Spartacus

I've been in Spartacus mode for about six months now. This spring I watched the entire run of Starz's Spartacus, I caught up with Howard Fast's novel Spartacus, found a couple non-fiction books about the famous slave turned gladiator at the library and then bought the TV miniseries that aired about 10 years ago. So what is there left? Naturally I tried to save the best for last, catching up recently with one of Hollywood's great historical epics, 1960's Spartacus.

It's the 70s B.C. in Rome when a Thracian slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is bought from a Libyan mine and sold to a gladiator school in Capua, Italy, several days ride from the city of Rome.  The popularity of gladiators is growing ever stronger, Spartacus thrust into training to become hopefully one of the best. He shows promise but also resents the life, the hatred beginning to grow at Rome's brutal, cruel insistence on slaves and slavery itself. Months into his training, Spartacus incites a brutal takeover, his fellow gladiators joining him in a bloody attack that gives them power and allows them to escape. At first content to be a roving band of marauding bandits, Spartacus organizes his fellow escaped gladiators into an army. They can be more than bandits. They can be an army. An army that with growth and training could challenge Rome itself. His name grows, his army increases with each passing day. In Rome, a powerful Senator and businessman, Marcus Crassus (Laurence Olivier), watches the effect the gladiator slave general has and braces for a reply...if it's not too late.

Wowza, what a good movie, the definition of a historical epic that dominated Hollywood through the 1950s and into the early 1960s. A somewhat checkered production had some issues, a 30-year old Stanley Kubrick replacing Anthony Mann just a week or so into filming. Oddly enough, it is a movie that Kubrick doesn't consider one of his own, not including it in the canon of his films. It is an epic, a smart, well-written, beautifully shot movie with an impressive cast. Composer Alex North turns in a perfect score, large in scale but also very emotional in the quieter moments. I was always a fan of the score, but it really resonated with me on the most recent viewing. There isn't a weakness here, author Howard Fast's novel come to life in truly epic form.

One of the biggest stars working in Hollywood at the time, Kirk Douglas was firmly behind this movie, helping ramrod it right into production and is listed as executive producer. I've always thought this is one of his strongest, if underappreciated, performances. As slave turned gladiator turned general, Douglas is Spartacus. He has several effective so-called "bigger scenes" but the more effective moments are the quiet ones. When he touches the hand of the woman he loves, the rage in his eyes as he's addressed by his superiors, the pride when his army stands up for him, this is an actor doing his absolute best. He brings a real-life character to life, and it's easy to see why so many followed him against Rome. Douglas is charismatic and welcoming from beginning to end. He's furious and full of hate at the Roman system that enlists hundreds of thousands of slaves. Ultimately, he's pushed too far, and his response is something that shakes the world. Just a great performance from a Hollywood legend.

What this flick is able to do so well is to blend so many different moving pieces together. It is an epic with a true ensemble cast, all of the assembled talent given a chance to shine. In one of the best love stories I can think of, Douglas has a great chemistry with Jean Simmons, playing Varinia, a slave from Brittania who becomes Spartacus' wife, friend and confidant. They just work. They're perfect together. There's one of the great actors of all-time, Laurence Olivier, relishing the part of Crassus, a criminally smooth, brilliant manipulator who yearns for power in all forms. There's Tony Curtis in one of his best roles, here as Antoninus, an educated slave who escapes from Olivier's Crassus and joins Spartacus' army. Opposites in most ways, the uneducated leader and the younger, educated fighter become very close, a father-son, brotherly relationship. There's Charles Laughton as Gracchus, the Roman senator with a long, distinguished career behind him, now opposing Crassus, and John Gavin as Caesar, the young and upcoming senator, both giving Rome's perspective as Spartacus' revolt grows and grows. Oh, and there's a scene-stealing Peter Ustinov as Batiatus, the owner of the gladiatoral school that Spartacus escapes from, an Oscar-winning part for Ustinov.

Oh, but there's more. Herbert Lom plays Tigranes, an oily pirate negotiating with Spartacus to get his army out of Italy. As for the gladiators turned army command, look for an underused John Ireland as Crixus with Harold J. Stone and Nick Dennis also standing out from the crowd with smaller supporting parts. One of three performances in 1960 that helped make him more than a physical presence, Woody Strode plays Draba, an experienced gladiator worn down by the constant killing in the arena. A small part but a key one to propel the story forward. And last but not least, gravelly-voiced Charles McGraw as Marcellus, the brutal gladiator instructor, a man tasked with turning slaves into killing machines intended for the gladiator ring. Strength from top to bottom, not a weak link in one of the great casts ever put together.

This is a thinking man's epic, not a true sword and sandal epic. The script from blacklisted author/writer Dalton Trumbo is a gem, giving a window into the politics of the time. The story moves amongst the ensemble from the gladiator school in Capua, to the streets and halls of the Roman Senate, to Spartacus' base at Mount Vesuvius to his camps moving across Italy. Trumbo's script is an idea-script, one about freedom and corruption, living life to its fullest even if the means seem impossible. We see the inner-workings of the Roman senate, of Spartacus' inner circle. You get a feeling of what the times were like in ancient Rome. Just a beautifully written script, Douglas saying "Screw it" to the blacklist that prevented Trumbo from writing for years.

'Spartacus' has moments both big and small here, both working seamlessly. The arena fight between Spartacus and Draba is a gem. Not drawn out but incredibly intense, including a great twist near its conclusion. The revolt in the school is quick and hard-hitting, the tension finally boiling to an unbearable point. As the rebellion grows -- the real-life history was called the Third Servile War -- Spartacus realizes the fight can be as big as his army wants it to be. The entire movie is a treat to watch, but I've always found the second half the film's strongest, especially when the tide turns against the slave army. Maybe the most iconic scene, "I'm Spartacus!," has become a punchline in pop culture, but in context, it is one of the most beautifully constructed, emotionally perfect scenes ever, the camera lingering on Douglas as an ideal conclusion. Watch it HERE with obvious spoilers. The same for a late scene between Spartacus and Antoninus discussing the impact of what they've done, Spartacus willing to Crassus "He'll come back and he'll be millions." Too many great moments to mention.

This isn't an action-heavy movie so beware going in if you're expecting 3 hours of battle scenes. Supposedly more battle scenes were filmed but never used, all in hopes of making the one major battle late in the film far more effective. It is, but this is not a movie interested in the scope and scale of battle. This is a story about the people. We see scenes with literally thousands of extras, but the camera zooms in on the faces, people we see popping up throughout the second half of the movie. Old and young, mothers and fathers, teenagers, kids, thin and fat. The moment where Spartacus walks through his camp on the eve of battle is perfect, the former slave truly realizing the scope of what his army has accomplished. The post-battle scene is that much more gut-wrenching as is the finale itself.

Just a classic. Enjoy it.

Spartacus (1960): ****/****

Witness for the Prosecution

It's easy to take the Internet for granted because it's so prevalent in day-to-day life. Think about it when new movies come out. If said movie has an epic twist in the finale, it takes minutes, hours and if things are going really slow, about a day for word of that twist to spread like wildfire. That wasn't always the case, movie studios doing their best to keep the surprises and twists under wraps so audiences could head into the movies surprised. Some movies even requested audiences don't reveal the twists as the credits rolled, movies like 1961's Homicidal, 1960's Psycho, and for today's reading, 1957's Witness for the Prosecution.

Coming off some serious health issues, barrister (a lawyer for our American readers) named Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton) returns to his office with orders to take it easy as he recovers. Naturally, Sir Wilfrid does just the opposite. Instead, he takes a high-profile case when he meets Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power), a WWII veteran who's been accused of murder. The victim was an older woman with plenty of money and no family, Leonard a recent addition to the woman's will. Wilfrid goes about preparing his case -- while dealing with his medical issues -- trying to work around the only alibi Leonard has, an alibi provided by Leonard's wife, Christine (Marlene Dietrich), but he would prefer not to call the cold Christine to the stand. Wilfrid believes Leonard to be genuinely innocent, but the amount of circumstantial evidence against him is daunting, and it continues to mount. A veteran of cases like this, even Wilfrid can't imagine how this case will develop.

Is there anything director Billy Wilder can't do? I submit that the answer there is a big N-O. His career filmography includes everything from comedies like Some Like it Hot to film noir-esque thrillers like Sunset Boulevard and darker social commentaries like Ace in the Hole. I guess it is only natural for him to check another sub-genre off the list, here at the helm of a courtroom drama. 'Witness' is based off a stage play from Agatha Christie who had adapted her own short story. The style plays like a stage-based play, long scenes of dialogue and exchanges going back and forth among characters, an impressive set even being built to stand in for the Old Bailey, a famous English courthouse in London, a very cool, claustrophobic set as the courtroom scenes develop, the black and white filming adding a minimalist touch. This is a movie considered a classic -- an 8.5 rating on IMDB, a 100% mark at Rotten Tomatoes -- but is it that good? I had some issues with it.

When I see ratings that high, I'm thinking we're talking about a perfect movie, or one pretty dang close to perfect. I liked 'Witness' -- it gets stronger near the halfway point -- but it slow-going early-on. Laughton's Wilfrid returns to his office in a scene that tries to play up the comedy as the medically-challenged Wilfrid deals with his nurse, Miss Plimsoll (Elsa Lanchester, Laughton's wife in real-life). Did we need that bit of humor? The dynamic continues throughout the case, and yes, they've got chemistry but these attempts at humor seem out of place. As for the acting, Powers overacts to the point it is almost painful to watch. His reactions while other people testify is just rough, his Leonard screaming and grabbing the wall, pulling at his hair. Dietrich is both good and bad, at her best when she underplays it. Her performance over the last 30 minutes helps leave the viewer with a big positive as to the strength of her performance.

Much of the first hour focuses on the background, from Wilfrid's health issues, to meeting Leonard to several unnecessary flashbacks. We see him meet the old, rich Mrs. French (Norma Varden), in scenes more suited to a 1950s screwball comedy. We see him meet Christine in a bombed-out city in WWII, all scenes that feel forced in an effort to draw out the running time. Where the movie hits its stride is in the courtroom scenes, Laughton showing off that acting ability that appears effortless scene-in and scene-out. He underplays it to the point you take for granted what he's doing. Laughton makes a go of it, but these scenes are hurt by Power's efforts at some sort of method acting. Still, Laughton is a powerhouse (picking up an Oscar nomination for Best Actor), playing nicely off the prosecuting lawyer, Mr. Myers (Torin Thatcher). More negative/flaws than a classic should have, but Laughton rights the ship as much as he can.

Also look for John Williams as Brogan-Moore, Wilfrid's assistant in court, Henry Daniell as Vole's representative who brings the case to Wilfrid, Ian Wolfe as Carter, Wilfrid's assistant and office clerk, Una O'Connor as a key witness (possibly), and Francis Compton as the judge presiding over the case.

And then there's that ending. I had it spoiled for me years ago because a Boston Legal episode used that same catch, but even knowing it's coming up, that finale still works. The entire back and forth dynamic in the court sequences are the movie's strongest scenes, the last 20 minutes delivering three different twists that I would consider a genuinely good and legitimate twist. It's best you don't know any of them going into the movie so deal with it. You ain't getting any spoilers here. So while I struggled through the first 45-60 minutes, the last hour is pretty perfect. Loved Wilder's direction, and I especially liked Laughton's Oscar-nominated performance.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957): ***/****

Captain Kidd

The name is synonymous with the idea of a pirate, Captain William Kidd, a supposed pirate tried, sentenced and executed in 1701 for his actions as a pirate on the high seas. Historians debate now whether Kidd was in fact a pirate because much of his actions seemed to correspond more with the idea of a privateer, not a pirate. Nonetheless, his name still conjures up stereotypical pirates with eye patches and parrots on their shoulders. Released in 1945, Captain Kidd is anything but historically accurate no matter who or what the real-life Kidd was like. It's a Hollywood take on his "pirating" years, historical accuracy be damned.

Right in the middle of Hollywood's Golden Era, Captain Kidd was released when high seas adventures were at their most popular. Swashbuckling adventures starring Errol Flynn always went over well with audiences, and the appeal is clear when watching films like these. Traveling across thousands of miles of open water on tall ships does have an air of romanticism even though the life had nothing romantic or glamorous about it. Idealized is a good way to describe the life of a sailor on these ships, but it can be fun just to imagine what the life was like. In this case, Kidd is a very smart, very devious captain, always looking for a way to become rich himself, making promises to anyone who will listen only to turn on them the first chance he gets. Sounds like a good guy, doesn't he?

After looting an English ship off Madagascar, Captain William Kidd (Charles Laughton) and three officers (John Carradine, Gilbert Roland, and Sheldon Leonard) bury piles of treasure taken from the ship. They return to London, no one the wiser of what they've just done. Ever the convincing sort, Kidd manages to acquire a contract as an escort of an English ship traveling from India back to London by way of Madagascar. With a crew of pardoned convicts, Kidd's ship heads south around South Africa looking to meet their future target. Kidd has some ulterior motives though, starting with killing off his three officers who also know the location of the buried treasure. He's suspicious though of one of the crew, Adam Mercy (Randolph Scott), who he believes to be a spy placed on board by the English king to keep an eye on things. What are Mercy's intentions, and what exactly is he up to?

Laughton was no stranger himself to movies on the high seas, starring in 1935's Mutiny on the Bounty as the evil Captain Bligh, pushing his crew to a mutiny. In that role, he plays straight evil, a captain with a mean streak down his back like no other. Playing another historical figure here, Laughton gets to have a little more fun with the part. There's no doubt Kidd is the villain. That's not in questions. He connives and backstabs, betrays and lies, doing anything he can to kill off his rivals for the treasure. But in a weird way, he's got this odd ability to be charming in doing it. Granted, you know nothing good will come of anything he does, but he's able to disarm worries almost at will, an ability that certainly comes in handy when eveyrone around him is suspicious of him.

Above all else, Laughton's performance as Captain William Kidd is the best thing the movie has going for it. Bringing that charm to the character, Laughton makes every scene interesting. He is always up to something and then retreats to his cabin where he keeps a list of all his intended targets. When he does start knocking them off, he slowly draws a line through their name, an evil smile ever present on his face. It also doesn't hurt that Laughton's physical appearance throws you off. He's short and chubby, disheveled hair on his head. He doesn't look evil or even particularly bad. That's the fun though, a villain with a sense of humor, that ever-present mean streak, and a sense of paranoia when things start to go against him.

Looking surprisingly young for someone who was 47 years old at the time, Randolph Scott plays...well, Randolph Scott. His Adam Mercy character delivers a good twist about three-quarters of the way into the movie, but not the one you would think or have been led to believe. He's the strong-willed, silent but very capable character who in a lot of movies would have been the lead. Instead, he gets overshadowed by Laughton's performance. Still, it's Randolph Scott, and he's still cool. Carradine and Roland are unfortunately underused, but just by being there, the story is enhanced. I think Carradine always played the bad guy, and Roland gets a crack at his familiar Latin lover part. Throwing in a love interest, Barbara Britton plays Lady Anne, a woman brought on-board who Scott's Mercy looks out for.

Not as well known as so many other entries, Captain Kidd has lapsed into the public domain over the years. What's that mean? No studio holds rights on the movie so anyone who wants to can distribute the film in any form they so choose. Because of this, the prints aren't going to be that good with a grainy, washed out look. Individual shots are different shades of black and white, one scene much too dark and grainy, the next too bright where things are hard to make out. It's not a deal-breaker, but you can't help but notice it as you watch the movie. All complaints aside though, I liked this movie a lot, thanks in great part to Charles Laughton as the titular character, Captain Kidd. The movie would be just okay without him, but as is, it's moved up a notch. You can watch it at Youtube HERE.

Captain Kidd <---TCM clips (1945): ***/****

Advise and Consent

Recently in the news, former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was found guilty on one count of 24 levied against him.  A mistrial is in the works, but the news was nothing new.  Controversies and scandals in politics are as old as well, politics itself.  Are we surprised anymore when a politician, whether it be the President or down through the ranks to Senators, Representatives, Governors, and on and on, does something stupid in the news?  Sex, past indiscretions, corruption, all over the above, nothing seems to faze the American public anymore.

Let's go back almost half a century in more innocent times, I guess, the 1960s weren't exactly innocent.  But the times were certainly different without that 24-hour news cycle that keeps viewers up to date on everything going on.  Politicians could have secrets and that's just what they were, secrets.  The master of adult-themed movies, Otto Preminger explored this concept with 1962's Advise and Consent. When you accept a position in the public eye, you lose your privacy to a certain point.  You open yourself up for criticism on many fronts, but if this Preminger movie teaches us anything, we all have secrets. It's only a matter of time before they're found out.

The President of the United States (Franchot Tone) has chosen a nominee for the vacant position of the Secretary of State. The man is Robert Leffingwell (Henry Fonda) and from the get-go, the nomination divides the Senate who will have to approve or disapprove him. The Senate majority leader (Walter Pidgeon) is all for the choice and knows he can get the necessary number of votes for Leffingwell. Opposing him is a long-time senator from South Carolina (Charles Laughton), who was burned by Leffingwell in the past and still holds a grudge. But before a vote can be counted, the nomination must go through a Senate sub-committee headed by an idealistic young senator (Don Murray) who will decide if Leffingwell is capable of doing the job. But as the committee starts, the dirt comes out and the fight begins.

As he did so often with his movies, Preminger puts together a very impressive ensemble cast to work with.  It's so good from top to bottom that Fonda -- yes, Henry Fonda -- is almost an afterthought as a supporting character.  He doesn't even make an appearance in the last 30 minutes.  Preminger was a perfectionist as a filmmaker, but actors must have liked working with him.  Along with the names mentioned above, there is also Gene Tierney, Peter Lawford, Will Geer, Burgess Meredith, Lew Ayres, and Paul Ford among others. Like any large ensemble, some in the cast get more of a chance to shine than others, but none disappoint however long they're on screen.  Murray, Pidgeon and Laughton are the ones that shine brightest though, including Ayres as a vanilla vice president.

This isn't a movie about camera techniques or in your face effects.  Preminger lets takes and scenes go on uninterrupted without the slightest editing.  Characters hold conversations like they would in real life.  He lets his cast show off their ability, letting the dialogue do all the talking the story needs.  At times, the pace can be infuriatingly slow (it is 140 minutes long) because of that, especially toward the end when the pace should be picking up, but it's all part of the story the movie revels in.  Preminger filmed in countless locations in Washington DC -- shooting in black and white -- giving a real feel for all the backroom deals and shady motives that really go on in the capital.  It doesn't intentionally call attention to itself, but the movie is a treat to watch on a purely visual level.

What was somewhat disappointing as the story develops is that by 2010, nothing really surprised me in terms of government scandals and controversies.  In the last 10 or 20 years, there has been murder, extramarital affairs, corruption, prostitution, kidnappings, and any number of other things I'm probably forgetting.  So when the scandals do pop up, including Fonda's Leffingwell and his past involvement in a different government and Murray's Senator's past coming back to haunt him, they don't have a huge affect on the viewer.  Shocking in 1962, maybe, but not in 2010.  Through no fault of Preminger's then (you can't blame him for making a move when he did), the emotional impact is lessened then just by time and how the world has changed in the almost 50 years since.

As everything does unravel in the end and the twists and secrets come out, the story thankfully picks up some steam.  One twist at the very end was a little too coincidental for me personally, the timing just too perfect, but that's movies for you. It is a movie that is as professionally done as just about any other movie you'll come across, and the cast is hard to top.  If there was a way to watch this in 1962, maybe the impact would have been greater, but in 2010, it's still pretty good.

Advise and Consent <---IMDB trailer (1962): ***/****

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

The story of Fletcher Christian's mutiny aboard the H.M.S Bounty against Captain William Bligh is one of the most famous historical stories that just about everyone knows in some form or another.  It is a story that translates well to film, including three well known flicks and a few other less highly regarded ones, with versions made in 1935, 1962, and 1984.  The 1935 version, appropriately titled Mutiny on the Bounty, is the one held in highest regard, even earning the Best Picture Oscar and a long list of nominations.

While I'm not doubting the movie for its entertainment value, it does suffer from a problem many movies from the 1930s have.  The movie studios were still making the transitition from silent to sound with many actors making the jump right from the stage to the big screen.  But before method acting developed in the 1950s, many roles came across as too theatrical, too over the top, as if the actors were playing to audiences who would have been sitting right in front of them.  Because of that, it can be hard to get a read on characters and what they're going through, especially in the case of 1935's Bounty.

Making his first sea voyage with an objective of writing a Tahitian dictionary, Roger Byam (Franchot Tone) boards the H.M.S. Bounty with romantic ideas of what the sea is like.  He bonds quickly with Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable), the master's mate, and the two become fast friends.  The Bounty is sailing to Tahiti where they will pick up 1,000 breadfruits and deliver them to the West Indies.  The captain of the ship, William Bligh (Charles Laughton), rules his ship with an iron fist and quickly turns the crew against him with his gung-ho mentality.  Christian especially bristles at how Bligh runs the ship, and after successly acquiring the breadfruits, leads a mutiny, putting Bligh and some of the crew on a longboat on the open seas.

Having seen the other two versions, the Marlon Brando and Mel Gibson takes, there was nothing that came as much of a surprise with the 1935 version.  The enjoyment of watching movies that deal with similar subjects is how they handle the stories differently.  History is built around facts, but it's funny how different those facts can be interpreted in the eyes of the beholder.  The actual mutiny is typically handled in the same way, but the build-up and repercussions tend to differ.

The Academy must really have loved the acting in 'Bounty' because Laughton, Gable, and Tone were all nominated for Best Actor...with none of them actually winning.  Laughton is a fine actor with a long list of impressive roles to his name, but his Bligh comes across as too cartoonishly evil.  Granted, the historical Bligh was not a pleasant character, but some human emotions would have been nice for the character.  Gable's Christian is a little better, the voice of the crew who can't understand the madness of their captain.  Tone's Byam is a smattering of many different members of the Bounty and is the wavering voter, the individual in the middle.  As an officer in the British navy, he should be loyal to his captain but what about his friendship with Fletcher?

Trying to figure out how to review 'Bounty,' the acting was a sticking point.  It isn't bad, far from it.  I've seen much worse in the way of 1930s over the top theatrical acting.  But at the same time, it's hard to say we actually get to know these characters.  They're more like cardboard cutouts spouting their lines.  Bligh is evil, Christian is good, and Byam is trying to find himself.  The hatred and friendship that develops is genuine, but it's easy to side with Christian's decision -- for me at least.  Bligh is a blatant liar who treats his men horrifically when it doesn't always call for it.  Of course, in all three versions I've sided with Christian's decision.  Guess I would have been a mutineer on Pitcairn Island.

As a historical movie, 'Bounty' is all about the spectacle of a high seas voyage.  While most of the acting on-board the Bounty was clearly done on a soundstage with an oceanic backdrop, there are actual shots of an 18th century ship sailing across the ocean, and not always in calm seas.  There are great shots of the crew preparing the ship for sailing high above in the masts as the expansive sails come flowing down.  And not really a surprise, but Tahiti sure looks nice.  Maybe not as nice as it did in Technicolor in the 1962 version, but it's hard to make paradise look bad.

So good and bad, I'm still recommending this movie.  For all its faults, 'Bounty' is still an entertaining adventure, especially if you're a fan of the history it is based in.  Maybe the acting is too much at times, but Gable is and always will be pretty cool onscreen.  There are flaws, and the ending does leave a fair share of subplots and storylines waving in the breeze, but worth a rent if nothing else.

Mutiny on the Bounty <----trailer (1935): ** 1/2 /****