M. Porcius Cato Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Also Grassus, who was part of the first Triumvirate, wasn't even given a mention. Having been killed in the Parthian expedition years before the events of the series even began, that's perfectly understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Second, the ceremony with Octavian rubbing sacrificial blood on Caesar's face is pure BS. They would have used some kind of dye or powder, not blood, which was traditionally spilled on the ground and on the altar, open to the sky, in the tradition established by Numa Pompilius. I said exactly the same thing at the time, Skarr - although not so eleoquently. As I remember, my comment ran along the lines of 'It was paint they smeared on the general's cheeks, you [snipped for underage people] idiots!' Well, paint, powder, dye - depending on which sources you read. I don't think we need argue here, Skarr - we are surely all of one mind that it was NOT blood! Finally, Vercingetorix was paraded in the triumph (the Gaul one). After that, he was taken back to the Carcer and subsequently, strangled in the Tullianum with no spectators as this is a hole in the ground through which prisoners were lowered for execution. Later, his body would have been dumped in the Tiber or the main sewer and not burnt in reverence by Gaulish slaves. I also took issue with a public garrotting (sp?) of Vercingetorix. But of course, HBO are not interested in historical facts and accuracy - they wish to provide spectacle. Hence, nasty bloodthirsty Romans smearing sacrificial blood all over Caesar (they no doubt thought they were being clever, using the symbolism), and then killing a gallant loser in front of a jeering mob. It's all very Hollywood Romans. Also: Why didn't we have the breaking of the chariot axel? Wasn't that during the Gallic triumph? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the axel broke and he had to climb the Capitol on hands and knees. I'm sure Michael Grant reminded me of this some years ago Also Grassus, who was part of the first Triumvirate, wasn't even given a mention. Having been killed in the Parthian expedition years before the events of the series even began, that's perfectly understandable. To be fair, Cato, Crassus' death only took place one year before the start of the Series - it begins in 52BC. But havig said that, perhaps so recent a disaster as Carrhae and the death of another main player in the late Republic could have merited some mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 But of course, HBO are not interested in historical facts and accuracy - they wish to provide spectacle. Hence, nasty bloodthirsty Romans smearing sacrificial blood all over Caesar (they no doubt thought they were being clever, using the symbolism), and then killing a gallant loser in front of a jeering mob. It's all very Hollywood Romans. That's not fair. So far, this series has paid more attention to historical accuracy than most any previous original screenplay. I'd also add that the series--while paid for with American dollars--was not produced by Hollywood: the writers, consultants, cast, and crew are overwhelmingly British and Italian. Granted that there are some licenses taken, that's par for the course. Even on the claustrophobic sound sets of "I, Claudius" (which I loved btw), we were treated to a Caligula that was far more Elagabolous than the son of Germanicus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 But of course, HBO are not interested in historical facts and accuracy - they wish to provide spectacle. Hence, nasty bloodthirsty Romans smearing sacrificial blood all over Caesar (they no doubt thought they were being clever, using the symbolism), and then killing a gallant loser in front of a jeering mob. It's all very Hollywood Romans. That's not fair. So far, this series has paid more attention to historical accuracy than most any previous original screenplay. I'd also add that the series--while paid for with American dollars--was not produced by Hollywood: the writers, consultants, cast, and crew are overwhelmingly British and Italian. Granted that there are some licenses taken, that's par for the course. Even on the claustrophobic sound sets of "I, Claudius" (which I loved btw), we were treated to a Caligula that was far more Elagabolous than the son of Germanicus. Cato - I should clarify: When I say 'Hollywood' Romans, I am using it as a generic term, rather than a purely American one. Would celluloid Romans be more in order? It's an expression we use over here for any sort of lavish, huge budget production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 The DVD extras (season 1) make it plain that the producers acknowledge th e"modernity " of the storytelling , but...the physical world created for the action is as authentic as they could strive for , and if not authentic in fact they hoped to achieve veracity "in spirit". The sprawl of the story , and the need for the "small scale " figures of Vorennus and Pullo as narrative continuity and identifiable heroes has meant an elbowing out of some rather large personalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.