This is shown - sort of - except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus.
Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4) Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated Nero's father died of natural causes Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations.
0 kommentar(er)
