I never knew about Sulla until I read Colleen McCullough’s Master of Rome series. The review in my local paper gave it 4 stars, plus it has Chris Noth as Pompey.
I don’t think it’s based on McCullough’s books, which I think would make an excellent epic mini-series.
The director is the same guy who did that abomination, Mists of Avalon. What a disappointment that was! Still, the review said he handled this one better than MoA, plus it’s Caesar, plus it’s Chris Noth.
Now, I am no Ancient Rome scholar, but I loved the Master of Rome series by Colleen McCullough. Again, my personal rule seems borne out…mini-series that are only four hours long do not do justice to the subject matter.
It was nice to see Sulla and the allusion to his bisexuality with the painted pretty boys in his bath. And while Chris Noth was yummy, Pompey seemed a little too subservient to Sulla.
I didn’t think Caesar’s epilepsy manifested itself until he was much older?
I hate the fact that they skipped so much, “Years later” indeed. And well the hell is the infamous affair with Servilia?
I watched the first 30 minutes or so. I thought Pompey was nicely cast. His profile looked like something off a Roman coin. Sulla was pretty cool. Christopher Walken’s haircut was a little disturbing. Caesar looked like one of these Dave Matthews-ish singers. He should’ve been holding an acoustic guitar and singing stuff like “Yo body is a wonderland”, not being Caesar. I just wasn’t getting into it, so I watched Mail Call and Tales of the Gun instead.
If it says “Directed by Uli Edell” run for the hills.
I stand by my earlier statement…four hours is too short for a mini-series. I gave up after the battle of Pharsalus…oh wait! There was no battle! There was Caesar striding into an abandoned field tent!
Caesar is such a rich and fascinating character. He got short shrift in this monstrosity. No Servilia, no exploration of the complexities of Roman politics…ick ick ick.
You’d think I would have learned after staring, tears of dismay streaming down my cheeks, at the end credits rolling at the end of the butchered Mists of Avalon.
I know who you are, Uli. I will steer clear of any of your other attempts at film-making.
The Washington Post reviewer (Shales) panned it, but I’ve learned not to go by him. I liked it. It made the story seem more realistic to me, and the people seemed more “real” – as opposed to the bigger-than-life stars such as Rex Harrison, Richard Burton, and Elizabeth Taylor which were all over-done. I also learned a few things, such as the wars, and I didn’t know that the Senators who conspired with Brutus particpated in the killing. I am confused about one thing - perhaps someone can clue me in: the major issue – and the reason Brutus, et al, killed him was the belief that Caesar wanted to be “King.” I thought “Caesar” was the title in ancient Rome for the highest ruler. What would have been the consequences of his being “King”?
Quick rehash on Roman names: a noble Roman had three. In the case of J.C. it was Gaius Julius Cæsar (pronounced 'Kye-us Yool-e-us Kye-ser"), with Gaius being his prænomen, or given name (like John or Herbie), Julius being his gens or family name (like a surname today), and Cæsar being his cognomen, which there really isn’t an equivalent of today. A cognomen basically distinguished you from other branches of the same gens nomen/surname; ironically, in the case of Gaius Julius Cæsar, who in real life was quite sensitive about his baldness, the name Cæsar meant “hairy” and was given to an ancestor who really had been hairy.
Anyway, Julius had no surviving sons (unless you count Cleopatra’s son, who may or may not have been his but wasn’t acknowledged) so he legally adopted his sister’s grandson, Gaius Octavius, who changed his name to Gaius Julius Cæsar Octavianus in order to associate himself with his uncle. He was later given the title “Augustus”, which roughly translates as “Divine” and wasn’t usually given to mortals; he WAS NEVER an emperor, though he had all of the power of one.
Augustus also had no sons so he legally adopted his stepson/son-in-law, Tiberius Claudius Drusus (to do this, he had another man adopt his daughter Julia [whose name, like those of most Roman women, was simply the feminine of the family name; the daughters of Marcus Antonius, for example, were all named Antonia] so that her marriage would not be incestuous) and Tiberius cemented the adoption by changing his name to Tiberius Julius Cæsar. Tiberius outlived his own son so he adopted his nephew Gaius Claudius Drusus who became Gaius Julius Cæsar (better known by his nickname of ‘Caligula’) who was succeeded by his uncle Claudius (of I CLAUDIUS fame).
So, (Tiberius) Claudius (Drusus Nero) became the first emperor NOT to have the name Cæsar, but he later tacked the name onto the various cognomens he had inherited and became Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus Cæsar Augustus Britannicus etc.). When he adopted his stepson/nephew/son-in-law Lucius Nero Ahenobarbus, the boy took the name Cæsar at the adoption. By this time the name had been taken so many times that it essentially became a title.
When Nero was killed it ended the reign of the blood relatives of Julius Cæsar. The people who took the throne after this time began renaming themselves Cæsar essentially to make their claim to the throne a little more legitimate. Eventually it became a title rather than a name; a cæsar was basically the deputy to an augustus as an imperial administrator, and of course it later became the basis of the titles kaiser and czar/tsar.
I actually thought Rex Harrison made a great Cæsar, though I think Patrick Stewart was born to play the part. The worst was Timothy Dalton in the umpteen thousandth retelling of CLEOPATRA (which if they wanted to be more historically accurate would star Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman as Antony and Cleopatra since they certainly look a lot more like them.)
Wow - thanks Sampiro for that lesson. As for the “king” title to which Brutus thought Caesar would claim… after posting, I thought about it some more and realized I was thinking of “king” in the more modern sense of a constitutional monarchy. To them, a king had absolute power – no senate (and hence no representatives of the people), and to make matters worse, a foriegn power behind the throne (Cleopatra), and their son, heir apparent.