I mentioned the other day that I intended to watch and write about some recent, well-regarded shows that, as a productive member of society for the first time in my life, I now have access to. There's no reason at all to delay that, so starting tomorrow I will be watching and reviewing HBO's Rome.
HBO has a few more critically acclaimed series available; I can watch The Sopranos or The Wire right now. So, why Rome?
I was a classics minor in college, and while "Classical Studies" was pretty much just code for "History, But Greece and Rome," the latter has always been by far the more intriguing subject to me. I was always more of a "Fall of Rome" guy than a Caesar guy; like Ken Levine and George R.R. Martin, I find something extraordinarily fascinating about watching the collapse of something that once was great.
But, of course, the creation of the extraordinary is also of tremendous interest, and there's no lack of drama to be found in the stories of Caesar, Antony and Octavian. The story of Rome is an exceptional one, and not easy to tell.
I am most interested in seeing how Rome, a series, however generously funded by HBO for its two seasons, that still dealt with all the limitations of the television medium, strikes a balance between the larger picture of the Roman Empire and the smaller bore stories of its characters. I will go into this question in more detail later, depending on how the show develops, but it will suffice to say that stories of massive historical events that attempt to focus on in-depth character studies, so as to provide the larger context with color and meaning, can miss the grand sweep of history that makes the stories so fascinating in the first place.
But we'll get to that soon enough. Look for the first review in this space tomorrow. The schedule after that will likely be a little sporadic, but I can promise reviews will appear at least once a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment