The Sign of the Cross

I had heard that "The Sign of the Cross" was one of the most outrageous, perverse, over-the-top films to come out of Hollywood in the "Pre-Code" years, so I expected it to be more entertaining than it turned out. While "The Sign of the Cross" certainly has its moments, they are surrounded by lots of slow-moving, quasi-religious stuff about Christian martyrs in Ancient Rome. I say "quasi-religious" because it's hard to believe in Cecil B. DeMille's commitment to Christianity when he is bombarding you with images of kinky sex and violence. Instead, the movie makes DeMille seem like one of the great hypocrites of all time, pasting a religious message on top of an amoral film to make it palatable. After a promising beginning that has Emperor Nero (Charles Laughton) cackling and strumming a lyre as Rome burns, and soon after that Empress Poppaea (Claudette Colbert) taking a milk bath, the royals' wicked antics take a backseat to the main story of persecuted Christians. The emperor's deputy Marcus (Fredric March) falls in love with a Christian named Mercia (Elissa Landi), and struggles to save her while obeying the royal command to kill all her people. March isn't the best person to carry the movie, though he is hampered by a weak script that makes his feelings for Mercia more like lust than like actual concern for her, and thus unsympathetic. His big change of heart at the end is melodramatic and unconvincing. Landi's piety can tip over the line into starchiness, though I enjoyed her smirking reactions to the courtesan who tries to entice her with the "Dance of the Naked Moon." Actually that whole scene is entertaining, but mostly Landi and her fellow Christians speak ponderously of Jesus, gaze at crosses, and sing a hymn with unintelligible lyrics. Thus, it's always nice when the film returns to Nero and/or Poppaea, but it does this far too infrequently, especially considering how entertaining Laughton and Colbert are. Laughton savors his lines and lolls around like a big debauched baby, but he only appears in four scenes. Colbert is very charismatic and seductive, and her voice has an appealing directness to it. She plays Poppaea as a woman who knows exactly what she wants and will stop at nothing to get it. "The Sign of the Cross" really got its infamous reputation from the last half-hour or so, where the Christians get thrown to the lions as just one event in an elaborate Coliseum spectacle that includes gladiators, bear-baiting, dwarfs battling Amazons, and plenty of semi-naked women menaced by various animals. Indeed, this sequence is eye-popping and mindboggling. It's just a pity that you have to watch so much boring stuff before you get to it. If you are looking to get a taste of 1930s DeMille, I would recommend his "Cleopatra" over "The Sign of the Cross." While it contains nothing quite as audacious as the Coliseum scenes, it's still pretty spectacular, plus it's shorter, moves at a faster pace, and makes better use of Claudette Colbert.

Like his other so-called 'biblical' epics, this film is filled with violence, torture, sex, semi-nudity, lesbian scenes...and very, very little 'Bible'. One seriously wonder about this man's true proclivities. And then of course there's the sight of one of Hollywood's greatest actors (and most flagrant homosexuals) as Nero, one of the ultimate perverts. This is one that definitely does NOT stand the test of time. In fact, most of DeMille's films do not. Obviously the man knew very little about good acting or writing. He was a technician, first and foremost. So while his films may still 'look' good, they are marred by the poor performances and cliché-ridden scripts. Even great actors gave some of their worst work in DeMille's films, and March is no exception here. Colbert and Laughton do their best with bad material, but to little avail, and one can easily see why the leading lady was and is an 'unknown' (in fact it leads one to suspect she may have given in to DeMille's personal perversities).

A big disappointment. I've wanted to see this for years.The historical era, of course, is of great interest to me. And Charles Laughton as Nero just seems like inspired casting! But unfortunately Laughton is barely in the picture! He's got like about 15 minutes of screen time. Maybe less than that even. Claudette Colbert as the empress Poppaea is in it a bit more – she takes a famous bath in milk and you can even catch a glimpse of her nipple if you watch carefully – but she's not in it enough, either. No, the vast bulk of this vastly bulky film is spent with Frederic March and Elissa Landi. He plays the prefect of Rome and she the young Christian woman he tries to save from persecution. March's acting, in my opinion, varied a lot from role to role. He was occasionally great, as in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or especially in Inherit the Wind, but oftentimes he was dull or mediocre (too many examples to name). In The Sign of the Cross, he is just bad. Elissa Landi, who was the second female lead in After the Thin Man and played opposite Robert Donat in The Count of Monte Cristo, is a beautiful woman, but not much of an actress. The film is very stilted in an early-talkies sort of way. The dialogue is very bad, and often very difficult to understand (I had to watch some scenes with subtitles). The film does have some great moments. Any scenes with Laughton or Colbert are worthy. I love the scene where Joyzelle Joyner molests Elissa Landi with her erotic dance. And the Christians in the film are so stuffy and self-righteous it's actually a lot of fun when they all get fed to lions, tigers and bears. And crocodiles and one girl is even offered up sexually to a gorilla (a scene which begins and vanishes just as quickly – I'm guessing DeMille didn't want to leave it up long enough for anyone in 1932 to actually get it).

This film is a nauseating show of perversion and corruption! I was hoping to see a typical epic (like others but I guess it had to be something unexpected come on to me, well it should at least had a warning in small red letters to take some Alka-Seltzer before and after) they warned it was before the Pre-Code era but I did not know it was going to be this bad!!! A box office hit?! This was the same director of "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben Hur" ? Eh some change!! Change is what I had demanded back if I went to see this at the "talkies" in 1932 (and then again this film is NOT for children or a more susceptible audience, I was a victim here and I probably seem like one of the number 1 victims in watching this!). The dance of that lady seducing the heroine is gross and just wicked, I thought she was some sort of a witch or something. What really just *SHOCKED* and *SICKENED* me were the scenes in the Coliseum. I actually got *queasy* to my stomach watching this (My mom just watched a second of those scenes and she too was sickened to her stomach). I don't know how people could have enjoyed this. The sex (which here seems just so tacky and filthy) and implied homosexuality along with barbaric paganism, crazy, sadistic emperors and evil women is bad enough now people killing other people and showing all kinds of disgusting acts? COMPLETELY IMMORAL! Talk about human rights!! I never thought a film (even a 'Pre-Code' film) from the 1930's could affect almost like say, "The Exorcist" or a gross-out cult horror film! It really made me think on how did audiences in this time react to this. I had to drink Alka-Seltzer, really. Good thing there's always the musical films from the same era and the Marx Brothers (perhaps a alternative to these something like this?!) to wash it off! Whoever enjoyed this film (and enjoys these kinds of films) must have been drunk (or even "high" but please let's not get there, there's enough corruption with this film already!) and is really sick in the head! IF YOU ARE EASILY QUEASY OR ARE SENSITIVE DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!! THE COLISEUM SCENES ARE DISTURBING, HORRIBLE AND VERY PEVERTED TO THE POINT OF PEPTIC TURMOIL! I STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS FILM WAS ACCEPTED OR HOW AUDIENCES WATCHED THIS FILM BACK THEN. IF YOU EVER WATCH IT, YOU'D HAVE TO KEEP SOME ALKA-SELTZER OR SOME STOMACH-SETTLER NEAR AND I MEAN IT, PLUS GET YOUR MIND OFF THE FEELINGS OF DESPAIR IN THE SCENES! IT IS COMPLETELY SHOCKING, SICKENING, DISGUTING AND PERVERTED, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS!

Moviecut—The Sign of the Cross

source: The Sign of the Cross

The Sign of the Cross

I admit that it's a pretty big stretch to start here early with Book Month. I mean, this isn't based on the Bible despite the title. It's instead the story about early Christianity and a Roman soldier who becomes a Christian. Still, this was quite enjoyable. It's mostly because of how it taught me a lot. I especially liked them using the term "Christian" in its early use. It's great to see how the world's biggest religion started. This was the time before there were all these different sects and the term "Christian" was hard to define. This is mostly helped by great atmosphere and acting. It features a guy who falls in love with a Christian woman. I admit the story could probably be better as it's a little disorganized, but it's still great to see Claudette Colbert in this. It's great that I see the filmography of a well known actress that I'm not too familiar with. We get some great visuals especially with the animals near the end. ***

This film stands the test of time. It pulls no punches in showing Roman brutality. The Christians had to hold their services underground, in secret. It is well documented that they were slaughtered in the Coliseum, from being fed to the lions to being used as living torches. The details add to the reality.....cleanup crews dragging containers of dead gladiators, the spreading of scented oils over the carnage, the lions fighting with one another as they ascend the stairs to the arena surface, the Christians awaiting their fate, the wild approval of the crowd as scores of gladiators fight to the death, the marquee advertising the agenda of carnage for the day's events....The acting was very good, as well as the dialogue. The Romans were shown to have personalities and realistic mannerisms and dialogue .....unlike many other historical epics where the characters act in a stilted sort of reverence to the times they are portraying.

How did DeMille do it? How did he make a film that is wildly decadent, revelling in the debaucheries of Ancient Rome, while still making it a moving tribute to the Christian martyrs of the time? The way he balances spectacle, comedy, drama, moralising and debauchery is pure genius! If you've never seen a pre-Hollywood-production-code movie before you may be surprised to see a glimpse of Claudette Colbert's nipples as she's bathing in milk, to see an erotic lesbian dance sequence, to see a naked young man sitting next to the very gay Nero of Charles Laughton! And then DeMille joyously recreates a whole day of gruesome spectacles in the arena in all their gruesome detail. But then, somehow, he switches the whole mood and, thanks to excellent performances from Fredric March, Elissa Landi and young Tommy Conlon, creates a deeply moving finale, that tragically anticipates the horrors of the Holocaust. An amazing film in every way, and so much better than "Quo Vadis"!