In retrospect one of the great casts
"I, Claudius" is an actors' showcase. I see no reason to list all the actors who were know quantities at the time or those who used the series as a springboard to international fame. IMDB lists them very nicely.
Is it good? Yes. The first time I saw it, way back when A. Cooke was introducing "Masterpiece Theatre," I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I don't eat sliced bread anymore.
It has the faults of British TV at the time. Stagey, often overacted. But so many of the cast are so good it's worth seeing for any aspiring actor; or anyone who loves good acting, or actors. But I like to see actors of this quality even when they're making jackasses of themselves.
BTW, I need to address the issue of historical accuracy. It's based on an historical novel or two, which I've read. Yes, Graves' subtleties are sometimes lost. But it's a different medium. TV watchers aren't as adept at subtleties as readers.
But in case a few bozos out there don't know: a novel means FICTION. Fiction means it's a great, big lie. But it might be a fun ride for all that. True, Graves on his novels used many more historical figures than, say, Tolstoy did on WAR AND PEACE, but his Napoleon is no less fictionally valid than Graves' Augustus.
It's a bit of license given fiction writers, that they are able to look at history and pluck out good guys and bad guys and put made up speeches in people's mouths. I don't like it. I think it's immoral. History isn't full of "good guys" and "bad guys." Just guys. Some of whom did things that, based our aesthetics or out POV at our era, we find deplorable. All historical fiction writers do it. And I find that deplorable.
But some darn good novels have come from that process. And to condemn this work of fiction for its inaccuracies could equally apply to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar."
And shut up about "Rome." I've seen "I, Claudius" and I've seen "Rome." If either of then were truly historically accurate they'd be speaking Greek and Latin.
Is it good? Yes. The first time I saw it, way back when A. Cooke was introducing "Masterpiece Theatre," I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I don't eat sliced bread anymore.
It has the faults of British TV at the time. Stagey, often overacted. But so many of the cast are so good it's worth seeing for any aspiring actor; or anyone who loves good acting, or actors. But I like to see actors of this quality even when they're making jackasses of themselves.
BTW, I need to address the issue of historical accuracy. It's based on an historical novel or two, which I've read. Yes, Graves' subtleties are sometimes lost. But it's a different medium. TV watchers aren't as adept at subtleties as readers.
But in case a few bozos out there don't know: a novel means FICTION. Fiction means it's a great, big lie. But it might be a fun ride for all that. True, Graves on his novels used many more historical figures than, say, Tolstoy did on WAR AND PEACE, but his Napoleon is no less fictionally valid than Graves' Augustus.
It's a bit of license given fiction writers, that they are able to look at history and pluck out good guys and bad guys and put made up speeches in people's mouths. I don't like it. I think it's immoral. History isn't full of "good guys" and "bad guys." Just guys. Some of whom did things that, based our aesthetics or out POV at our era, we find deplorable. All historical fiction writers do it. And I find that deplorable.
But some darn good novels have come from that process. And to condemn this work of fiction for its inaccuracies could equally apply to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar."
And shut up about "Rome." I've seen "I, Claudius" and I've seen "Rome." If either of then were truly historically accurate they'd be speaking Greek and Latin.
- aramis-112-804880
- Nov 29, 2025