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.