THE NEW TESTAMENT AND LATE ANTIQUITY
The Nativity Story (2006)
Date: c. 5 BC
Cinematic Quality: 5 stars
Historical Accuracy: 4 stars
For one of the most well-known stories in history, it manages to provide a unique take on Mary and Joseph, who emerge as ordinary humans beginning their parts in an extraordinary story. Although I must ding a star for overplaying the Roman presence, it is otherwise fairly faithful to Josephus, the gospel accounts, etc. Mary and Joseph’s stories are quite heavy at times, so the inclusion of a substantial side plot with the Magi is refreshing and appropriately humorous. The casting is marvelous all around, but Ciarán Hinds as the calculating yet always potentially volatile Herod is perfection. Keisha Castle-Hughes captures the innocent girl Mary transitioning into the theotokos. The film also has the most inspirational cinematic take on Joseph, which I think would have made the medieval theologian Jean Gerson, who saw Joseph as the greatest male role model, quite pleased.
Suitable for children, but it does have some heavy themes.
For context, read the first chapters of the gospel accounts or Barnett’s Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity.
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0762121/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Nativity-Story-Keisha-Castle-Hughes/dp/B003UOQ0LQ
Risen (2016)
Date: 33 AD
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3231054/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Risen-Cliff-Curtis/dp/B01BT678WQ
Masada (1981)
Date: 70-73 AD
Cinematic Quality: 4 stars
Historical Accuracy: 4 stars
With a good deal of elaboration, a fictitious romantic side plot, and a few oversimplifications, this miniseries portrays the final event of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-74 that saw the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and only ended with a desperate siege at the formidable Masada. Some critique the “freedom fighting” element of the movie, which makes overt parallels to modern Israel right from the beginning. However, the movie does accurately portray the divisions within Jewish factions and how much of the populace stood apart from more radical rebels like the Sicarii.
The best part of the movie is the battle of ideas: Roman imperialism vs. frontier independence and formulaic paganism vs. scrappy monotheism. The series makes each side vacillate at times between being laudable and being worthy of criticism. There are some really unique and compelling scenes that educate as well—machinations at the imperial court, religious rites and celebrations, soldiers training, mutinies, a camp trial and punishment scene, discussions of negative omens, theological discussions between ardently faithful and doubting Jews. Some of the details may be off with the dramatic embellishments to lengthen the miniseries, but in many ways the military details and feel of the siege matches the presentation by Josephus.
With some parental editing of violent and suggestive scenes, the movie can be suitable for children.
For context read Mason’s A History of the Jewish War: AD 66–74 and the primary source Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 7.8-9
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081900/
The Centurion (2010)
Date: c. 120 AD
Cinematic Quality: 4 stars
Historical Accuracy: 3 stars
What happened to the 9th Legion? This movie offers a fictional answer including a doomed raid, betrayal, and political coverup. In some ways the film is more of a political thriller than anything else. The movie has some plot holes and historical problems, but makes an effort at historical accuracy. The Picts and the Romans are adequately portrayed. On the one hand, we know next to nothing about the Caledonians during this time, or even if there were truly Picts in modern-day Scotland. We have more information about them starting in the 4th century, and the movie uses this adequately without overdoing it. The movie is also more nuanced, with the Roman empire clearly being more civilized, but not necessarily more just, than the Picts. There are a few anachronisms, like the prevalence of female Pictish warriors and some odd Roman names. Agricola was a Roman governor, but not the weasel portrayed in the movie, and he died several decades earlier anyway. As is usual, the Roman army and equipment is portrayed relatively well and many of the Romans were likable approximations of what a good Roman commander or soldiers was supposed to be, especially the characters portrayed by Dominic West, Liam Cunningham, and David Morissey.
Michael Fassbender is the only truly excellent part of the movie. His story makes this movie enjoyable and is a marked apolitical contrast to The Eagle (see below), which devolves into literal patriotic shield-beating in the end. Fassbender ultimately pursues a greater sense of peace than anything we’re left with in The Eagle. So viewers can enjoy a moderately historical interpretation of events with some standard peplum nonsense balanced by a healthy dose of political nuance.
Carnage and heavy themes definitely make this unsuitable for children.
For context, check out this great survey of opinions from History Hit’s The Ancients: “The Mystery of the Ninth Legion.” As for primary sources, I’ll recommend a fine introduction to Roman Britain by Stanley Ireland: Roman Britain: A Sourcebook.
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020558/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Centurion-Michael-Fassbender/dp/B003XU02QG
The Eagle (2011)
Date: 140 AD
Cinematic Quality: 2 ½ stars
Historical Accuracy: 3 stars
Another movie about the disappearing 9th legion, which again replays the popular notion of it being wiped out by the Caledonians. This has problems (see The Centurion above), as do other theories about the 9th Legion. Scholarly consensus is currently shifting against the “lost in Britain” thesis. There are plenty of the usual anachronisms pointed out by other historians, from the Gaelic language to togas and stirrups, but such negligible errors are expected. At first, the movie plays up the postcolonial interpretation (civilized empire is bad, primitive freedom is good), and this could have worked in an interesting way, but it’s hard to escape the sense that the protagonist is a force for “good” and honor.
But who is more just, those implementing civilization or those living in “barbaric” freedom? The best aspect of the movie is probably the friendship between M. Flavius Aquila and Esca, but this is overshadowed by the patriotic “band of brothers” finish where the survivors of the initial slaughter return to regain their honor and fight for the eagle. Unlike the more nuanced The Centurion, this will probably only inspire the soldiering class or teenaged boys. There is no reference to the highly problematic ethics of—as the movie sets it up—these men leaving their now peaceful lives, wives, and children to go kill and die for an emblem of Roman imperialism. So, yes, they regain their courage and honor the eagle, but in the end they’re not fighting for peace or home or family, just themselves and their own honor. When seen in this light, it’s much easier to argue that the monstrous Picts of the movie are more aware of just war than the civilized Romans.
Carnage and heavy themes definitely make this unsuitable for children.
For context, see The Centurion above.
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034389/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Eagle-Channing-Tatum/dp/B004XJ6ZJO
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
Date: 176-192 AD
Cinematic Quality: 3 stars
Historical Accuracy: 3 stars
Samuel Bronston’s third great premodern historical epic (after El Cid and King of Kings) is terrific for the first half. Alec Guiness as the stoic author and emperor Marcus Aurelius is unquestionably the finest aspect of the film. Who better than Obi-Wan Kenobi to play the philosopher king? Unfortunately, he must be eliminated in the first half of the film, and the movie suffers from then on. The protagonist Livius, played by Stephen Boyd, who was magnificent as the villain in Ben Hur, is a banal and uninspiring hero and negates any value from the fictitious (and ridiculous) romantic side-plot. His paramour, Commodus’ sister Lucilla, is also tepidly portrayed by Sophia Loren, who did scheme against her brother although not as the movie portrays. Fortunately Christopher Plummer does well as the unstable and gladiator-enthusiast Commodus, although Gladiator’s Joaquin Phoenix is better.
The film accurately portrays the common conceptions of Aurelius and Commodus, the frontier warfare along the Rhine and Danube and along the Persian border. On the negative side it propagates the falsity that Aurelius intended to adopt someone else as heir and not allow his own son Commodus to become the next emperor. This movie goes even further by making Commodus a bastard to put more distance from Marcus Aurelius and draw out yet another unnecessary soap opera side plot. The film also overplays the racial element to make a social commentary on mid-20th century America, which makes the film fascinating as a historical relic itself. But the film blunders into a great many historical inaccuracies by using this to invent an epic rebellion and battle on the eastern frontier. By contrast, what Commodus experienced were a series of lower-level and more personally targeted conspiracies.
As for the title, I love it because it is controversial. When did the Roman Empire fall? Ask 10 scholars you’ll get 11 different answers. The movie in this case highlights the moral and political fabric that begins to unwind at the end of Rome’s Golden Age in the 2nd century. Commodus ranks with Caligula and Nero as one of the worst emperors, and the Severan dynasty that followed transitioned Rome into a “third-century crisis” that fractured the empire and seemed like Rome’s end. The film ranks third against the exquisite El Cid and King of Kings, but it ends on an appropriately somber note rather than the silly hopefulness of Gladiator. A movie that began well yet became tepid in the middle, returns to excellence in its last moments by showing the societal corruption of Rome and the very real fact that potential emperors were actually in a bidding war for the armies and the empire. One should be depressed thinking about what followed for the Roman Empire after the death of Marcus Aurelius.
Suitable for children, but beware of a great deal of violence (it’s about a violent, madman emperor).
For context, read Marcus Aurelius Meditations, Herodian books 1-2, and Cassius Dio books 73-74.IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058085/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-Alec-Guinness/dp/B00HHUVS0C
Constantine and the Cross (1962)
Date: 305-312 AD
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055867/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Cross-Cornel-Wilde/dp/B008MYWSFQ/ref=tmm_aiv_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Agora (2009)
Date: c. 400 AD
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Agora-Rachel-Weisz/dp/B0047VLFS4
King Arthur (2004)
Date: Early 5th Century
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/King-Arthur-Clive-Owen/dp/B003QSGFG6
St. Patrick The Irish Legend (2000)
Date: Early 5th Century
Cinematic Quality: 2.5 stars
Historical Accuracy: 4 stars
This is certainly a B-movie, but if you can tolerate much of the bad acting and dialogue by the supporting cast, you’ll find good performances by several well-known actors such as Patrick Bergin (as Patrick) and Malcolm MacDowell (as the chief British prelate opposed to Patrick). The movie accurately portrays his story from the three primary sources closest to his life, including numerous quotes from Patrick himself. I personally find the film watchable for two aspects: the portrayal of 5th-century ecclesiastical politics in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland and Patrick’s inspiration from Gallic Christianity, particularly those inspired by St. Martin such as Victricius and Germanus. The best dialogue relates to all of these scenes, and they stick closely to the spirit of Patrick’s own sense of the merits and problems of Late Antique Christianity.
Modern audiences are right to groan at the bad cinematic quality of the miracles in the movie, but as for their rationality, everyone should keep in mind the mindset of the age, which found them credible and worthy of retelling. Muirchu’s account is filled with them, and they provide an insight into the spirituality of Roman late antiquity and the “Age of the Saints” that spanned into the early medieval period.
Suitable for children.
For context, read the excellent St. Patrick volume by Hood in Arthurian Period Sources (vol. 9). It has the three most relevant primary sources: Patrick’s two letters and Muirchu’s biography of Patrick, and the discussion surrounding them. For a popular book, see Freeman’s biography of Patrick.
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0202595/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/St-Patrick-Irish-Legend-Bergin/dp/B007GGZ78Q/ref=tmm_aiv_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Attila (2001)
Date: 410s-453 AD
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259127/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Attila/dp/B06XP8F591
The Last Legion (2007)
Date: Late 5th Century
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462396/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Legion-weinstein/dp/B003DRHV2W
The Message (1976)
Date: 610-632 AD
IMDb Synopsis: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/
Amazon Video: https://www.amazon.com/Message-Moustapha-Akkad/dp/B010NDUOU4/ref=tmm_aiv_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=