I don't get it. To me it feels like I'm watching a play, the acting is just sooo theatrical (with some exceptions). Which is fine in a theatre, but on tv it just feels really unnatural to me. The child actors are almost uniformly terrible by modern standards, except for the boy who plays Claudius.
I guess it's just because of the time it was made. The writing is very good at least.
Do you not recognize great acting when you see it? Alas, methinks you be a novice to the classics and much else.
The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.
I guess I don't. I see a lot of great ACTING! in "I, Claudius" though. Which would be fine if this were a Shakespeare play, and my TV a theatre stage, but alas it is not. I'd rather have actors who act naturally as one would in the situation portrayed, than ones who over-emote, shout, and constantly draw attention to the fact that they are acting.
Ok, the actress who plays Livia is great in this.
It was the nature of Romans of this position to be imperious and actors love this.
The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.
I don't know if the child actors is a good example. They only take up- what?- twenty minutes in the whole 12-hour show?
Anyhoo, the acting in I, CLAUDIUS is rather complex, and I don't mean that in an apologist way. First of all, it is staged as a play. The videotape and lack of filmed outdoor scenes (as in other BBC shows) attest to that. Granted, it is probably one of the best-filmed plays. A lot of filmed plays suffer from stagy, camera-nailed-to-the-floor that makes things rather static. But I,C camerawork is very fluid. Back to the point, this makes the theatrics acceptable. Someone said it best: I, CLAUDIUS is an opera. One should treat it as such.
I've seen good and bad theatrics, but I, C- IMO- belongs in the former. Many times, the major memorable highlights are the operatic moments. When Augustus bellows "Is there anyone in Rome who's not slept with my daughter?" or Messalina's "Not My Head!", I'm not cringing with "Oh, god, let the hurting stop...". Instead, I'm going "Awesome! This show rocks!" If there are cringing moments, it's when one character is being unjustifiably mean to another. Augustus bullocking Tiberius ("Don't sulk!") or Antonia screaming at Claudius. It has more to do with empathy for the characters than criteria.
But let's be rather open-minded here. Sometimes the theatrics are required for the scene. Derek Jacobi's freakout in "Reign of Terror" is based on his character's horror of Rome going to the dogs. But as I said, it happens when it is required. Compare that scene to Claudius's discovery of Messalina's treachery or the realization that Britannicus and the republic are doomed. Compare his freakout when the Roman Guards find him to his death scene with Agrippinilla. They are different scenes requiring different reactions.
Sometimes the acting describes the characters. Sian Philips and Margaret Tyzack are playing strong-hearted, well-behaved noble ladies, the measure of Roman nobility. Frances White, Shiela White, and Patricia Quinn play spoiled, pleasure-loving brats. Thus, their performances portray who they are. And the contrast is shown to good effect. When White's Julia is wailing about her husband's death, Philips' Livia has to discipline her for misbehaving her status (Livia is more composed in her sadder moments). Or Quinn's bad girl Livilla screaming for escape while Tyzack's noble Antonia blocks her room, freakout panic vs. controlled resolution. Yes, Antonia has her emotional moments, whenever Claudius is concerned. This serves to display her character: the paragon of Roman ladyhood who has one major flaw: the inability to love her son Claudius.
The actors show their range. Something must be said about the quality of the actors whenever their characters put on an act. When Augustus embraces his friend Agrippa goodbye, the scene is convincingly BROMANCE!...until Agrippa is gone and Augustus let's his real feeling show. One can be easily won over Sheila White's Messalina 'sweet innocent girl' act, and then be pulsed by her true bitch.
It is not one-note. The actors can be theatrical and can be subtle. For every emotional act Brian Blessed does (his reaction to Julia's sluttery) there is also his subtle ones (His "Your father was my enemy too..." line to Drusus, his death scene). Heck, sometimes he mixes the two, starting with subtlety ("Did you sleep with my daughter?) and then rising to the climax ("Punish her!"). And I would say what Caligula does to Drusilla stands out as THE example of "Less is more."
Well-said, angmc43! I can't tell you how many dozens of times I've watched I, Claudius, since that first magical viewing when I was in high school. The series delights me as much each time I view it. The British often film plays, from the Greeks to Shaw, with everything in between, and this series has that quality to it. Let's not forget we're talking about players on a grand scale here. The Romans considered themselves larger than life, and the actors convey that quality, even as they offer more intimate views of their characters. These performances offer nuances that draw the audience in.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
When Augustus bellows "Is there anyone in Rome who's not slept with my daughter?"
Is there anyone in England (or the world) who can bellow like Brian Blessed? (Squire Western!) He's such a treat to watch.
I guess I don't. I see a lot of great ACTING! in "I, Claudius" though. Which would be fine if this were a Shakespeare play, and my TV a theatre stage, but alas it is not. I'd rather have actors who act naturally as one would in the situation portrayed, than ones who over-emote, shout, and constantly draw attention to the fact that they are acting.
It is set up as a play, but still come on, the acting in here is great. Jacobi at his best, sian phillips takes over every scene she is in, Brian Blessed was perfect as Augustus, John Hurt's Caligula puts to shame Malcolm McDowell's, plus with the kids you are forgetting about young herod and the kid who was young caligula was perfect, what more could you ask from that kid?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The acting for the most part in Claudius is so natural it's like watching REAL LIFE!
"Qui conduisait la voiture?"
I think it's the sets as much as the acting. Very stagebound.
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
I'm inclined to agree with Toke on the acting because I subscribe to the Spencer Tracy (& others) school of thought: 'The secret to acting? Don't let them catch you doing it.'
In I, Claudius, we caught everyone doing it. I had the sense that we were watching a British cast who'd done a lot of Shakespeare in their careers. And they were doing for the BBC camera what they'd always done on the stage in some West End theatre - belting out their lines for the people sitting in the last row of the balcony.
For me, the performances were by no stretch of the imagination subtle or natural. I halfway expected Derek Jacobi to suddenly burst into a stirring rendition of "To be or not to be! That is the question!" from sheer force of habit. As several others have commented, the acting was definitely a product of the times. Acting methods have changed, I think, for the better.
Well, I, CLAUDIUS is a television play, not a cinematic movie.
I think this miniseries is nothing short of brilliant.
as for those who don't care for the acting, yes, it's theatrical, but that's because it's Shakespearean in its scope.
this is a story about greed, ambition and insanity amongst the family that ruled the world. That bears repeating. This is a story about the family that ruled the world as they knew it and to see them so petty, willful and cruel to each other demands overly heightened acting because of the stature of the individuals involved.
what shocks me in a repeat viewing is how this masterpiece was largely ignored by the Emmys.
Livia, Claudius and Hurt ('my heeeeaaaaad') all deserved at least nominations if not awards.
well if youve seen many of the lead actors in other productions, you know they are capable of a more naturalistic style, so it was a conscious choice on the part of the producer, director, and actors.
much of what the bbc produced in that era has that more theatrical style in almost every way. also the 3 camera filming method used meant that the scenes were performed much more like those of a play, as opposed to the more intimate 'rehearse, record' method used now.
basically it comes down to the idea that television at that time was a lot more like filming a play than making a movie, and that shows in every aspect of the production.
Well said, razorwyre.
But one can argue there is range in the performances here as well. For every "Is there anyone in Rome who hasn't slept with my daughter?!" Blessed does, there is "He was my enemy too." For every "Dare you mention that whore!" from Hurt, there is "At age nine I killed my father. Oh, you didn't know that." In the case of Brian Blessed, I,C is probably his most dimensional performance, allowing him to do both his trademark bluster, and his skills as an actor.
Television has that 'It is being performed right now' intimacy that is in synch with a theatrical style that probably won't work in a cinematic movie.
I'm not saying TV can't be cinematic. Far from it. But I do think TV can be theatrical as well. A lot of people don't seem to understand that.
These people were all RSC. So, for my part, I will accept the accusation of theatricality by some of the 'players'. But, Sian Philips? She was a goddess!
shareI think the only other addition could have been Judi Dench and Ian McKellan added to the cast -- but overall these are the best actors of their time. I don't think you could pull this off today. I suppose if we could go back in time and see the actors in Shakespeare's troupe onstage at the Globe, they would seem a bit odd too. But I feel the acting in "I Claudius" still holds up as exemplary.
share