Friday, 22 November 2024

Gladiator II | Official Trailer | Paramount Pictures UK / When historians and directors clash: ‘Ridley Scott was Napoleonic – there was no doubt who was in charge’


When historians and directors clash: ‘Ridley Scott was Napoleonic – there was no doubt who was in charge’

 

Film and TV have a slippery relationship with the truth when it comes to historical epics. So spare a thought for the historical experts whose advice often goes unheeded

 

Simon Usborne

Sat 16 Nov 2024 11.55 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/16/gladiator-bridgerton-history-consultants-napoleon-favourite-ridley-scott

 

If we set aside the more glaring historical inaccuracies in the trailers for the long-awaited Gladiator sequel – the guy riding a rhinoceros for example – there were early signs that its director Ridley Scott remained committed to one of the first film’s more subtle flaws.

 

They are there in the posters, if you know where to look, and they feature throughout the film itself, which hits cinemas this week with Paul Mescal in the leading role. We’re talking about the leather wrist guards.

 

“I’m afraid leather forearm bracers have nothing to do with ancient Rome,” says Alexander Mariotti, a historian and specialist in gladiatorial combat who worked as a researcher and script consultant on the new film. “They don’t appear in any imagery or sources … they just look good on film.”

 

And so, just as Russell Crowe wore some heavy duty wrist-strapping as Maximus Decimus Meridius in the 2000 blockbuster, so does Mescal in his turn as the first gladiator’s even beefier son, Lucius Verus (who, sure enough, is also forced into slavery and becomes a gladiator).

 

Mariotti, who is based in Rome and London, says the arm armour is closer to something that medieval archers might have worn. Yet it has appeared in almost every screen representation of fighty Romans since Ben Hur (the silent 1907 one). He thinks early costume departments may have taken inspiration from neoclassical depictions of Rome.

 

The ubiquity of the accessories reveals much about the way Hollywood flirts with verisimilitude and shapes popular historical understanding, even while consultants are in growing demand. Their role can vary, from early development advice up to script reviews and seats on set.

 

Film-makers say: Is this accurate? And you’ll say: Absolutely not. And then they’ll do it anyway

Alexander Mariotti

 

As well as dutifully pointing out anachronistic wristwear and incongruous rhinos, Mariotti advised Scott on the use of weapons and language. He hasn’t yet seen the film but was heartened to see in the trailer the line “Ubi tu ibi ego” (“Wherever you are I will be”), a Latin marriage vow that he suggested, and which is inscribed in his own wife’s wedding ring.

 

Consultants are called on even when inaccuracy is a feature rather than a bug. Amanda Vickery, a professor of early modern history at Queen Mary, University of London, was a Bridgerton fan before her colleague, Hannah Greig, asked her to take over consulting duties for the third series of the Netflix Regency hit, which has been described by its own makers as “definitely a fantasy”.

 

“The mantra Hannah had, which I agree with, is that producers want to make choices, not mistakes,” says Vickery, who binged the first series of the show with her daughters. “The job of the adviser is to give them that information, but it’s their job to make a hit show.”

 

Vickery became involved at the script stage, filling margins with notes as password-protected drafts arrived from production company Shondaland. In one script a character admired some cerulean blue silk. “And I was able to say, well, cerulean dye wasn’t invented by then, just change it to French navy or azure, and it was changed,” Vickery says. “Little details that might obtrude are very easy to correct because you’re not spoiling the flow.” Vickery also spent time on set, and once prompted the reshoot of a scene in which a male character left a young debutante during a dance without a formal farewell. The historian scoffs when I ask if such insight is well paid. “Are you mad?! I’m not a lawyer, none of this is lucrative,” she says.

 

Ridley Scott is rather Napoleonic himself. There’s no doubt when he comes into a room who’s in charge

Michel Broers

 

Consultants quickly learn to bite their tongues when more significant corrections or queries are left in the margins. Michael Broers, a professor of western European history at the University of Oxford, was about to retire when he was summoned to a meeting with Ridley Scott. The director had read Broers’ books about Napoleon, and wanted to consult him for his biopic, which came out last year with Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role.

 

“He’s rather Napoleonic himself,” Broers tells me of Scott, laughing. “There’s no doubt when he comes into a room who’s in charge, and pretty soon I became fully aware that we were making a movie, not a documentary.”

 

Scott had already filmed a now notorious scene in which Napoleon’s troops blow the tops of the Egyptian pyramids with cannon, in an explosive revision of Napoleon’s very real capture of Cairo. “When he explained that he had done this, I was aghast,” Broers says. “That didn’t happen, I told him, and nothing like it happened. He said: ‘Come on, just sit down and watch it.’”

 

When Broers watched the scene, he burst out laughing. “I said I thought it was the funniest thing I’d ever seen. ‘Well, then, it’s staying in, isn’t it?’ [Scott] said. I think if he’d simply invented the Battle of the Pyramids, which did happen, that would have been different.”

 

Broers likens the role of the historical consultant to that of a father confessor: “You’re there to tell him he’s sinned, and he wants to know that he’s sinned, but you know he’s not going to change his ways.” But the historian’s pragmatism wasn’t always shared when an increasingly busy online community of factcheckers scrutinised Napoleon.

 

Most prominently, Dan Snow posted a TikTok breakdown of Scott’s truth-stretching, including the pyramid attack. The director’s response in an interview last November: “Get a life.” But I gather the 86-year-old Scott was privately fuming. An insider on Gladiator II, which had just started filming when Napoleon was released, tells me that, in response, Scott banned historical consultants from the set. (Neither the director’s production company nor Paramount, the studio behind the film, comments on the claim when I put it to them.)

 

 

It’s not Scott’s first clash with historians. Kathleen Coleman, head of classics at Harvard, was so appalled by the first Gladiator movie that she asked for her consultant credit to be removed. She claimed that in one message from the production office she was asked to find evidence to show that female gladiators attached razor blades to their busts. “Scholars are, of course, notorious for being obsessed with detail … but detail is the repository of authenticity,” Coleman later wrote in an essay called The Pedant Goes to Hollywood.

 

Scott revels in disregarding such detail. “This is the first coffee bar in Roman history,” he reportedly boasted after the first film came out, when one pedant pointed out pavement cafes weren’t a thing in ancient Rome. (The new film goes further, featuring a noble reading a newspaper at a cafe, 1,200 years before the invention of the printing press.) But Broers shares Scott’s sentiment, and was amused by the historical inaccuracies in one viral nitpicker’s video (he prefers not to say whose). “It’s a movie! What do you want to sit down and watch here?” he says. The historian recalls moments in script meetings when it was Scott’s turn to be aghast. He’d turn and say to me, ‘What did happen?’ and nine times out of 10 I’d tell him and his jaw would drop,” he says. Truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes it was even too much for him.”

 

More quotidian truths can jar on screen; Mariotti says that the first Gladiator originally had a scene in which Russell Crowe’s character endorses an olive oil brand in the Colosseum. “And they said: ‘No one’s ever going to believe that, it’s stupid,’ and they cut it, but it was historically correct,” he says.

 

Actors often call on consultants to help flesh out their roles. “Alicia Vikander phoned me when she wanted to add her own prayer to the script,” says Peter Wagstaff, a classical musician and amateur historian who started SceneSpan, a consultancy for historical film and TV, when a friend in the industry said there was a shortage of advisers. Vikander was starring as Katherine Parr alongside Jude Law as Henry VIII in Firebrand, which charts the end of the king’s reign, and wanted to check that the prayer rang true (it did). On the same set, Erin Doherty, who plays Anne Askew, the doomed Protestant poet and preacher, wanted to learn more about her character’s religious convictions. “She wanted to get into the mindset of someone who believed so fervently in the Bible in English that she would die for it,” says Wagstaff, whose work has ranged from a Cadbury’s ad with a Victorian setting to the upcoming new series of Wolf Hall, in which he also has a singing role in a choral scene.

 

Mariotti, Vickery and Broers all say that they have come away from brushes with Hollywood feeling enriched rather than abused. Vickery took her experiences to a history master’s course she teaches, part of which considers how society engages with history itself. In Bridgerton, she sees no contradiction in a show that seeks accuracy in shades of blue while at the same time adapting Coldplay’s Yellow as a wedding march.

 

“That’s what’s interesting about what Shonda Rhimes has pulled off,” she says. “She’s finding a new audience for Regency drama while having enough there to hold the old audience for costume drama.”

 

Sometimes a creative licence can serve history, Vickery adds. She admires The Favourite, the 2018 satirical period comedy about the court of Queen Anne. “All the women are soberly dressed and the men are floridly dressed, which wouldn’t have been the case,” she says. “But the costumes are making a point about where power lies, with the men as decorative. The film approaches a historical truth by breaking the rules.”

 

Mariotti has absorbed time on elaborate sets into his lectures. “Suddenly, after spending years studying ruins, I was walking on the cobbled streets of the Via Sacra, looking at the Temple of Jupiter,” he says of his first consulting role, on the 2007 HBO series Rome. “I found that when I was giving lectures, I was able to do it more vividly because I’d seen these images.”

 

The real Colosseum might not have featured rhinos or wrist guards, but Mariotti sees parallels between Hollywood movies and the theatrical staging that was often central to shows in ancient Rome. “When you sat in the Colosseum and you watched trees pop out of the ground as they transformed the arena into a jungle, it wasn’t really what a jungle looked like,” he says. “But it didn’t matter, because it was entertainment.”

 

Gladiator II is in cinemas now.


Historical accuracy of The Gladiator and the Image of Rome.


This is the first book to analyze Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator from historical, cultural, and cinematic perspectives.


The first systematic analysis of Ridley Scott’s film, Gladiator.
Examines the film’s presentation of Roman history and culture.
Considers its cinematic origins and traditions.
Draws out the film’s modern social and political overtones.
Includes relevant ancient sources in translation.


In Wikipedia:

Historical accuracy of 

 The Gladiator
In making the film Gladiator (2000), director Ridley Scott wanted to portray the Roman culture more accurately than in any previous film and to that end hired several historians as advisors. Nevertheless, some deviations from historical fact were made to increase interest, some to maintain narrative continuity, and some were for practical or safety reasons. The public perception of what ancient Rome was like, due to previous Hollywood movies, made some historical facts, according to Scott, "too unbelievable" to include.


At least one historical advisor resigned due to the changes he made and another advisor Kathleen Coleman asked not to be mentioned in the credits. Historians called the movie both the worst and best of all films: the worst for the historical inaccuracies in a film Scott promoted as historically accurate, and the best for the film's accurate depiction of the people and violence of the late 2nd century AD. Historian Allen Ward of the University of Connecticut noted that historical accuracy would not have made Gladiator less interesting or exciting and stated: "creative artists need to be granted some poetic license, but that should not be a permit for the wholesale disregard of facts in historical fiction."

Political

In the film it is stated that Rome was founded as a Republic. Rome was founded as an elective Monarchy, in the year 753 BC. It became a Republic around the year 509 BC.

In the film it is stated that the Roman Senate was "chosen from among the people to speak for the people." In reality, the Senate was never an elected body, unlike the four People's Assemblies. Its members were appointed by a high magistrate and later by the emperor, and, during the Republic, only after having served the "cursus honorum," a sequence of offices. During the early and mid-Republic, these offices were restricted to the patricians, members of old senatorial families.

Architectural

In the scene with the gladiator caravan coming into Rome, a wall that surrounds the entire city can be seen, which resembles the Aurelian Wall. The Aurelian Wall was not made until 275 A.D.

In the film it is stated that the Colosseum holds 50,000 people. It is now believed to have seated 73,000.

In the movie, the Colosseum is referred to by that name; in truth during the Roman Empire it was known as the Flavian Amphitheatre (Latin: Amphitheatrum Flavium). The name Colosseum, derived from the Latin word colosseus meaning colossal in reference to the broken remains of a giant statue of the Emperor Nero found there, came into common use around the 10th century. After visiting the Colosseum, Ridley Scott thought it was too small so the one in the film is larger than the real Colosseum.

In the film most Roman architecture is portrayed as being white. Historical excavations and archaeologists often say that this is a misconception, as most buildings and structures were somewhat coloured, and that we only believe this because what we find from Roman time (and even Greek) often look white. This is only because the original colour, through the ages, has gradually disappeared and left structures and buildings white. However, some of the older buildings might have already had the time to go through this process in the period of the film.

Linguistic

In the opening battle scene, the leader of the Germanic forces opposing the Roman legionnaires yells out in modern German, calling the Romans 'cursed dogs'. At this time, the German language did not exist, the first recorded use of Old High German (the most archaic form) occurring among the Alemannic tribes of south west Germany during the 6th century, and the Germanic dialects spoken would have been more akin to modern Dutch than German due to the second Germanic consonant shift occurring in the latter.

When Commodus' soldiers arrive at Maximus' home in Spain to kill his family, his son sees their approach and shouts, "Soldati!" This is modern Italian. The Latin word for soldiers is milites.

The Numidians were most likely of Berber origin, instead of Sub-saharan origin.

Maximus affirms to be from Trujillo, which is anachronistic since the proper name of the village in Roman times was Turgalium.

Military

The campaign against Germania wasn't at its end, but instead it was part of a larger campaign to conquer and Romanize the whole region and was interrupted by Marcus Aurelius' death and Commodus' lack of will to proceed with it.

Maximus is shown with S.P.Q.R. tattooed on his shoulder which he removes. The identification tattoos Roman soldiers were required to wear by law were actually on their hands in order to make it difficult to hide if they deserted. By law, gladiators likewise were tattooed, but on the face, legs and arms until emperor Constantine (ca. AD 325) banned tattooing the face.

The execution of several unfaithful soldiers is staged as a modern military execution, with archers instead of guns (the officer even commands anachronistically "Fire!"). No such method of execution existed in antiquity; most commonly the sword would have been used.

The costumes are almost never completely historically correct. The soldiers wear fantasy helmets and bands wrapped around their lower arms which were rarely worn. From early on such bands typically signaled "antiquity" in monumental movies. Keeping in mind that the movie is set in the middle of the 2nd century AD, the body armor worn is Imperial Gallic, which was used by Roman legions from 75 AD and was superseded by a new design in 100 AD. The ancient German uniforms appear to be from the stone-age period.

In the reenactment of the battle of Carthage, Proximo's gladiators are described to be Carthaginians (despite wearing Roman style armor) facing Roman legionaries (who are depicted wearing non-Roman armor and fighting in a non-Roman fashion).

Stirrups can be seen used on some of the Roman cavalry, but while they were invented in Asia during the Roman Empire period, the Romans never adopted them. They are used in the movie for obvious safety reasons, a proper Roman saddle being difficult to ride.

The forest of the opening battle would not have appeared in Roman times as it does on film. The scenes were shot at a managed spruce forest near Farnham in England. Since modern forestry was not applied in Europe before roughly the 16th century, a forest consisting of a single species of tree (a monoculture) would have been an unlikely sight in Germania in AD 180. The location was chosen due to availability, as few forest areas are available to be used for such destructive purposes.

Catapults and ballistae would not have been used in a forest. They were rarely used in open battles and reserved primarily for sieges.

Much of the infantry combat is shown as one-on-one dueling between individuals. The highly organized Romans would not have allowed this to happen, as there was a higher chance of an individual legionary falling in single combat than if he was fighting as part of a unit. In fact, Roman soldiers were not trained in individual combat techniques and would be severely punished if they broke formation to do so. The organized, cohort-based fighting style of the post-Marian army would have been used to outlast the Germans. Both this and the above inaccuracy are due to the relative monotony of actual Roman tactics. In addition, the Barbarians were superb individual warriors, and any army that tried the Roman tactics from the opening battle sequence against them would have been massacred.

The Roman armies used throwing spears called pila in real life. However, in the battles there are no signs of pila-ridden enemy bodies, which does not track with how those conflicts turned out in Rome's favor.

In the movie Maximus' former army is said to be camped in Ostia; even though the officers are said to have been replaced with men loyal to Commodus no army other than the Praetorian Guard would have been camped so close to Rome

Gladiatorial

Scott received considerable criticism for having female gladiators in the film. Nevertheless, according to the ancient sources, they did, in fact, exist.

The emperor indicates the fate of a gladiator by showing thumbs up or thumbs down, which is a common misconception, as there is no historical evidence for this interpretation. Some scholars contend that the actual sign was a thumb to the throat for death (meaning plant the sword in the downed gladiator's neck), and thumb in fist (like a sheathed dagger) or thumbs down (to indicate sticking the swords point in the ground) if the gladiator was to live. The historical record repeatedly turned up the phrase "turning the thumb" without specifying exactly what that meant, which does allow for a great deal of leeway in how this was presented in the film.

Gladiatorial combats were accompanied by musicians who altered their tempo to match that of the combat in the style now familiar with music in action movies[citation needed].

Gladiatorial combatants were not as violent as portrayed, nor did they forcibly fight to the death. Similarly to modern-day professional athletes, gladiators were too profitable of an asset to disregard their lives so callously. In fact, deaths in the arena were relatively rare, and only if the loser were particularly bad would the public ask for his killing.

Maximus only fights gladiators he does not know during the various games. This depiction is unusual, as it was the normal practice outside of rare special events for gladiators to fight only those they trained with from their own school.

Many of the combats in the film are fought between gladiators that are different weights and sizes. However, similar to modern boxing bouts, gladiators were matched against opponents of the same size

Like today's athletes, gladiators did product endorsements. Particularly successful gladiators (such as Maximus) would endorse goods in the arena before commencing a fight and have their names promoting products on the Roman equivalent of billboards. Although originally included in the script, this practice was later rejected as not a fact the audience would believe.


December 9, 2005

Books of The Times
'The Gladiators'

The Pride and Terror of Those Who Fought to the Death / http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/books/09book.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
By WILLIAM GRIMES

As everyone knows, gladiators entering the arena in ancient Rome faced the emperor and shouted, "We who are about to die salute you." Defeated combatants would have their fate decided by a thumbs up or a thumbs down from the crowd, or by the emperor himself.
Not really, says the Dutch historian Fik Meijer in "The Gladiators." It was not gladiators who uttered the immortal salute, but 9,000 prisoners about to engage in a mock sea battle on Lake Fucino organized by the Emperor Claudius, and described by Suetonius. The sentiment made no sense for gladiators, who expected to vanquish their opponents and live. The pollice verso, or "turned thumbs" signal, remains ambiguous. Historians do not know exactly what the gesture looked like.
Mr. Meijer, a professor of ancient history at the University of Amsterdam and the author of "Emperors Don't Die in Bed," understands exactly what readers want to know about gladiators and anticipates their every question in this admirable little study. He explains who the gladiators were; how they were trained, fed and paid; what weapons they used; and what rules governed combat in the arena. One chapter reconstructs a full day's program at the Roman Colosseum and, as a bonus, Mr. Meijer looks at two films, "Spartacus" and the more recent "Gladiator," to see just how well Hollywood captured the flavor and the period detail of Rome's most popular sport.
The elaborate, theatrically produced entertainments associated with the Colosseum and hundreds of smaller amphitheaters throughout the empire had their heyday in the first and second centuries A.D., but for many centuries before that, gladiators had engaged in hand-to-hand combat during funeral rites for important Romans. In so doing, Mr. Meijer writes, they illustrated "the virtues that had made Rome great, virtues demonstrated by the deceased himself during his lifetime: strength, courage and determination."
Over time, the increasingly elaborate private rites evolved into lavish public spectacles intended to boost the prestige of the emperors. The sport became professionalized, with managers, a fixed schedule and training centers, where gladiators developed expertise in one of the dozen or so weapon specialties on offer. Under Augustus, the games achieved a variety and splendor never before seen. In his political will and testament, he boasted that in the eight gladiatorial contests he had held, 10,000 men had fought to the death.
The gladiator was a contradictory figure. Socially, he was a despised outcast, the lowest of the low, but the warrior code and the unflinching courage displayed by most gladiators made them, in a sense, ideal Romans. Recruits were generally prisoners of war, like Spartacus, or slaves charged with crimes, but former soldiers, lured by the prospect of prize money, or well-born Romans entranced by the allure of the arena, often signed contracts to fight as gladiators. Even emperors occasionally took up sword and shield, descending into the arena for a bit of carefully staged combat. Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix in "Gladiator") regularly appeared as a gladiator under the stage name Hercules the Hunter.
Not surprisingly, gladiators captured the public imagination. They were celebrities. Young women left amorous graffiti on the walls of the gladiator schools, or wore hairpins shaped like swords or spears. Even the wives of the emperors, it was rumored, occasionally enjoyed secret liaisons with gladiators. Some women became gladiators themselves, fighting regularly in shows staged by Nero. The emperor Septimius Severus, unamused, banned female combat in A.D. 200 as an affront to military dignity.
Fame came at a heavy price. Mr. Meijer estimated that most gladiators, fighting two or three times a year, probably died between the ages of 20 and 30 with somewhere from 5 to 34 fights to their names. One gladiator, Asteropaeus, notched 107 victories, and exceptional gladiators fought on into their 40's and 50's, sometimes retiring as free men. But these were the exceptions.
The "sport" was appallingly brutal, and many gladiators faced the arena with fear and trembling, especially those who were assigned to square off against wild animals. On one occasion, 20 gladiators committed group suicide, killing one another one by one, rather than enter the arena.
Even successful gladiators lived an exceptionally hard life. Like modern boxers, they were exploited by their managers. Victory usually brought an olive branch or wreath, plus a few small coins. Only a few shows offered the kind of prize money that could guarantee a comfortable life. Lucky gladiators found work as bodyguards for noblemen, but more often, those past fighting age took menial work at the gladiator schools and eventually ended up destitute, begging for alms.
Historians have very little specific information about gladiator fights. There were rules, and a referee, but the rules remain unknown. Some of the gladiatorial specialties remain obscure. The dimachaerus, or "man with two swords," is mentioned in two inscriptions, but there are no pictorial images of him, so it is impossible to know how he fought. Nevertheless, Mr. Meijer, relying on snatches of verse, historical passages, mosaics, sculpture and funeral inscriptions, manages to summon up the savage thrills of the Colosseum.
A few things we do know. Kirk Douglas should not have faced off against a gladiator with trident and net in "Spartacus," since that form of combat would not appear for another 60 years. Russell Crowe, in Roman times, would not have fought a gladiator and a tiger simultaneously as he does in "Gladiator." Even in Rome at its most barbaric, there was a right way and a wrong way to throw a man to the beasts.


Blood and circuses
Keith Hopkins and Mary Beard examine the perfect symbol of Roman imperial power in their history of the Colosseum, says Nigel Spivey

Nigel Spivey

The Guardian, Saturday 12 March 2005 / http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/mar/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview10

The Colosseum

by Keith Hopkins and Mary Beard
214 pp
How typical of the Romans. It's not easy making a fire hot enough to reduce solid stone. But they cut down precious forests in their province of Judaea simply to create a conspicuous holocaust of the Great Temple of Jerusalem in AD70. Some massive blocks were left - as if to state what size of edifice had been destroyed. Meanwhile, treasure and other spoils of triumph from the Jewish revolt were directly translated into the monumental embellishment of Rome, the capital of empire. Begun by Vespasian, the commander who had "subdued" the Jews, and completed a decade later by his son Titus, this was the tiered spherical arena we know as the Colosseum: a place of public recreation symbolically erected on land once taken for private parkland by the odious Nero.

To Romans it was the amphitheatre - a model for imitation throughout the provinces. From north Africa to south Wales, essentially similar structures were raised. El Djem, Verona, Nimes, Arles, Caerleon - these are among the hundreds of Colosseum-clones that appeared. Only in the eastern Mediterranean did problems arise. For in these parts, where Greek cultural values still prevailed under Roman rule, most cities already had institutional spaces of public entertainment. Such areas primarily took the form of the stadium, where athletes strove for glory; or the semi-circular theatre. In both locations there was contest, but contest pitched as virtual reality. Wrestling was a sweated mimicry of war, tragedy the shadow-play of mortal disaster. But what was to be done with the spectacle of sheer violence -men and animals fighting to the death? Archaeological evidence shows that some athletic stadia were converted for use as amphitheatres, and a number of Greek theatres were adapted - high nets rigged around the stage, for instance, to prevent big cats leaping into the audience. Yet there are records of strident Greek protests, if only on behalf of those front-row onlookers who did not care to be sprayed with blood. And this categorical distinction between theatre and amphitheatre points us to the principal fascination of approaching the Roman Colosseum as a "wonder of the world": the wonder lies not with the elegance or substance of the building as it survives, but rather with the question of what the Romans thought they were doing.
As Keith Hopkins has pointed out before, Roman enjoyment of spectacular violence is not a matter of "individual sadistic psychopathology", but seems to betray "a deep cultural difference". How much Hopkins contributed to the present book before he died last year is not easy to estimate, because Mary Beard (a Cambridge colleague) has so sympathetically overlaid it with her own voice. But it was characteristic of Hopkins to begin answering the puzzle of a peculiar Roman "taste" for violence by sceptically probing its extent. The inauguration of the Colosseum was allegedly celebrated by hunting shows involving the deaths of 9,000 exotic animals. But how feasible was it to capture elephants and rhinoceroses without sedative darts, transport them long distances, and finally cajole them to ferocity in front of a large crowd? Documentary evidence of the laborious zoological kidnap of a single hippotamus from the Upper Nile to Regent's Park in 1850 suggests that supplying the Colosseum with large quantities of interesting animals was a logistical challenge beyond even the Romans. Further and more complex calculations about gladiatorial death-rates similarly indicate a strong tendency to exaggerate, and not only by ancient writers. Christian martyrologists piously inflated the number of casualties among the faithful. (In an unsually candid reflection, one persecuted Christian witness, Origen, wondered if the total tally of Christian martyrs at Rome actually reached double figures.) There is, in fact, no firm evidence to prove that any Christian was ever torn apart by lions inside the Colosseum.
Was the Colosseum, then, always what it has become - an iconic hulk, picturesquely staffed by burly men with wooden swords, and very occasionally put to some ceremonial use, whether a mock-battle or a Paul McCartney concert? Hopkins and Beard stop short of making such a case. For even when stripped of its mythology, the amphitheatre subsists as an enclosure designed to give a maximum number of onlookers the closest possible view of a kill. Academic demonstrations of human anatomy used to be compassed in such steep-sided, eye-goggling spaces. The old bullring of Mexico City relies, to this day, on the same telescopic principle. We may agree that the daily pabulum of the Roman populace was bread, not circuses. Still the circus existed all the same; and no one went there for some harmless fun. The closest to slapstick at the Colosseum came from the so-called "fatal charades", when some myth was enacted for real: the flight of Icarus, done like a bungee jump without the bungee; or else a wretched criminal dressed up as Orpheus -given a lyre, and pushed out to charm with melodies the animals prowling around the arena. Too bad if the bears were tone deaf.
Quite how this ingenious mode of human sacrifice originated is left implicit by Hopkins and Beard. They dismiss without reason the notion that gladiatorial combat developed out of archaic Etruscan funerary rites, and offer no plausible alternative. So what was the Colosseum all about? The applications of capital punishment within the amphitheatre were conducted at midday, as a lull in proceedings, deemed a diversion only for the chronically bored. So connoisseurs of bloodshed came for more than the sight of exemplary justice. Protagonists of good entertainment were marked not by damnation but chance; made brave or furious by freedom from blame, how much more fiercely they would fight.
Some ancient observers - notably St Augustine - deplored the addictive magnetism of witnessing this sort of death. Others were complacent about its habituating and homeopathic effect: so death was, as it were, domesticated. But in the end it is impossible to explain the Colosseum unless one concedes that its principal sponsors - the emperors of Rome - all of them, even "good" ones such as Trajan, ultimately ruled by terror. This arena by the Palatine, the hill on which Romulus founded his city, was the looming and central emblem of their power to "play God" - to allocate life or death.
• Nigel Spivey's The Ancient Olympics is published by OUP.


    Gladiator & the Portrayal of the Roman Empire in the Cinema.

July 12, 2011 by Professor Rollmops / http://tragicocomedia.com/2011/07/12/gladiator-the-portrayal-of-the-roman-empire-in-the-cinema/

I began writing this article in 2000, whilst still researching my PhD at Cambridge. It was largely finished, but with significant holes which I have finally decided to fill in. I originally intended to research it more intensively and submit it for publication to an academic journal, but ultimately the style seemed more journalistic and its prohibitive length ruled out any hope of publication in a newspaper or magazine. So, after all these years, here it is!

The recent release of Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator has once again sparked interest in a genre that seemed doomed never to be revived. Prohibitive costs and questionable appeal were the enduring memories after the hugely expensive and unsuccessful Cleopatra and the ponderous The Fall of the Roman Empire. After 1964, no one was either rich enough or stupid enough to invest in a project of this scale.
Gladiator, the first Roman epic for almost forty years, whilst receiving mixed reviews for critics, has proven very popular with cinema-goers the world over. The story of Maximus’ fall from the slippery heights of power as a conquering Roman general, to his being sold as a slave and his evolution as a great gladiator, certainly makes for great matinee entertainment. The exotic locations, vast battles, splendid sets, and epic scenes are true to form of the “sword and sandal” epic, and with the assistance of modern technology and greater attention to close detail, Gladiator sets a new benchmark for a raw and “realistic” evocation of the Roman world. Yet what is so frustrating about Gladiator is its lack of contextual historical accuracy.

The genre to which Gladiator belongs has always been a flawed one. Roman epics have attracted criticism for both their historical accuracy and dramatic qualities. Roman epics aren’t so much historical films, as vehicles for other, often anachronistic moral or ideological themes; Italian nationalism and fascism, for example. Otherwise they have tended towards ponderous, opulent romance.
Gladiator is an interesting product in the context of film history, for it picks up almost directly where the Roman epic left off. Gone are the moralising voice-overs which introduce the historical context; gone is the typical demonisation of the Roman Empire; gone is the anachronistic emphasis on modern Christian concepts of ethics and morality. In their place we have a secularised film which does not seem to carry any message whatsoever. This absence of any clear moral purpose behind Gladiator is, in part, what makes it a better Roman epic than many of its predecessors.
Historical films can also have a very powerful effect on an audience, imaginatively and emotionally, but often very particularly on account of national identity. This is especially the case when the film depicts the actions of a national group, and particularly in the context of an international conflict. The film Braveheart, for example, generated very heated debate about its depiction not just of certain historical personalities, but also ofEngland’s relationship toScotland. It was not at all well received by the English.
It seems extraordinary that a cinematic interpretation of events which took place almost seven centuries ago could cause such rancour, yet such they did. Some film-makers might therefore be wary about alienating potential audiences, which raises the question as to whether or not historical accuracy in the cinema depends upon the degree to which there is a risk of upsetting members of any social group which could identify with the characters and events of the film. Inevitably, where national identities are concerned, someone is bound to be upset, and the director or author of the screenplay are likely to find themselves forced to justify the reasons for their portrayal.
The Roman epic, however, occupies a special place in the broad spectrum of historical films. This is because the period it depicts is sufficiently distant in time to avoid arousing the ire of any political or ethnic group by an historically unfair or inaccurate portrayal; thus neutralising any possible social antagonism such as that generated by films such as Braveheart. This might go some way towards explaining the flights of fantasy into which Roman epics are capable of delving. The recent and appalling television production of Cleopatra was a perfect example of the quite extraordinary degree to which history can be manipulated.
Gladiator is another production in which there is very little historical truth. It need only be pointed out that Maximus did not exist, that Commodus was already co-opted as co-emperor in 177, three years before the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, and that he ruled until 193 when he was strangled to death by a professional wrestler as he lay in a drunken sleep, to illustrate the quite ridiculous historical inaccuracy of the film. Can Gladiator therefore rightly be called an historical film?
On some levels, namely those of costuming and interior design, the makers of Gladiator have made an impressive effort to achieve historical accuracy. It is perhaps counter-productive to quibble about the exact appearance of the Roman urban landscape at the time; which facades loomed, which statues stood where, which aqueducts had been completed, and about the decoration of the interior of the senatorial curia. That neo-classical facades were shot, cut and pasted to create the backdrop of the city of Rome should not trouble us too greatly, for the effect is at least successful in conveying an impression of the scale, and, it might be said, the “modernity” of Roman development at the height of the Empire’s power. Perhaps more importantly, the attention to detail in military hardware, costumes, furniture, personal effects, and so on, is a considerable advance on previous cinematic depictions of theRoman Empire.
Another positive of the film is that it attempts to create a less anachronistic intellectual, social and cultural context. Often, due to the need to acquaint the audience with the historical context, period films tend to be packed with informative dialogue and exposition, which at times stumbles uncomfortably from the lips of the protagonists. Gladiator is somewhat more successful in contextualising this background and making it incidental to the film.
Still, it is reasonable to wonder why so much effort has been put into minute detail, when the broader context in which all the detail is conveyed is almost completely fictional?

Director Ridley Scott provides the best answer to this question. When asked what attracted him to the film, he described his first encounter with the producer Walter Parkes, in which Parkes simply threw down a rolled-up print of Jean Leon Gerome’s famous painting of a gladiator in the Colosseum. “That’s what got me,” said Scott, “It was a totally visceral reaction to the painting.”
Gladiator is probably best described as a visceral experience. Rather than being an historical film, Gladiator is a “human” film in a fictive historical context, whose historicity is supported by a careful reconstruction of the appearance of the world being represented. If we were to try to define Gladiator further, then it would be as the story of an individual’s struggle against injustice, and of loyalty to a threatened ideal of enlightened despotism or republican government.
It is tempting, however, to be more cynical and say that considering the lack of regard for the historical narrative, it is essentially a vehicle for great special effects and innovative action sequences. After all, the project began with only the arena in mind. The script, which needed a great deal of work, ran to a mere thirty-five pages and underwent a number of transformations throughout the shoot. Perhaps as a consequence of the simplicity of its original conception, it is difficult to find any serious message in Gladiator. If one were to look for a historical message in it, all one really finds is that Marcus Aurelius was a good man, Commodus was a bad man, life was hard and tenuous, and that Roman Republican government, namely rule by the Senate, was a cherished ideal.
It could also be misconstrued that the principle message of the film is to reveal the horrors of gladiatorial combat, for Gladiator depicts gladiatorial contests with very startling realism, although what we see is as nothing to the vast and elaborate slaughter which often took place in the Colosseum and other arenas around the Empire. The horrors of slavery and the staging of fights to the death, resonates strongly with our modern outrage at such “entertainments.” The assertion of the humanity of the slaves and gladiators is deeply moving to us who so greatly value freedom and human life. Yet this is not really the concern of Gladiator. Indeed, if one looks at the web-site, it becomes quite clear that the film is more concerned with glorifying the arena than anything else.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is less of an anachronism. Indeed, one of the problems with the film Spartacus is that it makes too much of the slave revolt as a type of ideological movement against an oppressive and evil empire, and establishes Spartacus as a sort of proto-communist revolutionary. We cannot ignore that slavery was something almost irrevocably intrinsic to the ancient world; the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, all had slave-based economies, and it would be difficult to say that any of these civilisations were more inclusive, more tolerant, or provided a better system of social infrastructure than did Rome. Though we are appalled by slavery, to vilify theRoman Empire for employing it is rather like vilifying a child for adopting the habits of its parents, and of society at large.
Yet whilst Spartacus might be too redolent with Marxist overtones it is one of the few Roman epic films which attempts to remain true to the understood historical narrative of what it depicts, with the exception of its fabricated conclusion. (Spartacus’ body was never recovered from the battlefield.) It is an excellent, humane, and deeply moving film, which has a greater “historicity” than many of its predecessors.

When asked why he thought Roman epics had vanished for forty years, Ridley Scott said that: “They reached a saturation point and then they simply went away because every story seemed to have been exhausted.”
This response might go some way to explaining why Gladiator is essentially fiction. Yet, at the same time, it might be the very thing which will allow the Roman epic to re-emerge as a genre. No one had ever heard of Maximus before, and the vast majority of the audience will never have heard of Commodus either. This has in no way hindered Gladiator’s success. Not many people outside of the United Kingdom, and probably only a limited number within it would have ever heard of William Wallace before the release of Braveheart. Roman history is so rich that countless stories could be artfully extracted without much need to change the context. Rather than turning to fiction, the time is now ripe for screen-writers to plough deeply the very rich and extensive soil of Roman history for future epics. Apart from all the smaller, human stories of individuals caught up in the events of Roman history, there is vast scope for movies on a grander scale. The late Roman empire in particular begs attention. Why is there no epic about Constantine, or of Alaric’s sack of Rome in 410? What of Attila’s failed invasion of the ailing western empire in 451 and, in particular the epic battle of the Catalaunian Plains?

The release of Gladiator is a very exciting and important event in film history. It has the potential to bring about a rebirth of a dead genre and to set a new direction for that genre. For, one of the most promising aspects of Gladiator is that it avoids the polemics against Roman rule which were characteristic of so many of its predecessors. It empathises much more successfully with the period in offering a fairer cross-section of Roman society and ideas. In the opening battle scene, Maximus’ Tribune Quintus says with derision; “People should know when they’re conquered.” To which Maximus replies, “Would you Quintus, would I?” In conversation with Marcus Aurelius, Maximus acknowledges that the world outside of Rome is dark and forbidding; “Rome is the light,” he says sincerely. The means by which the greater complexity of the Roman world is conveyed is more subtle than many other epics of this genre and less dominated by modern political, religious and ideological concerns.
The earliest Roman films were often rooted in a strong ideological agenda. , The 1914 Italian film Cabiria, set during the Second Punic War (218-202 BC), was produced by the ultra nationalist Gabriele d’Annunzio and was released shortly after the Italo-Turkish war, in which Italy conquered the Ottoman provinces of Tripolitana and Cyrenaica in North Africa. Similarly, the 1937 film Scipione l’africano, depicting the life of Scipio Africanus, Rome’s most successful general during the Second Punic War, followed in the wake of Mussolini’s Ethiopian conquest.
The 1964 Hollywoodfilm, The Fall of the Roman Empire, reads like a positivist moral essay; striving to put across a more explicit historical argument. Starring Alec Guiness as Marcus Aurelius, and Christopher Plummer as Commodus, it has many parallels with Gladiator in that it too focuses on the accession and reign of Commodus. It essentially argues that the reign of Commodus and what took place immediately afterwards, namely the auction of the Empire to the highest bidder (it ignores the brief reign of Pertinax) was the beginning of the decline which was to lead to the Empire’s eventual “fall”, though this did not happen in the west for another two hundred and fifty years. This particular interpretation of the narrative of Roman history dates back to Gibbon, who first identified the reign of Commodus as a significant turning point after the more enlightened rule of Marcus Aurelius.
One of the central themes of The Fall of the Roman Empire, namely the social experiment of settling barbarians as farmers in Roman territory, was a massive oversimplification of an issue which, in fact, was dealt with at a painstakingly academic and philosophical level in the late Roman Empire, the consequences of which were central to the gradual devolution of Roman power in the west in the fifth century.
It is inevitable that political and social complexities have to be glossed over in an historical film – no audience is going to sit through a film which depicts with arduous detail the mind-boggling intricacy of Roman bureaucracy – yet such complexity can be hinted at through thought-provoking ambiguity, rather than being arduously explicit. Ideally, the Roman context should be incidental to the film and less explicit, especially where long-established clichés are otherwise the only resort. Typically the Roman Empirehas been portrayed as a vicious, cruel organisation, run by ruthless madmen. Gladiator at least went some way towards suggesting that Commodus was just an example of a very cruel, weak, and over ambitious megalomaniac in a world of otherwise sane human beings with complex identities.
The 1951 MGM film Quo Vadis, however, opens with a startling and lengthy diatribe against the nature of Roman power, based entirely upon modern, Christian concepts of ethics and morality, and which is to put it mildly, anachronistic in the Empire of the 1st Century AD. Such criticisms of Roman power as did exist in the 1st century, rarely focussed on the immorality and inhumanity of gladiatorial contests or slavery, rather upon an antique perception of freedom and self-determination, which, sadly, often translated as the freedom of another aristocracy or religious oligarchy to run its own exclusive autocratic regime.
Indeed, the degree to which the Roman state is vilified in the cinema is probably only paralleled by post-war portrayals of Nazi Germany. Certainly the Roman Empire was a physically coercive entity which encouraged practices we find abhorrent, but considering the context from which it emerged, it was the paragon of ancient civilised states of the Mediterraneanand near Eastern world. The Roman Empire was an inclusive, not an exclusive system which encouraged religious freedom, (with the exception of certain troublesome dissidents who worshiped a dead carpenter), which provided immense and sophisticated public services, sanitation, education and security, which championed free trade, and which, under the pax Romana, also championed peace.

The great eighteenth century historian Edward Gibbon once wrote:
“If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. (AD96-180).”
During Gibbon’s lifetime such an observation had much greater currency, especially when we consider that theBritish Empirehad not as yet abolished slavery by the time of his death. Clearly there is no excusing slavery in any context, but this is a modern sensibility. Even the much vaunted Athenian democracy was heavily dependent on slave-labour, and they did not offer to extend their citizenship to outsiders as the Romans did.
It is largely for this reason that Gladiator makes a departure from its predecessors. Rather than critiquing theRoman Empire as an entity, it highlights the folly and wickedness of certain individuals. It marks a turning point in the portrayal of Roman history and offers, without being especially cerebral or historically accurate, a less explicitly moralising theme and context. If its success results in the making of further such historical epics, then there might be something of a rebirth of the genre. Either way, and perhaps most importantly, enrolments in ancient history courses both at high school and university have risen dramatically in its wake. If the cinema can still inspire students to take an interest in the very distant history that underlies the culture, identity and institutions of modern western society, then this is surely a positive.







MIND THE GAP !!

 


London Underground

Because some platforms on the London Underground are curved, and the rolling stock that use them are straight, an unsafe gap is created when a train stops at a curved platform.In the absence of a device to fill the gap, some form of visual and auditory warning is needed to advise passengers of the risk of being caught unaware and sustaining injury by stepping into the gap. The phrase "Mind the gap" was chosen for this purpose and can be found painted along the edges of curved platforms and heard on recorded announcements when a train arrives at many Underground stations.

 

The recording is also used where platforms are non-standard height. Deep-level tube trains have a floor height around 20 cm (8 inches) less than sub-surface stock trains. Where trains share platforms, for example, some Piccadilly line (deep-tube) and District line (sub-surface) stations, the platform is a compromise. On London's Metropolitan line, a gap has been created between the train and the platform edge at Aldgate and Baker Street stations. This is due to the phasing out of the old "A" stock trains and their replacement with "S" stock trains, which have low floors to ease accessibility for disabled people.

 

"Mind the gap" audible warnings are always played on the Central line platforms at Bank, the Northern line northbound platform at Embankment, and the Bakerloo line platforms at Piccadilly Circus. The markings on the platform edge usually line up with the doors on the cars.

 

While the message is sometimes played over the platform's public address system on some lines, usually it is an arrival message inside the train itself: "Please mind the gap between the train and the platform".

 

During the coronation weekend of King Charles III in 2023, the message was voiced by the King himself and his wife Camilla. The King says, "My wife and I wish you and your families a wonderful coronation weekend," followed by Camilla, who says, "Wherever you are travelling, we hope you have a safe and pleasant journey," which is ended with the King saying "And remember, please mind the gap." It was played throughout every railway station in the United Kingdom.

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Where is Lord Lucan? | Lucan | Official Trailer - BBC / Lucan review


 

Review

Lucan review – stick with this wild documentary to the end and you will be astonished

 

Fifty years ago, Lord Lucan murdered Sandra Rivett then disappeared. This surreal series follows the victim’s son as he hunts down the fugitive peer – and ends up somewhere totally unexpected

 

Rebecca Nicholson

Wed 6 Nov 2024 22.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/nov/06/lord-lucan-bbc-documentary-review

 

Richard John Bingham, the 7th Earl of Lucan, was declared dead in 1999, but that did nothing to halt the highly profitable cottage industry of speculation about him, which has chugged away since 1974, when he murdered Sandra Rivett, his children’s nanny, then disappeared.

 

At first glance, you might think that this three-part documentary will be another contribution to this conspiracy-minded canon. But this is not a “have we found him?” film. I cannot emphasise enough how much it is worth sticking with it until the end. What unspools is a sometimes tender, sometimes troubling rollercoaster that ends up in surreal and unexpected territory. There is a fake monk, catfishing, drag queens and Timothy Leary. You have probably not seen this side of the Lord Lucan story before.

 

The first episode is the most straightforward. The film-maker Colette Camden has found a new way of outlining what happened on 7 November 1974. A builder in Hampshire called Neil Berriman thinks he has tracked down Lucan, she explains. (There is a strong argument that the true subject of the episodes is Berriman, not Lucan.) Berriman’s mother, who had adopted him, would talk to him about a “brown envelope” containing information about his biological parents. For years, he wasn’t interested in even looking for it, but when he did eventually open it, it delivered a shock: newspaper cuttings about one of Britain’s most notorious crimes of the 20th century. It revealed that his birth mother was Rivett, the woman who had been looking after Lucan’s children for mere weeks when he bludgeoned her to death.

 

As you would expect from a modern documentary, and one which involves Rivett’s son, this shifts its emphasis from the headline-generating exploits of the “fugitive Lord” – the profligate gambler and drunk, known to his friends, ironically, as “Lucky” – to the 29-year-old woman whom he murdered, the justice he eluded and the consequences of this violent crime for those left behind.

 

Berriman has made it his mission to learn everything he can about the case – seemingly to the concern of his family – and episode one provides an overview of what he has discovered. There are interviews with people who knew Rivett, who knew Lucan, who attended the crime scene; and with people who, like Berriman, have made the investigation their primary focus (although without having the same personal attachment).

 

It is here that the series starts to rev up and speed off into the distance, where it shape-shifts into something else entirely. Berriman has spent years working with the investigative reporter Glen Campbell, who has reported on the case extensively (and called his dog Lucan). They have pursued countless theories and potential sightings. The film joins them as they are on their way to confront a man they have tracked down in Australia, whom they seem certain is the aristocrat.

 

To watch this with a critical eye is to notice that we, the viewers, cannot see or hear much of their evidence: a confidential police report that would compromise the job of the person who leaked it; a detail given offcamera by Lucans brother. There are a lot of people saying bullshit. Often, there is no clear sense of what is true and what the people at the heart of this story want to believe. (There is, however, a clear sense of how much some of these men will make excuses for a friend who brutally murdered a woman – a small but deeply depressing detail.)

 

It is not a rigorous investigation so much as an empathic portrait of human obsession. Camden is evidently fond of Berriman, and her involvement in the story grows more pronounced as the episodes progress. I kept thinking of The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm’s classic study of journalistic ethics and the relationship between reporter and subject, wondering to what extent this documentary exists in a murky area. The programme gives Berriman (and, by extension, Rivett) a voice – and it’s hard to deny that he deserves that voice.

 

By the time Lucan explodes into its surreal final act, you will be feeling astonished and uneasy about some of the people caught up in the whirlwind of pursuit. This extraordinary documentary lingers in the mind and leaves a lot more questions behind it than whether or not Lucan lived beyond 1974.

 

 Lucan airs on BBC Two and is available on BBC iPlayer


Sunday, 17 November 2024

John Fowler’s Nantclwyd Hall Revisited














John Fowler’s Nantclwyd Hall Revisited

April 14, 2016

https://www.theglampad.com/2016/04/john-fowlers-nantclwyd-hall-revisited.html#acpwd-165

 





Yesterday, I featured the exquisite United Kingdom homes of Serena Fresson and her daughter Alice Naylor-Leyland. My obsession continues as Alice and her husband Tom were just featured in Vogue for a weekend jaunt they held recently at Tom’s family home, Nantclwyd Hall in Denbighshire, Wales… complete with home tour! The 17th-century mansion has been in Tom’s family for generations. The interiors were decorated by John Folwer in the 1950s and remain untouched. Known as the “Prince of Decorators,” John Fowler was the most influential interior decorator of his generation.  As Vogue explains…

 

The original house, built in 1622, was owned by the Thelwell family and was later purchased by the Naylor-Leyland clan in the mid-19th century. They enlarged it with Victorian extensions, leaving only the original oak sitting room and bedroom untouched, and they also kept the name: Nantclwyd, which means “the brook over the river Clwyd.” During the 1950s, Tom’s grandfather commissioned the famous Welsh architect Sir Clough Williams-Ellis to remove the Victorian extensions from the original 17th-century home and add a subtly pink-hued facade facing the garden front, as well as a new clock tower, garden pagodas, and a fiberglass temple.

 

The interiors received a refresh as well when Tom’s father enlisted interior designer John Fowler to update the estate. Fowler famously lent his talents to Buckingham Palace and is often credited with inventing the humbly elegant decor that is now commonly associated with traditional English country homes: a reverence for the past mixed with a thoughtful use of color and jaunty patterns. Today, Fowler’s ingenious style is everywhere at Nantclwyd Hall—the floral fabric wall coverings, the pink Victorian seating, and the classic canopy beds.

 

 The driveway to Nantclwyd Hall, which became the countryseat of the Naylor-Leyland baronets. As the story goes, the first lawn tennis match was played on its grounds, establishing the rules of today’s modern game.

 

The hall near the front entrance to the home is adorned with a trompe l’oeil wall covering chosen by John Fowler, and a piano and original marble fireplace.

 

The oak sitting room is situated just off the bar area and is a gathering place for the family after dinner while Tom plays the piano. Fowler used window fabrics from George Spencer in London, pink chairs with red tassel trim, and portraits of Tom’s great-great-great grandparents. Tom’s mother, Lady Isabella, purchased the cushions on the sofa from various antique shops throughout London.

 

The fabric in Lady Isabella’s tearoom is called “Roses and Leaves” and is believed to have come from Ramm, Son & Crocker. Artwork by Tom and his siblings from when they were children and taxidermy on top of the bookshelf accent the room.

 

The dining room, set for dinner after a long day out on the hunt, features gilded mirrors and neutral drapery set against pale green, leaf-printed wallpaper.

 

Before the 1959 remodeling, the old house had extensively Neo-Jacobean interiors done in the 19th century with very dark paneling. The gargoyles that lead to the second floor attic space were on the posts of the old staircases.

 

A guest bedroom called the Victoria room features a brass bed and pastel blue settee. Fowler incorporated the bedding fabric onto the Victorian chairs flanking the fireplace, above which hangs a portrait of Jeannie Chamberlain from Cleveland, Ohio, who was married to Sir Herbert Naylor-Leyland 1st Baronet. The portrait of the baby above the nightstand is Sir Edward “Edley” Naylor-Leyland.

 

The wooden toilet, deep tub, and fabric walls inside the oak bathroom just off the Victoria room. The bright pink and floral walls match the bedding in the adjoining room.

 

Alice and Tom believe this room, with its pink and crimson hue and medieval canopy bed, may be haunted! “There’s only a possibility it’s haunted. The house is so not scary, but if it was anywhere, people do find this room a bit spooky,” said Alice.

 

While Nantclwyd (with its 20 bedrooms and 10 bathrooms) has famously hosted scores of guests who have passed through its expansive doors over the generations, it is first and foremost a gathering place for family and their nearest and dearest. “We used to spend our summer holidays here every year,” said Tom. “Exploring, swimming, shooting rabbits, and playing tennis.” It’s a tradition that he continues with his family and friends, visiting the property for the Easter and summer holidays, as well as for hunt parties in the winter.