jonathanruano

When "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" came out, it was a sensational blast from the past with new villains, complex and tormented heroes, and highly original and colourful dialogue. The series had big surprises in almost every episode, largely because the characters on screen were fully realized. They were the complete opposite of the predictable stock characters that appeared in other special effects pictures, like Transformers. Therefore, what you thought of Batiatus in episode 2 was probably very different from what you thought of him near the end.

So how did the prequel "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" measure up against Season 1's Spartacus? Not so well. To be sure, I enjoyed the blood, the violence, the sex and the illicit love story (the details of which I will leave the viewers to figure out). Yet it seemed to me that the creators of this Spartacus were bringing back their old bag of tricks from the first season. There was little in this series that was fresh. Batiatus (John Hannah) was the same old villain. I still enjoyed watching John Hannah's character, but I felt that I had seen this performance before. Batiatus' wife Lucretia (Lucy Lawless) had a couple more character dimensions added, but generally speaking she was the same as in season 1. Fortunately there was a new hero in the prequel, named Gannicus (played by Dustin Clare, who I think does a better job than Andy Whitfield). In his subtle way, Clare seems to be telling us that Gannicus only becomes a better human being once he has been humbled -- and that kind of redeeming story is always fun to watch.

Yet outside of that, the plot is problematic. The problem with prequels is that the story line can more or less be predicted and, as a result, the tension is gone in most of the scenes. In Spartacus: Blood and Sand, there was always the possibility that Batiatus might overstep in his bid for greater power and glory and meet the death he so richly deserved. But that concern does not exist in the prequel. Since we know Batiatus is going to survive anyway, the tension in scenes where he appears to be in danger is almost obviated. There is also very little that is new in the plot. Batiatus's house is still the same brothel as in the first season, the stadium is hosting the same old gladiator games, the gladiator villains all look the same, the Roman aristocrats are the same old psychopaths (though one of them is particularly horrid), and Batiatus' little plots play themselves out in the same way.

As a final thought, one of the ways to be amused with this series is by seeing it through the eyes of a Marxist. The prequel represents the age of aristocracy with the benevolent landowner (Batiatus' dad) who rubs shoulders with the gladiators and treats them with the same fondness that a father would accord to his son. Batiatus, in this context, is very interesting because he has one foot in the world of the benevolent landowner and another foot in the world of the ruthless industrialist. Eventually he makes the transition to the ruthless industrialist, since only through this change can he acquire greater wealth, status and power. The rich are generally portrayed as morally degenerate and the social climbers, by seeking social elevation, are also morally corrupt. But the poor have stronge moral values or are the innocent victims of the rich at the top. When they become conscious of their status as an oppressed proletariat, they rise up in revolution. I don't know if the makers of Spartacus intended for their series to be interpreted in that way, but that is how the plot plays out.