MovieChat Forums > Cleopatra (1999) Discussion > Slanderous Portrayal of Augustus

Slanderous Portrayal of Augustus


This film really slanders Augustus, making him look like a fat, lazy coward who conspired with Juilus' murderers and was not respected by older Romans.

The truth is that he was highly valued by Julius and universally acclaimed as a military genius, a brave adventurer and was deeply respected by the Romans.

This film has him played by a man near 40, but he was 18 when Julius was murdered. He was not a Senator then, but a trainee in the military. He'd won he affection of his great uncle, Julius, when he crossed enemy territory in a civil war to join Julius' camp. It was after that that Julius made him his heir and sent him off to train.

When Julius died it was Julius' soldiers who elevated him to their leader. After that he was universally accepted as Julius' heir and he was NEVER called Octavius or Octavian, he was Caesar. He didn't, like in this film, whiningly claim he was Caesar when others called him Octavius.

By the time Anthony tried to create an empire in the east with Cleopatra, Augustus was not only the undisputed leader of the Julians, he'd also reunited the Romans and was seen by the anti-Julians as the "Savior of the Republic." Antony, on the other hand, was seen as a traitor to Rome by those in Rome.

I don't know why a film like this wants to turn Augustus into a wimpy conniver.



"Is it bright where you are? Have the people changed? Does it make you happy you're so strange?"

reply

OMG!! You are so awesome. Thanks for setting everything straight. What would we do without you? Augustus' descendants should sue the producers and call you as a witness to testify on their behalf.

I don't know why a film like this wants to turn Augustus into a wimpy conniver.

Answer: DRAMA. The producers wanted to portray Cleopatra as the heroine. Every hero/heroine needs a villain. Turning Augustus into a wimpy conniver makes him a more interesting villain. It's a movie not a documentary.

reply

Seems like the only "alternate" portrayal is in "I, Claudius" - interestingly, many people seem to think that Robert Graves simply ripped off Suetonius, so it's pretty close to a history anyway. No one could rule the Roman Empire at its peak the way Augustus did without having great native intelligence (and admittedly, ability to work the politics).

Samantha
"I didn't say that. The camera must have misheard me!"

reply