9 September 2005 - 7:57pm
HBO's new series "Rome": no thanks.
I tuned into HBO's new series, Rome, hoping that it might fill the void in my TV viewing that the recently-ended Six Feet Under left. I was hopeful for this new series, but I soon turned off, long before I switched off.
"I, Claudius" it ain't...
This program exists to stroke male egos and remind them of a time when they could be all-powerful, especially with regards to women. It will, of course, be compared to the BBC's production of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius", which casts a very long shadow, even though it aired in the U.S. on PBS' Masterpiece Theatre some 27 years ago. HBO consciously plays upon the screen-burn that "I, Claudius" left on the America's collective memory by casting British actors, which creates an air of high art and legitimacy upon the series. (Whenever Hollywood feels wanting in the acting department, it imports British actors.) HBO has positioned the "Rome" series as high entertainment - a majestic, sweeping historical series with ambitions to match, or even surpass, the much-lauded "Six Feet Under", "The Sopranos" and "Deadwood".
But - surprisingly - Rome's extravagant, and no doubt costly, production is hindered by the very elements HBO thought would recommend it. The ability to shoot on location de-emphasizes characterization. There are many "gee-wiz, look at all this historical reality!" type shots. These are all well and good, but there had better be a well-written script to back up the pretty scenes, and in Rome's case, there isn't.
Re-telling the same tired old Tales
What I was particularly non-plussed about was the way women were portrayed. Yes, I know that women were very much a subordinated group in ancient Rome. Yes, I understand that any attempt at a realistic portrayal of women in Rome would reflect their oppressed status. But I didn't think that the cultural conditions of Rome warranted:
- not one, not two, but three different naked women in one episode, all of whom were young and very skinny;
- one woman to position herself in the "doggie" style on a bed for her much older soon-to-be husband to have sex with;
- a long lingering shot of a woman's breast, with large erect nipple, who is about to breast-feed her baby;
Concerning the first item: while I don't object to sex scenes, they were so obviously scripted and directed from a male point of view, that these scenes looked scripted in solely for voyeuristic purposes. And not only were they from a male point of view, catering to a male audience, but they were also tailored to modern-day tastes (gee, the women just happened to be skinny, the current ideal for women today). Moreover, in these scenes, the audience is given very little view of their bodies: the men lay on their backs in bed, surveying (as we are meant to direct our attention) the naked women moving on top. The focus is clearly on the heaving, moving bodies of the naked females.
Concerning the second item: there's nothing inherently wrong with the "doggie style" per se, but the way in which it unfolded was coded in a particularly gross and offensive way. There was a power imbalance between the two characters (one a relatively powerless, inexperienced young women, of high birth, and a much older, much more powerful male character). And then there was the way it unfolded on-screen: we cut from some dialogue between the two very quickly to a shot of her (reluctantly) moving towards the bed, then quickly cut to her form completely naked and frozen in a passive position waiting for the male character to "happen" to her. How humiliating is that? How is that not meant to degrade her, and how are women viewers supposed to feel watching this?
Concerning the third item: again, there's nothing wrong or offensive about showing a character breast-feeding, and it was warranted in the storyline. (Two women discuss the impending war; one is obviously very worried about the effect war will have on her baby.) But the way it was shot was obviously voyeuristic and meant to gratify hetero male eyes: a long, slow shot of her naked (rather perfect, of course!) petite breast, with the baby's head some ways away so as not to disrupt our view of her breast, and a long (not really needed) view of it before the baby's head is finally slowly brought forward to suckle. The nipple is quite erect and quite prominent (which may or may not be realistic, or may just be for erotic purposes).
The other objection I have is the way men talk and treat women. Again - yes, I understand that Rome was a rigid and extreme patriarchy. I understand that men would've spoken in dismissive and hateful terms about women. But it's being trotted out in a way so that the viewers can get off on it. There's a lot of "Do as I say, woman!" type stuff going on, and women being mean and nasty to each other in order to curry favor with the male characters, who hold all the power. There's also some infantilization of women (one young woman yells the cliche line "I hate you!" - what a tired, trite cliche that is of an emotional and powerless woman).
At least "I, Claudius" had the Machiavellian character of Livia, who schemed, killed, maneuvered, and manipulated. She was a formidable character and reeked much havoc, until she was sussed out in the end. In HBO's "Rome", there are no particularly good female characters.
And why did HBO choose to commission a new series based on a historical portrayal of Rome, anyways? Out of all the story ideas they could've run with, why do a series on Rome? I propose that HBO was drawn to the Rome concept because it portrayed a time when men could be all-powerful and had much higher social status than women; when women led dull lives confined to domestic settings, when men did all the interesting things and things of importance, and when men could be ultra-masculine and brutally violent. What a comforting world for the modern-day male who may dislike the advances women have made to step into; what soothing balm "Rome" offers this male viewer, who must deal with women in the workplace and at home who demand equality and respect. What misogyny HBO still has to peddle. And what better things I have to do with my time than watch HBO's "Rome". But then, I doubt I am the target audience HBO is courting with "Rome".
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
...not to mention studio executive fantasies that they are Roman rulers making and breaking careers like gods. Add some T&A, and who needs character?
I have a slightly different take when I watch "Rome." I see how superior the women were to the moronic, barbaric and downright creepy men of the time. The women were pretty much holding that empire together. At least that's my view.
I agree the progam lacks any verve. As an admirer of HBO's original programming I felt I had to give it a chance, but cannot get through 15 minutes of it.
However, I think it a bit gratuitous to make the staple feminist argument that men want to return to a time when women knew their place. That is a bit, shall I say, off-base.
I just want parity as Hegel's pendulum promises me after the pendulum has run it's arc. Can we have say, one film where the man is the weak minded and physically inferior portion of the love interest, and another where the female form is less aggressive but silently strong, and does not eclipse the male lead? Just a thought.
because it plays into the fantasies of how Rome is presented. The latest parts of the Roman Empire were patriarchal, but even in Caligula's time they were still matrilineal and one of the principle deities was Isis. (Yes, she's an Egyptian Goddess, but Romans were fond of importing deities from other cultures.) If they wanted to be realistics, the women wouldn't be skinny unless they were very poor. Also, how are they depicting homosexuality? That was considered a virtue in the Roman army.
I think they chose Rome because we've got our own Caligula now. Either way, I'm sick of patriarchy and I certainly don't need it in my entertainment.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
The latest parts of the Roman Empire were patriarchal, but even in Caligula's time they were still matrilineal
---------------------------------------------
so all that bit about "patrifamilia" from pre republican times, the fact that in the early republic men could sell their wives and kids into slavery if they wished, and many other things beside was BS and rome was actually a matriarchy?
-------------------------
and one of the principle deities was Isis. (Yes, she's an Egyptian Goddess, but Romans were fond of importing deities from other cultures.)
----------------------------
Great, but they still whorshipped jove as the head god...and jove was a man.
-------------
If they wanted to be realistics, the women wouldn't be skinny unless they were very poor.
--------------------
they are cartering to modern taste, the women would probably also have unshaven legs and arm pits.
The fact is if you are trying to do a realistic portrayal of Rome, there simply are not going be a Livia. Livia was a rarity, a strong women with two weak (at home anyway) husbands. The world (at least as graves tells it) would have been better off had she been subjugated since she killed off numerous good successors to Caesar in favor of her corrupt and perverted son Tiberius.
As for why they choose Rome, well first off I doubt it is because it was such an awesome time for men. If you want to do times where women are powerful you basically have the choice of prehistory…or now. Rome is an interesting time period because it is so far away and exotic and yet we can relate to it.
Hi - Thank you all for your comments, I found them all interesting and I appreciate that you all chipped in!
I want to point out that I gave myself "a long leash" with this review, in terms of polishing it up and making a wholly convincing argument. My goal was partly to let off some steam and to retain the anger in the piece, rather than distancing myself from it and writing a very cool, detached and "balanced" kind of review. Hence the "rant" category I placed in under (as well as "review").
Morgaine - "I'm sick of patriarchy and I certainly don't need it in my entertainment." Boy, does this strike a chord with me! :)
semanticleo - "However, I think it a bit gratuitous to make the staple feminist argument that men want to return to a time when women knew their place. That is a bit, shall I say, off-base." Point taken. I took pains to be careful with my language in the last paragraph, where I was thinking of some men , not all men. Re-reading the last paragraph, I think it conveys this ("the modern-day male who may dislike the advances women have made..." / "these men..." - I'm talking about some modern-day males, not all males). But I could've probably done a better job with that last para.
I've heard of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum but not Hegel's! :D I'll try and look it up at Wikipedia...
Gideon - I understand where you're coming from, but my point is that programs often reinterpret history through their own cultural lenses. I should've mentioned that, yes, "I, Claudius" was filtered through a modern-day cultural lens, but that it seemed less gratuitously hateful towards women. In other words, writers, producers, directors, etc. - they can all use narrative to hang their misogyny upon, and when they're called to task about it (by viewers or more formal bodies) they can duck and dive under the "But that's the way Rome was back then!" excuse.
I guess my main point was that, when portraying topics like women being oppressed by men, it has to be handled very carefully, or the storytellers look like their colluding in the inequitable systems they portray. If I'm to sit through scene after scene of hatred towards women, I'd better get at least a nominal sense that the storyteller disapproves of this, and that there will be a moral payoff at the end to justify these portrayals.
Thank you for all your comments, they expanded the discussion and made me think further on what I wrote about. :)
- Sour Duck
Just an FYI--Hegel's dialectic is sometimes referred to as a swinging pendulum. Thanks for the response
my problem with Rome is that all the things media girl describes are all there is to the series. it shows oppression, but without effect. with the exception of one soldiers wife, there is no portrayal of the interior life of women or slaves.
for instance, octavia is torn from the man she loves and forced to become engaged to an asshole who humiliates her in the doggy style scene media girl mentioned. but octavias emotions come off of frivolous and cliche, with lots of flopping around onto beds in fits of melodrama. a perfect 1940s or 1950s rendition of a teenage girl.
atia, the only powerful woman, comes off as soul-less and conniving. she is the hollywood cliche of the manipulative schemer, who sleeps with men in exchange for favors that enhance her status. in other words, the 1940s cliche of a hollywood actress.
the one-dimensional nature of women and slaves is classic mid-century hollywood. the women are either overly emotional teenagers, devoted mothers, or scheming whores.
slaves come off no better. a male slave graciously accepts a beating by atia, then submissively asks "will that be all?" no realism. no cut to the slave returning to his quarters tending to his wounds. no rage or frustration with his lot in life. no hint that he was injured at all by the beating.
moreover, it seems odd that the only old women on the show are "body slaves" to the two whores (atia and ceasar's mistress). they rarely speak and are staged to be visibly invisible.
my guess is that hbo hoped to tap into the audience of recent movies like troy and gladiator. and it is faithful to that legacy. one dimensional, mid century depictiosn of women. grateful slaves. and lots and lots of thrusting swords and penises (often its difficult to tell the difference).
I actually have not see the show, and I can't say I'm losing any sleep over it.
sorry sour duck!
Gideon - I understand where you're coming from, but my point is that programs often reinterpret history through their own cultural lenses. I should've mentioned that, yes, "I, Claudius" was filtered through a modern-day cultural lens, but that it seemed less gratuitously hateful towards women. In other words, writers, producers, directors, etc. - they can all use narrative to hang their misogyny upon, and when they're called to task about it (by viewers or more formal bodies) they can duck and dive under the "But that's the way Rome was back then!" excuse.
------------------------------------------
excpet their right. They advertised the show as "how rome really was" and they show it...how rome really was. My impression is its generally a one deminsional show so its not showing much of anyones deeper feelings. But your rigth your not the target audience
---------------------------
I guess my main point was that, when portraying topics like women being oppressed by men, it has to be handled very carefully, or the storytellers look like their colluding in the inequitable systems they portray. If I'm to sit through scene after scene of hatred towards women, I'd better get at least a nominal sense that the storyteller disapproves of this, and that there will be a moral payoff at the end to justify these portrayals.
------------------------------
so it wasn't politically correct enough basicly.