibal would have looked much like the middle eastern people of today. Vin Diesel looks the part I think. It is no way an insult to people of black African heritage to say hannibal wasnt black, its just stating a fact.
Also, there is no need to invent black African historical figures, there were plenty - for example the Egyptian Pharoah Taharqa (so important he was even mentioned in the Bible) was a black Nubian. Why dosnt Denzel make a film about him?
Hannibal was 25% phoenicians (caucasian race, not black) and 75% iberian (ancient spaniard). His father was the great general Hamilcar Barca (50% phoenician 50% iberian). HAnnibal's mother was Didobal, a iberian. Hannibal's wife was too iberian (Himilce)
Lotus
in USA
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 | 12:51 PM
Idea:
How about all the Hannibal "experts" making claims on his race and ancestry provide citations or references supporting your proposed racial classifications about the man. Whether you claim he's mostly Caucasoid or Africoid, etc
Please deal with geography AS WELL AS what the man looked liked/ color. Physical & color accuracy is often a more complex issue than just classifying "racial" categories that can be mistakenly & purposefully inaccurate.
Rsj
in USA
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 | 07:56 PM
Hannibal would probably look more like Danny Thomas or Ralph Nader, both whose families came from Lebanon. Hannibal's bloodline was Phoenician.
The Movie Guy
in CT
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 | 02:47 PM
I wasn't around then, so I can't say for sure what he looked like.Since he was of African heritage one would suspect his skin tone to be of a brown complexion. Most of the paintings I've seen depict him as a large muscular build. My choice of actors would be: Vin Rhames or Micheal Clarke Duncan.
The same question arises frequently about Jesus. The fact is; he was Jewish, no African and certainly not American.
kubulshankurbanda
in Nairobi, Kenya
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 | 11:58 PM
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative.
Hollywood movies are misinformative at times i agree, check out the passion of christ, Jesus is potrayed as caucasian but the truth of the matter is that he is not...
and i want to correct the movie guys' statement on jesus and jews that "The fact is; he was Jewish, no African and certainly not American."
_ ever heard of the cohanim(kohanim) factor its a chromosomal gene which is a distinct signature haplotype of judaic origin, similar to what exist in major jewish population, who trace their ancestry to Aaron brother of Moses.This Kohen gene is completely absent in the gentile and non-jewish people.
_Lemba males from Africa carry a higher concentration of this jewish priestly DNA chromosome than Europeans and American Jewish population. The kohen concentration is up to 53.8% on Lemba males and 8.8% in Ashkenazis and other jewish groups.The research was done by America Israel and England to determine this...
hollywood is a wider scheme to deprive africa its heritage, they control the entertainment hence they can twist and do with it as they desire, It doesnt matter how much dark you paint africa but for crying out loud Hannibal was NOT caucasian...
he was NOT caucasian
