aramis-112-804880
Joined Jul 2011
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews1.4K
aramis-112-804880's rating
"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.
Louis Jordan IS Dracula.
I like giving precis of plots, but I think most people know a version of the story. It's doubtful many have read the original novel (one of my favorites; I must've read it a dozen times since I was in the 7th grade). But allow me to explain something not generally understood:
The gaslight Victorian look is quaint. We think of Sherlock Holmes darting through the fog. Mr. Hyde. Jack the Ripper.
Actually, the 1890s was a progressive age. It was full of new inventions, many of them presented in the novel. Had I been born 100 years to the day before I was, I'd have heard of the invention of telephones, electric lights, typewriters, phonographs, bicycles . . . By the time the novel was published in 1897 I'd have heard of primitive "horseless carriages" and motion pictures.
Yet with a (to them) glorious new century opening soon, here was a monster from the dark ages stalking their streets.
That's the real story behind DRACULA. Unfortunately, the further we get from the 1890s, the more quaint it looks. Alas.
Jordan is perfect (apart from the mousyache the title character wore in the book). What about the rest if the cast?
Judi Bowker and Susan Penhaglion are superb as Mina and Lucy.
Despite a little nipping and tucking, always necessary when translating a full-sized novel to movie length, this is still the best "Dracula" available.
I like giving precis of plots, but I think most people know a version of the story. It's doubtful many have read the original novel (one of my favorites; I must've read it a dozen times since I was in the 7th grade). But allow me to explain something not generally understood:
The gaslight Victorian look is quaint. We think of Sherlock Holmes darting through the fog. Mr. Hyde. Jack the Ripper.
Actually, the 1890s was a progressive age. It was full of new inventions, many of them presented in the novel. Had I been born 100 years to the day before I was, I'd have heard of the invention of telephones, electric lights, typewriters, phonographs, bicycles . . . By the time the novel was published in 1897 I'd have heard of primitive "horseless carriages" and motion pictures.
Yet with a (to them) glorious new century opening soon, here was a monster from the dark ages stalking their streets.
That's the real story behind DRACULA. Unfortunately, the further we get from the 1890s, the more quaint it looks. Alas.
Jordan is perfect (apart from the mousyache the title character wore in the book). What about the rest if the cast?
Judi Bowker and Susan Penhaglion are superb as Mina and Lucy.
Despite a little nipping and tucking, always necessary when translating a full-sized novel to movie length, this is still the best "Dracula" available.
Alice (no surname provided) goes through a rabbit's tunnel and finds herself in a world of adults behaving like children (so what else is new?). Director Jonathan Miller was able to compile an amazing cast for next to nothing. Well, a movie-star "nothing."
Highlights:
John Gielgud and Malcolm Muggeridge as the "mock turtle" and the "gryphen." It turned me about. I never liked this scene in the book or other movies. After seeing these distinguished gentlemen in the scene it's become a favorite as I understand it at last.
Michael Redgrave's nervy caterpillar. What a wonderful performance!
The Mad Tea Party with Peter Cook as a jolly mad man; Wilfred Lawson as a dormouse who just wants to sleep; and Michael Gough as a defensive, angry mad March Hare.
Gordon Gostelow (I always look forward to his performances) painting the roses.
Wilfred Brambell's swish white rabbit.
The courtroom scene, particularly, has a dreamlike quality.
Overall, a very different, but stylish, Victorian tale. Though it will bore children.
Highlights:
John Gielgud and Malcolm Muggeridge as the "mock turtle" and the "gryphen." It turned me about. I never liked this scene in the book or other movies. After seeing these distinguished gentlemen in the scene it's become a favorite as I understand it at last.
Michael Redgrave's nervy caterpillar. What a wonderful performance!
The Mad Tea Party with Peter Cook as a jolly mad man; Wilfred Lawson as a dormouse who just wants to sleep; and Michael Gough as a defensive, angry mad March Hare.
Gordon Gostelow (I always look forward to his performances) painting the roses.
Wilfred Brambell's swish white rabbit.
The courtroom scene, particularly, has a dreamlike quality.
Overall, a very different, but stylish, Victorian tale. Though it will bore children.
Recently taken polls
953 total polls taken
