Is the film "I Claudius" historically accurate?

Question

I'm referring to the 1976 TV miniseries starring Derek Jacobi.

Answer 1

For the most part, it's a good representation. There are details--- Lucius' and Gaius' deaths are jumbled; Marcus Agrippa and Augustus should have been the same age; some of the marriage timelines are a bit off; etc, but for the average person, it's pretty reliable.

Answer 2

Yes and no. Robert Graves, on whose works (I, Claudius and Claudius the God) the series was based, was using the works of Roman historians, especially Suetonious (sp?), who wrote *his* history based on second-hand (at a minimum) sources and big helpings of gossip, rumor, and innuendo. Graves did his best with the material he had to work with, and invented some characters of his own. Take the two novels that span decades, condense them into a series of hour-long TV scripts (with the multiple constraints of 'broadcast standards', artistic license, and budget), and yes, there'll be deviations and innacuracies from the historical record.

Is it really historically accurate? Certainly moreso than many, if not most, of the historical series and films produced for the mass audience today--HBO's Rome, for example. Is it something I'd be willing to bet an exam or paper grade on? Not on your life. In the final analysis, I, Claudius is an outstanding entertainment, not a documentary.

Answer 3

For the most part. There were invented scenes and characters but most of the events happened. The book's author (Robert Graves) based his work on Suetonius, who got HIS information directly from Claudius's own writings (which have since been lost). Don't take anything for granted until you've actually verified it in a history book, but it's not a bad picture of the era.

Answer 4

It was a lot more reliable than the recent 'Rome' or 'The Tudors'

Answer 5

Most directors take "artistic license" to make the film more exciting or whatever. I doubt that it is 100% accurate.

Answer 6

Course not.