Hinds' Caesar

I

Why then did the producers select Hinds, whose Caesar comes off as constipated? I get the feeling with Hinds

PP--I think you underestimate the willingness of people to conform and to obey authority, especially when survival depends on group solidarity. After 8 years in darkest Gaul where they were separated from any normal life they knew, the soldiers learned in every conceivable fashion that their survival depended on their obedience and the will of Caesar, the man who was responsible for having them fed, clothed, healed, or killed. So even if Caesar weren't dripping personal charisma (and supposedly he had some), he could ask his men to do nearly anything. It was the power of the social situation. And, really, that little ploy Hinds' Caesar used to get his men to cross the Rubicon in HBO Rome perfectly illustrated this social dynamic.

I think Hinds was simply fantastic.

Personally I found Hinds' portrayl of Caesar to be the best I had seen so far (although I haven't seen all screen adaptions of Caesar's story).

I agree with Cato on this one.

Caesar was known to have unbridled energy. I get no feeling of this at all from Hinds. Authority, yes. Majesty, too. But no sense of zip or spark similar to the way Harrison, Calhern, and Rains portray him.

Of course, in all fairness, I've only seen the first four episodes.

Caesar was known to have unbridled energy. I get no feeling of this at all from Hinds. Authority, yes. Majesty, too. But no sense of zip or spark similar to the way Harrison, Calhern, and Rains portray him

I haven't seen their portrayl's of Caesar, although I have seen Claude Rains in some other films like Lawrence of Arabia.

PP--I think you underestimate the willingness of people to conform and to obey authority, especially when survival depends on group solidarity. After 8 years in darkest Gaul where they were separated from any normal life they knew, the soldiers learned in every conceivable fashion that their survival depended on their obedience and the will of Caesar, the man who was responsible for having them fed, clothed, healed, or killed. So even if Caesar weren't dripping personal charisma (and supposedly he had some), he could ask his men to do nearly anything. It was the power of the social situation. And, really, that little ploy Hinds' Caesar used to get his men to cross the Rubicon in HBO Rome perfectly illustrated this social dynamic.

 

I think Hinds was simply fantastic.

Sure there are many other dynamics other than Caesar's charisma at play in the setting described, but I just think you underestimate how sleepy Hinds makes me feel

Seriously, I'm not suggesting that Hinds should've played Caesar in the McCullough mold of all powerful godliness, but his portrayal strikes me as a man who reluctantly reacts to events around him rather than the energetic force who proactively conquered Gaul and crushed the opposition en route to toppling the Republic. Caesar was also noted as perhaps being second only to Cicero in oration, and Hinds seems lackluster in this regard (as does Cicero's character for that matter, though he had little screen time to show much).

In fairness to Hinds (whose performance I personally admire) I think we must remember that a filmic performance involves several elements:

* the actors personality, physicality andability - presumablyreasons for him being cast in the first place

* the actor's own vision of the role

* the director's vision (perhaps one of the more important) and instructions on how to play each scene

* the editing - which can leave crucial scenes on the cutting room floor

* the balance of the ensemble - ensuring that characters are clearly defined to an audience; identifiable; intelligible; dramatic; different from each other etc.

In that sense, I think the director may have wanted a somewhat unsympathetic, slightly alienating, haughty Caesar and both cast the part and directed to that end. if energy and drive - even keen intelligence had been the crucial characteristics, then I can think of other actors who might have been cast. They weren't.

As I observed in another thread I started on filmic Caesars, my own favorite is Rex Harrison in Cleopatra, who got the quickness, wit and intelligence just right, and also conveyed a sense that he KNEW his own superiority.

Hinds though fits the conciously anti-epic style of ROME for me, and as I say I admire and enjoy his work i the series.

Phil

PP wrote:

but his portrayal strikes me as a man who reluctantly reacts to events around him rather than the energetic force who proactively conquered Gaul and crushed the opposition

I think this hits the nail on the head. Caesar's driving personality turned Rome upside down, challenged the old order of things. I get no feeling of any such momentum from Hinds. It's almost as if we're suppose to assume that he's done all this, and it presupposes that the viewer is already acquainted with Roman history, which, in fact, is not true with the broad viewing public. The writers and producers clearly know their subject matter. I find it hard to believe that such a sedate portrayal of Caesar is what they wanted. I think the key here is as Phil stated, it's Hinds' interpretation of the man.

as Phil stated, it's Hinds' interpretation of the man.

To be honest, frankq, that wasn't what i'd intended to convey, even if it came across that way!!

We don't know whether Hinds had done a moment's research about GJC - he may have taken the whole thing from the director - not even read another line of the script except the scenes he was in!! Many actors are like that.

On the other hand, Hinds may have spent months in detailed research.

I simply don't know. so cannot say.

Most likely, in my view, is that that performance was what the director(s actually, because separate episodes were in different hands) wanted.

They may not, in the overall scheme of the series have wanted Hinds' performance to dominate. Just for him to be the backdrop against which the protagonists of the series - V&P, Atia, Octavian, servilia etc, could act out their stories. IMHO ROME is not ABOUT Caesar. It's about those around him.

Phil

as Phil stated, it's Hinds' interpretation of the man.

 

To be honest, frankq, that wasn't what i'd intended to convey, even if it came across that way!!

 

We don't know whether Hinds had done a moment's research about GJC - he may have taken the whole thing from the director - not even read another line of the script except the scenes he was in!! Many actors are like that.

 

On the other hand, Hinds may have spent months in detailed research.

 

I simply don't know. so cannot say.

 

Most likely, in my view, is that that performance was what the director(s actually, because separate episodes were in different hands) wanted.

 

They may not, in the overall scheme of the series have wanted Hinds' performance to dominate. Just for him to be the backdrop against which the protagonists of the series - V&P, Atia, Octavian, servilia etc, could act out their stories. IMHO ROME is not ABOUT Caesar. It's about those around him.

 

Phil

This makes sense. Priority given to the overall production. Consider a more Claude Rains version in the scheme of the script. The actor'd be crying for more convincing dialogue.

And yes, I agree, many actors take cue from the director, and many if not most actors havent got a brain in their head. They're chameleons.

I think Phil is right in saying the directors probably didnt want Hinds performance to dominate the show, there's so many other storylines going on like Octavian, brutus, pompey etc that the directors didnt want the viewers just craving for Caesar, they wanted the other stars to also shine, after all the main storyline in the first series followed the lives of Vorenus and Pullo, in my opinion they were the main stars of the show.

Back to Hinds Caesar, i thought his interpretation on the whole was pretty good, although like many of you say he was just lacking that bit of charisma, that air of confidence that set Caesar apart from your average roman, the X factor!

Just to clarify for everyone... though I did feel that Hinds is somewhat lacking in in my own vision of what Caesar was like... I do not feel that he in any way damages the credibility or enjoyability of the show. He does have several redeeming qualities that make him a fine cast member and I respect his part in the show. I have just always been modestly disappointed by what seems to be the afore-mentioned lack of energy.

I think I agree with the general consensus that the majesty and dignity was there, but for whatever reason or fault Caesar's trademark flamboyance was not.

Also, Hinds has too much hair to play Caesar.

I think I agree with the general consensus that the majesty and dignity was there, but for whatever reason or fault Caesar's trademark flamboyance was not.

 

Also, Hinds has too much hair to play Caesar.

That reminds me of Phil's early cinema depiction post. I have never seen Gielgud's portrayal but, physically speaking, the thin hair and all, I would think that he would come closest in actual likness.