Masada - The Complete Epic Mini-Series (1981)

el cid & masada

both excellent dvds. Cannot wait for 55 days at Peking.What about a special edition King of Kings. Going off the subject slightly. I am anxious to purchase the following dvds in the very near future if they ever become available: Master of the Game by Sidney Sheldon, AD-Anno Domini & Washington Behind Closed Doors. Again excellent value and presentation. July 20, 2008

Masada - The Complete Mini-Series

As good as I remembered it. It was great to be able to view the whole series at once. June 10, 2008

Masada - My visit & the mini-series.

My wife & I visited Masada recently while on a "Holy Land Tour". While at Masada, I learned about the mini-series and was excited to order it after returning to the US. The DVD gives the viewer actual 1981 footage of Israel Army (IDF) recruits being sworn into military service at the begining and end of the film. It is my understanding that this practice ended approx 10 years ago; however it emphasizes how important Masada is to the national heritage of Israel. In fact one Israel tour internet site states that it is the second most visited historical site behind Jerusalem itself. The DVD gives excellant footage of Masada and the surrounding area of the Dead Sea. Several sets in the DVD, including the synagogue, closely resemble the actual ruins. This 1981 mini-series may not be of "2008 picture quality" but it is an excellant portrayal of actual events and is a must see for anyone going to, or having been on Masada. I highly recommend it. May 28, 2008

Such an Awesome Movie

I just really enjoyed watching this epic series. I watched it for several nights and enjoyed every minute of it!
May 26, 2008

Too Little Originality, Too Much Propaganda

The Good: Lawrence of Arabia, The Bad: Masada, and the Ugly: 300. Masada is an average epic that has been treated generously. It's not horrible, but it could have been better. A good review must look at, aside from the basics, the film's themes, symbolism, and the quality of the plot. The film is inaccurate, but why? What is the film's message? And does the film's message and inaccuracy make it worth buying, renting, or ignoring? But first, the basics.

The plot is simple: good guys versus bad guys. No clever twists, except in the end perhaps, and nothing original for its time. The setting is the Jewish Revolt of 66-74 AD. The Romans have just captured Jerusalem, but a handful of zealous freedom fighters escape to the fortress Masada. It is a spectacle in the mold of Spartacus and Ben-Hur, one of the last films of that style. The plot unfolds well but is not engaging or intellectual. Romance is included in the film between the Roman general Silva (O' Toole) and a Jewish whore. It was unnecessary.

The acting is mixed. Americans were cast to play the underdogs, the Jews, and Englishmen were cast to play the Romans. As a result talent was concentrated on the Roman side which made for uneven cinema. Peter Strauss who played the Jewish leader is an exception, but the rest were nonentities. On the Roman side there were veteran British actors of tremendous quality such as Peter O'Toole (who occasionally overacts), Anthony Quayle, and David Warner. O'Toole is a real actor. He has actually gotten on stage and performed Shakespeare. In other words the bad guys are not cardboard stands, unlike Star Wars for example. However, the film is heavily biased in favor of the Jews.

The film is poor history, but good propaganda. Becket and Lawrence of Arabia were epics that had good history but were still enjoyable. Masada is nowhere near their caliber. Issues have been raised about the mediocre costume and armor of the characters. In my opinion this is a nonissue, there are far more important problems with the film, and that is coming from a Roman military historian. If the film had a better script it would have been a better film regardless of what armor the Roman legionaries wore.

Masada and the film's message should be placed into context. The Jews had religious freedom in the Empire, and this is indicated in several passages of Josephus, a Jewish historian (14.228, 1.194, 14.213-16, 14.225-7, 16.162-5). Roman procurators in Judaea also attempted to accommodate Jewish custom, especially towards Jerusalem and the Temple. What the Romans would not give was political freedom. But that status was true for all of Rome's subjects, and only some Jews actively sought independence. I say "some Jews" because the desire for violent resistance against Rome was not universal. There were, however, a number of self-proclaimed messiahs that were stirring up the masses.

The film's message is that it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. The Jews bravely (or foolhardily) attempted to throw off Roman yoke and suffered horribly as a result. A better philosophy is to live on your feet than to die on your knees, as the rest of Rome's subjects did. The film does not discuss this complicated dilemma, as I said it is anything but original. The Jews did not stand a chance. Whatever one thinks of the Romans they produced a superb fighting machine. Opposition against it was largely futile, or extremely costly, as the Germans learned earlier in the century.

The film is neither creative nor enlightening. The goal of propaganda is not to be truthful. The film is Israeli propaganda. The cast and production were American and British, Israel is America's most important ally in the Middle East, and the film had complete support from the Israeli government. At the beginning and end of the film it shows Israeli soldiers climbing Masada, raising Israel's flag, and claiming Masada will never fall again. Did the Romans only represent Romans? Of course not, just as Jurassic Park was a not movie about dinosaurs. The Jews faced a vastly superior force in the 66-74 revolt against Rome. This was also true for the Israeli Defense Force in 1948-9 against the coalition of Arab states. It is symbolism, but unimaginative. It is highly melodramatic. Silva is also overly sympathetic to the Jewish cause, and there is no evidence that he an Eleazar had a contact.

The film is historically inaccurate, about 3/4s of it. This is also not surprising. It was based off a fictional novel and not the ancient authorities. It perpetuates the national myth that Masada was garrisoned by the Zealots. It was not, it was garrisoned by Sicarii. The Sicarii were terrorists, or freedom-fighters, depending on your perspective. They murdered 700 women and children at Engaddi (4.7.1). They actively murdered and plundered the property of Jews that accepted Roman rule (7.8.1). These tactics are used by the modern terrorist groups of Hamas, PLO and others against the Israelis. The same is true for insurgents against the U.S. occupation in Iraq. So are these people freedom-fighters and heroes as well? Another interesting dilemma that the film could have explored but did not, for obvious reasons. If you asked the Palestinians, who are held in an economic stranglehold by Israel, the new Romans are ironically the Israelis. The Sicarii most resemble the Kach party in modern Israel, the criminal, antidemocratic, racist party that wants all Arabs expelled from Israel.

The film was released in 1981, the same year Israeli aircraft destroyed a multi-storey apartment block that contained PLO. The attack killed around 300 civilians and resulted in worldwide condemnation and U.S. embargo on aircraft to Israel. Thus governments can also be terrorist groups. To return to Masada, I own the film because I enjoy watching the Roman army in action. That is the only reason why I own it.
May 25, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...