MovieChat Forums > Spartacus (2004) Discussion > Crassus?

Crassus?

posted 19 years ago by csullaf
4 replies | jump to latest

In 1960, Sir Lawrence Olivier's was Crassus, the primary antagonist. Olivier portrayed him as a virtuous and patriotic man of his time, if somewhat uncharismatic and unloveable. Olivier's Crassus was the quintessential Roman aristocrat.

I strongly disliked Angus MacFaddyen's portrayal of Crassus. MacFaddyen is a fine actor, but his Crassus comes of as a foppish psychopath. The facial expressions are overblown, his voice and dialog are almost effeminate, and the very un-Roman facial hair makes him look more like a Romulan from Star Trek than a Roman. I am not comparing him to Lawrence Olivier, but I may be biased by Colleen McCullough's characterization of Crassus in her "First Man of Rome" series of novels. In them, Crassus is physically massive, quiet, slow and deliberate of movement, almost "bovine" in his expressions. But his appearance an mannerisms conceal a very cold, calculating, and logical man. Ms. McCullough put a decade of intense research in developing her characters and story, so perhaps Crassus was preconceived in my mind. In comparison, MacFaddyen comes off as a whiny spoiled brat.

Mark Addy probably would have been a better choice for the role. He is physically large and "bovine", has a real English accent (LOL), he is roughly the same age as MacFaddyen (and Crassus at the time), and has a darker complexion and a more "Roman" appearance. He can also be quite imposing when he's not laughing. Overall, MacFaddyen spoiled it a bit for me.

[–] Registered_User 18 years ago

I can see where you're coming from with this, but I think I actually like his performance for all the reasons you stated as negatives. While Sir Lawrence Olivier's Crassus was less "loopy", I don't think he appeared any stronger morally. I consider both adaptations very good because they're unique and each brings a different flavor. I did, however, really have to warm up to MacFadyen's kind of overly subdued demeanor but by the end of the film I loved it.

A good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.

[–] Navaros 17 years ago

I totally disagree with the original post.

Crassus in this version is the best actor in the whole darn movie. He is playing a guy who wants to be a strong masculine renowned man, yet deep inside he is a weak little pansy/loser. He has enough masculinity to eventually weasel his way into a General role. yet not enough to be taken seriously by the really smart citizens of Rome like Pompey and the head Senator. The Crassus actor pulls all of this off to perfection.

If we was large and intimidating, then it would be hard to believe he is a pansy/loser deep inside, which the role requires.

In the regards to the facial here comments in the OP: there is a line in those movie when Crassus is made General and the citizens are cheering him. Then Flavius says to the head Senator:

"Don't they usually cheer Romans?"

And the head Senator says:

"Crassus thinks he is Roman."

So maybe the reason Crassus had facial hair is because he was not Roman?

[–] Vorenus 15 years ago

Crassus was certainly Roman and came from a long line of Consuls.

I wouldn't take the historical comments made in a production that didn't seem to know that two Consuls was the normal practice of Roman government too seriously.

[–] cos-9 14 years ago

I know that it's over two years later, but I thought I'd reply anyway.
You've misunderstood the exchange between Agrippa and Flavius.
The people are chanting Crassus' name, and Flavius points out that the people usually chant the name of their city - Rome - on such occasions.
Agrippa's response is that Crassus thinks that he himself is the very embodiment of Rome.