Spartacus

It is really interesting to see why this film, Spartacus was made in the first place. Obviously, historical epics were massively successful during this time period. But this particular film was made as an answer to 1959’s Ben-Hur. In fact, it was Kirk Douglas’s answer to that movie. Douglas was originally set to star in that movie, but Charlton Heston was cast over Douglas at the last minute, giving Douglas a feeling of bitter resentment. Both films have a very common theme: one man rising against the mighty Roman Empire to fight for their beliefs. I think Ben-Hur is the better film, but there is much to admire about this film.

The movie, based off the popular novel by Howard Fast, was written by Dalton Trumbo. Trumbo is a well-known screenwriter, not only for his writing talent but because he was blacklisted because of his associated ties with communism. Kirk Douglas and director Stanley Kubrick stood strong behind their screenwriter and they publicly announced Trumbo wrote their movie, instead of Trumbo hiding behind a pseudonym. I found that to be a very courageous move on the part of Douglas and Kubrick, because that could have easily hurt the movie’s chance at the box office. Luckily, the film was a box office smash and was very popular with the critics and the audience alike.

This film has a Roman slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) as the film’s central character. Spartacus is held at a gladiatorial school ran by the amusing Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov). One day, he starts a revolt because he became angered at the notion of fighting to the death for the entertainment of spoiled women. This revolt soon spread all across Italy, where thousands of slaves joined the cause. Their plan was for Silesian pirates to transport them away from Italy to new lands. Meanwhile in Rome, Senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton) schemes to have the slaves taken down by a Roman garrison. After they failed, his mentor Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier) decides to lead his own army against Spartacus’s slaves. Now Spartacus must face the might and power of the Roman army.

Now compared to other epics of the time, I didn’t like this film as much. It’s certainly not a bad film, not even close to being so. The problem is the movie is a tad overlong and the story drags at certain moments. Some of the dialogue was cheesy too. By today’s standards, the dialogue does not hold up very well and some of the words are laughingly bad. These complaints dragged the movie down, but only to a very small degree.

There are many things I did admire about the film. There are plenty of majestic battle sequences and I liked them very much. I loved watching how the revolt started and I was cheering for Spartacus the entire time. I liked the political backdrop of the movie. Obviously, Spartacus uprising has a major political undertone which is revolution, a very appropriate theme. We also get to go behind the scenes and see how Roman politics influenced the war. It’s a common fact that Roman senators always schemed against each other. The film also did something different, when compared to other epics. These other epics usually provide the normal happy ending. Well, that is not much the case with this film. If you follow history, you’ll know the fate of Spartacus. But I’m not going to spoil anything for those who don’t know. But the ending was very powerful and memorable. Speaking of powerful, my favorite scene was when a Roman general asked Spartacus’s army where Spartacus was. Each soldier stood up and said, “I’m Spartacus.” A very powerful scene showing the loyalty the slaves had for Spartacus and his cause.

This film was the first big film of Stanley Kubrick’s career. He was 30 when he directed the film, but he already had 4 feature films under his belt before this film. He masterfully directed the film, but it is publicly known that he disowned the film. It’s his most straightforward film, and it was nominated for 6 Oscars (and won 4 of them). But Kubrick didn’t like the film he made. He is one of my favorite directors, and you’ll see more reviews of his films down the line.

The film features fine performances from everyone involved. One of Kubrick’s strengths is getting the very best out of his actors. Kirk Douglas portrayed Spartacus as a strong man driven by perseverance. Peter Ustinov, who won Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars for his role as Batiatus, does a wonderful job. He is consistently funny and he has a great screen presence whenever onscreen. Laurence Olivier delivers a deep performance as Crassus, who is identified as bisexual in the movie. Jean Simmons does a good job as Varinia, the wife of Spartacus. She delivered some emotional performances. Just watch the ending of the movie to see why I say so. Also, keep an eye on a meaty supporting turn by Tony Curtis as Antoninus, the man who loves Spartacus like a brother. Finally, Charles Laughton is great as the soft-hearted scheming Roman Senator, Gracchus.

Overall, I liked Spartacus, but I didn’t really love it much. It runs into some boring stretches and parts of the movie such as the dialogue and costumes don’t hold up well. But I liked how the film strived to be more historically accurate than previous epics. This is a nice film to learn something about Ancient Rome. The film does feature wonderful, bold performances, great direction, good production design, and spectacular battles. Not the greatest epics ever made, but good enough.

My Grade: B

Ben-Hur

In 1956, The Ten Commandments was released to a massive success around the world. It had such a worldwide appeal due to the story being well-known everywhere. Three years later, another wildly successful epic was released in the form of Ben-Hur. This movie seems like the first cousin of The Ten Commandments. Both are stories based off biblical events, and Charlton Heston plays the lead role in both films. Heston wasn’t nominated for any major awards with his 1956 film, but he was nominated and won an Oscar for his amazing portrayal of Judah Ben-Hur, an influential man amongst his people.

If I had to choose what my favorite epic was from this era, I would have chosen Ben-Hur. It has such a fascinating story as it’s about a man who wants what is only right for his people. His people are conquered by the Romans, and he wants a better life for them. The movie goes into so much detail on the man Judah was. He was alive for the teachings of Jesus Christ, although he was not seen to be an ardent supporter. However, one of the best scenes in the movie was Judah and his family watching Jesus being marched with a cross on his back on his way to be crucified. That scene did admittedly tear me up.

Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a rich Jewish merchant whom resides in Jerusalem. An old childhood Roman friend of his named Messala (Stephen Boyd) arrives to become commanding officer of Jerusalem. Both men are extremely happy to see each other at first, but their friendship becomes divided over political issues. When the governor arrives during a welcome parade, a tile falls off the roof accidentally injuring the governor. Messala takes advantage of the incident and the broken friendship with Judah to send Judah into slavery and his mother and sister into prison. Judah makes a name for himself in the galleys and becomes a Roman prince. Now Judah comes back home and he vows revenge on Messala for how he treated his family.

Charlton Heston had the fortune to appear in what are the two most famous epics of all time. He was able to convince me in his performance as Moses. Now in this film, he even more so convinces me as Judah Ben-Hur. Both men want to do what is right for their people, but they are two different men. Heston does an amazing job in this role and I believe he deserves his Oscar victory. Stephen Boyd does well as Messala. Both Heston and Boyd have excellent chemistry, which makes the broken friendship even more gut-wrenching. We also get strong supporting performances from Cathy O’Donnell and Martha Scott who portrayed Ben-Hur’s mother and sister respectively. They mostly spend their time in the film battling leprosy, which is a very gruesome disease. The makeup department did a very good job in accurately showing the symptoms of leprosy. I also liked Hugh Griffith’s performance as Sheik Ilderim, who turns out to be a useful ally for Ben-Hur. He provided some comedy, especially when it came to offering Ben-Hur his daughters to marry. Finally, Haya Harareet does a fine job as the love interest of Ben-Hur, Esther.

At the time of the film’s release, it had the largest budget of any film released. It had a price tag of around fifteen million dollars, or 123 million dollars when adjusted to today’s standards by inflation. I believe the budget was spent properly. The epic is beautiful and is home too many large, grand scenes. The most famous scene is the well-known chariot scene, which would hold up well in any movie released today. The race itself was epic and it features some hardcore chariot racing. The chariot race takes time to complete, and I’m glad it does. It’s my favorite sequence of the movie and it’s arguably the most action-packed scene of the 210-minute film. When one thinks of Ben-Hur, they will always bring up the chariot scene. It is a very influential scene on future movies.

There were some other scenes I loved to such as the scene in the galleys where Judah rescues a Roman general at sea during war and he becomes an adopted son of the general. Whenever Judah and Messala appear onscreen together is always worth watching. Judah’s search for his family is also a powerful section of the movie. The movie looks gorgeous and the production design is wonderful. Ancient Rome actually looked authentic, which is hard to say of movies released during this time period. Jerusalem also looked authentic too. I also loved the score by Miklos Rosza. It was a beautiful score to listen to and it works very well with the movie.

Overall, Ben-Hur is a flat-out great epic. The movie does run into pacing problems, but that can be expected at a movie clocked around three-and-a-half hours. Everything is consistent with the film ranging from the acting to the special effects (no CGI of course) to the wonderful direction of William Wyler. Without Wyler’s consistent tonal direction, who knew if this film would work. As a history film, this film may not always be accurate. But they did get the tone mostly right. A winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture, this is one of my favorite epics to watch.

My Grade: A

Vertigo

Vertigo is one of the more complicated movies I have ever seen, and just trying to think about what exactly is happening was enough to make my head spin in opposite directions, and I mostly mean that as a compliment. It just shows what a competent movie director Alfred Hitchcock made. There are many things happening in the movie, so you will have to pay attention to keep up with what is going on. It took me two grasps to understand the basics of the plot. Kudos to Hitchcock in creating a movie that effectively employs plot twists and turns to keep the movie audience guessing.

So in a way. this thriller could be about Hitchcock himself and the way he handles women in his movies. Hitchcock is famous for his control over the production, especially when it comes to his movies. They all have the same qualities in his films, and thus end up looking foolish. Vertigo is one of his best films, because he spoofs himself in away. The men in the movie, especially the main character Scottie Ferguson, treats the women rather in a disrespectful, obsessive way. It shows how men can become obsessive over things they can’t have, especially the women.

As it is with many Hitchcock films, they are all technically impressive. A big part of the film is the term “vertigo” itself. By definition, vertigo is essentially being afraid of heights. Scottie’s backstory is explained in the beginning, and part of it shows why he was afraid of heights after going through a rooftop chase and almost falling off a roof. The way his vertigo explained was actually quite frightening. Seeing the shots from ground to sky as the camera moves away from the ground made his fear even more realistic.

So what is this film all about? Well, Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) is a former detective who is retired because of his paranoia with heights. One day, a former colleague named Gavin (Tom Helmore) approaches Scottie with a request to follow his wife around, Madeleine (Kim Novak) because he fears she was possessed by a dead person. Scottie reluctantly agrees to do so. During his investigation, Scottie begins to fall in love with her. But due to a tragic accident, Madeleine dies. Soon thereafter, Scottie meets another woman named Judy (also played by Kim Novak), who uncannily looks similar to the deceased Madeleine. Scottie begins to grow obsessed with her and he eventually tries to groom her into a mirror image of Madeleine. Doing so helps begin what is a shocking climax perhaps resulting in a murder conspiracy.

This film is very much well-acted. James Stewart is one of Hollywood’s “Golden Age” stars and he delivers a magnificent performance. He made his fear of heights very believable and his growing obsession in the latter part of the film was incredible to watch, even though he was a treating a woman a way a man should never treat a woman-through compulsive obsession. He treated Judy like an object, and in a sense mirrors Hitchcock’s reality. Kim Novak delivered a convincing performance in her roles as Madeleine and Judy. She’s blond, icy, and often humiliated-very normal in a Hitchcock thriller. But without spoiling anything, Judy and Madeleine are two characters who are closely related and Novak was able to play both of the roles effectively.

Overall, Vertigo is a very strong Hitchcock thriller. It’s undeniably scary and creepy, with Hitchcock excels at making his films be. The beginning is very effectively scary, as we are introduced to Scottie’s vertigo. His obsession towards the women was also creepy, but at the same time, puts you to the edge of your seat making you wonder what will happen next. I won’t spoil anything, but the ending is a shocker and its something you won’t see coming thanks to the masterful direction of Hitchcock and wonderful, convincing performances from Stewart and Novak. The plot twists and turns when you least expect it, so be prepared to bring your mind to the film. You’ll need it.

My Grade: A-