A absolute classic "swords and sandals" film directed by: Mervyn LeRoy from 1951 - QUO VADIS?

Quo Vadis? ushered in the last era of sword-and-sandals sagas. Long before the appearance of Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960), this third film adaptation of Henryk Sienkiewicz’s famous novel set new standards for the historical epic. Though the movie’s overt “message” was unmistakably Christian, the spectacular crowd scenes and unprecedented extravagance of the sets bore witness to the moviemakers’ pagan delight in excess for excess’s sake. And it was a small, podgy, barely-know actor who embodied his excess to perfection: Peter Ustinov, as a cruel tyrant Nero. Was overacting ever as brilliant as this? Has it ever seemed so perfectly, right? Nero is a self-appointed Artist-God, and his music is as dodgy as his divinity. As a ruler, he’s prone to outbursts of rage and childish defiance, and when he reaches his lyre; his lackeys break out in a cold sweat. He orders killing of his own mother and wife, and goes on to sing at an orgy. He sings and praises of his last great work of art, the burning of Rome itself, while shoving the blame onto the Christians. Only once is he ever reduced to silence: when the followers of his obscure upstart sect are thrown to the lions in the arena. As they sing to their God in extremis, Nero watches, bored. Boring is the only word for the wooden love story between the famous general Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) and the pious Christian slave Lygia (Deborah Kerr). Stiff, stolid and po-faced, Vinicius could hardly be more unlike the man who gives him his orders. Whether he’s wooing Lygia or threatening her – before ultimately adopting her peculiar religion – Vinicius's Roman heroism remains quite unshakable. Only a mediator with the Wisdom of Solomon could bridge the gap between Vinicius and Nero, and the director Mervyn LeRoy provides him in the shape of Petronius (Leo Genn), an amused and devious cynic. As a long-serving senator and a master of rhetoric, Petronius is capable of flattering and criticize the Emperor in the same breath. As Rome burns, he dams Nero with ambiguous praise: “You will be worthy of the spectacle – as the spectacle is worthy of you.” Together with Vinicius, he plots to disempower the tyrant, who is clearly quite mad. This will be the first good of Petronius’s life – and the last, before he kills himself in a great final ceremony. The age of decadence is past, and the old Empire falls to make way for a new one. Nero too falls on his sword, but not without complaining bitterly. “The scenes of Roman gathering in Nero’s decadent reign to honor triumphant heroes or to watch Christians clawed to death by lions are rendered intoxicating by the magnificence of the sets and the massing of thousands of extras, which shooting in Italy has allowed Metro to afford. On the strength of its crowds and architecture, this version of Quo Vadis? Would tip any scales.” - The New York Times Originally, John Huston was supposed to direct Quo Vadis? Had be done so, the world would presumably have missed out on a bombastic cult movie. LeRoy takes his bearings more from Cecil B. DeMille’s The Sign of the Cross (1932) than from Sienkiewicz’s novel: he is never afraid of going over the top, nor does he let his respect for the Easter message get in the way of a good, meaty scene. In the catacombs of the Eternal City, the apostle Paul (Abraham Sofaer) delivers a breathtaking five-minute summary of the Gospel; and in the arena, he comforts the desperate brothers and sisters in Christ for the very last time. It’s a truly dignified spectacle; through it gains in authenticity partly by means of its very excessiveness. In fact, most of the events depicted did actually take place. (Nero, however, did not take his own life in 64 B.C. but four years later.) Films like Quo Vadis? Had a significance that went beyond their commercial success. Many scholars of the cinema see the wave of Roman epics after WW II as an attempt by Hollywood to come to terms with the experience of European fascism. These movies depict Imperial Rome as a cruel doctorship, and they oppose it with a smorgasbord of Christian and humanist ideals. Rome’s ideology is condemned, but its fatuous perpetrators – such as Marcus and Petronius – are given their chance to see the light. This is how a new world power gives expression to its sense of political mission. Sir Peter Ustinov, however, took a somewhat more sober view of things, in his memoirs; he described the Romans as a pragmatic people with a relaxed attitude to power and the dubious taste of nouveau riche. And this, he suggested, was why the Americans were best at making Roman epics. Jurgen Muller (ED.) Movies of the 50’s

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It was when I was still a child, I remember, that I watched Quo Vadis? (1951) – one of the most gorgeous Technicolor films - directed by the great Mervyn LeRoy and for the first time I confess I was absolutely impressed by the early scenes of the Roman Centurions marching and entering in Rome for the delight of the people and as well their maniac Emperor Nero.

Then we meet the central couple of the story Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor quite good in this role, at least in my opinion), meeting sweet and gentle Lygia (Deborah Kerr, not my favorite performance by this great actress), that embraces Christianity with a sort of fervor for her believes and plays hard to get with a non-religious Marcus.

Coming from a catholic family myself specially when little without necessarily knowing faith in details but just by default was not difficult to understand much of the religious meaning that this movie tries without being pushy convey and showing the struggle that Catholics went thru during those early times.

Also we must consider that the movie came in 1951 where America was in full bloom after WWII and we were trying to make a bridge with the recent Nazi years.

The original project of this film was to be directed by John Huston with Gregory Peck and Elizabeth Taylor in the main roles but several problems were imposed causing the production to be momentarily shelved until MGM hired Mervyn LeRoy to direct this film which as we look at the final result, it's hard to imagine a director more suitable for this epic.

I had seen other movies like this one, including but not only, The Robe (1953) among others but this one was special. There was this crazy actor who played another crazy person in the history of civilization the Emperor Nero.

At that time I was a child and I still didn't know much about actors and their names very well, but Peter Ustinov was so remarkable that I never forgot him after this movie. Also another among so many worthwhile performances is actor Leo Genn who plays Marcus Vinicius's Uncle Petronius (the real Petronius was the author of Satyricon that later would inspire Federico Fellini to make his own film loosely based on the book) and as well, the cynical Nero's advisor.

By the way I think this movie is much more interesting because of the supporting actors in very good and key parts of the overall story of the plot is substantial enough to keep the viewer engaged even with the sometimes sleepy and boring romance of Marcus and Lygia.

The production values ​​are noticed already the fabulous music score of Miklos Rozsa then passing by the magnificent look of the MGM art department that didn't save money in this super production that includes around 32,000 costumes and special effects, incredible for the time and considering the proportions, it remains very effective. The film was shot on location in Rome and CineCita, which years later would also be the studio of Hollywood classics like Ben Hur (59) and Cleopatra (62). I personally visit the Studios on my last trip to Italy back in 2015.

Watching this movie again for the occasion of this review was honestly like rediscovering my own childhood and visiting this movie again each I consider a great entertainment spectacle of an absolutely unsurpassed quality regarding on what was available back in 1951. This movie still carries the magic and glamour more than any other on the “swords & sandals” very singular category.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *