I'm Back

So updates have been scarce recently. Lot's of reasons for that, but my time-table for testing TMGS is still on track. I'm working through a couple remaining issues from one of Luke's comments that required some reorganizing of a few dialogs, but progress is steady, if slow. I do think the end result will be better.

Caribbean Cruise
So my wife and I went on our first ocean-going cruise this past week. There was some good and some bad to it. Overall, I wasn't real thrilled with the lack of flexibility and the comparatively small amount of time in the countries we visited, but having the hotel essentially move with you is nice. We spent a couple days in Mexico, one in Belize, and one in Guatemala - very different from our other trips. We got to see a few Mayan ruins and zipline through some rain forests. Pictures included.

Our next trip is shaping up, and we're pretty much 100% set on spending a week on our own driving through Ireland. Should be fun with that whole left-side-of-the-road thing. Be scared, ye Irishmen and women.

So as we're going to be free-form and the itinerary is currently wide open, I'll put it out for the faithful readers who are either Irish nationals or familiar with the country. Is there anything that is considered a "must-see" in the country? This could be either a city or a specific site. Hopefully, we'll find some really great things that aren't necessarily in the guide books. We'll obviously fly in and out of Dublin, but anything else is open.

Cleopatra and Antony
One of my big reads during the cruise was Cleopatra and Antony by Diana Preston. I won't review the book here, but it was one of my selections following my viewing of the second season of Rome. It did a great job of filling in the gaps in the very fast-paced narrative of the final episodes and made several of the scenes make more sense. It also confirmed the number of small details that the TV series included that were absolutely true. (For example, Antony really did challenge Octavian to individual combat after his defeat at Actium.) I'm still going to read a few other books before I settle on my opinion of the depiction of the Egyptian court.

Overall, it was a very easy read for anyone interested in the period. In other words, it was written for the general enthusiast as opposed to a scholar.

Rome, Season 2

While I'm awaiting comments from my alpha-testers, I'll review the second season of HBO's Rome, which I recently completed. As I wrote in my review of the first season, the series is a mixed bad with some bad and a lot of good. Overall, I would recommend it to any who are interested in this period of history.

The second season begins within minutes of where the first season left off with Julius Caesar's body still warm on the floor of the Roman Senate, and the ten episodes take us through the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra and the final triumph of Octavian, a span of about 17 years.

Rereading my review of the first season, most of my comments still fit. The series is still magnificently shot with lavish sets and a grand scale, though not too grand. The DVD commentary makes it clear that they didn't show Caesar's funeral or any battles because keeping true to their vision was simply out of the budget. Therefore, they chose to cover the events by having the characters simply talk about them in a number of ways, often by montaging several conversations together in a quick succession of scenes. This isn't a criticism; if the money truly wasn't there, then it's an approach I agree with. I was especially impressed by some of the directorial decisions by John Maybury, who directed episodes five and ten. His use of overhead shots and the first person depiction of Antony's drug-induced haze in episode ten made his episodes stand out in a good way.

As an aside, the Egyptian court is shown as one of complete decadence with near continual orgies and copious drug use. In fact, the commentary for episode 10 even admitted that they hired actual porn stars to play the extras in most of the Egyptian scenes. I'm not remotely qualified to comment on the accuracy of the portrayal, and the commentary leaves little doubt that the writers did much research, but in my case the series did what it was supposed to. It intrigued me enough that I have already picked out several books on the subject and will be receiving my shipment from Amazon shortly. Whether it's accurate or not, it was compelling and made interesting viewing.

Several performances are noteworthy. I wasn't fond of James Purefoy's Mark Antony in season one, although I appreciated the character's depiction. Indeed, Antony is shown as little more than a "strong man," essentially a thug enamored only with sex and violence and, though he engages in the political process, he is mostly unable to appreciate the nuances and instead opts to kill those who oppose him. For the most part, the depiction holds true this season as well, although I came to admire Purefoy's acting a bit more. His final scenes in episode ten run the gamut of anger to overwhelming grief to false bravado to drugged-out lethargy. The entire performance runs dangerously close to ham territory without ever going over the top. Instead, it all works as an extension of a man who is utterly incapable of keeping his emotions and base desires under control, a trait that ultimately proves his downfall when pitted against the seemingly emotionless and ruthless Octavian. As an aside, listening to Purefoy's commentary of episode nine was a real treat, and it showed that the actor had a keen grip on the history and how he was trying to portray it in his performance.

The two "average joes," Pullo and Vorenus, played by Ray Stevenson and Kevin McKidd, respectively, gave solid performances and didn't seem to be quite in the center of the political whirlwind as much as they were in the first season, probably because they were given their own independent storyline of trying to gain and maintain control over the gangs of the Aventine that only tangentially involved the major political figures... although Vorenus did predictably get to share Antony's last night on Earth with him and ended up being the one to hold the sword on which he committed suicide. Anyway, these two really are strong actors and end up giving a nice double act for the bulk of the series. Given their storylines, which are often more reminiscent of a soap opera than a period drama, both get to run the gamut of emotions, and both do so very well. McKidd does an exceptionally good job of portraying a father who knows his relationship with his children isn't right but doesn't know how to fix it. The awkwardness, missed moments, and frustration and final devastation when he realizes he's been betrayed by them can all be seen poignantly written onto his face. Stevenson's instant turn from grieving lover to cold-blooded killer at the end of episode nine is his moment that stands out for me. The ease with which his tears turn to a look of seething rage as his hands clasp around Gaia's neck is chilling indeed.

I can't go far in my discussion of performances without mentioning my favorite from season one, Max Pirkis as Octavian. Unfortunately, Pirkis gets little air time, for by episode four, the narrative is fast-forwarded several years and the part is recast with Simon Woods portraying the older, wiser, and colder version. As I noted before, Pirkis always portrayed Octavian as a bit emotionless with ruthless streak that bubbled just under the surface, but Woods takes it to a whole new level. In his portrayal, those trait have completely overwhelmed the character to the exclusion of virtually anything else. There is barely a scene in which the new Octavian does anything short of stare intently at his target and speak in a monotone. Even his one explicit sex scene, he simply stared at his wife with the same look and went through the motions with the same intense emotionless demeanor. Frankly, though I enjoy the depiction of Octavian as supremely competent, it was a bit too one-note for my tastes.

The recasting of Octavian really highlites the second season's primary weakness: namely the wildly uneven pacing. There is a good reason for this. The second season was originally meant to bring the narrative up through the defeat of the republicans led by Brutus and Cassius. The third season was to center on Egypt and end with the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra. However, halfway through the second season, the crew learned the series was being canceled, and so they quickly wrapped the story up.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the "progression" of Antony and Cleopatra's love. In episode 2 when Cleopatra comes to Rome, the two clearly don't like each other. At the end of episode 8, Antony still professes his love for Atia before being banished to Alexandria. By the opening of episode 9, however, Antony and Cleopatra have already been lovers for some time. By the middle of episode 10, they are committing suicide together. After slowly building up Antony and Atia's affair for a season and a half, we're suddenly told to just accept that Cleopatra is the love of Antony's life, and we're never told how two people who originally loathed each other came to fall in love. It's understandable given the behind-the-scenes circumstances, but it nevertheless weakens the series.

I'm also left wondering why the second season only had 10 episodes while the first one had 12. Perhaps it was cost again; as they were planning a third season, it certainly wasn't because of a lack of something to write. I have to believe that another two episodes would have greatly helped the pacing of the final part of the season, although it still wouldn't have been perfect.

One characterization that does progress nicely is the afore-mentioned Atia's. In my season 1 review, I mentioned that Polly Walker succeeded in playing the somewhat-likable bitch fairly well. In series two, she still displays that side, but many more facets come out. In the wake of Caesar's assassination, she is clearly worried over what will become of her now that her great protector is gone. Desperately she clings to Mark Antony, her "sex buddy" who becomes the de facto lead of the Caesarian party. Even when her son, Octavian, is formally named Caesar's heir, she dismisses him as incapable and does what she can to bolster Antony instead.

By the time Antony and Octavian come to blows, she is clearly falling for Antony beyond what political prudence dictates. She eagerly agrees to be Octavian's envoy to Antony in a bid to seal their alliance against Brutus and Cassius. Later, when Octavian suggests a marriage between their two houses, she happily chatters away about wedding plans, assuming she will be the one Octavian chooses. She is devastated in Alexandria when Antony refuses to see her, and her grief at the news of Antony's death is palpable, even as she puts on a brave face. The tears just beginning to well up in her eyes in the final scenes as she attends Octavian's triumph during which a likeness of Antony is paraded around to jeers from the crowd is perhaps the most emotional scene of the entire two seasons.

In the commentary for episode 10, the creator of Rome, Bruno Heller, stated that he considered the series to be in many ways Atia's journey, and after thinking about it for a while, I agree that hers is one of the most important. The one-time scheming bitch has gotten her fondest desires: her rival, Servilia, and Servilia's son, Brutus, are both dead, her son has attained the preeminent position in Rome, and she stands as one of the city's richest and influential citizens... and yet, she can't enjoy her triumph because of the steep price she has paid for it. The old proverb "be careful what you wish for" has come true. Overall, Polly Walker does such an outstanding job of bringing a sense of pathos to the role that she simply must get the standout performance of this season.

It's really a shame that the HBO brass ended up canceling the series before a third series could be made. I can only regret what might have been had they allowed the show to progress naturally. As it stands, season 2 - and Rome in general - is a fun, if flawed, adventure that should please anyone interested in the period and even many who are not.

Hail, Rome!

I've recently concluded the first season of the joint HBO/BBC dramatic series Rome, which takes the viewer from the closing years of the First Triumvirate (around 54 BC) to the assassination of Julius Caesar (44 BC). Overall, I would recommend the series to those who are interested in the period, but I must say it was a bit of a mixed bag.

The events depicted are reasonably well-known, at least in their barest form, but the nuances are the subject of much debate. The primary reason for this is, of course, that there are so few surviving accounts. However, it is also a story that in many ways is more applicable to today than even the intervening medieval period, making it more difficult for people to not project current events into the backdrop of history. Relatively few powerful monarchies still exist today, and certainly not in the Western world, but Rome is the story of the transformation of a republic into an empire. Before modern times, Rome was the last republic, and its death became a cautionary tale that led political theorists to espouse the futility of such governments for centuries.

At the most cynical, Rome - and Athens before it - show that in times of great turmoil, the masses will willingly vote away their freedoms to any demagogue who can spout enough empty rhetoric about "bread and circuses" to satisfy them. The most obvious example, Alcibiades, is actually from Athens, but one could argue that Caesar, Mark Antony, Pompey, and so forth would also fit. In fact, the series itself articulates such a position, mostly from the senators who quickly conspire to kill Caesar in a bid to save the Republic, but also from the more cynical patricians who seek to use this theory to consolidate their own power.

But on to the actual series. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first. The amount of money reportedly spent on the production was immense - large enough to actually be the reason for season 3's cancellation - and it shows. One of the DVD extras shows the massive sets that were constructed for the series. They claimed the set for the Roman forum was something like half the size of the actual forum, and this was just a single set! Hundreds of extras were on hand for the various parade scenes, and the costumes, of which there were literally tens of thousands, are both lavish and colorful. As can be seen in the first picture, the series certainly could bring on the spectacle when called for.

However, as I concluded the series, I couldn't help but think something was a little off. It took me a while, but I think I've finally figured out what. Rome tries to tell two stories. First, it depicts the great political events of the age. Second, it attempts to show life in ancient Rome at the street level. In the first, we have the expected cast of characters: Caesar, Brutus, Octavian, Pompey, etc. The second is mostly told through the eyes of two legionaries, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, and their families. While either is a legitimate approach individually, trying to mesh both into one series leads to an uneven narrative.

The writers seek to get around this by using an especially galling method that, sadly, is not unique to this series. Specifically, the two legionaries are constantly woven into the first story as well as their own, thereby unifying the two lines. What this results in is a totally implausible series of events in which two normal joes essentially have the most fantastic life imaginable, always seeming to be at the center of the great events of the day. The most ludicrous example is the time when both men are shipwrecked en route to Greece, only to wash up on shore at the exact point where the retreating Magnus Pompey is camping for the night. The two legionaries share a meal with him over the campfire, where he tells them of his defeat at the hands of Caesar. This is right before Pompey meets his maker in Egypt. Of course, the two arrive there shortly thereafter as well, at which point Julius Caesar naturally chooses them to go on a daring raid to rescue Cleopatra. Got all that? Well, that was what they did in only two of the twelve episodes. They did much more in the other ten. Vorenus even gets appointed to the Roman Senate. No joke. This was funny in Forest Gump, as that movie made a big joke of it all, but it's outright annoying here.

Otherwise, I thought the series was quite good. The acting was generally top-notch. Polly Walker goes over the top as Atia of the Julii, playing an absolute raving bitch that somehow is likeable. Perhaps it's the absolute delight she takes in getting into the mud, perhaps it's that she says things that I'd like to say, or maybe it's just that she's hot. Some of her one-liners are literally roll-on-the-floor funny, such as when she sends a gift of a particularly well-endowed slave to a rival. Her daughter asks her why the rival would even want such a gift, to which she casually replies, "well, who wouldn't want another large penis?" In another scene, she forces her son, Octavian, to eat goat testicles, giving him the simple rationale that "it will put oak in your penis." Yes, there's a lot of penis jokes I guess...

Who else? Lindsay Duncan puts in a nuanced performance as Servilia. Starting out as elegant and regal, she slowly becomes cold and calculating as others around her continually force her hand. I must say my wife pointed out far before I recognized it that Servilia had become quite the bitch on her own, and it wasn't because she had guessed the plot. She pointed out certain looks and actions that gave it away... "No, you're imagining things," I told her. It turned out I was wrong, so I'm guessing it might be the type of performance that women "get" and dudes are surprised by. Or maybe I'm horrible at noticing this stuff...

Ciarán Hinds should also get a nod, as he is wonderfully understated as Julius Caesar. For once, the military hero is portrayed first as a statesman and only second as a general, making it an unusual portrayal. One can almost see how people would be suckered in by him: in public, he is the image of peace and reconcilliation, extending the hand of friendship to former enemies such as Brutus and Pompey. On the other hand, he coldly and calmly orders the assassination of his critics and allows trusted (and innocent) allies to go to gruesome execution merely to uphold his public image.

I should also mention that, while I'm not particularly enamored of the performance, James Purefoy's Mark Antony is interesting in that he is shown as his own man rather than simply the henchman of Julius Caesar. He has his own plots brewing, seeks always to acquire his own men loyal first to him, and even flirts with betraying Caesar when it might benefit him. It's a different take on an old character.

However, the most interesting performance of the entire show is given by perhaps its youngest regular: Max Pirkis as Octavian. In other shows, such as the wretched Empire miniseries from a few years back, Octavian is always shown as a weakling that somehow turns into a great leader through some unknown epiphany (magic?). It is well-established that Octavian was not the military man his uncle was, but I've never been satisfied with the ubiquitous depicition of him as a pansy-ass up until he became great. Thankfully, Max Pirkis chose to play him as a philospher-poet on the one hand, but with a keen eye for politics and an understated-but-very-real brutal streak on the other. It is often he that first determines the true nature of the political game, many times warning those around him of the impending pitfulls (though he's mostly ignored by the "grown-ups'). When Titus Pullo, who has been hired to teach him the art of fighting (I said these two goons got around, didn't I?), suspects Vorenus' wife of having a baby by another man, he goes to Octavian for advice. Octavian wisely counsels public discretion but to gather more information behind-the-scenes. His method for doing this? Kidnap the other man, take him to the sewers, and torture him until he confesses to fathering the child. When he has elicited the confession, he calmly orders Titus to kill him and throw him into the filth so that the body is never found. This then, is the makings of a man who will one day rule an empire!

OK, so I've probably written enough. In light of my last blog post, potential viewers should know that there is sex in the series, and it's of a more graphic nature than The Tudors, though most of it is done in the first two episodes. I guess HBO had to cynically suck people in before they started telling the actual story, so be cautious with the kiddies. Second, there are some historical inaccuracies. Actually, some of them are major and unexplainable, such as the subplot of incest between Octavian and his sister. The typical timeline expansion and contraction is back again, and of course, almost anything that happens with the Vorenus and Pullo is fake. But the general outline of the big events seems solid enough.

So overall I'd recommend the series. It's good enough entertainment and educational to boot. As soon as I have Tudors season 2 out of the way, I'll have to move on the second season of this one.