Rome

Strange premise, a serious history show with serious sensuality. Typically those markets are pretty distinct: the small contingent of history buffs vs the masses who are just looking to watch a little trash. The blending here isn't always smooth -- if you took the premise and wrote the plot from scratch, with optimum modern drama in mind, it would significantly diverge from the historical events -- but the history makes it worthwhile, and the trash makes it fun, and the history itself is invigorated enough that this all works out okay. I'm a unique use case, preparing for this Rome trip -- there's absolutely no way I would have watched all of this otherwise -- but I hear it was fairly successful anyway, so there must be enough people who got enough excitement out of this thing. Oh, it was on BBC too -- maybe European markets are much more intrinsically invested in Roman history.

History doesn't always unfold in the optimal dramatic way, or does it? If someone rewrote these events, would Caesar live longer? Would Antony and Atia reconcile in the end? Would Cleopatra ascend the throne of Rome? Would any of these options be better than reality, or is reality inherently imbued with ideal drama? I reckon you could make some cool things happen if you strayed from the history. Maybe single combat between Caesar and Pompey for total power. Maybe Antony, as Caesar's right hand, with Vorenus as his own right hand, goes around to various continents striking deals and covering the entire world in Rome's blanket. You could do some cool things, but they may be no better than the drama of reality. They may be more like AI fantasies, cool in a shallow way.

Antony remained for me an object of fascination. He's much more sensual than I am, so I'm not sure how that sensuality factored into my impression of him. Something about him was magnetic. He was a badass Roman soldier, then he was a badass Egyptian monarch, all the while marrying tactical intellect with persuasive amiability. He was a leader of men, a strategist, a lover, and a soldier, and all-or-nothing in every department. He was philosophical yet earthy. He was also somewhat wicked, cruel, and hedonistic. But there was that grand magnetism.

Caesar had some of that as well, but the actor was nowhere near as personable. Hinds was an interesting choice there. Antony's casting was perfection.

The casting of older Octavian was tough. He was so cold and cruel. The actor when Octavian was a child was stern but much more heartfelt. I actually liked him, eventual dictator though I knew him to be. I was rooting for him, he was so brilliant yet down to earth. Older Octavian's likability was 0 kelvin.

It's fun to see Vorenus and Pullo dancing nervously in and out of some of history's most monumental events, trying not to screw everything up. It reminds me of the hobbits, little people who quietly move history forward. Isn't that a bit in Forrest Gump too, being ironically present at major historical events?

Ultimately I didn't need so much Vorenus and Pullo private life content. Those bits were decent TV, ultimately, but distracting from the grandeur of the real history. Not that I only wanted to watch royalty; the gritty street life was good to see; but I didn't need the distraction of their family lives. I just wanted history, as pure as possible.

The history was pretty solid, too. They must have done so much research.

Ideal outcome: Antony finds his purpose, which is to lead Rome to prosperity; he retains his playfulness but abandons his frivolity; he proves himself still a strong soldier and an even stronger general; he wins back his people's hearts after the Egyptian escapade, though Cleopatra stays beside him, and she wins them over too; Antony and Cleopatra ascend through bloodshed in defense of Rome's classic values, not traditionalist, but the root of the classic homegrown values. Antony is a just ruler, redeeming his prior cruelty, temper, infidelity, etc. Through finding his purpose he finds his dignity.

Favorite characters:

1. Antony: best blend of strength and charisma
2. Caesar: glorious and sharp, but also kind of distant and repellant -- an odd casting
3. Cleopatra: very spicy yet demigod
4. Atia: brilliant performance, injecting the whole series with vibrance and wit. She's a bit of a witch, but in the end is typically more fun than foul
5. young Octavian: prodigy who's cunning yet earnest
6. Octavia: she's bright and lively, though she doesn't do much, perhaps because her society doesn't let her
7. Cicero: a legendary mind, but he waffles and cowers
8. Pullo: good-hearted brute, a bit of a simpleton in light of the great minds around him, but perhaps the truest soul of them all
9. Agrippa: sound soldier and friend, but too sentimental, too doe-eyed literally and figuratively
10. older Octavian: he is ice, but you have to respect him as he single-handedly establishes the empire
11. Vorenus: sorry to say this show's main protagonist was not super likable to me. I think it was good acting, given the outline of his personality, but either the casting or the outline should have been more appealing. He's too cold and formal at first, then too deranged.
12. Brutus: ultimately more pitiable than despicable; almost noble, certainly not pleasant

Not a good look that the two main characters are so far down the list.

Rome S2 (halfway)

Every hero is depraved.

• Pullo, Rome's Sam Gamgee, is a brute who murdered his slave's beloved husband so he could have his slave
• Vorenus, the protagonist if there is one, fell so far and hard. His crimes at this point have been heinous almost beyond redemption, and he is generally difficult to like
• Caesar, the magnificent martyr, is an egomaniac who toys with women
• Antony, the charismatic leader of men, is slimy with women and with law
• Octavian, brilliant enough to come out on top, turns out cold and greedy
• Cicero, the legendary philosopher and senator, befriends whoever threatens him most

Meanwhile none of the women are even suggested as being the hero of the series. So we're hero-less. I will say the last four above do interest me. They're historically crucial, they're cunning, they're magnetic.

This is off the topic of heroes, but I figure Brutus deserves a word. While he's repellant, he isn't sheer villain by any means, because he's pitiable. They chose an actor to give him a wretched countenance, a perfect face for guilt and vacillation. It's the same actor as Edmure Tully, who if I recall right is the groom whose wedding redshifts and who persists wretchedly as a hostage. A piteous pawn in both HBO series. There are far less noble men out there, but it's Brutus who gets history's scorn, Brutus the byword for backstabber. He earns your pity more than your spite.

It saddens me that Federer lost the greatest tennis match ever in 2008, as it saddens me that HBK lost the greatest wrestling match ever in 2009. It feels like the pinnacle of each sport should put the hero on top. Alas, this falls in the same trend as Inferno and Paradise Lost, where somehow we elevate these downfalls above their positive counterparts (Pardiso, Paradise Regained, any of the many victories of Federer, etc). Not that Nadal is a villain, from the perspective of 2025 -- I wasn't conscious enough of pro tennis in 2008 to comment -- but I'm sure he wasn't the hero in 2008, at least not for anyone who loves beauty and greatness. Nor is The Undertaker really a heel. But watching Federer and HBK fall from grace, the heights of grace, suave as they always were, on the biggest stage of their sport, in the utmost legendary match, saddens me.

Game of Thrones

The leaves are falling hard now, so, naturally, my mind turns again to Game of Thrones. I'd have to watch it all again to be sure, but here's what I'm thinking today:

• season 1 is clearly the best
• 2-5 are admirable but wandering and miserable
• 6 is great
• 7-8 are glorious, though too cinematic

I'm thinking S1 could be a whole 3-to-5-season series in itself. Practically every day elapsed breeds something interesting. That Ned's entire arc is contained in 10 or so episodes is baffling and devastating. He holds such a place in my heart, you'd think he was the cornerstone of the series. Well, he was! But only appeared in one season. His arc could be significantly extended in screen time without covering any more of his lifetime, because each moment is packed with quality. Same for Robert -- he wasn't even around the whole season, yet I feel like he made such an impact. I could watch whole seasons with Robert in reign.

We only get like a quarter episode of life at Winterfell before Arryn's death precipitates the whole series. I need to see the Stark kids growing up in peacetime, Ned ruling justly, life in the North. Maybe it would have been boring if it really would have started out like that, without the instant intrigue, before I'd built such affection for the characters... but then again, the intrigue comes so fast it's hard to follow. Maybe a little slower ramp-up would set the stage for a more thorough juicing of the intrigue. Maybe I just mixed three metaphors.

S1 has enough plot, and strong enough characters, to warrant more than one season. It feels like, if 2-8 never happened, you'd still call S1 Game of Thrones and you'd still have the essence and most of the value of the series. It feels like S1 is really the defining season, which may go without saying for any given series, but feels especially true for GoT. Ned is special, and S1 is special. Everything matters, everything is interesting, the whole season is charged in a way the others aren't. 6-8 are glorious, but S1 is so electric it doesn't need that cinematic glory, it just needs the characters and the machinations it already has in spades. The intrigue is so crisp you don't need grandiosity. You don't need dragons. You don't even need dynasties converging in the person of Jon Snow, sorry as I am to admit it. The things I love about 6-8 are superfluous compared to S1 -- are almost a different series, actually. S1 is a self-contained masterpiece; 2-5 are respectable but brutal; 6-8 are amazing but don't feel like the same hand.

Rome S1

The last two episodes dramatically escalated toward a surprisingly crushing finish, like that series I can't help comparing to (GoT). Not to say it's phenomenal TV, but it packed a punch from an unanticipated angle. Caesar's demise was genuinely sad, and there were other moments of naked drama toward the end there that dwarf the rest of the season. That also reminds me of S1 of Rings of Power. All three shows had take-it-or-leave-it first seasons up until the final two episodes.

So Caesar's fate saddened me. Why, did I like Caesar, or did I just like watching Caesar? I think there was a little of both. Hinds, though a very strange look for the part, was a joy to watch in his character's brilliance. I daresay I even felt some affection toward the dictator himself. There's that natural magnetism about a leader like that. He's one of the more appealing historical leaders to me now. You can't help being moved by the warmth he sheds on his enemies. His biggest smile in the series is welcoming those who betrayed him back into his circle of love, without a wink of a grudge. Reminds you of someone who'll come 44 years later.

Antony also, acting-wise and character-wise, was magnetic. I love that performance, of a smart yet savory individual, despicable and honorable. I have to side with this man, because I like watching him, and I don't want to disappoint him. I hope he doesn't spiral into villainy. But you know every character is right on the brink! That's the most interesting thing about this show: any hero can and probably will prove villainous at interludes. So who's the real villain? Who's the real hero? Not even Vorenus earns your consistent respect.

Usually cheesy things have cheesy conceptions of good and evil, but not Rome. For all its superficialities, all its sugary sweetness, it avoids preaching any kind of easy morality. Literally every character falls hard, whether through violence, infidelity, or excessive fidelity.

Vorenus is a solid performance, though not the performance or character I would have chosen to anchor the series. He's too straight-laced, too chilly, especially beside the charisma of Caesar, Antony, Pullo, Atia, and others. Rome is electric, but Vorenus is stone. He's crumbling under the heat, not conducting it.

Antony is magnetic, but I guess Caesar and Octavian are the most interesting characters. They're both brilliant. Octavian still looks far too young for his political and sexual escapades, like Rhaenyra a few episodes into House of the Dragon. It's a little confusing and upsetting. But it's fascinating to observe his intellect in light of what we know he'll become.

Rome thru 7 episodes

Quite like Game of Thrones, but in place of medieval/fantasy Westeros you have ancient Italy, and in place of not knowing how it will end (that Dany will ascend the throne only to be quickly assassinated by a former friend) you know how it will end (that Caesar... you know).

Similarities:

• HBO show, with all that that entails, including the next bullet
• liberal violence and sexuality, though Rome is slightly tamer than GoT
• grand political arc sprinkled with many subplots
• general tone
• kinda trashy, kinda sophisticated
• Ciaran Hinds, Indira Varma, Tobias Menzies (what a power trio of names). I even think The Hound made a cameo

Differences:

• GoT is somehow much more interesting, partly because you don't know the ending ahead of time, partly because it's probably a better production team. Maybe Martin is a better foundation than history. But lots of Rome is fictionalized, so you'd think with a great writing team the Caesar era would show great potential
• one is pure fiction, the other stays pretty close to history's general outline
• I had almost zero practical reason for watching GoT, at a time when I was super strict with TV, yet I watched it anyway; I have practical reason for Rome, and I'm not as strict anymore, yet I don't feel riveted to its continuation
• I've never heard a single person talk about Rome; I couldn't avoid GoT
• I kind of love GoT; I shall NEVER love Rome!

One Battle After Another

First, this was nothing like the 30 pages and Wikipedia-ing of Vineland I read. The names are different, the action is different, the tone is different. I wondered how and why Leo would do the "downtrodden pothead", as I called Zoyd. That description isn't inaccurate for his character in the film, but it's also not how I'd choose to characterize him; he has a different flavor in the film; less groovy, more sharp. He's Leo, after all -- his whole expression is sharp. I don't think he does hippies like Joaquin in Inherent Vice and like the Zoyd I was perceiving in Vineland. He's fundamentally sharper, and he's fundamentally more heroic. He's a lead. So I thought it was strange he was doing a subdued character like this. It's not as subdued in the film, but it's still not a hero role. His daughter is really the hero, he just ends up being the supporter who's doing his best. Quite heartwarming, actually, in the end. So Leo gives up his hero streak, and Infiniti soars into and out the roof of the picture. She was awesome. Perhaps her role was easy, as far as serious acting goes -- who wouldn't root for her -- but she wasn't an established actor, and the role did demand a variety of intense things. Easy to root for her, but she exceeds that, she gets a whole ovation.

So I only read 30 pages of Vineland, but I also read a bit about it online, and I recall nothing about the revolutionary bit, nothing about any of this plot, in fact, other than downtrodden pothead Zoyd and his cocky lawman rival, like Inherent Vice. The adaptation must have been pretty loose.

Actually, PTA takes a Pynchon novel and a CV of unconventional movies and makes a fairly conventional movie. There's even a jump cut showing someone's face from baby to teenager. There's even a sweet father-daughter moment at the end with uppity music and she's being a rascal. There's even a basic-ass car chase! In a PTA movie! There's a bunch of military content... I'd say PTA robbed this from some more mainstream director, but he made this out of Vineland... he actually made Vineland more conventional, it seems to me, where typically I'd be expecting him to artsify his sources. PTA makes a pretty straightforward movie. And Leo, box office candy, joins. He picked an odd PTA movie to join. He'd be a towering Daniel Plainview or some other iconic role; I don't think this one will be iconic; I don't think it should be; the movie is too straightforward. I'd like to see Leo in a more iconic, more serious PTA movie. The last couple haven't been quite ambitious enough.

I'm calling it a solid movie. It was pretty gripping for being sort of silly. Sometimes the situation got a little too convoluted and went a little too long, but it was generally exciting. My heart was in it. I was deeply rooting for the protagonists, deeply despising the antagonists, deeply desiring resolution. Strange these are the things I'm saying about a PTA movie, but he played it straight.

There were some nice visuals, some nice musical scoring, though those were pretty secondary. Better than the average movie of this genre, but the movie wasn't very artsy. The story was too straightforward and engaging for me to really soak in the artistic qualities.

Sean Penn was one of the more detestable specimens I've seen in recent cinematic memory. Emphasis on specimen. And good for him, that was probably his charge -- to become a physical and spiritual wrecking ball for all that is good in the movie. He gives it his all, leaving no bicep unbulged, leaving no protagonist without the feeling of having been raped by his very presence.

I liked this movie quite a bit. It was weirdly heartwarming for being PTA+Pynchon. Weirdly not deeply ambiguous. The whole thing was propellant and charged, with soft undertones. It was enjoyable and engaging. That said, it's not interesting enough or emotional enough to be a favorite. It's just a solid PTA movie that suits the mainstream better than most of his.

Leo is good. Oddly unheroic, but good.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Magnolia, There Will Be Blood

The Master, Punch-Drunk Love, Phantom Thread

One Battle After Another

Boogie Nights, Licorice Pizza

Inherent Vice

And even One Battle After Another, hovering around the mediocre center of his filmography, is at least a strong 3/4