did we have a discussion already of hbo’s “rome”? well, it’s crap anyway, and the fact that i’ve watched all the episodes to date speaks only to the utter tedium that is my life. and now i’m posting about it. somebody help me. it is badly written, the performances are overly serious, and it has the worst opening credits sequence of all time. so, why do i watch? i mentioned the utter tedium thing; plus it is on hbo ondemand and watching it helps justify the price i pay for digital cable; and i’m a sucker for finding out how stories end (and damn you, whoever it was that got me into watching stupid “lost” as well!). i wait for jeff to tell me why i should like this more. and for notlaughing schmucko and angryrabbit to mock me–ach, i remember the halcyon days of this blog when we had commenters with real names (like lesbian anime girl).
Listen, boychik, maybe you got a thing for guys in skirts?
Arnab seems to have little patience for the Greco-Roman. I think I saw a bit of the final episode whilst cooped up in a hotel room. Some guy gets his head cut off in the end. Neat-o! Apart from that, all I can say is that the whole thing looked kinda lame. Apart from the decapitation. But then again, even that seemed a bit goofy.
If I were you I would contact my local cable provider because it appears that you have a faulty cable connection. When viewed as G-d intended Rome is a model of seriality. Each episode has so many historical details and implicit plot developments that I have to watch it two or three times to catch them all. The actors are marvels of elocution, and Max Pirkis alone will probably be nominated for an Emmy for his subtle portrayal of Octavian.
Is ghd behind “Rome” too? My gosh, and I thought they were just a new religion for hair.
li’l pony, you’re being sarcastic, right? it is hard for me to tell the difference between satire and reality these days. i blame shows like “rome”.
Ah yes, I remember when young Octavian was escorted to his first house of ill-repute and, nervous as he was, decided to take the young beauty from behind. Subtle yes, but ambiguous as well. What’s up with that little murderer?
well, he seems exactly the same, though i think we’re supposed to see him as being importantly different (a number of years have passed–it doesn’t help that it looks like only 10 weeks have passed). very few of these characters have revealed anything about themselves that wasn’t apparent the first time they appeared. one of the few exceptions is caesar’s old lover servilia, but even her character-transformation is uninspiring: apparently spurning her is going to end up being the thing that leads to caesar’s assassination. ho-hum, watch out for the woman scorned etc.
i don’t know about the “historical details and implicit plot developments” li’l pony referred to above but the one thing i do appreciate about this show is their sticking with the ludicrous logic of accents that has driven these toga-party adaptations for almost a century now.
I’m not going to go out on a limb but I have found Rome to be mildly entertaining (and it grows on one willing to tune in or Demand it to be On). It’s no Sopranos or Deadwood but is still engaging (a lot quieter and less sensational than I might have imagined). If it went off the air tomorrow I wouldn’t write a letter to the head of programming, but I do watch it every week and appreciate its subtle rhythms (even if the writing reaches, at best, a Masterpiece Theatre level of subtlety).
hey you guys! i just found you! so reynold has a kid? who else has multiplied? i feel i deserve an update (me: no kids, lecturer job at UM, married to the same guys i’ve been married to these last 500 years).
email me, let me in, do something, forgoodnessakes.
One kind of historical details I had in mind was the non-ostentatious incorporation of religious behavior into the storylines — one could have expected the writers to blatantly show off their historical research, or to make concessions to lazy viewers unwilling to do their own research. Instead, things like Caesar’s gradual assumption of Jupiter’s attributes, the politics of augury, the calendric system, or devotion to household gods are woven into the dialogue without clumsy explanations.
And so much of the other characters’ reactions to Caesar’s divinity is unspoken — that’s what I meant by implicit developments.
But I don’t understand, arnab, why you think the accents follow a ludicrous logic. They seem to me useful in distinguishing the class position of different characters. Are you saying that that logic is applied inconsistently? Or are you saying that you would prefer everyone had an ancient Roman accent?
gio, is it really you? you’re still married to all those guys? are you still italian?
i meant guy, one, one guy, the same one. yes, me. haven’t changed my nationality yet. have you?
nope, i’m still indian. i was hoping you were still italian so you could pitch in on this discussion of “rome” and explain why the characters don’t all sound like the mobsters on “the simpsons”. so, you want in on the blog eh? on the one hand we need more women contributing; on the other, we need fewer italians (frisoli really is enough). while i mull this over here are the requirements:
1. acknowledge that italy play a boring, uncreative form of football.
2. acknowledge that their unceremonious departure from the last world cup was richly deserved.
3. email me.
I hope that Arnab will distinguish between Italian football, and the football played by Italian players for Chelsea. Carvalho and Crespo are superb when playing for a Russian billionaire. But enough of sports.
I’m conflicted on the issue of ‘Rome.’ On the one hand, everything Arnab says is true. It is overly serious, the acting is stiff, the dialogue wooden, the credits sequence horrible, and the total absence of irony reminds me of why I hated ‘Lord of the Rings.’ How hard would it be to have one “Romanes eunt domum†sketch in a thirteen part series?
On the other hand, not only do I watch it every week, but if I miss it on Sunday, I find myself looking to find out when it repeats. Obviously one line of explanation would focus on my deficiencies, but I’d rather focus on the show. ‘Sopranos’ and ‘Deadwood’ are fundamentally about dialogue and character. ‘The Wire’ is character and plot. ‘Six Feet Under’ was character. In the case of Rome, there is something compelling about the plot that transcends the weak characters and non-existent dialogue. The two soldiers (Vorenus and Pullo) are also the strongest characters, and much of the everyday life of Rome is refracted through them (which is a strength of the program, as Li’l Pony points out).
I keep comparing it to ‘I, Claudius’, which I loved as a teenager, and which was widely heralded, and, like ‘Rome,’ dominated by Brits. That had better acting, but I’m not sure it was actually a better show.
Big Pussy, Wild Bill, Stringer Bell… and now Caesar? How can HBO get away with killing off major characters? I didn’t see Caesar’s death coming; he seemed like a keeper for season two of ‘Rome.’
The last couple of episodes were damn compelling–the ending, in particular, was very well structured. I’ll tune in again.
Maybe the murder of Caesar in the Senate will turn out to be a dream sequence, and he will be alive and well at the start of season two. Or he will keep appearing as a ghost to Brutus and Vorenus, offering advice and admonition. Perhaps there will be a talking fish.
Damn, March 2006 and the next season of ‘Sopranos’ seems like a long way away. Did ‘Carnivale’ get renewed for a third season? I wasn’t impressed with the first season and missed the second season while in England for the spring.
we finally watched the last two episodes on ondemand, and i agree that they may have been the best so far. don’t get me wrong, the show still makes me want to giggle, but these two episodes were a little less extravagant in their giggle-worthiness. will be interesting to see how the show fares without caesar (and ciaran hinds)–the one believably ambivalent character, and the only actor here who seems capable of nuance that isn’t signalled by some facial tic.
why so logocentric, arnab?
logo? who said anything about logos?
for complicated reasons i am watching the 1995 pride and prejudice mini-series, and was tickled to find that the reverend mr. collins is played by the same dude who plays cicero on rome.
chris, my condolences for chelsea’s loss yesterday. the red card was harsh but 2-1 barca was a just result. the second leg should be a corker. messi and ronaldinho are something but robben and gudjohnnsen aren’t slouches either.
What movies are you talking about Arnab, I don’t recognize any of these titles (Messi and Ronaldinho . . . sounds like a pungently malodorous liqueur).
Go Kevin Corvais . . . the meek shall inherit the earth.
My wife and Reynold’s, if I remember correctly, absolutely adore the 95 Pride and Prejudice. The subject of Colin Firth produces blushes and giggles. So you are in good company Arnab.
The guy who wrote that mini-series, Andrew Davies, is responsible for the current PBS adaptation of Bleak House. For complicated reasons–marriage–I have been watching that. The first two hours were pretty damn good, but the rest has settled into predictable PBS fare. Everything is so one-dimensional with Dickens. My wife keeps trying to figure out what motivates characters to do what they do but everything, in my mind, is clearly visible on the surface. There is no subtext. Speaking of . . . has anyone caught Roger Ebert huckstering the merits of Crash for the benefit of Academy members who have not yet made up their minds? He argues that Haggis is a contemporary Dickens and that Crash deserves to take home the Oscar. Makes me want to take back every decent word I’ve written about that film. Oh yeah and the Scientology angle makes me want to do the same.
What Scientology angle? Do people act like racists because of (gasp!) the aliens?
Haggis is a Scientologist. I’m just being religiously intolerant of thetans and their lot.
in that case, all we need to end racism is a lot of niacin.
clear!
Years later, this show came out on dvd, and Kris and I are watching. She, like Arnab, has this thing about seeing ’til the end, which threatened to be a concern — I got her watching, but I was having doubts. I liked the sex and violence, and the shameless goonery of so much of the action: my favorite bit was Titus Pullo, imprisoned early in episode one, carving a picture of a penis onto a bench. (We cut to him cutting, and see the picture, then we cut away. That I enjoyed. In fact, I enjoy the graffiti in all the episodes. “Attia Amat Omnes” scribbled outside her door, etc.)
But three episodes in I was having trouble giving a shit. I did/do like the depth of detail, but the plot and characters were dulling my senses… until episode 6, when (I noticed) Allen Coulter (who does so many Sopranos episodes) directed, and there was a noticeable uptick in the preservation of a narrative urgency. And some nice details, again with Pullo and Octavian (who, I agree with the Pony, is worth watching).
So for now I avoid the wrath of Kris by agreeing to watch another three episodes, but I worry that–like “Lost” and “Alias” before it–I’ll give up along the way and she’ll beat the crap out of me.
It does build nicely into the final three or four episodes (which are quite good), so you might as well stick it out.
catching up slowly with the new season of rome, courtesy hbo ondemand. two episodes in, i like this season quite a bit more than the first.
Me too. Less pomp, more dirt, lots more blood, and a slightly crazed Verenus make for a better season. The characters are still pretty one-dimensional, but the dialogue is often quite poetic, and the street politics is more prominent than in the first series. Cicero and Mark Anthony are excellent, esp. MA.
I agree but I had found the episodes a bit thin (it’s hard to compete with the death of Ceasar), but tonight’s episode was quite entertaining and set up some meaty conflicts to carry us to the end. The best ep thus far.
yes, the focus on street level politics is much better. and the actors generally seem far more comfortable in their roles. i do wish they’d slow the historical pace down and spend more time on daily life stuff. i want to know more about life on the aventium (?) etc..
james purefoy is very good indeed. the actor playing cicero is too but i can’t tell whether he’s channelling his earlier performance as the reverend mr. collins on pride and prejudice or whether i am. or perhaps, as per mike, the producers cast him knowing the audience would run his earlier role at a 75 degree angle to this one.
the show’s gender politics have improved as well. in the first season it bothered me that caesar’s assassination was turned into a case of a spurned woman getting revenge. but so far this season, the women and their politics are more interesting.
A damn fine ending to a series that left me wanting at least 12 more episodes (everything felt so compressed this season as if they needed to cram it all in before the creditors banged on the Cinecittà Studio doors). Still, good stuff. Guess, I need to go back and reread Antony and Cleopatra now.
ah, just when i was beginning to enjoy it. though frankly, the stuff i liked this season was all the sopranos: ancient rome stuff.