Another exciting, mostly fulfilling season of the Roman Empire series with a refreshing contrast to the cloak-and-dagger politics of Reign of Blood, as we see a more military-based, up front power struggle. The final episode (Ides of March) feels slightly incomplete, however; it is certain the character arc of Commodus in season 1 is far more compelling and impressive than Caesar's or Brutus' here. Let’s get into it.
It’s the same style as S1, analysis combined with character-based drama. Master of Rome deals with pacing a little better; admittedly, with both seasons portraying the youngest and oldest versions of the protagonists on screen with the same actors, a young adult - 31 year old Commodus looking the same may be more realistic than a young adult - 55 year old Caesar, but with the main character constantly on the move time updates are more necessary, so the timeline of the series is easier to follow.
A quick note on the onscreen attractiveness of both Caesar and Cleopatra; sources are extremely varied on whether or not these two were as physically attractive as the series might portray them, with some claiming they were described as attractive, whilst others claim these portrayals of them in movies and documentaries as physically appealing is more their own personal strengths (Cleopatra’s intelligence and Caesar’s military brilliance) being translated into onscreen attractiveness. (Note: it is quite likely Caesar suffered from baldness later in life, something that’s not seen in MoR.) For someone who never does any research into these figures outside of the documentary, this can be misleading, but for someone who takes an interest into historical accuracy you can safely take the portrayals with a grain of salt.
There’s a refreshing new protagonist in Julius Caesar; unlike Commodus-who we are here to see an arc from- we sort of quickly side with Caesar in his underdog status compared to Pompey Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus, and admire his will to advance in power from the start (essentially, we're immediately enthralled by the character rather than gradually intrigued by the progression of them).On the other hand, this contrast also fails in comparison to Commodus' series to tie the series up well, as Caesar is painted as virtually the same man throughout the years, constantly battling the Senate for power and eager to prove himself to the Roman public, making for a dissatisfying end to the character arc of Caesar-his plan for the invasion of Parthia and changing his appearance to that of the final Roman kings is not portrayed as his hubris, but rather Caesar being Caesar, which leaves the audience to wonder why this specific move is not to be seen by them as Caesar going too far, but is for the Senate to the point where Brutus and friends decide to stab him 23 times.
Which leads to the other problem with the finale of Master of Rome, in that it not only appears that Caesar is just doing the same old thing; making plans to gain more power, but it fails to present this in a way that would appear like it would seem to the Senate that he had gone too far, let alone for his surrogate son, Brutus, to lead his fellow senators in murdering Caesar. For much of the series, the Senate was frustrated by Caesar going on conquests without their permission, starting civil war with Pompey, and generally doing the opposite of what was positive for the Senate to maintain power. But how do the Senators go from their overly dignified, old man complaining to resolving to murder the poor man. I say this ironically as according to MoR Caesar is not a tragic hero (as he is often portrayed) but in fact a hero victim of tragedy, as there is no point where we see Caesar crossing the line from valiant adventurer to arrogant dictator; his obsession with power remains at a steady level throughout the series, and mention of his atrocities by Vercingetorix and Pompey are glossed over as not going too far, but (and I quote)"Caesar could be pretty ruthless when he wanted to."
As well as the Senate's turning on Caesar through their huffy indignation turning into vicious mob stabbing of the man, it also seems thoroughly unrealistic that Brutus would so quickly go from looking at Caesar as a father figure to leading the plot to murder him in 1 episode, despite the fact this is common historical knowledge. It is clumsily justified as Brutus being a traditionalist due to him being a descendant of one of Rome's founders, but for most viewers there is no real evidence that Brutus would go from defending Caesar to his mother to a slightly frosty conversation regarding his invasion plans to we've got no choice but to murder him lads in the space of half an hour of screen time. Like I say, it is a confirmed historical fact that Brutus went from being Caesar's friend to Caesar's killer, but when we see a lack of real motive from Brutus on screen it feels flimsy from a character based perspective.
Overall though, I may have criticised it too harshly because for the most part the action, production value, acting and characters were even more high quality than season 1, it just felt less complete than the impressive transition underwent by Emperor Commodus. But hey, they could easily have cut Rome's greatest bromance between Marc Anthony and Julius Caesar, and they didn't, so I can probably let them off the hook:)
Comments