I was reminded of the power of convention tonight while watching the 2nd season-opener of HBO’s Rome tonight. I love this show, and as I’m not a huge Sopranos or Deadwood fan, consider it the 2nd best show on television (after The Wire, obviously, which makes almost everything else ever put on television look a bit shoddy by comparison).
You know what annoyed me right from the start of the first episode in season one though? The British accents. Rome does away with the cliched white-marble colums and toga thing and creates a much more nuanced and realistic-feeling (can’t vouch for the details) environment. Then come the British accents, and you’re hit in the face with how incredibly powerful convention is. There is absolutely zero reason to give the Romans British accents aside from convention, and yet I’ll certainly grant that having Caesar speak in anything but a British accent would have been cause for comment.
I think it would have been interesting to give that cause for comment, though. Imagine Caesar with with, say, a version of an American accent that might be generally considered a bit crass. Imagine Caesar with a Brooklyn accent. Wouldn’t that be cool? I certainly think so, but were I placing a bet, I’d bet on the conventional British-accented Caesar.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 15th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Bill
I think it was less a matter of convention and more a matter that it was a co-production with the BBC.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Cael
Since most of the actors were English, it would probably sound worse had they faked American accents. Leaving aside the impossibility of having a British accent since an accent is by definition a variation from English. Speaking English with an American accent works. Speaking English with an English accent is a redundancy.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Michael Chui
It’s also worth pointing out that I’d imagine British accents sound sophisticated and lofty to the average American viewer, which is something we also associate with Romans. After all, anything said in Latin immediately sounds profound.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Nick
There’s already quite a variety of accents on Rome, it sounds diverse already to British ears at least. There’s definitely an attempt to map UK accents to equivalent Roman ones, in terms of social position. Most of the senators (particularly Brutus) have very upper class South East accents, with a wider variety of accents associated with UK regions and middle/working classes representing everyone else.
Interestingly, there’s a huge number of actors in Rome suppressing their normally very distinct regional accents - Ciaran Hinds (Irish) and Kevin McKidd(Scottish) being the obvious examples. Ray Stevenson lets a fair amount of his Geordie through though, which seems almost appropriate to my ears being a lowly legionaire.
I do see your point though. There’s no logical reason for the mapping of Roman accents to UK rather than US equivalents. I’d find it close to unwatchable, however, if it had been like that. It just doesn’t seem right. It’s an interesting question as to precisely why that should be, other than convention.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Matt
Nick wrote:
It just doesn’t seem right. It’s an interesting question as to precisely why that should be, other than convention.
I don’t think there IS a reason it seems right outside of convention.
By the way, I will also certainly take issue with the claim a few comments above that there is no “English” accent. Of course there is. Everybody’s got an accent, as accents are relative. What the English sound like now is certainly not what the English sounded like 800 years ago for instance.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Zell
I think British culture maps better to Roman culture than US culture does. That may not constitute a ‘logical reason’ but it’s part of the why it makes sense to us. England’s been shaped by centuries of being an imperial power, and a millenium of being firmly settled — whereas the US draws of its archetypal identity from the exploration and conquest of a continent, as a colony that broke free of its imperial chains and stepped into the light of manifest destiny. The USA and Rome have nothing in common. There’s a reason the convention remains strong.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Matt
If I had to guess, I would guess it has a lot more to do with Shakespeare than anything else.
Julius Caesar, Titus Andronicus, Antony and Cleopatra, etc. I’d be willing to bet, on reflection, that if we traced back Romans-with-Brit accents we’d end up at Shakespeare.
–matt
January 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Marc/Richter
You know, I just saw Night at the Museum, and Octavius (the roman general) had a british accent too. It must be a conspiracy.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Cael
Alright, i’ll accept that everyone has an accent but the day the British Isles have only one accent is probably long after i’m dead - unless the West Country becomes incredibly fashionable, of course.
In this case… it’s because it’s the BBC.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Ryan Shwayder
I’ve always commented on how it’s funny that we believe everyone in Europe who speaks English has a Birtish accent (except Germans and French people). Then again, if anyone in the Roman times knew English, they would have learned from a British person, and therefore would have had a bit of a British accent.
Seriously, have you heard the way most Europeans who speak English really well sound (except for the Swedes, who pretty much just watch American TV and have our accents more so than British ones)?
January 16th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Matt
English didn’t exist in ancient Roman times.
–matt
January 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Ryan Shwayder
Whatevah, I do what I want.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Carl
I think they should have given them Italian accents.
I think the comment about British and Roman imperialism matching up is a valid point. It seems like the best movies and shows about Rome have always been from UK.
-Carl