Rome

[roshan]

 

I was disappointed that Virinus killed the guy outright... After Pullos actions in the first season I expected to see at the very least some thumb cutting.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My first thought after "the deed" was

what if the guy was lying and his family is fine. Well, perhaps a bit raped but still living?

. Still, it was nice to see Vorenus in a less than virtuous state of mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah my thoughts exactly,

thats one of the reasons why I thought a bit of thumb cutting would have been in order.

 

In the end I believe that they are heading to the river - they may or may not find the bodies there - so maybe this story arc isnt over yet.

 

[kumquatq3]

He sold them as slaves. The show has always been a tad obvious.

[astr0creep]

He sold them as slaves. The show has always been a tad obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My first thought as well.

[roshan]

I thought so too. Let us see if this show will defy predictability.

[astr0creep]

I thought so too. Let us see if this show will defy predictability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the show is more about political intrigue than the fight against predictability.

That along with gory combat, softcore pr0n and the worshipping of pagan Gods.

:D

[roshan]

So the show truly isnt about defying predictability.

 

This episode was not that interesting.

The highlight was Octavian being beaten like a bitch by Mark Anthony.

 

Edited January 23, 2007 by roshan

[metadigital]

Um, it's a historical docudrama. Can't really defy predictability when history is already set ...

[roshan]

Yes, but the story of the two soldiers isnt historical.

[metadigital]

No, that's the drama bit (story-telling technique) that has been added to help give some context to the period. And I think the writers made it work particularly well (at least in the first series).

[kumquatq3]

No, that's the drama bit (story-telling technique) that has been added to help give some context to the period.

 

and CLEARLY it was added so the writers can do something other than basically stage a play of Shakespeare's Caesar. However, those parts have always been predictable. To argue that their just a technique to give context to the period is to say the characters in Deadwood are the same. Sure, they give context, but that's not nearly the only point of their existence. Especially if their the lead.

[Kelverin]

I like the series so far; it maintains the excellence from the second half of last season. Very entertaining.

[astr0creep]

I agree with Kelvy.

 

I'm liking it more than Battlestar actually.

 

@Roshan:

I found the most interesting part was the last minute of this episode...

Edited January 23, 2007 by astr0creep

[metadigital]

No, that's the drama bit (story-telling technique) that has been added to help give some context to the period.

 

and CLEARLY it was added so the writers can do something other than basically stage a play of Shakespeare's Caesar. However, those parts have always been predictable. To argue that their just a technique to give context to the period is to say the characters in Deadwood are the same. Sure, they give context, but that's not nearly the only point of their existence. Especially if they're the lead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't seen Deadwood so I'm not quite sure what your point is there ... and I didn't say that that was the only point of the two characters.

 

For sure we get to see life through the eyes of a Roman soldier, a centurion, a member of the senate (before C

[TravisPennington]

Yeah Rome is a really good show. I like it a lot better than most of the crap you find on TV (that includes HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime =P). The characters are all really interesting and carry a lot of depth to them.

 

Missed the first Season way back when but was able to watch all of the episodes through that nifty HBO on Demand service. It's in Season 2 now, can't wait to see the next episode. Very addicting show

[Gorgon]

I thought it was pretty damn good, unfortunately even the best TV series become tedious after a while. It's inescapable.

 

 

Telling a story in one week increments of 40 minuites for years just lends to dramatical self destruction.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Gorgon

[roshan]

I agree with Kelvy.

 

I'm liking it more than Battlestar actually.

 

@Roshan:

I found the most interesting part was the last minute of this episode...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I too enjoy it more than BSG.

 

The last minutes were just too predictable. But I didnt expect to see Octavians family bitch fighting. I guess they really want to emphasize Mark Antonys brutish nature.

[ScottishMartialArts]

Example: Pompeii was saying that Marc Anthony must not be harmed. As soon as Marc Anthony called for all his men to rally around him I knew what would occur.

 

Are you familiar with the literary technique of foreshadowing? Why do you suppose the film makers dropped all of the hints you just mentioned? Is it perhaps because they want the viewer to understand ahead of time that Antony will be attacked in the forum?

 

It used to be entirely safe to assume that a moderately educated member of the West would have a decent grasp of Roman history. (Particularly of the Fall of the Republic, since that story was so instrumental to the thinking that went behind documents such as the US Constitution.) For the last 50 years or so, however, our society has nearly unanimously decided that there isn't much of value to be gained from a study of the past. That's two generations that have grown up that haven't studied Latin or had more than a cursory introduction to Rome in junior high school. As a result the only knowledge that the filmmakers can assume of the audience is a) a long time ago there was a powerful empire in Europe called Rome and b) Julius Caesar was somehow important. The filmmakers recognize however that there are certain stories that work better dramatically if the audience already has the outline of the story ahead of time, the Fall of the Roman Republic is one such story (just look at Shakespeare's historical plays on the subject). The filmmakers find themselves in a quandary because it would be helpful if their audience actually knew something about Rome but the reality is that the audience knows nothing. To resolve this quandary, the filmmakers are trying to make clear the outline of what is going to happen from the outset, and then fill in the dramatic details as they go along. It's immediately clear within the first 10 minutes of the second episode that Antony will be attacked in the forum. How it will happen, and the emotions behind it, is what the rest of the episode spends time developing.

[kumquatq3]

Example: Pompeii was saying that Marc Anthony must not be harmed. As soon as Marc Anthony called for all his men to rally around him I knew what would occur.

 

Are you familiar with the literary technique of foreshadowing? Why do you suppose the film makers dropped all of the hints you just mentioned? Is it perhaps because they want the viewer to understand ahead of time that Antony will be attacked in the forum?

 

It's just one of many examples of what I was arguing (and most people here seem to agree). I think that post was from more than a year ago, so forgive me if I'm fuzzy on what exactly was being talked about (and I don't care to check).

 

Regardless, foreshadowing is one thing. Removing all suspense and questions as to how something will happen is quite another.

 

The biggest shock of the whole series is that Caesar didn't say anything at all to Brutus (which, depending on what you read, may or may not be accurate)

 

EDIT: That being said, the show is still enjoyable, just not very suspenseful.

Edited January 27, 2007 by kumquatq3

[ScottishMartialArts]

Considering the way Cleopatra was portrayed in the first series, I guess it's more drama than historical documentary. )

 

The show does a good job of getting the small stuff right and the big stuff wrong, mostly from trying to compress the chronology into a single TV season.

 

To use the first episode of the first season as an example, the episode opens with Caesar having just defeated Vercingetorix and simultaneously receiving word of the death of his daughter Julia (who was married to Pompey). The death of Julia actually occurred two years earlier in the war so that by the time that the Gallic War was over, there was already a significant rift between Caesar and Pompey. For dramatic purposes, the show needs to start at the beginning of the break of Caesar and Pompey but to start in the midst of the Gallic Wars would not be conducive to the amount of episodes they have to work with. As a result, they compressed the chronology and shifted some key events around.

 

That's an example of something big that is wrong, now for something little that is oh so right. Roman religion, like most polytheistic religions from antiquity, was not about getting some sort of deep spiritual satisfaction, an intimate personal relation with the divine, or salvation. Rather, it was almost a kind of technology used to increase the material prosperity of humans. The gods were incredibly powerful and could directly influence the affairs of humans for bad or good. Just as you would pay respect to a powerful King in the hopes that he would treat you well, a Roman gave sacrifice to the gods to develop a beneficent relationship (a cultus deorom, cultivation of the gods). With such a relation, the gods would see your crops grow rather than whither, give you success in war, and allow your wife to bear a son that survives infancy. As a result, Roman religion has a very contractual sound to it and resembles a business transaction: Venus of Child-Birth I will sacrifice to you a newborn calf if you will see my wife and baby safely through delivery. Should I be unable to attain a newborn calf at an economical price I will sacrifice 3 white geese in it's place should that be pleasing to you. Should the child be stillborn but my wife survive I shall sacrifice 1 white geese. Should my wife die but my child survive I shall sacrifice 2 white geese. If both survive and the child is a boy I shall.... etc.

 

With that background out of the way, we can see that any production that portrays Roman religiosity in terms of spiritual fulfillment has completely and utterly missed the point. Rather than portraying antiquity as it was they would be projecting more modern approaches to religiosity onto the canvass of antiquity. In the first episode of Rome, Titus Pullo finds himself imprisoned. He makes a vow to Vulcan of Metal Bars, that if Vulcan will free him from his cell he will make appropriate sacrifice. I forget the details of the vow but the dialogue perfectly captures the contractual nature of a Roman vow. By getting that detail right, the do a tremendous job of establishing verisimilitude and a true to antiquity Rome.

[ScottishMartialArts]

Regardless, foreshadowing is one thing. Removing all suspense and questions as to how something will happen is quite another.

 

Just because there is little question of what will happen and how it will happen does not mean there is no dramatic impact. A suspenseful feeling of "what will happen next?" is only one of a myriad of emotions that a filmmaker or a writer can be trying to achieve. Often, the greatest dramatic impact lies not in suspense but in knowing what will happen to the characters before they do.

 

Take the Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels which is about the battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. The South was so badly defeated on the third day that they were never able to recover. On the first day however, the totally kicked the Union's ass and on the second day ended in stalemate but only after the South came very, very close to achieving victory. The reader however, knows how the battle ends, how an entire Southern division was completely destroyed over the course of about 45 minutes. When the Southern soldiers and officers are expressing optimism for victory, when they discuss their hopes for the war finally ending and being able, once again, to see their friends who are fighting on the Union side, the reader becomes immersed in the tragedy that is about to ensue. The Killer Angels is such a highly regarded book because it so perfectly captures the character, the nobility and the tragedy of the American Civil War, and it would not have been able to do so if the reader did not already know what was going to happen.

 

Obviously Rome isn't The Killer Angels. My point however is that a removal of suspense can sometimes enhance drama, rather than diminish. Having studied Roman history, it is only the Lucius Vorenius and Titus Pullo arcs that even have the possibility of holding out any real suspense for me. Even so, I still really enjoy the show and simply knowing what will happen hasn't even remotely diminished my enjoyment of it.

[kumquatq3]

Just because there is little question of what will happen and how it will happen does not mean there is no dramatic impact.

 

Me:

That being said, the show is still enjoyable, just not very suspenseful.

 

 

 

The point is simply this: While the writers hands are tied on some things, Caesar has to die, they have plenty of characters in which they have a free hand. They often try to create suspenseful moments or plot lines with those characters, but almost always the audience can figure out what's what well before I get the impression it was intended. It's not their strong suit, but they frequently attempt it.

[metadigital]

The biggest shock of the whole series is that Caesar didn't say anything at all to Brutus (which, depending on what you read, may or may not be accurate)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that was a good example of keeping the audiences attention: that must be the most famous of all Shakespeare's lines in all his work, so the fact that there is a chance it wasn't said helps to differentiate the tv series, sustain some anticipation from the audience as they strain to hear the phrase, and underscore the uncertainty inherent in historical recording (due to apologists, renaissances and revisionists, or whatever). I thought that worked well, though I confess I was waiting to see if he spoke, and if he spoke in Italian (like some of the other key lines!).

The point is simply this: While the writers hands are tied on some things, Caesar has to die, they have plenty of characters in which they have a free hand. They often try to create suspenseful moments or plot lines with those characters, but  almost always the audience can figure out what's what well before I get the impression it was intended.  It's not their strong suit, but they frequently attempt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe, as the ScottishMartialArtist intimates, the problem is having to dumb down the show to the lowest common denominator.

 

Maybe Mel Gibson could re-do it, all in latin?

[kumquatq3]

I thought that worked well, though I confess I was waiting to see if he spoke, and if he spoke in Italian (like some of the other key lines!).

 

me too! For a few episodes leading up to the finale I had that in the back of my mind.

[LadyCrimson]

I found the 1st episode of the 2nd season to be kind of bland - too much set-up/reminders of the previous season maybe - the 2nd episode was much better. I have the feeling by the end of the season it'll be rip-roaring.

 

For me the show isn't about whether it's really historically accurate (it's a tv show...) or predictable - it's about the characterization/drama. It reminds me of a play in some ways. I like Octavian's growth of character a lot and I loved the guy who played Caesar.

[metadigital]

Yeah, Ciar