My above comment, while strange, isn't exactly facetious, as this Biblical epic from the king of sacrilege, Cecil B. DeMille, is chock full of sex and violence. In fact, had the film been made just a few years later, the Hays Code surely would have forced MASSIVE re-editing in order to get the film approved. Believe it or not, this Biblical epic is a film that most likely would have been avoided or even picketed by evangelicals! Why DeMille has a reputation of making "classic" Bible stories is beyond me--especially when this film includes brief and intentional glimpses of Claudette Colbert's nipples, has MANY scantily-clad victims of the Roman persecution waiting to be ravaged, features a lesbian dance meant to entice a nice Christian woman to a famous prostitute's allures, an implied rape of a woman by a gorilla and some of the more amazing but disturbing scenes of Christians and gladiators dying!!! I doubt if the Catholic Legion of Decency, Pat Boone or Baptists would recommend this flick because of all this salacious material.
So if the film is such an extreme example of pre-Code excess, then who exactly is the audience? After all, Atheists and Agnostics probably wouldn't be interested in a film about the early Christian church and many Christians would probably be offended--even today. Well, the only REAL audience would be lovers of the pre-Code films and perhaps historians. Actually, as far as historical content goes, this is a pretty interesting film, as it doesn't show Nero quite as one-dimensional and evil as he is shown in many later films. Compared to his wife, Poppea (who he murdered in real life in a fit of rage), he seems like a pretty decent guy in the film--aside from the weird prosthetic nose worn by Charles Laughton. And, while possibly disturbing, the sequences in the arena and in the dungeon with those awaiting the arena are superbly done and very moving.
So what do we have left if we ignore all the sex and violence? Well, for the most part it's a typical "love at first sight" type of plot (which are very clichéd), but it also has lots of amazing and eye-catching DeMille-inspired sets. In addition, the milk bath scene where you see Colbert's beautiful body is actually an amazing and memorable scene--not just because of her breasts. Excessive,...sure,...but a very memorable moment from the silver screen--probably the one almost everyone remembers who saw the film (unless they saw an edited version). Also, while I didn't like all the melodrama, I thought the end actually worked pretty well. So as you can guess, I felt it was a very, very mixed bag and not the sort of film I would rush out to see. I cannot understand how anyone could give this mess of a film a score of 10, but at least it was better than THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (another VERY overrated DeMille epic).
If you are inclined to see another similar film, you might try QUO VADIS. It's pretty much the same exact stilted and kind of dull film, but without the boobs and blood.
So if the film is such an extreme example of pre-Code excess, then who exactly is the audience? After all, Atheists and Agnostics probably wouldn't be interested in a film about the early Christian church and many Christians would probably be offended--even today. Well, the only REAL audience would be lovers of the pre-Code films and perhaps historians. Actually, as far as historical content goes, this is a pretty interesting film, as it doesn't show Nero quite as one-dimensional and evil as he is shown in many later films. Compared to his wife, Poppea (who he murdered in real life in a fit of rage), he seems like a pretty decent guy in the film--aside from the weird prosthetic nose worn by Charles Laughton. And, while possibly disturbing, the sequences in the arena and in the dungeon with those awaiting the arena are superbly done and very moving.
So what do we have left if we ignore all the sex and violence? Well, for the most part it's a typical "love at first sight" type of plot (which are very clichéd), but it also has lots of amazing and eye-catching DeMille-inspired sets. In addition, the milk bath scene where you see Colbert's beautiful body is actually an amazing and memorable scene--not just because of her breasts. Excessive,...sure,...but a very memorable moment from the silver screen--probably the one almost everyone remembers who saw the film (unless they saw an edited version). Also, while I didn't like all the melodrama, I thought the end actually worked pretty well. So as you can guess, I felt it was a very, very mixed bag and not the sort of film I would rush out to see. I cannot understand how anyone could give this mess of a film a score of 10, but at least it was better than THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (another VERY overrated DeMille epic).
If you are inclined to see another similar film, you might try QUO VADIS. It's pretty much the same exact stilted and kind of dull film, but without the boobs and blood.