12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...

I *hated* Cleo in Rome, but the writing more than the actress. One of the few characters I didn't like (or at least like to hate) in that series. She just came off... like, well, like Dailana - someone who was in over her head and trying to be clever but failing.

I honestly think the real Cleopatra was like that. In that she was trying to be clever, but when facing off against someone like Octavian, failed miserably. I do think she was in over her head, hence why ROME's portrayal, even though I did not like it that much, is the only portrayal of Cleopatra that made me feel a bit of pity for her.

Taylor's Cleo made me happy when she lost.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:18 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Cleo in that movie had artificial forced dignity not supported by anything else. Sure, Cleo in Rome was ridiculous, but so was Taylor's Cleo imo, in large part because unlike ROME, they were trying to not make her ridiculous. At least ROME did not pretend that Caesar loved her or that this was a romantic story.

I thought the Cleo movie had a lot of moronic innacuracies and romantization of Caesar's "vision" and the events surrounding his death. I thought ROME handled it much better. It portrayed Caesar as a sympathetic tyrant who lost his life because of naivety / stupidity. It didn't attempt to over-glorify him, whereas Cleoptra tried and in my eyes failed.

The old movie may bring out the romance more (For a romance it was, on both sides, like it or not, dear sensible KOP) but at least it cites Cleo's talents (Which CAUSED Caesar's fascination with the gal) as well, her talent for languages, her charm, the devotion she inspired, the dignity she has as a sovereign (Her slapping Antony into shape is epic....while Rome's Cleo is just a carcicature of a drug addled sex-kitten. Sexism at its worst) 

Over-glorify him? By showing that he had epilepsy? But showing his weakness for Cleo & bringing her to Rome adding to his ruin? 

Caesar was a lot of things, but a naive or stupid he was not, I'd even go as far and say that to me he wasn't a tyrant. Caesar's vision of Rome in the old film is actually pretty damn close to the plans he had made before death intervened. (Many of which Octavian later finished)

And in ROME he lost his life because his jilted mistress manipulated her son into killing his father figure AND had her slave lure away Caesar's bodyguard. I was not really impressed there, to be honest.

[tklivory]

Hmmm... in over her head... Vain about her appearance... Enjoyed men in her bed... Killed herself in the end...

Bee tee em! Dailana = Cleopatra! Who knew?

Oh wait, Dailana didn't do the whole "have a kid to cement an alliance thing"  *Whew!* crisis averted.

Modifié par tklivory, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

tklivory wrote...

I *hated* Cleo in Rome, but the writing more than the actress. One of the few characters I didn't like (or at least like to hate) in that series. She just came off... like, well, like Dailana - someone who was in over her head and trying to be clever but failing.

I honestly think the real Cleopatra was like that. In that she was trying to be clever, but when facing off against someone like Octavian, failed miserably. I do think she was in over her head, hence why ROME's portrayal, even though I did not like it that much, is the only portrayal of Cleopatra that made me feel a bit of pity for her.

Taylor's Cleo made me happy when she lost.

Even the Roman historians disagree. She was certainly not a drug addled sex-kitten.

And she sure was pretty clever. Speaking 6+ languages fluently.... And playing the grand game for many years.

I felt no pity for her anywhere in "ROME". She was so utterly over the top inaccurate, it infuriated me. (I despise sexism)

[Persephone]

tklivory wrote...

Hmmm... in over her head... Vain about her appearance... Enjoyed men in her bed... Killed herself in the end...

Bee tee em! Dailana = Cleopatra! Who knew?

Oh wait, Dailana didn't do the whole "have a kid to cement an alliance thing"  *Whew!* crisis averted.

Be careful when reducing a brilliant woman to such stereotypes. (Women who "lose" tend to get that treatment, no matter their accomplishments or talents)

[tklivory]

Persephone wrote...

Even the Roman historians disagree. She was certainly not a drug addled sex-kitten.

And she sure was pretty clever. Speaking 6+ languages fluently.... And playing the grand game for many years.

I felt no pity for her anywhere in "ROME". She was so utterly over the top inaccurate, it infuriated me. (I despise sexism)

Not to budge this too off the current topic, but I'm trying to think of historial movies that portray powerful women in history in a semi-accurate but *positive* light (without becoming inaccurate simply to gloss over the person's sins), and I can only think of two movies off the top of my head:

1) Lion in Winter (which is based on a play, anyway)
2) Cate Blanchett's movies of Elizabeth I

Help me out here, I am seriously drawing blanks...

[Morwen Eledhwen]

tklivory wrote...

Just like I like the Caligula in Anno Domini (old TV miniseries that probably no one else has heard of) better than Caligula in I Claudius even though John Hurt is, well, John Hurt.

You mean this Anno Domini?!? Totally watched that back in the day.

[tklivory]

Persephone wrote...

tklivory wrote...

Hmmm... in over her head... Vain about her appearance... Enjoyed men in her bed... Killed herself in the end...

Bee tee em! Dailana = Cleopatra! Who knew?

Oh wait, Dailana didn't do the whole "have a kid to cement an alliance thing"  *Whew!* crisis averted.

Be careful when reducing a brilliant woman to such stereotypes. (Women who "lose" tend to get that treatment, no matter their accomplishments or talents)

Sorry, had a Dailana moment there.  I know that Cleopatra wasn't those things, and Maker knows I understand the forced use of stereotypes to portray characters, particularly historical figures, in a compact fashion that the lowest common denominator can understand without Herodotus in movies and TV shows.

Don't like it, though.

I still seethe whenever I think of Gladiator.  Grrr!  Just, *oooh*.  *Excalibur* was more accurate than that!  *fume fume*

[tklivory]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

tklivory wrote...

Just like I like the Caligula in Anno Domini (old TV miniseries that probably no one else has heard of) better than Caligula in I Claudius even though John Hurt is, well, John Hurt.

You mean this Anno Domini?!? Totally watched that back in the day.

Yeah!  I was like, 5 when I first saw it (on my Mom's friend's TV, because I had broken our TV before that and... long story, I'll skip it) and was totally enthralled.  I used to watch her taped versions of that and Shogun over and over whenever Mom went to visit her.

Man I loved those shows as a kid.  Now, not so much (and I *did* finally hunt someone down who transferred Anno Domini to DVD).  Still love its depiction of Sejanus, though, much as I love Patrick Steward in I Claudius.  Unfortunately, as an adult, I see the heavy pro-Christian overtones in it, and it annoys me how *over the top* they are.  In fact, you can get an edited version of it in Christian bookstore catalogs.

So I'll hug Valerius and Sarah close and ignore the rest.

Modifié par tklivory, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:38 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
The old movie may bring out the romance more (For a romance it was, on both sides, like it or not, dear sensible KOP) but at least it cites Cleo's talents (Which CAUSED Caesar's fascination with the gal) as well, her talent for languages, her charm, the devotion she inspired, the dignity she has as a sovereign (Her slapping Antony into shape is epic....while Rome's Cleo is just a carcicature of a drug addled sex-kitten. Sexism at its worst)

I never saw any of those talents. They were mentionned, but that was it. They were not shown and throughout the movie, Cleo appeared consistently stupid and naive.

I doubt it was a genuine romance. Perhaps more than just sex, but a romance? I don't think so. Definitely not on Cleopatra's part.

Caesar was a lot of things, but a naive or stupid he was not, I'd even go as far and say that to me he wasn't a tyrant. Caesar's vision of Rome in the old film is actually pretty damn close to the plans he had made before death intervened. (Many of which Octavian later finished)

And in ROME he lost his life because his jilted mistress manipulated her son into killing his father figure AND had her slave lure away Caesar's bodyguard. I was not really impressed there, to be honest.

Because Caesar's death is not supposed to be impressive. It was stupid on his part and that was it. Of course he was naive. Only someone who is naive would believe that his enemies would stop being his enemies simply because he forgave them. The irony is that a 19 year old Octacian proved to be much wiser.
That's not mentionning him flaunting about with titles and with no attempt at being subtle (which the movie Cleo makes even worse).

Caesar was a tyrant, whether he was justified or not is a different matter. He tried to be dictator for life, but was bad at it.
I agree with ROME's interpretation that Caesar's plans were there to consolidate his power (and what better way to do that than to increase popular support) and not really because of any ideological leanings for their own sake.
It was a self-serving vision, and one that confirmed with Rome's interests.

In otherwords, I'd see Caesar almost like Bhelen. But Cleo's movie made it more into a vision and did not really show the self-serving part of it as much as I would have liked.

Augustus was most definitely self-serving in his reforms, except unlike his adoptive father, he was much smarter and more subtle at it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:43 .

[Persephone]

tklivory wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Even the Roman historians disagree. She was certainly not a drug addled sex-kitten.

And she sure was pretty clever. Speaking 6+ languages fluently.... And playing the grand game for many years.

I felt no pity for her anywhere in "ROME". She was so utterly over the top inaccurate, it infuriated me. (I despise sexism)

Not to budge this too off the current topic, but I'm trying to think of historial movies that portray powerful women in history in a semi-accurate but *positive* light (without becoming inaccurate simply to gloss over the person's sins), and I can only think of two movies off the top of my head:

1) Lion in Winter (which is based on a play, anyway)
2) Cate Blanchett's movies of Elizabeth I

Help me out here, I am seriously drawing blanks...

Blanchett's Elizabeth was hopelessly inaccurate.

As for the example that leaps to my mind:

Elizabeth R. featuring the DIVINE Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I. from her youth till her death.

www.youtube.com/watch

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
Even the Roman historians disagree. She was certainly not a drug addled sex-kitten.

And she sure was pretty clever. Speaking 6+ languages fluently.... And playing the grand game for many years.

I felt no pity for her anywhere in "ROME". She was so utterly over the top inaccurate, it infuriated me. (I despise sexism)

I never said she was a drug addled sex-kitten. I said, like ROME"s portrayal, that she was trying to be clever, but was in over her head and failed miserably, destroying her country's independence completely in the process. Because she in part manipulated the wrong kind of men.

And that's not cleverness. That's her being cultured and intelligent. But politically, she was never clever.

And sexism? Antony was also portrayed as a stereotypical male sex obsessed brute.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[tklivory]

Persephone wrote...

tklivory wrote...

1) Lion in Winter (which is based on a play, anyway)
2) Cate Blanchett's movies of Elizabeth I

Help me out here, I am seriously drawing blanks...

Blanchett's Elizabeth was hopelessly inaccurate.

As for the example that leaps to my mind:

Elizabeth R. featuring the DIVINE Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I. from her youth till her death.

www.youtube.com/watch

Ooh, I'll watch that tonight (or when I have time).  I love Glenda Jackson.

And I only saw Cate's movies once, in the theatres, so obviously I misremembered the details (although I remember thinking that their portrayal of Mary was kinda WTF, now that I think about it).  But I'll forgive a lot for Clive Owen and Geoffrey Rush...

Still love Lion in Winter, though.  And Katherine Hepburn. 

*Sigh* so now I'm down to one that I can remember, and one to watch.  Gotta dig through my historical movie collection...  There's gotta be *something* here...

[Morwen Eledhwen]

tklivory wrote...

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

You mean this Anno Domini?!? Totally watched that back in the day.

Yeah!  I was like, 5 when I first saw it (on my Mom's friend's TV, because I had broken our TV before that and... long story, I'll skip it) and was totally enthralled.  I used to watch her taped versions of that and Shogun over and over whenever Mom went to visit her.

Man I loved those shows as a kid.  Now, not so much (and I *did* finally hunt someone down who transferred Anno Domini to DVD).  Still love its depiction of Sejanus, though, much as I love Patrick Steward in I Claudius.  Unfortunately, as an adult, I see the heavy pro-Christian overtones in it, and it annoys me how *over the top* they are.  In fact, you can get an edited version of it in Christian bookstore catalogs.

So I'll hug Valerius and Sarah close and ignore the rest.

I loved Anthony Andrews as Nero --at the time. When I was, like, 11. (Yes, I am that old.) Now that you made me remember that show and how much I loved it, I'm tempted to find a recording of it and watch it again --but then again, I should probably just keep my good memories and leave it alone, I know.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because Caesar's death is not supposed to be impressive. It was stupid on his part and that was it. Of course he was naive. Only someone who is naive would believe that his enemies would stop being his enemies simply because he forgave them. The irony is that a 19 year old Octacian proved to be much wiser.
That's not mentionning him flaunting about with titles and with no attempt at being subtle (which the movie Cleo makes even worse).

Caesar was a tyrant, whether he was justified or not is a different matter. He tried to be dictator, but was bad at it.
I agree with ROME"s interpretation that Caeszar's plans were there to consolidate his power (and what better way to do that than to increase popular support) and not really because of any ideological leanings.
It was a self-serving vision, and one that confirmed with Romes interests.

In otherwords, I'd see Caesar almost like Bhelen. But Cleo's movie made it more into a viosion and did not really show the self-serving part of it.

Augustus was most definitely self-serving in his reforms, except unlike his adoptive father, he was much smarter and more subtle at it.

I don't care about it being impressive or not. The whole idea of his death being caused by a bloody INACCURACY.....makes me headdesk.

I agree with both the consolidating power and vision of a Rome that would endure. And he achieved both. As for forgiving your enemies... yes, in that regard either way leads to trouble. Never mind that most of his k,illers weren't his enemies but thrived on his benevolence and patronage. (Yes, some of them followed Pompey before....but the main insitigators....both Decimus Brutus and Marcus Brutus....esp.)

Octavian learned much from his deified adoptive father. This lesson is among them indeed. A sad lesson to learn.

[tklivory]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

I loved Anthony Andrews as Nero --at the time. When I was, like, 11. (Yes, I am that old.) Now that you made me remember that show and how much I loved it, I'm tempted to find a recording of it and watch it again --but then again, I should probably just keep my good memories and leave it alone, I know.

I do still watch it, I just do a lot of skipping.  I love Sarah and Caleb, and Valerius and the Roman historical figures (although their version of the Senate's chambers is kinda laughable).  And it still had a fantastic cast.

Although when I was older and saw it again, I was like "BTM! Caligula is Freddy Kreuger!"  And it all made sense...

[tklivory]

Persephone wrote...

Octavian learned much from his deified adoptive father. This lesson is among them indeed. A sad lesson to learn.

Aaaand now I have Neil Gaiman's story from Sandman about Augustus and Caesar in my head.  *headdesk*  Out, sad story, out!

[Persephone]

I'll leave this here for KOP:

The title is bound to get his attention. And it is a MUST READ for any scholar and anyone who wants me to take them seriously on the topic of Caesar's politics.

www.amazon.com/Caesar-Politician-Statesman-Mattias-Gelzer/dp/0674090012

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
I don't care about it being impressive or not. The whole idea of his death being caused by a bloody INACCURACY.....makes me headdesk.

Sure, ROME had a lot of innacuracies. So did Cleopatra.
I prefer the grittiness of ROME, even when exagerrated, to the romantic bs of Cleo.

Of course I'd much rather have something a lot more accurate, but that won't happen

I agree with both the consolidating power and vision of a Rome that would endure. And he achieved both.

He didn't achieve either (he failed to consolidate his power and Rome again collapsed into civil war). Octavian did.

Caesar's mistake is thinking that carrots is all that is needed. The stick needs to be present as well.
Not to mention that he was making no effort at being subtle. Heck I'd say at least Sulla was more efficient at it. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

I'll leave this here for KOP:

The title is bound to get his attention. And it is a MUST READ for any scholar and anyone who wants me to take them seriously on the topic of Caesar's politics.

www.amazon.com/Caesar-Politician-Statesman-Mattias-Gelzer/dp/0674090012

I think I read that one. I read several books on him and forgot if that was one of them. The author's name is very familiar, as is the book cover.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...

I'll leave this here for KOP:

The title is bound to get his attention. And it is a MUST READ for any scholar and anyone who wants me to take them seriously on the topic of Caesar's politics.

www.amazon.com/Caesar-Politician-Statesman-Mattias-Gelzer/dp/0674090012

I think I read that one. I read several books on him and forgot if that was one of them. The author's name is very familiar, as is the book cover.

It's the most sober biography on the man ever. Very refreshing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I might check it out, if it's available in my university's library. Won't buy it though, already ordered 4 books on the man I strongly believe was the most brilliant leader in human history (and many scholars agree).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 10:05 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I agree with both the consolidating power and vision of a Rome that would endure. And he achieved both.

He didn't achieve either (he failed to consolidate his power and Rome again collapsed into civil war). Octavian did.

Caesar's mistake is thinking that carrots is all that is needed. The stick needs to be present as well.
Not to mention that he was making no effort at being subtle. Heck I'd say at least Sulla was more efficient at it. 

That's simplifying it to a one-dimensional degree.

Rome collapsed into civil war because his HEIR and his MURDERERS fought each other, not because his politics failed. While he was alive and winning every darn impossible battle and making necessary reforms.....it was an amazing time.

Without Caesar there would be no Augustus as we know him. Much as I respect Octavian, were it not for Caesar, the lad would have done what Antony predicted in the old film: Died without ever having lived. Did Octavian achieve great things? Yes. Did he use his heritage brilliantly? YES. Did his Empire, his peace, his brilliant mix of force and gentleness succeed? Yes. Yet why is it that it is Caesar' whose name rings throughout history and Augustus is sadly most remembered for being in the bible? (An attitude I do NOT agree with btw)

Maybe because of the many pages Gelzer dedicates to describing the one quality that outshines mere competence or even brilliance, the one quality that absorbes failure or flaws.....Genius. Genius, even if flawed, endures. Competence (Which Caesar damn well had too) on the other hand isn't as "interesting" , I guess.

Ah, humanity!

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I might check it out, if it's available in my university's library. Won't buy it though, already ordered 4 books on the man I strongly believe was the most brilliant leader in human history (and many scholars agree).

In my case the most brilliant leader in  human history wasn't even a man. And many scholars agree there too. We are in good company, serah.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
Rome collapsed into civil war because his HEIR and his MURDERERS fought each other, not because his politics failed. While he was alive and winning every darn impossible battle and making necessary reforms.....it was an amazing time.

The fact that his murderers and heirs had to fight it out is by definition a failure to build a stable political system (compare that with Augustus's Pax Romana. Even the murder of insane emperors and the year of the four emperors, the only crisis that happened in 200 years, did not destory the system he established).
It was an amazing time during Pax Romana that Augustus established, not before. Caesar fighting other Romans was not an amazing time.

Without Caesar there would be no Augustus as we know him. Much as I respect Octavian, were it not for Caesar, the lad would have done what Antony predicted in the old film: Died without ever having lived. Did Octavian achieve great things? Yes. Did he use his heritage brilliantly? YES. Did his Empire, his peace, his brilliant mix of force and gentleness succeed? Yes. Yet why is it that it is Caesar' whose name rings throughout history and Augustus is sadly most remembered for being in the bible? (An attitude I do NOT agree with btw)

Without Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Crassus, Caesar would not have been like we knew him either. A very unconvincing argument. Of course Augustus would not have been Augustus as we know him if things transpired differently. Without Brutus and the conspirators, Augustus would not have been Augustus as we know him either.

And because everyone remembers the bombastic and not the truly brilliant. Augustus was so supremely succesful in ushering in 200 years of relative peace and stability that there is not that much to talk about. People remember the dashing generals as well, not the master politicians. Let's face it, Caesar's life is more story and drama material than Augustus'.

I am pretty sure Kim Kardashian's name rings more strongly than people who are more worthy of it. Irrelevent to their worth and accomplishments.

Maybe because of the many pages Gelzer dedicates to describing the one quality that outshines mere competence or even brilliance, the one quality that absorbes failure or flaws.....Genius. Genius, even if flawed, endures. Competence (Which Caesar damn well had too) on the other hand isn't as "interesting" , I guess.

Meh. Don't see why Augustus did not have this genius.
For me, he was the real genius.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2011 - 10:20 .