Hbo Rome and... BBC too

[Violentilla]

Thank you HBO for making my investment in Dish Network's High-Definition service pay off every week. It is far better quality technically than most in-theater films, and the camera operators really know how to use depth of field and lighting well. The 5.1 Dolby is very well done, but my wife complains that the sound effects shake the rafters at a volume we can barely hear the dialog.

 

 

I was watching some HBO female executive get an award for her work on original programming, and she said that she always tried to make TV shows that were worth paying for. I thought to myself, yep, that's about right.

 

It is very rare that the rest of the programming on HBO intrigues me, but the original serieses: Rome, Sopranos, Carnivale...that is why I keep paying that bill every month.

 

Was sex always without love and love subordinate to politics and expediency in Rome?

 

My first thought is the scene between Niobe and Vorenus, that was certainly a love scene. Besides, you cannot have romance without a Roman!

[Favonius Cornelius]

Besides, you cannot have romance without a Roman!

 

*claps*

[longbow]

Finally,got episode five and six downloading now,im sooo looking forward to watching them

[Violentilla]

In this week's episode, Niobe goes to town and gives prayer and offering to a heavy set priestess covered in red paint/blood? Is this the Magna Mater cult again, and if so, has anyone read where the priestess would accept offering in public like this?

 

 

 

I did finally find the account where they did the bull sacrifice in the first episode. Now that's good TV. :-)

 

 

Prudentius: The Taurobolion of Magna Mater

 

The high priestess who is to be consecrated is brought down under ground in a pit dug deep, marvellously adorned with a fillet, binding her festive temples with chaplets, her hair combed back under a golden crown, and wearing a silken toga caught up with Gabine girding. Over this they make a wooden floor with wide spaces, woven of planks with an open mesh; they then divide or bore the area and repeatedly pierce the wood with a pointed tool that it may appear full of small holes. Here a huge bull, fierce and shaggy in appearance, is led, bound with flowery garlands about its flanks, and with its horns sheathed---its forehead sparkles with gold, and the flash of metal plates colors its hair. Here, as is ordained, they pierce its breast with a sacred spear; the gaping wound emits a wave of hot blood, and the smoking river flows into the woven structure beneath it and surges wide. Then by the many paths of the thousand openings in the lattice the falling shower rains down a foul dew, which the priestess buried within catches, putting her head under all the drops. She throws back her face, she puts her cheeks in the way of the blood, she puts under it her ears and lips, she interposes her nostrils, she washes her very eyes with the fluid, nor does she even spare her throat but moistens her tongue, until she actually drinks the dark gore. Afterwards, the corpse, stiffening now that the blood has gone forth, is hauled off the lattice, and the priestess, horrible in appearance, comes forth, and shows her wet head, her hair heavy with blood, and her garments sodden with it. This woman, all hail and worship at a distance, because the ox's blood has washed her, and she is born again for eternity.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I guess the weird thing about how they adapted this is that they didn't understand that these priestesses were actually self-castrated men, and I'm sure that even though Atia is a rich woman, she probably couldn't make herself a priestess in a castrated cult, right?

 

And one more thing--wouldn't a sacrifice to Cybele/Magna Mater be a white animal? Only chthonic dieties received black animals.

[Skarr]

What I'm wondering is how did they find an actor to play that well endowed slave? And who was the person that gift wrapped it? Is that something you list on your acting resume?

 

Moonlapse, there would be no mention in the credits as this 'actor' did not have a speaking line, much like the guest appearance of Sean Penn in Ep1, where he will not get the credit, although everyone knows it was him, because of the close up.

 

The actor I believe is a well known adult performer in Europe (according to a poster in the HBO forum) and therefore, it is real (according to that post).

 

In any case, I think the scene was irrelevant in a way and maybe a little over the top. I guess it was an excuse to bring Octavia and Servilia together in a scene with Atia providing the necessary impetus. I guess this will set up a possible behind the scenes plot where Servilia will probably be allies (indirectly) with Atia, who is now against Antony, and therefore against Caesar and therefore, allied with Brutus, Cato, Cicero and the rest. As a writer, I can see where Atia and Servilia could bury their differences, united by a common hatred against Antony (Atia) and Caesar(Servilia, who should also be against Caesar's right hand man).

 

Interesting possibilities for future episodes. The men go to war and the ladies call a truce and unite against the men. I think there will be a twist to the plot against Caesar and HBO may deviate from the traditional view made famous by Shakespeare. Sure, it will be controversial but I wouldn't miss it for any reason.

[Violentilla]

The actor I believe is a well known adult performer in Europe (according to a poster in the HBO forum) and therefore, it is real (according to that post).

 

I actually wanted to post today that I watched the re-airing last night and I wanted to recant my previous assumption that it was fake. You can tell when he goes to walk away, the dangle is too real to be rubber, or else they've come a long way with prosthesis materials!

[Ursus]

Ok, guys, let's not get too carried away with this ... gifted actor. We do have people under 18 reading this stuff.

[Violentilla]

Did I say something out of line?

[Caesar's 10th]

I must say after just discovering, registering, and reading this forum I am glad there is something like it on the net. However, I have to ask...after all these posts, how many of you are actual historians? It seems most are or at least think they are, or they travelled back in time and witnessed this time period. Last I heard our viewpoints of history are nothing more than scholarly interpretation of primary sources which of course includes bias, personal idealogy, and thousands of other circustances and factors that distort what probably truely happened. So, it of course is wise to take the internet, university profs, books, articles, etc... etc.. about history lightly because viewpoints and interpretation changes and nobody knows exactly how anything occured. Even if you were there in 49 bc, your interpretation and writing of these events would be different than someone elses. Anyways, my point is take this show with a grain of salt. It is a bit like a good historical novel, which is just creating a good story out of or related to some things we believe to be historically accurate. Enjoy the show, forget the particulars, and for God's sake be openminded to the fact that you are probably wrong occasionally. This isn't meant to offend anyone really, just to open the eyes to some people who need to sit back and enjoy the show rather than getting worked up over historical correctness.

[Moonlapse]

Ok, guys, let's not get too carried away with this ... gifted actor. We do have people under 18 reading this stuff.

 

I'll take the blame for this, I couldn't help it. Most people were engaged in serious discussion, and I was tired of waiting for someone to mention it.

[Violentilla]

I must say after just discovering, registering, and reading this forum I am glad there is something like it on the net. However, I have to ask...after all these posts, how many of you are actual historians? It seems most are or at least think they are, or they travelled back in time and witnessed this time period. Last I heard our viewpoints of history are nothing more than scholarly interpretation of primary sources which of course includes bias, personal idealogy, and thousands of other circustances and factors that distort what probably truely happened. So, it of course is wise to take the internet, university profs, books, articles, etc... etc.. about history lightly because viewpoints and interpretation changes and nobody knows exactly how anything occured. Even if you were there in 49 bc, your interpretation and writing of these events would be different than someone elses. Anyways, my point is take this show with a grain of salt. It is a bit like a good historical novel, which is just creating a good story out of or related to some things we believe to be historically accurate. Enjoy the show, forget the particulars, and for God's sake be openminded to the fact that you are probably wrong occasionally. This isn't meant to offend anyone really, just to open the eyes to some people who need to sit back and enjoy the show rather than getting worked up over historical correctness.

 

 

Wow. Let me put it like this--I enjoy looking for the particulars, it keeps me sharp on my studies. I'm not pointing things out to appear learned or to gain points with anyone, I'm too old and too apathetic about what people think of me these days, LOL. I enjoy the show immensely, in fact my friends and I make a night of it, and we discuss things in the show other than history, believe me.

 

But more importantly, if you are baffled, amazed, distraught or put off by what people are saying in a forum, why bring attention to the fact? Wouldn't it be better to just join in the conversation, rather than belittle it?

 

I am no historian, just a lover of the study of Rome, and to that end, I like to look for the discrepancies, and perhaps even compare them with others who might also be interested. We learn more every day, and most of that by asking questions.

[Primus Pilus]

I must say after just discovering, registering, and reading this forum I am glad there is something like it on the net. However, I have to ask...after all these posts, how many of you are actual historians? It seems most are or at least think they are, or they travelled back in time and witnessed this time period. Last I heard our viewpoints of history are nothing more than scholarly interpretation of primary sources which of course includes bias, personal idealogy, and thousands of other circustances and factors that distort what probably truely happened. So, it of course is wise to take the internet, university profs, books, articles, etc... etc.. about history lightly because viewpoints and interpretation changes and nobody knows exactly how anything occured. Even if you were there in 49 bc, your interpretation and writing of these events would be different than someone elses. Anyways, my point is take this show with a grain of salt. It is a bit like a good historical novel, which is just creating a good story out of or related to some things we believe to be historically accurate. Enjoy the show, forget the particulars, and for God's sake be openminded to the fact that you are probably wrong occasionally. This isn't meant to offend anyone really, just to open the eyes to some people who need to sit back and enjoy the show rather than getting worked up over historical correctness.

 

Welcome to the forum Caesar's 10th...

 

I'm a little confused why you suggest we shouldn't discuss the show in a historical context. I have yet to see anyone in this thread who isn't open to changing views or impressions (I've personally been corrected on a thing or two in this thread). We offer a place to discuss history and that's what we do. To ignore the historical aspects of the show, as there are many things that are widely accepted and understood historical facts which the show sometimes presents accurately and sometimes not) would sort of defeat the purpose of this site.

[Plautus]

I have a question, which may be better placed in the Temple section, but I kept it here. In last weeks ROME, episode 6- Niobe was prostrate praying in front of an obese naked lady, smeared with red paint and seated in front of corner shrine. This was before Niobe and Virinius reconciled domestically. What was the fat lady supposed to be? A devotee of Juno or Vesta?

[Violentilla]

I have a question, which may be better placed in the Temple section, but I kept it here. In last weeks ROME, episode 6- Niobe was prostrate praying in front of an obese naked lady, smeared with red paint and seated in front of corner shrine. This was before Niobe and Virinius reconciled domestically. What was the fat lady supposed to be? A devotee of Juno or Vesta?

 

 

Probably a priestess of Magna Mater, read my post above, #109 for more.

[Ursus]

I have a question, which may be better placed in the Temple section, but I kept it here. In last weeks ROME, episode 6- Niobe was prostrate praying in front of an obese naked lady, smeared with red paint and seated in front of corner shrine. This was before Niobe and Virinius reconciled domestically. What was the fat lady supposed to be? A devotee of Juno or Vesta?

 

I haven''t seen any episodes yet, but I would assume it would be Magna Mater as Violentilla suggested. At the very least it had to be some Oriental deity. The cults of the Roman gods were too austere for what is described above.

 

The cult of Magna Mater came to Rome during the War with Hannibal. It was distinguished by its bizarre Oriental rituals, and Roman citizens were forbidden to participate in its orgies. It was run by foreigners from the East.

 

The Julian clan claimed descent from Aeneas, who was from the Phyrgian area where the cult originated. In Caesar's time and beyond the cult thus became legitimized among Romans. Maybe that is what was going on in the episode.