Stars: Kirk Douglas (Spartacus), Laurence Olivier (Crassus), Jean Simmons (Varinia), Peter Ustinov (Lentulus Batiatus), Charles Laughton (Gracchus), Tony Curtis (Antoninus), John Gavin (Julius Caesar)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Awards / Honors
- 4 Oscar Wins - Best Supporting Actor (Peter Ustinov), Best Cinematography (Color), Best Art Direction (Set Decoration, Color), Best Costume Design (Color)
- 2 Additional Nominations - Best Film Editing, Best Music (Score)
- #62 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list (2001)
- #22 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains list (2003)
- #44 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers list (2006)
- #81 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
- # 5 on AFI's 10 Top 10 lists (Epic films, 2008)
Genre: Historical Drama
Running Time: 3 Hours, 4 minutes
Format: DVD, Blu-ray
Odyssey Rating: 4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)
John's Take
I have seen Spartacus a number of times, and I never get tired of it. But then again, I am a sucker for big “sand and sandal” epics. Spartacus, Ben-Hur, El Cid, The Ten Commandments, Troy, 300, etc. – I love them all. All of those British and American actors running around portraying people that were most certainly not British or American, and trying to hide that fact by reciting their lines as if they were performing Shakespeare. Apparently everyone in the ancient world spoke some sort of very formal English. There is just something wonderfully cheesy, and over-done about that. Add in the ridiculously dramatic staging of the battle scenes and you can easily see why nothing produced in Hollywood should ever be taken as historically accurate. Doesn’t matter though, I still love them, and Spartacus is one of the quintessential examples of this style of film. For example, eight thousand Spanish soldiers were used as the Roman army in the final battle scene which was filmed outside of Madrid, Spain. That is the kind of over-the-top excess you usually don’t see in films outside this genre. Do they even attempt that kind of location shooting anymore?
I have, however, traditionally found it difficult to reconcile that all of this wonderful Hollywood cheesiness (did all the woman of ancient Rome all have such well manicured finger nails?) was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Spartacus never really “felt” like a Kubrick film to me. I had always just assumed that this was due simply to some combination of:
1. His lack of control of the project, which he traditionally had in the films that he worked on. Spartacus was more Kirk Douglas’ baby. Kirk was mad that he was didn’t get the lead in Ben-Hur, so decided to make his own epic.
2. The fact that he was still coming into his own as a director. While he directed three full-length movies previously (including Paths of Glory which also starred Kirk Douglas), this was Kubrick’s first big-budget motion picture.
So, I always just sort of dismissed Kubrick’s participation in the film and basked in the pomp and grandeur of it all. However, having now watched it for the maybe the seventh or eighth time now, I finally start to see his influence on the film. These “Kubrick-esque” touches, as light as they might be, are what in fact set this film apart from the other films in this same vein.
Kubrick always seemed to gravitate to stories where the main characters were flawed – A Clockwork Orange (# 54 on our list), Dr. Strangelove (#30 on our list), 2001: A Space Odyssey (#18 on our list), and Full Metal Jacket are just some examples. I get the feeling that Kubrick found the classic “white-hat” hero fairly boring and he had a certain way that he liked to protray his characters. Spartacus is most definitely not the traditional Kubrick protagonist and he is presented in a more tradional Hollywood manner than one would normally expect in a Kubrick film. Throughout the entire movie, Spartacus is noble, brave, and intelligent. He doesn’t betray anyone. He doesn’t struggle with self-doubt. He is a natural leader that turns a small gladiator revolt into a full-scale slave rebellion. His charisma is such that even after all is lost, his fellow slaves are more than willing to lay down their lives for him (“I am Spartacus!”). Does this sound like any character from any other Kubrick film? Nope, not to me either. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly not, in fact, it is the heroics of Spartacus that help to make this movie great. But this is, no doubt, an example of Douglas’ influence more than an example of something that Kubrick would have come up with. To get that "Kubrick feel", one has to turn to the ancillary characters and villains. While Spartacus and the rest of the “heroes” were all above reproach, everyone else seemed perfectly happy to wallow in corruption.
For example, there is most definitely a sophisticated, if understated, sexual motivation to may of the characters. Olivier's character, the villain of the story, is surprisingly complex in this sense. In the scene in which he and Tony Curtis share a bath together, and he confesses, "I like both oysters and snails," he leaves little doubt that he is bi-sexual and that he considers his choice of sex partners to be of no more consequence than what he will choose to eat for dinner. Knowing that brings additional meaning to his desire to win the love of Varinia, the wife of Spartacus. He doesn’t want her merely to possess her, or because that is the thing that stereotypical Hollywood villains do. He wants her because having her – especially if she does so willingly – represents the ultimate form of victory over Spartacus. Now that is the kind of motivation you expect from a character in a Stanley Kubrick film.
It is through the backdrop of Roman decadence that we can see the faint fingerprints of Kubrick. Laurence Olivier’s character Crassus, hopes to become the emperor of Rome at the expense of the elder senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton). But Laughton’s character isn’t just some wise elder statesmen, but is an unapologetic corrupt womanizer that ends up committing suicide, but not before he aids the heroes – not because he agrees with their cause, but just to spite Crassus. Perhaps, the most entertaining performance in the movie is by Peter Ustinov. He is consistently funny, and ends up upstaging everybody when he is onscreen. His character, Batiatus, is just an opportunist that wants to live as comfortably as he can – caring nothing about the motivations of others. Again, these are the kinds of behavior that one expects from a Kubrick film character.
The very end of the film is also very Kubrick-esque. In the final scene, Varinia stands beneath Spartacus, who has just been crucified, and holds up their child, saying "He will live as a free man, Spartacus." But it isn’t though the brave and noble acts of the hero that makes the child’s freedom possible. The baby's freedom is due to the scheming of Gracchus and Batiatus. The two of them care nothing for Spartacus’ dreams of freedom. They just want to spite Crassus. If that isn’t a Kubrick film ending I don’t know what is – sort of happy, but not quite.
Ultimately, it is probably safer to say that Kubrick did a better job of bringing Kirk Douglas’ and screenwriter Dalton Trumbo’s vision to screen than making the type of film that he is usually known for. However, after seeing the film a few times now, I think that it would have been a slightly different film had Kubrick not directed it. There is just this slight sophistication in how the film ebbs and flows that you just wouldn't see with a different director, and I am quite certain that the character portrayals would be quite different. Oddly enough, many of those Kubrick touches wouldn’t have been seen by the original 1960’s audience. Approximately 14 minutes of the film was edited out prior to release – most notably the Olivier / Curtis bathing scene and some of the more violent battle scenes – they were just consider too much for the time. Those 14 minutes would be reinstated in 1991 due to the film being re-released and the popularity of home video market. Thus, the film we see today is a bit different than the original release. That may have something to do with the fact that film is reviewed better today than it was in the past (in addition to our sensibilities having improved as well).
A side note, however, is that some other four minutes of film was supposedly lost due to Universal mishandling the film prints in the 1970’s. This sort of occurrence isn’t unusual. How is that movie studios are willing to invest millions and millions of dollars into making a film and yet repeatedly treat the end results so poorly? It seems stupid to me, but that is a subject for another post.
Spartacus is an epic film and it seems to have gotten better with age. I may not be Spartacus, but I give the film a ranking of 4 Stars none the less.
John
No comments:
Post a Comment