frankq

Phil, Two points you brought up: <<<<<<<ii) look at what other interpretations there might be for his recorded actions; On ii) a (deliberately??) misunderstood sense of humour might be responsible for some stories - Cincinnatus as consul; as with the legions collecting "seashells" (their huts??) on the seashore..<<<<<< On the first, Wilkinson makes several references to his sharp wit but doesnt take it any more from there. He is so duty bound to look at Caligula in poltical context that he restrains himself too much. Which leads to your other comment, about his humor. The more I study things the more I realize where the opposition got their ammunition to ruin his name. Case in point, he wanted the Statue of Zeus removed from Olympia, brought to Rome. It was an outlandish idea but just to really cap it off and get the Senate's goat, he suggested that a likeness of his head be put on top instead. The guy was a total prankster, a psychotic one probably, but one with an almost insane wit and sense of mischief. These are things I think Wilkinson could have explored more. I think he set out on an agenda and doggesdly resused to stray from it.

Caligula by Sam Wilkinson Some observations about Sam Wilkinson's recent book, Caligula. Please note that this wasn't originally intended as a book review. Since this is for a project I'm working on, I didn't begin reading it in the spirit of critical review, but as useful research material. This the book very much provided, and helped to enlighten me a great deal about this much misunderstood and much maligned Roman emperor. However, I couldn't help but feel the book let me down, too. Much of this, of course, had to do with both my own expectations and Wilkinsion's platform in his presentation of Caligula's life.... ...read the full review of Caligula by Sam Wilkinson

Yes, i'm very familiar with the famous bit between Hoffman and Olivier. To me it handily sums up the differences between US and UK acting techniques. US acting has been dominated in many degrees by method acting, ''getting in the right mood''. UK acting is considered a trade, you punch in your time card, perform, then punch out. No BS and no mystique. It's a profession, like welding, not a supernatural seance. Hence, one of the reason why 85% of most UK actors divide their time between cinema and stage and why at least 80% of US actor don't even know what footlights are. Funny that Laughton was of the other persuasion.

Apropos of all this discussion about movies about Rome, I was curious if any of you folks are in the know about DVD vs the old Napster website back in the late 90's. Back then I found using the old and now defunct Napster that I could download favorites cuts from favorite movie, and cuts I never knew existed on record or tape or DVD. One of my favorites was the soundtrack to Land of the Pharaohs by Tiomkin. Now that Napster as we once knew it is gone, does anyone know if all these cuts are available on DVD? Or in some way on the Net?

<<<<<<<<< don't know what the film was that had bosies burning after Phillipi, but the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" begins with an exactly similar scene after Pharsalia. Could you be thinking of that and perhaps have conflated two memories? <<<<<<<<<< No, I don't think so. And didnt Taylor's Cleo start with a shot in Egypt, with Rex having Pompey's head brought to him in a basket? What trouble did Laughton cause? Was he a problem actor? I know that he and Olivier despised each other and Kubrick handled them both really well. His youth here paid off.

Sorry to confess but I never could stand The Buccaneers with Bob Shaw. They used to show it on one of our local NY stations and I always thought Shaw overacted and was a real ham. The show was clearly too British for my grade school taste. Odd, too, since I love Robin Hood and William Tell. You remember the opening song to William Tell? ''Freeee, the right to be freeee!'' Can still hear the jingo and haven't seen the show since the 50's. Another show we got from UK was The Invisible Man. Remember that? I've only seen a few cuts from Laughton's film. What I saw made a big deal about Merle Oberon having some wicked accident that knocked her out of the production. Who was she supposed to play? Speaking of TV epics for Rome. As a young boy I remember watching some production about Rome, something to do with after Philippi and there were stacks upon stacks of bodies being piled up for burning. And when I was real young I remember seeing some kind of Twilight Zone spin-off that had John Hoyt playing Caesar and getting stabbed to death in the Senate. I was so freaked-intrigued that I called my father in and asked him what it was about. My old man told me: ''Julius Caesar was a dictator, so the senators killed him.'' I went: ''Oh. OK. Cool.'' It all made sense. Still does. Things about Rome always immediately sunk into my head and stayed there.

Goooood point!

Oooo. A 60's Brit TV series on Rome? I missed it, and growing up in NY in the 50's I caught most of the UK stuff because channels would try and get anything and the UK and US exchanged programs a lot. (Donald Pleasance played Prince John on Robin Hood, remember? And Roger Moore was Ivanhoe!) But the show you mentioned I never heard of. To answer your question RE Cleo and Caesar. I find Shaw's rendition of Cleo insulting, and against the grain entirely about who she really was. This was a political animal. Even at 19 or 21 she was on to everything and knew what moves to take. Shaw depicts her as a flippant bimbo. Not that I dislike Shaw, I usually do very much, and I thought Korda's movie was well done. (I've only seen it once.) Still, it's the standard 19th century Victorian line on Cleopatra. Speaking of Korda and Rome, have you ever had the chance to see what rushes and takes survive on Laughton's I, Claudius?

I'm solidly with you there. Not that I don't love the program, I live for it. But the death of Adrianna brings us back to some of the original criticism directed against the show. By humanizing these gangsters we run the risk of making them romantic and hence ''good''. They are what they are, dirty no-count criminals, and no matter what Adrianna's faults were, even if, by strategy, she had to be removed, in the end everybody has to pay the moral piper. Not to bring Tony, Chrissy, and even Tony's wife (she was warned by the shrink to pull out or face moral consequences) to task for their actions sends out a misleading message to the public. Hiding behind the premise that life ain't fair undermines the moral purpose of drama. They all have to pay. Especially after Chrissy's callous remark: ''That bitch wasn't willing to do five years for me...?'' These are sick people. I can't wait for Season 6!

All good points. Again, the issue of Cleo's chastity has been hammered lately to offset the slander directed against her by Augustan propaganda. What she did in her private moments we will never know, but it is necessary to revise our image of her since Augustus spin doctors went to work presenting her as a royal whore and even nymphomaniac. I do find some recent historians bold statements like ''she had only two lovers'' just about as hard to swallow as her being accused of screwing everybody in the East. Yet I think their references are actually more as you put forth, what was officially happening, her lovers on the official roster. Always remember that Augustus had much at stake in discrediting not only her, but Caesarion. And went to great lengths to foster the rumor that the child was not Caesar's. By the by, it is interesting to note that, despite the centuries of hard propaganda set against her, in films she is always presented in a better light. Here, ironically, Octavian gets the bad deal he probably in part deserves. Roddy McDowell's portrayal of him as a conniving, seasick wimp has never left my mind. Unfair? Sure. But, hey, ironic, the supreme PR and propagandist had Hollywood come back 2000 years later to bite him in the ass.

Very well. I accept your suggestion. I have read Michael Grant's The Etruscans and found it highly informative, if somewhat bland at times. (Though judging by what Pantagathus has written on Etruscans in the Forum Peregrini, Grant's research on the subject is somewhat out of date.) Get Volkmann's book, too, if you are interested in this topic. In fact, there are several new books out on Cleo attempting to vindicate her and her position in history. And, again, by defaut, Antony, too. Both figures have been much maligned in the last 2000 years.

No, that about sums it up, but I would tend to think that the Ptolemies may have looked to other eastern royal families (as they had done with the first Arsinoe and Berenice, etc.) rather than slaves to continue the line of heredity. A nice stemmata... Ptolemy Lineage As you can see there seems to be confusion with the lineage of Cleopatra VII's grandfather as well as grandmother. The confusion doesn't necessarily indicate a deviation from Greek/Macedonian heritage. Exactly. But the missing link in lineage has opened much to speculation. I agree that it might well have been from another eastern royal family. RE my last post about her having only two lovers, this cannot be proved, and is speculation, but it is a theory postulated by many historians and is used to offset the wicked slander cast against her. Sex for Cleo was a power tool. It was used as a goal and a tool with Caesar and Antony. Not that she did not have true feelings for both men. Once committed, she stayed true.

For starters, Grant didn't get the revisionism going RE Cleo, Hans Volkmann, a German historian did. And the revisionism was long due and much deserved, a counter weight to all the BS postulated ever since Augustus and Bill Shakespeare. To place a well paced and well thought out historian like Grant on some left wing revisionist bandwagon is unfair. One of the things you can always rely on RE Grant is that his research is sound. Cleopatra has for 2000 years been at the brunt of so much nonsense and mischief that she needed vindicating. Where can one even begin? She had but two lovers in her life, Caesar and Antony, but because she used her sex as a tool in her diplomacies she's been labeled a whore for all these years. Augustus was a master at PR. And everyone kissing his fanny added to the lies, prime of which was King Herod, one of Cleo's biggest enemies. (And fairly so.) If you have or can get the book, read it. It's enlightening. And get Volkmann's book too!

I just got Grant's book for Xmas and he is right on target in this bio. One of the authors who provides us with a modern and revisionary outlook on a figure much abused by history or, actually, Augustan propaganda. This includes, by default, Antony, too. If you like his book, then you need to read Volkmann's bio on her, too. And she is not off-topic. She is core material in the final days of the Republic.

The attempt was deliberate. Wyler and Zimbalist planned it that way. I, for one, would like to see an end to Brit dominance in Roman parts. Romans didnt speak Oxford English, they spoke Latin. And the average soldier would be better portrayed by tough Italian American actors. Why not? Good case in point is the centurion tough in The Robe. He tells Burton, in Western accent, that he ''earned'' his medals the hard way and then puts him to task with the sword. Great scene. Frank Thring blew my mind out as a kid as the English king in The Vikings. He was noted for a great wit, too. Hurd Hatfield is American, I think. My father's business partner went to a party he held out in the Hamptons. He shook the hand of the partner's wife and kissed him. After K of K's he kind of faded from the scene. Ron Randall, too---another good case for an American playing a Roman.

Phil, good points all, but I have to disagree with you about Troy. The writers really messed up the legend. For starters, I thought Brad Pitt was horrible. His elocution was a joke, of the ''let me imitate Sean Connery'' variety. This guys has trouble with diction, and is better suited to portraying psychotic rednecks, not Greek warriors. Secondly, turning Agamemnon and Menelaus into cardboard villains undermined the story. To better purpose was a Warner Bros. 1950's version (with a score by Tiomkin), basically same approach, no gods present, in which the script stayed true to Homer's storyline. Indeed, even that rat Paris got killed and Helen dragged back to Greece. In the modern version Paris signs off by killing Achilles during the siege. Achilles got X'd outside the walls, before the horse was sent in. Indeed, that's the grand moment in the epic, after killing Hector and flaunting his body around, Paris offs him with his prize shot. But, nooo, the modern script writers have to drag him along into the aftermath. Exploit Pitt's presence at all cost. One thing I did like in Troy was the fight choreography. It was excellent, unique. I have never seen Burton's Alexander. Nor Victor Mature's Hannibal. Strange this, growing up a TV nut and in NY during the 50's. Oh, one last note on historic accuracy. Rumor is afoot that Denzel is going to be playing Hannibal. If so, this will inflict extreme damage to the credibility of black revisionist history. It should be avoided. Oh, and yes, Braveheart. What a joke. Where's the bridge and how dare they treat Edward that way! Again, post modernist diatribe. ''Freedom!'' Yeah, we've heard it before. It gets old.

Seen what? What's the title? I know there was a movie made in the 50's about Attila, with Jeff Chandler.

I always get his name wrong. Powers Boothe, sorry. And I know what you mean, I saw that flick, too, and he gave a chilling performance. Wasn't it a TV movie? And weren't there two versions that came out at the same time, different actors? In my defense RE Attila, the first episode kept things on safe ground. Now I've seen parts 2 and 3 and the production values are so cheap that, well.... What can I say? I'm stuck here in Europe and anything that comes up on our often 3rd world TV about Rome I just jump on. I'm still waiting for HBO's Rome. One perk last night was that Tim Curry plays Theodorus. Plays him as his usual self but, well, it's a plus for the series. Tonight is part 4, the conclusion. Interesting to see what's done with it. Oh, PS: Possibly Powers Booth's best performance was in a film about the Amazon, I think it's called The Enchanted Forest. Oh, in one post I stated the production values were good, in this most recent post I claim they're horrible. Contradiction? Not at all. This is a cunning way with ''made for TV movies''. They throw all their punch and bucks on openers and then cut corners later on.

Phil, enjoyed your post! By the way, Bronston actually winded up in jail because of his financial misdeeds. I'm actually weighing your argument about Heston instead of Boyd. To be honest, I haven't seen Fall in many, many years. So many of the fine nuances you mentioned I do not recall. But what I do remember was how formidable Plummer's performance was as Commodus and how, in the end, I kept squirming in my seat and saying to Boyd ''come on, waste this nut case, would you! What's holding you back?'' And the more I think back to the film, even after the scene where Commodus institutes the decimation sequence, he's all over Boyd's ass. Maybe you're right. Heston would have been better used. Then he and Plummer as performers could have really gone at it. Stephen Boyd was a fine actor (and died all too young), but he wasn't an aggressive performer like Heston. Since we're on about films concerning Rome, what's your opinion about Quo Vadis? I find the religious slant of the film more tolerable today than in Ben-Hur (save for the ending of Quo Vadis). Of course, Nero really gets raked over the coals, but you can't help but deny that as a personality he really set himself up for posterity. A fun film with another splendid soundtrack, this one by Miklos Rosza. And an even better novel!

I'm not so sure it failed at the box office, but it never recouped the vast investment it required to put it on the screen. Critics today hail Fall as a winner all around. It has one of the best scores in film history, too, by Dmitri Tiomkin. I didn't find Boyd too stiff at all. And, IMHO, Heston had he played the role would have ham-dominated the script. (By the way, Heston was not originally slated to play Judah Ben-Hur, Burt Lancaster was. Zimbalist wanted Heston to play Messala. But Lancaster, an agnostic, thought the script was religious drivel.) It is religious drivel, I can't watch it anymore because of its Sunday school mythology and its typical Rome bashing. While there are certain loose ends to Fall's screenplay, it stayed true to the one issue that Gladiator avoids, Rome being up for grabs now to the highest bidder. Toward the late 60's and early 70's Hollywood tried to get closer to historical fact, it was sadly a trend to end all too soon. Now we're back to all kinds of propaganda b.s. Compare The Three Musketeers from the 70's to the one made in the 90's by Disney. Now we have Gladiator with post-modernist nonsense about restoring freedom and democracy. Give me a break. By the way, one thing I did find repetitive in Fall was everyone getting killed by spears. Omar Shariff gets a javelin chucked through him, James Mason, too. One last note on Bronston, after El Cid and 55 Days he got raked by the law on some kind of business deal stuff and never produced any films again. sad, too, he was a bold producer. (The critics hated his films. But what do they know? Ben-Hur got praises sung up its kazoo, while they lambasted Spartacus.) Oh, and one last last note, Phil, about Cleopatra. Though the critics tore it to shreds, they did agree with you, the first part of the film with Rex Harrison was so good they felt it belonged to an entirely different project.

Phil Agreed. I liked the movie for pure entertainment value, but was generally appalled at the history. That pretty much sums up my reaction, too. I, however, find the abuse of history so insulting that I can't watch the film anymore. My two biggest gripes are watching Richard Harris, one of the great drunks of the film world, play sober and serene Marcus A., and spit off post modernist ***** about returning Rome to the Republic. Closer to the mark was Alec Guiness' portrayal. In fact Guiness nailed it. Second and an even worse offense was tampering with Commodus' character in the script. Instead of the effective portrayal we got in Fall of the Roman Empire, where Commodus is portrayed more like he truly was, a megalomaniac, we get now instead a wimpy little cry babying ''daddy doesn't love me'' psycho. What a waste of a good actor like Phoenix whatever his name is. A third gripe, attached to the Commodus thing, was the end fight. Commodus was known to engage in gladiatorial duels and he was a good swordsman, in Fall of the RE and as played by Christopher Plumber (Plummer?) he gives our hero (Stephen Boyd) a run for his money, and the fight takes place surrounded by a wall of Praetorians (where you think Gladiator got the idea?)... Fall of the Roman E. was actually a great picture that never got the limelight it deserved and never got ranked up there with Ben-Hur, Spartacus, King of Kings and El Cid (they all came out the same year basically, between 59 and 60). Fall of the R.E. came out in 68 I think. By the way, since most of you weren't born around that time and since the film has not been released in years, get a chance to see El Cid if you can. It ranks up there, even if it isn't about Rome.

I correct myself. Since I am so weak in late Empire history I did some checking. While the production values and acting are quite good, the series so far is plagued with inaccuracies. Although less than knowledgeable about the period, two things struck me right off. Wasn't Attila Asian or at least semi-Eurasian? This series has him looking like a model out of a yuppie fashion magazine. Secondly I mused, wasn't the Empire Christian by now? Everyone in Rome is running around doing pagan things. (Makes for better and more enticing drama of course.)

Anyone seen or know anything about the TV drama ''Attila''? I almost missed it here on European TV, was browsing the TV guide, saw it posted, turned it on a few minutes late, came in on the first part of a four part series. Not bad at all, certainly very good as far as TV dramas go. Boothe Powers plays a certain Aetius, others are unknown. As usual, always Brits playing Romans. I'm not that well informed about this late period of the Empire. Again, anyone seen the show?

Probably has to do with the general trend of strengthening the separation of church and state in education, which I'm strongly for, but I must agree with several posts above, BC and AD are shorter, register better, and BCE and CE sound silly. And, indeed, while Christianity should not be used as the seminal point in history, it became a reference point with the powers that be.

Interesting comment. Are you saying your teachers are pressing the new CE approach?