quote:

---

The series is developed by a mostly British cast and crew. The actors' regional British accents were used with effect to enhance the portrayal of the social distinctions of ancient Roman society; however, some of the stronger accents were toned down for American audiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
Again, for emphasis, Italian sounds nothing like Caesar's Latin. Nothing at all. Giving the actors Italian accents would not make it any more realistic at all.

---

quote:

---

How do you know? We know Latin only from texts, which tell us nothing about pronounciation.

---

We can actually get a fair idea of pronunciation from poetry. This is true for most languages where we have vast amounts of written poetry, particularly when we have other texts telling us what the metrical, rhythmicaly, and rhyming schemes for these texts are. In addition we can look at the etymology of latin words to see how pronunciation affected spelling. Over a period of five hundred or a thousand years (like the length of the Roman Empire) words often changed in spelling to reflect a change in pronunciation. We see this most often when two words are combined. Just as an example the word 'labor' would become 'lapsus' rather than 'labsus' which gives us an idea of how 's' 'b' and 'p' are pronounced in conjuction with each other. I'm not a linguist so I can't explain the whole theory, but that's the idea of how they can figure it out. Of course, it's not going to be completely realistic, but it will give us a fair idea of how it was pronounced.
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
There, see? *sheepish*

I'll still ask tomorrow, though.
 

---

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
 
Even if we couldn't reconstruct the pronunciation, it's probably safe to assume that it has changed since the Roman Empire.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
I very much doubt that there was a Roman accent, any more than there is an English accent. There ain't a NewYork accent even in NewYorkCity, why would there have been one accent in the city of Rome?
With travel times between regions of the Empire so much greater than they are now, and speech patterns not shared on a daily basis between regions, there would have been very little reason for a common accent to have developed.
And since the Roman metroplex recruited immigrants from an even farther flung world -- comparatively in terms of travel time -- there would have been more accents in the city of Rome than there are accents in NewYorkCity.

[ November 11, 2005, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What's hard for me to imagine, frankly, is how someone would present the image of a stuffy, erudite, refined, and quite possibly evil individual -- in English -- without using a clipped British accent. That's practically vocal shorthand for that character type.

I mean, what other voice would you use to convey the same attitude?
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
More than that. Only English is spoken with enough different accents throughout the world to convey the feeling of the wide variety in regional differences between accents used by Latin speakers.
 

---

Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
 
Sorry EL you posted as I was writing.

There wasn't a Roman accent, in fact we only have one surviving text written in the 'vulgar' or what we might say conversational Latin. Most of the surviving written works is written in a higher literary or poetical form that is most likely different from what was spoken in every day conversation. But Latin was a language that borrowed much from Greek, and Greek writing and story telling had not yet lost its roots in Oral stories, so even though the language, and probably even the accent, was much more formal in the writing, these writings were still intended to be read aloud. There is even some evidence to suggest that a classical Roman with good education would be incapable of reading silently. To go on with their being more than one accent, we also have many cases where people are either praised for their 'good' Latin or mocked for their 'provincial' Latin, so there may have been a standardization among Romans of a certain class to pronounce words correctly as determined by their peers.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Praise or mockery for language usage rarely has anything to do with how something is being said -- witness this forum -- instead it is based on whether the critic agrees or disagrees with the speaker's opinions.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

very much doubt that there was a Roman accent, any more than there is an English accent. There ain't a NewYork accent even in NewYorkCity, why would there have been one in the city of Rome?

---

If any of you read Lindsey Davis, her characters speak in different accents-- educated people have a more "refined" one, then there's a slangy "street Latin" with an accent that changes depending where in the city you grew up, plus foreigners. I've always enjoyed that, because it makes sense to me, too, from what I've read on the subject.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Praise or mockery for language usage rarely has anything to do with how something is being said -- witness this forum -- instead it is based on whether the critic agrees or disagrees with the speaker's opinions.

---

You know, aspectre, the only thing that kept this from being categorically wrong was the vagueness of the word "rarely."
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
When making a movie about a barbarian tribe, do people use German accents? Do they use French accents? No. They use what they think is a barbarian accent. People use English accents for Romans because Shakespeare wrote historical plays about Rome. It would be like defending the electoral college to make up other excuses for using Enlgish accents.

And if using an Italian accent would make the characters more human, I don't see what the problem is. One of the objectives of Rome is to remind the audience that these were real people, and not just names in a history book.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
This complaint seems pretty silly. The accents you're saying have been overthrown by Shakespeare are dead, Archer. Latin as spoken by the Romans thousands of years ago is no longer spoken in the world today.

Therefore any accent they pick will be horribly inaccurate. But, well, we can't really know because we don't have any tape recordings. It's quite possible that if you got a bunch of priests from the Vatican who still use languages from that long ago, they'd be speaking it as it was once spoken...but we wouldn't know in either case.

Oh, and a culture's accent is not as you suggest in the thread title its culture.

Wanting suspension of disbelief is fine-it's a complaint my father has about Deadwood, how in that show they swear like modern city-dwellers from America. Personally I think that complaint is more valid. Suspension of disbelief is fine, but just be aware that what you'd replace the current with is no more accurate than what we've got now in Rome.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Shakespeare has nothing to do with the use of English accents for the nobility of Rome... Hollywood does.

As for the classical pronunciation of Latin, we know so much about it not just through comparative linguistics and the inscriptions of marginally literate Romans, but also because of grammar books intended for teaching rustic young arrivistes how to correctly say certain sounds.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
BTW, as concerns Deadwood, there is no reason to doubt that ruffians and people at the margins of society used as much vulgarity in the late 1800 as they do now... everyone of our major vulgarities has been around for centuries, some for nearly a millenium. There was a taboo on writing that sort of thing down at the time, but that certainly doesn't prove they didn't use all those four-letter words.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I didn't know that about Roman accents, DB. As for Deadwood...it's not the constant vulgarity that is jarring sometimes. Not a bit, I expect that. It's the fact that they're using the exact same vulgarities as we do now. That's the part that's (slightly) jarring to me, and very irritating to my old man.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Deadwood is more accurate than anything else in that respect. Let me give you some dates...

S**t is too old to date, as it comes from the word scitte (although I'm not sure if even posting that word is ok on these forums).

Ass comes from the animal, turned into an insult some time before Deadwood takes place.

Hell comes from the Norse goddess of the underworld, Hel.

D**n, p**s, and c**t are all from around the 13th century

And the f-bomb is early 16th century. Were you expecting them to throw around stuff like "Yella belly" or "varmit" ?

DB, where do you think Hollywood got the English accents? From when they did movies of Shakespeare's plays, of course.

Language is about 75% of a people's culture. Why do you think Parisians are such snobs? Why do you think Germany and Italy became nation-states?
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
So then we'll do it with a classical Latin accent, and no one will be able to understand what they are saying.

Language might be a big part of a culture, but not 75%. And "language" doesn't mean accents.

Excuse me, I need to go watch I, Claudius again.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArCHeR:
Language is about 75% of a people's culture. Why do you think Parisians are such snobs? Why do you think Germany and Italy became nation-states?

---

quote:

---

So, tell me, what do the German and Italian languages have in common that naturally leads its speakers to form nation-states?

---

quote:

---

Speaking of the series, holy merda! Did you see last night's episode?

---

quote:

---

Italy became nation-states?

---

Actually, Italy had quite diverse dialects and accents, some almost bordering on French. It was Dante and some other book that finally solidified which dialect was going to be predominant and end up being the official language we know as Italian.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Spoilers

Yup, saw it last night. Enjoyed it very much. I was convinced that something would come of Vorenus and Naobi attending Atia's symposium, seeing as how Octavius and Octavia both know the truth about Naobi and Vorenus's "grandchild". I was thinking Octavius might spill the beans to Vorenus as a means of displaying Pullo's loyalty and friendship to Vorenus, but I was wrong.

Big trouble for Vorenus, quite possibly. He has set himself in direct opposition to one of Caesar's stated goals.

It would appear that Caesar really is Brutus's friend, since he has (apparently) accepted Brutus's refusal to go to Macedonia.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Oh, and also I think the claim that Shakespeare is destroying "true" Roman culture is pretty absurd, at least as far as the show is concerned. The show seems to be sticking to history pretty well, for a TV drama based on history.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You know the old saying about the difference between a language and a dialect being an army and a navy?

Well, I've had a chance to listen to a lot of "dialects" of German, and there are quite a few that, did an untrained person not know in advance they were German, he or she would assume they were very different languages.

I imagine something similar was up in Italy.
 

---

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
And why would Romans have Italian accents when they weren't Italians? That's like saying ancient Egyptians had Arab accents.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
In fact, Romans would've felt pretty insulted at being called "Italians."
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Um. Italy didn't even exist until 1870. Italian as a language itself was spoken by a minority of people at that time as well. So they wouldn't have had Italian accents.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
I don't mean Italian as in the language of the nation of Italy. I mean Italian as in the Italian penensula.

And you can't really use Ecypt as an example because in this time period, they'd be Greek

quote:

---

So, tell me, what do the German and Italian languages have in common that naturally leads its speakers to form nation-states?

---

What in the world are you talking about? I'm talking about Germany forming a nation-state and Italy forming a nation-state. The only exception is with Germany, as they didn't include Austria. But there was a big debate at the time as to wether they should include Austria, but it was having so many problems of its own that they didn't want to deal with them as one nation.

But both nations were pulled together because they shared a common culture, and 75% of that culture was language. I say 75% (and I don't mean it's exactly 75% ) because that's how important it is. It's why France has a limit on non-French broadcasts in their country. It's why the Romans called non-Italian or Greek speaking peoples "barbarians," and it's why Beowulf is such an important text.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
No one's arguing that language isn't important. They're saying that it doesn't matter what accent was used for the miniseries Rome because an Italian accent would be just as inaccurate as an English one. Since in Rome they actually spoke Latin. I suppose a Latin accent would be most accurate, but that's just getting ridiculous.

In fact it makes more sense to use English accents because the audience for the series is English speakers and English speakers are adept at distinguishing the differences in social level depicted by various english accents. If Italian accents were used the miniseries would be no more accurate and the filmmakers would lose that means of communicating information with their audience.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
The RULERS of Egypt would've been Macedonian, you mean... obviously not every Egyptian spoke Greek in the 1st century BCE.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArCHeR:
I don't mean Italian as in the language of the nation of Italy. I mean Italian as in the Italian penensula.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArCHeR:
I don't mean Italian as in the language of the nation of Italy. I mean Italian as in the Italian penensula.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aspectre:
Languages used by native Italians:
Official languge, Italian;
Parts of Trentino-Alto Adige region are predominantly German speaking;
Small French-speaking minority in Valle d'Aosta region,
Slovene-speaking minority in the Trieste-Gorizia area.

Prior to WWII, the minority languages were much more commonly used in those regions. Since then, national television and radio broadcasts have allowed Italian to ever more greatly displace the native languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I love Italy.

---

quote:

---

More than that. Only English is spoken with enough different accents throughout the world to convey the feeling of the wide variety in regional differences between accents used by Latin speakers.

---

Actually, I would say that Spanish is just as diverse, if not more so as there is much less cultural contact between South American countries than between the nations of the Anglosphere. And there is *considerably* more difference in accent between a Spaniard and a Mexican than between an American and even the most provincial of Englishmen. The Spanish of Suramerica is nearly two hundred years older than the English of North America.

Mandarin Chinese would also fit the bill here, with too many accents, dialects, and conventions to count. And they've consolidated their language considerably under Communism.

The countless languages of Imperial China is one of the reasons they developed an ideographic written language- it didn't rely on any spoken language to be understood and could be entirely universal to those who could spare the decade or two it took to become really literate.
 

---

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Quote: Wait... at the time of the Roman Civil War, Italy was unified under Rome. In fact, this is directly after the conquering of Gaul, and long after the conquering of Greece. Not to mention a good deal after the Punic Wars that gave them North Africa and Iberia. Unquote.

All of this is beside the point. The original post said that Romans had Italian accents. They couldn't have, as there was no such language as Italian (modern), the sounds would have been different, as others have pointed out. A modern Italian accent evokes other things far better than it would ancient Rome. Ey, Julius, you wanna some pizza?
The other aspect of this is that people have accents only when they're heard by people who are foreign to the region. Romans wouldn't have been strongly aware of an accent in themselves, only in those who were non-Roman. So if we are meant to be immersed in the Roman milieu by this miniseries we shouldn't be waiting to hear a specific accent, and an attempt at a "Roman accent" would be a distraction.
 

---

Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArCHeR:
Wait... at the time of the Roman Civil War, Italy was unified under Rome. In fact, this is directly after the conquering of Gaul, and long after the conquering of Greece. Not to mention a good deal after the Punic Wars that gave them North Africa and Iberia.

---

That is correct. But it was not in any way shape or form Italy as we know it today. It would not have been known as Italy and as Cashew said the modern Italian language didn't exist then.

I'm arguing the concept of Italy with you, as someone who has studied ancient Roman history and modern Italy. The country of Italy did not exist until 1870. Just because the region was unified under the Roman Empire doesn't mean it's the same thing. It was also the Roman Empire, not the Italian one.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think I don't know the history of Italy? I've already explained that when I said Italian accent, I meant Itallic, the word another forumer offered. You keep badgering a point that I'm not arguing. The Romans were Roman, not British and to portray them as such destroys what Romans really were, and only serves to promote British culture over Latin culture.

The day we stop giving bad guys English accents is the day the English stop giving Romans English accents. That's my offer as a future American filmmaker to British filmmakers.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>And they've consolidated their language considerably under Communism.

The scariest passage in Orwell's 1984 is when Winston's coworker talks about shrinking the language.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
Ummm. So Shakespeare should have rowed a boat over to Italy and get Italian actors? He worked with what he had.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I do wonder what accent you would have them speak with, then, ArCHeR. We have no access to people who can do authentic accents, because we don't know what the authentic accent was. Why is British more wrong than the other options?
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
I do believe another forumer pointed out that the Romans had primers that specifically detail how to pronounce words. We know, at least, what the "official" accent would have been...

And even a bad or inaccurate Roman accent would be better than a British one if for nothing more than the fact that a British accent has connotations to it that do not apply to the Romans, culturally speaking.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Even if we did know what Latin sounded like at various times in Rome's history, that doesn't mean that we'd know what kind of accent a native speaker of Latin would bring to English.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Yes we would... You apply the pronunciation of Latin vowels, etc. on English words. It's how anyone who does any accent does an accent.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I find ArCHeR's idea intriguing and something I would love to see attempted, and his name a pain in the ass to type out.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Does anyone complain about Hamlet not speaking Danish? Don't get down on Shakespeare.

As for what's actually being debated, the target audience has to be taken into account. I know that English wasn't spoken in ancient Rome, but if I see a play or show in Latin there will be one big wtf thought bubble coming out of my head. Since a "Latin" accent will not be recognized at all, there's really no point in using one.

Sacrificing accuracy in the name of art/entertainment is done constantly, everywhere. Relax about Rome.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
If they wear Roman costumes and play Romans, and are in Roman storylines, and talk about Rome, I think people will catch on that their funny accents are Roman

And Hamlet was a work of fiction by Shakespeare, not a dramatic account of an actual event. That said, Danish accents would be great too, as would a Moorish accent for Othello. But the fact is, if you did that it wouldn't be Shakespeare.

HBO isn't giving us Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. In fact, the events of Julius Ceasar are one episode of Rome. Tonight's episode, in fact. Which reminds me that I have the last episode of Rome on my DVR, and despite the fact that its accents are one of my major theatrical pet pieves, I'm a big fan of the series. Time to go watch Rome.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
But what would be the point? Why should the filmmakers spend a huge amount of time, effort and money, on accents which will at best not turn anyone off the show, and at worse alienate those viewers who are looking for a good show, preferably one with accents they can understand.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*doesnotmentionpassionofthechrist*
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
If you didn't want to talk about Shakespeare you shouldn't have put him in the thread title.

And people may recognize that the funny accents were meant to be Roman, but they won't recognize the actual accent, and it will be a distraction.

Historical fiction. A valid genre. Not documentary. Entertainment with bits of fact within.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes we would... You apply the pronunciation of Latin vowels, etc. on English words. It's how anyone who does any accent does an accent.

---

quote:

---

because it was Shakespeare's histories that gave Romans English accents in the entertainment industry.

---

quote:

---

Iendsfray, Omansray, ountrymencay, endlay emay ouryay earsway;
Iway omecay otay urybay Aesarcay, otnay otay aisepray imhay.
Ethay evilway atthay enmay oday iveslay afterway emthay;
Ethay oodgay isway oftway interredway ithway eirthay onesbay;
Osay etlay itway ebay ithway Aesarcay. Ethay oblenay Utusbray
Athhay oldtay ouyay Aesarcay asway ambitiousway:
Ifway itway ereway osay, itway asway away ievousgray aultfay,
Andway ievouslygray athhay Aesarcay answer'dway itway.

---

quote:

---

>>And they've consolidated their language considerably under Communism.

The scariest passage in Orwell's 1984 is when Winston's coworker talks about shrinking the language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArCHeR:
Then you're not very accentually acute (does that even make linguistic since?).

---

*cringe*
I bet I could make a decent guess at what sort of accent you have.

quote:

---

I'm a big accent person. Name an accent and I'll probably be able to do it. Let me hear a minute or two of it, and I'll definitely be able to do it. If I hear someone speaking Latin in the ancient Roman accent/dialect, I'd be able to do the accent in English easy.

---

The problem is that it's impossible to accurately reconstruct a Roman accent. Historical linguistics can give us a good idea of what it roughly sounded like, but there's a lot that's lost forever. Most of the distinction between different accents comes from subtle differences in vowel quality that cannot be reconstructed with much certainty.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
noemon:
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
I cringe at myself on that one, Jon Boy.

Anyway, I don't think I've made my point entirely clear. I don't care if the accent is exact. If it's close that's fine. As long as people experience Rome as a Roman culture, and not a British one.

Teshi- I made that point myself. I'm fine with using British accents in a performance of Julius Caesar. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. The problem is when Shakespeare suddenly becomes the author of all stories Roman (figuratively speaking).
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

The problem is when Shakespeare suddenly becomes the author of all stories Roman (figuratively speaking).

---

ArCHeR, I think that more of a perception from your personal POV rather than the general public. I would never consider Shakespeare "the" Roman writer, because I was brought up on Asterix and Carry On Cleo, both of which are, like Shakespeare, not supposed to be real historical studies but only useful fictional settings. One is from another British perspective (heh), the other is Belgian. The Bible's New Testament, for example, is also a source of Roman-era description written by outsiders.

Is it possible that your belief that the Roman Culture has been Anglicized comes from the fact that much of the Roman-set literature you read was written in English and therefore is seen through the eyes of the English who would imprint their own culture on what they write about. In France, I daresay that the Roman Culture would be percieved from a French perspective.

If I, now, write something fictional set in the past, it is going to be representative of my own era and country, not of the era I am describing.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I think you're still making the mistake of conflating culture and language, Archer.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Interesting bit on that conflation -- there were two prominent groups of settlers in southern Louisiana (actually, more than two, but I'm only talking about two groups). The fairly populous Acadian Catholics (Cajuns) and a much smaller group of German protestants.

At one point my Dad (Cajun, from Louisiana) was doing work that involved him visiting towns down there, before he realized about the small group of German settlers. In his work he came upon a small town that didn't seem quite right, though he couldn't place why at first. Even though everyone in town spoke Cajun-accented English and Cajun French, the town was laid out differently, the architecture all seemed odd, and he soon realized there was only one small Catholic church but a couple good sized Lutheran ones.

The Lutherans originally from Germany had adopted the language of the neighboring towns many generations back, and much of the culture, while maintaining their separate religion and own cultural institutions, including architecture.

Just an anecdote perhaps of interest because two very different cultural groups with hugely different cultural histories shared a language/accent.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Teshi, I'm speaking of film, TV, and theatre. You can't really do a Roman accent in text

If you look at a lot of Biblical films, Jesus and the deciples will have American accents, while the Romans will have English accents. Jesus and his deciples were Jewish. The Romans were Latin. Why on Earth do the accents fall where they do? Because Jesus was a hippy, and Shakespeare turned Romans English.

And I'm not conflating language as an aspect of culture. How do you tell a Mexican from a Spaniard? The Mexican has a Mexican accent and the Spaniard has a Castilian one (don't talk about the variaties of Spanish. It's an example ). Yes, can see that the Mexican has Mayan/aztec features and the Spaniard has European ones. But that's as subtle as the religious subtext in Star Wars compared to the language.
 

---

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
The reason why the Romans have English accents and the Jews American is to distinguish the accents from each other. It's a convention that we all understand and, because of the above mentioned "suspension of disbelief" muscle, accept with not a lot of fuss. In most cases...
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
But the problem comes when people, however subconsciously, suddenly aren't suspending their disbelief, they just stop disbelieving. Heck, many people never had that disbelief to begin with. How many groundlings didn't have the education to realize that Caesar wasn't English and that he spoke Latin all the time, not just when using names or dieing?

I'm not saying people in general are idiots (although... there was that last election...). But this whole language thing makes people equate Rome with England.
 

---

Posted by Melissa Dedinová (Member # 7890) on :
 
In my experience, American movies seem to use British accents to indicate "foreign." French, Russian, Roman, all sorts of not-American nationalities are often indicated by British accents (or an uneven mix of actors faking British accents and actors whose fake British accent would apparently crack the camera if attempted). It always seemed a little funny to me, too (why, in The Man in the Iron Mask, is the French king the only one with an American accent? etc). I think that in cases where a British accent is used to portray a non-British character, it is indicating that this is not your next door neighbor (for Americans...) but is in fact a foreigner of some sort.

I also think it's worth noting that, if I understand correctly, this is a British-made series (meaning the actors would need to suppress their natural speech to NOT speak with a British accent) for a British audience (meaning they will hear it as only natural that the characters speak what is for them normally).

It seems to me that movies not about English-speakers should use accents indicating "different" when the characters themselves hear it. In movies where only one ethnic or language group is dealt with - a movie in English about a group of Russians with no non-Russian characters - no distinctive accent should be used, because these characters are speaking their own language in their own way, and would hear themselves with no noticeable accent. Therefore, for a solely American audience, the actors should use American English. In movies where the characters have to be moving between cultures and languages - speaking Russian among themselves, but French with a visitor - it would be most natural for them to adopt an accent only in a conversation ostensibly in the other language, if the character is not supposed to speak good French. I saw a movie or play whose identity momentarily escapes me that did this to good effect.

.

Not that anyone asked me
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 

quote:

---

In my experience, American movies seem to use British accents to indicate "foreign." French, Russian, Roman, all sorts of not-American nationalities are often indicated by British accents (or an uneven mix of actors faking British accents and actors whose fake British accent would apparently crack the camera if attempted). It always seemed a little funny to me, too (why, in The Man in the Iron Mask, is the French king the only one with an American accent? etc). I think that in cases where a British accent is used to portray a non-British character, it is indicating that this is not your next door neighbor (for Americans...) but is in fact a foreigner of some sort.

---

It's much rarer than the other way round, but I've heard a few British actors attempting what was-I think-supposed to be a "middle America" accent and failing so badly I laughed out loud. A few of the lower-budget Britcoms and the occasional British video game will do this.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Everyone knows that any halfway decent villain will have a British accent.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
I'd say Americans are better at British accents than the British are at American ones. Ever watch Roger Rabbit? What the hell is that?

The only good American accent I've heard from a British actor is the guy who plays House. (Btw, Auzzies don't count )
 

---

Posted by Melissa Dedinová (Member # 7890) on :
 
British people attempting deep south American accents should be fined. My deep, abiding love for Jude Law was almost destroyed by Cold Mountain. *shudder*
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
Don't forget Big Fish.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd say Americans are better at British accents than the British are at American ones.

---

quote:

---

ROMANS HAD ITALIAN ACCENTS!!!

---

quote:

---

The Romans were NOT British.

---

quote:

---

But ever since Shakespeare started writing historical plays about Rome every English representation of Rome has been with British accents for the Romans.

---

quote:

---

you spend all that money on making an accurate Rome and all you would need to make it perfect is to tell your actors to use Italian accents.

---

quote:

---

Yeah, you shouldn't have posted without reading the thread.

---

Considering you had only addressed one of the points I made, I don't see that it made all that much difference. Fine, so you meant "Italic" rather than "Italian". I acknowledge that you'd already clarified that one. None of my other points were redundancies, based on any actual arguments you made, so what do you care if I made them before or after I had the time to read the rest of the thread?

[ December 02, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Rome was mostly unified as a Peninsula before any of the Punic Wars, they just added Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Spain, and other territories on top.

Part of what annoyed Carthage so much when Hannibal was ravaging the Campagnian countryside, the towns there didn't rebel against him as expected, rather they clung even closer to Rome.

There were a few Greek poleis there that weren't under the control of Rome, but most of the major cities were either Roman, or very closely allied to Rome at the time, and under Roman control.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I thought Verily did an amazingly good job of presenting all of the arguements against your assertation very clearly and cohesively. The fact that you can't come up with a decent rebuttal to any of them is not his fault.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
...I did...

Having British accents makes Romans British in the eyes of the audience. It's really just furthering the idea that British = smart, at the core of it. It's not fair to the Romans if we continue to associate them with the British.

And that point I did make.

And saying Shakespeare isn't the cause of us using British accents now is just wrong. If you say the accents they use in Rome are because they are British actors relating to British culture then American movies about Rome should have American accents. J... Mr. Phoenix isn't British. He was born in PR and raised in the US. Yet he uses a British accent when he plays the Roman Emporer Comedous. Shouldn't he be using an upper-class New England accent?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
"It's really just furthering the idea that British = smart, at the core of it."

It's ok. We've sent them Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow. I think we're even.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beren One Hand:
"It's really just furthering the idea that British = smart, at the core of it."

It's ok. We've sent them Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow. I think we're even.

---

quote:

---

Having British accents makes Romans British in the eyes of the audience.

---

quote:

---

And saying Shakespeare isn't the cause of us using British accents now is just wrong.

---

quote:

---

If you say the accents they use in Rome are because they are British actors relating to British culture then American movies about Rome should have American accents. J... Mr. Phoenix isn't British. He was born in PR and raised in the US. Yet he uses a British accent when he plays the Roman Emporer Comedous. Shouldn't he be using an upper-class New England accent?

---

quote:

---

Correction: It makes them British in your eyes.

---

quote:

---

Americans use British accents as well, and they do it because they're taught with Shakespeare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nell Gwyn:
There's been a goodly amount of research that's suggested it quite likely that the "British" accents spoken in Shakespeare's day were actually a lot closer to modern Appalachian accents than to modern British.

Sorry, I'm on my way out the door right now, but I'll see if I can find a link later.

---