Skip to main content

A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself.

Spartacus
(1960)

Kubrick as gun-for-hire, and unfortunately his lack of control over the script shows. This was Kirk Douglas’ baby, and he brought in Stanley after firing Anthony Mann a week into the shoot (apparently the salt mine sequence is the only section of the film where Mann called the shots). Douglas was displeased that he didn’t get win the lead in Ben Hur (an all-round better film than this, even if it is filled with the same kind of simplistic moralising that Kubrick so disliked here) and originated Spartacus as an “I’ll show you” response.
It seems that there were tensions in every corner of the production; Douglas wanted a strong subtext paralleling Spartacus' tribulations to those of the Jewish people, whereas screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (who was blacklisted at the time) favoured a commentary on East-West politics. On top of that you have Kubrick clashing with Douglas, who said he would not work with the director again (“a talented shit”).  I expect the feeling was mutual; their previous collaboration, Paths of Glory, is a terrific film and vastly superior to this. And Kubrick also clashed with his cinematographer Russell Metty (resulting in Metty walking out and Kubrick handling the majority of the photography himself; ironically Metty won an Oscar for the work he didn’t do). Apparently both David Lean and Laurence Olivier declined offers to direct the film; I can’t help think that Lean would have been a better fit than Kubrick, although he would likely have been as uncomfortable with all the power being in the hands of his star.

It’s ironic, then, that the least interesting aspects of the film concern the titular character. There’s just not a lot to Spartacus, and Douglas – all shaved chest and immaculate coiffeur – brings little to the part to really make him stand out. He glowers a lot, clenches his jaw and behaves stoically in the face of adversity. But his motivations are strictly one-note, his romance utterly clichéd and there’s little to really suggest how and why he came to lead such a successful rebellion. We cut from his revolt at the gladiator school (the whole sequence at the school being one of the film’s high spots; certainly the characterisation goes downhill after this) to his uprising in full swing, but there’s never a sense of how he became such a charismatic and powerful force, He just does it, and it’s the same with his battlefield tactics.

The result is a lack of substance at the film’s centre. Scenes showing him interacting with new recruits and being a generally good sort fall flat because you sense they’re inserted to portray a tick-all-the-boxes hero rather than a realistic and no doubt brutal leader. So Kirk gets egg on his face when Tony Curtis does a magic trick, and because he’s so magnanimous and well-rounded has a good laugh about it. And he supports (old) women’s rights when one puts him in his place regarding their value as fighters. And he has a good laugh about it. I suspect that John Cleese’s Robin Hood in Time Bandits (“Jolly good!") was taking the piss out of the scene here where  Spartacus asks recruits where they’re from and why they want to fight.

The romance with Jean Simmons actually begins promisingly, with Spartacus instructed to copulate with Virinia while Ustinov and cronies look on. After that it becomes as tedious as the travelogue scenes of Spartacus and his army (which seem interminable). Tellingly, the spark only returns to the character of Virinia once she has been procured by Olivier’s Crassus.

Whether or not the Romans enthused Kubrick more than his hero, the onscreen results suggest this. Indeed, every time we move away from Spartacus to the machinations within the Senate, or whatever Ustinov’s Batiatus is up to, the film comes alive.

Ustinov deservedly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance as the slippery owner of the gladiatorial training school (the only actor on a Kubrick film to receive a gong), and he steals every scene he’s in, with the exception of those with the masterful Charles Laughton. Ustinov’s natural comic timing and immaculate delivery see him gaining the upper hand to the starchier Olivier in their early scenes together; his bit where he hides a bust of Gracchus (Laughton’s character) and it is then discovered by Olivier is wonderfully played and brings a free-flowing ease to the proceedings. Elsewhere the film plays all-too formally and self-consciously epic. This is unfortunately pervasive, from Alex North’s score down.

Kubrick doesn’t seem particularly inspired by these classical “epic” requirements; only the final battle really has much energy to it (not least in the spectacle of the fiery rollers mowing down stuntmen, and the reinserted shot of Douglas hacking off the fake arm of an amputee – complete with a Python-esque geyser of blood spurting forth). Even then, the cut away to the aftermath, a tableau of battlefield strewn with bodies, seems to suggest Kubrick was much more interested in getting to that shot than in the big fight itself. In contrast, the early scenes at the gladiator school crackle with kineticism. There is immediacy to the personal stakes there, absent from the later grand scale. Charles McGraw’s vindictive trainer Marcellus is just the kind of antagonist that works well set against the brawn of Spartacus, and the film misses him when he’s offed (in a superb sequence of drowning by soup). Woody Strode also stands out in this passage of the film; Draba is a superior fighter to Spartacus, and bests him in combat. The preceding scene, where they wait in a cage until they are called to fight, highlights Draba’s collected quietude and so pulls the focus from Douglas’ concerned energy.

I’ve never been the greatest fan of Olivier; he’s usually an effective screen presence, but I rarely find his performances compelling. There are moments in this where he absolutely holds the screen, though. Mostly these are ones where we see more personal chinks in Crassus power and authority. His knifing of Draba, when the latter attempts to climb into the viewing balcony, is the act of a man who would stab you in the back sooner than have a fair fight. Then there’s the famous, reinserted, “oysters and snails” episode with Tony Curtis (with Anthony Hopkins voicing Oliver). It’s a scene, beyond the dripping innuendo, that is heavy with the impending threat of violation of Curtis (who, as a slave, would presumably yield to his master). And the moment where Virinia calls out her would-be partner is gripping. He professes to want her to give herself willingly to him, but resorts to threatening her son as cachet.

Unsurprisingly, we are immediately on the side of Laughton’s playful Senator Gracchus in his power struggle with Crassus. Laughton’s a delight to watch, in one of his final screen roles. Apparently Ustinov rewrote some of their scenes together at Laughton’s behest, and their chemistry together is one of the film’s highlights (“You and I have a tendency towards corpulence”). It’s a testament to his skills that his final scene, where he sends Virinia and Ustinov away to safety, bears considerably greater emotional wallop than Spartacus’ subsequent crucifixion.

Talking of which, I’m completely with Batiatus’ fretting while Virinia’s mopes at the foot of Spartacus’ cross. What does she think she’s doing, drawing attention to herself and putting her baby in danger? It’s pleasing that Batiatus escapes; as a less than noble character he might have been disposed of. It may have been a sop for the demise of the titular character.

The “I’m Spartacus” scene is the most famous aspect of the movie but, while it provides a snappy summation of what a great guy Spartacus, it’s also a moment that doesn’t really feel earned. We haven’t witnessed exactly what steely-eyed dimple chin has done to provoke such unfettered loyalty from his followers. We’re told he’s a great leader so he must be.

There is some extremely random casting in this film. I can only assume Tony Curtis’
Antoninus was added so there’d be someone who looked more out-of-place in 73 BC than Douglas. Even less convincing is John Dall’s Glabrus (a crony and political tool of Crassus) who should have a big sign over him saying “This is why Hollywood shouldn’t attempt historical spectacle”. And I can see a certain originality in portraying Julius Caesar as a bit of a thug who is kicked around by his brighter peers like a senate football, but John Gavin lacks the presence to make such a take on the character work. He seems like blatant miscasting (he was far better used by Hitchcock in the same year’s Psycho, where all he needed to do was provide the muscle). On a brighter note, Herbert Lom’s Trevantus  – like Ustinov – is a scene-hogger.

So this is something of an anomaly for Kubrick; his preceding films (The Killing, Paths of Glory) show a distinct, unified, vision, and subsequently his grip on his material is vice-like. But here he only seems to connect with the story sporadically. Even the effectiveness of his direction is inconsistent; cutting from locations to studio sets-as-locations was commonplace at the time, as were the joins being very obvious with such an approach. But it comes as a surprise that such a stickler for precision as Kubrick was content with this (perhaps he wasn’t). That said, Kubrick was only 32 when the film was released and this was a formative experience in terms of his later output; he had no say over the script, cast, had no final cut and was not a producer. None of which would recur in his career.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.