In our Year of the Epic, I give you "Quo Vadis"(1951), a post-Biblical saga starring Robert Taylor as"Marcus Vinicius", a Roman general who falls in love with a young Christian woman during the reign of Emperor Nero. He meets her at the home of Plautius, a retired general and Marcus' mentor. "Lygia" (Deborah Kerr) is the adopted ward of Plautius, who legally owns her but treats her as a daughter. When Marcus shows up at their door after a victorious battle, he is immediately attracted to her and vice versa, but Lygia is repulsed by his tales of combat and bloodshed. Marcus discovers that Lygia is influenced by a philosopher named Paul, who visits the family regularly to expound on the teachings of a certain Jesus Christ. "Christ did you say? Wasn't he that carpenter who was crucified over in Palestine a while back"? "Yes, that was He". Marcus wants nothing to do with any philosophy, especially one based on nonviolence and love of all mankind, but for Lygia, he's willing to tolerate it. She on the other hand, is in all the way. She tells Marcus that she could never marry him if he doesn't accept Christ in his heart. He leaves her, but then considers the legal angle and goes back to Nero, who has promised him a generous gift for his military victories. "Forget the money, your Lordship. If you would so grant me, there is a ward girl in the possession of Plautius. I would like her for my own".
And so you have the central theme of the movie. Will Marcus win Lygia by domination, or will she convert him to her faith, while Nero causes havoc all around?
Wow. I didn't think anything could rival "Cleopatra" for sheer scale, but "Quo Vadis" does, and what's more, it preceded that film by 12 years, so it's more accurate to say that "Cleopatra" rivals "Quo". "Cleo" may have a slight edge in production design (and very slight, mind you), but in all other respects this film is it's equal. Tremendous is the only word, and for conformation of this viewpoint, go over to IMDB and read what the fans have to say. Many give it a 10/10 rating, as do I.
Peter Ustinov gives an outstanding performance as Nero, the self-absorbed fruitcake who murdered his mother and wife because they had the audacity to protest his affair with the harlot Poppaea (played to seductive perfection by the snake-eyed Patricia Laffan). We've all heard that "Nero fiddled while Rome burned", but I never knew that he set the fire. Did you? According to the movie (based on a novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz) Nero ordered his Praetorian Guards to burn the city to the ground so he could rebuild it brand spanking new under his name : "Neropolis". We've also heard that "the Christians were thrown to the lions" in ancient Rome, but as far as I know we were never told of any context. I always thought it was just part of the "bread and circuses" cooked up to keep people happy during Nero's reign. As Russell Crowe famously demanded, "Are you not entertained"?! But in the movie, Nero has a specific reason for that too; he needs a scapegoat for the fire. By pointing the finger at the Christians, he not only avoids blame himself, but now has a chance to get rid of this group whom he sees as a threat to his leadership.
Prior to that fateful conflagration, we will have further visits from Paul in the hidden enclaves where the Christians meet. They have to keep their gatherings secret to avoid persecution, so they use the Sign of the Fish, drawn in sand for easy erasure, to signal their fellow believers. Midway through the film, Peter, the most renowned Disciple of all, will arrive to lead them, giving them strength to face their trial in the Colosseum. Among it's other attributes, "Quo Vadis" is one of the most Christian films ever made.
Robert Taylor provides a strong lead as "Marcus", who's loyalty to Rome (i.e. to Nero) is severely tested by his love for Lygia. Though he speaks in a Midwestern accent, contrasting the Continental voicings of the other performers, it doesn't matter because he projects confidence and a military bearing. Thus he is believable, the critical test for any actor playing a hero. I was trying to think of a current Hollywood star who could pull off the same role convincingly, and I couldn't come up with anyone who has the same combination of old-school manliness and romantic allure. I'm sure there are many English Shakespearean actors who could do it, but they wouldn't have Taylor's charisma. It's a bit like needing Elizabeth Taylor to play "Cleopatra" because, like Cleo, she's larger than life. Sometimes you just need pure Star Power, especially in a picture this monumental.
Peter Ustinov will also leave an indelible imprint as the foppish, pouty Nero, who envisions himself a Grand Artist but complains that nobody loves him. Providing vigorous support are Kerr, Laffan, Leo Genn as Nero's adviser "Petronius", Marina Berti as "Eunice" the slave girl who loves him, and Finlay Currie as "Peter". I read afterward that there are 110 speaking roles in "Quo Vadis", and many are exceptional, including that of young Peter Miles, who has a small part near the end as "Nazarius", a boy who can interpret The Word of the Lord". What a cast! And I've only given you the main themes of the film. To take you down every side road would require more time than is available. And anyway, you're gonna wanna see the movie for yourself.
Do it as soon as possible. Quite simply, it's one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. In an aside, I must mention that we've seen another film adapted from the same novel : "The Sign of the Cross", which was directed by Cecil B. Demille and starred Frederic March and Claudette Colbert in the Taylor/Kerr roles. We saw that picture about two years ago and it was also epic and tremendous (it's Demille after all), but "Quo Vadis" is on a rarefied level, an achievement seldom seen even in this kind of film making.
It gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up. Don't miss it. /////
The night before we watched "Three Smart Girls"(1936), a screwball comedy starring Deanna Durbin, the teenage singing sensation of the 1930s who became the highest paid female star in the world by 1942. Do you remember Deanna? We saw her last December in - of all things - a Noir called "Christmas Holiday".
She was great in that film, in an adult role as the unsuspecting gal pal of psychopath Gene Kelly, but her specialty was playing the Adolescent Sweeheart in Depression-era feel-good flicks. Durbin was like an older version of Shirley Temple, not only cute and wise for her years, but she also had an amazing soprano voice that was showcased in all her films. Deanna Durbin was a hit from the word "go" and became big box-office for a dozen years, until she unexpectedly retired at the age of 28 to live a live of seclusion in France. Apparently she was never comfortable with fame.
At any rate, "Three Smart Girls" was her feature film debut. Durbin plays the youngest of three daughters who engage in a plot to prevent their divorced father from remarrying. They haven't seen him for ten years but their mom is still in love with him. When word comes that he's planning to re-tie the knot, they travel all the way from Switzerland to sabotage it. Dad's bride-to-be is a gold digger named "Precious". The girls know she only wants him for his money, so they come up with a ploy to set her up with "an even richer man", a Hungarian Count who's in fact broke and an alcoholic to boot. The Count is played by the very funny Mischa Auer, a character actor from sophisticated '30s comedies.The exceedingly handsome Ray Milland plays the suave "Lord Stuart", who gets involved in the plot by mistake. The other daughters fall in love, while Deanna plays the Hero role in getting her parents back together. She also sings three songs. You've gotta be in the mood for 1930's style sentiment, but the fast paced wisecracking is still hip 90 years later. Screwball never gets old.
Two Big Thumbs Up for "Three Smart Girls", and there you have it : another Epic for the Ages, and a whiz-bang cute comedy, both winners. /////
That's all for the moment. Have a great evening and tons of love as always!
No comments:
Post a Comment