Carry on up Octavius

[binidj]

For the most part, Gentle Reader, I'm enjoying Rome on the Beeb. It strikes me like a modern-day I Clavdivs including a lot of the humour¹ and, of course, the sex ... though that isn't why I'm watching it².

Last night though was a real disappointment as they dealt with Julius Ceasar's bisexuality in a way that could have been cut from a Carry-On movie. Just awful! Now I know this is one of my hobby-horses but it really is infuriating when they take 'heroic', masculine figures from history and remove any hint that such men could possibly have been gay (whether by dint of lovers becoming cousins or sex becoming an epilepsy gag) leaving us with effeminate or untrustworthy (or both) role models. HBO has a lot to make up for ... this really is homophobia, fear of portraying gay men in a positive light.


¹ "bring him back safely or I'll use your children's eyes as beads" is a personal favourite.
² No, really ... I doubt very much that we'll be seeing Ciaran Hinds in the buff any time soon so there's really very little in the way of eye-candy, though Ray Stevenson really is quite cute, isn't he?

Comments

[spiraltower.livejournal.com]

I haven't been watching Rome, so won't join that discussion.

Re HBO, however, have you watched Six Feet Under?

[binidj.livejournal.com]

No I haven't but I am aware that a couple of the primary characters are gay. Nevertheless, what I'm talking about here are actual, historical men who had sex with men. The reasons for concealing the sexualities of Ceasar, Achilles and Alexander can only be put down to homophobia ... there just isn't a plausible reason for such revisionist treatment otherwise.

[quintus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they somewhat played down just how special a friend Patroclus was to Achilles in 'Troy' which I thought was a bit cowardly.

[curlwomble.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Troy really didn't even bother having punches to pull... I didn't think they covered up Alexander's sexuality. They might not have depicted the homo side as directly as they did the hetero in the recent film, but there was no thinking he didn't have sex with men.

[pauln.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't that count as "lying by omission"?

Lying by omission

[curlwomble.livejournal.com]

I don't consider it so. They implied it very strongly in all sorts of filmic language. The difference between "blow-by-blow" account (which we were given about his het. activities) and just saying "He had sex with men," if you like. I guess it's possible I am more aware of the issue than the general audience, having had a long interest in Alexander and been party to discussions about the depiction of his sexuality before having seen the film, but to me it was obvious he had at least one (detail of the film is hazy memory) male lover (and only one female one).

Re: Lying by omission

[pauln.livejournal.com]

Fair 'nuff. Thanks for the further explication