HBO's ROME

[Mark CMG]

Just a clarification -.

No need. It's not that your point wasn't understood. It's just that some of us disagree.

 

[zen_hydra]

I loved the show. My wife and I are both historians (by education, if not trade) and it was nice to see that a real effort had been made to keep close to historical accuracy. I would like to address a couple of issues some of the previous posters had with the show (e.g. "gratuitous" nudity and violence). Nearly constant spectacles of full and partial nudity are an accurate portrayal of the time and place that the Rome series is supposed to take place in. Most of the world (past and present) doesn't share the same sensibilities and hang-ups as Americans do. The climate and lack of social stigma facilitated open public nudity in Ancient Rome. To not portray that aspect of Roman life (for the sake of American prudishness) would be, in my opinion, both ridiculous and a false impression of what ancient Roman life was like. The ancient world (and for that matter a lot of the non-western, modern world) is a hard, cruel, brutish place to live. Life is extremely cheap. People are exposed to human death on a daily basis. There is little place for modern (western) ideals in a place like that. Anyway, that's my rant. I love the show. I can't wait to see more of it. It is shaping up to be, in my opinion, the best thing on television.

 

[Fast Learner]

For the record, they did have full frontal male nudity, in the form of the King of Gaul. It was just somewhat distant.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I'd love to have seen it but it's on friggin' HBO!

If it comes out on the regular cable, then, if I can remember about it, I may watch it...

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

I'll have to agree with Mark's analysis of the nude scene and conclude that perhaps you've missed the point.

I got the point, I just don't agree with it. I agree with Queen that the same message could have been addressed in different ways without reducing the impact. My opinion is that it was purely a crass ratings ploy.

Nearly constant spectacles of full and partial nudity are an accurate portrayal of the time and place that the Rome series is supposed to take place in. Most of the world (past and present) doesn't share the same sensibilities and hang-ups as Americans do. The climate and lack of social stigma facilitated open public nudity in Ancient Rome. To not portray that aspect of Roman life (for the sake of American prudishness) would be, in my opinion, both ridiculous and a false impression of what ancient Roman life was like.

In a way, you make my point for me. The camera work for Atia's nude scenes were driven for maximum exploitation of the titilation value. The very nature of the portrayal does not convey an air of nonchalance. Ask yourself if the focus of the bath scene was the conversation with Octavian or her nudity in the tub? If the emphasis had been on the conversation and the nudity incidental, there would have been no need for the reveal as she rises from the tub, followed by her beckoning motion.

It is also interesting that the other nude scenes contradict the idea that there is no stigma to public nudity, at least in the sense of being stripped. When the king of the Gauls bows to Caesar, or when Pompeii was "sampling" his bride-not-to-be, there was a very clear message of submission in the nudity.

Finally, even if the intent of the director was to show that Atia uses people, illustrating it with sex is a very modern affectation. It supposes a modern sensibility that there is something wrong with casual sex based on notions of romantic love that didn't exist in Roman times. I wonder if an ancient Roman would even get the supposed message.

 

[Wayside]

It supposes a modern sensibility that there is something wrong with casual sex based on notions of romantic love that didn't exist in Roman times.

This observation is based on what? Rome's lyric poets more or less invented "romantic love."

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) even if the intent of the director was to show that Atia uses people, illustrating it with sex is a very modern affectation.

Quite the opposite, and also the point you've been missing.

 

[Simplicity]

Rome seemed pretty accurate to me... but it was pretty boring. If you can take 5 years of Latin, know all the characters, and still be bored by the show, then it's got some problems.

Atia, Octavius, and the "buddy cops" were the highlights of the show. But they didn't bother to settle on main character(s), and no one got enough air time such that you'd give a damn about ANYONE. They should have started with a two-hour premiere.

As for the nudity... That's early Roman life. Romans used to laugh at the Christians for their prudishness. Now Europe laughs at America for it's prudishness. Did the show producers exploit that lack of a taboo? Maybe. That argument may hold for Atia's scene... But Octavia's scene? I don't think that was meant to titalate. So the scorecard's pretty even on that issue, I think.

I'll probably watch another show or two and see if it can grow... But so far... Ho hum.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, the early episodes are going to suffer a bit because they will be bringing some of the audience up to speed. Although, I find the writers using Octavius as a device a lot of fun.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

This observation is based on what? Rome's lyric poets more or less invented "romantic love."

Forgive me, I should have said "notions about romantic love." The concept of romantic love (as opposed to carnal love) is of course a very old concept. The Greeks had Eros and Agape. The point I was making was that it is Western Christian culture that intertwines marriage, sex, and romantic love as the expected combination. Prior to that, their coincidence would have been welcomed but not expected.

I don't think it is unfair to say that your typical, sexually conservative American would find Atia's behavior more shocking than a Roman (or even a modern day Italian, perhaps -- some cultures are more liberal than others) would.

This is starting to really drift off-topic. The point is that you CAN see some of what was in the show as exploitative or crass. Given some of HBO's other shows, it would certainly not be below their standards as a network.