HBO's Rome

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Hypatia, Dead Again is excellent. I also strongly recommend Rabbit Proof Fence, an unusual and powerful film. But, I think my favorite Derek Jacobi thing is his Cadfael series, which was shown on PBS. He plays a monk, who became a monk when he returned from the Crusades. These are murder mysteries. He solves them with his wits, and his knowledge of botany! they are available on DVD and VHS.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108717/

 

[hypatia]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

I've seen a few of the Cadfael mysteries. Yes, they were quite good.

 

[Elenopa]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Cadfael wasn't bad, but the books are better.

We have all the books, so went into the TV versions knowing all the stories, which unfortunately was a problem. At first, they wern't too bad, but they filmed them in a different order. That meant that the continuity in the books couldn't be followed and so that affected some of the storylines. The last couple that got filmed veered so far from the written word that they turned into almost different stories.

Derek Jacobi was good though, but not my initial image of Cadfael (again based on the books). My mother thought he wasn't Welsh enough.

It was at Nexus in 2001 that Garath Thomas (Blake's 7) said that he would have loved to have played Cadfael, and had actually asked his agent to make that known. He never got the chance to audition for it though. He might have been good in the part. As he said, he is Welsh and looks like he could have fought in the crusades.

Anyway, read the books. Ellis Peters. The first one is 'A Morbid Taste for Bones'.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Just to get back to the subject of this thread...

I saw a little more of the first episode before the tape got screwed up. (Arrgh!) I'm less impressed than I was. They've totally misrepresented the political situation that Caesar found himself in, for no reason I can detect, and thereby falsify the motives of all the major players. Oh, and when did this become "Doogie Caesar, Future Augusus"?

Caesar was not consul in 50 or 49 BCE, much less Pompey's co-consul. The whole crisis of 49 was due to the fact that Caesar was not consul and held no other office. His enemies were determined to prosecute him for actions he had taken 10 years earlier when he actually was consul. Under Roman law a man could not be prosecuted for public actions while he held any office that conferred imperium, which included proconsular duty as governor of a province. ("In the place of teh consul") A general who wasn't a governor also had imperium within limits set by the senate. But in all cases such a general would lose his imperium (and with it his immunity) the moment he crossed the official boundry of the city of Rome.

Caesar's plan was to pass directly from his governorship to a second term as consul, which would make it impossible for his enemies to take him to court and give him a year in Rome to retroactively legalize his previous acts, rebuild alliances and secure himself against his foe's next move. But he not only couldn't enter Rome to campaign for votes (not that he would need to, his election by a landslide would have been a foregone conclusion) he also couldn't enter the city to declare his candidacy - as required by law. (Our word "candidate", by the way, derives from the blidingly white toga candida that men wore when they declared that they were pursuing a given office.) Indeed, it is likely that under the terms of his commission he could not even leave his province without immediately losing his imperium and making himself liable to arrest.

So Caesar petitioned the Senate to allow him to stand for consul in absentia, a request that had been granted almost as a matter of course for other generals in the field. (Those encamped on the Field of Mars, for instance, awaiting their Triumph, the traditional parade to celebrate the victory over a foreign enemy. They also could not enter the city without losing their imperium and command of their army until the day of the triumph itself, when by a special dispensation they could enter the city still in command of their army for the duration of the parade.)

The Senate refused. They further refused to either change the date of the election or the date when Caesar's governship was due to end, and ordered him to return to Rome, thus ensuring that he would return to the status of a privatus before the election. His enemies in the house were determined to destroy him, to leave him open to prosecution, strip him of his wealth and lands and if possible send him into exile. It was to avoid this that Caesar chose civil war rather than surrender and personal and political extinction.

None of which would have happened if he'd been the f*@#$ing consul in the first place How the hell anyone who'd ever read a history book or a biography of Caesar can depict him as consul before he left Gaul is beyond me. This does not bode well for the rest of the series.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Thus warned, I will take nothing in it as historically accurate. Whether I continue watching, or not, will depend on whether I find it interesting. I haven't seen ep 2 yet, but plan to, after work tonight. I do agree that there is NO GOOD REASON for such a glaring historic discrepancy.

 

[Oatley1]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Typical...

Joe, you should know better than to hold out hope for historical accuracy when it comes to a televised mini-series or movie!

Under Roman law a man could not be prosecuted for public actions while he held any office that conferred imperium, which included proconsular duty as governor of a province. ("In the place of teh consul") A general who wasn't a governor also had imperium within limits set by the senate. But in all cases such a general would lose his imperium (and with it his immunity) the moment he crossed the official boundry of the city of Rome.

Didn't the Governor's imperium cease the moment he left his province? Caesar was the governor, not just a general returning to Rome after a war. Which in the case of Gaius Julius Caesar was the point he crossed from Gaul into Italia, not when he crossed the pomperium and entered the city of Rome - which is why the civil war began when he crossed the Rubicon, which marked the boundary between Gaul and Italia.

So Caesar petitioned the Senate to allow him to stand for consul in absentia, a request that had been granted almost as a matter of course for other generals in the field. (Those encamped on the Field of Mars, for instance, awaiting their Triumph, the traditional parade to celebrate the victory over a foreign enemy. They also could not enter the city without losing their imperium and command of their army until the day of the triumph itself, when by a special dispensation they could enter the city still in command of their army for the duration of the parade.)

There was a difference between a triumphing general holding on to his imperium for the Triumph, and one holding on to it while seeking election as consul. And while this had happened in the past, hadn't this (standing in absentia) been revoked under one of the lex Corneliae or one of the acts of Sulla as dictator? To ensure that no-one could be elected in absentia, and so prevent the repeat of what happened with Gaius Marius? Or had this been revoked in the years following the death of Sulla?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Oatley:

Well, I was trying to somewhat simplify the disucssion (in part to make it clear to readers here, in part to show that it was not too complex to have been sketched in for a view audience) and also I don't remeber all the details that clearly myself.

1) Caesar might have had imperium in both roles, that isn't clear. But I don't think a governor's imperium expired when he left his province. In any case it was not the loss of []imperium[/i] on crossing the Rubicon that automaticaly triggered the Civil War, but another provision of the lex Cornellia - Sulla's rule that no governor could leave his province without the permission of the Senate.
IIntended to prevent future generals from marching on Rome and taking power by force - the way Sulla had. ) The Senate ordered Caesar to come to Rome on a certain date and leave his army behind for his successor or be declared an enemy of the state. Caesar left his province on his own schedule and with his army. The moment the first solider reached the far bank Caesar was an outlaw and war inevitable.

2) A general's imperium, standing in absentia, etc. On at least one ocassiona Giaus Marius confounded his enemies by foegoing a triumph in order to register as a candidate for consul. They had set the date for the election and scheduled his triumph in such a way to make it impossible for him to have both, and they all assumed that no man would ever give up a triumph. Marius, not unreasonably, believed he would have future opportunities to triumph.

I believe Caesar would have retained his imperium after leaving his province, and might even have been able to bringa token force to Rome for his triumph under existing law, but he would have lost his governorship on whatever date it terminated - regardless of when he left his province. But by leaving his provice against the orders of the Senate and with his army he made all of this moot.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

...Whether I continue watching, or not, will depend on whether I find it interesting...

Of course. The drama does come first. Spartacus is largely historical nonsense, except in broad outline, but it is a superb film.

I'm hoping to see both the entire first episode and the second episode of Rome in a couple of days, assuming my mother ever figures out how to tape something off TiVo. (Her last attempt gave me 20 minutes of episode 1, five minutes of her scannning through her "Now Playing List" and 3 hours of BBC mysteries that she had previously recorded and decided to watch while the TiVo continued to record Rome in the background. Naturally all the tape got was what she was watching)

I posted essentially the same critique on the Home Theater Forum, and got back much "well, it is just a story", "they aren't doing a documentary" and "it would have taken too much exposition to cover all that". My response to the former is, "If you just want to tell a story and ignore history then don't do historical fiction or - if you do a 'period piece' - don't make historical personages and events central to your story." They could certainly have done a story about two Roman soldiers stationed somewhere in the Empire without getting into historical details or even naming who the Emperor happened to be at the time.

My reply to the "too much exposition" objection was the following, and I repeat it here in case someone considers that not-unreasonable point in reading my post above:

*********************************

INT. CAESAR'S TENT, GAUL

MARC ANTONY:
Caesar, a letter from the senate!

CAESAR:
Read it.

ANTONY:
They have refused your request to declare your candidacy for consul in absnetia. They say you must present yourself in person in Rome like every other candidate. And they've changed the date for the elections. Jupiter! Caesar they've arranged it so that your term as governor will be up and you'll have to give up command of the army before you can become consul again. Those bastards!

CAESAR:
You mean that bastard. This is all Cato's doing. You're too young to remember, but he's been waiting ten years for this. He knows that if I can't pass directly from governor to consul he can prosecute me for the so-called "illegal acts" of my first consulship. But if I can be elected before I return to Rome he can't touch me. And my colleague as consul this time won't be Cato's toady. I'll be able to have the reforms of ten years ago declared valid, and I'll be able to make more. That's what Cato and his friends fear, change of any kind.

***************

INT. CATO'S HOUSE. ROME. THE OPTIMATES MEET.

CATO
We cannot allow Caesar to be elected consul for next year before he even returns to Rome. Our only chance to destroy him is to force him into a position where he's out of office long enough for me to prosecute him for the crimes he committed as consul the first time. We must strip him of his fortune and send him into exile. Otherwise he'll destroy Rome. You all know it. First he'll make himself consul illegally, then he'll make himself king!

***********************

Hmmm... you're right. It couldn't possibly be explained in a reasonable amount of time. What was I thinking?

(Like the crap they are doing doesn't require exposition, and like it doesn't involve more work because now they have to invent motivations instead of using the real ones.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[Oatley1]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Well, I was trying to somewhat simplify the disucssion (in part to make it clear to readers here, in part to show that it was not too complex to have been sketched in for a view audience) and also I don't remeber all the details that clearly myself.

I know, I know... it's just the history nerd in me - I just can't help myself, and dammit! Everyone should be as excited about Roman history as I am!!!

In all seriousness though, I am glad you mentioned that, as when my book finally comes out, it does exactly that - ie, it simplifies the disucssion, so to make it clear to readers, without being drowned in the minutae of it all, especially when dealing with the Roman Republic.

So if you do ever read it, I don't want excessive nit-picking!!!

 

[Bab5nutz]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

I don't know how many times I've watched an historiical film/TV programme, and been irked because they got things wrong or changed things. It can quite spoil what is otherwise a good how.

Of course, a lot of people often don't know the real story behind the story so it does not really matter.

I guess I should stop reading history.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

This series is being made with the BBC. I suspect that the Tristans are going to be less than happy when they find that have a "Braveheart" on their hands.

If the story is not historically accurate the BBC cannot sell it to the history channels nor sell copies to schools as a teaching aid.

The old journalistic rule of interviewing applies "Why is this Bastard lying to me".

 

[hypatia]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

I don't know about that: I've seen some iffy stuff on the History Channel here. Although if it's too far off, yea, I suppose they'd lost a sale there.

What is so odd to me is basically what Joe D was saying: it's not like the real story is boring, or something. Why change the story?

 

[Alluveal]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Ok, for all you Rome Einsteins, where does the nation now stand in relation to the whole Cleopatra thing? Caesar first, then Marc Anthony. How far is that in the future? Just wondering if we'll even get to see some of this played out in the series.

 

[Oatley1]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Ok, for all you Rome Einsteins, where does the nation now stand in relation to the whole Cleopatra thing? Caesar first, then Marc Anthony. How far is that in the future? Just wondering if we'll even get to see some of this played out in the series.

It really all depends on where they intend to finish the story - if it ends with the assassination of Caesar, then you will get Caesar and Cleopatra, but not Antony and Cleopatra.

In terms of timeline, Caesar's fateful meeting with Cleopatra occurs....





SPOILERS!!!!!!





after the end of the civil war and the death of Pompey.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Indications are that HBO intends to make this an on-going series a la The Sopranos or Six Feet Under. So the story is open ended. I'm not sure how far they intend to go this season. I've heard that the actor playing Octavian was replaced several episodes in, but I'm not sure if that is because of problems with the actor, or because a jump in the timeline requires and older Octavian at some point. As Oatley says, Caesar has not yet met Cleopatra (or her snot-nosed little brother) at this point.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Oatley1]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Caesar has not yet met Cleopatra (or her snot-nosed little brother) at this point.

Ah, yes... good old Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator! (which translates as Ptolemy XIII, God, Beloved of his Father).

Gotta love the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt - wicked, deceitful and inbred to the point of imbicility...

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

Indications are that HBO intends to make this an on-going series a la The Sopranos or Six Feet Under.

Aarrrgggh! I thought it was supposed to be a 12 ep miniseries, then over, or I wouldn't have started watching it!

I saw ep 1 for the second time, then ep 2. It's darned good looking, for a costume drama. Polly Walker, aka Atia of the Julii, is very nice to look at. I liked the trepanation scene in ep 2. You don't see those every day!

Titus Pullo said he was going to 'drink up, and smoke up everything.' That was an anachronism, because the classic old world did not smoke before they found the new world. Well, I've never read that they smoked opium, or anything. They certainly didn't have tobacco. They didn't show anyone smoking.

The political machinations are interesting, but not exceptional. I just saw The Constant Gardener. That was a way better drama. Unless it picks up a bit, if I keep watching, it will be because it is so pretty to look at.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

I just looked up the writers on the IMDb. They are all TV writers, except for Jon Milius, who has written some fine movie screen plays, Including Apocalypse Now, and Jerimiah Johnson.

Michael Apted, one of the directors, has directed some good films, and is well known for his 7 & Up series, a long documentary series which follows a few people, checking in on their lives every seven years, He's up to 42 & Up right now, and working on 49 & Up.

 

[darth_librarian]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

I just looked up the writers on the IMDb. They are all TV writers, except for Jon Milius, who has written some fine movie screen plays, Including Apocalypse Now, and Jerimiah Johnson.

Michael Apted, one of the directors, has directed some good films, and is well known for his 7 & Up series, a long documentary series which follows a few people, checking in on their lives every seven years, He's up to 42 & Up right now, and working on 49 & Up.

Wow, i watched the UK version in school. Massive flashback.

 

[A_Ranger]

Re: HBO\'s Rome

HBO is most definately going to continue with this for as long as they can. They spent over $100 million on the sets and costumes, so they have to make this last.

On a side note, I've actaully seen the forum set for this show in Italia. But don't tell HBO that, because no one is allowed to see it (although they may not care now that it has aired), but the Italians don't give a rats ass if we peeked through the holes in the tarp over the gate.

And even if the story is not completely accurate historically, at least the set and costums are. Finally a depiction of Roma in full color as it would have been. I can't stand that in "Gladiator" the costumes and some of the sets are in color but others are devoid of it. It's just rediculous.