and
The Appropriate Tune - "Empire" by Shakira
It is said that all empires must one day fall, and the reason it is said is because of Rome. To the untrained eye it might seem inconceivable that the Roman Empire would have collapsed the way it did; They were one of the most dominant military and political entities on the planet at the time, stretching from Europe to Asia, from Britain to Africa, builders of vast networks of roads and aqueducts, writers of poetry and theater. Yet it was exactly that advancement, economically, socially, and technologically that was the problem, that constant and inevitable clash between progress and regression that led to its slow dissolution and usurpation by the Mongols, the Visigoths, et cetera. A Roman Empire still existed afterwards for a couple centuries afterwards of course, but it was not, indeed could not, be the Rome that had been. Such is the way of life.
The situation with Rome is not exactly like the one with the movie industry in the 1960s, but there are similarities. As with Rome the movie industry had grown over the years to be a veritable behemoth, and that size allowed it to perform grander and grander feats. Thus we saw the rise of ‘epics’ such as Ben-Hur and Marathon alum Saladin, films with large set pieces, large casts and large budgets. Then we saw them again, and again, until diminishing returns set in and the movie industry found that in their desperate rush to capitalize on this trend that it was difficult to fund any movies at all. Of course the movie industry didn’t collapse and epic films didn’t cease to exist, but for a while the dynamics of filmmaking certainly shifted. It’s doubtful whether the Hollywood New Wave in the 70s, the rise of Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, et al. would have happened if not for the problems the movie industry brought on itself, but surely that’s a thing of the past and has no bearing on the present day.
Released in 1964, The Fall of the Roman Empire was written by Ben Barzman, Basilio Franchina and Philip Yordan and directed by Anthony Mann (El Cid, The Glenn Miller Story) through Samuel Bronston Productions. The year is 180 A.D. and Caesar Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness) has been overseeing the war effort against the tribal peoples of what is now called Germany. Aurelius has grown old and ill however, and his thoughts turn increasingly not to war but of peace, a Pax Romana that will unite all of the peoples of the Empire as free citizens of Rome. A monumental task worthy of a Caesar, and Aurelius decides that Gaius Metallus Livius (Stephen Boyd), commander of the Northern Army, is a man worthy of the title. Before that decision can be made final though, Aurelius is murdered by those unwilling to let peace damage their pocketbooks, and Aurelius’ son Commodus (Christopher Plummer) becomes Caesar instead. Gone are those lofty goals, gone is the Pax Romana, Commodus is here to Make Rome Great Again and he’s going to do it, no matter what his advisors or reality says otherwise. What does this mean for Livius and his beloved Lucilla (Sophia Loren)? What does this mean for Rome? I’m not sure, but if I had to guess, probably nothing good.
An event like the collapse of the Roman Empire demands a film that is epic (natch) in scope, and on a visual level The Fall of the Roman Empire succeeds. The film takes place primarily in two locations, a military outpost in Germany and the city of Rome itself, and both look absolutely gorgeous. Huge panaramic shots that really emphasize on a visceral level the film’s scope, which is highlighted when Mann packs a scene with dozens if not hundreds of people. There are a few moments where a green screen or some other film trick is used to place a character where they’re not, but for the most part it seems natural, which for all their faults is really something you only really get with these kinds of films.
Such stakes also call for some big fights, and The Fall of the Roman Empire has more than its share. These are not orderly affairs where soldiers jauntily march into battle, this is barely controlled chaos. Not a lot of blood, this is the 60s mind you, but there are people getting set on fire, horses falling and landing on people, it’s easy to forget sometimes that you’re watching a film and not a riot at a renaissance fair. While it might be considered to compare the level of Hollywood’s resources when compared to any other country’s film industry, The Fall of the Roman Empire blows Saladin out of the water. Despite both films centering around military conflicts, I don’t know if there’s anything in Saladin aside from Richard III’s invasion and the siege engine scene that compares to even the first battle in this film. Though there’s plenty of Hollywood ‘clanging two blades together over and over’ style sword fighting, there’s also a visceral quality to the combat that is effective even by modern standards.
Of course it wouldn’t be a movie about Rome if the cast wasn’t made up of mostly white people, and Fall of the Roman Empire refuses to break the mould in that respect. Stephen Boyd is the sore thumb of the bunch, this blonde haired blue eyed guy with the flat American accent who looks more Teutonic than the fucking Germans they’re fighting, but you can tell by that chin dimple why they wanted him and he doesn’t do that bad. Sophia Loren is fine (and the only Roman in the cast who’s actually from Rome), a bit melodramatic but then these are melodramatic roles. Alec Guinness and James Mason (as Timonides) were on-screen veterans for a couple decades by this point so you know they know their way around a script, but the most entertaining performance is Christopher Plummer as the increasingly unhinged Caesar Commodus. The Emperor of Rome being insane is something of a cliche at this point, likely due to stories of Nero and Caligula entering the public consciousness, but Plummer does great work in making Commodus a truly despicable character. A delusional narcissist, bully, and a sniveling cretin, you start to dislike him the moment he gets on screen and by the end you absolutely despise. Which is good! You don’t need to make an antagonist some tragic figure, sometimes it’s enough to just have some piece of shit surrounded by other pieces of shit who wields too much power. Even though we learn a bit of Commodus’ backstory over the course of the film I wouldn’t say that he ever takes that step into becoming sympathetic, and I think Plummer’s performance helps cement that.
That being said, The Fall of the Roman Empire is not simply a tale of morals, but of politics as well. Commodus and his coterie are certainly villainous in character, reveling in murder and upholding the institution of slavery, and in a grander sense represent the inability of the Roman state (or any state) to resolve the contradictions inherent within its design and thus its use of violence in order to maintain stability. Livius and his side are depicted as the heroes, but it is portrayed quite clearly that their opposition is just as much a political decision as it is an ethical one. Marcus Aurelius’ desire for a Pax Romana is predicated less so on philosophy and more so on building a unified bulwark against the Persians, and one of the major points in Timonides’ speech to the Senate is on the economical viability of free men over slaves (‘free’ in this context meaning peasantry rather than the romanticized American ‘freedom’ that we hear about today, even though conflation of the two was most likely intended by the screenwriter). Not to mention that all of Livius’ actions are made in order to maintain and even expand the hegemony of the Roman Empire, which ultimately makes him no different from Commodus aside from being more capable at it. The abolition of slavery is obviously a worthy cause and so we can support Livius in that way, but in the end they both represent failing attempts at stifling the progress of history, because the slaves would be freed and Rome would fall regardless of the wishes of these men but by the will of the masses. It’s a lot more nuanced of a film than I was expecting, even if it presents itself as some sort of melodrama.
Speaking of Lucilla’s whining, there’s this thing that this movie does where a character has an internal monologue, but then they also just say things out loud sometimes as well. It only happens two times in the film, once with Marcus Aurelius and the other with Lucilla, and both times it doesn’t work. I can see where the scenes might have looked good on paper, but in execution it’s either the narration doesn’t really add anything to the scene or it makes the character in question look like someone with a severe mental illness rambling to himself on a street corner. Either have the character just say that narration out loud, this is the kind of movie where you could get away with that, or just have them stay silent and physically convey their emotions. Less is more and all that.
One last word of warning to those prospective cinephiles out there, The Fall of the Roman Empire is advanced material if you’re not used to older films. Tops out at just under three hours, and no one talks like a real person. If you read through Shakespeare in high school and hated it then this might not be for you. It doesn’t skimp out on the action scenes though, if that’s what you’re into, and I think Livius and Lucilla’s star crossed romance set against the backdrop of political corruption and societal decay (which I’m sure bares no resemblance to these modern times) is enough to keep one invested. The Fall of the Roman Empire gets the recommendation, crack open a wineskin this Halloween and enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment