#largely sublimated to background details in the art. or what we can interpret as sublimated conflicts the characters dont want to address

[abysscontemporary]

The Dais Of Our Knives

Years ago At Sotheby’s

I ran into a journalist I knew from the art scene.

They told me they’d been away For six months Traveling.

We continued chatting.

As if they’d never been away.

In March 2020, I stopped by Team Gallery to see its Petra Cortright and Will Sheldon solo exhibitions. The adventure was extraordinary.

Cortright is typically known for her paintings, which initially look handmade but then reveal themselves to have been composed electronically and fabricated on a substrate. The synergy between the two is often pleasantly confounding, and the dichotomy between the tactility and the hands-off technique is perplexingly rewarding.

At Team, Cortright fabricated each layer of a digital composition that she had printed on a one-fold tabloid.  The layers were suspended from a procession of dowels, installed just below the ceiling. In doing so, she physicalized the display of layers that one might see on the computer screen of a 2D designer if such a designer were to isolate each layer on, respectively, a sequence of dedicated pages.

(Think of how Damian Ortega’s mobile of the principal components of an automobile was presented at the 2003 Venice Biennale.  Here, however, Cortright presents large-scale facsimiles of every single component of her two-dimensional work.)

Some layers were pure abstractions, and other depicted landscapes.  The irregularity of the shapes brought them into such sharp relief that they were rendered into still life objects.  Again, in an inventive way, Cortright found a way to bewilder and delight a gallery audience.

Will Sheldon’s paintings depicted scenes of either fantasies or highly embellished realities. The artist’s gift for conflating the two prompted me to alternately take in the entire exhibition all at once and lean forward to investigate and marvel at each work’s details.

It would be simple to categorize Sheldon’s paintings as being purely Gothic because so much about them is about observations of the present and visualizations of life in the future.  In the same way that one might recount about how during the course of a day they’d had a certain dream, promenaded through several neighborhoods within a town or a city, and contemplated a spectacular and speculative environment, Sheldon brings such narrative-like non-narratives to each of his canvases.  Some of the spider webs, if looked upon closely, are sparkling.  The scenes of the city (that arise behind the threshold of the dark forest that the viewer seems to be immersed within) exist in states of innocence – the kinds that one is unlikely to be cynical about.

As a painter, Sheldon has a remarkable touch.  His craft skills can be admired, and what they deliver are sublime, modern-day, transgressive, pictorial enchantments.

Also in March 2020, I visited Foxy Production to see its solo exhibition of paintings by Srijon Chowdhury.  Uncannily, many of this artist’s works feature an extraordinary surprise - a supernatural glow that emanates from the canvas as if it were both natural and fantastic (i.e., a specimen of fantasy).  Chowdhury’s works appear to be simply about flowers, figures in nature, and intimate family scenes.  However, through his subjects, his works are pulsating vessels – vehicles for vital forces.  In this, he shares one of two things in common with Mark Rothko; the other is that Chowdhury is based in Portland, Oregon, the city where Rothko lived after emigrating from Russia.

Chowdhury’s grand tableau, “Pale Rider,” is a commanding work that was presented on the feature wall of the gallery.  Measuring 7 feet high by 16 feet across, this painting has the power of a major work of medieval stained glass.  “Pale Rider” depicts a nude equestrienne, riding a galloping horse through a free-form landscape of colorful flowers behind the plane of a fence of green ironwork, formed by words and geometric, abstract shapes.  Here, the lady’s the one with the long mane.  As a guiding force upon this equine creation-in-motion, she is riding in a streamlined, recumbent manner and holding a scythe in her left hand, beyond the plane of the horse.  “Pale Rider” is other-worldly.  The artist’s attention to detail makes it worthwhile to look at the painting up-close. Threads flow through and around the fence, and the lushness of the greenery in the background conjures up the most exalted of spring and summer days.

In August 2020, I returned to Foxy Production to see “Sex and love with a psychologist,” its solo exhibition of paintings by Sojourner Truth Parsons.  It was like a blast from the early 1980’s, as seen through a lens of present-day thinking.  Modern and graphic – as in what it is that a graphic artist produces – Parsons’ paintings depict portraits in high relief of studio interiors, and stylized cityscapes.  They evoke the downtown Manhattan scene that had been brought to life by “The SoHo Weekly News” and the pre-Conde Nast “Details” Magazine.  They don’t directly reference the decade, but the feeling is there. What makes them so engaging is how Parsons appears to have assumed that what was once transgressive in that half-decade is now conceptually and practically settled culture.  The result is a very present symphony of beautiful technique and lively but simple colors:  powder pink, black, and sky or powder blue.

Parsons’ approach to depicting studies and finished works, as installed on the walls of art studios, is fascinating.  The representations of strips of artist’s tape and the works they support upon the walls where they’re displayed are endearing.  The shapes are subtly but distinctively choreographed, and the process of decoding what these forms are about is very rewarding.  The presence of the unseen individuals who live, work, and/or play in these environments is palpable.  A viewer is never alone while engaging with Parsons’ work.  Parsons’ works are rich in spirit and modernistically atmospheric.

In November 2020, I visited Hesse Flatow to see “Sincerely,” Aglaé Bassens’ solo exhibition of paintings.  As a follow-up to her 2018 solo exhibition, “You Can See Better From Here,” at Crush Curatorial, it was a pleasure to see this artist move upwards and laterally, as her vision and technique has ascended, and her range of exploration of subject matter and technique has expanded in unexpected and intriguing dimensions.

What Bassens captures are moments:  a burning cigarette butt, on a black surface in an ostensibly nocturnal interior; a car passenger’s view of an iced-over windshield and a dashboard on a winter day; a chaise longue and a matching chair (designed for poolside lounging), stretched out on grassy meadow, bordered by a forest, on an overcast summer afternoon.  Each of her works is clearly a representation, and each is unmistakenly a painting.

Without knowing the title of the burning cigarette painting, one could marvel at its details for at least an hour.  The wrinkled cigarette paper, the slightly crushed filter, the white-hot butt end, and the casually rising smoke are spectacles in themselves.  The black surface upon which the cigarette rests is implicitly a table – a plinth upon which this common object is, for an instance, ennobled; it could never be anything as profane as a floor.

To see the car interior painting and the chaises longues tableau is to sense the seasons the subjects inhabit and to witness how with an economy of expression and the power of suggestion Bassens’ paint strokes bring these scenes to life and invigorate a viewer’s awareness of her actions and the works’ properties.

The body of work exhibited here hangs upon an invisible thread.  Bassens’ paintings are portraits of the intangible.  To encounter her interpretation of a collapsed, wind-blown beach umbrella and her partial view of a pair of blue garden chairs, outside on a rainy night is to experience the creation and manipulation of her subjects by humankind and the forces of nature that bring them to entropy.  To witness Bassens’ mastery of her medium is to recognize the difference that paintings make as meaningful presences themselves.

In February 2021, I made a special trip to Marinaro Gallery to see “A Shift In the House,” a solo exhibition of paintings and works on paper by Lindsay Burke.  In 2017, Burke’s dynamic paintings were stand-outs at Hunter College’s second-year, MFA group exhibition, and the provocative, semi-figurative, semi-abstract paintings she’d produced for her 2018 debut at Marinaro were subversively seductive and sophisticated.  Burke’s most recent exhibition marked a turning point for the artist and, for art audiences, it represented a major highlight of the season.

Burke’s paintings revolved around the sleight of mind, eye, and hand in the conception, production, and reception of visual and physical creations.  Homes, details of fixtures and studio implements, and landscapes are depicted amidst levels of abstractions that alternately draw the viewer towards the recognition of overall patterns and minute and discrete details.

Close examinations reveal brush strokes that resemble the kind that are made as test markings – what an artist daubs on an errant surface before making a commitment onto an actual work-in-progress.  However, the marks that Burke makes are decisive.  They are closely rendered, and they are what altogether becomes each overall work, a marvel that is astonishingly self-referential.  They can remind a viewer of many things, but they are unique and exceptional unto themselves.

To compare Burke’s paintings to those of the modern pointillists would be reasonable but off-target.  More aptly, one might compare the paintings from “A Shift In the House” to those of Jasper Johns; taken individually and altogether, they can enchant and impress in their entirety, and from up-close, they can truly engage the eye and the mind.

In February 2021, I visited Microscope Gallery and saw “Transmutations,” a remarkable exhibition of works of sculpture by Yasue Maetake.  In its expansive location in Bushwick, Microscope succeeded in creating a grand tour of phenomena of great intrigue – highly unified works, composed of materials that existed on the surface of the mind (i.e., the recognizable) and those that existed in the deepest and most faraway galaxies of the imagination – the poetic and the unknowable.

They conjured up memories of photographs of expressionistic figurative works, produced in the mid- to late-1950’s – manifestations – as the writer of a Museum of Modern Art catalogue noted – of post-war anguish.  Maetake’s works, though, are elegant and poised.  Individually and collectively, they are almost baroque.  More certainly, they are dynamic.

Upon learning that portions of many of the works are composed of camel’s bones, I thought of Nancy Graves’ large representations of camels in motion, and the contemporary character of Maetake’s oeuvre clicked, establishing itself into place with the great shift that occurred in art in 1970 and propelled wave after wave of innovative concepts and practices in each intervening decade.  This body of work resides in the classical – owing to its profoundly pre-visualized and masterfully realized orderly character – and within the exuberantly enchanted space of the kinds of sculpture that could be made only today.

The harmony and the dissonance of each of Maetake’s works exist like movements in a symphony.  Their constituent elements are too fine to be called “components,” and they often draw in the viewer without ever really calling attention to themselves.  Her works are unique and exceptional, and they appear to be exotic, yet relatable and familiar.  To encounter Maetake’s work in this half-kunst-kabinett and half-lair was an extraordinary and memorable experience.

In March 2021, I visited Kravets/Wehby Gallery to see Allison Zuckerman’s solo exhibition, “Gone Wild.” Consisting of wall-mounted tableaux and free-standing works of sculpture, a high-spirited galaxy of new and captivating creations was on view in the same space where Zuckerman had made her sensational debut only four years beforehand.  In this new chapter of her ever-advancing journey, Zuckerman has pivoted from a variety of points and moved towards a greater sense of attention towards form and material.

The subject matter is still certainly there.  Her super-metamorphosed, female figures of the fine arts reign on each planet of a painting, and they appear to be syntactically oriented further out on the ends of the branches of the greater dimensions where she’s been venturing.  One of the most interesting exploratory movements observed here was the way Zuckerman intertwined “actual” painting with “virtual” painting in creating impressions that exceed each individually, and, in doing so, she enters the realm of orchestrating spectacle.  Stated in a more oblique way, Zuckerman is sparking the imagination, as directors do in cinema and expanded, live theater.

Alfred Hitchcock and Jean-Pierre Melville, for example, were adept at integrating visual sleights of hand into their films.  Although they deliberately showed the seams of montages in certain key scenes in their movies, they inexplicably created impressions that were undeniably effective even though they were more plausible than they should have been.  In Hitchcock’s “Marnie,” the scene in which Marnie appears to be in danger while riding atop her frightened, runaway horse, the tension is oddly palpable; the mechanics of the editing of the images are unexpectedly visible, but Hitchcock succeeds in generating the suspense that’s necessary for heightening the viewer’s engagement in the story and carrying the viewer forward through the journey of the balance of the film.  In Melville’s “Le Samouraï,” a nightclub owner is confronted in his office by hitman Jef Costello and is then seen pulling out his handgun first; however, in the successive montage, it is Costello who gets off the fatal shot that kills his intended target.  The sequence is startling, and it jars the logic of the viewer; nevertheless, the viewer comes to not only accept the results but embrace them, as Melville chose to confound the viewer by not making the sights and sounds of the showdown conspicuous or obvious.  The shock of Costello’s success and the miracle of his survival sharply impress the audience despite the visual and auditory discrepancies to which they have been presented with great suddenness.

In Cyril Teste’s stage adaptation of John Cassavetes’s film, “Opening Night,” presented at the French Institute / Alliance Française’s Florence Gould Hall in 2019, live acting is happening at the same time on the stage as video projections, many of which are sourced by the livestreaming video camera that is operated by a cameraperson who can be plainly seen by the audience but not acknowledged at all by the play’s characters.  The left wing of the theater-within-the-theater of the play-within-the play is only partially visible to the audience, but the scenes there are entirely seen and heard through the technology that’s at-hand. Likewise, scenes taking place entirely behind the stage set are interpretively presented for the audience; the action and dialogue there are heard, as they may be customarily received in certain film scenes, such as those that are spasmodically illuminated by flashlights in pitch black conditions (e.g., “Le Beau Serge,” “The Blair Witch Project”).  Alternately, scenes are also taking place at the center of the stage; they depict the actors playing characters in the play-within-the play and themselves, living out the challenges of their own lives as real people. The shifts from one mode to the next allow for the audience to interpret what’s happening and where.  Despite it all, the performances of the actors – notably Isabelle Adjani, as Myrtle Gordon, and Frédéric Pierrot, as Maurice – brilliantly carry the audience through the play’s emotional roller coaster ride with both traditional, live stagecraft (e.g., classical vocal delivery, effective physical presence) and the enhancements that Teste’s filmic interventions convey.

In reconciling the many techniques that Zuckerman brings to a viewer, the evidence of the means and materials in the production of her works may be readily gathered and assessed, but, inexplicably, they deliver a variety of unexpected and often wondrous sensations.  Each work delivers at one point or another in the viewing process a big payoff or a fireworks-show sequence of bursts of discoveries and unforeseen emotional responses.

This goes beyond the kind of examination that one might have while viewing the paintings of Giorgio Morandi or Diego Velázquez or the photographs of August Sander, as up-close and far-off perspectives of their works concern materials that are uniform throughout.  The experience of regarding what was presented at “Gone Wild” was about transcending the employment of both paints and digital substrates and arriving at the harmonies that have been enchantingly realized by the artist’s generation of a succession of spectacles in at a time and place where one may be anticipating something reasonable.

In late July 2021, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to see “Alice Neel:  People Come First.”  After viewing all of the works in the show, I circled back to its “beginning,” and, from the center of each gallery space, I saw patterns of the abstract backgrounds of Neel’s portrait works, more or less lining the room.  It was something that one can only sense spatially within an actual exhibition space.

I’ve often spoken about how a painting exhibition is more than a collection of images, rendered on canvas, framed or unframed.  It’s the deployment of the works within a physical space that an exhibitor is presenting to an audience – and, by “presenting,” I mean gifting, treating, and delivering something special.

I’d been away from the Met for two years.

In seeing this Neel retrospective, it was as if I’d never been away at all.

Team Gallery “Petra Cortwrigth:  borderline auroroa borealist” 5 March - 2 May 2020 “Will Sheldon:  Trouble After Dark” 5 March - 6 June 2021

Foxy Production “Srijon Chowdhury” 5 March - 31 May 2020 “Sojourner Truth Parsons:  Sex and Love With a Psychologist” 9 July - 22 August 2020

Hesse Flatow “Aglaé Bassens:  Sincerely,” 22 October - 21 November 2020

Marinaro Gallery “Lindsay Burke:  A Shift In the House” 28 January - 28 February 2021

Microscope Gallery “Yasue Maetake:  Transmutations” 29 January - 19 March 2021

Kravets | Wehby Gallery “Allison Zuckerman:  Gone Wild” 27 February - 2 April 2021

The Metropolitan Museum of Art “Alice Neel:  People Come First” 22 March - 1 August 2021

Barry N. Neuman

New York August 2021

[wishingfornever]

1/10/2018 – No Contact:  Hitting the Polls

So, I ended up asking a question to my fellow nations and I got minimal communication out of it.  Lol, I’m really bad at being responsible. I ended up watching several movies yesterday.  And by yesterday I mean it’s almost 1am and I watched three movies as well as ordered a large pizza and ate it at one sitting.  I’m a terrible person.

Three movies, all animated and almost all French.  The Angry Birds Movie (which was better than I thought it’d be), Avril and the Extraordinary World, and The Long Way North.  The last two were the french ones.  I watched these after binge watching CellSpex who I started watching due to her Zero Punctuation styled portrayal of herself.  Not to say she’s ripping it off or anything, she just uses a very simplistic way to illustrate herself being her outline. Expression is done with a simple outline of eyes rather than using a facecam like other channels.

The Angry Birds Movie… as mentioned, better than I thought it was going to be.  I relate with the angry main character because I too have large eyebrows.  Oh, and I might have anger problems.  CellSpex mentioned how it was an allegory for Trump being right, but the way I saw it was… anti-American.  The pigs represented the United States as evident with their boats and greedy pigs with Southern Accents. The eagle was the outdated throes of liberty, coming back to aid a less advanced people to overcome their enemy who is a western power. In the end, they sing praises of “Red” which is communism!

I guess my point is, if you look for something you’ll find it.  I don’t think it’s trying to push a Communist message but everything can be open to interpretation.  That’s what makes everything so challenging.  When you take a religion and you determine your interpretation is the only correct one, then you end up with Protestantism and Catholicism with all these little heresies in between.

That said, Avril and the Extraordinary World.  I was a little let down.  I thought the art was something.  The animation was well done, I like how each individual person sort of moved on their own accord.  Gives a lot of life to the world in a very subtle way, I felt.  The opening scene with the police was just stellar.  However, I did feel the second half of the movie was somewhat weaker.  The ideas I came up for were WAY cooler than what actually happened.

I really wanted to see it in French, however.  I would have preferred subtitles.  Especially when the talking cat (who is actually quite charming, btw) requests Avril explain something simply by saying, “In English, please.”  That actually pissed me off.  They’re French. They’re in France.  They should speak French.  Even if the movie is in English, they should have said, “In French, please.”

I also thought the villain creatures were kind of… cute.  I mean, I didn’t like the idea behind them and sort of felt that they didn’t fit that well in a supposedly steampunk setting.  I was hoping for more politics and thought that they’d be a rival nation like Prussia or something.

Which reminds me, they (the French) were at were with the American League, for some reason… and they built a bridge to connect themselves with Britain.  Um… why?  They’re the BIGGEST rivals.  In fact, France had plans to invade Britain prior to WWI (if it came to that, of course).  And considering a Napoleon sat on the throne…  Not that it mattered.  The entire political system was sort of just background noise.  The Emperor wasn’t really important except that the original Napoleon III died.  Even then, he could have totally been replaced with a government stooge and it would have been fine.  I don’t know why they wanted France to be a monarchy when it was pretty unneeded.  If there were more politics in the movie, then yeah.  That’d be important.  But… it’s not, really.  It’s just kind of there.

There is a lot that I didn’t like now that I think about it.  I was expecting… A LOT more.  And I dislike how the Alternative History got the real history… wrong.  Like certain things wouldn’t have been able to happen due to what they proposed.  That’s always been a pet peeve of mine.  And I also dislike how they just selected a group of famous or relatively well-known scientists from the early 20th century just to be sort of… cameos.  I mean… Tesla.  That’s the only one people really would care about.

Regardless, I liked the animation, even though the noses and ears were really big.  The cat was great, as mentioned, and the grandfather wears spats.  That’s nice.  Fashion hadn’t changed much, it seems, as they still had late victorian wear.  It’s steampunk, which is sort of underplayed in media.  It’s charming.  It’s just… eh.  I was hoping for more.  I felt disappointed.  Like, if it were a pizza I’d have eaten it all and still feel like I hadn’t eaten enough.  And it’d have mushrooms which I dislike but I’ll eat anyways because it’s still good pizza.

Finally, The Long Way North.  This was my favorite of the night.  It was GORGEOUS.  Just beautiful.  The artwork wasn’t as detailed as Avril and blah blah blah but it was still very inviting.  What I liked most about it is that it didn’t use a lot of black outlines.  Really, it had very few outlines.  Samurai Jack did this, sort of.  The eyes are simple but they were beautiful.  The motion was just… refreshing.

The story was fine, though I did have some quips about how they’re supposed to be in Russia.  Only ONCE did I see Cyrillic.  The rest of the writing was mostly in French, which admittedly would have been a thing for Russian Aristocracy to know… but not Norwegian sailors. At least, I assume they’re Norwegian.  They have Scandinavian names and the ship is called the “Norge.”  I don’t really know what they do, either.  Like, they’re not whalers and they’re not transporting goods.  What do you do?!

They make plot happen, I guess.

I found how they did feet to be weird but also kind of… cute.  It had a childlike spirit but was still captivating.  There were some dumb cliches here and there and some more questions that I’d like answers for, but for the most part?  It’s a movie I want to suggest to Ariel.  I think she’d like it too.  :D

Time for bed.  Going to be a busy day tomorrow.  I intend to finish my tax plan tomorrow.  Or… today.

Well, that was a waste.  Current time is 10.  I didn’t have a lot of time today.  I was called in for work.  Drat.  I posted a poll asking about “What we should do!” and what should be taxed.  Irrelevant, really.  Just buying me time.  I didn’t have the chance to pick up honey mustard or anything else, not that it matters.  I was too tired from work.

I ended up watching videos and streams when I got back.  I can’t recall what I really did today, which is weird.

I’m watching an old movie.  Troy.  It came out 14 years ago.  An old story but I don’t like how the narration begins with, “Will they remember us in 2004?!”  Golly, I don’t know.  Will they remember us in 6018?  It’s dumb.  And they keep doing it.  “They’ll tell our tales thousands of years from now!”  Shut up!  Stahp it!  No! Stop bragging about how we remember an ancient story!  Stop it.  You don’t see modern stories about snipers talking about “In 300 years, they’ll remember me.”

Dumb.  So dumb.

Still, I quite enjoy troy.  Not a lot of ancient movies that aren’t overtly religious or mythic.  Like… it’s somewhat similar to what France considered art while Rembrandt was doing his thing.  He had stark contrasts with sublime imagery as did other Dutch artists while to the French, this was not art!  Art must be old, depicting historic events or mythological events!  That’s why there is SO much art depicting ancient kings and whatever and not much of the actual normal every day from that period.

Like, cool, but for real though.  Branch out.

In the 60’s and 70’s all Ancient movies were just… meh.  Ben-Hur. Romans.  Jesus, also.  Dumb.  I hated Ben-Hur.  Jason and the Argonauts.  Also dumb but impressive for its time.  Then The 300 Spartans or whatever movie.  Also dumb.  Haven’t seen it, but it’s dumb.  Of course, that one isn’t religious but I’m sure it’s got some religious undertone.  Most American movies did, probably in an effort to combat Communism.

Anyways, I’m trying to think of a good movie about Rome or Ancient Greece… idk.  There is a lot you can do, I’d personally like to see something involving the siege of Syracuse during the second punic war.  Which reminds me.  Why is Hannibal not in any movies?

Of course, Hannibal would perhaps be cast by an African American gentleman if they made a movie about it.  Really, they should get an Israeli to do it as the Carthaginians were a Semitic people.  Of course, that might not be enough because the modern Israeli can be sort of white at times. Perhaps an Arabic character would be fine.  Just a Middle-Eastern sort of appearance physically.

Regardless, going to watch my movie.  I like the outfits because they’re not the greek armor you know and love.  Breastplate, corinthian helmet, bracers… honestly, you had to supply your own kit back then.  So, there wouldn’t really be a uniform.  What I described?  That’s expensive and I’m fairly certain they didn’t have bracers.  Just didn’t.  Not sure why, may have been a waste of armor to them.

That said, the armor takes some inspiration from this old boar tusk helmet from the Mycenean period.  They were basically early Greeks which is appropriate for the… well, Greeks in the movie.  A lot of detail and design.  Sometimes too much design, but still.  It was clear that “These aren’t the Greeks we see from pottery.  These Greeks are even MORE Ancient!”  Except for Achilles who has a Corinthian helmet… with a very open face.  And somewhat modern armor for the time.

Regardless, I always felt good costumes help sink you into the feel of the movie. When I was younger, this all looked perfect to me.  Now?  Not so much, but it gets a pass.

Oh, Christ.  The costumes are worse than I remember.  Non-Greek items on supposedly Greek men.  They mentioned a lot of places in Greece, too. Not sure how powerful they would have been at this time but they didn’t sound very… well, powerful.  In fact, I think it’s kind of redundant.  Thessaly also looks like a desert.  It’s in greece so I THINK it should be green but I’m not sure.

The capital A without the line in the middle.  That’s a popular thing on shields.  Called a Lambda.  It’s basically the letter “L” for the Greeks.  Spartans never really used the lambda until AFTER the battle of Thermopylae which is YEARS after.  I say that because I noticed a random lambda at Achilles’s yurt.  Very ancient if they’re using yurts instead of housing.  Almost nomadic.

They say Thessalonian again.  I think he’d be identified more by his city rather than region.  Thessaly isn’t a city but a region.  I guess it’s not wrong, just unusual.

Army shots.  A lot of extras.  Thing is, uniforms are very important in movies because you can recognize them versus us!  We’re the good guys, we wear white while… eh.  Yeah, there was a lot of individuality in the militaries back then.  Armors would look different, shields would DEFINITELY be different, colors would be different, or whatever.  As mentioned, you brought what you had.  If you had a yellow shirt then you wore it.  Your friend would wear a blue shirt.  The idea of uniforms being an important thing to have wasn’t really a thing until quite recently.  Even in Ancient Rome when they had a professional army, you’d still see a few different effects here and there.  Mostly with officers, mind you, who could afford it.  But still.

I LOVE how they have to convince Achilles to stay because their army is scared.  Like, dude.  They’re scared because Achilles fights all the battles for them.  If he leaves, then they have to fight.  And they’ve probably never fought a battle because Agamemnon says, “Best fighters fight only!” all the time.  It’s a miracle the Greeks ever conquered Troy.

Oh, shit.  They have that weird helmet thing with a super circular crest. Didn’t notice it.  The guards at the table during a feast. Guarding… a portion of important wall?  Hrm.  Regardless, I’ve seen that helmet before.  Also seems to be a Saracen helmet adorned by someone at the table… for reasons?

Sparta is the most fucking overrated city state ever.  Just a thought.

Poseidon? I’m fairly certain the Trojans had different gods than the Greeks because they weren’t actually Greek.  I’m not entirely certain, however.  Just fairly.

The Greeks wear red and the Trojans wear blue.  Hrm…  Weird thing to notice.

Paris loves Helen… thing is, love wasn’t really an acceptable reason for marriage back then.  Funny thing, that.  You see someone talking about how in Greek mythology, humans had 4 arms and 4 legs and Zeus separated them so they’d have to forever find their soulmate, you look them in the eye and call them a liar.

Country wouldn’t really be the term.  City-State.  So City.

Whenever someone says, “Poetic” my ears perk like my name is being called. Hector said “Nothing Poetic” and I’m like, “Eh?!”  First half of my screen name.  ;)

Proved.  That’s a word, yeah.  Sounds weird.  I think I would have said, “Proven.”

Every day wear costumes are… weird.  Costumes in general are getting weirder.  Sean Bean, what?

And Odysseus references his wife.  Lel.  Odyssey easter egg.  And then he talks about how remembered it’d be… oof.  Stahp it.

Larissa? Wait, what?  That’s IN fucking Thessaly!  Achilles fought other Thessalians?  Seriously?  And the king of Thessaly didn’t know who Achilles was?  Achilles just happen to be a POWERFUL mercenary, born locally.  In fact, he’s from what is probably your main city.  I mean, he’s bumped elbows with OTHER kings like Odysseus.  And now they’re talking about being remembered again!  Christ, this is like the prequel to Coco.  -,-

Priam has a voice like deep velvet.  Oof.  Powerful.  Wasn’t expecting that from such a narrow figure.

Thinking back, I think in the Iliad the Gods were on both sides because they felt split about the issue.  I can’t remember, I read it in high school and it was sort of difficult to read through.  So, maybe they did worship the same gods?  Or maybe Homer assumed they did.  It’s possible.

What accent does Hellen have?  Everyone is English but she sort of sounds… well, drunk.

I hate when extras have their gear slightly to the side like it doesn’t fit correctly or something.  Dude, straighten your helmet.  Do what you need to do.  Everyone should be passed around a handheld mirror or something.  -,-

Oh, those archers have the most worthless helmets.  You could have a band of metal wrapped around your head that will get hot and eventually start cooking your flesh in the nice, Mediterranean sun… or you could wear a straw hat.  Both will protect you about the same.  The stray hat may actually be better, considering it won’t melt your forehead.  If the sun exists and can get hot, you don’t want to be touching metal.

Something I do remember is whenever someone who had awesome armor fell in battle in the Iliad, people fucking lost their shit and rushed to loot the body.  Strip them of their armor.  Random fact.  May remember it wrong.  So, a lot of those people who are fighting would have a shield, a helmet, and a spear with nothing else.  The myrmidons would be decked out because they’re badasses and they’d have collected armor from previous encounters… but the run of the mill warrior wouldn’t.

I want to see a movie where the armor isn’t a suggestion.  I want to see it actually save someone’s life.  Preferably, someone who isn’t a main character.  Something else I’d like to see is more people who are just… wounded.  Not killed but just wounded.  This may surprise you but most casualties in a battle weren’t really fatalities.  Well, not immediately… wounds could be fatal but they didn’t die instantly.  I dislike seeing the aftermath of a battle and it’s a field littered with corpses.  It wouldn’t be that static.  There would be crying, people huddled in a ball, people writhing in pain.  It’s actually kind of hard to kill a person. But no.  Everyone must die instantly.

Oh, look.  D-Day.  Lelelelelelel.

Random thing to note.  The Romans believed their people were originally Trojans.  This is probably untrue.  However, I do think it’s a possibility that their neighbors to the north may have been Trojan. They were the Etruscans and not a lot is known about them.  The Romans had a tendency to adopt customs and cultural ideas from other cultures, look at their gods.  Basically reskinned Greek gods.  The Etruscans being Trojan?  Perhaps the Romans adopted their neighbors’ history and some of their identity.  Just a thought, of course.

“I spoke with two farmers today.  They saw an eagle with a serpent clutched in it’s talons today.  This is a sign from Mexico.  They will pay for our wall.”  I make myself laugh.

I’m not sure they’d be kissing.  I believe kissing was a Roman tradition.  Was very unusual in other cultures.

Looking at the extras for the armies, I’d say this may have been filmed in Turkey.  If so, they used the Turkish army as extras.  That’s a common thing to do.  You pay the government rather than the extras so it’s cheaper.  Then again, they may have filmed somewhere else.  I assumed Turkey because that’s where Troy is supposed to be.  But the Trojans aren’t Turks.  Remember that.

Lol, they look like my cousins actually.  I think I see one of Adela’s brothers.

Hrm, maybe they aren’t entirely from an army. If they are, then they allowed the soldiers to grow beards just for the movie.  I’m curious where it’s filmed now.  :o

...is this Mexico?

HOLY FUCK, IT MIGHT BE!!!  I just Googled it.  They filmed in Malta and Mexico.  Mexico was where they filmed the gates and wall of Troy. Whoa.  The extras probably are Mexican.  Certainly a lot of CGI.  And it makes the idea that the eagle with the serpent thing represents a sign from Mexico even better.  I wouldn’t have guessed Mexico but the guy with Agamemnon looked like one of my uncles.  Interesting. :D

Hector has a very handsome actor playing him.  More handsome than Brad Pitt I feel.

There is a nose guard on the helmet of Paris.  When we see through his perspective, however, it’s sawed off.

He spits out a lot of blood for what looks like SUCH a weak punch.

Apollonians… they look like every other soldier.  It probably would have been cheaper if their costumes were more realistic.  Minimal armor for the average soldier while the Apollonians would have actual armor.  That way, they’re unique and can be identified quickly.  Also, archers are op please nerf.

The Hittites are mentioned.  That’s pretty neat except the Hittites are on the other side of Turkey, almost Armenia.  I can’t remember if it were them or the Assyrians but one of their cultures relied on conquest.  Either their civilization conquered or the world would end.  They had to win EVERY battle… well, they lost a battle. World didn’t end.  Then their civilization collapsed.  The lesson there is push for victory but allow defeats.  You can lose every battle in a war but that doesn’t mean the war is lost.

I feel the scene where Achilles rescues the priestess is cliché.  So cliché.  :/

They’re listing off gods now.  Eh…  There were literally hundreds of gods in Greek culture.  Like, I touched on this back with Hercules.

Sean Bean actually has a rather soothing voice.  I never noticed that until now.  I remember in the Sharpe series, he pissed me off.  Even then, I think it was less to do with his character and more to do with Anglophilia.  As well as blatant classism.  And horrible cliches, again.  And inaccurate historical portrayals.  Then again, I guess the books may have been better.  Not sure.  It was suggested to me back when I played vidya gams.

Patroclus is a terrible actor.

“Attack at daybreak!”  *attacks in the middle of the night WITH FUCKING NAPALM!!!*

Really, if you could get so close to their camp without setting off the alarm, why not just go in and stab everyone quietly.  I mean, you’re already attacking at night.  Just… come on.  Wouldn’t Apollo have better watch over you when the sun is out?

I love how they march in the sand.  Like, they look like they’re running SO slowly.  Fun times.

The armies stop fighting to watch the best fighters fight.  I’m not sure how true that is but I’ve heard it’s happened on medieval battlefields before.

One of the extras in the back, shaking his head.  I love it.

“There are no turns, so you can’t get lost.  I know you too well.  Got lost in the fucking hallway… dumb bitch.”  I shouldn’t poke fun.  I get lost easily as well.

Archery. Ah, yes.  Warfare for the cowardly.

Good fight between Hector and Achilles… except Achilles forgot his helmet, shield, and spear head.  D’oh!

King Priam snuck into the Greek encampment.  Really?  If some old dude could do it then the Trojans could have snuck at least Hector in there.  Killed a few people, slit a few throats of sleeping Greeks and then flee.  Cause chaos or something.  Didn’t have to turn the beach into the Vietnam War.

Wait, Priam knew Achilles father?  And the king of Thessaly never even heard of Achilles?  The guy who is literally two yurts down from his palace?

CGI soldiers… huh.  I wonder why CGI movies aren’t more common.  I think they did something like that with Beowulf but it was just… weird.  Not a good movie.  There was a movie called Beowulf and Grendel which was interesting.  Not the best, either, but they had historically accurate armor.  Always nice.  Was true to the original lore, as well.

CGI might be cheaper than live action in terms of large battles and historical accuracy.  And if you’re doing a series, maybe you can reuse assets.  Then again, it might be more expensive due to… well, CGI taking time to do.  Time is literally money.

Oh, Aeneas has a part in this?  I was under the impression that he was a cousin of Hector and Paris.  Paris doesn’t know him?  Huh.

“We’ll be together!  In this world or the next!”  Erm…  The River Styx isn’t a very romantic setting.

Lol, this dude just bounced his shield.

There is a lot of impalings in this movie.

Oh, Agamemnon died.  Weird, I thought he survived the war.  I guess he was basically the antagonist in this movie… though I don’t think there really was an antagonist in the Iliad.  Every story nowadays needs someone to personify evil, I guess.  Where Achilles is honorable, Agamemnon seeks power.  They clash, thus they’re opposites.

Eh…  I prefer the idea of not having antagonists.  We expect the bad guy to lose.  To die.  To be punished.  In reality, this couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s not that life is tragedy, it’s just what you make of it. Those who do what they must ensure a better world for themselves and those they care about.  Behind every pair of eyes is a story.  And in every story, they will be their own hero.  And each story… each hero.  They’re all flawed.

That’s what makes a good character.

Geez, Achilles.  I bet you wish you didn’t forget your armor in front of the gates of Troy.  Dumb ass.

If I recall correctly, Achilles doesn’t die in the Iliad.  I’m not sure I remember the ending at all.  However, it’s suggested that Paris’s shot was guided by Apollo himself… because Paris is a coward and isn’t allowed to be credited with defeating Achilles. Poor, poor Paris.

Of course, I’ve heard a lot of things.  My dad told me about how Achilles was on his chariot, dragging Hector’s body and Paris prayed to Apollo to guide his arrow and it hit Achilles’s heel.  He falls off his chariot and his head hit a rock.  That’s what my dad told me.  I don’t actually know how he died but the way I heard it sounds dumb.  Also conflicts with the Iliad, which probably isn’t the most ACCURATE of sources, but I like the idea of Achilles finding a bit of peace by returning the body of Hector.

Alright. Movie is over.  Not as good as I remembered but it was decent.  :D

Current time is 2:30.  I did the thing I thought was probably annoying.  The movie thing.  Not really a review, more a walkthrough.  If you just read it while not watching the movie then I just describe dumb moments.  I said I wouldn’t do it again because it’s annoying. But I started and I couldn’t stop.  My weakness is historical facts in movies.  D’oh!  And I told Adela I’d do the dishes before I went to bed!  Also D’oh!

I’ll do them… it’s just really late.  I’m irresponsible.  A good reason to not document my movie viewing experience is because of this crap right here.  I started watching a two hour movie at 11.  Maybe before.  And I just finished it.  I did a lot of writing with the occasional stop by google to check where the movie was made and who died when. Btw, I was right.  Agamemnon survived the war.  -,-

Anyways, time for bed.  But first, dishes.  Night.