I didn't like this much. It wasn't bad, but I found it disappointing. Too straightforward, too few surprises (and I guessed the bit with the popcorn a mile off). Maybe the problem is the writer inasmuch as I like Survival a lot and Rona Munro has a bigger reputation than most people to have written for Doctor Who (probably only Douglas Adams and Richard Curtis are better known) so I just expected better. Sadly, I felt that if I had to pick between this and Survival, I would say this is the story written by the novice straight out of scriptwriting school and Survival was the work of the more mature, award-winning playwright.
My understanding about Romans and sex (and this is largely from a sign in an exhibition in the British Museum that I saw years ago, so I could be wrong) is that they didn't think in terms of straight vs. gay, they thought in terms of active/penetrating (good) and passive/penetrated (bad) so women were always deemed to be acting in an inferior way and how gay men were seen depended on what they were doing. Which isn't at all what is presented on screen.
no subject
My understanding about Romans and sex (and this is largely from a sign in an exhibition in the British Museum that I saw years ago, so I could be wrong) is that they didn't think in terms of straight vs. gay, they thought in terms of active/penetrating (good) and passive/penetrated (bad) so women were always deemed to be acting in an inferior way and how gay men were seen depended on what they were doing. Which isn't at all what is presented on screen.