Discussion of HBO's Rome at the Getty Villa

I shall gnaw my thumbs in envy. Things like this *never* come to Alabama . . .

Fun! I would love to be there for that. I'm so of two minds about Rome. On the one hand, the production design and characters are top notch. On the other, the history is so mangled. Wish they could have slowed it down and made Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon the first season finale...

Your post only reminds me of how pissed off I am that HBO did not renew either ROME or DEADWOOD - my two favorite TV shows - but ENTOURAGE *voice a-drip with derision* is finishing its sixth season. ENTOURAGE!!!

*Bronx cheer*

c.e.lawson said:

I really enjoyed the series. I didn't know enough about the history to catch the inaccuracies Doogs has mentioned - I just loved the drama of it all.

Click to expand...

Well, it was actually a lot more accurate than, say, Gladiator. It was more the compression of events that galled me. I mean, Caesar crossing the Rubicon at the end of what, the second episode? They could have easily played the political tension into at least half a season. Same with the last handful of episodes, though I believe those were made with the knowledge that the second season would be the end. As with most Hollywood historicals, it's so much a matter of potential gone to waste.

The other bit that really stuck out like a sore thumb to me was the casting of Cato. In reality he was younger than Caesar. That probably wouldn't have mattered if everyone else had not been so deliciously cast (the actors playing Cicero, Caesar, Brutus, young Octavian, and Antony being particular standouts in my opinion).

I was able to forgive the inaccuracies because the production level of the series is so high, and the quality of the acting is so wonderful. I find I am more forgiving if I am being thoroughly entertained in exchange - although I do agree with Doogs - I would have been happy if they had not compressed so much history in so few episodes.

C.P. - Vorenus *sigh*, Marc Antony *double sigh*

All right, don’t kill me. But the thing about Gladiator is that it is not supposed to be about a particular period in history or time. It is purely fiction. It is about a general, during a rule of an emperor, in a time in history. That’s why it worked (for me at least, vicious as I am about historical discrepancies myself).

Didn’t watch Rome – couldn’t sit straight through the first 20 minutes of it. Gave up.
Gladiator’s first ten minutes, on the other hand, totally mesmerized me.

My two obols.
Thanks, c.e., for this discussion.

Phaedo said:

But the thing about Gladiator is that it is not supposed to be about a particular period in history or time. It is purely fiction. It is about a general, during a rule of an emperor, in a time in history. That’s why it worked (for me at least, vicious as I am about historical discrepancies myself).

Click to expand...

Except that Marcus Aurelius was a real emperor - and one of the more well known and well regarded at that - and was succeeded by his son Commodus, who was a total nutjob who, among other things, liked to dress up like Heracles.

That's my thing about Gladiator (as much as I love it as a film). It is grounded just enough in reality that the complete and total departures (restoring the Republic...) are that much more jarring.

Doogs said:

It is grounded just enough in reality that the complete and total departures (restoring the Republic...) are that much more jarring.

Click to expand...

I see your point. I agree.
Sure, they could've come up with fictional names for those.