Spartacus

okay

s

"Spartacus" is an overrated spectacle whose parts (and there are many good ones) are better than its whole. It starts out well with Douglas becoming a gladiator and learning the ins and outs of the business. But after the revolt, all the slave scenes become unbearably tedious. The Romans steal the movie. The politics, the backstabbing, the jockeying. The Romans also are better actors, and their scenes are done with a wry humor. In one scene with Peter Ustinov's and Charles Laughton's characters are sharing a meal, and each of the actors desperately trying to outact each other -- and better acting you're rarely likely to see as the old ham and the up and coming ham both try to steal the scene. Olivier's Crassus is also notable. In fact, some of the slave scenes are so cloying and tiresome one winds up rooting for the Romans. The slaves scenes are enlivened occasionally by the arrival of Herbert Lom (Inspector Dreyfus). So, many good scenes (especially the climactic battle), many good performances, some fine writing here and there, but ultimately boring with the people who should be most interesting and sympathetic, the revolting slaves who are willing to die for the cause of freedom.

As a student of Roman history, I generally cast a jaundiced eye on Hollywood epics dwelling on ancient Rome. They're either camp, like "QUO VADIS" (Robert Taylor's impersonation of an actor is particularly unsettling), or badly researched and preachy, like the incredibly overrated, "BEN-HUR" (starring Charlton Heston, and his flying circus of facial tics). Given Hollywood's miserable track record in handing out awards (i.e., "How Green was my Valley" over "Citizen Kane"??? --- enough said), it is telling that "Ben-Hur" snagged 11 Oscars, including Chuck's, but "Spartacus" was virtually ignored (Ustinov's wonderful rendering of Lentulus Batiatus excepted). And yet, as history, "Spartacus" is a terrific film. There are, inevitably, inconsistencies: the real Gracchus (played by Charles Laughton), was dead fifty years before Spartacus' rebellion occurred and Spartacus himself died in the film's final battle - he was NOT crucified, an imaginary incident conjured by Douglas to allow for a heart-breaking farewell scene with Jean Simmons - this is regrettable, but forgivable, dramatic license. Overall, however, "Spartacus" is one of the few films that can withstand historical scrutiny. In one of many brilliant scenes, Olivier and his brother-in-law, spectators at the gladiatorial school run by Ustinov, cavalierly discuss politics, oblivious to the fact that, in the arena below, two men are fighting for their lives. Their detachment from the slaughter being perpetrated, ostensibly for their amusement, is a vivid and unforgettable reminder that barbarism once passed for entertainment. And the now-"Un-infamous" scene where Tony Curtis and Olivier make homoerotic small talk is not only tame by today's standards, but quite realistic, given what we now know of the bisexual nature of many upper-class Roman men in the first century B.C.E. There is one other flaw in "Spartacus": namely the sanctimonious condemnation of slavery in the opening narration. Nearly all of Hollywood's films about ancient Rome -- indeed, the ancient world in general -- incorporate this tired, pompous disclaimer about slavery and the pernicious effect it had on whatever civilization is being targeted: we need to be reminded that here, in the USA, the evil that was slavery flourished for a hundred years, as it flourished for centuries in Britain, Russia, Spain, and China: the United States of America endorsed and approved slavery, and certain areas in this country still tolerate racism, misogyny, and homophobia -- but we would resent any entity that would consider those flaws an embodiment of the American Mind. Oppression was no more typical of the Roman Empire than Mississippi is typical of the United States (thank GOD!). We should remember that before we condemn a culture that survived for over 2200 years (from the founding of Rome in 753 BCE to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE). Finally, Alex North's wind-and-brass-besotted, jagged score is wonderfully appropriate and especially effective in the military scenes. This is one of the few films I felt compelled to buy, so as to have my own copy. It is flawed, but only because Douglas aimed so high, and it remains one of the few films that I term, "great."

SPARTACUS can be described in a few words: Spartacus: slave, family man, husband & lover, freedom fighter = good. Romans: hedonists, no families to be seen, hang around the sauna all day, scheming = bad. That's it. The treatment is that simplistic. I expected more from Stanley Kubrick. Yes, the film was made in 1960 but even so I thought the film was too one note about everything, including Kirk Douglas' pseudo saintly character. The pacing was rather slow which is typical for a Stanley Kubrick film. What was surprising was how unfocused the direction was. Kubrick films (2001, CLOCKWORK ORANGE, SHINING...) are probably the most focused films ever made and to watch SPARTACUS wobble here and there, with no discernible idea of what it wanted to be, was really odd. The film feels like it had just too many cooks working behind it. The cinematography is also unusually unspectacular for an epic film. The sets are sorta grubby looking. Add all of this with the monotonous score, which was way too bombastic for the dour looking film and well, there wasn't much to enjoy for me. It's not a disaster by any means. It's a well made but it's average, for a so-called spectacular epic but also because of who directed it. Watching SPARTACUS was surprisingly underwhelming.

This isn't "Ben-Hur," but it's no slouch, either. It's a no-nonsense dramatic tale of a slave who leads a revolt against Rome, is successful in building the movement from almost nothing to an army of thousands, only to be beaten and literally crucified in the end.....but leaving his mark, to use a cliché, on history. The prelude to the final battle scene is awesome-looking when you see all the soldiers lined up. I liked the fact they didn't overdo the action scenes, which they could easily have done employing a cast of thousands. While they cut those down, they cut down on the overall length of the movie which was over three hours long. At two-and-a-half hours this would have been much easier to view. Kirk Douglas, as "Spartacus," the leader of that revolt, was excellent and Peter Ustinov shines, too. The dialog given Ustinov and Charles Laughton was intelligent. This movie also featured the acting talents of Jean Simmons, Laurence Olivier, Tony Curtis and John Gavin. Not bad, eh? A solid adventure story.

I think the movie is quite good; what I want to add to the comments already made is just this: The commentary (on the DVD) by screenplay writer Dalton Trumbo is great. Kirk Douglas said it was the greatest analysis of film-making ever. He explains the purpose of every scene, very openly and honestly critiquing the changes the actors made, for (in his estimation) better or worse. There is another track of commentary by the actors. The actors had an unusual degree of latitude in re-writing their lines and forming their characters.

As most are undoubtedly aware this is the film that the director virtually expunged from his repertoire. But why did Stanley Kubrick really disown SPARTACUS (1960)? The answer can be summed up in two words: absolute control. Kubrick wanted total administrative as well as artistic authority over the making of the film about a revolt of gladiators and slaves in ancient Rome. But you will notice that Bryna Productions not only financed SPARTACUS but also an earlier film directed by Kubrick, PATHS OF GLORY (1958). Bryna was Kirk Douglas' film company and, as most filmgoers know, he was the star of both films. Besides having all the money to make the films, Douglas had artistic vision as well. Only three weeks into what would prove to be an incredibly complex and arduous production, Douglas fired venerable director Anthony Mann (RAW DEAL, RAILROADED,THE FURIES, THE NAKED SPUR, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE, MAN OF THE WEST, etc.) from SPARTACUS. With only two days notice, Kubrick was hired to replace him. Shooting PATHS OF GLORY, Douglas had confined his criticisms and objections to Kubrick's failed rewriting of the script (they went with the original screenplay). Douglas' complaints and artistic influence were far greater on SPARTACUS, much to Kubrick's chagrin. Though the director craved autonomy over every aspect of the film, Douglas would not budge. A tense compromise was reached but ultimately Douglas had the last word. Kubrick saw himself as just a hired gun. And he would never allow himself to be placed in this position again. Later, both men would complain about the film's outcome and each other. They never made another movie together. But SPARTACUS is no uneven patchwork of divergent ideas. The film is cohesive and arresting. At the restored version of three hours and eighteen minutes, there is practically no dead footage in the film. Dalton Trumbo's screenplay is surprisingly economical, with sharply drawn characters placed against the sweeping historical majesty and violent sociological tumult of ancient Rome. Quite plainly, the gloriously inventive music by Alex North is among the greatest scores ever written for a motion picture. And despite Kubrick's bad experience, he managed to guide the actors towards creating outstanding work (a best supporting actor Oscar for Peter Ustinov). He even transformed the very real enmity between Laughton and Olivier into an on-screen asset. His other contributions were considerable also (the large scale and power of the battle sequence, for example). In the end, for the film at least, the clash of giant egos proved fortuitous. Recommendations: for greater insight and detail on this and Kubrick's other films I urge you to seek out Jan Harlan's excellent documentary, STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES, and Vincent LoBrutto's exhaustive, highly informative biography, STANLEY KUBRICK. For the producer's views on SPARTACUS and its director, take a gander at Kirk Douglas' very candid autobiography, THE RAGMAN'S SON.

Nice movie

amazing video