Intertexts

R E V I E W S 1 9 1 intended for the black Civil Rights movement in the United States was so successful that even today residual nostalgia for Russia has not completely disappeared, thus drawing further attention to Golden. But it also appears that Golden was powerfiil in the Soviet Union too, in spite of the many hardships at her work place and with the KGB, about which she is quite vocal throughout the book. Her account of the places she visited in the Sovi¬ et Union, the United States, and Africa foregrounds the subjectivity of a self-confident and secure, at times condescending, outsider who proffers taxonomieswhichare,mostly,Soviet-made.InhervoiceSoviet-Russianand Americandiscoursesblendcompletelyuniquely.Althoughthebookcould have benefited from better copyediting, it nevertheless comes in awell-pro¬ ducedpaperbackeditionandcontainsmanyprivatephotosandcopiesof correspondencerelevantnotonlytoGolden’slifebutalsotothehistorical links between blacks and Soviet Russia. P e t e r I - B a r t a UniversityofSurr^,UK Nisbet, Gideon. Ancient Greece in Film and Popular Culture (Greece and Rome Live Series). Exeter, UK: Bristol Phoenix, 2006. xiv +170 pp. This spring the film 300, by Frank Miller of Sin City (2005) feme, will hit the movie theatres.An epic retelling of the last stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae, originally presented in agraphic novel of the same name, this film attacks its viewers with powerful contrasts, as we see stark backgrounds inhabitedbyred-cloakedSpartans,whoselaconicdemeanorhasbeentrans¬ formedintoatypeofraw,passionateviolencewhichdrivestheretellingo oneofthemostcelebratedmomentsinGreekhistory.GideonNisbet,inhis bookAncientGreeceinFilmandPopularCulture,invitesustoaskwho theseGreeksareandwhereisthisGreece.^Headdressesaperennialproblem such aprobwithall filmsaboutGreece,namelywhydoesGreeceemergeas lematic topic for cinema in specific and popular culture in general? Nisbet’s book is acontribution to Bristol Phoenix’s Greece and Rome Liveseries.Thestatedgoalofthisseriesistointroducetoamodernreadershipimportantaspectsandthemesoftheancientworldinawaythatrein ¬ forcestheircontinuedsignificance.Inregardtothisgoal,Nisbethassuc¬ ceeded quite admirably with athoughtful and insightful study of the problemsthatGreecepresentsasbothaconcreteandanabstractimagein filmandpopularthought.Thisstudyissustainedbyanuancedunderstand¬ ing of theoretical approaches to film, and especially reception theory, pre¬ sentedinaclearandlucidwaywithwhicheventhemostconservativeof readers would feel comfortable. Nisbet’s volume is arelatively short and suc¬ cinctlywrittenexploration.Jargonisavoidedwhenatallpossible,buthe doesprovideanextremelyhelpfulglossaryoftechnicalterms.Oneofthe greatstrengthsofhisworkistheeffordesscommandhehasofboththeclas- 1 9 2 I N T E R T E X T S sical and modern material, whether he is discussing Socrates or Scorsese. “Hollywood has aproblem with Greece” (xiv). Nisbet starts from this obvious, but important point. Moving from this premise, films then become atool for exposing the inconsistencies and problems that amodern audience has in approaching Greece. “Films are the raw materials of an often strongly participatory popular culture, which responds to them actively as well as pas¬ sively consuming them” (xiii). Borrowing from modern reception theory, Nisbet shows us that films, especially those about such ahotly ideologically contested space, are not simply defined by their so-called quality, but are mitigated culture products which are continually being altered and chal¬ lenged by readers/audiences. Nisbet steers away from “Brad Pitts and OrlandoBlooms,”(althoughtheydomakeanappearance)andinsteadcon¬ centratesonthenonmainstreamexampleswhichencourageamorevigorous audienceresponse. Nisbet opens his first chapter, “Socrates’ ExcellentAdventure” asking thequestion:howcanaworldthatischaracterizedbyideasofphilosophy, sterile white colonnades with no roofs, and an amorphous (at best) physical imprint in our modern consciousness be successfully translated to film? Starting unexpectedly with BUI and Ted's ExcellentAdventure (1989), and moving onto the popular pepla films with their oiled leading musclemen suchasAtlas(1960)andTheColossusofRhodes(1961),andendingwith RobertWise’sHelenofTroy(1956),Nisbethighlightsthemajorproblems thatGreecefacesinatranslationtothebigscreen.Oneofthelargestobsta¬ clesisthestarpowerofRome.Romecontinuallycontaminatesandover¬ powersGreeceincinema.Greecehasneithertheurbanimagenorthe (appropriate) sexual appeal. Rome provides, in Nisbet’s words, “the ultimate Hollywood combo: Sex and the City” (38). The one area where Greece has pride of place, philosophy, and the history of ideas, is ultimately one that is boring to modern audiences. Any packaging of Greece into something seeminglysuccessfulinfilm(suchasCleopatra[1963])ishopelesslyRoman¬ s i z e d . Moving on from these general issues, Nisbet explores in chapter 2the rolethatmythicheroeshaveplayedinthemodernconceptionofthehero. Building off the idea of Rome as adominating force in depictions of the ancient world, Nisbet argues that there is little room for either aGreek hero, or any ancient hero, who is non-Roman. Hercules, of course, seems to be the exception. The development of Hercules in popular culture has little to do with Greece, however, and more to do with Roman conceptions as well as later, modern reformulations. The generally inclusive and adaptive nature of the figure which has made him so appealing as acharacter has also reduced his Hellenic side to virtual nonexistence. As Nisbet states “Hercules is an all-consuming myth—but also...