Post by truthcentric on May 22, 2010 16:33:33 GMT -5
This is a review of the 1999 movie "The Mummy" that I posted on the website "That Guy With The Glasses". You can also see it here.
First, a word about the artistic merit of the movie: it is fun. Pure dumb fun. It's a classic example of a popcorn flick where you turn your brain off and just enjoy the special effects extravaganza, which has aged very well despite coming from the late 90's. The same can be said for the rest of the Mummy series (The Mummy Returns, The Scorpion King, and Tomb of the Dragon Emperor). Also, Brendan Fraser is an awesome actor. However, in the event that you don't turn your brain off and enjoy the SFX and Brendan Fraser, a large number of Egyptological inaccuracies stand out. The rest of this review will point out those inaccuracies that I noticed.
Who was the real Imhotep?
The movie's antagonist and the titular mummy is Imhotep, who is from 1290 BC, sleeps with Pharaoh Seti I's mistress Anck-su-Namun, is buried alive with an army of flesh-eating scarab beetles, and causes a lot of death and destruction when he is brought back to live in the 20th century. You might conclude that this Imhotep fellow is nothing more than a fictional character created by Universal Studios, but in fact, he was a real historical figure. However, he lived not during 1290 BC, but between 2650 and 2600 BC, and he was nowhere near the womanizing, destructive douchebag he is in the movie.
In fact, the historical Imhotep did a lot of good for Egypt. He was the guy who designed the first pyramid, namely the Stepped Pyramid of Saqqara, and was also among the first architects to incorporate columns into buildings. He is also considered the father of medicine, writing a medical treatise remarkable because of its quasi-scientific approach to healing. So popular Imhotep became with his fellow Egyptians that he was made into a god after his death. One wonders how they would have viewed Hollywood's portrayal of him, but it probably wouldn't have been favorable.
Hamunaptra and the Valley of Kings
In The Mummy, Imhotep's body is discovered by our archaeologist heroes in a ruined city called Hamunaptra, the "City of the Dead", some distance from modern Luxor. Although there was an ancient city in India with the name "Hamunaptra", there was no ancient Egyptian burial ground with that name. It is completely made up. That said, there was a place west of Luxor where dead pharaohs were buried during the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BC), after pyramids went out of style. Called the Valley of the Kings, it consisted of tombs cut into rock. King Tutankhamun ("Tut") was buried here, as was Rameses II "the Great".
The Book of the Dead and the Book of Amun Ra
Two ancient Egyptian books are recovered in The Mummy: the golden Book of Amun Ra (the "Book of the Living") and the black Book of the Dead. The latter book is imbued with the power to bring people back from the dead whereas the former can be used to kill them again. In fact, neither of these books ever existed.
There is an ancient Egyptian papyrus text often called the "Book of the Dead", but its actual title is "Spells of Coming Forth by Day", and it was not believed to have the power to bring dead people back to life. Instead, it consisted of hymns, instructions, and spells intended to help the dead navigate the underworld with all of its obstacles. It was essentially a manual for people who were already dead.
Furthermore, this "book" was really more of a series of scrolls, not a modern-style book like the ones in the movie. Books in the modern sense, with spines and covers, came into being during the Roman Empire, long after the peak of Egyptian civilization.
Arnold Vosloo as an ancient Egyptian?
This is the historical error that bothers me the most, despite it being essentially a cosmetic one. It concerns casting. Although Arnold Vosloo is not a bad actor, he does not look like an ancient Egyptian. He is a white Afrikaner, a descendant of Dutch settlers who migrated to southern Africa between 1652 and 1795. Obviously the ancient Egyptians would not have looked like Dutch. They would have been no lighter-skinned than modern Egyptians.
If anything, they would have been darker-skinned than modern Egyptians, who like modern Mexicans are of mixed heritage. Studies on ancient Egyptian skulls find them to be similar in appearance to skulls from Ethiopia and northern Sudan ("Nubia"), indicating that ancient Egyptians were closely related to these African peoples. Also, measurements of ancient Egyptian skeletons find them to have long, lean limbs most like those of equatorial Africans and other tropical populations. This is a significant finding because Egypt does not have a tropical climate (it cools down at night and during the winter time). Therefore, the ancestors of the Egyptians would have been relatively recent migrants from a tropical region to the south, such as Sudan.
This evidence convinces me that the ancient Egyptians, far from being white like Arnold Vosloo, were probably what we would call "black" were we to see them today. That isn't to say that they looked just like African-Americans, most of whom are descended from West Africans. Northeast Africans such as Ethiopians, Somalians, Eritreans, and northern Sudanese, who all look quite distinct from West Africans, would be more likely relatives. Still, actors from northeast Africa aren't exactly easy to find, so African-Americans would probably be a more logical choice to play ancient Egyptian characters in Hollywood movies.
The reason the decision to cast white actors as black Africans pisses me off is not only because of its inaccuracy, but because it is continuing a racist tradition of denying that black Africans ever built anything more impressive than mud huts, a tradition that began with European colonialists to justify their subjugation and exploitation of Africa. This is a legacy we should have left behind long ago, yet we still continue it. It's time to stop.
Conclusion
The Mummy is a fun movie, but it has little educational content about ancient Egypt, and is in fact unintentionally racist by misrepresenting the ancient Egyptians as white people. Therefore, when watching it, as with many movies, remember to turn your brain off.
Who was the real Imhotep?
The movie's antagonist and the titular mummy is Imhotep, who is from 1290 BC, sleeps with Pharaoh Seti I's mistress Anck-su-Namun, is buried alive with an army of flesh-eating scarab beetles, and causes a lot of death and destruction when he is brought back to live in the 20th century. You might conclude that this Imhotep fellow is nothing more than a fictional character created by Universal Studios, but in fact, he was a real historical figure. However, he lived not during 1290 BC, but between 2650 and 2600 BC, and he was nowhere near the womanizing, destructive douchebag he is in the movie.
In fact, the historical Imhotep did a lot of good for Egypt. He was the guy who designed the first pyramid, namely the Stepped Pyramid of Saqqara, and was also among the first architects to incorporate columns into buildings. He is also considered the father of medicine, writing a medical treatise remarkable because of its quasi-scientific approach to healing. So popular Imhotep became with his fellow Egyptians that he was made into a god after his death. One wonders how they would have viewed Hollywood's portrayal of him, but it probably wouldn't have been favorable.
Hamunaptra and the Valley of Kings
In The Mummy, Imhotep's body is discovered by our archaeologist heroes in a ruined city called Hamunaptra, the "City of the Dead", some distance from modern Luxor. Although there was an ancient city in India with the name "Hamunaptra", there was no ancient Egyptian burial ground with that name. It is completely made up. That said, there was a place west of Luxor where dead pharaohs were buried during the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BC), after pyramids went out of style. Called the Valley of the Kings, it consisted of tombs cut into rock. King Tutankhamun ("Tut") was buried here, as was Rameses II "the Great".
The Book of the Dead and the Book of Amun Ra
Two ancient Egyptian books are recovered in The Mummy: the golden Book of Amun Ra (the "Book of the Living") and the black Book of the Dead. The latter book is imbued with the power to bring people back from the dead whereas the former can be used to kill them again. In fact, neither of these books ever existed.
There is an ancient Egyptian papyrus text often called the "Book of the Dead", but its actual title is "Spells of Coming Forth by Day", and it was not believed to have the power to bring dead people back to life. Instead, it consisted of hymns, instructions, and spells intended to help the dead navigate the underworld with all of its obstacles. It was essentially a manual for people who were already dead.
Furthermore, this "book" was really more of a series of scrolls, not a modern-style book like the ones in the movie. Books in the modern sense, with spines and covers, came into being during the Roman Empire, long after the peak of Egyptian civilization.
Arnold Vosloo as an ancient Egyptian?
This is the historical error that bothers me the most, despite it being essentially a cosmetic one. It concerns casting. Although Arnold Vosloo is not a bad actor, he does not look like an ancient Egyptian. He is a white Afrikaner, a descendant of Dutch settlers who migrated to southern Africa between 1652 and 1795. Obviously the ancient Egyptians would not have looked like Dutch. They would have been no lighter-skinned than modern Egyptians.
If anything, they would have been darker-skinned than modern Egyptians, who like modern Mexicans are of mixed heritage. Studies on ancient Egyptian skulls find them to be similar in appearance to skulls from Ethiopia and northern Sudan ("Nubia"), indicating that ancient Egyptians were closely related to these African peoples. Also, measurements of ancient Egyptian skeletons find them to have long, lean limbs most like those of equatorial Africans and other tropical populations. This is a significant finding because Egypt does not have a tropical climate (it cools down at night and during the winter time). Therefore, the ancestors of the Egyptians would have been relatively recent migrants from a tropical region to the south, such as Sudan.
This evidence convinces me that the ancient Egyptians, far from being white like Arnold Vosloo, were probably what we would call "black" were we to see them today. That isn't to say that they looked just like African-Americans, most of whom are descended from West Africans. Northeast Africans such as Ethiopians, Somalians, Eritreans, and northern Sudanese, who all look quite distinct from West Africans, would be more likely relatives. Still, actors from northeast Africa aren't exactly easy to find, so African-Americans would probably be a more logical choice to play ancient Egyptian characters in Hollywood movies.
The reason the decision to cast white actors as black Africans pisses me off is not only because of its inaccuracy, but because it is continuing a racist tradition of denying that black Africans ever built anything more impressive than mud huts, a tradition that began with European colonialists to justify their subjugation and exploitation of Africa. This is a legacy we should have left behind long ago, yet we still continue it. It's time to stop.
Conclusion
The Mummy is a fun movie, but it has little educational content about ancient Egypt, and is in fact unintentionally racist by misrepresenting the ancient Egyptians as white people. Therefore, when watching it, as with many movies, remember to turn your brain off.
