Spartacus (1960) Reviews

• Controlling Stanley: The Spartacus Experience

  Arriflex12004-07-29

  As most are undoubtedly aware this is the film that the director virtually expunged from his repertoire. But why did Stanley Kubrick really disown SPARTACUS (1960)? The answer can be summed up in two words: absolute control. Kubrick wanted total administrative as well as artistic authority over the making of the film about a revolt of gladiators and slaves in ancient Rome. But you will notice that Bryna Productions not only financed SPARTACUS but also an earlier film directed by Kubrick, PATHS OF GLORY (1958). Bryna was Kirk Douglas' film company and, as most filmgoers know, he was the star of both films. Besides having all the money to make the films, Douglas had artistic vision as well. Only three weeks into what would prove to be an incredibly complex and arduous production, Douglas fired venerable director Anthony Mann (RAW DEAL, RAILROADED,THE FURIES, THE NAKED SPUR, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE, MAN OF THE WEST, etc.) from SPARTACUS. With only two days notice, Kubrick was hired to replace him. Shooting PATHS OF GLORY, Douglas had confined his criticisms and objections to Kubrick's failed rewriting of the script (they went with the original screenplay). Douglas' complaints and artistic influence were far greater on SPARTACUS, much to Kubrick's chagrin. Though the director craved autonomy over every aspect of the film, Douglas would not budge. A tense compromise was reached but ultimately Douglas had the last word. Kubrick saw himself as just a hired gun. And he would never allow himself to be placed in this position again. Later, both men would complain about the film's outcome and each other. They never made another movie together. But SPARTACUS is no uneven patchwork of divergent ideas. The film is cohesive and arresting. At the restored version of three hours and eighteen minutes, there is practically no dead footage in the film. Dalton Trumbo's screenplay is surprisingly economical, with sharply drawn characters placed against the sweeping historical majesty and violent sociological tumult of ancient Rome. Quite plainly, the gloriously inventive music by Alex North is among the greatest scores ever written for a motion picture. And despite Kubrick's bad experience, he managed to guide the actors towards creating outstanding work (a best supporting actor Oscar for Peter Ustinov). He even transformed the very real enmity between Laughton and Olivier into an on-screen asset. His other contributions were considerable also (the large scale and power of the battle sequence, for example). In the end, for the film at least, the clash of giant egos proved fortuitous. Recommendations: for greater insight and detail on this and Kubrick's other films I urge you to seek out Jan Harlan's excellent documentary, STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES, and Vincent LoBrutto's exhaustive, highly informative biography, STANLEY KUBRICK. For the producer's views on SPARTACUS and its director, take a gander at Kirk Douglas' very candid autobiography, THE RAGMAN'S SON.

• The Eternal Cry For Freedom

  bkoganbing2005-03-06

  From what little I've read of this film it was lucky to have been made at all. Some very big talents had some very big egos and those egos clashed repeatedly. Original director Anthony Mann was replaced by Stanley Kubrick by Producer/Star Kirk Douglas among other clashes. But the result was all worth it. The stars all give top notch performances, but the mark of a really great film is the memorability of each individual in the ensemble. To give a few examples, Charles McGraw as the sadistic trainer at the gladiatorial school, John Dall as Sir Laurence Olivier's protégé, and John Ireland as Kirk Douglas's fellow gladiator trainee are all memorable in the brief roles they have. Kirk Douglas wisely opts for a straightforward interpretation of a hero in the title role of Spartacus. He's a BC everyman, born into a world which hadn't heard anything about human rights, he knows and feels he's not just cattle. Catch the alternating scenes of Douglas and Sir Laurence Olivier addressing the slave army and the Roman Army. Olivier with his years of Shakespearean training coming across as the tyrant to be, and Douglas in simple prose talking about the slaves fighting for their hopes and dreams. Very effective. The plot concerns a revolt at a gladiatorial school which mushrooms into a crisis for the Roman Empire. Political factions led by Olivier as Crassus and Charles Laughton as Gracchus seek to use the slave revolt to further their own ends. Laughton as always is a wonder. It's a bit of unusual casting for him because his parts are usually those of very tortured souls. His Gracchus is a sly rogue, but a decent man. One of my favorite movie lines of all time is delivered by him addressing the Roman Senate where he says he'll "take a little republican corruption for a little republican freedom." Another sly rogue in the film is Peter Ustinov who won the first of his two Oscars as Batiatus the owner of the gladiatorial school. Like so many others I'm sure in those days, he's just trying to come out on the winning side when doing so could be a life or death situation. Jean Simmons as Varinia, beloved of Spartacus, has the only woman's part of any substance. But when was Ms. Simmons bad in anything. One of the most underrated and under-appreciated actresses in the history of film. The lessons about man's desire for freedom and to control his own destiny are eternal and valid. And this film will be also.

• Still haunting after all these years.

  rat_2022017-12-02

  It was a bank holiday. I was ten, and watching Spartacus for the first time. This was before we got a video, so I would basically watch any movie that came on TV. Spartacus was a real shock to me. It was the first film I saw where the good guy doesn't win. in. I had seen Ben- Hur a few weeks before, with it's happy ending - y'know, reunited with his family, miraculously cured of leprosy, everyone lives happily ever after. Spartacus ends with him dying on a cross, having already lost to the Romans. It really affected me. I just didn't know a movie could end like that. I still loved it. Watching it now, I have tried to break down what it so effective, and why this movie stands up so well. Firstly, let me say - Laurence Olivier. Casting him as Roman General Crassus was a smart move, but a risky one. It could have back fired. He is so good he threatens to steal the whole movie. He doesn't, but as much as this movie is Douglas's it's also Olivier's. There's no denying Ustnov is good, but the Oscar really should have gone to Laurence. Another great performance is Tony Curtis as Antoninus, Crassus' personal slave, who quickly joins the revolt. He is no fighter, but a singer, though not much of one! I don't remember the 'snails and oysters' scene from my first viewing. It would have gone clean over my head anyway. It's a very touching scene. You feel that if it was done now, in the Game Of Thrones era, it would be considerably more explicit. And don't tell me Gladiator didn't borrow from this movie! One thing that Gladiator got wrong was the friendship forging between the fighters. When Spartacus asks another slave his name, the guy tells him 'You don't want to know my name. I don't want to know yours. One day we may end up having to kill each other.' It made more sense than Maximus and Juba going on about their wives and children. Ultimately though, it's that ending that still haunts me many years later. Spartacus, having been forced to kill Antoninus, on a cross, Varinia showing him his son, and begging him to die... I think it actually works because Spartacus doesn't say a word, no last monologue. Man, I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it. Stanley Kubrick famously disowned the film, given that he didn't have complete creative control, but Spartacus is still better than practically all the sword and sandal epics being made then, or even now - Troy, anyone? It is acknowledged as a a classic, and deservedly so.

• Spartacus or How I learnt to live away from Hollywood

  filmquestint2005-02-05

  This is Kubrick's farewell to Hollywood. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall. I don't believe for a minute that it was a cordial parting of the ways. I mean, Kubrick never returned, never! With "Paths of Glory" Kubrick gave Kirk Douglas, not just his best part as an actor, but his best movie. By the time Douglas called Kubrick to "take over" "Spartacus" Douglas was already a huge star with too much saying in the matter. Look at it, it's clear. "Spartacus" is more Douglas than Kubrick. Great fun to watch, yes, absolutely. A terrific script by black listed Dalton Trumbo. Some fight sequences unequalled in the history of film. Look at the fight between Douglas and Woody Strode and compare it to the ones in "Troy" or "Gladiator" for that matter. It is sad an embarrassing to realise how low we've fallen. Computer generated images or not. The cast is unbelievable but it's clearly not Kubrick's. The casting of his movies was part of his master plan. He would cast a Ryan O'Neil as Barry Lyndon for instance so he can blend perfectly with the magnificent tapestry, without adding any colours of his own. The same can be said of Keir Dullea, in 2001, a robotic non entity in a showdown with a voice. When he needed actors to be at the very pinnacle of his universe he went to Peter Sellers, Malcolm McDowell or James Mason. Even the casting of Tom Cruise made a lot of sense. He used the star and his wife to talk about the dreamlike powers of betrayal. In "Spartacus" Tony Curtis, plays Antoninus, a teacher of the classics. A campy idea never seen in a Kubrick film, before or since. To be fair, there are some spot on, brilliant pieces of casting. Charles Laughton is, as usual, superb. Peter Ustinov, terrific. Laurence Olivier manages to give a multifaceted portrait of weakness, fear and greed. Jean Simmons makes the reason to survive totally believable. But the cutesy love scene between her and a shiny muscular, coiffed Spartacus is truly terrible. As a final blow, the scene is enveloped in a sticky, corny music theme. Having said all that. Don't you dare missing this epic. I'ts Kubrick's goodbye to Hollywood and like everything else that the master said or do, he really meant it.

• Still relevant after all these years

  bb_org2005-12-26

  A very moving and compelling story of epic proportions. The plot is relentless, propelled by a dazzling screenplay. Kubrick draws some of the greatest performances of the cast, and fills the screen with images that fascinate throughout. Well paced for a movie of this magnitude. To those who complain of anachronisms and poetic license with historical events, I say to them, 'Remember, it is a movie.' To be truly accurate, the cast would be delivering their lines in Latin and ancient Greek, with English subtitles. Whatever Kubrick might lose with historical inaccuracies, he gains far more in his ability to convey the story to the viewer. Even though it is over forty years old, the film tells us more of the present day than it does of the past.