Nigel Hawthorne-Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors?

[sylla]

I have Caligula (the film) on DVD. Undoubtedly it is pretty tacky. However, the 'scenes of an adult nature' are tame compared to some of the stuff on HBO's Rome series, which was shown on Auntie BEEB.

 

Once you dismiss some of the tackier *or* scenes, there's quite a surprising helping of historical accuracy. And don't forget, it did have Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren. So I would say, do watch it, and try to look past the tackier elements. Then at least you can compare and contrast with the relevant episodes of I, Claudius.

By "historical accuracy" do you mean the decapitating wall? Is it in your version?

I have watched a couple of versions; as far as I can tell, the primary intention of any version of this movie is always sexual excitement. The Roman context, accurate or not, just gives the exotic atmosphere; for that, a spatial station or a submarine can equally (and have indeed) been used.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with sexual gory scenes and I enjoy good *or* as much as the next guy.

This movie has some merits, including of course the cast; I'm actually a big fan of the 4 stars you mentioned above; but a bad movie with excellent actors is still a bad movie.

Rome and I, Claudius have their own share of 'scenes of an adult nature', but there's no way I can consider sexual excitement as the primary goal of any of them.

My point is still that if some scenes (in fact, the most representative) seem, sound, smell and taste like sexual excitement, this movie can safely be called *or*; and not great *or*, for that matter.

Edited September 3, 2009 by sylla

[Ovidius Naso]

I have Caligula (the film) on DVD. Undoubtedly it is pretty tacky. However, the 'scenes of an adult nature' are tame compared to some of the stuff on HBO's Rome series, which was shown on Auntie BEEB.

 

Once you dismiss some of the tackier *or* scenes, there's quite a surprising helping of historical accuracy. And don't forget, it did have Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren. So I would say, do watch it, and try to look past the tackier elements. Then at least you can compare and contrast with the relevant episodes of I, Claudius.

By "historical accuracy" do you mean the decapitating wall? Is it in your version?

I have watched a couple of versions; as far as I can tell, the primary intention of any version of this movie is always sexual excitement. The Roman context, accurate or not, just gives the exotic atmosphere; for that, a spatial station or a submarine can equally (and have indeed) been used.

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with sexual gory scenes and I enjoy good *or* as much as the next guy.

This movie has some merits, including of course the cast; I'm actually a big fan of the 4 stars you mentioned above; but a bad movie with excellent actors is still a bad movie.

Rome and I, Claudius have their own share of 'scenes of an adult nature', but there's no way I can consider sexual excitement as the primary goal of any of them.

My point is still that if some scenes (in fact, the most representative) seem, sound, smell and taste like sexual excitement, this movie can safely be called *or*; and not great *or*, for that matter.

I would like to weigh in on this. I do not speak Latin or Greek. My degree is in English literature; so I cannot dispute the facts of Caligula's life with the other venerable posters here. But I do know movies. I watch hundreds of them every year, and I have to say that I think most of the posters so far are mistaken in their judgment of this film. I watched it almost a year ago and made the following note in my diary:

 

I was rapt, shocked, frozen to my seat, enthralled for every minute of this two and a half hour movie. I haven't been this surprised since the first time I saw Fellini, or 2001 A Space Odyssey. There was something really original about this picture, and it wasn't that twenty or thirty minutes were sheer unsimulated hardcore pornography. This was a fascinating study of a story I've always loved. Caligula! It had all sorts of great scenes, some I hadn't even heard of before. Tiberius' pleasure house was remarkable, and only surpassed by Caligula's galley. Then there was that magnificent machine. The condemned criminals are buried up to their necks in the arena and then a giant lawnmower with slaves dancing and cavorting all over drives along and chops the mens' heads off. This film pushed the bounderies of what I thought moviemaking could be. You think you're edgy? You don't know where the edge is. As Thompson says,

[sylla]

I would like to weigh in on this. I do not speak Latin or Greek. My degree is in English literature; so I cannot dispute the facts of Caligula's life with the other venerable posters here. But I do know movies. I watch hundreds of them every year, and I have to say that I think most of the posters so far are mistaken in their judgment of this film. I watched it almost a year ago and made the following note in my diary:

 

I was rapt, shocked, frozen to my seat, enthralled for every minute of this two and a half hour movie. I haven't been this surprised since the first time I saw Fellini, or 2001 A Space Odyssey. There was something really original about this picture, and it wasn't that twenty or thirty minutes were sheer unsimulated hardcore pornography. This was a fascinating study of a story I've always loved. Caligula! It had all sorts of great scenes, some I hadn't even heard of before. Tiberius' pleasure house was remarkable, and only surpassed by Caligula's galley. Then there was that magnificent machine. The condemned criminals are buried up to their necks in the arena and then a giant lawnmower with slaves dancing and cavorting all over drives along and chops the mens' heads off. This film pushed the bounderies of what I thought moviemaking could be. You think you're edgy? You don't know where the edge is. As Thompson says,

Edited September 4, 2009 by sylla

[Ursus]

I picked up a copy of this book at the local seller. I have been reading, but wonder how much of this book is actually accurate? There is a part towards the beginning of the book where Hawthorne discusses Roman soldiers capturing enemy soldiers, busting out their teeth and orally raping them. How accurate is this? Does anyone have any idea where he might have obtained this information? The more I read his books, the more I think he is doing nothing more than sensationaling the truth. None of his material is really cited, so there is no way of tracing it. I would tend to believe his material is rather non-scholarly. Tell me what you all think. I believe his Sex Lives of the Popes is a load of rubbish as well.

 

I can't speak about the book as I never read it.

 

But if you want to read a serious study on Roman sexuality, I recommend Roman Sex By John R. Clarke. The study is based on the visual remains of Roman society, which is thankfully a bit broader than the court gossip of Seutonius.