Perhaps the most un-Kubrick of Kubrick's films, but his touch is evident, if not always obvious. (Understandable, since part of the footage shoot by Anthony Mann was used...)
Kubrick's films always have a theme of man versus destiny, versus a supposedly insurmountable obstacle. Things look bleak, but an individual musters the courage to fight against the powers that be...and he usually loses. Kubrick is a pessimistic -- well, maybe a pragmatic romantic. He likes to see the little guy fight the good fight, hopes that maybe it makes a difference, even if he knows that the battle is doomed from the start. Maybe it will make a difference in the long run, but make no mistake, our hero is doomed.
About the movie itself...
The romance is tacked on, perfunctory, and without any spark between Kirk Douglas and Jean Simmons. Its only purpose seems to be the final scene, to allow Spartacus to see his free son while he is lashed to the cross, crucified by the state of Rome. (If you didn't know that's how it ends, you shouldn't be reading this, and you have no one but yourself to blame.) But the politics, the manipulations, the intricate dealings between those with power and those who have been overpowered are FASCINATING! Both between the powers of Rome and the slaves but amongst the senators themselves! Crassus' rise to power -- seizure of power may be more accurate -- is underplayed with cool calculation by Laurence Olivier. There is no need to wonder why he is regarded as one of the finest actors to grace the screen based upon this performance. Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov also turn in first rate characterizations, and any of the scenes in which any combination of the three negotiate, threaten, haggle or barter far surpasses some of the moments of simple moralizing that pop up elsewhere in the film. This, I believe, must have been what attracted Kubrick to the material, even though he was just a director for hire. Look at "Paths of Glory" or the scene where the President phones the Russian Premier from the war room in "Dr. Strangelove," and you'll see how Kubrick regards the negotiations of those in power. Moments of absurdity as fine as any ever committed to celluloid.
Watch it for that. Watch it for the absurdity of it all. Kubrick's sense of the epic isn't as developed as, say, Sir David Lean's, but he doesn't give a rat's fart about the grandeur. Watch it for the struggles between those who have power and those who WANT power. Watch it with the knowledge of what befalls Crassus (and Caeser, for that matter). Watch it knowing the tragedy that will eventually befall those who try to defend Rome, and the tragedy that will befall Rome itself.
Kubrick's films always have a theme of man versus destiny, versus a supposedly insurmountable obstacle. Things look bleak, but an individual musters the courage to fight against the powers that be...and he usually loses. Kubrick is a pessimistic -- well, maybe a pragmatic romantic. He likes to see the little guy fight the good fight, hopes that maybe it makes a difference, even if he knows that the battle is doomed from the start. Maybe it will make a difference in the long run, but make no mistake, our hero is doomed.
About the movie itself...
The romance is tacked on, perfunctory, and without any spark between Kirk Douglas and Jean Simmons. Its only purpose seems to be the final scene, to allow Spartacus to see his free son while he is lashed to the cross, crucified by the state of Rome. (If you didn't know that's how it ends, you shouldn't be reading this, and you have no one but yourself to blame.) But the politics, the manipulations, the intricate dealings between those with power and those who have been overpowered are FASCINATING! Both between the powers of Rome and the slaves but amongst the senators themselves! Crassus' rise to power -- seizure of power may be more accurate -- is underplayed with cool calculation by Laurence Olivier. There is no need to wonder why he is regarded as one of the finest actors to grace the screen based upon this performance. Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov also turn in first rate characterizations, and any of the scenes in which any combination of the three negotiate, threaten, haggle or barter far surpasses some of the moments of simple moralizing that pop up elsewhere in the film. This, I believe, must have been what attracted Kubrick to the material, even though he was just a director for hire. Look at "Paths of Glory" or the scene where the President phones the Russian Premier from the war room in "Dr. Strangelove," and you'll see how Kubrick regards the negotiations of those in power. Moments of absurdity as fine as any ever committed to celluloid.
Watch it for that. Watch it for the absurdity of it all. Kubrick's sense of the epic isn't as developed as, say, Sir David Lean's, but he doesn't give a rat's fart about the grandeur. Watch it for the struggles between those who have power and those who WANT power. Watch it with the knowledge of what befalls Crassus (and Caeser, for that matter). Watch it knowing the tragedy that will eventually befall those who try to defend Rome, and the tragedy that will befall Rome itself.