HBO's Rome: Power. Sex. War.

In an article in the New Yorker, Tad Friend compliments telling the story of HBOs “Rome” with his thesis that it was all about power. It should be said that HBO is an adult market for Television – and because of this the reality of life can be seen within the framework of their shows.
Sex is used liberally in “Rome” and, now that it’s in season two and the characters are known, it is about more than just sex. Men of means and men with nothing are taken to the extremes in life, whether it is war, or cheating, death or birth, and it is done in a brutal way that is at its core simple character pieces drawn out countless times. By the end, the viewer can only hope to grasp for more as the cliffhangers leave you hanging by the edge of your seat.
Faulkner wrote that, when writing a story, you should never have to go study material; one should only write what they know. “Rome” is a complete contradiction to that idea. History didn’t happen exactly as “Rome” depicts it, but the main elements - like Caesar fighting Pompeii for the empire and Brutus killing Caesar - are kept in line with what historians know to be factual.
With massive amounts of money spent (season one was said to hit the 100 million mark) it was an interesting thought for HBO to trust so much money in a series created by the BBC.
The BBC really showed its desire for the dramatic, understanding that by using HBO there could be license to do just about anything. Sex. Murder. Polytheism. All the vestiges and secrets of the once great Roman Empire came out.
Everything could be used, and no doubt “Rome” would sit nicely in DVD collections next to “Sopranos” and “Six Feet Under.”
Power is at work in every episode, whether it be the power over the people, the power of the senate, the power created by looting conquered empires; there are countless serious games to toy with. The young Roman republic had no real challenger for power: Hannibal was dead, Carthage destroyed, the Greeks consolidated, the Etruscans absorbed, the Celts subdued. The only real challenger at the time of Caesar was a Germanic leader named Vercingetorix. In a massive strategic feat, Caesar tempered the Germanic tribes with brutality on a grand scale throughout Gaul and, after, soundly defeated Vercingetorix at Alesia.
History can never be rewritten. Historically man has wanted power and the power was in gold and silver; but add a mix of actors with British accents, timely battle scenes worthy of “Gladiator,” “Glory, or “Braveheart,” and you get the feeling history is being created before your eyes when you watch “Rome.”
War making was the chief pursuit of Rome during its glorious years. Caesar fit in with all Roman ideals of it; he was always playing to the desires of the plebiscite (the lower classes). As detailed in “Rome,” his was not a rise by chance. He defeated his enemies in every battle by choosing the perfect leaders within the army to fight, like Antony, and in doing so he made himself not a mere consul, but sole dictator of all that was within the greatest empire of the world.
As the first season progressed, it became obvious that Caesar was writing his own death sentence. The main characters of the story, Lucius and Titus, both soldiers of Rome, knew that even with all his successes Caesar was making many enemies within the state.
The seven hills of Rome may not have seen a more capable leader – the seven hills may not have killed a more glorified one. Scipio Africanus, the man who defeated the military genius Hannibal, may have done much to alter Rome, but never before had so much power been in the hands of one Roman.
Why did the Senators conspire to kill Caesar? He had taken the army to Rome, had reworked all of government to eliminate corruption, and he had chosen men to sit in seats of power who weren’t respected by the Senators of Rome.
The soldiers Lucius and Titus provide a varying sense of place for the story of “Rome,” of the simple man, for, who can really compare themselves to Caesar? A common soldier was a different animal than Caesar, who had been born and bred to be a destroyer. Titus seems to only understand sex, racy language, and violence; that was all before the man would be entrusted with power in the second season of the series. The centurion Lucius attempts to quell this unruly nature in Titus, but he can only watch the man fall into the same trap Caesar did.
War has always been an extreme of humanity, but in “Rome” it is as directly linked to life as love.
“Rome” highlights history in a way that has never been done before. Even “Gladiator” looks juvenile in comparison to the endless blood and sex in “Rome.” It is history on a grand scale.
Faulkner probably would have enjoyed it, whether it is steeped in history or not, but, on any normal day, he wouldn’t be able to get away from the Television anyways.
Roman literature couldn’t have found the true callings of power any better.

“Gods and Generals” shows the carnage of war

Movies like “Glory” and “Gettysburg” have shown the grim determination that existed during the American Civil War (1861-1865). And though “Gods and Generals” isn’t as emotional or humanistic as “Glory” and “Gettysburg,” it does make a commendable showing of realistic battles with a talented cast and excellent photography; but in terms of story it lacks the greatness many war films attain.
“Gods and Generals” is meant to be part of a trilogy of movies that began with Gettysburg, which it’s a prequel to.
“Gettysburg” showed the Union’s greatest victory over the Confederates.
While the movie has enough assets to be great – with a great cast and based on a story by Jeff Shaara – it moves too fast. “Gettysburg” covered one battle; “Gods and Generals” covers many.
The story is of the early battles of the war; from First Bull Run to The Wilderness. As any history-buff would know, the Confederates defeated the poorly led Union army countless times.
Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederates, is played by Robert Duvall. He seems to know the character and, though he isn’t as important as Martin Sheen’s character in “Gettysburg,” does play him well. Jeff Daniels reprises his role as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, leader of a Massachusetts’s regiment. Both Daniels and Duvall play minor roles for a movie of such length (229 minutes).
As Daniels was a main character in “Gettysburg,” it was a mistake to give such a talented actor so minor a role. His talents should have been utilized, and perhaps this is a major failing in the movie.
Playing General Longstreet is Bruce Boxleitner, who came to fame on the TV series Babylon 5. This is a minor part, again a difference in that Longstreet in “Gettysburg” was a major character.
The character who is focused on the most is Stonewall Jackson, a general in the Confederate army who gained his name after standing like a “stone wall” at the First Battle of Bull Run. Jackson is played very well by Steven Lang. Jackson was one of the more popular figures in the war, and Lang really shows his courage on the field of battle.
“Gods and Generals” was not a big success at the theaters, and in comparison to the other great war films; it doesn’t hold up.
Still, it shows the battles and the reasons for them as well. It’s best to see it as a critique against war.
As Stonewall Jackson said, “War is the sum of all evils.”

The Brooklyn Follies by Paul Auster

“I was looking for a quiet place to die,” is an auspicious beginning for a book called The Brooklyn Follies that denotes Paul Auster’s New York roots. Nathan is the narrator who states these words, but the story jumps between him and his nephew, Tom.
These characters are similar in several lights. Both have not had a love in a long time, have lost everything and are trying to rebuild their lives in Brooklyn.

Nathan is a man who is pulled down by the inevitable guilt of life. He has a daughter whom he is on less-than-good terms and he occasionally he drinks in great amounts.
Tom was once an aspiring graduate student, but life got in the way so he dropped out of school to become cab driver, and then the writer of a rare book catalogue.

They have both been estranged from each other for some time when Nathan runs into his nephew, and they begin to try and pull their lives up from the depths of depression.
Add another family member, a young girl who refuses to speak, who shows up on Nathan’s doorstep one day, and the pages become full of interesting moments.

The Brooklyn Follies, like many good novels, takes plenty of risks. Auster takes one when he boils down what is happening to just dialogue for a section of the book – like a play.

The tale is about happiness, being loved and being found.

Take this sentence when Auster is speaking about the character Rufus, who worked at the same bookstore as Tom. “But there was something fierce in him as well, an unusual sort of idealism that rejected the vanities and desires that make us so vulnerable to the temptations of the world.”

Auster shows his command of the English language with just the characterization in this sentence. He also brings up many life-affirming points, like without pain there can be no bliss, and it fills the story with hope.

The minute details give the story voice, whether they are phrases turned around, embarrassing moments, or moments that define a life.

For anyone new to Paul Auster, The Brooklyn Follies is an excellent beginning. It was billed as one of the best novels since 9/11, and it deserves to be mentioned in that light. It is not as good as the classic City of Glass, Auster’s first novel, but in many ways it shows what made him so successful in the field of literary fiction; tapping into literary scenes, where books and manuscripts are prevalent.

The Brooklyn Follies should find a wide audience, and fulfill the desires of Auster fans across the world.