Spartacus

Rating:
Summary: GREAT FILM BUT HISTORICAL RUBBISH
Review: I would recommend "Spartacus" as excellent entertainment from the time when Hollywood could still produce epic films, and this one of course was directed by none other than Stanley Kubrick. However, the script is filled with historical innacuracies and is heavily influenced by the political leanings of author Howard Fast and screen writer Dalton Trumbo, who project 20th century ideologies onto people utterly different from ourselves.

Spartacus was a Roman, or at least an Italian, soldier who was probably enslaved for disciplinary problems and sold to a gladiatorial school. The term "Thracian" comes not from his geograpic origins, but from his fighting style in the arena; gladiators who fought with a short sword and small round shield were called "Thracians." No one but a Roman or Italian could have organized a force capable of defeating a legion, and one had to grow up in the right environment to imbibe the necessary ideas. Barely 50 years earlier, 20,000 Roman soldiers led by Gaius Marius had destroyed a Germanic army of over 200,000. If you weren't born in Italy, you wouldn't have had the chance to learn the necessary military science.

The film's opening narration refers to "The pagan tyranny that was Rome." Of course, everyone at that time (except the Hebrews) was "pagan," so no one would have resented the Romans for that fact. Also, compared to other governments of the day, Rome was a model of enlighenment. At least the Romans gave something in return for taxes (roads, aqueducts, etc.), whereas other rulers merely plundered their subjects to finance extravagant lifestyles and foreign adventures. If the Roams could be cruel, that was a trait shared by all their contemporaries.

One review refered to "decadence" and the "Empire." Rome was still a republic at this time, and far from being decadent, was about to create the world's first supranational state, which would last for almost four centuries (12 if one includes the Byzantine Empire). Had they been truly decadent, the Romans would have been incapable of such a feat.

On a lighter note, during a break in filming Kirk Douglas had arranged a trip to Palm Springs. He was persuaded to take a limousine as befitting his "star" status. He left the studio still in costume, and while driving through the desert fell asleep under a blanket until the driver stopped for gas. Kirk got out of the limo to stretch his legs, and the driver, thinking his passenger was still asleep, took off and left him behind. Kirk finished the trip by hitchiking wearing his tunic and sandals!

Watch this film for its' entertainment value and maybe a morality sermon on the values of courage and perseverance, but beware the political overtones. Oppression and sexual freedom are concepts unique to our time; the peoples of the ancient Meditarranean saw their world in terms defined quite differently from ours.

Rating:
Summary: Gladiators vs. Legionnaires
Review: This is one of the greatest biographical films of a historical figure in the history of Hollywood. It is the story of a Thracian slave who became a gladiator, a gladiator who became a general, and a general who became the biggest scourge in the side of Rome since Hannibal.

Kirk Douglas' performance as Spartacus is top-knotch. Although many of his actions are highly influenced by 20th century attitudes towards slavery, it is nonetheless a memorable rendition of the life of the real Spartacus. Best of all, Douglas injects a healthy amount of humanity in a man whose personal life we know precious little about.

The film gives us a glimpse of what would shortly become known as the First Triumvirate: Gaius Julius Caesar, Crassus and Pompey the Great. It is Crassus, otherwise the least well-known of the 3, who takes center stage as the general who eventually defeats Spartacus (but ONLY due to superior numbers, not superior tactics / strategy).

It is with reservation that grant my blessing to the casting of Sir Laurence Olivier as Crassus. Do not misunderstand me, Olivier fans. It is not because he is not suited to the part. Rather, it is because the part is perhaps not suited to him.

Let me explain. Whenever I think of Crassus, the first thing that inevitably comes to mind is his leading 7 Legions (35,000 men) against the Parthians some 20 years after his engagement with Spartacus. As his he went up against the greatest horse archers the world has ever seen with an army almost entirely composed of heavy infantry, the battle has been labeled as one of the top military blunders of all time. Practically all 35,000 Romans perished because of Crassus' ineptness as a commander.

Now, I understand that these events happened outside the scope of this movie. However, it is because of his fatally flawed strategy against the Parthians that I have difficulty reconciling the "honor" bestowed upon Crassus of having none other than Sir Laurence Olivier play his part. Usually, I fault actors when they are mis-cast into roles for which their Thespian talents fall short of pulling off. In this case, the reverse is true.

SPARTACUS gives us a great many factual circumstances which did really happen, such as his being betrayed by the pirates who had promised to get his men to Sicily. Had Spartacus been able to land on Sicily and lead slave uprisings there, the ramifications would have been catastrophic for Rome.

Along with these facts is a lot of fiction to fill in the gaps. Spartacus' body was never found after the last battle, and the famous "I am Spartacus" sequence most assuredly never happened. However, that scene ranks with the greatest in all of Hollywood history; even the most critical classical historian cannot but feel a shiver of admiration go up his spine after seeing it.

As a martyr of the oppressed throughout history, Spartacus' spirit is still with us today. The motto of the Army Green Berets is TO FREE THE OPPRESSED. Here are some of the most professional and greatest soldiers the world has ever seen, and yet they adhere to the dictum of Spartacus. The rest of us would be wise to followers of this sage as well.

Rating:
Summary: "Let me see his teeth"
Review: Kirk Douglas (and his teeth) star in this true story about Spartacus...a Roman slave & gladiator who leads a rebellion against the Roman Empire. Co-starring the lovely Jean Simmons as his wife. Also co-starring Lawrence Oliver, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton, John Gavin & Tony Curtis. If you like Braveheart & Gladiator, you'll love this movie

Rating:
Summary: A slight misconception
Review: Alot of people think the film master Stanley Kubrick directed this film. Even though his name is in the credits, he really didn't have alot to do with the film's directing. A short while after shooting began which is way after pre-production, screen writing and storyboard, the original director was fired. The producers needed someone to step in, so they chose Kubrick. All he did was oversee the process. He really didn't care about the final outcome of the film since he wasn't involved in the pre-production stages. So, it is stupid for people to say it is Kubrick's worst or best film because it isn't his film. The movie isn't even very good anyway. I think everyone should see it though because it is a classic. I'm just tired of hearing people say how this film is the one Kubrick least implanted his style on. The reason why this film doesn't reflect Kubrick's style is because he didn't mean for it to.

Rating:
Summary: Exception to a rule
Review: As a great fan of Kubrick's work, it pains me to say that this is one of the most hideous films i've ever forced myself to sit through (twice - once in the old pan-and-scan edition and once in the restored widescreen edition).

The restoration is indeed terrific, and the widescreen presentation does give the film a certain cinematic sheen that makes it seem *somewhat* less like a high-budget/low-taste television miniseries, but ultimately it's hard to ignore what complete drivel this is.

The film opens with a disgruntled and filthy slave called "Spartacus" working in a quarry under the cruelest of conditions. As the film wears on and "Spartacus" enters gladiatorial training, and then escapes the yoke of captivity altogether to lead a massive slave rebellion, the unformed brute transforms into a gentile lover. This metamorphosis is completely unsupported in any rational sense of plot; at best, it may correspond with his improving personal hygiene or his increasing proximity to the lovely-but-undeveloped Varinia.

Rather than focusing on the rather interesting legend/history of the Spartacus uprising, the film follows the same worn-out leading-man/love-interest-oriented tract that somehow worms its way into virtually every Hollywood epic and almost invariably dominates and ruins it. Instead of "Spartacus," this picture would have been more-aptly entitled "Boring Epic Romance 533-B."

However, there are two good performances: Olivier does great work, as always, and so does Charles Laughton. Kubrick, on the other hand, might as well have been vacationing in Antarctica for all the presence of his directorial touch here, and Tony Curtis is bizarrely miscast and consequently pretty pathetic (although the snails and oysters scene between him and Olivier is worth seeing from a film history point of view). Personally, i prefer to think of Kirk Douglas as Dax in Paths of Glory, in which both he and Kubrick were excellent.

In fact, i passionately recommend everything else by Kubrick. But when a director disowns a film it's generally for good reason, and that's certainly true in this case.

Rating:
Summary: "Profoundly Flawed" is flawed
Review: Crassus is the actual name of the Roman general who fought Spartacus. He was part of a triumverate consisting of himself, Pompey the Great, and Julius Caesar. Stanley Kubrick did not name him Crassus.

Rating:
Summary: THE HEROIC EPIC.
Review: This is a typical example of a perfect movie. Every time I watch it, I find more and more in it. I recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: GENIUS
Review: Great stuff; makes "Gladiator" seem like an action/ adventure film.

Rating:
Summary: "And End This Thing the Only Way It Could Have Ended!"
Review: So Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) ends his rallying speech to his Gladiator Army just before the final engagement of the picture, when they will have to face the full force of Rome itself, led by Crassus, as played by Laurence Olivier.

Where can I start to praise this magnificent movie? Funny how your appreciation matures as you grow older. When I was a kid, "Spartacus" lasted all week on "The 4:30 Movie" and often got featured on Bible Week even though it has nothing to do with those events--it's a ROMAN epic, not a BIBLICAL one. Then I really sat down and watched it on video years later, and my earlier impressions passed away. The ultimate test of its greatness was then in 1991 when the restored version played at NYC's Ziegfeld Theatre and I saw it with my friend Lisa, who had never seen it before. She was totally blown away--couldn't even believe how old the picture was then, because it looked great and the actors were all top notch.

Credit for "Spartacus" must rightfully be given to Kirk Douglas himself, who produced it and assembled the fine cast. Not only that, he dared to do what no one at that time would--he hired blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo (who had been writing, but under an assumed name since he was considered dead meat) for the script and put his name firmly in the credits--Trumbo thanked Douglas later "for giving me my name back," thus striking the major blow that broke the blacklist. Totally appropriate for a movie that concerns itself, after all, with man's fight for freedom from oppressors.

But "Spartacus" is not only a vehicle to oppose the blacklist. No, it's simply one of the best epics ever produced. How does it compare, for instance, with "Ben-Hur"? "Ben-Hur" is an excellent movie, but there is no character in the film--none--who is as complex as the ones in "Spartacus". "Spartacus" boasts a bevy of tour de force performances: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jeanne Simmons, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton. It's the sort of piece where you're never sure which actor you like to watch most. Ustinov is awfully good as the owner of the Gladiator school where all the trouble starts when Laurence Olivier's decadent entourage arrives and nonchalantly demands a fight to the death from the gladiators. Ustinov delivers an Academy Award-winning performance as he panders to whatever Roman higher up he's presented with. Charles Laughton is a wily old Roman senator who is self-appointed to stop the advances Olivier's Crassus is making towards dictatorship. For me, it's a sheer joy to watch Laughton's self satisfied work, whether he's living it up in his home among all his women slaves with Ustinov or attacking Olivier on the floor of the Roman Senate. I'd have recommended him for the Supporting Actor Award Ustinov copped. Olivier gives the most multilayered performance, as you'd expect he would. Watch him closely; he's different with every other character, the way some complex people show different facets of their personality at different times. His Crassus is a man searching for something, something even he can't identify. Is it an affair with Slave Boy Tony Curtis? Is it an affair with Spartacus' wife Jeanne Simmons? Is it control of Rome itself? Whatever it is, he feels it is somehow connected with tracking down the slave known as Spartacus, whom he was informed he saw once in the arena, but can't for the life of him remember.

The three performances up top are the best in the movie, but Jeanne Simmons imbues her character with dignity and of course Kirk Douglas has more than his share of charisma as Spartacus himself. Tony Curtis is oddly enough treated as a boy in the movie, which is somewhat far-fetched, but not offensive. Looking for a feast for the eyes? Then cast a glance at John Gavin as Laughton's protege Julius Caesar, especially in the bath scene when his powerful chest can distract you from the acting of Olivier and Laughton combined.

"Spartacus" is a long movie, but believe me, one that flows so beautifully that you're unaware of the time. Really one of the finest ever put out--gather up your toga and hunt it down for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Stan Was Only Following Orders
Review: Spartacus was a book no publisher would touch in the 1950's so blantant was its Communist message. Author Fast printed it himself, and sales were good enough to interest Hollywood. Fast's novel is pure party line. No queer Communists, no empowered women, no interest in culture except as a tool to further the dialetic. It's a bore.

Kubrick, on the other hand, was a brilliant director whose films displayed a vigourous nilhilism, an almost amoral view completely at odds with either Rightist paranoia or Leftist cant. Kubrick's films were always about putting a character through the wringer to see what would happen. His first films out to have clued somebody in that artistically Kubrick was a sociopath. There is no bleaker film than "Paths of Glory" in which Kirk Douglas takes off his shirt and rants to no effect: even if has justice, the men will still just return to the trenches. And even his two previous films are set in dim half-worlds of the users and the used.

Kirk was impressed with young Stan, and why not? POG made Douglas look good. So when Anthony Mann, the orginal director wasn't moving things like Douglas wanted, he brough in the boy wonder. But there was no way Stanley Kubrick could make a great film out of Howard Fast's dreck, especially with Kirk Douglas on horseback.

Of all Kubrick's films, this has most stellar cast: Oliver, Laughton, and Ustinov are in the real film. When they come on screen, you see what might have been. Kubrick hated them because they improvised, destroying his control-freak mental picture. The American actors are prime garbage, stiffs one and all. If Kubrick had been allowed to cast properly, it might have helped, but watching the inept John Gavin try to go toe to toe with Olivier is embarassing. Watching the fey Tony Curtis taking a bath with Olivier is embarassing. Watching a slew of actors who would pollute the 1960's television screens try and portray gladiators is laughable. Woody Strode looked great, but could never never never act. Can we digitally insert somebody else?

The highlight of this film is the occaisonally brilliant cinematography, and some of Alex North's music, particularly the "Spartacus Love Theme" or "Proles Make Whopee" In other settings the lyricism of this piece is compelling. Smaltzed to the max with the 10000 and 1 violins takes away much of its power.

Spartacus was a slave who fought and lost, and on this picture, so was Stanley Kubrick. We Americans who love this picture should remember that we are more like the Romans than the slaves here, and that makes this movie all the more a lie.

Fear not! Stanley would assert control and explore nihlism to the day he died. A test for all Kubheads: The more "stars" in a Kubrick film the worse it is. This one with a cast of thousands is on the bottom of the heap.