Mervyn Le Roy's "Quo Vadis" takes place during the climactic twilight of Nero's despotic reign over the Roman Empire or the dawn of the Christian era marked by the seal of martyrdom, it explores a pivotal point of Occidental history, and indirectly of Hollywood.
Following "Samson and Delilah" and preceding "Spartacus", "Cleopatra" and "Ben-Hur", you get indeed two "histories" intertwined in that big juicy blockbuster of former days, a time where the barbarians from the little screen were threatening the foundations of the Hollywood empire, and Zanuck needed the kind of escapism TV wouldn't even be able to deliver, not for five decades. So just assemble the world Technicolor and Cinemascope and you get the idea of the kind of 'fun' movie lovers were seeking those days. And there's no irony in my statement as this trend almost caused the whole industry to collapse by the end of the sixties, where even box-office grosses couldn't sustain the financial losses. Hollywood came too close from a fate à la Roman Empire.
So we can enjoy "Quo Vadis" with a sigh of relief, and 'enjoy' is an appropriate word as the colors are absolutely breathtaking and the infamous Rome fire is perhaps the most instantly identifiable after Atlanta in "Gone With the Wind". "Quo Vadis" is also one of these feast to the eyes, with ordinary extras contributing to extraordinary takes, whether legionaries marching, Christians assembling around St Peter, or circus' crowds thumbing up or down,, it's just as if the director needed to show the producers that they made the right investment, the kind of big-budgeted productions that had just recently inspired the Coen brothers' latest film "Hail, Caesar!". So, speaking of Caesar, you got to give him the credit he deserves and acknowledge that the film is a delightful entertainment despite the kitschy charm, the kind that makes you think, they don't make like this anymore.
Still, you can have the same opinion with a more negative thought in mind. By that I mean that the catch of this appreciation is that you also consider the fact that we live in a time where they don't make many religious movies, so in regard to this evolution of the mentalities, there is no way out from the feeling that the film tends to be over-preachy for its own good. And actually, I'm trusting the audience from 1951, those who enjoyed risqué movies like "A Place in the Sun" or "A Streetcar Named Desire", I suspect that even by the 50's standards, all these solemn speeches and gaze into the stars, driven by powerful chorus in the background, might have felt too stagy and atmospheric at the expense of the film's realism. It's like a big-scale Christmas special play. Again, no irony; checking the reviews of the time, I wasn't the only one.
So that's the flip side of "Quo Vadis", it is a spectacular movie whose spectacular ambitions never leave much latitude to the characters, who are only moving pieces of a big package and are not given much depth to play with. Robert Taylor does a fine job as General Marcus who falls in love with Christian hostage Lygia (Deborah Kerr) but the relationship is Hollywood standard and doesn't have this steaming passion of Clift and Taylor or Brando and Leigh. And while Christians are supposed to be martyrs, they're all played like overly dignified people, using great and lyrical sentences, everything about "sin here, sin there", as if they were part of a brainwashed sect. By sanctifying them, the screenplay dehumanizes them and prevents a rooting process that could have worked better had they been ordinary people. But then, which character was 'ordinary'?
I think I shouldn't be too pointy on the characters because "Quo Vadis", for all these flaws, emerges above the other swords-and-sandals epics and guaranteed its ticket for posterity thanks to one character: Emperor Nero, played by the inimitable Peter Ustinov, actually, the only Oscar-nominated performance of the film. There is no doubt that Ustinov lies on a pedestal of greatness over the other actors, playing a tormented, egomaniac and sadistic emperor. Ustinov is so good that he produces a miracle almost of Biblical proportions, while the Christians' sanctification creates empathy on a religious level but not our individual empathy, we root for Nero because Ustinov makes the tyrant childishly and grotesquely weak, hence human. That's one of the film's most delightful ironies.
And as much as I admired the looks and the Circus' sequence, it is never as good as when it orbits around the world of Nero and his close entourage, I also appreciate Leo Genn who did a fine performance as Petronius. It is the credit to the actor to have spiced up what would have been an otherwise bland entertainment, all in Technicolor and Cinemascope. Indeed, as the title says, this is one of these cases, maybe school cases, where the film is as good as the villain, and on that level, "Quo Vadis" is almost great.
Following "Samson and Delilah" and preceding "Spartacus", "Cleopatra" and "Ben-Hur", you get indeed two "histories" intertwined in that big juicy blockbuster of former days, a time where the barbarians from the little screen were threatening the foundations of the Hollywood empire, and Zanuck needed the kind of escapism TV wouldn't even be able to deliver, not for five decades. So just assemble the world Technicolor and Cinemascope and you get the idea of the kind of 'fun' movie lovers were seeking those days. And there's no irony in my statement as this trend almost caused the whole industry to collapse by the end of the sixties, where even box-office grosses couldn't sustain the financial losses. Hollywood came too close from a fate à la Roman Empire.
So we can enjoy "Quo Vadis" with a sigh of relief, and 'enjoy' is an appropriate word as the colors are absolutely breathtaking and the infamous Rome fire is perhaps the most instantly identifiable after Atlanta in "Gone With the Wind". "Quo Vadis" is also one of these feast to the eyes, with ordinary extras contributing to extraordinary takes, whether legionaries marching, Christians assembling around St Peter, or circus' crowds thumbing up or down,, it's just as if the director needed to show the producers that they made the right investment, the kind of big-budgeted productions that had just recently inspired the Coen brothers' latest film "Hail, Caesar!". So, speaking of Caesar, you got to give him the credit he deserves and acknowledge that the film is a delightful entertainment despite the kitschy charm, the kind that makes you think, they don't make like this anymore.
Still, you can have the same opinion with a more negative thought in mind. By that I mean that the catch of this appreciation is that you also consider the fact that we live in a time where they don't make many religious movies, so in regard to this evolution of the mentalities, there is no way out from the feeling that the film tends to be over-preachy for its own good. And actually, I'm trusting the audience from 1951, those who enjoyed risqué movies like "A Place in the Sun" or "A Streetcar Named Desire", I suspect that even by the 50's standards, all these solemn speeches and gaze into the stars, driven by powerful chorus in the background, might have felt too stagy and atmospheric at the expense of the film's realism. It's like a big-scale Christmas special play. Again, no irony; checking the reviews of the time, I wasn't the only one.
So that's the flip side of "Quo Vadis", it is a spectacular movie whose spectacular ambitions never leave much latitude to the characters, who are only moving pieces of a big package and are not given much depth to play with. Robert Taylor does a fine job as General Marcus who falls in love with Christian hostage Lygia (Deborah Kerr) but the relationship is Hollywood standard and doesn't have this steaming passion of Clift and Taylor or Brando and Leigh. And while Christians are supposed to be martyrs, they're all played like overly dignified people, using great and lyrical sentences, everything about "sin here, sin there", as if they were part of a brainwashed sect. By sanctifying them, the screenplay dehumanizes them and prevents a rooting process that could have worked better had they been ordinary people. But then, which character was 'ordinary'?
I think I shouldn't be too pointy on the characters because "Quo Vadis", for all these flaws, emerges above the other swords-and-sandals epics and guaranteed its ticket for posterity thanks to one character: Emperor Nero, played by the inimitable Peter Ustinov, actually, the only Oscar-nominated performance of the film. There is no doubt that Ustinov lies on a pedestal of greatness over the other actors, playing a tormented, egomaniac and sadistic emperor. Ustinov is so good that he produces a miracle almost of Biblical proportions, while the Christians' sanctification creates empathy on a religious level but not our individual empathy, we root for Nero because Ustinov makes the tyrant childishly and grotesquely weak, hence human. That's one of the film's most delightful ironies.
And as much as I admired the looks and the Circus' sequence, it is never as good as when it orbits around the world of Nero and his close entourage, I also appreciate Leo Genn who did a fine performance as Petronius. It is the credit to the actor to have spiced up what would have been an otherwise bland entertainment, all in Technicolor and Cinemascope. Indeed, as the title says, this is one of these cases, maybe school cases, where the film is as good as the villain, and on that level, "Quo Vadis" is almost great.