BBC Ancient Rome: New Docudrama's

[spittle]

Quote "Still, they did very good considering the budget and time they had to do the series. Plus you have to admit, it is probably the most accurate depiction of Ancient Rome ever attempted by a documentary series or Film for that matter".

 

 

More accurate than HBO's Rome, D.Caesar?

 

On the subject of these docudrama's:

There are three remaining. Next weeks episode depicts the power struggle that followed the death of NERO and I remember that another of the episodes concerns itself with Constantine the Great.

 

That leaves one final episode. Does anyone know who's story it regards?

 

1. NERO

2. CAESAR

3. TIBERIUS GRACCHUS

4. AFTERMATH OF NERO (AD69)

5. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

6. ???????

 

I would expect a fall of Rome finishing episode.

Edited October 8, 2006 by spittle

[DecimusCaesar]

On the subject of these docudrama's:

There are three remaining. Next weeks episode depicts the power struggle that followed the death of NERO and I remember that another of the episodes concerns itself with Constantine the Great.

 

That leaves one final episode. Does anyone know who's story it regards?

 

1. NERO

2. CAESAR

3. TIBERIUS GRACCHUS

4. AFTERMATH OF NERO (AD69)

5. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

6. ???????

 

I would expect a fall of Rome finishing episode

 

You would be right Spittle, the last episode is about the fall of Rome. I wonder how they will cover it. Come to think of it, will they place the Fall of Rome as Alaric's sacking of the city? or Gaiseric's? or Romulus Augustulus's surrender to Odoacer?

 

More accurate than HBO's Rome, D.Caesar?

 

I didn't think of Rome as it also contains a fictionalised storyline involving Vorenus, Pullo, the families of the main characters as well as some other charcters that have been thought up by the series creator. It might be the most accurate depiction of Rome as an 'Entertainment' program but it strays off the path of accuracy more often than the 'Ancient Rome' documentary.

[Pertinax]

An ominous silence descends after the latest offering-has everyone reached for the off switch? Last night was AD 69 - we saw a fast take on the Jewish Revolt , we certainly didnt see any of the competing Emperors save Vespasian .Nor did we see any action outside of the Jewish Revolt. It would probably have been better called "Josephus-His Inner Turmoil" .

Costumes were good , I saw a great admixture of various helmet and lorica styles -anyone care to give their thoughts on the tech side?

Again too much ground covered too quickly, id have to saty though that if you knew little of the Revolt this episode would at least spark your curiosity. It didnt tell us much (anything) about the struggle for the Purple.

[phil25]

I saw bits but watched "Extras".

 

I'll buy the dvd and do a closer analysis then.

 

But I had always seen Vespasian as a somewhat provincial but very astute man with a sort of "down to earth" practicality. Peter firth played him pretty much as he does the Head of MI5 in "Spooks". (The chap who played Agrippa in I Claudius years ago, comes closest to how I see Vespasian.

 

I thought the BBC programme made much to much of him not being "posh" unlike the Julii. In political terms he was not that unsuccessful even before "69".

 

Where the so-called historical advice has been in this series, I cannot say. It is no more authentic, reflects current academic thinking and evidence, or takes a new and less sensational line than half a hundred previous series or History Channel documentaries. ROME was far superior in my opinion, as it actually tried 9even with some glaring but deliberate anachronisms and parallels, to immerse one in the "feel" of ancient Rome.

 

This series is frankly baby food for the tasteless.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

Well so far, its a more or less total thumbs down for the whole series. If some of the lead roles had had even a little spark (or depth) to them it might have helped. Even the bit parts were well observed in "Rome".

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I too watched 'Extras'................"Is he avin a laugh??" haha very funny!

 

As for the BBC's Ancient Rome which i recorded and watched later, i thought it was ok this week, again it was all a bit rushed and not enough info on the other events during that period, although in its defence this episode was called 'rebellion' and not 'Vespasian' or 'The year of the four emperors' so they had every right to just concentrate on the Jewish rebellion, which i thought they did a pretty good job of.(all be it a bit rushed)

I think one thing they can be commended on is the accuracy of the costumes, over the past four episodes the one thing that has seemed to be spot on has been the armour and weaponary of the soldiers, it all fits in well with the battle dress of each particular era

[DecimusCaesar]

I thought it was alright but not the best episode that's been yet. It's true what Pertinax and GPM said about the episode being all about Josephus, what with 'the Year of the Four Emperors' being rushed over pretty quickly and Vespasian then dissapearing to Rome half way through the episode.

The costumes were all round pretty good, with Romans in their lorica Segmentata, Imperial Type helmets and rectangualr scutum, although I did see some of the old props including some Montefortino helmets from Republican times in there as well.

The low budget was more evident in this episode than in the others, probably due to the fact that the vast majority of the episode was devoted to fighting. Lacking in 'Rome' sets, Jerusalem looked a little bit too CGI as did some other stuff such as the arrows flying into the Roman shields and the smoke billowing out of the temple.

 

I see that next week's Constantine episode is going down an untrodden road with a fairly accurate depiction of fourth century Rome with men in trousers and shirts, Limitanei and Comitatenses and so on, so hopefully the next one will be worth seeing.

[spittle]

Why has TV been so 'dumbed down'?

This ANCIENT ROME series is really just an introduction for absolute beginners who will remain absolute beginners. If you uinderstand me.

 

In 1968 Granada TV made THE CAESARS which was mostly dialogue and usually had a maximum of seven actors in any one scene. A few of the Senate scenes or Germanicus' Legion scenes had multiple extra's but they were the exceptions. And it was FANTASTIC! I'm yet to see I,CLAUDIUS but imagine a similar intelligent script and lack of high budget/SFX 'wizardry'.

 

When did the average viewer become so stupid that 20 minutes of dialogue meant the death of a TV show?

[Pertinax]

Why has TV been so 'dumbed down'?

This ANCIENT ROME series is really just an introduction for absolute beginners who will remain absolute beginners. If you uinderstand me.

 

In 1968 Granada TV made THE CAESARS which was mostly dialogue and usually had a maximum of seven actors in any one scene. A few of the Senate scenes or Germanicus' Legion scenes had multiple extra's but they were the exceptions. And it was FANTASTIC! I'm yet to see I,CLAUDIUS but imagine a similar intelligent script and lack of high budget/SFX 'wizardry'.

 

When did the average viewer become so stupid that 20 minutes of dialogue meant the death of a TV show?

 

"The Caesars" still looks good today , with time I think it now looks like a pinnacle of excellence.It doesnt look dated (even though in black and white), and the scripting is intelligent.

[spittle]

When I first started to watch it I was a little distracted by the grainy film and inexpensive sets but it didn't take long for the sheer excellence of the script to make all these minor differences fade away.

 

You can almost see Tiberius' mind working. Like a chess player he was constantly anticipating the possible outcomes of his every decision.

 

I would love to see it remade in colour with todays top theatre actors. I'm thinking of Ian Holme and Ian McKellen. Helen Mirren would be a great Agrippina and Jeremy Irons for Tiberius.

[DecimusCaesar]

This ANCIENT ROME series is really just an introduction for absolute beginners who will remain absolute beginners. If you uinderstand me.

 

There's some truth to what Spittle says. I read a review of the book of the series recently and the reviewer praised it as an excellent overview of Roman history especially for those who have no prior knowledge of the period or had any intention of reading up more about the Romans. The same could be said about the series...

 

I have never seen a 100% accurate portrayl of Rome in any documentary, film or Television epic and I never will. Although this series plays loosley with history, I do think that it does a good job with it's short budget and short running time (1 hour). Perhaps if the episodes ran for more than this then we would get a more accurate and detailed depiction of events. As such we have to make do with some events and characters being omitted or altered to fill in the time and to make it flow smoothly. Each documentary would have to run for several hours to get a detailed view of each period and no television studio would dare do that (too costly, plus they have other shows to air).

 

One thing I will give 'Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire' is that it is the only TV documentary that has attempted to show that Rome was not a static culture, and that it remained the same for centuries. Instead they have attempted to show a Rome which had changing fashions, politics, architecture, religion and attitudes. I Don't think I've ever seen a show that has bothered tackling the era of 'Tiberius Gracchus' in a fairly accurate way or one that has bothered to depict AD 4-5th century Rome in a realistic manner other than this documentary. This show would be much better if they got rid of the statements at the beginning of each program stating that the events and characters are portrayed in a accurate way. Most people will believe therefore that events actually took place like this, instead they should warn the viewers that the events portrayed are an 'interpretation' of the historians and it's not 100% realistic.

 

Even so, without any other documentary about Ancient Rome reaching the standards of this series, I will have to say that despite it's numerous inaccuracies and low budget it is probably the most realistic depiction of the Roman era aired yet. Perhaps when another documentary or film about the period is aired in the future and is even more inaccurate than 'Ancient Rome', we will begin to see this series' virtues.

Compared to Gladiator, Spartacus, Attila etc and the countless documentaries aired on the Discovery or History channel which declare that "Julius Caesar conquered Britain" and that his Gallic War was launched as "revenge for the sacking of Rome in 390 BC" or that "Caligula was an nasty, evil, mad Emperor who wanted to decimate Rome" we begin to see that 'Ancient Rome' is head and shoulders above them.

[phil25]

...we begin to see that 'Ancient Rome' is head and shoulders above them.

 

Well, if we are talking of dwarves, maybe.

 

I think my real gripe is that I'd like to see TV series like this (and the financial investment involved) tacklingreassessment rather than simply re-statement.

 

I think what made, and makes Mackie's The Caesars so fresh, is that it does not simply rest on Suetonius, or Tacitus, but looks intelligently at the politics of the period. (This was, after all, the era of Troubleshooters and The Power Game. which sought to dramatise the politics of the boardroom). Tiberius, Sejanus etc are seen as modern politicians rather than cardboard stereotypes in costume.

 

I Claudius interpreted the same period through the lens of Graves, but added the idea of the (post Godfather) gangster family. It was arch and witty and camp and rejoiced in all the then fashionable opportunity to do blood and nudity on UK TV. (The Borgias, some may recall, tried to do the same thing and sank without trace!)

 

In my view, ROME succeeds for similar reasons - it tries to say "what would the experience of living in Rome in the 50s/40s BC have been like - so it doesn't do it in a faux-authentic way, it uses analogy - the souks of the Arab world; the bazaars of India - and says, these characters must have eaten, partied, had sex and relationships, just as we do. It largely suceeds while staying relatively close to history - but it has a captivating plot and narrative device (the soldiers P&V) which also draws you in. Like the two previous series the writing is good. I hope the second series has the same control and standards and doesn't say - "hey series one sold on the sex and violence, so let's give 'em more of that, hang the plot, politics and character!!"

 

Where the current docudrama fails in my opinion is that it is neither fish nor fowl - the dramatisation demands simplification and action; the documentary demands they claim authenticity, the budget goes on FX.

 

That the costumes and design is the best bit doesn't surprise me at all. I have found in many keenly anticipated by ultimately disappointing TV series, that the research and those aspects are first rate. The 1988 Michael Caine "Jack the Ripper" is a case in point. (In that mini-series, at one point, the actor playing Chief Commissioner Warren actually wore the real Warren's full dress jacket!!) I think the thing is that the research is done well and EARLY, at a time when the intention is still to be as authentic as possible. It is only as the script develops, actors are cast and the director develops the series that it is broadened and cheapened to give it appeal.

 

TV has become less elitist and more populist with the decades. To give one example well away from ancient Rome.

 

The second episode of the 1964 BBC series "The Great War" opens with the funeral of the assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Michael Redgrave, as narrator, intones "Bury the Archduke with an empire's lamentation, Bury the Archduke to the noise of the mourning of a mighty nation..." There is no explanation that the words are Tennysons and relate to the funeral of Wellington. It is left to the audience to recognise the source and the fact that the words have been changed to refer to an Archduke rather than a Duke...

 

Does anyone believe that that would be done today, or that an audience could be assumed to have such knowledge? Frankly, I think not.

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

That the costumes and design is the best bit doesn't surprise me at all. I have found in many keenly anticipated by ultimately disappointing TV series, that the research and those aspects are first rate. The 1988 Michael Caine "Jack the Ripper" is a case in point. (In that mini-series, at one point, the actor playing Chief Commissioner Warren actually wore the real Warren's full dress jacket!!) I think the thing is that the research is done well and EARLY, at a time when the intention is still to be as authentic as possible. It is only as the script develops, actors are cast and the director develops the series that it is broadened and cheapened to give it appeal.

 

True, it is in the costumes and sets that the show really shines. The politics are simplified and it breezes through the various characters...at the end of the day I would watch HBO's Rome or Gladiator than the 'Ancient Rome' documentary. I have never seen the 'Caesars' TV series so I can't judge that, but compared with all other documentaries and TV series, 'Ancient Rome' is the most accuarte in apperance (weapons, armour, costumes, sets etc) and that is what I praise. As entertainment it is not very good (it is often quite cheap looking and it lacks characterisation and plot) but then again it is a documentary not a drama like HBO's Rome. Compared to the documentaries on the History or Discovery channel it is a lot better than them - those really are dumbed down.

 

As for your comment that old documentaries were more in depth and intelligent than those today, I would have to agree with you. I was looking at 'In Search of the Trojan War' by Michael Wood, a documentary filmed in 1985. I quickly realised that the BBC wouldn't dare film a series like this today. Numerous scenes in the series sees Wood discussing archaelogical theories with scholars, discussing Hittite diplomatic texts and Mycenaean pottery. We see him in the library searching through and quoting huge academic tomes and standing above maps and charts discussing Bronze Age trading links. I would be shocked to see the BBC commision a series like this today, where the presenter does not dumb down the content and where he has a 10-minute conversation with an academic about Bronze Age pottery and material culture with no special effects or graphics.

[phil25]

Michael Wood, by and large, produces his own series under contract. More recent series, such as his Shakespeare have the same format and style. Thank heaven. I rate him highly.

 

On a separate point, is this BBC series really a "documentary" in any sense - notwithstanding its claims, it seems to me bereft of scholarship or any real investigation of either the facts or current thinking.

 

The Nero was scandalous in every sense. The Vespasian/Titus, banal. Either could have been filmed at any time since WWII without any change.

 

Phil

[spittle]

I think that the accuracy of the costumes and weaponry are the most correct because they are the easiest parts of history to convey to the modern audience. On the other hand explaining the relationships between master and slave (which has been viewed through pre-civil war American idea's for generations) is a much harder concept to portray. Or the temporary nature of Roman marriage. We are all well aware of royal or aristocratic families cementing alliances by intermarriage but the Roman 'disposable' spouse is very alien to our Judeo-Christian value systems. Even if we have reached a post religious, secular stage to our political development as societies.

 

After saying all that I will buy the DVD of this series if only because there are slim pickings from which to actually choose.

 

The BBC can still make first rate historical drama when it wants to. A few years ago the four part 'Charles II' was fantastic and only last year they did an amazing four part 'The Virgin Queen'. So we can live in hope that the real talent will move from the early modern to ancient sources for the next top quality attempt.