I am rewatching Rome with a friend who has never seen it and cares very little for history. We watch about 5 minutes, she hits pause and I then answer her questions. Once we have established which of the pale red headed women are which, we tend to get into historical questions and other details. Bless the producers and Jonathan Stamp for the commentaries on the episodes.

"Why do they hate Caesar? He seems like a nice guy." Lengthy explanation about the hiarchy of classes, how slaves represented wealth and giving free men their jobs was thought a bad thing and the theoretical differences between a democracy and a dictator.

"Why does Caesar care if Cleopatra is in power? What's wrong with having Anthony as a leader? Why is Brutus still plotting against Caesar? What is Vorenus' problem? Why is he such a tight ass?"

I forgot how good this show was and how much I learned from it.

Why do we cry when we watch films or read books that move us deeply? I remember years ago in high school when a teacher discussed catharsis, the emotional state one is in when you are effected deeply, usually by something that does not directly affect you, such as a movie or a play.

Pronunciation: k&-'thär-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ca·thar·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek katharsis, from kathairein to cleanse, purge, from katharos
1 : PURGATION
2 a : purification or purgation of the emotions (as pity and fear) primarily through art b : a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension
3 : elimination of a complex by bringing it to consciousness and affording it expression

I don't cry very often over things that happen to me, but there are movies and books that have reduced me to a sobbing, sorry state. Some have such an intense effect on me that I will not watch them with other people. It's too embarrassing. I know that what I am watching is not really happening. I know that they are actors and that they shot that very scene over and over and just out of sight there is a whole camera crew and a director chain smoking and saying, "Okay, you're blocking your dead child's face when you bend that way....do it again and don't bring your left hand up so high."

I supposes it's suspended disbelief, when you allow yourself to go with the premise that what you are seeing is real. Much like when one of my cats drops their toy in my shoe, backs up and crouches for a moment before leaping on it. They know very well that they dropped the toy in my shoe and that it's not really an unsuspecting mouse. They just choose to go with the moment for the satisfaction it brings.

What do I weep at? 'Nil by Mouth', a movie written and directed by Gary Oldman and 'The War Room', an intense and amazing film directed by Tim Roth. Ray Winstone was in both of them. Even though I knew he was acting in both and even though I read in interviews that he had a very difficult time with his role in The War Room (a film about incest and sexual abuse), he was so good in both movies that I kind of hated him afterwards.

'Once Were Warriors' is another movie that leaves me completely drained. I don't think I'll ever watch it again, it's just too raw of a film. But, it's a very good movie.

When I watched Deadwood there were scenes so deeply touching that I wept without even really being aware that I was crying. A brief scene where Calamity Jane is talking to her dear friend, Wild Bill, as he lays in his grave was very poignant. And two scenes involving the dying Reverand. The scene where the doctor is on his knees first praying then screaming at God to release this poor man from his suffering. And the scene where the tough, hardened Al Swearingen suffocates the Reverand, ending his pain with such compassion and pure love....why he didn't win an Emmy for that is unfathomable.

Surprisingly, Rome, as much as I loved it, did not make me cry, even when horrible things happened. I think it's because the terrible parts of life were handled in such a pragmatic way. One scene did make me tear up, which kind of surprised me. It was the look on Lucius' face when he was watching Titus fight for his life in the arena. That look of helplessness, horror and sorrow was just so perfect for the moment.

Ancient Rome and Greece influenced civilizations in so many ways, some major, some very small. I quilt as a hobby. It's one of my ways of justifying my Netflix addiction. A lot of quilting is cutting and piecing. I make block quilts, by hand, so there is a lot of sitting and sewing.

A lot of traditional quilt blocks come from ancient Roman and Greek mosaic patterns. I was thinking about this and wondering about how exactly they got passed down through all of these centuries.

Quilting did not became common until later in history; block quilting became popular as settlers moved west since the pieces could be set aside easily. A woman would make blocks until she had enough for a quilt and it was a good way to use scraps of old clothes and fabric. Plus quilts were warm and winters were cold.

I'm sure some of the patterns women came up with and then they just got passed on. But, the roman patterns...where were they seen? Remains of roman baths and forts are scattered throughout Europe and there was a renewed interest in Roman and Greek art in Europe as well. I like to think of women repeating the pattern they saw in old bricks they walked upon or in a faded mosaic pattern on a wall of some ruins in their old country. They carry that image with them to the colonies and repeat it in their quilt. It is preserved not through books or archived letters, but in stitches.

Probably a highly idealized and romantic thought, but as I sit in my living room in 2006 AD, stitching a Roman knot pattern into a quilt, I can imagine an invisible thread going back through time to ancient Rome where a woman notices a pattern in the tiles of the floor and admires it and remembers it.

With the upcoming election and the usual barrage of Chicago style mud slinging, accusations and scandal I had to appreciate the fact that as bad as it can get at least it's a bit easier to get rid of an unstable leader. I can't imagine the helpless uneasiness the subjects of some of the less stable rulers must have been watching their leader deteriorate.

Rome had some outstanding examples. Caligula ruled for only 4 years, but he managed to have quite an impact. He actually started out doing fairly well. He took over when Tiberius, his grand-uncle died. Tiberius was in the middle of very unpopular and painful search for those he considered treasonous. Lots of people had been tortured and killed, imprisoned and stripped of their property. Caligula, in a gesture of good will, reinstated property, released people from prison and nixed the torture spree. For a bit.

Not long after taking power, he grew very ill and when he recovered he was a very different man. His behavior became more erratic and extreme. He took on a lavish lifestyle, going rapidly through the government's funds and heaping taxes on his subjects to pay for his indulgances. He is suspected of having incestuous relationships with all three of his sisters, he had an affair with his chamberlain, Marcos, wife and then accused Marcos of being a pimp and ordered him to commit suicide. He took what women he wanted with no regard for marital status, rank or the woman's opinion of the matter.

The treason trials began again, it became mandatory to bequeath the emperor everything you owned and wealthy subjects were murdered quite frequently, their wealth then going to Caligula.

He attempted to make his favorite horse a consul and at one point embarked on a military campaign to invade Britain which resulted in the troops being ordered to collect sea shells as trophies of the campaign.

He was assassinated by his own guards who were part of a conspiracy involving several high ranking senators. His wife and small daughter were murdered as well.

According to a historian named Svetanius, Caligula suffered from epilepsy, called parliamentary disease and which was considered to be a very bad omen for a ruler to have. His was a chaotic if short reign.

RomeHistorian's blog about terrorism mentions that Mithrodates used to test himself with poisons. It made me think of an odd bit of information I found when I was looking up arsenic being used in cosmetics.

During the 17th century there was a woman named Signora Toffana who sold a cosmetic called Aqua Toffana. The little vial was decorated with a picture of a Saint and instructed the buyer to seek out Signora Toffana. Signora Toffan instructed the buyer to never ingest the cosmetic, but to place it on her cheeks when the woman's husband was around. There was quite a trail of dead husbands and wealthy widows before Signora Toffana was arrested, tortured and strangled in prison. The death count of husbands is suspected to be around 600.

When looking for more information on Toffana, I found the names of three notorious women poisoners in ancient Rome. Canidia, Martina and Locusta. All were professional poisoners. The poet, Horace, speaks of Canidia, Martina was suspected of killing the emporer Tiberius' nephew, Germanicas. She was being brought for questioning and was discovered dead, no marks of suicide on her, but poison was discovered in a knot of her hair. Locusta had quite a good career. After she poisoned Nero's half brother, he protected her from prosecution for her crimes and kept her on as an advisor of poisons and even encouraged her to teach others about her craft.

I love the internet, it can lead you in such odd directions.

I seriously need to chill sometimes when it comes to accuracy in movies. The other day I rented Blackbeard and found myself muttering at the screen while watching it. Angus Macfayden as Blackbeard rocked. He was the only reason I kept watching because the rest of the movie was nonsense.

The love interest, a 21 year old heiress is escorted to the colonies by a firm jawed British officer. Now she had supposedly studied to become a doctor in London although to my knowledge women were not admitted into medical school in the early 1700s. And no self respecting young woman would be escorted across the ocean by a young man she did not know. She would have a chaperone. All these thoughts kept popping into my head as I watched. Shut up, comic book guy...it's just a movie.

The accuracy of the pirates was better, although there was a walking the plank scene, which really didn't happen all that often. They tended to just toss you overboard if they wanted you gone. And they used the proper weapons for the most part, managing to not fire four or five shots with a blunderbuss and actually pausing to reload. It would have been nice if Blackbeard had actually twisted hemp cords into his beard and lit them on fire when attacking a ship. The guy had a touch for the theatrics.

So I continue to watch the movie while the phantom spirit of comic book guy keeps invading. The plucky, humorless heiress becomes an expert marksman all by herself in the matter of a few days. Yes..most genteel young ladies shot coconuts off of poles. And where the heck did she get coconuts? She's in the Carolina's!

Now stop reading if you can't wait to watch the movie because I'm about to ruin the end. This is the part where the plucky heiress who has of course been kidnapped and somewhere along the line acquired pants, the firm jawed British officers and the crew, defeat the pirates and kill Blackbeard by...get this.....quickly making hay stuffed figures of crew members to be decoys and all hiding below deck. So when the pirates swarm the ship they are so perplexed that the heroic crew below all run up the ONE stairway onto the deck and in that maybe 30 second element of surprise manage to defeat the pirates. The head of the comic book guy within me explodes.

Now I know it's just a movie, but it's so much better when they get it right. A little bit of artistic license is fine. I wouldn't really want to see the pirates as they probably were. A little swarthy and wee bit dangerous is dandy with me. But, everyone has their limits. And a sword and pistol wielding heiress who flouts every possible convention of the time period she is in and her firm jawed sidekick who manages to fool the pirates into thinking he is one of them although he betrays his military trainig with every action and never loses his upper crust action.......that just wakes up the comic book guy inside me. Dorkiest pirate movie.....EVER.

The strict social structure of Ancient Rome may seem unfair to some, but is it really all that different from what exists today? I suppose it's not as rigid and it may not even be recognized as existing, but the social and economic separations of classes in the U.S. seems to be growing more rigid and apparant as time passes.

Last week was the one year anniversary of Katrina and I watched interviews of people from New Orleans who firmly believed that their government had deliberately destroyed sections of the levy in an attempt to spare the wealthier areas flood damages while destroying the poor areas. What really horrified me was not that they believed this (I don't think it was the case this time). What shocked me and filled me with a tremendous amount of sadness is why they believed this. Because in 1927 it had been done. It was not an effort to kill the poor, it was an economic decision. Why destroy valuable property if we can spare it by flooding poor areas? The decision makers did not see the faces of the poor who would suffer. They were invisible.

The gap between rich and poor is growing wider and the middle class are slowly disappearing. Most people don't feel comfortable admitting that classism exists, but it is always there. The term trailer park trash is a common insult, but what does it really mean? That someone poor enough to live in a trailer must be trashy and inferior. Most people who use the phrase have probably never set foot in a trailer park, but they have that image in their minds that people there are trashy, not very bright and prone to being arrested.

The upper class of ancient Rome spoke of 'plebs' with obvious disdain; is it any different now? The poor back then were to be placated and contained. Most cities have distinct areas that are poor and they are usually isolated and almost like small cities within the city. The schools are not as good, there are few opportunities for jobs, housing is limited and of poor quality and transportation out of their neighborhood is sparse. There tends to be hostility between the poor and the police as the police are not seen as being their to protect them, but more to keep the people living there in check.

I don't think the poor of ancient Rome and the poor of today have any fondness of the upper class. There is perhaps envy, resentment and mistrust. While it is more feasible for someone to rise from one class to another, with the gap between economic classes widening, educational costs sky rocketing, the differences between classes today are only going to become more apparant and rigid.

There is a certain undeniable appeal for a great many women when it comes to men more in touch with their primal ruthless side. For all of the prattling on talk shows about the need to communicate with one's mate, how men should be in touch with their feminine side, the bottom line is quite a few of us are more distracted and insterested in the sword wielding warriors who take a city and carry away what they want. Yet, there seems to be a stigma attached to the attraction. Sometimes women have a hard time admitting they want a strong man or even worse...a man stronger than they are.

If you look at literature and movies, there is example after example of the rougher, more dominant man holding great appeal as a romantic figure. Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights was far from a nice guy, yet he's a figure in literature that is considered very romantic. Rhett Butler did not win Scarlet's heart by sitting her down to discuss how her behavior made him feel and how they needed to open up the lines of communication. Nope. He swept her off her feet, carried her up the stairs and to his bedroom. And she was purring like a kitten in the morning.

I've found quite a few women who have great difficulty that they hold any sort of attraction towards men who use force of either their personality or physical force to get what they want. But, the fact that characters like Lucius and Titus speak volumes. Strength is exciting in a man.

Now I am not a helpless sort. I'm very strong willed, extremely independent and if I must be honest, I'm a bit of a bossy pants. And the man in my life is stronger than me and I cannot bend him to my will. I can willingly admit that when I see a Lucius/Titus type on film kick a door in and throw a struggling woman over his shoulder part of me envies her.

Women in ancient Rome often used a face powder made from white lead. This, of course, is poisonous, although it would not kill them immediately unless they ate it. Sometimes their face powder contained arsenic. They colored their nails with sheep's fat and blood for polish. A pale complexion was desired, I'm guessing because it demonstrated that the woman did not have to work outside and so must be of the upper class. That particular sentiment lasted for centuries. It was only recently that it was decided that tan skin was desirable.

It's hard to grasp that vanity would allow women to use such drastic implements in a quest for beauty. But, look throughout history. Corsets that constricted and damaged internal organs, foot binding; it seems every culture and age has felt the need to risk health and happiness to meet some ideal of beauty.

Yet today people inject botox into their faces, have bags of saline or some gel like substance planted in their chests, go willingly under the knife to be cut and carved, sucked and stitched. It's such an odd way to treat oneself.

I'm one to talk. I have four tattoos, pierced ears, wear contact lenses and I do wear make up. Just hopefully not make up that will seep into my pores and kill me some day.

Perhaps vanity is a driving force that we don't think about all that much. Looking at history, it does seem to have a powerful hold on us.

--
Edited by hissyfit36 at 09/07/2006 3:32 PM