teevee: Rome

[anotheranon]

I know I'm very late coming to the game, but I'm finally seeing HBO's Rome for the first time and am quite enjoying it.

For those even later to the game than I am - it's a historical drama that takes place in Rome after the Gallic War and covers the political/martial machinations between Caesar (military) and Pompey (Senate). A lot of the action is seen through the eyes of two of Caesar's soldiers.

The "making of" feature suggests that this series is what happens when hardcore historians are given a budget - my surface impression is that sets, costumes, social/mores, religion, etc. were researched to within an inch of their lives and presented as accurately as possible, with all the sex, violence, and gore that suggests. Even the two soldiers are based on people mentioned in a historical account of the Gallic Wars. If this is true (and I have my doubts, see below), I have to ask - why aren't more historical movies/tv shows as thorough and good as this? Is it funding, or just skimping on the details to appeal to a wider audience?

But, I'm no expert on Roman history so I'm throwing the question out there (aimed particularly at wcg, but anyone who knows feel free to pitch in): are they getting this right? How much creative license are they taking? I'm particularly curious about the role of women, as Atia and the other female characters seem to have a lot more autonomy/freedom of movement than my high-school level "history of the Roman Empire" suggested.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Huh boy...

First, a disclaimer. I've never seen an episode of Rome, so everything I'm going to say about it is based on conversations we've had in Nova Roma. That said...

Rome is historically accurate in the same way that Braveheart was historically accurate. Lots of details are authentic, but the big picture has been twisted. The producers sometimes sacrifice historical accuracy on the altar of modern understanding. They're too often giving modern motivations to people who were motivated by very different things.

One of our senators is a Hollywood consultant, and he regularly tears his hair out about something done in an episode. He consulted on Gladiator, and was disappointed by Ridley Scott making compromises to appeal to the modern audience. But according to him Ridley Scott's sins were nowhere near as egregious.

[majzan.livejournal.com]

Would you say its worth to invest in then? Personally I love this kind of movies and series, the roman empiere is so thrilling...

[timcharmorbien.livejournal.com]

I doubt that it's completely historically accurate, but I really liked the series - - the only reason I regret getting rid of HBO! :)

I just love Atia, she's so EVIL and has no idea she's being anything but pragmatic. And Pullo is just interesting - - .

[semmie17.livejournal.com]

The freedom of a roman woman depended on her social class, and on who her husband was. If she was from a noble "citizen" class, and her husband was as well, then she could get away with a lot of things (like celebrities such as Paris Hilton do today). She could do things mostly because the menfolk were there to defend her -- and because she'd inherited a lot of property/money. The lower down in social ranking you were, the less freedom you had.

Most of the writers who discussed Roman women were from the lower classes, and as such had a view of women that was very restricted and/or misogynistic (Ovid comes to mind). But if you read the few writers from the upper classes (Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius etc.) or young men who had broken into the upper classes (Cicero), you can see a healthy respect for the power of a matriarch.