I believe this programme is a very good story of political intrigue, murder and watered down sex, it is probably unfairr to compare it to I Claudius as the Caesars starts a lot further on into the story.The characters are the same but there behaviour is different for instance Germanicus is more politically aware than portrayed in I Claudius and Tiberias is much more empathic.The violence and sex is not so explicit as I Claudius which was made when TV was a bit more daring in the 1970s.This will please those interested in all things Roman.Ivaguely remember this programme on ITV back in my childhood, I think the Claudius story could be done again but with a more visual approach showing battle scenes possibly as a mini series or as a big screen blockbuster.
11 Reviews
Outstanding.
crayonzero28 August 2009
The only reason it is I Claudius, and not The Caesars, that people remember and fawn over today is The Caesars is in black and white and did not get nearly as much hype in its day.
It is a damn shame, as The Caesars is a superior show to I Claudius, from the acting to the choice of actors, to the portrayal of the main characters, it is simply far better.
Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius and Caligula are excellently portrayed here as believable human beings, with human motives, not like the tiresome 2d grotesques and borderline psychotics in I Claudius. Tiberius's character especially moved me.
If only it had been made in colour, it would be vastly more known and have the respect that is due to this wonderful show.
Instead of remaking, I Claudius, THIS should be remade with the same script. It is miles ahead.
Buy it or steal it, you are missing out.
It is a damn shame, as The Caesars is a superior show to I Claudius, from the acting to the choice of actors, to the portrayal of the main characters, it is simply far better.
Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius and Caligula are excellently portrayed here as believable human beings, with human motives, not like the tiresome 2d grotesques and borderline psychotics in I Claudius. Tiberius's character especially moved me.
If only it had been made in colour, it would be vastly more known and have the respect that is due to this wonderful show.
Instead of remaking, I Claudius, THIS should be remade with the same script. It is miles ahead.
Buy it or steal it, you are missing out.
Better than "I Claudius" by far
drslop13 August 2006
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.
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.
absolutely superb
didi-528 February 2008
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.
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.
A Masterpiece
peter-84226 July 2004
Unseen for many years (probably because it was made in B&W) The Caesars was every bit the equal of the BBC's celebrated "I Claudius". A remarkable array of character actors, lead by the inimitable Freddie Jones as Claudius himself, made this peerless entertainment. In one respect at least it exceeded "I Claudius" and that is in the performance of the late and much missed Ralph Bates as Caligula. He gave a brilliant and chilling performance as the insane emperor, easily beating John Hurt's outrageously camp and excessive performance (just this side of pantomime in its overacting) for the BBC. Bates' performance, is nothing short of superb. B&W or not, this is one series that deserves rediscovery and a DVD release.
Far greater artistically, than "I, Claudius".
derek_chapman111 October 2007
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.
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.
highly recommended
foghat454528 October 2010
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.
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.
The Blueprint for "I, Claudius"
kaaber-29 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It was interesting to watch in my case, almost at one sitting what can be regarded the blueprint of the "I, Claudius" series that propelled Derek Jacobi and John Hurt to instant fame in 1976. Having seen that series numerous times, its black-and-white predecessor at first struck me as a rip-off, which of course isn't entirely true, since the old series was made in 1968, but then again: Philip Mackie's script does seem to borrow more than a little from Robert Graves' 1934 novel on which the Claudius series was loyally based. Both series deal with the Julio-Augustan dynasty of ancient Rome, and although the later series of course covers Claudius' reign as well (his accession is where the older series leaves off), they depict the same events and relate the same historical events, and even the same not-quite-historical events.
Once you get over the truly hideous cinematography of "The Caesars" (the camera seems to change angles without observing any rules at all, and the angles chosen are often ludicrous and entirely undramatic), you must admire Philip Mackie's script. It is downright brilliant but seems more like the script of a play than a film script. It consists of very long though riveting dialogues in despairingly few locations, and action is a rare bird in the ancient Rome of "The Caesars".
To dwell on the differences between the two series: Tiberius (André Morell) is praised throughout four episodes as a man of peace, a reluctant emperor who tries to make it without blood on his hands. He seems more to typify Marcus Aurelius than Tiberius. Caligula (Ralph Bates) is not as overtly psychopathic as John Hurt, but grows slower into his infamous lunacy. Claudius (Freddie Jones) is excellent, perhaps even surpassing Jacobi.
But when all is said and done, "I, Claudius" is better. It has all that "The Caesars" has, and colour, too. I remember "I. Claudius" as the last big series before television came of age, aesthetically speaking, with "Brideshead Revisited" in 1981. Back in 1976, we still had the main focus on actors speaking their lines and acting their pants off, before a camera crew called in from the Eurovision Song Contest or some game show. Not much in the way of cinematography, I mean.
But the greatest drawback of "The Caesars" they didn't have the star of the show Sian Philips as Livia.
Once you get over the truly hideous cinematography of "The Caesars" (the camera seems to change angles without observing any rules at all, and the angles chosen are often ludicrous and entirely undramatic), you must admire Philip Mackie's script. It is downright brilliant but seems more like the script of a play than a film script. It consists of very long though riveting dialogues in despairingly few locations, and action is a rare bird in the ancient Rome of "The Caesars".
To dwell on the differences between the two series: Tiberius (André Morell) is praised throughout four episodes as a man of peace, a reluctant emperor who tries to make it without blood on his hands. He seems more to typify Marcus Aurelius than Tiberius. Caligula (Ralph Bates) is not as overtly psychopathic as John Hurt, but grows slower into his infamous lunacy. Claudius (Freddie Jones) is excellent, perhaps even surpassing Jacobi.
But when all is said and done, "I, Claudius" is better. It has all that "The Caesars" has, and colour, too. I remember "I. Claudius" as the last big series before television came of age, aesthetically speaking, with "Brideshead Revisited" in 1981. Back in 1976, we still had the main focus on actors speaking their lines and acting their pants off, before a camera crew called in from the Eurovision Song Contest or some game show. Not much in the way of cinematography, I mean.
But the greatest drawback of "The Caesars" they didn't have the star of the show Sian Philips as Livia.
A little too theatrical, but still a great historical drama serial.
CinemaSerf17 March 2020
I've just seen this on DVD and it is a superb telling of the early days of the Roman Empire. We arrive at the conclusion of the reign of Augustus and focus on the rules of Tiberius (André Morell) and of his insane megalomanic nephew Caligula (Ralph Bates). Sonia Dresdel is suitably imperious as Augustus' wife Livia and Freddie Jones stands out too, as the supposed halfwit "Claudius". I think it rather pointless comparing this series (6 hours & monochrome) with the later adaptation of Robert Graves' "I Claudius" books by the BBC (12 hours & colour) but this is certainly well worth watching in it's own right as a fascinating, intelligent, review of the glory and ignominy of life at the top.
The sum of its parts just doesn't add up.
mark.waltz16 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This six part miniseries about the early years of the Roman empire has many great elements to it including the performances. You start off with a dignified Roland Culver as Augustus Caesar and then go on to four episodes where André Morell as Tiberius, and he's the most fascinating character in the series. Ralph Bates as Caligula, Sonia Dresdel as Livia, Barrie Ingham as Sejanus and Freddie Jones as Claudius (the only actor in all six parts) are fine in supporting parts, but it's Morell who dominates and makes the audience care about him. However, the character of Tiberius here is not presented historically accurate, looking like a perfectly healthy old man while in other portrayals, he was covered in scabs and definitely not of sound mind.
The black and white photography and the low budget did not bother me as I am used to videotaped shows of this nature from the Golden age of television, both American and British. But this is basically a cliff notes version of Roman history under the Caesars, and thus I didn't feel I learned anything new or earth-shattering about them. The 1975 miniseries "I Claudius" is much more famous, and it's obvious as to why. In spite of its low budget, greater detail went into the creation of each of the characters. I could get a better education out of the encyclopedia in regards to the subject covered here. Not un-entertaining, but a major disappointment.
The black and white photography and the low budget did not bother me as I am used to videotaped shows of this nature from the Golden age of television, both American and British. But this is basically a cliff notes version of Roman history under the Caesars, and thus I didn't feel I learned anything new or earth-shattering about them. The 1975 miniseries "I Claudius" is much more famous, and it's obvious as to why. In spite of its low budget, greater detail went into the creation of each of the characters. I could get a better education out of the encyclopedia in regards to the subject covered here. Not un-entertaining, but a major disappointment.
An excellent Drama
jvdesuit12 March 2013
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!
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!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
