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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.