MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > In the past history, why was it acceptab...

In the past history, why was it acceptable to watch say people getting killed on stage for entertainment?

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (12571)
60 replies | jump to latest

Like in the movie "Gladiator" (2000) for instance, to give one example (and yes folks, although not a masterpiece, I actually DO think its a pretty good movie, and 7/10 I do give it)?

What changed all those hundreds of years later? And have laws really been effective here?

What if at some point we went back to that stage and saw people fighting with swords and killing each other, what then?

And people around that time did not consider participating in such voyeurisms of violence illegal, like in today's age, if someone watched a snuff film or something to that extent, they will be arrested.

And also, did any of those audiences ever get sick of watching it and do so on MORAL GROUNDS as opposed to getting sick of the sight of it all?

[–] ILJtheFirst (1928) 3 years ago

Today, the only places you could host such an event would be in a godless country or in international waters. Even so, all the people involved would do so secretly.

As for getting sick of watching it, all the spectators loved it. You gotta remember that the colosseum is huge. It's not like sitting front row at the cinema, you're kinda far away. I'm sure the only people affected were those that faint when they see blood.

[–] TheMan18 (12571) 3 years ago

Remember Russell Crowe in Gladiator going "Are you not entertained?"

[–] ILJtheFirst (1928) 3 years ago

Nope, I try to avoid all Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe movies. Definitely, won't be watching the newest Mummy movie.

[–] TheMan18 (12571) 3 years ago

Gladiator (2000) is actually surprisingly GOOD.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> like in today's age, if someone watched a snuff film or something to that extent, they will be arrested.

Is that really true? Politician Budd Dwyer committed suicide on live television. Every once in a while someone will upload the video to Youtube, then someone will complain and it gets taken down again, but AFAIK nobody has ever been arrested for uploading it or for watching it.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

People didn't value life as much as death occurred all around you. Life expectancy up until 130 years ago was only 45.

[–] TheMan18 (12571) 3 years ago

Wow, 45? Now that IS a short life span.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 3 years ago

ANCIENT EGYPTAINS only lived an average of 25 years. The SMITHSONIAN use to have a display where it explains this to you.

And Here's another link:

Life expectancy in ancient Egypt

>>The average life expectancy in ancient Egypt was 25 years of age. Girls were married at 13 and boys at 15 years of age. Men sometimes had more wives, while pharaohs could have had several hundreds wives.

Daily Life in Ancient Egypt - Ancient Civilizations

www.anciv.info/ancient-egypt/daily-life-in-ancient-egypt.html

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 3 years ago

It is estimated that the pharaoh Ramesses II lived for about 90 years.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 3 years ago

Yes but he was also a VERY RICH PHAROAH, whereas the "AVERAGE EGYPTIAN JOE" was not, and therefore their life expectancy was also much lower.

Occasionally that could also BACKFIRE like when the RICH FOLKS would HOARD the good parts of the bread and leave the MOLDY parts for the POOR folks to eat.

But doing that also resulted in the poor having better IMMUNITY to certain diseases that the RICH did not.

Anyhow, there are always going to be EXCEPTIONS to any kind of situation or RULE, but IN GENERAL the AVERAGE EYPTAIN only lived about 25 YEARS ( or about HALF as LONG as life expectancy was here in the US prior to 1900 where the average age was 50).

And now we're making it to about 75.

But COVID may also be changing that, and REDUCE our AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY back down again.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> Wow, 45? Now that IS a short life span.

But that's an average and is somewhat misleading. In colonial American times, the average life expectancy was considerably lower than today, but the reason was that infant and childhood mortality was so much higher and the dead kids were dragging the numbers down. If a person made it to sixteen, he or she stood a good chance of making it to sixty. I imagine the same situation existed in ancient Rome, Egypt, et cetera.

[–] nyctc7 (41403) 3 years ago

Thank you, I often make the same point. Because of infant and childhood mortality, the average lifespan is lowered, leading some to believe that a 40-year-old in ancient times is somehow equivalent to a 75-year-old today. Not the case.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

Yep. From what I understand, for modern people in advanced countries the danger zone is in the fifties. If a person can make it to fifty without getting any of the big three -- heart disease, diabetes, cancer -- there's a good chance of making it to seventy.

[–] sslssg (28219) 3 years ago

During the French revolution the masses would watch the beheadings. I think hangings were quite popular as well. Dicken's wrote a letter to the Times stating how he thought public executions were vile.

We can't really compare now to those times. We watch movies where characters die all the time. I am a big fan of horror movies. Would I have enjoyed watching those deaths in person back then? I can't say.

Have you watched the Black Mirror episode "White Bear"? If not, you might enjoy the questions it raises.

[–] Furienna (3322) 3 years ago

Indeed, that is probably true.
Instead of watching gladiator games or executions, people today will watch horror movies or gory action movies.
Those are so not my favorite genres though.
So I guess that I would have stayed away from the older forms of "entertainment" as well.

[–] nyctc7 (41403) 3 years ago

French Revolution...the masses...they are revolting...while the King gets his entertainment...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0iAcQVIokg

[–] AndyKing1967 (34147) 3 years ago

It’s good to be the King.

[–] McQualude (4231) 3 years ago

I don't understand the question, you mention a movie where the most memorable scenes are killing people for entertainment. Nothing changed except our ability to do it virtually. One of the most popular documentary genres is true crime. One of the most popular tv genres is crime, also medical. We are fascinated by the misery of others.

[–] nyctc7 (41403) 3 years ago

Some people just want their money's worth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xldcuyl4xRY

[–] nyctc7 (41403) 3 years ago

I can't find a clip of this scene from I, Claudius on YouTube so I'll describe it. The future emperor Claudius is a young man at a festival (presumably the Coliseum). Herod Agrippa, future King of Judea and Claudius's friend, is sitting with him.

Herod: Just look at them all, they can't wait to see the blood start flowing.
Claudius: I've never seen a sword fight before. I wish Germanicus was here.
Herod: Look at them. Stuffing themselves with cakes, while down below their fellow men are preparing to die for their enjoyment.
Claudius: Oh Herod, I hope you're not going to spoil it all.
Herod: My dear Claudius, I'm fascinated. I never cease to wonder at these spectacles.
Claudius: Its origin is religious. It's a religious rite. Really. To honor the spirits of the dead.
Herod: By rendering more people dead? How noble.

[–] ILJtheFirst (1928) 3 years ago

Noice

[–] Furienna (3322) 3 years ago

It can't be the Colosseum though, because they wouldn't build it until after Claudius was dead.

[–] nyctc7 (41403) 3 years ago

I should have known that!

[–] Furienna (3322) 3 years ago

It is a common mistake to make though.
So you don't have to feel that bad.

[–] Knish (1721) 3 years ago

Because it's awesome.