As many times as I've heard the saying 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned', I never gave thought to the idea that Nero instigated the fiery inferno himself as a sort of artistic cleansing in order to remake the great city in his own image. If that's really the case, then the historical Nero was as loony as Peter Ustinov's over the top portrayal of the hapless Roman Emperor made him out to be. That scene with the 'weeping glass' was so outlandish that I had to rewind it to watch it again. Truly marvelous over-emoting by the incomparable Ustinov.
If it's grand spectacle you're after, "Quo Vadis" is up there on the scale of "Ben-Hur", "King of Kings" and other historical epics of the era. At a time well preceding the wizardry of computer generated images on screen, one can appreciate the planning and effort it took to translate this 'cast of thousands' to the big screen. The scenes of Roman legions marching back home and the spectacle of the arena presided over by the god-like Nero and his court are full of color and pageantry.
At the center of this film is the story of the rise of Christianity and the romance between a Roman general (Robert Taylor) and an adopted Christian girl (Deborah Kerr). Not so much a romance actually, as a gradual conversion of faith and conscience for a man who's entire career was in service to Emperor and country.
The real story however is in the machinations and brutality of the Emperor Nero. With casual indifference and haughty self importance, Nero is so self absorbed that he becomes a caricature of himself. I can think of few actors who could have pulled off this feat besides Ustinov; Charles Laughton and Robert Newton come to mind, but Ustinov gives his character such a vile edge here that it makes him just perfect for the part. Pairing him with Paticia Laffan as wife Poppaea is the icing on the cake.
The title of the film can be literally translated as 'Whither goest thou?', or perhaps more literally as 'Where are you going?'. That would be a question for someone like Marcus Vinius, on the fence between a lifetime of service to a self-proclaimed divine emperor and the promise of spiritual freedom offered by the emerging doctrine of Christianity. Interestingly, and to varying degrees, that struggle of faith remains alive to this very day.
If it's grand spectacle you're after, "Quo Vadis" is up there on the scale of "Ben-Hur", "King of Kings" and other historical epics of the era. At a time well preceding the wizardry of computer generated images on screen, one can appreciate the planning and effort it took to translate this 'cast of thousands' to the big screen. The scenes of Roman legions marching back home and the spectacle of the arena presided over by the god-like Nero and his court are full of color and pageantry.
At the center of this film is the story of the rise of Christianity and the romance between a Roman general (Robert Taylor) and an adopted Christian girl (Deborah Kerr). Not so much a romance actually, as a gradual conversion of faith and conscience for a man who's entire career was in service to Emperor and country.
The real story however is in the machinations and brutality of the Emperor Nero. With casual indifference and haughty self importance, Nero is so self absorbed that he becomes a caricature of himself. I can think of few actors who could have pulled off this feat besides Ustinov; Charles Laughton and Robert Newton come to mind, but Ustinov gives his character such a vile edge here that it makes him just perfect for the part. Pairing him with Paticia Laffan as wife Poppaea is the icing on the cake.
The title of the film can be literally translated as 'Whither goest thou?', or perhaps more literally as 'Where are you going?'. That would be a question for someone like Marcus Vinius, on the fence between a lifetime of service to a self-proclaimed divine emperor and the promise of spiritual freedom offered by the emerging doctrine of Christianity. Interestingly, and to varying degrees, that struggle of faith remains alive to this very day.