Not the cultural sophisticate, I

I recently watched the TV series Rome on DVD, and I can honestly say that the best part of the series is the assassination of Julius Caesar. I say this partially in jest, since I was immensely relieved that the series came to an end. I've never been fond of the modern passion for character assassination, pun intended. That said, Ciaran Hinds did an excellent job portraying Julius Caesar. I'm not sure why he decided to portray Caesar's death the way he did, but I can't get the image out of my head. If it weren't for Hinds, I'd best remember Ian McNiece, who with excellent voice and arresting gestures stole the show as the newsreader (a very minor role). If you saw SciFi's Dune adaptation, you'd recognize McNiece as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, where he was also superb; I hope I see him in many more shows, although I'll pass on Ace Ventura, thanks.

What do I mean by character assassination? The depiction of Cicero comes off especially akin to slander; the filmmakers should be grateful the man is more than two thousand years dead. They portray him as a spineless no-talent and dullard, but the real Cicero stood up to Sulla (a worse dictator than Caesar), Catiline (a would-be dictator worse than Caesar), and Mark Antony (one of Caesar's would-be successors, also more bloodthirsty than Caesar), and held a number of offices in the Roman Republic by virtue of his intellectual talent, honesty, and basic decency. In an age when most people advanced by organizing brutal thugs and appealing to people's baser instincts, Cicero elevated the level discourse and appealed to our nobler abilities.

The series was quite interesting, and once I survived the first episode or two (or three) I appreciated the care and attention to detail. Never before had I thought of Caesar as an enigmatic character, but it is curious that this man who elevates himself to nearly being the king of Rome offered mercy to his enemies (including Cicero) and slaughtered those who killed them (such as Ptolemy). Perhaps Caesar really did think of himself as divine, and thus able to extend mercy where mere men (Sulla, Catiline, Mark Antony) could not.

The one reason I was unhappy with the series was the utterly gratuitous nature of the sex and the violence. I found it odd that the filmmakers "pumped up" the sexuality in these episodes, and avoided it in later episodes where it would have made sense (Caesar with Cleopatra, for instance).

I'm told that Cicero is also portrayed negatively in some recently-written books. I've been wondering what that says about our society. In the past, Cicero was generally considered a model of the "best" that the late Republic had to offer; I've read for example that the founding fathers admired him greatly. If you don't know the man, it would be worth reading what wikipedia has to say about him.

I wasn't much impressed by Being Julia, either. The word "shallow" kept coming to mind as I watched it: a shallow tale about shallow people living shallow lives and making shallow decisions, yet somehow the viewer is supposed to think that they are admirable for the entire sordid affair. It went to prove that there are few occasions I find so repugnant as when the theater (or cinema) attempts to portray its own as admirable people.

My wife tells me that the novel, and the Russian film adaptation, have merit, but I can't for the life of me see how anything could be salvaged in that film.

At the Internet Movie Database, these films are currently rated 9.0 and 7.2 out of 10, respectively. The comments imply that cultural sophisticates will enjoy them more than a common simpleton like myself. If you fit the bill, then by all means check them out, but be sure to put the kids to bed before watching that first episode of Rome.