Centurion a story of history or just another male dominated war movie?

In the film Centurion by Neil Marshall it is a story about Roman soldiers in 117 A.D. in a struggle with the Picts over the territory in northern Britain. The main character in the movie is Quintus Dias who is 2ND in command and joins with the 9Th legion led by General Virilus to turn the tide of the war. Then they are joined by a woman named Etain who's job is to led them though the unfamiliar terrain. The comes to find out that Etain is a an ex roman who is now helping the Picts on the bases of revenge because when she was little Roman soldier came through her town and killed and raped her family and so she plans a attack on there march and the take the Roman general, the only people that survived were five Roman soldiers including Quintus Dias. It is those soldiers story of there survival behind enemy lines to save there General and return back home while being chased by a group of Picts led by experienced tracker Warrior Etain. The course concepts that are displayed in the film are heterosexism, homosexuality, masculinity, and femininity.

First i would like to discuss the depiction of masculinity in the film and how it effected the characters though out the story. Masculinity in war movies are usually seen as a parallel in all movies themed in this way, weather they are right or not. In Centurion the soldier are seen as very masculine by the way they carry themselves they are told to be brave, and show no emotion during there lives because there main purpose is to fight, because that is the manly thing to do, and you are made to seem weak if you do break this stereotype. An example of this is when another soldier asks Quintus Dias "Why aren't you sleeping, you need your rest." and Quintus responded by saying "I cant sleep during war because soldiers have to be ready to fight at all times, and to fight with dignity." I believe that this was because he has grown up in a society where men need to prove themselves in order to show there masculinity. In observing the soldiers reaction you could tell that he was motivated to act like Quintus almost as a role model on how a real man should act. This just shows how important being a brave, strong man is to there society, and in comparison that this is still present in are society even in today's world. Masculinity since the beginning of time has been instilled in are culture and hasn't changed much since.

An issue that wasn't directly addressed in the film was heterosexism, and homosexuality and in order to see the issue you have to understand past Roman culture and how that culture is overseen or left out in are media based on are culture in the 21st century. The film shows that Roman soldiers were purely heterosexual and they even joked about homosexual when one of the soldiers called another soldier a "faggot" which is ironic because of the reality of how it was really was in this era, by displaying the characters like this it showed that they were leaving out the facts about roman soldiers sexual relations with one another. In Roman culture during the time period set in the film it wasn't uncommon for soldiers to have sexual relations with other soldiers, in fact it was considered manly in there culture. As quoted in an article called The Roman Empire of the first century was well acquainted with male sexuality. by Dr. Sara Phang he stated that "Because serving soldiers in the Roman army were not allowed the privilege of legal marriage, they entered alternative relationships. These included sexual relationships with both female and male, and sexual activity between men was tolerated."

I feel because of culture today where homosexuality in considered by most to be a social wrong, this is the reason why these details are left out all together in are films and history text books. I would say this is because they fear that these heroic symbols of history will be looked at as less masculine because of this, when in the that time this type of homosexuality was viewed as being more masculine as a form of dominance over one another. Which puts into conflict are points of view of two different eras. If we could get this detail to be seen in society it might change people's views on what is considered right in are culture. It is interesting to see that gay tendencies were not only acceptable but seem as being even more masculine, which is a big difference to today where we see people who are homosexual as the "other,or the wrong", and because of how we were taught those people are seen as not masculine at all, even to a point where some people wouldn't even consider them to be a man because of there sexual orientation. So I feel like leaving out this piece of history is wrong to do because it makes it seem inaccurate, I realize that this is how are society works today and it would be a big chance to display this, so I understand why the directer and past directors of war movies have left out this crucial detail. But in order to create change this is the type of change that needs to be made so we can slowly but surly change the mindset of are society.

Lastly Femininity was shown through the character of Etain and other Pict woman by the way they acted and the way they were dressed in the film. The Pict woman soldiers besides Etain were always shown as using bow's as a fighting tactic and not down there fighting with the men in hand to hand combat. This I feel is because they didn't feel like woman were able to hold there own in that element of fighting, so they were being displayed in a more submissive role in fighting. This is wrong to do but I would have to say even putting fighting woman in a war movie is a big step and this is the first movie that I've seen with this aspect of fighting woman and I would give the directer congrads for even going out on the limb like that in a society where woman aren't seen as having any impact on past wars that have been fought. The way that the woman were dressed was displayed as very gender neutral and dark colors in order to mask any feminine features. They also used make up on there face that was also dark, which made them look very griddy and dirty like the men in the film. By taking this class it made me realize an aspect that I would have over seen in the past, this is that one of the main characters Etain is not able to talk in the movie. This is important to realize because she is a woman in a male dominated movie and in order to equal out this social taboo they took away one of her major forms of communication. This could have been a aquincidence or it could be a form of sexism, I believe it was done intentionally to minimize her role in the movie but you can be the judge of that.

In this film there are alot of concepts that could correlate to are course and by doing so I get a greater understanding of how these can be seen in a media form, which is crucial for me to broaden my knowledge of the topics in the class. I feel that masculinity was the main topic is this movie by the way the soldiers acted like getting into bar fights, arm wrestling, and being seen as emotionless creatures who's only purpose is to kill. This film has accurate details of history which makes it an intriguing film but it also leaves out details of sexuality, which is nothing new. While I think it has elements of a male dominated movie, it also breaks alot of social stigmas by having a woman as a main character even tho she is limited in her ability, so i don't believe it is male dominated just because of that important detail. So in response to my title question it is more leaning towards a depiction of history but even that isn't a clear cut answer because of what they left out, so I would say that it is neither it has pros and con's to story line. In overall the experience that i took in going to see the movie and how well it was executed, I would have to say it was one of the best war themed movies that i have seen, and i would definitely recommend it to anyone into those type of movies.

(Phang, The Marriage Of Roman Soldiers, Chapter Eight, Heterosexual Relations Outside Marriage, p. 229-261.)