The Caesars

Having seen "The Caesars" when I was at school, I could not understand the swooning praise heaped on "I Claudius" which is comparatively superficial, inaccurate and a travesty.

To take just one example, the real Augustus was physically slight, intellectually subtle and personally formidable so casting Brian Blessed as Augustus in "I Claudius" was grotesquely wrong. Roland Culver was an infinitely better choice.

This was a series about the realities of power in any period - and rather closely followed the surviving record of the sophisticated and lurid Roman historian Suetonius.

The DVD was released in April 2006 - PAL/Region 2 - and is available from Amazon in the UK - but IMDb does not seem to have heard of this yet. The picture is sometimes rather dodgy but it is probably as good as we will get - and TV production was pretty rough in 1968 (compared to today's digitalised everything).

The writing and acting are still superb.

I've seen both the 1968 and 1977 versions of the life of the Caesars and there is no doubt in my mind that the earlier version is superior. A great song and dance was made at the time, about the 1977 version, but it has several historical inaccuracies and it didn't pack the same punch nor contain the same intensity of feeling/quality of acting, as the '68 version.

There were many moments that moved me very deeply in the '68 production. The scene where the new Commander of the Guard: Macro, was breaking the news to Tiberius after the trial and death of Sejanus, was to me, the most painful and wonderful scene of all. Tiberius (Andre Morell) is seated, and Macro is stood before him, informing him that Livilla & Sejanus had poisoned Castor, Tiberius' only son, to help secure Lavilla's own son's (Gemellus')procession to the throne. I was literally shaking and almost in tears, at Mr Morell's powerful acting and at the sheer emotional intensity and power of the scene. Mr Morell's performance, undoubtedly, brought out the best in the supporting cast, because they all seemed to be extraordinarily involved and emotionally affected. This is acting at its best.

The murders of Posthumus, Germanicus and Drusus were deftly handled, especially Germanicus' poisoning at the hands of "that witch, Plancina".

John Hurt's Caligula was very different to that of Ralph Bates, who tragically left us at the age of 51 in 1991. The part where Caligula (Bates)says that he makes love to the moon, was. to me, most revealing about Caligula's vulnerability, madness and general inability to cope with the demands made on him as emperor; being irrational, weak, helplessly hedonistic, narcissistic and ineffectual, one can hardly hope to hang on to the highest office! With Mr Bates' performance, Caligula's deranged character seemed to grow organically, from the moment he becomes emperor, being relatively "normal" at Tiberius' dinners, for example, to monstrously grotesque, vicious, volatile, manicically out of control and highly sadistic by the time he is killed by the guards. Mr Hurt doesn't look quite right from the start, indeed, we see the young Caligula setting fire to the house at about the age of 10. This implies that Caligula's unbalanced temperament and character were embryonically at fault and that he simply went from bad to worse. Mr Bates' interpretation suggests that it was absolute power, which he couldn't handle on becoming emperor; both these psychologival profiles are of course, tragic, but in very different ways.

I really enjoyed the exchanges between Tiberius and his mother: the ageing Livia, with cut-glass English accents and first-rate acting.

I would advise and recommend, that anyone interested in this period of history, should first make the effort to watch the '68 production. It's only by doing this, will you see just how lacking the 1977 version is.

Excellent series, but misguided to compare it to "I, Claudius"

While Ralph Bates was a good actor for Hammer and other companies, and is adequate here, comparing him to John Hurt's award-winning performance as Caligula in "I, Claudius" is just dumb. The Robert Graves story is a work of FICTION, while "The Caesars" is an attempt at being historical - which it utterly fails at, as the dialog is entirely speculative. Also, great swaths of events and characters are completely absent. These at least appear in "I, Claudius." There are no Roman crowd scenes, either in the city or the provinces, and these would have added to the series somewhat. Still, what there is is excellent: solid acting, good script, and production values being adequate for the budget. A treat to watch.

I rarely give any production 10 out of 10 but this series, made in black and white in the 1960s, believed lost for many years, deserves it. 'The Caesars' focuses mainly on the reigns of two Roman Emperors, Tiberius (Andre Morell) and Caligula (Ralph Bates), although it touches on others along the way (Claudius, an excellent performance of someone playing the fool for survival from Freddie Jones; a regal Augustus; a vain Sejanus; and a foolish Germanicus) to make up the six episodes. Female characters also register strongly, with performances coming through clearly from the likes of Caroline Blakiston and Nicola Pagett.

A script of power, superlative acting, restrained depiction of reigns of terror (compare this Caligula with the one enacted by Malcolm McDowell in the 1970s film) makes this series still watchable without it having been dated. The end of the episode 'Sejanus' is excellent and extremely moving, and the standard remains high throughout the whole of the series.

Welcome to DVD and well worth watching.

I don't agree with the previous comments comparing The Caesars and I Claudius. Both series are masterpieces of casting, interpretation,dialogs and filming.

Someone referred to Suetonius "12 Caesars" and seems to believe that this work , I read, is a reliable source on the way Rome was administered at that time.

I will try to translate as closely as possible what is said in Wikipedia's French article concerning the Roman writer:

"The amount of archives consulted by Suetonius is often a matter of discussion and generally considered less important than believed, says Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Luc de Coninck.

Suetonius bears very little interest to the history and administration of th Empire; he is interested in the acts and personalities of the Caesars and particularly in their vices and misbehavior; this lead commentators to consider Suetonius, as stated by Alexis Pierron, to be an anteroom pedlar! Of reporting rumors which authenticity were often dubious.

As Pierron said,"Suetonius was listening behind doors but did not hear carefully what was said"...

I will say personally that I would consider him as the people magazine writer of that time. Interesting but unreliable.

In conclusion it is impossible for us to this day to be certain of the facts as well as of a great part of the historical events which are presented in full details in both series. We should not consider both series as historical testimonials.

They are just fantastic playwrights, beautifully brought to the screen, each with the means and possibilities of Television of their times of shooting. Color Television in 68 was at its debut with an American standard which deficiencies was so obvious that the NTSC acronym was translated as "Never The Same Color"!!! Probably today if a new version was made, it would put the accent on special effects,sex and violence not to say gore as it seems to be the dangerous habit of our XXIst century.

I will buy the 68 edition hoping that the DVD has a better quality than the youtube version I've just watched.

I shall assimilate this version to the fantastic Shakespearian broadcasts of the BBC of the same period. Actors of superb diction, not overplaying and punching you through the screen with their unsurpassed talent!