Many films adapted from novels fail because the forms are different. The shape of a movie, in its structure and pacing, resembles a short story. They are both typically experienced in a single sitting and stay focused on a single dramatic arc.
In that respect, a TV show is more like a novel than a movie is. And hence, TV shows have immense potential for storytelling. But that potential has hardly been used, because shows are rarely developed with a long vision. They go from episode to episode improvising based on audience reception.
Thanks to HBO for rising upto the challenge. They are the only channel with enough clout and guts to develop shows with conviction (there are exception like Babylon 5 and I haven't seen Showtime shows). In recent years, HBO tackled many difficult literary works, like Empire Falls and Angels in America, through mini-series. With the show Rome, they took on a project of entirely different ambitions and proprotions.
People often ask the question, if you could have the super-power of flight or invisibility, which one would you pick. Apparently, poets are more likely to pick flight and prose writers invisibility. As much as I would love either of the two, more than any other power, the one I crave the most is unintrusive time travel. If I had a time machine, one of the first dates I would spin on the dial is Rome 25 BC (along with Florence 1500 and London 1900). The closest to that experience is the show Rome.
Till now, the only people who had the kind of money needed to make historic city sets were action filmmakers. And naturally, they focused their resources on battle sequences and chariot races. So on screen, we had a more accurate depiction of the Middle Earth (from Lord of the Rings) than Rome or Athens.
This show is the first instance where one can really see the everyday city to this detail – the pillars, colors on the walls, grafittis and cobblestones. Just to be able to breathe and smell the scenes is worth every minute of it. Of course, the story development, the characters, acting, music, everything is top notch.
My only problem is that it's too manupulative. They have two semi-fictional men as the central characters and move the story forward using them as the guiding eyes. Which is brilliant. But we are already in the dramatic backdrop of Rome's politics, with events cascading. On top of this, they fill the lives of the protagonists with constant dramatic twists and turns. Good for addictive TV but I feel it dilutes the lasting impact.
Going back to the historic events of Rome's politics and power play, I knew it was bloody and dramatic, but I assumed they took the core events and shaped them for the visual medium. When I started reading up on specific events, I was surprised at how accurate most of them were. History has given us such a dramatic story, the showmakers didn't even have to enhance it. I am assuming here that the people who wrote the Wikipedia articles didn't base them on the show.
In that respect, a TV show is more like a novel than a movie is. And hence, TV shows have immense potential for storytelling. But that potential has hardly been used, because shows are rarely developed with a long vision. They go from episode to episode improvising based on audience reception.
Thanks to HBO for rising upto the challenge. They are the only channel with enough clout and guts to develop shows with conviction (there are exception like Babylon 5 and I haven't seen Showtime shows). In recent years, HBO tackled many difficult literary works, like Empire Falls and Angels in America, through mini-series. With the show Rome, they took on a project of entirely different ambitions and proprotions.
People often ask the question, if you could have the super-power of flight or invisibility, which one would you pick. Apparently, poets are more likely to pick flight and prose writers invisibility. As much as I would love either of the two, more than any other power, the one I crave the most is unintrusive time travel. If I had a time machine, one of the first dates I would spin on the dial is Rome 25 BC (along with Florence 1500 and London 1900). The closest to that experience is the show Rome.
Till now, the only people who had the kind of money needed to make historic city sets were action filmmakers. And naturally, they focused their resources on battle sequences and chariot races. So on screen, we had a more accurate depiction of the Middle Earth (from Lord of the Rings) than Rome or Athens.
This show is the first instance where one can really see the everyday city to this detail – the pillars, colors on the walls, grafittis and cobblestones. Just to be able to breathe and smell the scenes is worth every minute of it. Of course, the story development, the characters, acting, music, everything is top notch.
My only problem is that it's too manupulative. They have two semi-fictional men as the central characters and move the story forward using them as the guiding eyes. Which is brilliant. But we are already in the dramatic backdrop of Rome's politics, with events cascading. On top of this, they fill the lives of the protagonists with constant dramatic twists and turns. Good for addictive TV but I feel it dilutes the lasting impact.
Going back to the historic events of Rome's politics and power play, I knew it was bloody and dramatic, but I assumed they took the core events and shaped them for the visual medium. When I started reading up on specific events, I was surprised at how accurate most of them were. History has given us such a dramatic story, the showmakers didn't even have to enhance it. I am assuming here that the people who wrote the Wikipedia articles didn't base them on the show.
No comments:
Post a Comment