I Claudius

(and I could never imagine Nero as anyone other than Biggins).
It seemed to me that Christopher Biggins was himself channeling Charles Laughton's portrail in The Sign of the Cross, and also Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis.

Although all of the Caesars in the series were in their own way self indulgent, the others were all reasonably skilled in political intrigue and control.
Biggins played very well the idea that Nero really had none of that and was merely indulging his own greed for food and sexual pleasure, to the point of sleeping with his mum, who was herself using him politically by encouraging him to do so.

This all fits in well, of course, with the popular saying about him fiddling while Rome burned.
 
It seemed to me that Christopher Biggins was himself channeling Charles Laughton's portrail in The Sign of the Cross, and also Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis.

Although all of the Caesars in the series were in their own way self indulgent, the others were all reasonably skilled in political intrigue and control.
Biggins played very well the idea that Nero really had none of that and was merely indulging his own greed for food and sexual pleasure, to the point of sleeping with his mum, who was herself using him politically by encouraging him to do so.

This all fits in well, of course, with the popular saying about him fiddling while Rome burned.
Yes, I can definitely see elements of Ustinov in Biggin's performance; although Biggins is less overplayed. Tbh I think that they characterise well the general view of Nero (and Graves' version) but I suspect that the 'real' version was quite different. I do think that John Hurt's Caligula was eerily realistic, and quite possibly similar to the real person.
 
:LOL: I have no idea of the reality. Only some of the myth.

The sensationalism is usually what remains of people after their death. Modern politicians are far more likely to be remembered for their tabloid headlines than anything they actually did or said.
 
The BBC did so much great studio based drama in the 1960s and 70s. ... From Elizabeth R to Henry VIII to I, Claudius and all the wonderful Shakespeare and adaptations they were a joy to watch.
I could not agree more. I so miss the excellent dramas and the serialisations of major novels the BBC did in the 60s and 70s (even early 80s). It truly was a golden age, when such things could be watched as plays rather than as movie epics. My mother and I always watched them together, and would arrange our meals and evening activities so as not to miss an episode.
 
I think my favourite part is when Tiberius is trying to find a senator that hasn't slept with his daughter. Brian Blessed makes Augustus both funny and terrifying in this scene.
I remember liking Tiberius when he was a young man. Then he is forced to divorce Vipsania, the wife he loves so much, and after that he turns into a monster. But as well as despising what he became, I found I pitied him too. Such a horrible lot in life.
 
I remember liking Tiberius when he was a young man. Then he is forced to divorce Vipsania, the wife he loves so much, and after that he turns into a monster. But as well as despising what he became, I found I pitied him too. Such a horrible lot in life.

August forced him to divorce his wife so he could adopt him into ruling line of succession. It was a rotten thing to do and It lead to disaster for Rome . Augustus caused the downfall of the ruling dynasty he created. What stupid man he was.
 
August forced him to divorce his wife so he could adopt him into ruling line of succession. It was a rotten thing to do and It lead to disaster for Rome . Augustus caused the downfall of the ruling dynasty he created. What stupid man he was.

Graves suggests that Livia (Tiberius' mother from a previous marriage) was the instigator in positioning him as the successor to Augustus. But it was not an uncommon practice for a Roman to remarry for political gain. Tiberius was 'of the blood', an able commander and as capable as a successor to Augustus as any other. Perhaps most importantly he was  loyal, and - when named as successor - unlikely to hasten his succession by plotting against the emperor.

From what we know of Augustus, it would be surprising for him to be manipulated in this way by his wife - he was himself a wily operator - and choosing Tiberius to succeed him was the logical choice.
 
Nero.jpg
 
Graves suggests that Livia (Tiberius' mother from a previous marriage) was the instigator in positioning him as the successor to Augustus. But it was not an uncommon practice for a Roman to remarry for political gain. Tiberius was 'of the blood', an able commander and as capable as a successor to Augustus as any other. Perhaps most importantly he was  loyal, and - when named as successor - unlikely to hasten his succession by plotting against the emperor.

If that was mandated in I Claudius , I seem to forgotten it.:unsure::(


From what we know of Augustus, it would be surprising for him to be manipulated in this way by his wife - he was himself a wily operator - and choosing Tiberius to succeed him was the logical choice.
He wasn't a a great military mind like Uncle Julius but, he had far better political instincts . He took power and he sold the Roman public on the idea that he was restoring the Republic when in fact , all he was doing was hollowing it out keeping only the trapping . And they bought into it . I seem recall reading that at one point Tiberius went to the Senate and offered to give up being Emperor , but the Senate refused , a decision they ended up regretting.
 
In 1979 I was in Gdansk. They were running I, Claudius on their tv. Given their politics at the time I wonder what the public made of it,
 
I often wonder how history might have gone had Mark Anthony sided with Brutus and Cicero and the others .
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
gdoc Historical Fiction 15
dwndrgn Reviews & Interviews 0

Similar threads


Back
Top