Rome on Film Archives - The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies

In this special episode, we tackle the second half of the 1963 epic, Cleopatra.

In the first part of this double-header, we tried to keep our focus on Cleopatra and Caesar and the initial challenges faced by #TeamCleo. However, today we get to delve into the second half of the movie when Cleopatra and Antony get it on. This means we finally get to discuss ‘Le Scandale’, aka the Taylor-Burton affair that developed on the set once these two clapped eyes on each other. Their passion would result in two broken hearts, a publicity sensation and not one, but TWO, marriages (and divorces).

Cleopatra (1963) is a classic example of how the context of a film can shape how the history was received. It’s hard not to see some weird parallels between Taylor & Burton and Cleopatra & Antony. We need to work on some couple names before this gets too confusing. Cleotony? Antra? Tayton? Burtay? We’ll keep workshopping these ideas.   

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in December 1963, just after the completion of Cleopatra. Courtesy of Tullio Saba on Flickr.

One thing we have concluded after three hours of discussion: don’t start shooting a movie without a finished script.

If you enjoyed this discussion, you might be interested in checking out The Plot Thickens, who are doing a whole season on Cleopatra (1963).

Drs G and Dr Rad discuss ancient sources such as Florus, Cicero, Appian, and of course, Plutarch’s Life of Antony.

Brodsky, Jack, and Nathan Weiss. The Cleopatra Papers : A Private Correspondence. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.

Geist, Kenneth L. Pictures Will Talk : The Life and Films of Joseph L. Mankiewicz. New York: Scribner, 1978. 

Humphries, Patrick. Cleopatra and the Undoing of Hollywood : How One Film Almost Sunk the Studios. Cheltenham: The History Press Ltd., 2023.

Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Daniel Ogden. “CELLULOID CLEOPATRAS or DID THE GREEKS EVER GET TO EGYPT?” In The Hellenistic World, 275-. United Kingdom: The Classical Press of Wales, 2002.

Royster, F. Becoming Cleopatra : The Shifting Image of an Icon. 1st ed. 2003. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07417-1.

Southern, P. Cleopatra. Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2007.

Taraborrelli, J. Randy.  Elizabeth. London: Pan Macmillan, 2006.

Wanger, Wanger, and Joe Hyams. My Life with Cleopatra: The Making of a Hollywood Classic. New York: Vintage, 1963.

Wyke, Maria. Projecting the Past : Ancient Rome, Cinema, and History. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Our music is by the wonderful Bettina Joy de Guzman.

Dr Rad 0:15
Foreign Welcome to the partial historians.

Dr G 0:18
We explore all the details of ancient Rome,

Dr Rad 0:23
everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles waged and when citizens turn against each other, I’m Dr rad,

Dr G 0:32
and I’m Dr G, we consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.

Dr Rad 0:44
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Dr G 0:54
Hello and welcome to this brand new special episode of the partial historians. I am Dr G

Dr Rad 1:03
and I am Dr rad, and we

Dr G 1:07
are going to discuss the second half of Cleopatra, the blockbuster film from 1963 starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. And this means that it’s a follow on from our part one looking at the same film, but it also means things are about to get far more complicated in terms of things to do with the production and things to do with Cleopatra and Mark Antony.

Dr Rad 1:35
Absolutely. We definitely recommend you go back and listen to our part one, but just to set the scene. Dr G to do a quick little recap in part one, where we were focusing a little bit more on the first half of the movie, where it was about Caesar and Cleopatra’s relationship. Mostly, we highlighted how this production was beset with problems from the get go. They had ongoing issues with weather being unusually temperamental, which meant that sometimes their sets were damaged, or sometimes they just couldn’t film. We also have the ongoing issues of Elizabeth Taylor’s health, in spite of the fact that she was one of the most beautiful movie stars of all time and commanded an insanely high fee to play Cleopatra, just goes to show you that money cannot buy you happiness or health. She was plagued with lots of health issues throughout this production, including a particular bout of, I believe, pneumonia, which almost killed her and meant she actually had to have an emergency tracheotomy and then plastic surgery to cover up the tracheotomy scar. On top of the fact that the film company that was producing this movie was in dire financial straits. Cleopatra was meant to be the movie that saved the studio spoilers. It did not.

Dr G 2:54
We’ve got to spend money to make money. That’s how it works in the film industry.

Dr Rad 2:59
All right, that’s how it works. So there’s all sorts of complications. And of course, all of these issues have a domino effect sometimes in that we’ve sort we seen how Elizabeth Taylor’s health problems meant that casting issues arose because the initial Caesar and Antony, they had had to be recast, etc, etc. So it has been complicated, and they’ve had to relocate from pine wood studios in England to Cinecitta in Rome, and this is where most of the actual filming takes place, because there was very little done in England, unfortunately,

Dr G 3:37
well, fair enough. And the weather is apparently nicer in Italy anyway, and more conducive for Taylor’s health, as we’ve discussed in the previous episode. So probably good news for her, really, it is.

Dr Rad 3:48
But even in Rome, they did still have unusual weather problems. Like, I believe there was a particular day where it rained so hard their forums set flooded, like, really badly, they could film. And this is what keeps happening. Because I must admit, one of my big sources for preparing for this episode was Walter Wanger and Joe Hyams My Life with Cleopatra, which is essentially Walter Wanger’s kind of diaries from when he was the producer of his film, because this was he really his baby from the get go, he was the one that really drove a lot of this production. And when you’re looking at it in diary form, I actually feel quite sorry for him in many ways, because there are just so many times so he’ll be like Rex Harrison called in sick. Richard Burton too hung over to shoot. Elizabeth Taylor had more medical issues. It’s just endless. And then on top of that, you add in the diary entries where he says something, like, it was too cold, there wasn’t enough this, there wasn’t enough that it was too rainy. Like there’s just endless delays where they can’t film what they were intending to or There was even one instance where they shot a scene between. Antony and Cleopatra. And one of the issues they faced was that they were filming in this Todd ao cinematic style, one of these widescreen technologies. And this is partly because it benefits Elizabeth Taylor, because who invented Todd AO, why her third husband, Mike Todd, who died tragically in a plane crash, that wasn’t nice, but it did mean that she inherited his Todd AO filming method, but it’s an incredibly cumbersome way to film, and none of the Italians studios have a way of actually processing the film, viewing the film, et cetera. So what they would have to do is every time they shot something, they had to fly it back to America to get processed, et cetera, and then it would get back. And apparently there was a particular scene that they shot, and then on the flight, the film wasn’t packed properly, and it compromised the quality. They couldn’t process it. It came out all like foggy and weird, and so they had to re shoot it. And it’s just this kind of stuff that seems to keep on happening, just endless delays. In fact, one of my favorite delays, which I think you will also appreciate, there was even an incident where a cat managed to get into the set and give birth to kittens underneath Cleopatra’s bed, and they realized that they were there, because all of a sudden, these tiny, little newborn kittens screamed during a love scene between Cleopatra and Antony, so they had to pause filming. Incredible. They then had to, I think, actually dismantle the set, like to, I mean, probably dismantle the bed, because whilst they could get the mother cat out relatively easily, these kittens were so young, they were still blind and couldn’t see what on earth was going on, so they weren’t going to be coaxed out by food or anything like that, and it costs them in delays and labor and all of that kind of stuff, $17,000 just to get rid

Dr G 6:52
Wow. Okay, the fateful cats interrupting the filming. There is a really particular scene in this second half of the film where Cleopatra and Antony are having an argument of some kind, or a really intense conversation where they’re just agreeing about something, and it’s shot in so many different ways and in different costumes, almost to kind of suggest that this is an ongoing conflict that they have. But you get the feeling from the production side that this is actually because, for whatever reason, there was some complexities with shooting it, and they weren’t able to get everybody in the same place, in the same time, the same costumes. And so they were just like, we’ll just shoot it in pieces, and we’ll just piece it all together from whatever we’ve got, or it’s a mishmash to make sense of, something that was a lot bigger and more complicated, that did take place over a number of different scenes. And in the end, they were like, We don’t have time for this. We’re just gonna have to Franken scene. It into some sort of montage argument. And I was like, Wow, guys, wow.

Dr Rad 7:50
Yeah, I believe that’s when Antony comes back after having married Octavia. But yes, I agree. I would love to know if that was intended to show the passage of time, and the fact that they’re not resolving this argument quickly, or whether it was something more on the production side, I mean the fact that they were filming it in different costumes, but the same argument kind of suggests that maybe it was a deliberate choice that they did want to show the passing of time. But it’s hard to know, because, as again, we highlighted in the previous episode, but it bears mentioning here. Originally, this was meant to be two films, one called Caesar and Cleopatra, and one called Cleopatra and Antony. And what ended up happening with the production nightmare that ensued is that the people who worked on the movie were forced to combine it into one very long epic, and therefore a lot of stuff obviously got cut out, and we unfortunately don’t really know what that stuff was, because whilst at the end, I do have a statistic here for you, there was over 450,000 feet of film that was shot, which would have taken you 96 hours to watch

Dr G 9:03
Oh, my goodness. So

Dr Rad 9:06
there’s definitely some missing footage.

Dr G 9:08
I want the full release, please. The director’s cut only.

Dr Rad 9:12
That would be a hell of a Director’s Cut. Whilst there’s obviously there was extra footage that was shot. Not a lot of her has ever managed to be recovered. You know, it’s quite fashionable, particularly in like the nine particularly in like the 90s, there was a real spate of doing these restorations. Spartacus was one of those films that got restored in the 90s, but Cleopatra, there hasn’t been much footage that has showed up from those those cuts, which is a real shame, because we know that the original Director’s Cut was a lot longer than what we now have. I mean, there’s, there’s a few disputes about the exact number, but I believe that Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was actually taken off the film and was told he wasn’t allowed to do the editing, but he eventually did get rehired. This is part of the production drama going on with studio heads changing at 20th Century Fox as. Were trying to grimly cling to life and try and keep the studio afloat, and there were real disputes between the new head of Fox, which who was Darryl Zanuck, and then Mankiewicz. Zanuck seems to have kind of switched his position from blaming the fact that this movie had been poorly managed by the film company, to blaming Mankiewicz personally for a lot of the failings of this film and the fact that it went so over budget, etc. So he’d removed him, but then he did bring him back, but we know that his cut was originally a lot longer than what ended up being the cinema release, because Zanuck was a bit more ruthless, probably because you didn’t have that personal attachment to it. And then even after the release of the film, there were so many audience complaints about the film being boring and too long that it was then cut down again, which I think is the version that we now tend to watch. Wow.

Dr G 10:58
Okay, so even watching it on the gloriously restored as much as possible, Cleopatra DVD set, which I possess, which itself is a relic at this stage. Maybe I’m not seeing the full flourishing glory that appeared in the cinema. Well, it just

Dr Rad 11:12
depends. I mean, if you if you’re watching something that’s about four hours long, that’s probably the original cinematic release, but if you’re watching anything that’s under four hours, then you are probably watching a truncated version that was cut down after people complained it was too boring and too much talking.

Dr G 11:28
I hate it when people are talking all the time. No, I definitely watch the four

Dr Rad 11:32
hours. There you go. So you’re probably watching the the original cinematic release and

Dr G 11:36
just too much talking. That’s That’s my review on that exactly.

Dr Rad 11:40
Now, of course, we are focusing on the second half of this film today, and I feel like it’s appropriate that we were talking about all these production issues, because what a number of people who worked on this film have said that the person who suffered most from all the cutting that went on in the editing room was Mark Antony slash Richard Burton followed closely, you’ll be pleased to know Dr G by Roddy McDowall slash, Octavian, yeah,

Dr G 12:09
well, I mean, Cleopatra is the star of the show, and Burton ends up his Antony is often a brooding Grumpy Pants who is not very good at expressing his feelings and tends to blame Cleopatra for everything. That’s how he comes across. Yeah.

Dr Rad 12:25
Well, this is exactly it. I think that a lot of people were very disappointed with the way that he came across in the final version, and they felt it was because you were missing a lot of the other side to him. They kind of just focused on one part of the storyline. However, I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s go into who is Richard Burton? Dr, G,

Dr G 12:45
I believe he’s an English actor. Is he not?

Dr Rad 12:49
Bite your tongue. He’s a proud Welshman. Thank you very much.

Dr G 12:53
Whoops. My My apologies to all Welsh listeners out there. He is obviously an excellent Welsh actor,

Dr Rad 13:01
Richard Burton is well known to us now because he became obviously a big star. And it’s not that he was an unknown when Cleopatra was being made. And I don’t know about you, Dr, G, but I could listen to his voice all day

Dr G 13:15
long. Look, I do think he has a lovely vocal tone to him, and he does a good Shakespeare. That’s what I’ll say for

Dr Rad 13:23
him. He does. He does so. Richard Burton is an interesting person. He didn’t come from like a massively wealthy background. He was kind of a self educated man. Apparently could speak multiple languages, very well, versed in Shakespeare and poetry and all that kind of thing. He was doing fairly well for himself. And Cleopatra came along, but probably more on the stage than the screen. Most of the movies that he’d been in before Cleopatra had not been gigantic hits, so much so that when they found they needed a new person to play Antony, and his name came up the director slash writer at this point was Joe mankowitz. He was a big fan of Burton. He thought he embodied the kind of qualities that they wanted for their Antony. However, the guy who was at that time the head of Fox wasn’t interested. Okay, so this is Spyros Skouras. Ah, yes, I recall this name. Yeah, not interested. Did not think that Burton was enough of a box office draw for an epic like this. Everyone else tried to really fight hard for him, like Wanger and Mankiewicz say, look, we’ve got Elizabeth Taylor. We don’t really need any more of a box office draw than that. Let’s give him a go. And so eventually, in May of 1961 they managed to talk Skouras into hiring Burton, and in order to do that, they actually had to spend about $50,000 to get him out of a pre existing contract he had for a musical on Broadway called Camelot mm.

Dr G 14:59
Oh, he sings as well. Look,

Dr Rad 15:03
the reason why it’s so interesting that Richard Burton, I think, ends up playing Mark Antony, is that Mark Antony is represented a particular way in our source material, and that has an awful lot to do with your main man, dr, G, Octavian slash, Augustus slash the young Caesar, whatever you want to call him.

Dr G 15:22
Yes, Augustus is the ultimate winner of the civil war that we’re going to see unfold to a high degree in this part of the film. And so it is his perspective on Antony that really resonates in the subsequent source material. And boy, is Antony portrayed as the villain. And part of this is because of the nature of the rivalry that Octavian slash Augustus and Mark Antony share, which is their they’re basically competing for, who is the best man left in Rome. This is the very tail end of what historians will talk about as the late Republic, and after this civil war, we move away from the idea of the republic in really particular ways and but up until this point, it’s always been about like personal competition in the public arena between men at a political level Who has the best claim to be persuasive. And unfortunately, in this period, Mark Antony is not in Rome as much as Octavian is. So Octavian has a greater share of the listeners ears of the persuasive folk, and he also does some things which are pretty terrible in order to sully Antony’s reputation. And I’ll get into some of that as we get further into like the action of the story of this film, but suffice it to say that he comes across poorly in our ancient source material, and this is then perhaps reflected in the portrayal we see on screen as well, because we know that for this movie, as you noted in the previous episode, some ancient sources are cited as inspirational writers. They are,

Dr Rad 17:12
and one of the one of the big influences, is definitely Plutarch. And Plutarch is one of those writers who near and dear to my heart. Dr, G, because I feel like he has often inspired cinematic adaptations. I think his writing is at the heart of most popular versions of Spartacus story. Not that he writes about Spartacus personally, but he writes about Crassus, and Spartacus comes up whilst he’s doing that. And I think very much we see the moralistic way that Plutarch writes about Antony in his life, of Antony coming through a lot of the time in popular understandings of Mark Antony. And this is, I think, because of what Plutarch is doing, right? He writes biographies. Biography in the ancient world is about presenting exemplar. You want to live like this person. You don’t want to live like this person. These are the qualities we value. These are the qualities we despise. And that is very clear in the life of Mark Antony. It’s not that he is dehumanized by Plutarch and there’s probably a reason for that that I could even say is political. Let’s face it, Mark Antony’s bloodline is in that of the Julio claudians, thanks to his relationship with Octavian sister, brief though it was, but also, I don’t think anyone would want to completely trash his reputation, nor is it entirely in octavians interest to completely trash his reputation, just like they don’t want to wholly undermine Cleopatra. You want to beat a worthy opponent, and also can’t, like flat out lie about someone either. It’s like what we often talk about. There’s a lot of spin put on source material that we deal with. There are lots of gaps. People get a bit creative sometimes, but at the end of the day, it seems unlikely that our sources are trying to flat out lie a lot of the time.

Dr G 18:58
Definitely and certainly, Octavian is skirting a pretty fine line during his lifetime in terms of what he says about Antony and when he says

Dr Rad 19:07
it, yes, absolutely, but definitely, in Plutarch, we get this idea that Antony is a charismatic, convivial, well liked person who unfortunately has particular weaknesses which become more of a problem as he ages, and particularly in this period here where he’s in his rivalry with Octavian and one of those will end up being His love for women, particularly domineering women like Fulvia, who was one of his earlier wives, and, well, actually shouldn’t even say earlier wives. There’s a bit of overlap between Cleopatra and and then obviously Cleopatra as well. So we get material coming through talking about him as being kind of enslaved in. By his love for Cleopatra. I’ve even actually got a little excerpt here, which I thought kind of summed it up. So plutak says such then was the nature of Antony we’re now as a crowning evil. His love for Cleopatra’s supervened roused and drove to frenzy many of the passions that were still hidden and quiescent in him and dissipated and destroyed whatever good and saving qualities still offered resistance, and he was taken captive in this manner,

Dr G 20:31
goodness me, so we get something comparable from Appian, actually, in his civil wars, where he says Antony was amazed at Cleopatra’s wit, as well as her good looks, and became her captive as though he were a young man, although he was 40 years of age, it is said he was always very susceptible in this way, and that he had fallen in love with her at first sight, long ago when she was still a Girl, awkward grace, and he was serving as master of the horse under gabinius at Alexandria,

Dr Rad 21:06
which is referenced in this movie, by the way, it

Dr G 21:09
is. I do like this little tidbit, because the situation gets reversed. What we hear from Cleopatra in a scene when she’s with Antony is that she had noticed him when he’d been in Alexandria under gabinius. So the detail comes from Appian, but the credit in the film is given to Cleopatra, probably to smooth over the fact that it’s a bit awkward for an adult man to be crushing on a young girl to avoid that. Yeah, to avoid that

Dr Rad 21:43
exactly, and yeah. And then I’ve also got a little quote from Florus, which I thought I would go to, because you can always rely on Florus for saying things incredibly brutally. I think he kind of takes original source material and then amps up just how dramatic it is. So he explicitly says that Antony was a slave to his love for Cleopatra, the Egyptian woman demanded the Roman Empire from the drunken general as the price of her favors, and this Antonius promised her as though the Romans were more easily conquered than the Parthians. Dot, dot, dot, forgetful of his country, his name, his toga, and the emblems of his office, he soon completely degenerated into the monster, which he became in feeling, as well as in garb and dress.

Dr G 22:28
Ooh, yes. And I see that the film definitely picks up on some of this stuff. So we rarely see Mark Antony wearing things that are particularly Roman in style, and he transitions very quickly to often appearing in clothing that we would interpret on screen as being more Greek in nature, which is in keeping with the Ptolemaic rule of Egypt at this time. And well, these kinds of ideas coming through in florus, in Plutarch, in Appian, they’re all drawing upon the sorts of things that were said about Antony in the political invective of his day, Octavian is out there making those sorts of criticisms. Likewise, Cicero not a fan of Mark Antony lays in pretty hard and so we do get a lot of historically preserved criticism of Antony. And from a Roman perspective, it makes a lot of sense. This is a guy who has left Rome essentially to the land that has been divvied up to him to look after. There’s been an agreement between Octavian and Antony about which sections of the Roman Empire they’ll look after. Respectively. On a strategic level, the lion’s share has been given to Antony, but none of it includes Italy, and therein lies his problem, because he’s sitting on the outskirts. He’s supposed to be looking after a lot of territory, and I think, from Antony’s perspective, he’s trying to make the best of it. It makes sense to get Cleopatra on side. She is in charge of Egypt, which is famously known as like the grain store of Rome. You need to have Egypt on side. How do you do that? Well, you take Cleopatra as a lover,

Dr Rad 24:15
and you knock her up a few times. Just for good measure,

Dr G 24:18
those children are always going to sell the grain to Rome at a good price? Well,

Dr Rad 24:22
this is exactly it. So this is the picture we have of Antony coming through in the ancient sources. And obviously it’s partly because of exactly the issue that you highlighted during his lifetime, and then the fact that he loses the civil war with Octavian, although Octavian wouldn’t paint it as a civil war, but let’s be real. And then on top of that, Octavian slash Augustus happens to live completely unexpectedly for many, many decades after this victory, which means that he really gets to solidify his version of exactly what happened, what Antony was like, why he failed. Yeah, and it’s part of, I think, the strategy of the way that Octavian is trying to spin this particular conflict. He doesn’t want it to appear like a civil war. He wants it to be a war against Cleopatra, against Egypt, which we all know in effect, is also a war against Antony. But that’s what I think he really wants to emphasize with what he is doing. It’s really about Cleopatra, it’s her fault. She’s this foreign devil woman, witch who has enslaved Antony with her Eastern charms. And that way, it kind of softens the blow, I think, a little bit to Antony’s reputation, to paint him in this way that it’s it’s Cleopatra using her charms and exploiting his vulnerabilities and weaknesses that have led to this situation, and this, I think, is what we see coming through in the film a little bit. But also, I think it comes down to what Mankiewicz, who was the main screenwriter and the director on this movie, he was very much drawing from Shaw and Shakespeare for his vision of things. And that makes sense, because Shakespeare obviously used a lot of Plutarch as well, so that’s probably partly where it came from, but also he had a vision that Antony’s main motivation was often this perceived sense of being less than Caesar, of having a bit of a chip on his shoulder after Caesar is assassinated, that he’ll never be as good as Caesar, which is an interesting take, because I must admit, that’s something I don’t think you get in the source material.

Dr G 26:36
I think we have too much source material coming from Octavian side to see that one coming through. Yeah, particular. And I think you’ve made a good point about Augustus legacy of being able to cement his own version of the story. Because as we go through the histories, it doesn’t seem like there’s that much in it between these two. Yeah, in terms of the troops that they’re able to bring to the table in terms of who is supporting, who like, even at the height just before the Battle of Actium, where Octavian does some things that I’ll get into later, some people in Rome leave. They walk out in support of Antony because they see part of what Octavian is doing as a violation of Roman values, and they walk out in defense of Antony over it. So it’s not the case that Antony is lacking support in Rome, but it is the case that because he loses his version of events, doesn’t get to have the same traction over time, and all of this is playing into how Antony gets portrayed in this film from a Roman perspective, positioning Cleopatra as the main enemy is a huge insult to Antony. This This means his masculinity has been completely undermined. No Roman worth their salt in their patriarchal system would allow themselves to be held under the sway of a woman like this. Antony seems up for it, though, and in the same way that they criticize Fulvia for the way she behaves in a very active way, going out, doing things in support of her husband, Cleopatra is like puvia writ large on a much grander scale. This is a woman who is in charge of a whole nation. The Romans aren’t happy about that, but it does mean that Mark Antony can’t be much of a man,

Dr Rad 28:32
no. And this comes down to, as you say, that inherently Roman understanding of how power works, that in order to exercise Imperium, in order to be a politician in Rome and make decisions for others, you need to be able to show that you can control yourself and your own household. You need to prove that you have the self control, the discipline, the wisdom, all of those things that come together and Antony the way that he is painted with his tendency to be a drunkard, party a little bit too much and sleep around is seen as dangerous. It’s seen as undermining that sense of Roman morality, because it shows he has weakness, like it’s fine to have sex with whoever you want within the you know the rules of the Roman world for most people, but it has to be within those bounds. It’s about that self control. And Antony is seen as going beyond and that scene with his relationship with Fulvia, with Cleopatra, Plutarch has that famous quote which I wish I had in front of me right now, where he talks about how Fulvia broke Antony in for Cleopatra because she was such a dominating wife. I think it’s something along the lines of Fulvia wished to rule a ruler and command a commander, and that it’s thanks to Fulvia that Cleopatra. Was able to just take over because Antony was used to following a woman’s orders. That is exactly the kind of stuff where not being in control of yourself and having someone who’s not supposed to exercise power, in a Roman system, having power over you, this is all like, red flags. Red flags. Antony should not be holding power. It’s got to be Octavian guys. He’s the only logical choice

Dr G 30:21
well, but I would like to put it out there that it’s perfectly fine for a woman to be the DOM and a man to be the sub. And realistically, Romans just need to get on board with that kind of stuff. And it’s clear that they’ve got a long way to go. I’m really interested in talking about things to do with the scene where Mark Antony is kind of really early on in this part of the film, is struggling in the east, and he doesn’t want to go to Egypt. He’s resisting going to Egypt and asking Cleopatra for help. And he’s having some struggles with that, because he he thinks it’s inappropriate for him to go to her. He wants her to come to Him. And He sends His faithful companion, Rufio, to go and get Cleopatra,

Dr Rad 31:04
who, by the way, I have to say, I think, is the actual star of this movie. I love Rufio. He’s

Dr G 31:09
great Rufio. I mean, he, yeah, he’ll, he has his moments, that’s for sure. And so he does the bidding of Antony in this Cleopatra refuses. She says she isn’t going to step outside Egypt. Why would she do that? Egypt is her place. He’ll have to come to her. So they’re having a tussle of the wills, which I quite like. And then is what happens next, which I think is one surprising given what has just been said, but also fascinating. So I’m interested in your take on what is happening next with these

Dr Rad 31:38
two. Well, this is their famous meet cute, isn’t it, even though we know, because we’ve just talked about it, that they probably crossed paths when Cleopatra was very young and Mark Antony was younger, their meet cute, in the source material, is usually seen as them coming together on the barge at Tarsus. Now this makes no sense, because not only did they meet when Cleopatra was very young, potentially, but obviously, they probably hung out all the freaking time when she was ceases partner. There’s no way that when she was in Rome, for example, she and Antony weren’t bumping into each other all the time. And we see this in the movie, right? Antony is there at meetings where Cleopatra is also present and Caesar is also present, but this is the moment where their relationship

Dr G 32:26
begins. Something has changed, somebody’s dead, someone’s available, exactly. And what happens in Silesia stays in Silesia. But this is,

Dr Rad 32:36
this is actually one of those things, though, where I feel like it’s made such a big deal of in the source material, and then it becomes kind of a staple. I think, of movies that go this far into Cleopatra’s life, if they don’t stop with the death of Caesar for example, there are certain moments you just gotta have, and the meeting at Tarsus is one of those. And you see that even in painting. So even if we’re going into visual forms of telling this story before film is even invented. We see the meeting at Tarsus as being a moment that painters often go back to as well. And one of the things that also highlights the production problems with this film, because they were filming where they were in Italy, they actually had to build these boats, all of the battles and stuff. Everything you see, they’re not little miniature models that have then been made to look like real ships. These are actual ships that they had to build because they were filming in Italy.

Dr G 33:27
I love that. I hope they kept those ships, but I’m guessing they didn’t. I actually don’t

Dr Rad 33:32
know what happened to them, but I actually think that this barge scene, I feel like it actually wasn’t a particularly early shot. I feel like when I was looking at the dates, I should have written this part down, but I feel like when I was looking at the dates of when they shot what I feel like this was towards the end of the production that they shot it. And obviously it was huge deal, because it’s a big set, having like a barge, they had to have the purple sails. They do explicitly note that they had to make them out of polyester rather than silk or cotton, because they would have faded in the sun if they were made from natural fabric. So they were like, we can’t be historically accurate. Sorry, guys, we tried our best.

Dr G 34:10
It’s amazing. But I do like this idea that the way they explain it and allow Cleopatra to keep her power and dignity in this moment is that she classifies the gigantic barge that she’s brought all the way to Tarsus as Egypt. She’s like, as long as I’m on this boat, I’m Egypt. And even then Mark Antony’s like, I’m getting on that boat. And it’s like, Dude, she’s actually come so close. All you have to do is take a step. She’s making it so easy for you now, and he’s still, like, Grumpy Pants about it, and then he gets really drunk at the dinner that she holds for him. The guy is just a bit of a loser. You have to I mean, at this point, it seems like, well, we can see why he’d be into her. She’s gorgeous, but like, why would she be into him right now?

Dr Rad 34:57
And this is exactly the thing, right? This, again, comes. Down to the way that the Antony comes across in this particular movie. The guy who ends up in charge of what we now know as 20th Century Fox, who took over after the boardroom coup, which takes place towards the end of the filming of this movie, is Darryl F Zanuck. He takes the place of Skouras, and he ends up being the one to call the shots. Darryl F Zanuck had a real issue with the way that Antony was portrayed in this movie as well. He actually thought that one of the big failings of the movie was the fact that Antony came across as weak, and he hated the way that their relationship came across. I believe his famous quote is that if he ever encountered a woman who treated him the way that Cleopatra treated Antony, he cut her balls off.

Dr G 35:49
Okay? So this is somebody from the the Roman mold who also needs to learn that it is okay for a lady to be in charge.

Dr Rad 35:57
Yeah, look. Darryl F Zanuck is someone who contributes a lot to cinema. He was a great filmmaker, but he was certainly a man of his time. It’s pretty well documented. I believe that he made extensive use of the casting couch system. I believe from four to five every day he would interview, and I’m using my flesh rabbits here, new acquisitions when he was in charge of CEO. So he’s a very man’s man of this time, which we would now look at and say, bit of a sexist pig, I would imagine.

Dr G 36:32
Yeah, sounds like it a sex pest, and probably somebody who’s sexually assaulting people, by the sounds of it,

Dr Rad 36:38
great. Yeah. Certainly, definitely sexually exploiting people at the very least. But yeah, he is a typical man in position of power at this point in time, I think. But he is a great filmmaker. People marvel at the way that he was actually able to pinpoint issues when looking at films. So there’s something to be said, I suppose, for his particular interpretation of the second half of the film as being the particular problem, and Mankiewicz and the people who defend him would say, Well, that’s because you cut out so much and it was meant to be two movies. Thank you very much. But we don’t really know, obviously, because we don’t see, we don’t see exactly what they were seeing. We don’t have all the footage. But I think this is where we need to acknowledge Dr G, the thing that makes this movie particularly famous, which of course, is the real life affair that develops between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. And this is where, this is the favorite part of always talking about this movie, because you can’t make this stuff up. It is so bizarre how much Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton seem to kind of embody the people that they are playing. Because, of course, Richard Burton is known as a fantastic acting talent, particularly as you noted with his Shakespearean abilities, definitely acknowledges a man with prodigious acting talent. Unfortunately, it was somewhat undermined by his drinking. He was a terrible alcoholic, and it came, it’s seems, from a defensiveness and an insecurity within him, perhaps feeling uncomfortable about the idea of kind of selling out and, you know, going to Hollywood, and this is the movie that made him a big star. It’s not just because he was playing Mark Antony in this movie. It’s because of the affair that developed between him and Elizabeth Taylor whilst this movie was filming, he went from being somewhat known to being a household name. His salary, I think it’s probably was times by about 50, like it was insane, he could command like $500,000 a picture after this. Can’t really emphasize just how much this particular affair boosted him, and yet, at the same time, kind of was his undoing in that it set his career on a particular path that it seems he wasn’t entirely comfortable with and accepting of within himself. And I’m not sure that Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton were the best couple for each other. It’s not that they didn’t have a fiery, passionate romance. They obviously loved each other very much, but it seems to have been in a somewhat destructive mode, and you can kind of see that obviously, in one of their most famous films together once they were actually an established couple Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, if you’ve never seen that, it’s a masterpiece, but again, almost because it seems like they’re channeling a little bit how they actually were at certain points in their relationship. But I digress. Let’s get into this. Dr G so Elizabeth Taylor, at the time of Cleopatra filming in 1962 is about 30 years old. Richard Burton is about 36 when they pulled Richard Burton out of his contract again, this is speaking to the production issues. He actually didn’t have a lot to do most of the time. They didn’t budget their time very well because it was constant changes in shooting, etc, etc. So he was often just cooling his heels for a few months without much to do, because of the fact that the scheduling was all over. Place, and I, once again, must say that the biggest issue with this film, it does come down to the studio. Just like with Spartacus, you should never start filming a big budget picture if you don’t have a complete script. And that’s what it comes down to all the time. It makes it very interesting for people like me, who love to see how how history gets thrown together, but it means that the history a lot of time is actually, quite frankly, completely chaotic and random, because it’s purely born of a lack of time.

Dr G 40:30
Yeah, you just got to get through it as best you can. Throw it in there, do something. I’m not sure this is the sort of thing that would ever fly today in terms of making a film if you didn’t have a robust

Dr Rad 40:41
script, if you

Dr G 40:46
hadn’t planned it all out correctly in terms of your storyboarding and things like that, there’s no way you’d get to a point where you’d get funded. So the idea that studios are just sort of kind of like we’ve got an idea and we’ve got half a script. Let’s start is, I feel like this is very mid 20th century approaches to filming.

Dr Rad 41:06
Well, look, I disagree. Actually. I think that kind of stuff does still happen. I think it just depends how it comes together. If you’ve got, like, a big name, big director and an idea that seems to work. Sometimes, I think these things can still happen. But part of the reason why it happens, obviously, with this production, is that they they need to get filming because the studio is hemorrhaging money, and it’s such an expensive shoot. I mean, the sums are a little bit different depending on what point in the production you’re talking about. But even if they don’t film anything, it’s costing like $65,000 in like 1960s money, just to keep the production itself going. So it’s a huge amount of money. Elizabeth Taylor alone is getting $3,000 a week in expenses. So just the amount of money that this kind of film is hemorrhaging. And so they’re pushing to just get started with the actual filming. And it just, it’s just such a bad idea. Everyone tries to point it out to them. Mankiewicz is like, look, what if we just had a finished script, and then I know exactly where I was going. And it means this is why we have so much footage, because Mankiewicz is writing after he’s finished filming for the day and on weekends for a lot of this production, which means that you’re not getting his best work. You’re getting what he’s pumping out while popped up on drugs and then coming down from things, and whilst he’s exhausted and tired, and his method, because of what the pressure the studio is putting on them to film is to film everything and then cut it out later, which is so expensive to do, it’s not at all cost effective, and it means that they’re probably creating sets and costumes and stuff that were unnecessary because they end up on the cutting room floor. But nonetheless, I’m digressing once again. Let’s talk about Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, so much like Cleopatra and Antony, they had met before. They were not strangers to each other. Yes, they hadn’t exactly hit it off. They didn’t hate each other, but wasn’t really much chemistry when they met the first time, and they didn’t know each other super well. However, on January 22 1962 the first scene was shot that involved both Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and it was apparently the scene where all Caesar’s friends who were Senators in Rome are meeting at Cleopatra’s Villa while she’s hanging out, and they’re all milling around and discussing things. Now, if we are to believe what was written later, everyone sensed electricity between Taylor and Burton immediately. However, you know, they’re good looking. People could be nothing. But it’s on January 26 1962 that Walter Wanger in his diaries, his published diaries, records that Joseph Mankiewicz, Director, such screenwriter, called him in to tell him that he’s pretty sure there’s an affair going on between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, because he’s quite friendly with them, and he doesn’t really want to keep it a secret that there is something going on to backtrack a little bit to what we talked about last episode. Keep in mind that Elizabeth Taylor already had just copped a lot of flack for breaking up somebody else’s marriage with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher, and she’s only just recently married. Eddie Fisher herself, Richard Burton is in a slightly different boat in that he has been married to one person for a little bit of time and has children with that person, Sybil, his wife. Now, Richard Burton had a reputation, and this is where, again, kind of weird. So not only is he a bit boozy, like Mark Antony supposedly was, Although

Dr G 44:40
who knows who better to cast in the role,

Dr Rad 44:44
but like Mark Antony, supposedly was Richard Burton, was a womanizer. He kind of prided himself, I think, on betting every leading lady he acted across. And his wife kind of knew about that, but always looked. Other way, I guess, and saw it as just something to tolerate, and that it wasn’t anything serious, and that their relationship was solid, because he was that classic case of, oh, he always comes home after playing around, you know, he’ll always come home to his wife. He’ll never leave her, Oh,

Dr G 45:16
the 20th century, just, I’m unhappy already. This is going badly. First, you’re telling me about this film, guy. Now you’re telling me about Burton boo, yes. I don’t know

Dr Rad 45:29
if this makes it any better or worse, but I know that Darryl senek wasn’t the only one doing that.

Dr G 45:35
That does not make it okay.

Dr Rad 45:36
Yeah. Anyway, so very quickly, rumors get out. And this is, again, partly to do with not just the magnitude of this production. I mean, it’s taking up so much space and everything in China, you know, Rome, but it’s also the fact that this is Elizabeth Taylor we’re talking about. She’s just kind of got a bit more sympathy back after all her health problems and the fact that she almost died, and she was everyone kind of acknowledges that she won an Oscar for Butterfield eight, kind of because they were like, Oh, you almost died. We forgive you. Have an Oscar, not really because it was her best role, or anything like that, but she’s just getting that sympathy back. Nonetheless, she’s glamorous. People are interested, and the paparazzi are a feature of life in Rome at this time, like really intrusive press photographers. We are familiar with that in our world, but it actually wasn’t something that you would necessarily encounter everywhere. And it’s not that there isn’t like a media industry surrounding the film industry in America. Obviously there is, but this is, I think, much more chaotic, much less control. They’re much more intrusive. There are all sorts of things that they try in order to get the inside wear on the production. It seems that people who are working for Elizabeth Taylor and Eddie Fisher in their home are probably on the payroll of the paparazzi. We’re talking about a film production which has 1000s of people employed as laborers and extras and that sort of thing. So it’s super easy to get people involved somehow, if you promise them a bit of cash and they can get you some inside photos. One of the more notorious incidents, which was documented by the producer Walter Wanger, was that they found out that there was a woman who had been hired to work in the publicity department who was wearing a very big bouffant 1960s style on her head as like her hairdo, and it’s because she was actually hiding a camera in there. What amazing. There was even an incident when two priests presented themselves asking for donations at the Burton residence. And luckily, the housekeeper was like, Who exactly did you say you were collecting for? It turns out these guys were paparazzi just trying to get inside the Burton household and get a bit of a scoop, because by February, the rumors are everywhere about a love affair between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and what this potentially means.

Dr G 47:53
Wow. The timeline is very short. It seems to

Dr Rad 47:57
it seems to develop remarkably quickly,

Dr G 48:02
they see each other, and they’re like, You know what? Let’s do it.

Dr Rad 48:05
It’s all, yes. Richard Burton’s not exactly discreet about it. Chris Mankiewicz, who was the son of Joe Mankiewicz, and was working on the film as a younger man, reported that Richard Burton walked into his makeup trailer one day and announced that he had screwed Miss Taylor the night before. So

Dr G 48:21
you know, well, that man’s not keeping secrets, is

Dr Rad 48:25
he? No, no, not exactly. Now you might imagine that the studio would be thrilled about this, right? Because any publicity is good. Publicity. Sex sells.

Dr G 48:33
It adds to the drama. That’s like, what? What are they going to be like on screen together? I’ve heard that they’re doing it. It’s like now I need to see it for myself. There is

Dr Rad 48:43
some awareness of this. There’s a very famous quote from one of the publicists on the film saying Everyone’s going to want to see this film, to try and see on screen what they know is happening off screen. But there is actually also a lot of fear about a romance like this, between two people who are married to other people, and they actually referred to it at one point as a cancer that will destroy us all. Oh, yeah. And this is this kind of highlights the hypocrisy, which actually Walter Wanger was somewhat aware of and sort of wrote about, even though this is the early 1960s we’re talking about the swinging 60s attitude has not fully kicked in, we’ve still got some real 1950s hangovers for a public affair like this between two married people. You know, adultery writ large, this is not okay, and it’s particularly not okay on Elizabeth Taylor’s part, obviously it makes her seem very much like the Octavian version of Cleopatra.

Dr G 49:40
Ah, yes, all right, well, so Octavia does portray Cleopatra very poorly in his dealings, and obviously it’s to his benefit to do so, because he needs to manufacture consent for his war against Egypt, slash Antony. And one of the great ways to do that is. Is through denigrating Cleopatra. And I think this leads really nicely to the issue that crops up in 32 BCE, which is jumping ahead in terms of the action of the film, but is very illustrative of what Octavian is up to, because we do get this scene where he reveals the contents of Mark Antony’s will in Rome. And it is this that is seen as the impetus that turns any doubters that are left in the city to Octavian side, because the contents of that will is explosive Mark Antony is giving everything to Cleopatra and his children with her, and basically setting up for himself to be buried in Egypt as well. Now was that will? A real will? So these are all sorts of problems that historians have because apparently Mark Antony had deposited HIS WILL with the Vestal virgins. This is where I become interested in this.

Dr Rad 51:09
This is where you’re in our interests collide. Yes,

Dr G 51:13
all of a sudden, you’ve mentioned my favorite people, Vestal virgins. So one of the roles that the Vestal virgins had during the late Republic is to hold important documents. They were seen as a bit of a repository, a safety deposit box, if you like, of Rome, which makes sense, because, you know, lock it in that safe one of the things that the Vestal Virgins hold on to and keep inside the temple are the signals of imperial power, so they represent the safety of the state. So the idea is, if you put a document with the Vestals, it’ll be as safe as it possibly could be. Oh Antony, you could not be more. That is not how it works. Octavian manages to demand that the vessels release the will to him to the point where they can no longer resist his demands for it. He then also seems to have managed to persuade the two individuals who had placed their witnessing seals on Mark Antony’s will to change sides. And there’s a whole bunch of illegality with this, because the role of those two as witnesses to the will itself is to verify it when it’s opened upon the death of the person whose will it is. And Mark Antony is not dead in 32 BCE when that will is opened, but they do, nevertheless stand up and publicly verify that those are their seals, and they endorse the contents that are about to be revealed. All of this is part of a bigger play by Octavian to produce the required emotional response. So there’s good reason to question whether this will is real, but we don’t know, and we’ll likely never know, and we’ll likely never know, and the film navigates this as well, because it is part of octavians limited screen time to reveal these details to the Romans in a way that allows them to be like, yes, we need to go into battle. We will turn up to Actium. Let’s do the business.

Dr Rad 53:23
I think this is very interesting, because it the fact that they chose to include that part, I think, is trying to, once again, show how subservient Antony has become to his Cleopatra. And I would have liked to almost have seen some more of these difficult scenes be tackled, but it would have been hard, because one of the things that they don’t do in this movie is they don’t show the fact that Cleopatra and Antony also have children with each other. It’s just Caesarion. It’s Caearion, and that’s it. Cleopatra’s a one and done kind of mum in this particular story, which means you don’t get to see the donations of Alexandria. You get this reference to the idea that Antony is tossing the empire in Cleopatra’s no doubt very well deserving lap, as Octavian says, but you don’t get to see the full moment of the donations of Alexandria. And that’s always an episode in the Antony and Cleopatra story that I find particularly intriguing. We I think we only get it in Plutarch’s account, but we get this description of Antony staging this very elaborate pageant where he’s all dressed up. Cleopatra’s all dressed up. Their children are all dressed up. Caesarion’s there as well. They are given these crazy titles. And he divvies up all this land between them, some of which is definitely not his to give away. It’s obviously just a title thing. And some of their children are like toddlers. They’re like, four years old, so the idea that they were going to command it anyway is weird. And he definitely, I think, highlights in this. The donations of Alexandria, that Caesarian is Caesar’s actual son. I think it’s the first time he sort of comes out publicly says it that Caesarian is definitely Caesar’s son, and that he’s kind of his rightful heir. Is, I think, the implication of that. So this would seem to be, I think, almost a moment where Antony is perhaps trying to do his own version of like a propaganda war against Octavian but the way that it’s been documented in our surviving material, I think again, is trying to show that Antony isn’t thinking

Dr G 55:29
straight. Well, how could he be he’s under the sway of that woman?

Dr Rad 55:33
Yes, exactly. And the funny thing is, I had not actually realized how quickly Taylor and Burton’s romance also exploded. I mean, I knew it happened during filming, but the pace of it is really crazy. So essentially, they start filming together in January. They start sleeping together. It would seem by the end of January, February, everyone kind of knows about it and wants to know more about it, but they’re trying to minimize word getting out. Deny. Deny. Deny is the attitude and the studio obviously have a love hate relationship with this particular affair. Because on one hand, it’s getting a lot of attention for the film, which they need, because they need this expensive film to work, but it’s also a negative thing because of the moral judgments involved. And it’s in April that we start to get Taylor and Burton sort of giving up, kind of shrugging their shoulders and deciding that they’re going to give the paparazzi what they want, which is photos of the two of them together. Nothing overly sexual, but definitely out and about, like a couple, you know, holding hands well dressed and that kind of thing. And after they do that, and seemingly, kind of give the paparazzi this information, we get a very big denunciation of Elizabeth Taylor by the Vatican in April of 1962

Dr G 56:57
Oh, well, there’s a shock. I’m more thinking about Sybil and Eddie, the respective spouses of the two, maybe calling each other up and being like, What the hell is going on?

Dr Rad 57:11
Yeah. Well, there’s this very public denunciation of Elizabeth Taylor by the Vatican. There’s also a very nasty open letter, which is published in a Vatican newspaper, not by the Vatican themselves, but by a reader. And obviously, it’s one of their newspapers. I’ll read you some of the famous quotes from this letter. So they basically rip into her for having short and frequent marriages, they say, even considering the one that was finished by a natural solution, as in the marriage that resulted in her husband’s death in a plane crash. There remain three husbands buried with no other motive than a greater love killed the one before. And they go on to say, essentially, think of the children. Elizabeth Taylor, for God’s sakes, think of the children. These children need an honored name, more than a famous name, a serious mother, more than a beautiful mother, a stable father, rather than a newcomer who can be dismissed at any time. Wow.

Dr G 58:06
Okay, well, I hope somebody’s written an equally shocking letter about Burton and his ridiculous antics, because that would make it fair.

Dr Rad 58:16
They did not. And the US papers obviously pick up on this, and it gets published all over the United States as well. So Elizabeth Taylor and Burton are told to sort of lay low, but they end up sneaking off without telling anybody, and going on a little weekend away this gets reported on, and I think it’s around this time, in sort of late April, that the news of the affair spreads from just sort of tabloid, trashy, kind of newspapers into more serious newspapers, like the Sunday Times. And this is when Sybil Burton starts paying attention, because she’s learned to look the other way. And even though her house is surrounded by reporters and her children are being followed, she’s actually just ignoring it as she always has, apparently, and not giving in to the emotions of the situation. But when she sees it being reported in what she views as a serious newspaper, this is when she starts to get upset and think, oh my god, maybe this isn’t just, you know, an onset affair like all the others.

Dr G 59:21
Wow. Sybil, I’m so sorry.

Dr Rad 59:23
I know it’s, it’s really horrible. And there’s, look, there’s all sorts of things which obviously got misreported. Like there are stories about Elizabeth Taylor having, like, a suicide attempt, which everyone is fairly certain was just food poisoning that got misreported. So there is a certain amount of misreporting going on here. Richard Burton ended up dubbing it les gandal, but it is Elizabeth Taylor that cops most of the negativity, because most Italians, obviously Catholics at this point in time. So a lot of them, if she’s out in the street, abuse her as like a whore and a home wrecker, whereas Richard Burton doesn’t cop that kind of abuse, which. Again, is a little bit like it was in ancient Rome. I was

Dr G 1:00:02
gonna say this was a real mirror to the way Ancient Rome treated these sorts of things as well, because it’s definitely Cleopatra who is receiving the brunt of the criticism and throwing Mark Antony under the bus is just part of the cherry on top, as it were,

Dr Rad 1:00:21
absolutely So, whilst there was definitely a lot of fear about this affair, it seems that after about four or five months, everyone realized that, okay, this is not just an affair. This is becoming a relationship. And we start to, I think, see that the other marriages with Eddie Fisher and Sybil Burton are over essentially, and Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton are kind of making a go of it for real. Now this is important in terms of how people receive the history, okay, particularly if you’re watching it in the aftermath. By the time I was watching this as a teenager, obviously Richard Burton was dead, I think Elizabeth Taylor wasn’t far off. And so I was well aware that they do end up being together, that they do end up getting married. You know, a couple of years later, they even liked each other so much that, after they got divorced in 1974 they got married again not long after that, and then they got divorced again. So I was kind of aware about how their story played out, but I know that for a while it was pretty real, and they made some very interesting movies together as a partnership, and that even after their divorce, they were still, I think, passionately in love with each other. They just couldn’t be together. So I kind of wonder if that colored perhaps the way that I viewed it as opposed to how someone viewed it at the time. Because I think with all the gigantic amount of press that was around it, I mean, the reports about it are insane in terms of, it was the only story that anybody wanted. You know, people were paying insane amounts to get pictures of them together, particularly like candid shots, not just photos of them doing what they were supposed to be doing on set. It was the biggest story of the time. In fact, basically the hottest ticket for like, a visiting important person, you know, even if they were nothing to do with the film industry, was a visit to the set of Cleopatra, because it was just all anybody cared about. I kind of feel like maybe one of the reasons why people seem to have been kind of underwhelmed by this film at the time is because there was so much hype about the Taylor Burton Cleopatra, Antony romance, whereas when I looked at it, I hadn’t had to live through that hype, and so I wasn’t as underwhelmed when I sort of see their their relationship play out on screen. I don’t know how did you feel when you were watching them together? Dr, G, my,

Dr G 1:02:36
I think I’m in a similar position as yourself, because we’re of the same generation. So I obviously knew about how it turns out in the end for Elizabeth Taylor and Burton. And I think if I’m putting myself in the shoes of somebody who was watching in the cinema in 1963 like what would have that been like, and I would have been looking for the passion on screen between these two, and we certainly get a sense that there is something between them. Definitely, the relationship between Cleopatra and Antony on screen in this film is quite different and far more passionate than the relationship between Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, yep. But we also have the nature of the way that Cleopatra has really attached herself to Julius Caesar over the course of her early political career. And so I think about scenes like on the barge where Mark Antony notices Cleopatra’s necklace, which is made of coins that have the face of Julius Caesar on them, which I kind of love as an artifact. And I was like, you know, would she have done something like that? That’s kind of amazing, but I feel like that’s quite dramatic, and him ripping that necklace off, because for him as Mark Antony, this is a moment of jealousy, and it’s like, that man is dead. He’s dead and gone, and you need to get over him, and I’m right here in front of you, flesh and blood, you know, as in charge of rumors possibly can be and what are you doing? And this idea then quickly transitions to Cleopatra’s revelation that she actually did find him quite attractive and fell in love with him from afar when she was a young girl.

Dr Rad 1:04:23
She kept that secret the whole time she was with Caesar, didn’t she? Don’t

Dr G 1:04:27
mention, don’t mention my crush on Mark Antony. I was just a girl. He was pretty hot. And luckily, Richard Burton’s a pretty good looking guy, I would say, for his time period, and he holds up on screen quite well, but is nothing like what we know Mark Antony looked like from the from the ancient sources. But obviously Cleopatra is in the same sort of situation, because she has come through over time and has been received as an incredible beauty when all of the source material. Real does try to draw attention to the fact she’s actually intelligent, and the visualizations we have for her, she seems like, you know, a woman. It’s not like the bust of Nefertiti or something, where you’re like, that woman is an incredible beauty. Yeah, it is like Cleopatra, the bus that we have of her, and the coinage that we have for her suggests that she’s in charge, and she’s a woman, and she looks like a chick. Yeah, cool. You know, she may have been quite beautiful in real life, and she may have presented and come across in terms of her character, is quite charismatic, but we don’t get the sense that, like she’s like supermodel, or anything like that, which is kind of how the reception has moved over time, particularly in the west. So Elizabeth Taylor is kind of like the exceptional 20th century height of that and subsequent actresses who have played Cleopatra sort of fit into that Hollywood mold as well. And it’s like it’s got to be somebody who’s exceptionally good looking, because surely, that’s the only way to be in charge of a whole country as a lady. You don’t hire Angela Merkel to play Cleopatra, although maybe you could somebody with some political savvy. But no, forget about that. So we get these kinds of ideas coming through, I think, where we want to see the passion on screen, and we do see it come through in various ways. I mentioned that argument that has been sliced and diced in different ways, and it looks like it’s either a deliberate montage or production disaster, I don’t know, but we see those arguments happening between them, and we get the sense that there is a fieriness between these characters, which we also simultaneously suspect is the firiness that is between these two people. It doesn’t seem like there’s a huge line between the acting and who they are. And maybe that’s part of the appeal of this movie is that we feel like, in some ways, that when we’re watching it, we’re not watching Cleopatra and Mark Antony. We’re actually watching the blossoming and complexing of the relationship between Taylor and Burton that runs through the whole thing, and he gets more and more angry as the film goes on. So when we get to Actium, and it is all going so wrong, Mark Antony spirals, and I feel like watching it from the vantage point of a millennial, that what I’m seeing is the way that Burton is probably going to spiral over the course of his

Dr Rad 1:07:20
marriage. What’s so weird about it, right? Because it’s exactly that, when you look at it at a superficial level, Burton’s, you know, this party boy and drinker and womanizer, but with talent, which seems to sum up the version of Antony Cleopatra is a sexy, intelligent politician, which is kind of the version that we get with a lot of extravagance, obviously, because she’s insanely wealthy and she’s extremely powerful, in the style of a Hellenistic monarch, which is judged, I think, by the Roman sources. But it’s actually just how it was in her part of the world, which is a little bit like Elizabeth Taylor, who was insanely wealthy and made a fortune off of Cleopatra, not just because of the way that her contract stipulated her salary, which was, as you know, like the first time a woman got paid a million dollars to play a role, but also the nature of the ongoing financial support that she had, and the fact that the production stretched well beyond what they are anticipating. And then the Todd AO staff, her production company, being involved. And then she also actually had a clause in her contract that she kept making money on any subsequent releases, so like videos, DVDs, that kind of stuff. So Elizabeth Taylor walked away from Cleopatra a very wealthy woman. It was not a financial flop, as far as she was concerned, even though it might not have been the greatest thing for the studio ever. But then their relationship becomes one where it seems that they do it’s partying, it’s excess, it’s booze, it’s passion, which kind of seems to be a bit like the version of Antony and Cleopatra that, again, we get in what I can only assume is somewhat Augustan propaganda. You know, that idea that they had, that society of the inimitable livers, they get dressed up like slave girls and low class people and go out on the town and get into all sorts of mischief. They have crazy, extravagant feast. It’s obviously propaganda, but for Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, it’s kind of true. I mean, there’s even a famous jewel that he gives her to add to her incredible collection that is called the Cartier Burton diamond. And we do see Burton kind of descend into alcoholism, his talent not fully realized because of this. Now, I would never say that it’s because of Elizabeth Taylor that that happened, but it does seem that Cleopatra is a moment which sets his career and life on a particular trajectory, as I said before, which means that he loses the stability that he had, I guess, with his relationship with Sybil and his children and his family life. And again, we kind of get the sense that Antony loses the stability that he had with. Full veer and Octavia by turning away from his Roman wives for his Cleopatra. So it is kind of an interesting parallel. But I think that is also because of the propaganda surrounding both of these stories. Cleopatra and Antony suffer from the propaganda wars Taylor and Burton. I mean, their relationship was under a microscope from the get go. I therefore feel that that’s perhaps why people were a bit underwhelmed, and also the fact that there’s a very distinct difference in the tones between the first part of the movie with Caesar and then the second part of the movie with Antony. And I think that’s because they were meant to be separated. You see Cleopatra much more on the style of a lover in the second part, whereas in the first part, she’s much more the politician

Dr G 1:10:43
well, but we also see a dichotomy set up for her in terms of how men respond to her as a powerful individual. So if we take the Battle of Actium as an example of this, she’s on the main general ship, which makes sense. You’re not going to put her in one of the war vessels. She’s back where the strategy is happening. But Antony is out and about. For some reason, he’s decided to lead from the front, which is an odd choice, but the fact that she stayed behind, and she’s involved in the decision making, and when she learns the details that it’s unlikely that Antony has survived, she’s like, Okay, it’s time to skip out of here. Let’s go so she’s decisive. She’s the decision maker. It doesn’t go well for her on the day, but she can see the pragmatism of having to get back to her homeland, skip out of there, do the business. Mark ante cannot handle the fact that Cleopatra is a pragmatic leader. This is when he starts to spiral. This is the beginning of the end for him. He can’t believe that she’s left when, for all money, she thinks he must be dead, and it makes sense for her to go. He can’t handle it, and he never really comes back from that. Everything about him in this movie and in this portrayal of Antony is now a downward spiral towards the end, and he gets a bit of an epic ending. He has this scene, which I can’t verify in historical sources, but I kind of enjoy it anyway, where he decides that when he hears that Octavian is coming. He’s like, All right, we’ve got to set up. We’ve got to meet them. Sets up a camp. Everybody abandons him. He

Speaker 1 1:12:27
wakes up the next morning. Everyone’s got to know it’s so sad.

Dr G 1:12:31
His camp is empty. And I was like, buddy, you have lost everybody. He decides desperately to do a one person charge against the Roman forces anyway, doesn’t go well, and has to retreat and then, and then we’re just like, you know, a step or two away from the noble suicide. So for Mark Antony, seeing Cleopatra in action as a war leader, as a pragmatic person, it’s not something that he can handle. Whereas I feel like if the situation had been different, and let’s say that Cleopatra was on the same ship, and it was Julius Caesar out there one, Julius Caesar would not have decided to go out and lead from the front, I don’t think, because he’s not that kind of guy, no, but he also wouldn’t have blamed Cleopatra if she had left, if she thought he was dead, because he’s a bit more pragmatic in the same way that she is. So there’s something fantastical about Antony’s desire for how Cleopatra should be, and what he thinks leadership might entail when he’s also in it, which I think is really fascinating. I think they’ve given a nuance to his character, or at least the performance that Burton has brought to that has really emphasized that there is a delicate weakness to Antony in all of this, which is ultimately connected to Cleopatra, but the weakness comes from

Dr Rad 1:13:57
Him. And this is, I suppose, maybe what we can sort of start to wrap up on this movie often cops a lot of flack for destroying the studio system, for almost bringing down 20th Century Fox, which did actually eventually recoup its money from Cleopatra, but only once the rights, I think, were sold to television and DVD releases and that sort of thing. So it took a long time for them to actually make money on this movie. But I kind of see that as being their fault, quite frankly. As Joe Mankiewicz said, Cleopatra was first conceived in emergency, shot in hysteria and wound up in blind panic. And the Studio does make a lot of decisions which are super questionable and cause a lot of these expenses, on top of the fact that life happens and the accidents make it even more expensive on top of that. And so I don’t like it too when people talk too negatively about this film, because I still feel like it actually is a really good movie. I do see its flaws. I do see its weaknesses, which I see again, as being the result of the hurried way that it was all put. Together. But I think Elizabeth Taylor also cops a lot of flack for this film, because she is seen as, like Cleopatra, a metaphor for Hollywood itself, of its waste, its extravagance, its greed, its lack of morality, all of that kind of stuff, which I actually don’t think is entirely fair. I think a bit like Cleopatra was the victim of propaganda from Octavian Elizabeth Taylor has come to be the face of this film and what it represents. And she’s criticized a lot because she did actually walk away with quite a tidy little sum from this movie. But I don’t think that’s exactly fair. I think that she’s an actress. This is a business. She actually made a really shrewd deal, which the studio entirely signed up for. Therefore, why shouldn’t she make the money that’s in her contract? And she herself also, I think, was really passionate about this film. She actually refused to attend a lot of the American premieres, in solidarity with the fact that this was not the film that she and Joe manquitz want, and, you know, Walter Wang and all these other people wanted it to be. She felt it didn’t live up to the vision that they had, that it was meant to be a film about a really intelligent woman with a with a vision, and that that was lost with all the editing drama that went on. And there is a lot of parallel, I have to say, between the making of Cleopatra and Spartacus. They both are films that a lot of their weaknesses come from the fact that script was not locked down before they started filming. And then on top of that, there were movements in the studios that were controlling those movies in terms of the executives that were in charge. Those executives have different visions and different reactions to the film, and so there was movement at the sort of executive level which then impacted the way that the film was edited, and that editing then has an impact on how it all came together, because with Joe Mankiewicz only being able to do a certain amount of the editing, and Darryl Zanuck kind of also making executive cuts. It’s just not what they had planned. And then I think by the time it came out, that it was maybe a bit out of sync with the world as it was then. But when you think about when the movie started to be produced, that was 1958 that’s when the idea germinated. They started filming in 1960 by the time it comes out, sure it’s 1963 and attitudes are changing. The world is changing.

Dr G 1:17:28
It’s a long period. It’s a long gestation process for a film to go through as well, and for have so many different voices disunified in their idea about what it should be to try and bring it together. It

Dr Rad 1:17:41
suffered from a lot of bad blood, I think, because not only were critics very harsh, and I feel like they were very harsh, partly because of the big build up towards it. I mean, a critic in Newsweek actually said all that remains are the high points at six hours. Cleopatra might have been a movie at four hours, it is the longest coming attraction for something that will never come and I actually think that that’s probably a bit of a fair point. But again, I don’t think the creatives are necessarily the people to blame here in this particular story. But also, it also does not kill the production of epics. There are epics that come after this, and we still make epics to this day. I mean, I think you can look at obviously, like things like the Marvel and Star Wars and all of that kind of stuff, Avatars, your Titanics. Epics can still be really big box office business. The problem is, when they fail, they just become

Dr G 1:18:36
spectacle. Yeah, look, I’d love to see some of the cutting room floor footage from this film. And as you say, not a lot of it has come out. It would be really interesting to see what the best version of this film could have looked like. And I think we’ll probably always be dissatisfied

Dr Rad 1:18:55
in that regard. Again, very like Spartacus, there were things that were added in, you know, once Zanuck was in charge, like filming of battle scenes like fasalia and Philippi, which were filmed and added in. And they were meant to be extra scenes, I think, with Richard Burton, but they never happened, because he was on another project by the time that they got around to doing it, or something along those lines. So like with Spartacus, the vision is muddled, because the production was muddled, and so we don’t perhaps get the Cleopatra that we want. We don’t perhaps get the Antony entirely that we want. Caesar probably is the one that gets the most credit. Rex Harrison was actually nominated for a Best Supporting Actor for his role as Julius Caesar, and he would go on, like, a year later to win Best Actor. Sorry, actually, was it best actor? I think it was Best Actor for playing Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. Well, there you go. The interesting thing which kind of sums up, I suppose, the way that this film was, was sort of envisioned when they were promoting this film. The original posters that they started putting out were, oh. Of Elizabeth Taylor, very slinky, reclining on a couch and behind her like a creep Antony, kind of over the top of her, and Rex Harrison was nowhere to be seen. It was only because he kicked up a stink that you have Caesar added in as a character, which is crazy, because he’s the one that most people actually enjoyed his performance, period,

Dr G 1:20:19
yeah. Well, what a complicated and interesting representation of Rome and Egypt on film. Yeah, and I’m so glad that we’ve spent this time talking about it and delving into the details and look justice for Octavian because they give him a scene where he doesn’t participate in the Battle of Actium and makes it very clear that he’s been sitting on the sidelines. I

Dr Rad 1:20:44
will acknowledge it is definitely said that Richard Burton suffered the most because apparently his performance as Antony was magnificent, and people think a lot of his best scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. But they also highlight that Roddy McDowall, who was brought on to the film to play Octavian because he was a friend of Elizabeth Taylor’s, also suffered a lot. He also had a lot more material, and instead, he becomes this very drab little character, although I do enjoy his scenes, but he certainly comes across as well, let’s say a version of Augustus that would appeal to me.

Dr G 1:21:16
Look, I think he comes across really well. There’s this smarminess to his performance I really appreciate, and I feel like he’s giving it his best shot based on, like, what the source

Dr Rad 1:21:26
material? He’s a schema, for sure, but, yeah, it’s, it’s certainly not a version of Augustus, I think that many people would recognize, which is interesting, all right. Dr, G, well, I think we talked for almost as long as the original cut of Cleopatra.

Dr G 1:21:43
It seems fair. It seems to do it honor and service. Yeah, absolutely.

Dr Rad 1:21:56
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Partial Historians. You can find our sources, sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina Joy De Guzman. The Partial Historians is part of the Memory Collective creators and educators dedicated to sharing knowledge that is accessible, contextualized, socially conscious and inclusive. To find more from the Memory Collective head to collectivemem.com today, we would like to send our gratitude to all of our Patreons who make special episodes like this one possible. If you would also like early and ad free episodes, please consider joining our partial band. Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Cleopatra (1963) – Cleopatra and Antony appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

Cleopatra was released in 1963 and has gone on to herald the end of the golden age of the historical epic in Hollywood. Known as one of the most expensive films to ever be made, its troubled production and the on screen connection between Taylor and Burton have both cemented its place in cinematic history.

We have a look at some of the issues that led to production delays and there were a lot! From tricky weather conditions, Taylor’s health troubles, to issues with the script, there wasn’t an issue that this film didn’t face in the journey to release. Dr Rad delves into the details of the factors that influenced the production including:

The historical pedigree of Cleopatra is based on a few different sources including credit given to Plutarch, Appian, and Suetonius! The impetus for the film was also based on the book published in 1957, The Life and Times of Cleopatra by Carlo Maria Franzero. There’s a depth of references throughout the film that have support in the ancient sources. Dr G considers:

Keen to delve more into Cleopatra? Check out our conversation with Yentl Love about the reception of Cleopatra over time.

Our music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman.

Lightly edited for our wonderful Australian accents 🙂

Dr Rad 0:15
Welcome to the Partial Historians.

Dr G 0:19
We explore all the details of ancient Rome,

Dr Rad 0:23
everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles waged and when citizens turn against each other, I’m Dr Rad

Dr G 0:33
And I’m Dr G, we consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.

Dr Rad 0:44
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Dr Rad 0:58
Hello and welcome to a special episode of the Partial Historians. And this one has been a long time coming. Dr G.

Dr G 1:07
it has I’m very excited to be talking about the epic, grand, magnificent, over budgeted 1963 version of Cleopatra.

Dr Rad 1:21
Absolutely we couldn’t believe it. We realized that we’ve talked about this a lot on other podcasts, and then we kind of forgot that we’d never done it for ourselves.

Dr G 1:32
We’ll go into even more nerdy depths of what is happening in this film and why, and I’m very excited to learn from you. Dr Rad, because I know history on film is your jam, and I’m excited to see what I learned from this whole process.

Dr Rad 1:48
I have some film detail for you, Dr G. In fact, I’d like to start with a quote, If I might, from the writer slash director of the film, Joseph Mankiewicz. He said that “Cleopatra was the toughest three pictures I ever made. It was conceived in a state of emergency, shot in confusion and wound up in a blind panic.”

Dr G 2:12
Well, and that gives us a taste of things to come, doesn’t it?

Dr Rad 2:15
It really does a bit of a background detail, if I might. Dr G about this film, setting it setting it all up. So 1963 when Cleopatra was released, we are getting towards the end of the golden era of Hollywood, that time when epics were everywhere. Cleopatra is sometimes blamed the end of the public’s fascination with epics, but I’m not so sure that that is the case. We’ll have to get into a bit of debate about that.

Dr G 2:45
I think it’s certainly pretty opulent. I’m happy to watch it again and again, not too frequently, though, because it is very long.

Dr Rad 2:53
It is very long, and we will get into why that is in a second. But there’s certainly been a lot of attention on this film since its release, and that’s partly because there was a lot of publicity, obviously, around the film’s production, but also since the film’s release, people who were involved with the film have published books and memoirs about this movie. So we’ve got things like my life with Cleopatra by Walter Wanger, who was the producer. We’ve got the Cleopatra Papers, which was written by some of the publicity men who were involved from the side of 20th Century Fox, Weiss and Brodsky. And so there’s just so much material about this film, which I think feeds into the legend itself.

Dr G 3:37
Oh, excellent. I’m so glad there’s good source material on this film as well, because I have planned for our conversation by thinking only about the historic, historical events and what has happened in the course of the film, and how that matches up to our ancient source material. So I think the combination of your perspective on the film production and me chiming in with little details being like, what about this might lead us down some interesting paths.

Dr Rad 4:05
Well, we should perhaps tell our listeners, Dr G that this movie was originally meant to be two epic films, one about Caesar and Cleopatra and one about Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Following in that grand tradition, we think this is going to be a multi-parter special episode for us as well.

Dr G 4:26
Which I think makes perfect sense, because when you do look at the film, the first two hours is Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, and then it’s set up with the intermission, and you’re like, alrighty, then take a short break, and when you come back, it is all Mark Antony and Cleopatra. So you can see how they might have wanted to have two separate films, but for some reason, they ended up sticking them together instead.

Dr Rad 4:53
Absolutely. Now let’s just go through the basic cast, just for people who may not have seen the film. As Cleopatra,we of course, have the gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor, the most beautiful woman in the world. We have Rex Harrison, veteran actor as Caesar. But Dr, G, did you know that he wasn’t meant to play Caesar in this movie?

Dr G 5:13
Really? He does a very good job, I think.

Dr Rad 5:15
He does do a very good job. But, and this is part of the endless production troubles that plagued this film. The original actor who was slated to play Julius Caesar was Peter Finch, illustrious English-Australian actor best known for his role in Network where he’s as mad as hell, Dr G, and he’s not gonna take it anymore.

Dr G 5:40
Oh, another classic. Okay, but he drops out and we end up with Rex Harrison instead?

Dr Rad 5:46
We do, and it’s purely because of the timing, yes. He had actually been, Peter Finch, was actually hand selected by Elizabeth Taylor to play Caesar. They had starred in a movie called Elephant Walk together, and she liked him, but because of all the delays, he had to move on to another project. Similar thing for our Mark Antony, of course, infamously played in the end by Richard Burton, but originally was meant to be played by Stephen Boyd, whose name you might recall, because he plays the bad guy in Ben Hur and he also stars in Fall of the Roman Empire.

Dr G 6:21
Okay, so this man has been around epic films, and he’s looking for his next turn. Is it a timing issue for him as well?

Dr Rad 6:29
It absolutely is.

Dr G 6:30
Well, I think it’s really lucky that we have Richard Burton to be honest, because this is one of the things that sort of goes down in film history, is watching these two on screen together.

Dr Rad 6:43
Absolutely. Now, as the producer, we have another veteran, Walter Wanger. Walter Wanger was involved in so many movies in his career, the ones that perhaps stand out, I think that people might have seen these days would be Queen Christina, Foreign Correspondent, Joan of Arc – the one with Ingrid Bergman – I Want to Live, and the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. He also had two turns as the president of the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences in then, well, basically in the late 1930s and the early 1940s. His last film, however, would be Cleopatra.

Dr G 7:23
The end of the Wanger is near.

Dr Rad 7:27
And then, of course, finally, we have as director a couple of people. We had Robert, sorry, Ruben Mamulian, who was the initial director, but he was replaced with Joseph L Mankiewicz, who was an esteemed writer slash director. I adore Joseph Mankiewicz. He was involved in some of my absolute most favorite classic movies. He was the writer director of All About Eve and also A Letter to Three Wives, which I really, really recommend. If you haven’t seen that one.

Dr G 8:00
I haven’t I’ll put that on my list classic films.

Dr Rad 8:04
Yeah. And finally, as composer, I couldn’t help but mention Dr G, that Alex North is the composer for Cleopatra, because he was also the composer on Spartacus.

Dr G 8:15
Ah, all right, another Golden Era film veteran in the wings.

Dr Rad 8:23
Absolutely. He also worked on Prizzi’s Honor, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Misfits, The Children’s Hour, I’ll Cry Tomorrow, Viva Zapata! and A Streetcar Named Desire.

Dr G 8:34
Impressive resume.

Dr Rad 8:39
Yeah. So we have said, the point of all this, Dr G, is that we’ve got a huge amount of talent on this movie, and that’s just obviously the tip of the iceberg. There’ll be other notable names that come up as we go through this detail. But with all these people on board, you would think that we are going to get a priceless example of cinema.

Dr G 9:00
I mean, I think we do, don’t we? I mean, at the very least it looks so opulent, you can almost see the money dripping off the screen. It’s incredible.

Dr Rad 9:10
Absolutely. Let’s talk a little bit about the money, shall we?

Dr G 9:14
Please, let’s.

Dr Rad 9:14
So to give you a bit of an idea. Few years before Cleopatra came out, there was, of course, the gigantic success that was Ben Hur. Ben Hur cost around $15 million to make, which was pretty pricey for, you know, 1950s movies, but of course, it was a smash hit, lots of Oscars, so money well spent. Cleopatra was not meant to cost anywhere near as much as that. It had a $2 million budget and a 64 day shoot assigned to it, both of which it would blow out of the water, eventually costing $44 million in 1960s money. It’s very hard, of course, to adjust for inflation, etc, etc, but it is estimated that in today’s money, we’d be talking something in the neighborhood of $400 million.

Dr G 10:11
Well, I mean, they’re only $42 million over budget.

Dr Rad 10:16
A drop in the pan.

Dr G 10:17
Yeah, I’m surprised nobody pulled the plug on this film before it got well out of hand, because to spend that much money, somebody at the at the studio has to keep saying, yes, I’ll give you another extension on finances for this project. And I am assuming that the film itself, in terms of, like the production days the film, you said it was 64 day shoot? I as a as a lay person who doesn’t study film very often, even my understanding is that it took way longer to shoot this film than the 64 days.

Dr Rad 10:51
It definitely did. And I think, look, this is why I particularly gravitate towards this movie. Because, as you know, you might have heard, I wrote a little bit on Spartacus in my time, and one of the things that I like about Spartacus is that it’s a piece of history that was pieced together by multiple people. It wasn’t something that was conceived of and executed by one author. And so I think it’s really interesting to consider as a historian, when you’ve got multiple people who are contributing to the construction of something, particularly when they’re doing it, seemingly in a rather haphazard manner, a lot of the time, because it really obviously affects the version that you get on the screen. And I think Cleopatra 1963 is another classic example of how this movie came together in such a haphazard way that the history as well, I think, has been affected, and that’s why it’s such an interesting example for people who were interested in the ancient world on film to consider it was actually originally conceived of in 1958, I believe. It was meant to actually starred Joan Collins at first, but eventually Elizabeth Taylor was the woman who was inextricably tied to this project, and it was Walter Wanger’s baby from the get go, the producer, Wanger, who I mentioned before. But it encountered production issue after production issue, and it had such a troubled time, and a lot of it was, to be honest, was also out of their control. So in the very early days, it was weather that was often causing the most issues.

Dr G 12:32
Okay, well, that’s not anybody’s fault. Can’t do much about the weather.

Dr Rad 12:36
Yeah. Well, basically they start the art director. So you mentioned the opulence of this movie. The art director, John DeCuir, I’m presuming his name is, had started constructing sets in places like Pinewood in England, and the weather did serious damage to these sets. Elizabeth Taylor herself was plagued by illness in the early days of this project. I think a lot of people probably know that she actually almost died during these illnesses. She had to have an emergency tracheotomy, and then she had to have plastic surgery to try and remove the tracheotomy scar. And all this kind of stuff is somewhat out of the control of the people who are working on the production.

Dr Rad 12:36
Yeah definitely, these are things that you can’t anticipate and you can’t plan for and you just have to work around them if you want to bring the whole project to life. So, yeah, if you’ve got sets that have been destroyed by bad weather, obviously you have to think about where you’re going to rebuild or how, and if your lead is, you know, suffering from illness and then recovering from surgery, what are you gonna do? We can’t film Cleopatra until we have Cleopatra on set. You know what I’m saying?

Dr Rad 12:40
It’s funny how it works like that. You know, having your lead actress around, how it assists with the production.

Dr G 12:40
And she’s basically in every single scene. There are very few scenes which she does not appear in so the load for her, in terms of, like the workhorse nature of her having to be on screen so much throughout this film, means that she’s, if she’s not in top shape, you’re gonna have delays.

Dr Rad 12:40
Absolutely. And it’s also, I think, partly, and this is where 20th Century Fox has to take some responsibility. There also seems to have been multiple decisions being made about where exactly this production was going to end up being filmed. They kept on debating, you know, are we going to proceed filming in London? Are we going to film in Rome? Are we going to film in Hollywood? Like, what is going to happen with this production? So there were a lot of delays, I think, caused by that, although they were probably responding to the problems. But basically what that means is that we’re a few months into the shoot of this film. They’ve already spent a fortune on the movie, and they only have about 10 minutes worth of workable film.

Dr G 14:57
Oh, oh no. I. Yeah, this is gonna be bad guys. I think we need to double down and spend more money.

Dr Rad 15:06
Well see, and again, this is exactly it. Right? You raise a very valid point of, why would they proceed with this movie when they’ve already spent so much and they have very little to show for it? Why not just, you know, claim as much insurance money as they can. I don’t think they could even get as much as they spent. I think by the time, I think by the time we’re about almost six months in, they’d spent, you know, between six and $7 million and they could only get about 2 million back in insurance costs. So why wouldn’t they just pull up stumps and, you know, take it as a loss and just forget about the whole thing. And I think that part of the reason is actually Elizabeth Taylor herself, Dr G,

Dr G 15:47
Is she living to play Cleopatra on screen? Is that what’s going on here?

Dr Rad 15:51
She is keen to play her but I think it’s more the fact that they believe in her bankability, because, and this is where we get into some of the scandal behind this particular film, Elizabeth Taylor had something of a reputation by the time she was filming Cleopatra, she’d already had multiple husbands by the time she was cast to pay Cleopatra, and her most recent husband was a guy called Eddie Fisher. Eddie Fisher had been married to American sweetheart of the screen, Debbie Reynolds. Now, if this is sounding a little familiar to some of you, yes, these are the parents of Carrie Fisher or Princess Leia of the Star Wars movies. So essentially, Elizabeth Taylor had been kind of demonized because she had supposedly stolen away Eddie Fisher from Debbie Reynolds. And so she was very much seen as a home wrecker. She was like the evil seductress type, or as Debbie Reynolds was the the good wife, the good mother, the really cute baby faced, you know, sweet as pie actress. That was her image at the time. And this is how these two women were represented when Elizabeth Taylor went off to make Cleopatra. However, the fact that she had then become so gravely ill and then managed to recover, I think, meant that people were ready to forgive her, perhaps for those perceived transgressions, and she was awarded an Oscar, her very first for a movie called Butterfield 8. And so it seemed like this would be the moment to be on the Elizabeth Taylor train. You know, part of her her come back, in a way, not that she was doing badly or anything. She’s obviously still making lots of movies, attracting a lot of attention, but it seems like this would be a moment to be part of her – I don’t know what’s the right word, to be part of her, um…

Dr G 17:51
Her rising star. This is a moment to be capitalized upon, potentially. If she is, as you say, recent Oscar winner, then there’s obviously that sort of sheen to her as well, where it’s like, you’re going to get to see a great actress who has a reputation that sometimes leads into the seductress, and she’s going to be playing Cleopatra, who, in popular imagination, is known for seducing Roman men.

Dr Rad 18:19
Absolutely. And it’s always funny how the women who are chosen to play Cleopatra, whether it’s real or imagined, they do often have these connotations in their personal life. Sometimes it’s entirely manufactured, and it might not be a fair way of looking at them, but I think it’s really interesting that they often bring that to the role you think about. Even the Cleopatra set were mooted, but never have been. I mean, Angelina Jolie was supposed to play Cleopatra at one point in time, and that was back when, you know, her personal life was a bit more scandalous than it is these days. There is often that connection with the Cleopatra players.

Dr G 19:02
Yeah, let’s get a artist whose personal life seems to be mirroring the artistry we’d like to see on screen.

Dr Rad 19:09
Yeah. And of course, her personal life during the filming of Cleopatra would then take on a life of its own, but we’ll get into that in our next episode. I think, um, now they also, I think, 20th Century Fox, really wanted to cash in on the epic, the, you know, the the genre itself. They knew that the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, King of Kings, Spartacus, had done really well at the box office, and they were looking for something that would also bring in huge profits to 20th Century Fox. There were internal issues in the company at the time. So a Greek, American guy called Spyro Skouras was the president of Fox at the time, but there were people within Fox who were trying to get him out. That there were factions within the company and that, I think. Also affected the way that decisions were often made with this movie, skuas was definitely on board to try and, you know, wipe out the memories of box office failures that had been in recent years, to restore himself to glory with the huge success of something like Cleopatra. He also, I think, contributed a bit to the indecision about where they were going to film, etc, etc. But Elizabeth Taylor’s production company was involved in the Cleopatra filming, and her production company being involved meant it had to be a European filming, which basically meant that they, instead of using Fox’s own studio lots they were going to end up filming eventually in Cinecittà the very famous film studios in Italy. Now you would think that that would mean that they might therefore enjoy good weather, because usually in autumn and Rome, it’s quite a nice time to be there. But as luck would have it, there was unusually stormy weather in Rome in the autumn where they were meant to start filming, and there was amazing weather in LA, so in some ways, they perhaps should have just been filming in LA. But of course, as we said, you cannot always predict the weather.

Dr G 21:16
Yeah, that’s unfortunate. And I guess the complexities of having Elizabeth Taylor production company needing to lean in a particular direction, where, obviously it would have been cheaper for 20th Century Fox to do it in their own studios. It’s just adding complexity to what is already something that’s quite complex already.

Dr Rad 21:34
It absolutely is. And also filming in Rome was also going to be good for Elizabeth Taylor’s health, the issues that she had had were very much focused on her lungs. London weather wasn’t fantastic for that. So moving to a warmer climate was also going to hopefully mean that she wasn’t going to become too ill to work again.

Dr G 21:59
Very interesting. Oh, very interesting. Now,

Dr Rad 22:02
I know we wanted to get into the history. Dr, G, so one of the things that I really like about this movie is that if you look it up on IMDb, whilst you will see a number of screenwriters credited amongst them, you will also find Suetonius, Appian and Plutarch.

Dr G 22:18
I’m so glad to hear that, because it is very clear, from what we see in the way that the story unfolds, that somebody, at the very least, was reading their ancient sources. And I think this is really ideal, because as I was watching, re-watching, because I have seen this film many times before, I was going through and just making notes about the things that were happening, and just putting asterisks next to things where I was like, things where I was like, I’d like to check if that’s a proper historical detail. That’s an interesting thing for somebody to have said, or that’s an interesting thing for something to have happened. Who are these people? Can I find a reference to them? And by and large, you can. So there’s many interesting figures. For instance, Ptolemy, the brother of Cleopatra, is positioned in the opening of the film as having three key advisors, and one of them’s the Chief Eunuch, Pothinus. One of them is his tutor Theodotus. And then there is the general who’s in charge of his armed forces, a guy called Achillas. And each of these three are attested in the historical record with these names. And I think, you know, this was a great start for me. I was like, Oh, look, Ptolemy surrounded by his henchmen. And while there are some nuance of difference, so for instance, we get the story that when Pompey the great is fleeing from Greece in the wake of the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 he ends up fleeing to Egypt. It is Achillas, the general of Ptolemy and some other Romans who had been previously stationed in Egypt and had stayed that managed to bundle Pompey up and execute him. And one of the early key differences that we see in this film is that when Julius Caesar arrives in Alexandria and he meets all of these advisors of Ptolemy, Achillas is there basically as a foil to the other two advisors, and he seems to be a bit more pragmatic. And it seems that he’s aware that Julius Caesar would not have been happy with the execution of Pompey, whereas in the historical record, he was definitely a key player in making sure that that had happened. But yet, what we see is that Achillas’ position there’s maybe slightly more nuanced in his understanding and appreciation of Roman politics than the other two advisors of Ptolemy. So we see like little differences, coming through, but the fact that they have the same names that we see in the ancient sources, and the fact that they’re there at all on screen doing this kind of stuff, which is giving us this richness to what Ptolemies court looked like, I think, is impressive. Like, that’s a choice that they have made in the production to be like, let’s try and follow the source material for some of this stuff.

Dr Rad 25:21
Absolutely and I think that this is perhaps a good moment to perhaps quickly summarize exactly what this movie covers. I mean, to be honest, it’s a bit hard to know exactly what they intended to cover all of the time, because so much of this movie ends up on the cutting room floor, because they end up taking the two epics that were meant to be and forging it into one. And we’ll talk about why that happened again, probably in a future episode on this. We are essentially focusing on the part of Cleopatra’s life where Caesar enters so where Caesar winds up in Alexandria as he’s pursuing Pompey as part of the Roman Civil War, and then ends up getting embroiled in the civil war that’s going on in Egypt between Cleopatra and her siblings. And we follow Cleopatra all the way through her relationship with Julius Caesar into her next relationship with Mark Antony, and the film ends with her death. Spoilers, everybody. That’s where we’re going to end up. And it is interesting, I suppose, in some sense, that you could look at this film and I suppose be critical of the fact that it’s therefore focusing on the part of Cleopatra’s life, which involves Roman men and love affairs. That’s definitely what this movie focuses on. And it was actually based on a popular Italian novel at the time by C M Franzero, and there’s a little preface from that book that I thought I might read to you, Dr G. says, “women are the most interesting creatures on earth. Men can only be judged in light of their attitudes to women. The love may prompt some men to accomplish great deeds, but in a woman, love is the only motive of life.”

Dr G 27:02
That’s it, that’s, what?

Dr Rad 27:03
That’s, that’s a little thought I’d like to read for you.

Dr G 27:05
No, okay, all right, so I think one of the ways in which this film suffers is that it does seem to be trying to do two things at once, and, maybe because of the cutting room situation, it’s doing neither particularly well. Because we have this sense that Cleopatra is a political animal – that does come through in the film, but it’s not done ultimately, in a very nuanced way. And we also see this leaning in on like the seductress element, and this idea of Cleopatra, sort of bringing men into her orbit and then having her way with them. And in some respects, that doesn’t go so well either. But what we see in this opening of the film – so to give just a quick sort of like plot summary, here we have Julius Caesar is basically turning up in Alexandria. He is met by Ptolemy the 13th and the advisors, and that’s where this whole thing kicks off. And it’s not until we get a little bit further into the film that Cleopatra turns up in her rolled up carpet being brought in by her loyal servant, Apollodorus.

Dr Rad 28:33
Classic

Dr G 28:35
Classic moment in cinema. There is a moment where Apollodorus is holding the carpet and you’re like, I know there’s not a body in there right now. It’s not body shaped. It’s just not and then there’s then there’s a cut, and we switch to the part where he rolls it out, and it’s like, oh, there she is.

Dr Rad 28:50
Surprise. She’s been dieting so that she could fit into that carpet for weeks.

Dr G 28:54
Ah, like she was practically invisible. And then there she was. And all of this allows us to bear witness to this idea that Cleopatra is a little bit more savvy than your average Ptolemy. So you know, she immediately does things like point out that his maps are wrong, and these sort of little gestures are a hint towards this idea that she is political, she is strategic, and it’s a shame that that I think doesn’t get a little bit more play time as well, but we quickly sort of deviate into this storyline where Julius Caesar is kind of forcibly, sort of seduced her to some extent, and she says, You’re not going to like me this way. And I think that’s a really interesting moment in this film early on, but other things that are happening. So once Julius Caesar has met Cleopatra, she’s come out of the carpet, he’s very excited about that, and they start working together. She makes the proposition that she should be in charge more so than the brother. And there’s fighting in the streets. So Ptolemy’s forces have ended up embroiled with the Roman soldiers in various ways, and the fighting that has broken out starts, it seems, on the Nile, but then progresses onto the shorelines, and we have this infamous burning of the Alexandrian library.

Dr Rad 30:28
Not the books, Dr. G, anything, but the books.

Dr G 30:31
Nooooo. And for anybody who watches this film who loves books, you will obviously be on Cleopatra’s side. She is outraged by the burning of the library. She lays into Julius Caesar. She blames him for this, and I think that’s an important moment, because it gets you on side with her. But it is also something where we’re not quite entirely sure that that is something that historically happened. So people talk about the burning of the Library of Alexandria, and we actually don’t know and really what is happening here. So there are some suggestions that the location of the library would have been inside the palatial complex. That’s as far as we can sort of take where it might have been, because originally it was established by the early Ptolemies as a way of generating their own power and knowledge. So it should have been pretty well protected. And we don’t get a sense that the palace is at any stage under threat, not in the film, not historically. And then, having said that, we’ve got differences in our ancient source material as well. So we’ve got later sources who are suggesting that the library is fine, even into the third century CE, the library is there. It is functioning. If it was burnt. It wasn’t burnt to such a degree that everybody’s like, we can’t rebuild it.

Dr Rad 32:01
It’s just a light singe-ing.

Dr G 32:03
It’s just over, now it’s gone. So if it had burnt, it is revived, or alternatively, it wasn’t burnt at all. And we’re really just not sure about what is happening here, but touching on it does allow Cleopatra’s character to have this sort of moment in the sun with the audience, where it’s like, if you like books, you’re going to be on her side.

Dr Rad 32:25
I think it’s also meant to be, as you say, a nod to her being intellectual, that she values this knowledge, and also that she values the heritage of her own dynasty, the Ptolemies. And perhaps also, maybe more broadly, Egypt. But I think you do get a sense of her connection with her ancestors.

Dr G 32:48
You definitely do, and that, I think, comes through pretty clearly in this. And the other thing that historically is quite interesting in this early part of the film is the idea that Julius Caesar is visiting the tomb of Alexander the Great.

Dr Rad 33:05
I love this scene. I’m so glad you’re talking about it.

Dr G 33:09
I will come to the beautiful translucency of that sarcophagus.

Dr Rad 33:12
Absolutely, Alexander, glistening like a little chocolate.

Dr G 33:17
Hmm beautiful. I was like – the money they spent on this! Alexander the Great dies in the east. That’s pretty well established. It’s sudden. There’s controversy about that, and the ancient source material gets really weird, really quickly about this. The idea seems to be that his body was taken quite quickly back to Macedonia, Greece, back into the area of where he came from, and was embalmed there, which I think should be our first question. And then the first Ptolemy took that body, now preserved, to Memphis in Egypt, which is nowhere near Alexandria, just for the record, and then hundreds of years after that, the body somehow gets moved to Alexandria and ends up about 1000 kilometers from where Alexander the Great died. So we have this sort of tricky story that happens over centuries where Alexander dies in one place, is embalmed in another place, is then moved a couple of times, ends up in Alexandria. We don’t know too much about the tomb itself. Details are pretty thin on the ground. Strabo describes it, but he’s also there in the late Republic. So to what extent that carries through into other periods. It might tie in nicely to the Cleopatra moment he’s there in the sort of the 10 years after the Battle of Actium. And it seems that the whole complex is also inside the palace, and that the Tomb of Alexander the Great is particularly recessed amongst what might be other tombs of Ptolemies. And that would make sense. The Ptolemies see themselves as very much connected to Alexander the Great and the inheritors of his world. So they would obviously position themselves as being close to his body if they could. It seems that they do that. But if you wanted to see Alexander the Great, there were a couple of caveats. He was brought out to you, not you went to him.

Dr Rad 35:30
Well, naturally.

Dr Rad 35:33
You wait

Dr Rad 35:34
And it’s marm in like harm, not man like spam.

Dr G 35:38
And so how long he spends in his sarcophagus is anybody’s guess, because presumably he’s not removed that often. But you know, they wheel him out and they wheel him back. And part of the controversy for that is, why is that even going on? But also, further to that, Alexander the Great had potentially stipulated, and we don’t know why that he wanted to actually be buried in the Oasis at Siwa. Now pay attention, everybody. This is a reference to Assassins Creed Origins. So Siwa is where your main character starts in that video game. Great news, Siwa, lovely little oasis place. What would Alexander the Great want to do with that? It is not clear at all.

Dr Rad 36:28
Doesn’t seem grand enough for Alexander.

Dr G 36:30
No, what’s going on? So the other source that we have for this, because I was like, do we have any historical evidence that Julius Caesar actually visited the tomb of Alexander the Great? This is hard to track down. Everybody says that he does, but they don’t usually provide their source reference, which is frustrating. But Lucan, in his epic poem of the Civil War, does talk about this in a way that is directly critical of Julius Caesar.

Dr Rad 37:02
Yeah, Lucans not a fan, from memory.

Dr G 37:04
Lucan is not a fan. He sees the whole thing as a disgrace, really. He sees Alexander as a “chance marauder whose sudden death solaced the world”.

Dr Rad 37:18
Wow.

Dr G 37:20
So the idea that anybody is going to visit this particular individual in death does not rate highly on Lucan’s radar, and Julius Caesar gets roundly criticized for having done it. So I’m interested in, like, the sarcophagus itself, as it’s depicted in the film. What are your thoughts?

Dr Rad 37:44
Look to be fair, I have never looked into what Alexander’s sarcophagus might have actually looked like, because as far as I’m aware, we have no idea where Alexander the Great’s body is, nor do we know where Cleopatra’s body is. I’m presuming they’re all underwater, like most of ancient Alexandria, but I don’t think it would quite look like that. It looks almost like a Swarovski crystal, or something along those lines. What are your thoughts?

Dr G 38:14
Look, because we don’t know, and every so often, a new news story comes out where they’re like, we found it: it’s the tomb of Alexander the Great! And it’s a bit like the news stories that were coming through a few years ago. Of like we found Pliny the Elder. I’m like, did you?

Dr Rad 38:31
Oh, yeah, and the news stories are constantly coming through about finding Cleopatra.

Dr G 38:35
So yes, both Alexander the Great and Cleopatra sit in this realm of we would love to have their bodies, because I can only imagine the kind of cheap and horrifying restorations of their faces that people would do if they thought they had that skull. Cleopatra, turns out she had a big nose. Ah, but with reconstruction…

Dr Rad 38:59
But how could you tell? The nose is the part that goes first, Dr, G!

Dr G 39:04
No, but, I mean, you got to look at the coinage. I think the worst that I’ve seen is the one that was like, clearly Britney Spears. They’re like, this is Cleopatra reconstructed. Wait a minute.

Dr Rad 39:16
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Dr G 39:18
So we have this idea of we don’t know where the bodies are, historically, we don’t know where the sarcophagi are. And this film has a lot of sort of sarcophagi type scenes, because we’ve got this tomb of Alexander the Great we also then end up with what appears to be a funeral temple to the deified Caesar later on, and then we also have Cleopatra’s own area for her end. But maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Dr Rad 39:53
I would like to zoom in on what actually happens whilst they are visiting Alexander the Great because I think that this is actually the perfect scene to kind of understand the way that Cleopatra was meant to be in this film, and the vision for her, and the way that it didn’t quite manage to be executed. So when they see Alexander’s tomb together, Julius Caesar tells Cleopatra that he cried the first time that he came to visit because he had accomplished so little. And that’s the part that you’re referring to that everybody repeats about Julius Caesar’s visit to Alexander’s tomb. Cleopatra then urges him to carry on Alexander’s dream, which she classifies as one world, one peace, one nation. Now this, oh, and of course, she wants Alexandria to be the capital.

Dr G 40:51
Obviously

Dr Rad 40:52
Naturally, naturally, she sees that as being the capital. But she’s like, You know what? It doesn’t even really matter, because we can just all be one people. And it’s this moment where she reveals her pregnancy with Julius Caesar’s child, which what is an intriguing possibility. Of course, we kind of write off Caesarian, the child that Caesar and Cleopatra actually did have together in real life, because he gets murdered by Octavian in the aftermath of Cleopatra and Antony losing Actium, etc, etc, as you would expect, he’s perceived as a rival. However, what a fascinating possibility to have this child out there who does unite Caesar and Cleopatra’s families together. I mean, the mind boggles when I consider how the world might have been different if that boy had lived beyond his teen years. But I’m getting distracted. The main thing, I think, is that they really did want Cleopatra to come across as a political, intellectual figure, whilst the love story obviously was important and the sexy stuff was important, because a Cleopatra movie that does allow you to do those things, you know, King of Kings and those sorts of biblical epics like Ben Hur it’s a little bit harder to be, you know, so sexy when it’s getting on with Jesus, doesn’t seem respectful, you know, but Cleopatra always opens the door for a certain level of sexiness and love and passion. But they did also want to have this, and that’s also, I think, because, I think that’s also why they brought on board Joseph Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was well known for preferring to write and direct powerful movies about women. So that’s why I particularly highlighted his involvement in movies, like A Letter to Three Wives, and, of course, the absolutely phenomenal All About Eve. So he was really interested in women. He got along really well with Elizabeth Taylor. He kind of knew how to work with her. She was obviously huge star by the time she came on board Cleopatra. And one of the reasons, I think, that they also pushed ahead with making this film, when it seemed like all the signs were Stop, stop this immediately, just walk away, was partly because Mankiewicz was brought on board. The first director doesn’t seem to have particularly impressed anyone. I don’t know that he was handling everything as well as he perhaps could, and apparently he was a bit of a perfectionist. But Mankiewicz was someone who they thought was going to come in with a fresh vision, and they really did want this to be a vision that was centered around a fusion of sort of Elizabeth Taylor and Cleopatra, because obviously it’s meant to be about her. And I think he wanted her to be a bit of an Eleanor Roosevelt JFK esque kind of figure. Because lest we forget, this is during JFK presidency that they are writing and conceiving of this movie. And so I think it was meant to somewhat embody, as well, a bit of the the freshness, the hope, I think, that was coming around in that early 1960s era for many Americans. And Joseph Mankiewicz, when he came on board and looked at the script, he thought, Oh, my God, this is an absolute disaster. He didn’t like what he saw the one of the guys who’d been working on the early script had never even met Elizabeth Taylor. He was just judging her based on what he’d seen of her on film. And so the biggest issue that Mankiewicz face was the script, and so he desperately wanted time before he started work on actually filming the movie to write an entirely new script, but unfortunately, they wouldn’t give him the time that he needed because they’d already started production, which means that people like Elizabeth Taylor were already getting paid to stay on this project. So she was getting about $50,000 per week plus $3,000 for expenses.

Dr G 45:03
Oh, hello

Dr Rad 45:04
Yeah, and that’s just for Elizabeth Taylor. Apparently the expenses to keep the production running, even whilst it was technically shut down, was around $45,000 in terms of their overheads. The insurance company weren’t going to cover their losses, and so they only gave him a really small amount of time to try and work on the script before he had to start filming again. So he did his best. There were a few other people he was working with, guy called Lawrence Durrell and Sidney Buchman, who was actually a blacklisted writer who’d moved to London to escape that HUAC era, and they sort of hold themselves up in a hotel for a while and tried to pump out the best scripts that they could. Mankiewicz wasn’t thrilled with everything that he was getting from the other writers. They weren’t the people I don’t think that he had wanted to work with. But nonetheless, they also got a guy called Ronald McDougall who also worked on the script. So as you can see, we’ve already got, you know, many people coming together working on this script. It is a total mess. And what ends up happening is that they have to go into filming without a finished script. And this is a very similar situation to what happened on Spartacus, like they have a basic idea of where it’s heading, obviously, and they have got multiple drafts and scenes and that sort of thing, which have been pumped out by these various writers, but they do not have one script that they know that they’re going to be working from. And what that means is that Mankiewicz is signing up to not only direct the film and shoot all day, but he’s then committing to writing the script at night, so in the very first period of filming. So filming resumes in September in Rome, where they kick off with the filming. He is producing and directing by day and writing at night, six days a week, and then on Sunday, that’s his entirely writing day.

Dr G 47:12
That sounds exhausting, and I’m not even trying to do it.

Dr Rad 47:15
It is. And essentially what ended up happening was they had to make a few adjustments, as you can imagine, during the shooting, I think eventually they switched to sort of starting at around midday with the actual filming. But certainly, what Mankiewicz was doing, he ended up being propped up entirely by drugs. Basically, he was being given drugs to help him to stay awake and complete his work, and then he had to be given drugs in order to be able to sleep at night.

Dr G 47:44
This is the classic tragic Hollywood studio story from this period.

Dr Rad 47:49
It absolutely is, and Mankiewicz said of the strain of this film on him, I’m not biting my fingernails. I’m biting my knuckles. I finished the fingernails months ago.

Dr G 48:02
Buddy. Nothing’s worth this.

Dr Rad 48:06
But yeah, it is. It is absolutely crazy. And this, I say this, I say all of this because I feel like it is relevant in terms of, just like with Spartacus, you don’t really end up with a clear version, perhaps, of who Spartacus was, and what his rebellion was meant to be about, and all of that kind of stuff. I feel like that’s why we get a slightly mixed portrayal of Cleopatra in this film, because the script was always such, you know, such a such a mess. Basically, it was always being worked on, and it was way too long, and this is one of the reasons why. Again, it sort of blew out in terms of in terms of the way that not all scenes are brilliant. I mean, even though I think Mankiewicz was a fantastic writer, definitely his writing was not always up to scratch. Rex Harrison even asked him to rewrite some of his scenes as Julius Caesar, because he wasn’t really happy with them, and that’s really because Mankiewicz was working under such time pressures that he would just write to get something down and didn’t have time to edit them, a feeling I know well from our own projects.

Dr G 49:17
I think it is pretty clear from what we see on screen, that there are ideas about how Cleopatra will be, and they’re executed variably. And there’s also a sense in which you, at times, are watching these performances, and you feel like the actors are being sort of pushed in a particular direction as well. There are times where all of a sudden, characters are shouting at each other. It doesn’t necessarily seem like there’s been an appropriate build up to that, and part of that can be put down to like filmic style of the period, but some of it also feels, feels like maybe there’s some confusion about what is required in a scene. There’s maybe conflicts between actors and director about what should happen, and for the actors themselves trying to maintain a sense of the continuity of the character when they’re being presented with such varied material, it shows a little bit on screen at times, and not to a positive end.

Dr Rad 50:27
Absolutely and certainly there was sometimes a bit of tension on the set because of those sorts of issues. Apparently, Elizabeth Taylor would often turn up late on the set, even when the starting time was noon, when they switched to what are apparently called French hours in November of 1961 so that’s about, I guess, they were filming for about, what, two to three months before they switched to those different hours, and Rex Harrison kind of resented the fact that she was just turning up late and didn’t really make apologies or get into any trouble for it. She also had all these special conditions as a part of her contract, like she didn’t have to work for the first two days per menstrual cycle, which Rex Harrison kind of resented that she got this slightly diva-ish, I suppose, treatment.

Dr G 51:14
Uh hello, has he ever had a menstrual cycle? Does he know what the first two days are like?

Dr Rad 51:19
No, that’s what I mean. Like as someone who is, you know, at this particular stage of my life, I’m like, well, yeah,

Dr G 51:26
Like, don’t ask me to be in front of a camera.

Dr Rad 51:29
But just to give you an idea of Mankiewicz schedule during like these, these periods, although it did dig a little bit better with time. So after those first few months of real horror. Taylor Burton and Harrison all agreed to take salary cuts in order to try and shorten the working working week for Mankiewicz because he was just so exhausted, but he would basically be working at about 5:30 to 6am – he would take something called Dexedrine. He would then have a shot after his lunch to keep him going through the afternoon and another shot after dinner to keep him writing until around 2am and then at 2am he would be given a shot so that he could get about three to four hours sleep.

Dr G 52:10
It’s just dehumanizing.

Dr Rad 52:13
I know it’s crazy. It’s amazing, actually, in a way, that they finished this movie, I can’t understand how Mankiewicz managed to get through it. I mean, I think the thing is, for this particular movie, it is the end in the road for a lot of the people involved. Skouras will be replaced as the president of 20th Century Fox. Walter Wanger will also not make another movie after this. And Mankiewicz also will be kind of done in the film industry after this movie.

Dr G 52:41
Yeah, everybody’s going to be burnt out, that’s for sure.

Dr Rad 52:43
Well, some of them, they were forcibly removed. But yeah, sure, let’s go with burnout. That’s nice. Let’s say burnt out. Yeah. It basically wasn’t until the end of May in 1962 I believe that Mankiewicz had finished enough of the screenplay that he wasn’t writing at night after filming all day. So, but that’s, if you think about it, September to May. That’s still quite a long time that he was having to work like this.

Dr G 53:11
That is intense.

Dr Rad 53:12
It is.

Dr G 53:14
Oh boy, oh boy. All right, so some historical details. So there is a mention early on in the film that Caesar doesn’t have enough legions in Alexandria to deal effectively with Ptolemy’s forces. And we’re reminded that Caesar only has two legions in Alexandria, and everybody’s pretty sure that that’s not going to be enough to deal with Ptolemy’s army, particularly if Ptolemy takes a turn, which he does. And this whole situation is alleviated at a certain point by the arrival of the forces of Mithridates. And this is an exciting moment, and I immediately put an asterisk next to it, and I was like, Mithridates, what’s he doing over here? This is not where he belongs usually, what is going on historically? And this is where we start to get into the broader politics of like, what is the Roman Empire at this point in time? Because they have a lot of influence throughout the whole Mediterranean. And this guy was a real figure, and he did turn up in Alexandria and support Caesar in this moment. So all of this is lining up very nicely with our historical material, this particular Mithridates, because we need to emphasize that there were many of these people with this name. He was the illegitimate son of Mithridates, the fifth Euergetes, the king of Pontus, and he grew up in the Royal Court of Pontus, not only that, but his career is bumped along throughout his life by Caesar’s support. So these two know each other, and he secures a whole bunch of privileges. He’s in Rome from Caesar in the 50s BCE, so before Caesar goes on his like, really long jaunt to Gaul, Caesar is playing the political field and helping this guy out with furthering his career. So when Caesar needs some help in Alexandria. Mithridates comes along and plays at the table. He is able to bring a certain amount of armed forces with him, and that helps against Ptolemy the 13th. So he gets rewarded for his support. He ends up being given some additional territory around Pontus, which he goes back to, and all of this works out very nicely for him. So this sort of stray reference in the film to this figure from the east and Caesar, playing it up as like, you all told me, two legions wasn’t gonna be enough. I had a plan. Mithridates. I talked to him before I got here, everyone’s like, ohhh. And we get a sense that Caesar is politically savvy. Has anticipated everything that’s going to happen and already had a plan in place that he wasn’t revealing to people, because that’s the way he does business, and that’s how he gets to be in charge of stuff. We also have the moment where Caesar acknowledges Caesarion as his son.

Dr Rad 56:24
Absolutely.

Dr G 56:25
This is not something that we necessarily feel like we’re on a firm footing on in terms of the historical sources. Definitely, Cleopatra claims that this is Caesar’s child, and the dates do line up in the sense that he is in Egypt in 47 and when he leaves later that year, he’s there in 48-47 when he leaves to go back to Rome, Cleopatra does bear a child, and it would make sense that it would be his.

Dr Rad 57:04
Oh, I have no doubt that it is his child. It’s more that I don’t think he ever publicly acknowledged him as such.

Dr G 57:10
And we have this whole scene in this film where he does this public acknowledgement, which I think is fascinating, because then we get to cut almost immediately to a scene of the senators in Rome talking about Caesar and what’s happening in Egypt, because bad news travels fast. And I think what’s really interesting about that moment is that Octavian is already positioned as being a senator in Rome. He’s there, he’s in the crowd. He’s making his grumpy faces that will become so classic in this film, but we see sort of a compression of Octavian’s career to the point where he is already a powerful figure in Rome.

Dr Rad 57:56
Which doesn’t really add up with what we know.

Dr G 57:58
Yeah, in this very early 40s period where that is not possible. He won’t be old enough.

Dr Rad 58:06
Yeah

Dr G 58:07
Just not old enough. The maths is not mathing right now, but he’s there, and it works from a filmic perspective. So I can see why they’ve done that. But this whole situation also compresses what is some pretty intense movement around the Mediterranean for Julius Caesar, which the film doesn’t capture. The film kind of gives us a version of Julius Caesar’s movement as he leaves Greece after the Battle of Pharsalus, goes to Alexandria, stays there for ages, has a baby with Cleopatra, gets the word that he should take up the dictatorship in Rome, and at that point, goes back to Rome. And it’s a little bit more complicated than that, because he does a whole extra few trips in there. So after the Battle of Pharsalus, yes, he goes to Alexandria. By the time we get to mid-47 he sets off for Rome, and it’s later that month where Cleopatra has the son. So he’s not there when Caesarian is born. But he doesn’t go directly back to Rome. He goes via Asia Minor. So he confronts a guy known as Pharnaces the Second at a place called Zela. And it’s a shame to skip over this moment in the film, because this is Caesar’s fastest victory, and is the one that prompts the phrase that we get in Plutarch, “veni, vidi, vici”, I came, I saw, I conquered.

Dr Rad 59:38
Nice.

Dr G 59:40
That’s when he does it, and then he gets to Rome. Ultimately, in October of 47 doesn’t stay there for very long. Things are not great for Caesar in Rome. I mean, he’s in the middle of a civil war, which he’s a major player in. So he leaves in December, and he heads back to. Africa, not Egypt. So he’s heading south, basically, and that is where he’s recruiting new men. And in then, in early 46 of that year, he wins a victory at Thapus, which is in Carthaginian territory. And a little bit after that, Cato the Younger, one of his opponents commits suicide in Utica, also in Carthaginian territory. So it’s all of this activity which then leads Caesar back to Alexandria, and then because of his role in defeating some of his Roman opponents in North Africa, that’s when the dictatorship stuff starts to happen. So there’s discussions of that. And so we’ve got this real complexity of what’s going on for Julius Caesar at this point in time, which is really smoothed over by this film. As far as we can tell from the film, he’s hanging out with Cleopatra, having a great time defeating Ptolemy, being at her coronation, both crowning her and then kneeling, which I think is a great move on his part. But yeah, so there’s some things going on here that we don’t get to see in the film, and also some things that a little bit anachronistic, but I can see why they’ve done them.

Dr Rad 1:01:15
I completely agree with you in the sense that obviously there has been a gigantic compression. However, I guess this is where, if I was arguing from the film side of me, that is that you have to compress events often to make them fit into a film. And if we consider this to be the movie that it is Cleopatra, it’s about her, not about him. And so whilst, yes, it’s complicated, because obviously in trying to set her up in a particular way in the movie, they are obviously going against historical fact, and they are misrepresenting Caesar to a certain extent. I’m kind of like, what would you do? I mean, this film is already so long. How could you deal with all of this stuff that Caesar is up to and still be addressing what the film is meant to be about, which is Cleopatra’s life and relationships.

Dr G 1:02:08
Yeah, exactly. And we get a sense from our source material as well that what Julius Caesar really wanted to happen in Egypt is for the co-rule to go ahead as it was supposed to. He wasn’t really supposed to be taking sides, and didn’t really seem to want to until he had to. So the fact that he hesitates on the whole Ptolemy situation historically is not useful for this story at all, and positioning his immediate interest in Cleopatra at the forefront of what is going on here is an important device to give her the leverage, initially, that she needs in order to push herself into power as sole ruler. I mean, obviously, Cleopatra has many siblings, as you noted earlier. It’s not just Ptolemy the 13th. There are others who are also trying to find their way into sole rule, and those complexities are also glossed over. So there would be a way, I think, to create a Cleopatra film that really does focus intensely on the familial politics that she’s dealing with and how Julius Caesar becomes an instrument within that. But that’s not how this film navigates any of this situation.

Dr Rad 1:03:27
No and that’s where you come back to sort of what I was saying earlier in that this film was obviously chosen to essentially kick off with Caesar entering her life and Anthony exiting it with her. And so it is very much focused on what is Cleopatra up to whilst the Roman men are in the picture a lot of the time. However, I do understand that at the time that this movie was created, I feel like they would have been less comfortable about making a movie that started before that, because, let’s face it, even these days, even taking into account the wider range of source material that we have where, finally, you know, a lot of the Arabic sources about Cleopatra in translation and all of that kind of stuff. At the same time, we don’t know a huge amount about Cleopatra’s early life. A lot of what we can piece together about her early life we’re piecing together from the movements of her family members. What’s her dad doing? And what does that mean for Cleopatra? What are her brothers and sisters up to as they scheme to take the throne from their father? And so we we do know a few things, but there’s not a ton of insight into her life in this time period. So I can kind of understand filmmakers in that era before second wave feminism, or all of that kind of stuff, not perhaps feeling comfortable to do that, but it does obviously craft her in a particular way. However, I think the reason why I like the Cleopatra and Caesar part of the movie more is that I like the interplay between Rex Harrison’s Caesar and Elizabeth Taylor’s Cleopatra. Obviously, it’s not perfect, but I do think they have kind of a fun dynamic. I mean, it’s not sexy at all, but then again, should it be? This is the thing, right? Caesar was an awful lot older, you know, several decades older than the teenaged Cleopatra when they first met. Most academics believe that whatever union these two had was largely political in nature. Sure, they might have got along. Okay, she was smart, he was smart. She’s a good politician. He’s a good politician. But at the end of the day, the reason that they are together is for political reasons. So I can kind of forgive the lack of sexual tension between Taylor and Harrison in this part of the movie.

Dr G 1:05:52
Yeah, it does make sense, and I think we start to see a shift in the way that they are operating in political alliance with each other. When this film shifts to Cleopatra in Rome, this sort of sets up a new dynamic for them, because up until this point, it’s been Julius Caesar in Alexandria, so he’s had to be sort of stepping his way carefully through the local politics, as well as dealing with whatever is being thrown at him from the Romans from afar. But now we see a whole reversal of this situation, with Julius Caesar in the place where he’s supposed to be, even though maybe it’s more tense than we would imagine, and Cleopatra is entering into a different political sphere. I love the arrival scene of Cleopatra in Rome. I think it’s one of the greatest, the greatest cinematic scenes of all time.

Dr Rad 1:06:58
And, not surprisingly, a nightmare to shoot by all testimony.

Dr G 1:07:03
Of course. I mean, it looks like it was done outdoors, so I can only imagine the weather. But also, Ceasarion is much older than he’s supposed to be. Realistically, he should have only just been born, but he’s a small child. Now, don’t worry about that. He’s five or six. Now, some time has passed, and we have this grand entrance where Cleopatra is gradually, slowly approaching the Roman Senate.

Dr Rad 1:07:33
She’s getting closer, hope she doesn’t fall.

Dr G 1:07:38
Is that a sphinx you brought with you? I really enjoy this whole moment, because there, there is an element of historicity about this. We do know that she goes to Rome to negotiate an alliance, becoming one of the “allied kings and friends of Rome”, so that’s essentially why she’s there. And it’s also the case that Caesar is now in a position where he’s effectively won his Civil War, and he’s able to conduct his great triumph. And we see a lot of white horses just putting it out there.

Dr Rad 1:08:20
Hmm controversial.

Dr G 1:08:21
Is it okay? That’s a reference for listeners to our narrative side of the show.

Dr Rad 1:08:28
That’s what I was going to say, to understand why we’re flagging that, see episodes on Camillus.

Dr G 1:08:33
Yes, see the Camillus episodes for why that might be a problem. Caesar is now in this position where he’s quite powerful in Rome, he has won this civil war. Cleopatra turning up is acceptable because there needs to be an alliance negotiated. She’s now the top dog in Egypt, so she’s got to get the paperwork sorted out for that. And we also know historically that this is when Caesar is starting to spend a lot of money on building programs, which includes a statue to Cleopatra. So it’s all sort of happening in the right kind of way. It’s not strictly historically accurate.

Dr Rad 1:09:10
Yeah, historically, we know that Caesar did set up a statue of Cleopatra in the Temple of Venus Genetrix, I believe.

Dr G 1:09:19
Correct. He did, and she’s placed her statue is slightly smaller than the goddess’s statue, but they’re next to each other, cute.

Dr Rad 1:09:29
Symbolism. I think this is perhaps a good point for us to perhaps start wrapping up. I think definitely the part this part of the movie, the Caesar and Cleopatra part, is the one that intrigues me most, in terms of the way that Cleopatra’s identity is conceived. I’m going to ignore slightly Julius Caesar’s just because, as I say, I feel like the main point of this movie is to make a movie about Cleopatra. And first of all, I think it is interesting that there actually is a nod to the fact that she is a blend of things, that she is not just one thing, because historically, Cleopatra is often conceived of in terms of her race and gender first and foremost, and those aspects of her identity and gender often reflect the context in which they are made and the anxieties of the time in which the film is made. And so we often do see quite orientalized versions of Cleopatra in very early conceptions of her, even going beyond film looking at artwork and that sort of thing her race is, is definitely something that shifts with the discourse around race at the time that something is made. And I think similar things go for the way that her gender is represented. You know, is she hyper feminine? Is she hyper sexualized? All of those kinds of things. I think what is interesting about this movie is that the whilst obviously the the way that she’s dressed, the makeup, and the way that she refers to herself often does play up the typical aspects, which is the highly Egyptianized version of her playing into this idea of her as a foreigner, which I might add, Dr, G, thanks to Augustus, he was the first one to really lay up her foreignness, because it was convenient to do so when they became enemies and in the propaganda war that he ended up fighting with, Mark Antony but I’m not going to get dragged into that.

Dr G 1:11:35
Save that for the next episode.

Dr Rad 1:11:38
Yeah. So we have her talking to Caesar about herself being, as, you know, as fertile as the Nile, that she will bear him many sons and and certainly with the this idea of her being, being Egypt, you know, and we definitely see lots of references to her being particularly tied up with the cult of Isis, and the goddess Isis, which, again, I actually don’t have a major problem with, because we know that that was also the case, and Isis is a deity who has particular connections, obviously, to Aphrodite. By this point in time, Aphrodite obviously having connections to Venus. It’s all coming together with Caesar’s connections with Venus as well. So all of that kind of stuff. I actually can appreciate why they’re doing it. But there are also these references to her Greekness, to the fact that she is part of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Caesar himself, when she is berating him for being a barbarian in her eyes, which, I think, again, is really interesting to see Cleopatra actually spinning that racial narrative back on Caesar. He starts talking about her being, you know, the product of, you know, inbred, incestuous generations. And so he’s talking about her family’s practices. He’s talking about her in connection with her relatives and her ancestry, which absolutely, very important to Cleopatra. We can’t conceive of her without the Ptolemaic dynasty. She’s absolutely drawing on what previous Cleopatras, previous Arsinoes, previous Berenices, have done in the hundreds of years that the Ptolemies have been ruling over Egypt. And we do also see these references to her Greekness, the fact that she is from this Macedonian background, which is really interesting, because you don’t generally get any reference to that being made in a film whatsoever. And whilst you do also get the sensualness of Cleopatra in these representations, and you obviously the way that she interacts with Caesar, you know, the whole rug thing when he comes to visit her, bath the way that she carefully stages it. You do also get to see Cleopatra as a mother, which is generally not something that is incorporated in many versions of Cleopatra, and I think that’s because as a society, we tend to conceive of motherhood as being inherently unsexy, that once you have had a kid, that’s it, that part of your life is over. The sexy part was meant to just lead you into motherhood, and now that you’re there, that’s it. It’s all about nappies and, you know, and bedtimes, nursery stories, and you don’t get to have both, whereas Cleopatra’s motherhood in this particular instance, it’s obviously conceived of as being very political and and you definitely see only a strengthening of that bond with her and Caesar through this child, particularly because we’re explicitly told that Calpurnia is barren and that Caesar doesn’t have any children through her. So I actually think it’s really interesting, the way it comes around, and even the fact that Cleopatra is very self conscious in the way that she stages that bath scene when Caesar comes to visit her, so that she’s having just, you know, like a regular kind of little, you know, spa day or whatever. And then when she hears Caesar is coming, she’s like, let’s put on a show. Romans will have certain expectations, and I can’t disappoint them. And so she’s deliberately playing up to that idea, which, in a way, I think is kind of making fun of us a little bit in the audience, in a kind of wink wink, nudge nudge sort of way, because let’s face it, we also have ideas about what we want to see from a Cleopatra movie, and often the makeup, the hairstyles, the costumes, all of that kind of stuff is is geared to meet our expectations, even though the filmmakers might know it’s not necessarily the most accurate version, they know that they need to deliver something that the audience is going to accept as this is Egypt on screen. This is what Cleopatra on screen looks like. And so they know they have to hit those classic moments. Of these are in Cleopatra meeting with the rug, Cleopatra’s baths.

Dr G 1:15:44
Is she bathing in milk? Check.

Dr Rad 1:15:49
Yeah. And in the next film, there also be those classic moments, like Cleopatra’s barge coming in to meet Antony. There are those classic moments that have to be hit because they have become the real standout moments of Cleopatra and so, yeah, I kind of think it’s fascinating the way that this film, actually, I feel, is playing a little bit more with her gender identity than is often given credit for.

Dr G 1:16:09
Hmm, yeah, we definitely get to see her opting in to building part of the myth, if you like. I think the bath scene that you’ve mentioned is a really good one, because she has been spying on Julius Caesar, so she has overheard the sorts of things that he’s been saying about her when she’s not around, so she knows exactly what he’s expecting to see in the same way that when he in another conversation that they have slightly earlier on, I think she does mention to Caesar that she knows that he went to the tomb of Alexander the Great. This is prior to them going together. And he was like, oh. It’s in that moment where he realizes that she has a spy network, and she has ways of finding out information, and she’s across far more than he may have previously given her credit for, and it’s in that sort of exchange where you seem like, oh, maybe she is a savvy political player. Maybe I should be paying attention to this side of things. And he kind of suspects that he would be spied on, but he’s not expecting the extent to which she has the information. And I think that’s interesting as well, because it does put her in the powerful position in that relationship, like, you’re on my territory. There’s nothing that happens around here that I don’t know about.

Dr Rad 1:17:35
Absolutely. And I think that the way that they position it, I kind of can appreciate because it is natural that Caesar has sometimes more insight into certain political phenomena because he is so much older he’s been around the block many, many times. And Cleopatra is meant to be a young woman at this point in time, sure, a young woman who’s managed to survive the Ptolemaic court, so let’s not underestimate her political savvy either. She’s already seen her father lose his throne because of her sister’s actions, and then her father take it back and execute her older sister. So I’m not trying to downplay the fact that Cleopatra obviously has grown up in perhaps even a more troubled environment than Julius Caesar has, but certainly I don’t mind him being the older statesman in in this particular movie, it’s done in a way that doesn’t ick me, like it does in the Vivien Leigh version of Cleopatra and Caesar, where it is, it is disgusting, the relationship between them at times, and it’s so patronizing, whereas in this case, I think you do get a Cleopatra who is very politically savvy. I mean, like the fact that she knows when there’s, like, an attempted assassination against her, you know, she’s actually sitting around being quite casual. She notices that her taster hasn’t properly taken care of something, and she just very calmly, is like, drink it, drink it again, and the woman dies, you know, because it was an assassination attempt. She does have that savvy, and she does give Caesar, you know, she does talk back to Caesar. She’s bold, and she shows her intelligence, but there are those moments sometimes when Caesar, obviously, can also bring in some, you know, some insight into a situation. So I do kind of like the dynamic, the fact that, you know, it is tit for tat. It’s playful, but in a way that isn’t disgusting, like in the Vivien Leigh version.

Dr G 1:19:26
And we also see, particularly when they’re in Rome, there’s a scene where Julius Caesar is in council with some of the other senators, and it seems like a fairly private moment, but Cleopatra is also present, and he starts to express what he really wants, and that is to be in charge of everything. And obviously this is a little bit dramatic, and not in keeping with what we know from the historical sources, but the fact that Cleopatra is present, and the fact that towards the end of that scene, Mark Antony accuses her of being the product of this change in Julius Caesar is an interesting sort of moment, because it does lean into this idea of, can a woman sort of prompt a man in his ambitions in a particular way, which is a very stereotypical kind of seductress vision. It’s a very Lady Macbeth kind of thing. But we’ve also just witnessed Julius Caesar off his own bat say these things, and nobody has prompted him, nobody has prompted him to say those things. He’s just gotten himself worked up, and he’s revealed something about his own truth that has made everybody in that room uncomfortable. She just happened to be there. Well, I think that’s interesting as well.

Dr Rad 1:19:26
Yeah, exactly No. I completely agree. It’s like, this is what the men are seeing, but they’re not really appreciating the whole picture, because it’s easy to blame the woman, which is absolutely what happened. Cleopatra cops a lot of the blame. I think actually, she’s kind of perfectly summed up in one of Julius Caesar’s lines to her back in that scene in front of Alexander’s sarcophagus, Caesar says to her, “you have a way of mixing politics and passion, but where does one start and the other end?” I think that is kind of how Cleopatra is operating. I mean, it is often seen as a, I suppose, a bit of an unfeminist thing to say that Cleopatra might have used sex in a political way, but maybe we can also say, well, these are also used sex in a political way, in this particular sense. And the advantage of being a woman, and I’m citing Dr Kara Cooney’s work on this, the advantage of being a woman is that you can solidify your relationship through sex. And a child, obviously, you could absolutely solidify any relationship through sex, no matter the gender of the participants, but in this day and age, biologically, it’s only possible to actually fuse that together in a child if you’re a man and woman. So in a way, that is potentially an advantage that Cleopatra has in dealing with these men. And it’s really nice to see a movie that actually allows that part to be included in the story, because, I say so often the focus is just on the sect, the romance, the passion, and they forget about the motherhood that is a key part of Cleopatra’s identity, particularly because Caesarion ends up being someone that Cleopatra promotes herself, as far as we can see with, like the Temple of Dendra and that sort of thing, as a kind of co-ruler. She’s obviously setting him up to take over the dynasty in the future, I would say. But one thing I would like to quickly highlight before we completely leave, and what reminded me about the bath scene. Elizabeth Taylor’s body attracts a lot of attention and commentary, both at the time and subsequently, because Elizabeth Taylor did notoriously fluctuate a lot in her weight during the filming of Cleopatra, and that’s partly because, as we’ve said, the filming goes on a lot longer than was intended. And look, she wasn’t well. She was going through a lot, which we’ll probably get into a little bit more later on, but certainly, her fluctuating weight has attracted a lot of attention, and that has also been, I think, subsumed into this idea of the excesses of Cleopatra in a way that is obviously not enjoyable, but it is also connected to the conditions that Elizabeth Taylor herself had on this particular film, which were record breaking at the time, particularly for a woman in Hollywood. Now, it’s not unusual for studios at the time to want to promote a movie by combining a little bit of the character with their actress, you know, having them become sort of one and the same. So it’s no wonder that Elizabeth Taylor has become so connected with this particular character that she played. And this is not the first time that this had happened to her. At the time that she was involved with Eddie Fisher and getting involved in, I was gonna say breaking up the marriage, but obviously it takes many people to break up a marriage at the time that she was involved in that triangle, let’s say, and I should perhaps say, that she was friends with Debbie Reynolds, by the way, by the time she was involved in this triangle with Eddie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds, and she was recovering from the very tragic death of the love of her life, Mike Todd, who had died in a plane crash very unexpectedly. And she apparently actually sort of saw Caesar in this movie as being like Mike Todd. So, yeah, Mike Todd, being her, her Caesar, basically. She had been in a movie called Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, which is about a woman of loose morals, to put it in the time, the vocabulary of time seducing somebody else’s husband. So Elizabeth Taylor has has known this sort of treatment from Hollywood studios before, but her body the film itself, they all become sort of emblematic of the excesses of Hollywood, and that connects really well, obviously, with this idea that Cleopatra was supposed to be excessive. We have stories of her extravagance that are preserved to us, like the famous one from Pliny the Elder of her dissolving this amazing pearl in a glass of vinegar so that she can drink it and say she has drunk something insanely expensive that doesn’t seem to be possible physically. But those stories are very popular. If you look at portraiture of Cleopatra, often, pearls are a big symbol of hers, and so Elizabeth Taylor showing off her body in this particular bath scene has definitely attracted commentary because of the way that people have had no problems talking about her weight losses and gains throughout this movie, and the way that she sometimes has, you know, abundant cleavage showing, or she often has abundant cleavage showing in all of her costumes, which were tailor made for her by Irene Sharaff, one of the big designers in Hollywood. And I’m going to finish up by telling you a bit about her salary. Dr James,

Dr G 1:26:02
dr, because just a minute, I mean, her, her costumes are incredible. There are some. There are some. In particular, I’m just like, Oh, I wish I had a body that would look that good in a costume. That’s so, you know, the costume designer did an amazing job, I think. Oh, and she look,

Dr Rad 1:26:19
she look. She complained a little bit about the fact that she had to keep altering them, because Taylor’s weight did fluctuate, but she had 60 costumes. Elizabeth Taylor made it very clear that she planned to steal them all because she thought that they would. She actually could see that they were going to start a trend like the Taylor Cleopatra trend. In terms of the fashion. Apparently, Elizabeth Taylor also was allowed to sometimes do her own makeup. So some of those makeup looks might have actually been Elizabeth Taylor’s own kind of invention, which seems interesting, but she attracted a million dollar fee for this, and this was the first time that any actress had received such a salary from a studio. The way that this was broken down, it was meant to be about $125,000 a week in salary, as well as other expenses, such as $3,000 a week in living expenses. Plus her food was paid for, plus where she was staying was paid for, plus she received first class round trip airline tickets for any movie location shoots for herself, three other adults and her three children that she had at the time, she needed two Penthouse Suites at the Dorchester in London, a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud limousine at her disposal at all times. And also, as we’ve talked about, her production company was involved in the production of this film, so she was also benefiting from that, which meant that the movie had to be shot in Europe, not the USA, for tax reasons, she also made sure that the movie was going to be shot in Todd ao. Now, Todd-AO was something that she had inherited from her husband Mike Todd when he died, who had pioneered this particular widescreen technique. Now this was important because 20th Century Fox had their own widescreen technique called CinemaScope that was particularly famous, which means that she got royalties from the use of Todd-AO, and they couldn’t use CinemaScope, and it meant that the sets had to be built in a certain way, because that’s the way that widescreen works. You have to make sure that’s going to look a certain way on the screen. So she would end up making around $7 million from this particular movie. So even though she later bad mouthed it and said that she didn’t like her own performance, she certainly made a mint from it. And let’s face it, she wasn’t doing too badly when she entered she was already famous for being wealthy, for having had multiple marriages and love affairs and that sort of thing. So the fusion of her own identity with that of Cleopatra, the excesses of Hollywood and the studio system at the time, and the fact that those excesses seemingly lead to a downfall,

Dr G 1:29:06
like a little bit of life mirroring art. And you know, these things are all going together. I mean, the perfect casting for Cleopatra.

Dr Rad 1:29:15
I would think absolutely so. That perhaps seems like a good moment for us to wrap up. Dr G, as I predicted, this episode has become as bloated as the movie itself.

Dr G 1:29:28
It is time, dear listeners, for an intermission.

Dr Rad 1:29:34
We will be back to talk all about Cleopatra, 1963 and the second half of the movie with a focus on Richard Burton slash Mark Anthony, next time.

Dr G 1:29:49
Thank you for listening to this episode of the partial historians. You can find our sources sound credits and transcript in our show notes over partialhistorians.com. We offer a huge thank you to you, if you’re one of our illustrious Patreon supporters, if you enjoy the show, we’d love your support in a way that works for you. Leaving a nice review really makes our day. We are on Ko-Fi for one or ongoing donations or Patreon, of course, our latest book, Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire, is published through Ulysses Press. It is full of stories that the Romans probably don’t want you to know about them. This book is packed with some of our favorite tales of the colorful history of ancient Rome. Treat yourself or an open minded friend to Rome’s glories, embarrassments and most salacious claims. With Your Cheeky Guide To the Roman Empire.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Cleopatra 1963 – Cleopatra and Caesar appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

Rounding out our trilogy of special episodes on Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II, we are joined by gladiator expert, Alexandra Sills.

Special Episode – Gladiator II with Alexandra Sills

Alexandra holds a BA in Classical Studies from Birkbeck College, University of London and a MA in The Classical Mediterranean from the University of Leicester. Alexandra’s MA dissertation was awarded the Mark Pluciennik prize in Archaeology & Ancient History. Alexandra has published outreach articles for Bad Ancient and Working Classicists and recently published an academic article entitled ‘The Tropification of Hollywood Heroes Thrown Into the Arena’ for Melita Classica in 2023. Alexandra’s current research focuses on gladiators in the ancient world and their reception on film and television. We’re thrilled to have her on the show to discuss all things gladiators.

We start with a history of the development of the gladiator in the Roman world including:

Are there things that Gladiator II gets right from the perspective of the ancient evidence? We discuss the possibilities with Alexandra.

Fred Hechinger plays Emperor Caracalla, Pedro Pascal plays General Acacius and Joseph Quinn plays Emperor Geta in Gladiator II

Gladiator II – Macrinus played by Denzel Washington

Check out our other episodes on Gladiator II with experts Dr Lindsay Steenberg and Professor Martin M. Winkler.

Our theme music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman.

Lightly edited for the Latin and our wonderful Australian accents!

Dr Rad 0:15
Welcome to The Partial Historians.

Dr G 0:19
We explore all the details of ancient Rome,

Dr Rad 0:23
everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battled wage and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr Rad.

Dr G 0:33
And I’m Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.

Dr Rad 0:44
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Dr G 0:54
Hello and welcome to a new, very special episode of The Partial Historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr G.

Dr Rad 1:04
And I am Dr Rad.

Dr G 1:07
And we are super thrilled to have a special guest with us today, Alexandra Sills. Now I’ll just give you a quick bio. Alexandra Sills holds a BA in Classical Studies from Birkbeck College, University of London, and an MA in the Classical Mediterranean from the University of Leicester. Alexandra’s MA dissertation was awarded the Mark Pluciennik prize in Archeology and Ancient History. Alexandra has published a range of articles for Bad Ancient and Working Classicists, and recently published an academic article entitled ‘The tropification of Hollywood heroes thrown into the arena’ for Melita Classica in 2023. Alexandra’s current research focuses on gladiators in the ancient world and their reception on film and television. And if you haven’t guessed already, we are thrilled to have Alexandra on the show to discuss gladiators. And of course, the most recent foray of gladiators on the big screen, Ridley Scott’s Gladiator Two. Welcome Alexandra.

Alexandra Sills 2:21
Hello. Thank you for having me. Absolutely thrilled to talk about this film. There’s so much to talk about.

Dr G 2:28
Soooo much to talk about. So to get us started, a soft launch, if you like, into this foray. What makes a gladiator in the ancient Roman world. When do they originate and when do they go out of fashion?

Alexandra Sills 2:45
Okay, that’s a really good question, and it’s one that’s got quite an interesting answer, I think, because everyone assumes that they’re really stereotypically Roman. But actually, the Romans stole the idea from other cultures, and we’re not entirely sure which other cultures they got the most inspiration from, because nobody bothered writing that down. But we do know that down in Campania, which is the area around Naples and Pompeii, they were having fights long before they did in Rome. That tended to be something that they did after battles with prisoners of war and sometimes during feasts. And also, the Etruscans were having combats as well. So the Romans were looking to the north and to the south and seeing, Oh, this is actually quite a fun entertainment. Why don’t we try it? So the first recorded fight in Rome, according to Livy, was in 264 it was for a funeral of a former consul, and it was put on by his sons. They decided that they were going to have something to make this particular funeral, something really memorable for everyone who turned up. And the Romans had just won a battle, and some of the guests were told, brought along some prisoners of war as guests, as presents for the family. And someone had the idea, let’s make them fight. So they did. And there were three pairs of gladiators at that first funeral, and then as funerals, it became, you know, popular to have that first one, obviously, was a hit. You see more and more and more gladiators being at each funeral until that part of the funeral could last multiple days, and it was put on either by the tomb or in the forum, if it was particularly big, and the whole of Rome would come out. And it was the point was not necessarily as a sacrifice to the dead, because that’s not something that the Romans were particularly interested in. But it was a show, particularly since these men were former consuls, and that’s a military role to show some military prowess, particularly, and. Prisoners of war, they’re usually caught with their own kit and their own skills, so they don’t need a lot of training, and so that they could be presented as a celebration. This is a former consul he was in charge of the army, and look, we’ve got prisoners of war fighting to the death, because we can do that because we’re winners. So that’s how they kind of started. And then Julius Caesar decides, I’m going to use this to my political advantage. Because why not? So he, of course, Julius Caesar started to say, I need to put on some games, because I can see how they’re making my peers really popular and look fantastic, especially to voters, but no one in my family’s died. What do I do? So he starts,

Dr Rad 5:48
What a tragedy.

Alexandra Sills 5:50
No one’s dead. It’s awful. So he starts putting on games 20 years after his family members have died, slightly delayed saying, Oh, I wasn’t rich enough to do it before, or, you know, I didn’t have the means, but I can do now, and I want to catch up. And it was always –

Dr Rad 6:09
We’ve all had those situations where your to do list gets away from you.

Alexandra Sills 6:13
Especially when your to do list is as long as his was. But, you know, he was saying, I can do it now, so I should, and it was very convenient that it was always in a year where he needed to win an election soon. So then you start having laws brought in by the senate saying, Julius, he’s been nuts. We need to put caps on how many gladiators you can have at a funeral, for instance. And he is assassinated before he can start completely divorcing funerals from gladiators. But then you get Augustus, and he’s been watching and he thinks, yeah, I can’t have rivals putting on a show bigger than I can. I’m going to monopolize gladiatorial combat, take it away from funerals and just make it mine. I’m the only one who can do it.

Dr G 7:04
Oh, the classic Augustus power move.

Dr Rad 7:07
It’s my thing. Yeah.

Alexandra Sills 7:08
Yeah. And that’s when it starts turning into the Imperial thing, where it’s put on by the emperor for the people, instead of by the sun for a dead father. And it carries on going and getting bigger and bigger and bigger for a couple of centuries, and we don’t really see it decline until the four or five hundreds. So it happened for an awfully long time. 1000s and 1000s, 10s of 1000s of gladiators were fighting across the entire empire.

Dr Rad 7:37
That is crazy when you think about it.

Dr G 7:39
It becomes quite an industry, hmm.

Dr Rad 7:42
I know now for some people seeing gladiator or gladiator two or some such might be the extent of their exposure to gladiators. You know, this is might be where they’re learning about gladiators. So thinking about gladiator two, tell us what are some perhaps surprising things that this film gets right about gladiators?

Alexandra Sills 8:08
So one of them seems to be accidental, but I’m going to go with it anyway.

Dr Rad 8:13
I love when historical movies do this.

Alexandra Sills 8:15
They had a character who was played by a Palestinian actress, and we don’t know who she was, but we think from the the stills that have been released that she was part of the staff of Denzel Washington’s character, but for reasons unknown to be diplomatic, she was cut from the film, and apparently it’s her narrative arc has been replaced at the last minute by a character who is the doctor in the gladiatorial school. And that’s brilliant, not for the actress, but for my purposes, because it does show that gladiatorial combat was not brutal, but survivable. And that, because they were huge investments and they were worth a lot of money, you would absolutely provide the best medical care available. For instance, one of the most famous doctors from the ancient world, chap called Galen started his career in Pergamon in Turkey as a gladiatorial doctor. And he credits his wonderful breadth of knowledge with spending two years with these guys who are getting sliced open all the time so that he can actually See inside what’s happening with tendons, muscles, internal organs. He wouldn’t have got access to that otherwise. So he credits two years at a gladiatorial school with giving him the wonderful amount of knowledge that meant that he could later come to Rome, and I think, you know, be a doctor for emperors, for goodness sake. So, yeah, the the gladiators were getting injured a lot. We don’t have a lot of gladiatorial skeletons. There’s a cemetery in York and a cemetery in Ephesus, and both of those cemeteries have skeletons with huge amounts of wounds, some of them we can tell time of death. This is what caused the guy to die. But there are also loads of wounds that have shown signs of healing and show signs of care in the healing as well, not just breaks, but cuts, slices. These bones are, you know, they tell a story. There’s even some bones. There’s one from York, which has got bites in it, you can see the teeth marks.

Dr G 10:43
Oh, God.

Alexandra Sills 10:46
And they go deep. I think it was into a hip bone. And, my goodness, I can’t imagine how that must have felt. I think they’ve measured the gaps between the teeth and how big the teeth are. I think they said it might have been a bear.

Dr G 10:58
Wow

Alexandra Sills 10:59
Horrifying.

Dr G 10:59
Okay, yeah,

Dr Rad 11:02
The hip bone’s connected to the jaw bone

Alexandra Sills 11:07
But, yeah, absolutely, these guys would have had the top line of medical care. So it was really nice that, accidentally, they had this character added at the last minute and gave him that profession, because it does show that they were receiving some care. They weren’t just thrown away the first time they got a cut, because a cut is more dangerous in many ways, because you can get an infection.

Dr Rad 11:32
So I agree. I really liked that aspect of the doctor character was probably one of my favorite parts, because it wasn’t something that you actually saw very much of in the first movie, either. So that was like a new addition. And yeah, I agree that was a really nice touch. And it also does show, as you say, that the Romans, as much as obviously, we struggle with this aspect of their culture, sometimes it does show that they weren’t just keen to throw away the lives of these particular fighters. That wasn’t the purpose of these games, which I think is what people think. Sometimes they think the Romans wanted to see death. And I’m like, Well, it’s a little bit more complicated.

Alexandra Sills 12:17
Yeah, they absolutely weren’t going to see death. They were going to see how men reacted to impending death with dignity. It was like a kind of teachable moment. If you’re going to die, do it with some dignity, like these guys are, but they weren’t going for that. Specifically. They were going to see how you prevent your death through skill, through discipline. So it wasn’t going to see people die. It was going to see people try to kill using skill and discipline, but also to save their own skins, and that was a far, far more important aspect.

Dr Rad 12:56
Now, Little Timmy, we’ve brought you here for your fifth birthday so that you can learn life’s most important lesson.

Alexandra Sills 13:03
I mean, it’s, can you imagine the wiggles?

Dr G 13:07
It’s a whole new show now.

Alexandra Sills 13:12
But yeah, it was. It was not a conveyor belt of of death and destruction like we sometimes see in Hollywood. It was much more about the tactics and thinking things through. And you can see them thinking what their next move is going to be. How am I going to defend from this blow? So I think instead of, you know, just like mindless violence, we should consider it like how some people watch sport now from sofas. They’re not just thinking, ‘yeah, get him’ necessarily. They’re thinking, ‘okay, if it was me, I would go this way around, and I would make sure that I’ve got this defense’. And I, you know, we should think of the spectators as kind of back seat drivers, and they’re analyzing little pieces. It’s not mindless. They they know what they’re looking at. And they’re thinking, Yeah, okay, I like that. That technique is going to work. I think, yeah, okay, that’s good. Or I really don’t like that guy’s style. Does he not realize he’s leaving this side of his body, and, you know, undefended, what’s he doing? That kind of thing. We should consider them to be connoisseurs. I think that’s, that’s the better way to think about it.

Dr Rad 14:31
Yeah, which we’ve normally seen as, like, this crazy, mindless mob, which is what we normally see in movies, yeah,

Dr G 14:36
Uh oh, not the, not the crowd in the film.

Dr Rad 14:40
Not the crowd. Look, he’s coming in with the two swords, and he’s chopping that guy’s head right off. I hate it when he does that.

Dr G 14:49
Classic. I think this leads in really nicely to thinking about what, what makes a cinematic gladiator, as opposed to an an ancient world old gladiator. So we’ve got this idea that there there’s a sophistication to the fighting, a sophistication to the way that they’re looked after. The crowd is intelligent, knows what they’re looking for. How does this compare to the idea of the cinematic gladiator, and some of the tropes that come through in that version of the gladiator?

Alexandra Sills 15:24
Yeah, I’ve looked at a lot, a lot of screen gladiators for my research, and there are certain things that happen almost every single time. So one of them is the spectators will just be bloodthirsty, mindless, an anonymized mass incapable of any sophisticated thought. So let’s get rid of that straight away. One of the other things that makes a screen gladiator is that they don’t start off in a lowered position. The gladiator in Rome was the lowest of the low they were classed as infamia, which is where we get the word infamous, obviously. And that’s the same class as sex workers and funeral directors, because funeral directors, they touch corpses so they’re not clean anyone who sells their body. Sex workers, actors, these are people that you might cheer when you see them perform, but you’re not going to want to be seen next to them at a dinner party. That would be awful. But screen gladiators, they don’t start off as enslaved people or something like this. They’re always noble in their own way. They’re not, you know anyone plucked from obscurity, that they’re always generals or Starfleet commanders in Star Trek, that kind of thing, and they always have to be demoted before they can be thrown into the arena. And we see this in both gladiator movies, because Maximus is a general. Acacius is a general. Lucius is, you know, grandson of an emperor who is a general. So these guys aren’t the lowest of the low. They’re performing for plebs, because that’s what these spectators always are plebs. But they always have to have an honor that they’ve always had. They can’t earn honor in the arena. They can only claw some of it back, which I think is interesting, because that’s not what gladiators were doing in the real world. They were plucked from obscurity and completely self making their honor, rather than having to fight for it back. And there’s there’s other things that make a screen gladiator. You’ve always got to have a wife who’s killed horribly, or a family member who’s tortured.

Dr Rad 18:03
Gives you a reason to fight. Gotta get that rage.

Alexandra Sills 18:07
Yeah, it gives you, it gives them a reason to fight, but it kind of gives the audience permission to approve of them doing these horrible things that we see. If it was any other character beheading another for no other reason than this guy told me to you’d think it was awful, and that’s how we think of their opponents, who are not given any backstory. They’re just awful, aren’t they, but our heroes have something noble to fight for because they’re mourning or they have a love interest that they want to get back to, so it kind of gives them a humanity that therefore gives us permission to say, Yeah, okay, we’re gonna let you stab that guy, because we understand why you want to do it. And that is kind of giving us permission to not be the mindless, bloodthirsty mass of the Roman spectators, even though we’re all watching the same thing, which is interesting, because the Romans kind of did give their spectators permission to watch this by anonymizing their gladiators. They did the opposite. They didn’t give them back stories and make them underdogs. And you know, talk about the loved ones that they had at home. The Romans, put a helmet on them, gave them stage names and absolutely no personality whatsoever, so that they were dehumanized in a way that the spectators could think, yeah, okay, I can watch them die because I can’t see their face. I can’t see the fear on their face. There’s no emotion there. It might – it’s barely a person. We can watch them die if necessary, but we do the opposite. We give them families, and we give them hopes and dreams and a reason to escape the arena and the life that they can just see for themselves, just over the horizon, if they can just get out. So I think that’s an interesting kind of inversion to what we do.

Dr Rad 19:58
It is interesting.

Alexandra Sills 19:59
Yeah.

Dr Rad 19:59
Yeah, yeah. It is interesting when you think about the comparison to, like, modern day, you know, WWF fighters or MMA. I can’t even remember what those things are called, because I’m no interest in them whatsoever in real life. But we also don’t do that with them either, like you don’t have them coming out going, well, here’s Steve Austin, and he’s got a lovely wife, who’s 35 at home and two adorable children. He is going to slam his opponent. Nor can you actually imagine, in ancient Rome someone announcing Spartacus coming out and saying, This is Spartacus. He was sold into slavery with the love of his life. He’s going to be fighting for her today.

Alexandra Sills 20:38
Yeah, they would have thought that was bizarre. So yeah, it’s, it’s interesting that for us, obviously there has to be a storyline to make a movie, although someone needs to perhaps remind Ridley Scott that storylines need a bit more work. It’s, it’s not just that we need a narrative arc, but they all have the same ones. They all have the murdered wife. They all have a love interest outside of the murdered wife, just to give them a little bit more love to still to come. They all have the same inner turmoil, which means that pretty much every gladiator on screen, including in fantasy, sci fi comedy, they all copy Spartacus, in a way, and it means that they’re all kind of copy pastes. It’s always the same storyline, just in a slightly different setting, which

Dr Rad 21:38
is an interesting thing to bring up, actually, because whilst I know the Starz series is quite different, and there are so many versions of Spartacus which don’t follow this particular storyline, but the really famous Spartacus from 1960 he actually doesn’t start from a high point. He, I mean, his character starts from a high point. That’s what we’re meant to leave, right? But he actually does start from obscurity. He’s meant to be the mines. So in that, in that respect, he doesn’t fit this particular trope, but we see enough of him, in terms of his training at the gladiator school and the relationship that he builds with verinia that a lot of those tropes you’re talking about apply. And that’s exactly what Howard Fast was going for he as incredibly unlikely it was that somebody would be taken from the mines and put into the arena. He wanted to have that particular arc where he goes from nothing to being this incredibly noble, admirable person, and that’s what we see in in that movie, but, but that is weird. It’s weird to see, yeah, coming from slavery.

Alexandra Sills 22:42
I think that’s really interesting, because Howard Fast obviously has him as this messianic figure that manages to really, truly threaten Rome. And let’s be honest, he really did truly threaten Rome. And yeah, but you know, we all know how that movie was made, and he had to be brought down a peg or two – communism – but the Starz series has him as a warrior who who’s telling the Roman general, if you did it my way, we’d be winning this battle right now, which you know feeds in again, the more that gladiators develop on screen, the more they have to have martial experience before the arena. Not only is it a shortcut, a narrative shortcut, you don’t have to train them because they’ve already, you know, won all of these big battles, but they –

Dr Rad 23:35
And they’re brilliant. They’re naturally just brilliant.

Alexandra Sills 23:38
They’re all, you know, prodigies of of warfare. But it’s really interesting. Even in in speculative fiction, you’ve got say, Katniss Everdeen, going into the Hunger Games, they make sure to mention she’s an ace with a bow because of her hunting. In all of them, you have to have this kind of, don’t worry, guys, this person’s going to be fine, or perhaps not fine, but they’re going to do well because they have prior experience that ties along with their inner honor. So yeah, it’s it wasn’t a surprise to me when they had Lucius in that first battle, you know, doing his thing, being amazing, even though he clearly had no training as a child back in Rome, he’s received it elsewhere, and now he’s a military genius, just like the other ones. Of course, he is.

Dr Rad 24:35
Well, I mean, this is, I’m so glad you brought up Lucius Verus Aurelius, supposed hero of this film, perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Gladiator Two, not because of you, Paul. I’m not blaming you, but yeah, let’s talk about him and how he is matching up to these tropes. Because, yeah, you’re totally right. He was a little pampered imperial prince when we saw him last, and now he is a rugged, masculine sword on legs.

Alexandra Sills 25:08
Yeah, none of this decadence that you see in Rome, obviously that would be awful.

Dr Rad 25:14
I turned my back on my noble heritage.

Alexandra Sills 25:17
So we obviously you see him first tending his farm. Because, guess what? His dad had a farm. It’s in his blood, tending his farm with his wife, and they have a little bit of a kiss over the laundry. And you know she’s going to be dead in two minutes.

Dr G 25:36
Yeah, the setup is real.

Alexandra Sills 25:38
So she immediately gets pushed into a refrigerator off of a wall, into the sea within minutes. And you know that’s going to happen because it happens. Every single one of these stories follows the same path, the same narrative blocks. So you knew she was going to die, and she does thankful at least that they gave her a bow and arrow so that she at least went down fighting, which is a massive improvement.

Dr Rad 26:02
Women are always now military geniuses as well, but not genius enough to not get killed immediately in their very stylish corseted kind of breast armor.

Alexandra Sills 26:13
Oh, the boob armor. Yeah, that wall had crenalltions. She could have hidden herself perfectly well, but no, she stands up completely undefended. Of course she does. So, yeah, he’s obviously devastated. His wife’s just died. Because you have to have them devastated. It gives them a reason to fight the imperialism itself. Isn’t enough of a reason, because that happens to all of them. You need to give them personal reason, because they are special. They’re the main character. So he’s given his reason. That’s lovely. You see her go off to the underworld. Nice touch. I have to say, I enjoyed seeing Charon. I do think it was a bit of a missed opportunity. I love seeing Charon with his little boat, bless him, but I think they could have tied in, if you’re going to have anachronisms, go for it, but I think it would have been really cool to see his wife get on the real Charon’s boat over to the underworld and then in the arena later to feature the Charon character that you sometimes see in literature in the arena, who was a member of the staff dressed as the god, the Etruscan version of the God, who would come in with a hammer. And if there are any prone gladiators, and you think, are they dead? Are they faking it? Are they just trying to get out of, you know, being stabbed, the usual way, Charon would come on as massive hammer and whack him on the head, just to make sure that they were truly dead and weren’t faking it. I thought that would have been such a wonderful call back. You could have had him have it like a PTSD episode when he sees this guy dressed as Charon and remember his wife and go into berserker mode. But, you know,

Dr Rad 26:34
That would have been cool.

Alexandra Sills 27:34
It would have been cool, but you know, that would have required a movie that had more time spent on the script, maybe.

Dr Rad 28:08
It irritated me at the time that they had that afterlife segment, because to me, it was just trying to give Lucius the Maximus thing with the grain. It was just his version of the grain that we constantly saw Maximus, you know, running his hand through with the sad music. And, yeah, the biggest thing I hated, I suppose, about this movie was how much it was just trying to hit those same notes as the first film, and doing it so badly.

Alexandra Sills 28:35
Yeah

Dr Rad 28:36
That, yeah, it actually irritated me. But I do see where you’re coming from, and I like your vision.

Alexandra Sills 28:41
Yeah, you know, if there is a Gladiator Three, and apparently there is going to be, you know, call me. I work for cheap.

Dr G 28:49
Yeah, get some real gladiator information in there. You know, stack that script with something really cool.

Alexandra Sills 28:55
He doesn’t allow, you know, experts on on set. I think he did talk to someone beforehand with the script, but they weren’t allowed on set because he was so annoyed about the Napoleon comments, it would have made the film better having the expert on set. It didn’t have to be, you know, every day, but just little things would have been anyway.

Dr G 29:20
Well, I was thinking, like, in terms of thinking about these tropes related to the cinematic gladiators. Obviously Lucius is fitting right in there, and also creating this kind of, like mirror image, if you like, to Maximus, which is obviously part of what this film is all about. But now that we’re talking about Charon as well, and this element of the Underworld, I think it’s time to hit that note of Virgil’s Aeneid. And the quotation that is floating through this film that gets repeated again and again, and it’s a famous translation of Virgil’s Aeneid. It comes from John Dryden and. And it’s Aeneid Book Six, lines 126 to 129, for the cool kids in the crowd who want to go and have a look at their Virgil’s Aeneid, “The gates of hell are open night and day. Smooth, the descent and easy is the way, but to return and view the cheerful skies in this the task and mighty labor lies.” Now, I think, first of all, it was hilarious to me that we saw it in English in some places. But this also is a direct reference to Aeneas attempt to go down into the Underworld. So, yeah, this is an idea that comes through in a lot of ancient heroic literature. This really symbolic katabasis, a journey to the underworld, where you survive and are able to return.

Alexandra Sills 30:52
Yeah.

Dr G 30:53
And I’m interested in your perspective on what’s going on with Lucius and this idea of the journey to the Underworld. There’s clearly a moment where he’s getting access to seeing parts of the Underworld in moments. So yeah, I’m keen for your thoughts on this.

Alexandra Sills 31:09
I thought it was really interesting. And to start off, I thought, Oh, they’re making a real attempt to engage with, you know how the ancients thought about death. Then I thought, maybe I’m giving them too much credit, but it was interesting the way that they made him quote that they’re they’re not only harking back to the education that he had as a childhood and that he clearly still remembers. He he still connects with that part of his identity before he was forced to flee. But I thought it was interesting because it’s clearly marking Lucius. He’s got an education. He’s elite, he’s noble. He can quote Virgil, he’s noble, and that’s how you can tell he’s not your average gladiator. And in a film that’s supposed to be saying that gladiators can change the world, even though that we know that they didn’t. It’s interesting that they have to mark him out as superior to the other ones. He’s different. It’s only the exceptional gladiator that can change the world, because the rest of them are mindless drones who just, you know, they have a sword put in their hand and do as they’re told. So I did think it was interesting that they kind of had to make him the literary gladiator. He’s got a mind. He thinks for himself. Oh, okay, fine. Everyone clapped. But yet, I thought it was again interesting to think of his whole journey as a katabasis. He goes into the arena. It’s the liminal place of death. He’s constantly trying to communicate with his dead father, who, of course, failed in his katabasis. They’re not always successful in Greek literature, I think it was, oh, who was it? Theseus went down there, and Hercules went down there. Someone didn’t come back up. And I can’t remember who my professor, who taught me my katabasis module, is currently slamming her head against the table.

Dr G 33:08
The important point is that not everybody makes it some attempt it and do not return.

Alexandra Sills 33:11
Absolutely. Some attempts fail. And it’s important to remember that the katabasis is a huge undertaking that is supposed to be difficult. That’s why it’s such a great story. So, yeah, he, of course, goes into the arena. It’s a place of death communicating. He wants to achieve something. You don’t just go down there for a holiday. You’re going down to achieve something. And it brings it back to the idea that his father didn’t survive. And the thing is, with the first film, it ends with a positive note, Maximus has died, but he sacrificed himself for the greater good, and everything’s going to be fine now, and we’re going to end with a sunrise to symbolize it. But the problem with coming up with a sequel that never should have happened is you have to admit to yourself, we’re following history. So we have to say to our audience, the whole first film happened for nothing, because it didn’t change anything. And in fact, it’s worse. So it’s kind of putting that katabasis in to say the first katabasis was amazing, but it failed. You didn’t come back out of the arena. So technically, it wasn’t a katabasis at all. It was just a really elongated suicide mission. But Lucius, he knows this in advance. He’s watched one happen before. He’s thinking about the past all the time. It’s like he’s read the Odyssey and the Indian that have got these maps of the underworld, and this is how he’s going to survive. He’s going to learn from previous trips into the liminal space full of death. So I did think that was interesting, particularly since he does survive. But it’s actually in in all of the other gladiatorial stories, you’re far more likely to survive in sci fi, fantasy, speculative fiction, if you’re the protagonist, loads of your friends will die. But in the swords and sandals, your chances of dying are much higher. So Spartacus, obviously, he doesn’t die in an arena, but the battle is shown as one large arena. So he obviously does. He has to. Pompeii Milo, played by Kit Harington, with his 0% body fat, he dies again, not in an arena, but you could talk about Vesuvius as you know, the ultimate opponent. He dies.

Dr Rad 35:45
He’s close to an arena.

Alexandra Sills 35:46
Yeah, he’s he’s adjacent, and Maximus dies. Lucius is one of the only swords and sandals gladiatorial protagonists to actually reach the end credits with all of his limbs intact and still breathing. So that’s pretty incredible. So the whole katabasis motif that they’re using is pretty fitting, because not only in the literature, but in the movie history of gladiators, the swords and sandals ones, they don’t leave generally. So yeah, I thought it was interesting. But again, if you’re, if you’re going to introduce these ideas and then announce another sequel that perhaps doesn’t need to happen, you’re going to need to change it again. So it’ll be interesting to see what they do. If they do, I don’t know.

Dr G 36:41
I’m very excited for Gladiator Three, which doesn’t involve the arena at all, but is just senatorial politics, as Lucius tries to wrangle everybody into line in in the way and manner of Tiberius and getting frustrated and then maybe leaving Rome again, being like, you know, I’m done with you guys, I can’t.

Dr Rad 37:04
that would be cool if we had a Tiberius inspired Lucius, I’d be on board for that. But I have to come back to this idea that that Lucius survives. I totally get what you’re saying about the particular storyline they’re possibly following. But as someone who constantly disappointed me in this film, what do you think about the lack of a tragic death volusus, I mean, would it have made it a better movie if he also, I think, died, or is it too much like Maximus?

Alexandra Sills 37:38
They did follow the storyline of the first one almost exactly, and they had to change it somewhere. But I do think he probably should have died, because, for a start, we know that he never became emperor. So you’ve got that hurdle, you’ve you’ve changed history so much, either you’ve got to start saying we’re going completely fictional, or you’ve got to admit this guy should have been dead for a couple of decades already. What I found interesting was the way that Macrinus is constantly talking about Lucius rage and how it’s a gift. Never let it go. It will carry you to greatness. And I thought that that probably unintentionally, had kind of parallels to Achilles in the Iliad, his rage is a tool that will carry him to greatness. Because Achilles, everyone knows the name Achilles now. And I thought that was an interesting parallel. On the other hand, for a gladiator, I think rage is the last thing that you want, because rage makes you careless, and we do see him being fairly careless at times during the movie.

Dr Rad 39:01
And that’s a big difference with Maximus, actually.

Alexandra Sills 39:03
Yeah

Dr Rad 39:05
That’s a bit of a difference with Maximus, because Maximus is dead inside. He is calm and calculated when he is forced to fight because he doesn’t care. He’s like, I don’t care if I live or die. I don’t he like. He has a certain level of rage towards certain people and about certain things, but it’s nothing like what Lucius is shown to have in this particular film I don’t think.

Alexandra Sills 39:29
No, you’re right. I think Maximus died when he saw his family at the farm. Really exactly Lucius is angrier. It’s not an anger that particularly goes anywhere. It’s kind of –

Dr Rad 39:47
We’re told he’s angry, but is he? I mean, he has moments, but it’s like when people tell me, you seem upset and I wasn’t upset, but then I feel upset because they’ve said that. I feel like that’s what happens to Lucius. People say You seem angry. You seem filled with rage. And he’s like, what?

Alexandra Sills 40:02
Well, I am now. What are you trying to say about my face?

Dr Rad 40:03
Exactly! What are you trying to say about me?

Alexandra Sills 40:09
For a start, he he’s sent straight to the arena, which, again, it didn’t happen the there’s a line Macrinus says in the film, gladiators are nearly all prisoners of war. That might have been true in the middle Republic, but it’s certainly not true into a mature empire. There were, there was no point. By that point gladiators, and this is something that the film doesn’t understand, gladiators were highly, highly specialized. They were fighters, but they weren’t soldier fighters. They weren’t transferable skills necessarily. You wouldn’t put a legionary in untrained into an arena, just as you wouldn’t send an army of gladiators out onto the field, because it’s not the same style. So we see a little bit of training, but we don’t see the weird differences in between the gladiators. So for instance, the retiarius with his trident and net, that’s weird, and it’s cool because it’s weird. They’re seeing something that they don’t see on battlefields, all of these different types, the retiarius, the mermelo, they’re all highly, highly specialized in style, and that’s what gives you the novelty, the diversity in fights, because they’re not all the same. Every single fighter has a different style. They’re always put on against the same type of opponent, so that’s specifically what they train for. And because of this, this specific styles and training that they need, they weren’t using prisoners of war. They were much more likely to have a stable of gladiators that was mainly enslaved people that they’d bought for the purpose and would train from scratch so that they didn’t have any bad habits from their previous life. You could train them to do exactly what you wanted them to do, and volunteers from from free men. So again, the fact that he’s a soldier, the fact that Acacia Maximus, they’re all soldiers, and that’s supposed to set them apart. I think actually, it would have been a more interesting film to say, yes, these guys are battlefield whizzes, but it doesn’t help them in the arena, because this is an entirely new ball game.

Dr Rad 42:45
Well, I think it’s how they fight when we see them in battle scenes, because they are the hero. We are still seeing them in these kinds of moments that I think Livy would have loved, these fantastic jewels on the battlefield between them and another fantastic warrior from the other side, which is the kind of moment that historians like Livy enjoyed celebrating, but was not really, obviously what most people would have experienced being in the Roman military. You know, you have to be a team. You have to work together. It’s not about the one guy breaking through the lines and, you know, and challenging the other leader of the other side, that’s so unlikely to happen all the time.

Dr G 43:31
I think it also hits towards the problem of filmic gladiators, in the sense that the arena fighting in no way resembles what we would expect from the ancient evidence for how these things were conducted. So we know that there were umpires essentially who were always looking on and making sure that the rules of gladiatorial combat were being followed, and allowing for breaks and pauses and also seeking additional advice if needed. So there’s a whole apparatus around ancient gladiatorial fighting, which we I don’t, not in my expectation or not in my experience. And both of you have watched more gladiator films than I have so but I have not seen that on film?

Alexandra Sills 44:21
No, I mean, Spartacus Starz has probably the closest to what I would call authenticity in the fights, but even they don’t show a lot of referees or things like that, then they’re more consistent with their pairings, for instance. But there are certain things I would love to see a fight between two rivals, and they’re constantly calling ref, ref. Are you gonna? Are you seeing this?

Dr Rad 44:50
We agreed nothing on the face! I’ve got a really important date later on today.

Dr G 44:57
That’s right, the old falling over and clutching the legs. Being like, Oh, you got me!

Dr Rad 45:03
And they’re like, typical, he’s from Spain.

Alexandra Sills 45:09
And there is always this argument of, you can’t do authentic Roman fighting styles because it doesn’t work on screen. But it certainly worked for an arena where you’ve got people in a huge seating area who could still perfectly see what was going on.

Dr Rad 45:28
I think that’s because of what we’ve been trained to expect. There’s a certain with all of these things, like what you’re talking about with you, the tropes and the way that gladiator films mimic each other so closely, there’s a reason for that, right. Hollywood is, in its bones, conservative, because the number one goal is to make money, and the best way to make money is to stick with the sure thing, something that you know is going to pay dividends. And so you take the formula that’s always worked, and then you tweak it a bit, and there is something to be said for audiences going in and knowing what to expect and enjoying that, because they know what to expect, like for example, I am sadly and tragically. I know for 2024 almost 2025 will be 2025 by the time we release this, a fan of the James Bond movies. Why? Because I know what I’m getting when I go into a James Bond movie, and I get really upset when they play with the world. I don’t like it. I don’t like to I mean, spoilers everybody, but I didn’t like it that they killed off James Bond. Didn’t like it, didn’t care for it. And so I think that’s something to be said for gladiator films as well. We know what to expect. It’s a particular style of fighting. It’s a particular way of showing the arena sequences, and we enjoy it with a twist.

Alexandra Sills 46:46
Yeah, I think. And to be fair, that does mirror the Romans. That’s why they had these styles, so that they knew what to expect, so that they could analyze the tiny details, and, you know, learn, learn the ropes themselves, so that they could comment. So it is a fair comment. Um, I would love to see shields, though. I say this all the time, the shield. And this goes into another one of my points that I really wanted to make. There’s nowhere near enough nipples on display. All of these guys have got massive breast plates on, and this works if you’re on a battlefield. But the whole point of gladiatorial combat was it was different from being a soldier if you have all this armor on, the fight becomes too easy. If you’re half naked and you’re just wearing a little loin cloth and some padding around your arms and legs, it suddenly becomes a lot harder. The stakes suddenly become a lot higher. We should be seeing nipples left, right and center.

Dr Rad 47:56
So you’d like them with three nipples.

Dr G 47:59
Hollywood, are you paying attention?

Alexandra Sills 48:01
And this is where the shield comes in, because all of a sudden the shield doesn’t become something that’s handy. Suddenly it becomes absolutely essential. And you’ve got two different types. You have the scutarii. They’re using the Roman-style scutum, and which is quite large. It should, if held in the right position, come just above the base of your helmet, and then go just below your knee, so it’s covering most of you, which means that your opponent can see metal helmet, scutum, metal grieve. They’re seeing a tank. You’re an armored tank. And then you’ve got the guys the parmularii. They’re using the small parmula style sheet shields, which are smaller, sometimes round, about the size of a dustbin lid. And they’re a little bit smaller so they’ve got more on display, which means that their Greaves and their arm things are longer to compensate for that, but they have to work a little bit harder to protect their torsos as well. They’re the light that they didn’t really have heavy weight or light weight, so they don’t have weight classes at all. But if you think about it this way, you’ve got the tanks with the big shields, and you’ve got the more nimble guys with their little shields. They’ve got to move a bit harder.

Dr Rad 49:16
So not only guys, you know, they’re they’re pros and cons, basically.

Alexandra Sills 49:20
Absolutely. So not only have you got these guys that have got different fighting styles because of the gear that they’re wearing, you’ve also got a little bit of novelty and a little bit of diversity there in the styles, but it becomes something that’s absolutely essential, and it’s not just for defense. You can use it as an offensive weapon, and all of a sudden, the fights become more interesting because of that, because you’ve got to have two arms constantly working at once, which involves more brain power, more tactics. When we’ve seen fights on screen, they they look exactly the same as the. Jewels in medieval movies, because they don’t use the shields either. I think it’s just an opportunity maybe to show a different style, because it’s fun to watch. There was a little bit of shield work on the star Spartacus series, a little bit of shield work in the new ‘Those About To Die’ series on Peacock, and it does kind of demonstrate that it’s not, you’re not a soldier, and they’ve got these massive breast plates on, and it became a whole plot point, didn’t it with he’s got his father’s breastplate on, and it protected him.

Dr G 50:41
I mean, it does make you invincible. It’s like, it’s incredible, that breastplate, whatever it’s made out of, that’s what I want mine made out of.

Alexandra Sills 50:49
His plot armor was literally plot armor, which was a little bit on the nose for me, not, not the most subtle.

Dr G 50:58
No, no, and you’re expecting tragedy at that point, and that’s the moment that we don’t get the tragedy, and you realize something else is going to happen instead, you’re like, Uh oh. Taking this – you’ve mentioned Macrinus earlier, and so I want to bring things around to him, because to me, he is my favorite character in this film, yeah, but there is Denzel Washington, I think, brings the most amazing performance to this, and everybody else is kind of just trying to, like, actively catch up. But one of the things that I think is really interesting that they’ve decided to explore is the sort of fluidity of sexual expression that comes with this character, and we see this particularly with his interactions with the senator Thrax. And I’m interested about your perspective on how this sort of shapes up in comparison to the ancient evidence we have for Roman sexuality, particularly in this imperial period.

Alexandra Sills 52:00
Okay, so speaking about ancient sexuality, I think it’s interesting that all of the gladiators in particularly, in particular, are all very heterosexual, apart from in Starz Spartacus, which I don’t think is likely, personally, with Macrinus. I think it’s really interesting that they decided to go the way they did. And by what I’ve read about various interviews, particularly from Denzel Washington, is that he was pushing for it more than perhaps Ridley Scott intended. I heard there was a kiss that got cut. I would have loved to have seen that.

Dr G 52:40
Yes, I heard that too.

Alexandra Sills 52:41
Yeah, I think it’s interesting when these films put in ideas about race, gender and sexuality, but we have to be careful, because they’re always doing it from a modern perspective. So for instance, when we’re talking about black gladiators, they’re always doing it from a post 1960s experience in America. And I think they’re doing the same kind of thing with gender and sexuality. They want to talk about how the Roman world was different. It’s alien, but they’re doing it in a way that is commenting on the modern world, just a little bit too much for comfort. So for instance, in these movies, in the first one, the only queer character was a giraffe-

Dr Rad 53:41
Which was delightful.

Alexandra Sills 53:42
In the second in the second one, it’s Macrinus. Turns out to be evil. Sorry, spoiler alert, and the emperors are queer, coded and they’re evil. I would have liked to have seen something that wasn’t so cheap and predictable. I think it is possible to show that sexuality was entirely different without trying to take pot shots at wokery in a movie. So that that disappointed me, especially with the the Severans, because how do we show that they’re bad? We could show them doing bad things, or we could show them in makeup and and, you know, demonstrate, oh, these guys are gay, and that’s how you know that they’re bad. I thought that was really disappointing,

Dr Rad 54:40
Especially because, as you say, with Caracalla and Gaeta, this was a real opportunity, which people might not be aware of, because these are not particularly well known emperors, I would say. And I mean people who’ve been to Rome, they might have heard Caracalla name because of the baths, but they’re not very well known. They haven’t been shown widely in popular culture before, so people don’t really know them as personalities particularly well, the same way that they know someone like Caligula or Nero. And what they might be unaware of is where these guys come from, their parents, I suppose, in to put it into modern terms, that people would understand people of color and casting, and then the makeup on top of that, and then the queerness, I mean, it’s just it’s taking you so far away from reality. Now that might not be a problem if it was doing something interesting with it or doing something creative with it. But as you say, I was really disappointed that really Scott chose to go this direction, because I feel like it actually did him no – it just it did nobody any favors to go this direction. It didn’t add anything to the story. I don’t think it was just so problematic on so many levels, like when we saw the trailer and we saw their makeup, we were like, What is going on with that? And then to actually get into the movie and realize we were 100% right? And that was the message that Ridley Scott was trying to send. I was like, dude, what is this here? Like, I know you. I know you are an older director, but to me, that should bring wisdom. Yeah, you harking back to these 1950s 1960s things that we saw in Spartacus, where, you know, Crassus is the evil one, so he’s queer. It’s just, yeah,

Alexandra Sills 56:30
Exactly, yeah. It was cheap and it was unimaginative, and it could have been so much better, particularly Caracalla. Not only was he a person of color, but in the first film, you’ve got Commodus, who wishes that he was a guy that soldiers could identify with and admire, but Caracalla was the soldier’s emperor. They loved him. He loved them most of the time, but he was someone that they could identify with because he was a rough, tough, military type.

Dr Rad 57:07
Yeah, that’s where his name comes from, right?

Alexandra Sills 57:10
Yeah, exactly. And instead, you’ve got, I mean, it’s a film that talks about Rome is corrupt, and the fringes are where you will find honor. And then in the next breath, says, but the fringes are also they’re a different race, so let’s not be too kind about them. Then you’ve also got a wasted opportunity. With Caracalla being the type of emperor that Commodus wishes that he was, it would have been great to see Maximus son go up against the Emperor that his uncle wishes he was.

Dr Rad 57:48
Absolutely.

Alexandra Sills 57:49
It would have been great.

Dr Rad 57:50
Yeah, and this is where it’s like, okay, you don’t have to stick to history. Nobody’s saying that these days, most academics we speak to totally get that movies are not history lessons, and therefore you’re allowed to have creative license, but when you’re going against the history, and you’re not doing something better with it, and the actual history would have made for a better storyline, that’s where I’m lost, because I’m thinking the same thing as you. I’m thinking this film could have been so much better if you’d actually paid attention to the history, because it’s more interesting than what you came up with, which isn’t creative, it is rehashed garbage.

Alexandra Sills 58:26
Yeah and I think, I mean, I do agree it is a movie and it’s not, it’s not a lecture in some institution. On the other hand, I think that if a movie production shows attention to detail with the source material to the tiniest details. It also goes hand in hand with them being the type of production that spends time and effort thinking about smaller details, like, I don’t know, the narrative characterization, the dialog. I think it’s interesting that we can see very clearly that films that don’t care about authenticity also have terrible scripts and terrible dialog awful it’s the ones that pay attention to the little details that they’re the type to get the big details right. And I think this is why this movie was so disappointing, because it felt so it felt like something it’s difficult to describe. And the reason is because I’ve recently been doing some research on how the first gladiators movie has been viewed since by far right extremists, particularly in America, and reading that researching for that paper was so disheartening. I. Because I had to ask myself, why do they love the first film? What is there to see? So I was reading blogs and reading what they’re saying, you know, why are there people dressed as Maximus in the January 6 riots? There’s got to be reason for it. So I went back to look at the first film. And there is racism, there is misogyny, there’s all these kind of things, homophobia. In the second film, I can see all of this, except it’s been the volume has been turned up on it. Not only have you got whitewashed severins, who are now queer because queer equals evil, but you’ve got Macrinus. Macrinus is a black man who’s angry, which is, in itself, quite the trope already, is it not? But I think it’s really dangerous in the current climate to have a black man who used to be a slave and is now freed to go on such a revenge story, I think it’s sending the wrong message. You can’t free these men. You can’t give them equal opportunities, because they’re still angry, and they will come back at you with a sword in their hand. I think that’s the first film has become very popular with alt right groups, and I think the second film is going to be even more so. And the messaging in it, I get a little bit frustrated with it’s just a movie, because I’ve just spent, you know, a year deep, diving into people who don’t think it’s just a movie. They think it’s a manifesto, and it is having real world consequences, to the point where, if you see on social media, for instance, someone with a gladiator in their profile picture, nine times out of 10, if you read that bio, you’re going to be absolutely horrified.

Dr Rad 1:02:01
So that’s that’s accurate to say, in the sense that I don’t say any of these things, because I don’t think release got has any talent, obviously, hugely talented director, I love a lot of his movies, and I know that this isn’t held an opinion, held by every historian out there, but I actually really loved the first Gladiator, not because I am part of an alt right group. I should say.

Alexandra Sills 1:02:26
Yeah, it’s hard that you have to clarify.

Dr Rad 1:02:28
Yeah, exactly, but because it did exactly what I was just talking about. It did fictionalize the past massively, but it did so in a way that I think it still spoke to something that I recognized in the Rome that I study, which is that nostalgia for the Republic, which people like Tacitus, I mean, that’s their that’s their thing, that’s their brand. And so I recognize that, and also a character like Maximus, I recognize the Cincinnati’s character type, and I love seeing it on the screen. I totally recognize the way that people like to look at Marcus Aurelius and the way that he was characterized as well. And so I felt the first movie, whilst fictionalizing, still said something about the Rome that I studied, and it didn’t do it in such a problematic way that I couldn’t get into it. And it was cinematically stunning. This is the this is the thing with Ridley Scott, right? He is such a talented director, and he works with people who are obviously hugely talented as well in terms of the esthetic that they create. So all of his films, whether the storyline is good or not, are visually arresting. I mean, Napoleon Woo, My God, what a slog, and yet visually amazing, gorgeous, beautiful. Couldn’t floor what I was seeing, floored what I was hearing and the actual storyline. And that’s the danger, because we humans are very visual creatures. I mean, Ridley Scott himself is a visual creature, right? He’s influenced by other films. He’s influenced by art. Hell, Gladiator was supposedly inspired by a piece of art, and so surely he must understand the power of visual media to influence people’s real world actions, because that’s exactly why that’s a mythology that we’re fed about the reason that he got involved in the first gladiator film in the first place.

Alexandra Sills 1:04:14
Yeah, I mean, he’d already cast Caracalla and Geta with the palest actors he could have possibly found, I think, I can’t remember whether it was go to a Caracalla, but one of them was originally supposed to be Barry Keoghan, who is really incredibly pale, but he decided that he wanted to go off and do, I think it was Salt Burn, which, you know, is a whole different movie. So that’s why we got, I think it was Fred Hechinger, so he was Caracalla, who’s even paler, if that was even possible, because, you know, Barry Keoghan is properly Irish, milky white. And then to add white on top of that, and then to have Denzel Washington and with his authentic accent, for instance, which I know has caused issues, because, you know, everyone’s saying it’s New York accent, and that’s inauthentic. So is British RP. Sorry to disappoint everyone, on both those counts, noone ever spoke in an English accent in Rome. But I think what disappointed me so much was that all of these they’re not even micro aggressions, their aggression aggressions, and they felt more deliberate this time around.

Dr Rad 1:05:27
Agreed, yeah.

Dr G 1:05:28
Yes it was – It was turning up the dial on the lack of subtlety.

Alexandra Sills 1:05:32
Yeah, it was. It was the Gladiator Two, frankly, that perhaps 2024 deserved.

Dr Rad 1:05:40
Maybe, yeah, with Trump being elected into office, I he, I mean, I think that’s the thing with the first one, I could feel Ridley Scott channeling, you know, Suetonius and Tacitus in the way that he was characterizing some of the people in the film and the storylines that he was going for, not that they don’t have enough scandal going on anyway. There’s plenty there to play with, but I could feel that real Tacitean and Suetonian kind of influence. And so I was like, oh, okay, he’s channeling the source material there. But with this one, for some reason, I just did not get that same feeling. Instead, I was like, Oh, this is actually making me feel uncomfortable. This doesn’t feel like he’s channeling something from ancient Rome. This feels different somehow. And I really didn’t expect that from him. I mean, this is the guy who directed Thelma and Louise, like didn’t expect this.

Dr G 1:06:32
But I think you’ve make a fair point in the sense that what we’re looking at with GladiatorT wo is not a film that’s necessarily interested in the history it’s interested in Gladiator the original film,

Dr Rad 1:06:44
That’s true.

Alexandra Sills 1:06:45
Yeah.

Dr G 1:06:45
So like all of its touch points are not Tacitus. For instance, like we see a very sort of truncated Senate, they seem even less capable than they did in the first film, yeah? And yet, here we are. And so everything is kind of revamped, but, but with an expectation that your main source is Gladiator.

Dr Rad 1:07:16
That’s true, yeah? And Gladiator was channeling Spartacus and Fall of the Roman Empire, and maybe, I think we ended up getting back to this point with another person we were talking about this film with, and I sort of wondered that I’m like, is the problem that Ridley Scott was drawing on previous masterpieces like fall of the Roman Empire and Spartacus, which are really interesting films about ancient Rome, even though they also fictionalize. And with this one, he is just drawing on Gladiator. Maybe that’s the problem.

Alexandra Sills 1:07:45
I think it shows that he he’s demonstrating that he believes that Roman was corrupt and needed to be fixed, but also that he has no idea how to fix it. Because, as you say, the Senate is even worse in this film. But the whole point of both films is that they should go back to a Republic where the Senate are the dominant power.

Dr G 1:08:05
Yeah, terrible idea.

Alexandra Sills 1:08:07
Yeah, exactly. Both Maximus and Lucius are saying, oh, Republic, Republic. And you’re looking at senators like, like tracks in the second film, and you’re thinking, Well, why? Why are you trying to bring these people back to the point where, when Macrinus says his speech about Rome is corrupt and he could knock it over, and he intends to, I started thinking, Yes, show me that. Show me that. Because the Senate is useless. These emperors are useless. If we’re going to have any kind of revolution, don’t put the Senate back in charge, that would be the worst thing possible. But Macrinus at least shows some sense that he understands how Rome works.

Dr Rad 1:08:47
Yes, exactly, well. And that’s that’s what the previous Gladiator had, though, see again, and this is what it got from Spartacus. It had Gracchus.

Alexandra Sills 1:08:55
Yeah.

Dr Rad 1:08:56
which Spartacus also had Gracchus? Literally, the same character name and everything. They have these senators who are meant to be the inspirational ones, the ones that know what to do, and the senators in the first Gladiator, they at least do have intellectual discussions, debates about what room should be doing in this film. Oh, my God. I mean you, you don’t get any of that. And Gracchus, even though he’s still alive. Oh, we get the tiniest snippets of him, and one of them, he’s being killed and so it’s not the same!

Alexandra Sills 1:09:28
It was a quicxk scene as well, wasn’t it? Derek Jacobi deserves a grand death scene. If he’s gonna have to die, don’t just quickly slit his throat and then move on immediately to a next shot. Give him, you know, let him cook. He is one of the best actors in the world. Well, what a waste.

Dr Rad 1:09:46
I have confidence that if anybody could do a death scene theatrically and over the top, it’s him.

Alexandra Sills 1:09:51
Exactly. I mean, I know that they cut a lot from the first film, and I know that Ridley Scott has said this was my final cut, but I wonder what is on the cutting room floor, and what scenes with perhaps Derek Jacobi, and perhaps even with Thrax showing a little bit more backbone and a little bit more intelligence, because I don’t think in this film, Macrinus was right. I said it. Macrinus was right. He should have won, because he was the only one who knew what should be happening and had the balls to do it.

Dr G 1:10:30
Yup.

Dr Rad 1:10:31
Yeah.

Dr G 1:10:31
Yeah, that scene in the river was a setup. I mean, yeah, he should have survived. And Lucius clearly that breastplate should not have held up under those circumstances. And we could have moved back into something of a historical narrative, actually. I mean, macarinus does become emperor at some point, not in this way historically, but certainly eventually in our source material. Are there any historical inaccuracies that you haven’t mentioned so far that really drove you crazy about this film.

Alexandra Sills 1:11:08
Yeah, yeah. So and this, this happened a little bit in the first one as well, but much more in the second one. The film doesn’t really understand that the program in a day at the Colosseum was very rigid. In the morning, you had beast hunts. In lunchtime, you had executions, and at the afternoon, part of the show, you had the gladiators, and they were separate, with different sets of performers. Or condemned. You didn’t mix and match. You did. Certainly didn’t have someone who would fight a rhino one day and then fight a human the next. That didn’t happen and and I understand that they wanted to do it because it looked good the animals that they used. We know there have been a couple of academics, and I will mention no names who have gone in the medium and said that there weren’t rhinos. And we know that there were actually, I think it was Pompey Magnus bought the first Rhino over there were rhinos in the arena. Often what there weren’t was people writing them.

Dr Rad 1:12:17
Does seem dangerous.

Alexandra Sills 1:12:18
That was a little bit jumpy the shark for me. I think if you’re going to have someone riding an animal, you can do it. I would have suggested a war elephant, because we know that the ancients had loads of those, and the Romans came up against them often. So you could have had an elephant instead of the rhino with an archer on top, which is something that Roman soldiers would have had to deal with. That would have been brilliant. The sharks were, I wouldn’t have minded the sharks if they’d have looked better. They obviously weren’t in the arena. Because, yes, again, the Romans did know what sharks were, despite what some people have gone in the news to say, um, however, they had no way of catching, transporting and keeping them. They did have crocodiles. We know that they had crocodiles because they wrote about it. What I do wonder is perhaps those about to die also had a flooded Colosseum scene, and they had crocodiles. So I’m wondering if Ridley changed it because he’d been beaten to the punch and he knew it was going to be really second, and he didn’t want to be seen as copying either way have a shark, because if the Romans could have they would have just make them look better.

Dr G 1:13:34
Oh, you want some improvements to the CGI. Fair enough. Fair enough.

Dr Rad 1:13:38
As an animal rights person, I’m embracing this new trend to have CGI animals instead of actual animals knowing what’s happened to animals entertainment in the past. I’d rather they were paid with CGI because of what’s happened in the past. And I totally, I agree with you about all those, all those points, I have to say. Dr, G, this is one thing that I have to bring up as something that we haven’t talked about yet, Lucilla. I have to know Alexandra. What’s your opinion on Lucilla?

Alexandra Sills 1:14:16
Well, she should have been dead in the first film, if we’re going by the history. She died before Commodus in history, but she survived the first film, and that’s only because the only female person in their production team on the first film said, we’ve got two women, only one of them talks, and you’re talking about killing them both off. A woman has to survive, please, if the year is 2000 so in Gladiator Two, I think we’ve got four women, and two of them talk, so yay for progress. So she should she should be dead already. I thought that in the first film, she. Is weakened by her maternal instinct, and that kind of declaws her as being the premier politician in Rome because she is smarter than anyone else in that room. In the second film, they, they discuss that she misses her son, and perhaps it’s depression, but they, they’ve, they’ve really weakened her into just a woman who cries a lot, and I think that’s so sad, because she’s still the smartest person in any room. And the death scene again, pushing women into refrigerators, perhaps she did need to die for that narrative, but good grief, could she not have gone down slightly fighting it was I thought Lucilla, they really did a disservice to a wonderful character there.

Dr Rad 1:15:53
Yeah, and look, that’s, that’s what I think I have to say again, just in case Ridley Scott listens to this episode. I don’t think any of the actors did bad jobs with the parts that they were hand they were handed. I really think that a lot of the issues in this film come down to the storyline and the characterization. And again, it’s not about me being a historian who’s like you went against history. It is about the lack of a solid, consistent, coherent storyline, good characterization that makes sense for all of the characters. That’s really what this film is lacking more than anything. Visually, great. No problems really there, apart from those monkeys. And as I say, I can see all the actors were trying really hard to do a good job with what they had, but what they had was not a lot. That’s my final take on it.

Alexandra Sills 1:16:54
They were trying to deliver Michelin starred acting with a McDonald’s menu.

Dr G 1:17:02
I think that’s an excellent way to put it, and yeah, and also an excellent point to, to conclude, Like, what an image. Well, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Alexandra Sills 1:17:19
That’s a pleasure. It’s been delightful. I don’t like the movie, but I love you guys, so

Dr Rad 1:17:24
That’s also a good point to finish on.

Dr G 1:17:27
I think that has been our real challenge in this process, is that we got very excited for Gladiator Two, lined up interviews, then went and saw it and was like, oh no!

Thank you for listening to this episode of The Partial Historians. You can find our sources sound credits and transcript in our show notes over at partialhistorians.com we offer a huge thank you to you, if you’re one of our illustrious Patreon supporters, if you enjoy the show, we’d love your support in a way that works for you. Leaving a nice review really makes our day. We’re on Ko-Fi for one or four ongoing donations or Patreon, of course, our latest book, Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire, is published through Ulysses Press. It is full of stories that the Romans probably don’t want you to know about them. This book is packed with some of our favorite tales of the colorful history of ancient Rome. Treat yourself or an open minded friend to Rome’s glories, embarrassments and most salacious claims. With Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Gladiator II with Alexandra Sills appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

We are in shock that it has taken us this long to cover the cult classic that is Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). We have Rslaugesen over on Patreon to thank for pointing out this glaring oversight.

Special Episode – Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)

Once we got started, it was hard for us to stop talking about the Life of Brian. British comedy was a staple of our childhoods and Monty Python was one of our favourites. It was a treat to follow the development of this movie from Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory to a Sliding Doors-style story of Brian Cohen, born in the manger over from Christ.   

A still from Life of Brian showing Brian’s followers admiring his sandal, one of the sacred objects he unwittingly bestows upon them. Courtesy of FM Cinema.

Whilst Monty Python were probably trying to make a parody of 1970s Britain rather than a historically accurate portrait of first century CE Judea, we still found this film intriguing. From wolf’s nipples to imperialism, we take you through all the best Roman scenes… and perhaps a few non-Roman scenes as well. Who can resist talking about the Virgin Mandy?

Part of the appeal of Life of Brian is the fact that it is not afraid to make fun of the Romans (or anyone) and shows a much less glamorous side of the empire. Quite the contrast to the epics of the 1950s and 1960s.

Things to Look Out For:

Comedies don’t always stand the test of time. We can spot some awkward moments in the film, but overall, we think Life of Brian stands the test of time. Forty-five years after it’s release, we would love to know whether you agree!

Our music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman.

Dr Rad 0:15
Music. Welcome to the partial historians.

Dr G 0:18
We explore all the details of ancient Rome,

Dr Rad 0:23
everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles waged and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr Rad and

Dr G 0:33
I’m Dr G, we consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.

Dr Rad 0:44
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Hello and welcome to a special episode of the partial historians. I am one of your hosts. Dr Rad,

Dr G 1:07
and I am. Dr G, we are thrilled to be here.

Dr Rad 1:12
We are because today we are returning once more to my home, away from homes, Hollywood. Well, not really, Hollywood, actually,

Dr G 1:21
really, do you do you holiday in Hollywood? Actually,

Dr Rad 1:24
No I hate Hollywood, but we are returning to Rome at the movies, which is my safe space.

Dr G 1:32
I do like this space as well, and over the years, I feel like I’ve learned a lot from you and your expertise in this area. So I’m super excited for this episode.

Dr Rad 1:42
It is very kind of you to say, especially because I cannot understand Latin

Dr G 1:48
comes and goes.

Dr Rad 1:51
All right, so Dr, G, today we are actually looking at a British version of Rome on screen, and that is Monty Python’s Life of Brian, and I cannot believe we have not talked about it until this point.

Dr G 2:08
I know this is very exciting, and this has come about because of a Patreon request, which I think is excellent as well. Interested in the depiction of Rome on screen in what is essentially a satire of the period, but also the broader question of, what has Rome ever done for the provinces? I

Dr Rad 2:29
make so many Monty Python puns, it is actually insulting that we haven’t talked about these films at all. I mean, look, okay, I’m gonna, I’m gonna set the scene personally a little bit here. Dr, G, so. Dr G, you and I are Australian. Oh, God. Now because we’re Australians of a certain age, I don’t know about you, but I grew up watching a lot of British television. I think these days British culture is maybe less of a thing for anyone growing up in Australia. And obviously a lot of Australians don’t grow up here. And even even for our age group, it was probably because of my background being like Anglo background as well. That’s why I was watching that kind of stuff. But it was also because they were like four television channels, and I feel like the British influence was fairly strong, along with American influence and that sort of thing. I certainly watched American TV as well, but there were a lot of reruns on television that you would watch after school, and so I watched a lot of 50s, 60s, 70s television as a child born somewhere in the 80s, I won’t tell you where. I don’t know, is it the same for you?

Dr G 3:42
Yeah, by and large. So my father is English, so I think that has stronger,

Dr Rad 3:48
yeah, the force is strong with this one.

Dr G 3:51
Ah the imperialism. But this meant that there was a preference for British shows when I was a child, growing up in our household over American TV programming, yeah? So there tended to be rules around what you could watch that came out of America, whereas for English things and British things, it was much more sort of open slather, yeah, and the family was happy to oblige if you wanted to watch some Monty Python, yeah. And

Dr Rad 4:18
look, I think there’s something to be said for still to this day, there’s a certain brand to Australian humor that I think will always have a bit of a legacy in the British connection, in the sense that, if I think about the sort of reruns I would watch from America, they were very much like, Oh, darling. Did you get sauce on your tie again? Canned laughter. Whereas the British shows that I tended to watch growing up were, I think, a little bit more tongue in cheek, more absurdist,

Dr G 4:47
yeah, less canned laughter. It was really just waiting for you to laugh, and you got to choose when,

Dr Rad 4:54
yeah. So that’s my personal background. So I think that’s why Monty Python was very much a part of. Of my upbringing, along with other things that I consider to be classics like Black Adder. Ah,

Dr G 5:06
yes, another a love story. Yes, exactly

Dr Rad 5:08
like Black Adder, Are You Being Served Dad’s Army? I mean, the list goes on and on and on.

Dr G 5:15
And look, I was a great fan of red dwarf as well. I

Dr Rad 5:19
see I never actually watched that one anyway. I definitely was aware of it, even though I didn’t watch it myself. So yeah,

Dr G 5:27
yeah, there is a tendency in British humor from these periods to lean into class critique, which might be somewhere to start with. This film

Dr Rad 5:38
might be relevant indeed. All right, so let’s maybe start, I thought, with a basic overview of what this film is even about. And warning to you all, this will contain spoilers, but you’ve had decades to see in the film, because it came out before I was born.

Dr G 5:52
It came out in 1979 so we’re definitely younger than that.

Dr Rad 5:56
And look, there is a very quick way to sum up the basic premise of this film. So it is a film about Brian Cohen, a young man who happens to be born in the manger over from Jesus, and from there on, kind of lives a somewhat parallel life to Jesus Christ, in that he lives in the same area, in the same hood. This is the sliding doors of Jesus. It is, it is the sliding doors of Jesus. And so we basically follow the life story of Brian Cohen and see what happens in the time period in which he’s living, which is around, you know, somewhere in the 30s, CE, because it is in the year of our Lord, obviously. And so it kind of starts with the Nativity and goes through to Brian’s death in his sort of mid 30s, which is obviously around the same age that Jesus presumably was, if we take those dates to be accurate.

Dr G 6:50
Well, there’s some reasonable historical evidence for a man called Jesus, there is in this time period, and we’re in your favorite Imperial time period as well. This is Tiberius. I know time to shine. I

Dr Rad 7:02
know. I know not many people I think know that Tiberius was the emperor in charge when Jesus Christ was

Dr G 7:08
crucified. I think more people would dislike Tiberius if they knew that well. I

Dr Rad 7:12
mean, look, I’m gonna say something controversial here, but to be honest, I don’t think he was deeply involved with what was happening. I think that’s kind of part of the problem.

Dr G 7:21
Look, the man at the top of the pile who’s ostensibly in charge of everything, says it’s not his responsibility. He doesn’t hold the hose.

Dr Rad 7:28
Well, look, I’m just gonna say there are a lot of people that were crucified underneath Roman imperial rule, and even before the Empire existed, and Jesus is just one of them. In my book, controversy, but that’s because I should say I am not a Christian, so

Dr G 7:48
neither am I, although I think this film is quite respectful of religion, a lot of people agreed consider it to be blasphemous and to be a film that is heretical in nature, but they generally don’t touch the story of Jesus at all. In this film, it is very much focused on Brian and his adventures, yeah, and, but I just think is more to do with fanaticism. And, yeah, how people get into sort of cults of belief,

Dr Rad 8:16
exactly? And I just said, I should say, as my own personal perspective, I’m not a Christian. So I’m not coming at this subject with any particular reverence. I know of Jesus because of obviously being raised in a at the time, largely Christian country, and also because the culture around me when I was growing up was largely Christian. And also because, you know Rome, you know the more that you study Rome, the more you come into contact with it. But I wouldn’t identify wouldn’t

Dr G 8:43
identify as a Christian. The deeper get into Roman history, the more you get into early Christianity. That

Dr Rad 8:47
is true Exactly, exactly, anyway. So to give a bit of background to people who might be less familiar with Monty Python, I thought maybe we could give a little bit of a pitted history of Monty Python. So Monty Python are a beloved to most people. I think comedy troupe and they kind of came about in British society. I think a really interesting time, you know, as like the landscape, I think was changing in terms of cultural values, cultural criticism and comedy and that sort of thing. But they’re actually very highly educated men. You know, a lot of them came from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, where they were studying things like medicine, law and, of course, history. And while they were there, though, they got involved in comedy. Obviously, those particular universities are known to have pretty legendary comedy groups like the footlights, and they ended up getting involved in writing and performing the various comedy shows that were seen as being kind of at the forefront of comedy at the time, like being quite cutting edge. So, for example, Do Not Adjust Your Set, The Frost Report. And at last, The 1948 show. And these were all kind of, a lot of them were kind of sketch shows, and that sort of. Where they were working on things for the BBC. They ended up teaming together because they had encountered each other either at university or they met each other working on these sorts of shows. And they came together as Monty Python’s Flying Circus, where they produced a television show for the BBC between the years of 1969 and 1974 and the men involved, of course, being Graham Chapman, Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, John Cleese and Michael Palin. And something to note, perhaps, is that I don’t believe that Monty Python’s Flying Circus as a show was actually screened in the USA until 1974 so it kind of be started to be shown in sort of the mid 70s across the pond as this

Dr G 10:45
interesting. Okay, so they get a late start into the US. Yeah,

Dr Rad 10:49
a little bit of a later start. Yeah, exactly. And they always, I think, therefore, appealed to people who were because of their style of comedy, which was really as it came out of a lot of a lot of these shows, and also was influenced by people like Spike Milligan and his brand of comedy. But it was different in the way that they would set up a sketch. It didn’t have to have a punch line. It was it was absurdist, as you said before, that was kind of their sense of humor. It was very much satire of British society and particularly the British class system, that’s a lot of what their sketches sort of focused on, and that sort of thing when they were making the television show. And so as a result, I suppose, given that they’re coming about, sort of like the late 60s, early 70s as a group, I think we can kind of see how that’s obviously a key time in society where we know that there are people who are starting to be more questioning and critical of the status quo,

Dr G 11:47
and this is the post war generation that are now hitting adulthood, and they’ve got some hard questions to ask about the society that has been built around them in that landscape and as a consequence of those war the 20th century. So,

Dr Rad 12:02
yeah, exactly. So Monty Python as a group started to transition away from television and into making motion pictures together. I don’t think they ever had like necessarily the hugest audience when they were on TV, but they certainly had a very decent sized audience, and they were tending to be more like appealing to like intellectual people or people with a slight intellectual bent, because their comedy is very clever, to be honest. They’ve actually been criticized for, I think, bringing a little bit too much of their sort of university level of education to their types of sketches. But anyway, so they started making movies, so perhaps the biggest hit that most people would have heard of before Life of Brian is, of course, Monty Python and the search for the Holy Grail, a classic. Indeed it is. But a lot of their films still reflected their background in sketch comedy. And the interesting thing about Monty Python, I always thought is that when I watched them as a younger person, I kind of always thought that they were very clever people who were getting together and riffing, you know, and that’s kind of how their stuff came about. But actually, because they were all highly experienced writer performers, and they had that background before they even got together, but then obviously together, they sort of brought that stuff from their background. They actually were extremely, I think, methodical in that they tended to really write things and rehearse them, and it was all very carefully planned so that obviously the humor and the joke that they were aiming for would sort of come through in the final product. So I think they sort of give the impression sometimes that they were improvising, but actually it was all quite planned out, yes.

Dr G 13:40
And I think if you watch, go back and watch Monty Python’s Flying Circus, it is very, I would say today, hit and miss, oh yeah, at the time was uniquely constructed, yes, for things that were emerging in that time period, the idea that they didn’t really care about plot. For instance, no Life of Brian is considered the first film that they do which is plot driven, because while holy grail comes out a few years earlier, and it does have something of a plot, there is also insertions of random sketches and chaotic bits and pieces. So there is a sequence that leads you to understand a plot, but Life of Brian is scripted and does seem to have a very clear narrative arc. Yes,

Dr Rad 14:29
absolutely and but even so, I think, I think that reflects something in their style of writing. So because they were all writer performers, Terry Gilliam, obviously, is more known as he was a performer, obviously, with the group, and he did contribute, but he more contributed, I think, in terms of his animations, which are obviously a huge part of Monty Python’s esthetic. But, yeah, but most of the rest of them, they are writer performers, and I think that the way that they would approach things is that they would go away and just write. You know, they would go. And write. And they tended to sometimes, I think even split off into particular grouping within the wider troupe. Like, I think Graham Chapman and John Cleese worked quite closely together a lot of the time. And I think think Terry Jones and Michael Palin might have worked together a lot of the time, but nonetheless, they would sort of go away and write bits and pieces and then start to come back and sort of compare notes and bring it together. So you can kind of see how, even when they’re writing a narrative film, I think it still kind of starts with, like sketches and scenes that they can use as a basis of something, and then bring it together. Yeah, so Life of Brian, it is universally, I think, accepted. Had it through in this moment where they were asked, after Holy Grail, what was going to be their next project? And they replied, Jesus Christ, lust for glory, which was a pun based on a film that had come out in 1970 pattern, lust for glory. But it did obviously germinate. Yeah, there was the seed

Dr G 15:56
had been planted. One facetious remark, I believe, by Eric Idle, yes, exactly. Then gets expanded into like, oh, maybe we should consider an angle on the life of Jesus and the sorts of things that might be up for critique and lampooning here,

Dr Rad 16:14
yes, exactly. And they actually went away and did their research. And when they did their research, they found that Jesus Christ is actually not terribly funny.

Dr G 16:24
This is a very serious subject matter and not one to be laughed at. Because, actually, as far as I understand it, they came to the conclusion that the message that Jesus is offering is genuinely a good one, yeah, and there’s not much to be laughed at. There, no,

Dr Rad 16:38
no, exactly. And so because they didn’t find that Jesus himself or his message was necessarily anything to be laughed at. They started playing around with ideas of what was happening around him that we could possibly work with. And they had a few ideas. I believe one of them was having a 13th disciple, and Brian would be that particular character who was always the one who unlucky, yeah, he was always the one that missed the miracle. So they played around with that idea, but eventually they decided on the idea of having a parallel life set up for their particular narrative. Thus Brian Cohen was born, and I think the idea as well was that they found, as you said earlier, the way that people engage with religion, particularly the way that people were engaging with various cults at this time, was what was funny, not necessarily like it was easy enough to make fun at people who, you know, take things too far or take things too seriously, rather than the person that the religion is based around. So it’s more the Messiah fervor that they decided to make fun of.

Dr G 17:44
Yeah, yeah. So that real interest in that there, there is some sort of Savior figure that they can be identified, and then, once identified, must be followed, yes, and how you go about demonstrating your loyalty to a messiah. All of this is up for a little bit of a joke in this film. Yes, exactly.

Dr Rad 18:02
So they were able to use the sets from a TV show that had been filmed by Franco zifarelli on Jesus of Nazareth as the basis for their sets, because that’s convenient. That saves money. Yeah, and they decided to film in Tunisia. Legendarily, they were going to be making this film with EMI, but EMI decided that it was way too

Dr G 18:24
blasphemous. Do not want to get in trouble with Christians. Exactly.

Dr Rad 18:29
Basically, there was, like a Roman Catholic friend of like the chief executive, a guy called Lord Bernard del font, yeah, who said this is way too close to blasphemy, or indeed, is blasphemy, and so EMI pulled the financing because Eric idol and George Harrison, yes, that George Harrison were friends. George Harrison helped them to get financing, as well as putting up a million pounds himself. I

Dr G 18:55
kind of love that, like one of the Beatles is involved and is crucial to the story of this film. I love that exactly.

Dr Rad 19:01
And ended up making a small cameo as the owner of the mount in the film. And he did that just because he was a fan of Monty Python, and he just kind of wanted to see what they did with his particular story. And so that’s how they ended up being able to go off to Tunisia and film this particular movie, which happened, I think it was written very quickly. I think it was filmed quite quickly. And this is because, again, as I said to you, like the way that Monty Python do things they do, I think actually plan things out far more than people might realize. As a result, a lot of their stuff was put together relatively quickly for a movie. But

Dr G 19:35
yes, yeah, I think there was a couple of years there of preparation and definitely some delays when EMI pulled out absolutely and then they got back on track after George Harrison got involved. And then

Dr Rad 19:46
so the film is obviously set in the province of Judea, a province of the Roman Empire at this point in time. And obviously it’s meant to be around the 30s, where most of the action takes place, or it. It for the manger nativity scene, obviously, where Brian and Jesus have won right at the beginning.

Dr G 20:06
I mean, it’s still in the same area and still kind of under Roman control at that time as well, although probably the client King Herod is in charge around

Dr Rad 20:16
that time, I was gonna say it’s a bit of historical setting for you all. So Herod, the great, was in charge of Judea. Well, sorry, was in charge of a whole region until about four BCE, which is when he died, which obviously would be around the time that Jesus were born, or maybe a few years before. The Dating is obviously a bit speculative. And Augustus had been in charge at that point in time, and he ended up splitting the kingdom of Herod, the great between his sons. So Herod Antipas was set up in Galilee as the tetrarch, and he would be there until around 39 CE. So just after the events that we’re focusing on transpired, Philip was set up as the Tetrarch of Golan Heights until around 3040, and Herod Archelaus was the leader of Judea at around, well at first, but see, the thing was, I believe that he became a bit of a problematic leader and was removed. And this is, this is what kind of started to stir up trouble in this region, like his removal and the rival factions that existed within Judea at this point in time, which weren’t actually initially, necessarily hugely anti Roman, which is kind of the impression you might get from watching Life of Brian. There certainly were anti Roman groups by the time. But you know, as you, as you travel through, but really the around the time of Jesus, I’m not sure how many anti Roman groups there were. I think there was a lot of more factional, regional fighting going on and rivalry. I

Dr G 21:50
think you’ve got a lot to think about when you get to the fallout of Herod, the great so a client King inserted by Rome in order to ensure stability that is a product of the Roman education system, so coming into an area of which he is local too. And so this is something that the Romans tended to do quite a lot, is that they take families of high significance, politically as hostages, then raise their children in Rome and then send them back out to rule as a friend of Rome in their place. And so trying to secure regions like this, from a Roman perspective, was all about, well, how can we make the local politics work in our favor? Absolutely, yeah. And so I think there is a sense underlying that kind of activity, which suggests that Rome understood that this was a little bit far out of their reach, that they needed somebody on the ground to do Roman work in a Roman way that wouldn’t be completely offensive to the local people, and understood the local cultural norms and things like that. So when we think about this region, and I feel like it stands out for me really pertinently in this time period when we’re recording, having seen what is happening in Palestine and what is happening with modern Israel, and the horrific amount of death that is going on there that these complexities have a very, very long history, absolutely,

Dr Rad 23:25
yeah, yeah, because Judea is roughly modern Israel, Palestine together, like roughly, roughly, yeah, yeah.

Dr G 23:33
It doesn’t map on exactly, but this whole area has a very long history of complex relationships and also a sense in which who has a priority over areas of land exactly. And when you split something like a client Kingdom amongst it was supposed to be four sons, that’s why we’re calling them tetrarchs, but one of them ends up having half of the region. Yeah, that’s a bit of a problem already. And he’s the problematic one that gets removed, right? And then you have to bring in, then Rome’s like, Okay, well, we’ll send in some real we’ll send in Romans. Yes, you know, we’ll have a visual Roman presence in this region of the province of Judea. We’ll turn it into a province. It’s no longer a client king. You guys cannot look after yourselves. We’ve got too much at stake in this area. Yeah, we want to have control of it. We’ll send our own people. And so by the time we get to the really key parts of the narrative that are the Life of Brian, we’re dealing with Pontius Pilate.

Dr Rad 24:38
We are better known to everybody who’s seen Jesus Christ Superstar as Pontius Pilate.

Dr G 24:44
Pontius Pilate, well, I like calling him Pontius Pilate as well, because it makes me think of airplanes. But the Latin is Pontius Pilate, yes.

Dr Rad 24:55
And he was a prefect of Judea from around 26 CE to. Be 36 CE.

Dr G 25:01
So he sees all of the key political things that are going to make the Christians very mad, like

Dr Rad 25:08
there for it all. So he is there underneath, as you said, the Anthro Tiberius is,

Dr G 25:15
keep that in mind, everybody Tiberius was in charge,

Dr Rad 25:20
not gonna deny it good. Now, of course, the background of all of this is that there’s also a very powerful high priest who’s also important to this Jesus story, who’s in power from around 18 CE to 37 CE, and that is Caiaphas. So Caiaphas is someone who will have contact with Pilate as a man on the ground who Pilate will consult when making decisions. And it’s between these two guys that we see the Jesus story unfolding, really, in the sense that Jesus is obviously arrested, he is tried before Caiaphas, and this is something that’s recorded in all four of the Gospel accounts and the Sanhedrin, which is the Jewish religious council Jesus, is given over to the Roman powers by the high priests and their council. And it is the Romans who decide to crucify Jesus Christ, and that’s kind of the background to what is happening. Yeah.

Dr G 26:24
So in this background, what we can see already is that there is complex interrelationships between the political and the religious. And yeah, I think there is a tendency, from a Western perspective, to separate out state and church. Yeah, people like to do that. It is a fallacy. It doesn’t matter where you live. Those things are very entwined. So think about where you live and how the politics operates, and how spiritual beliefs actually have a great deal of influence on how those political actions and beliefs get

Dr Rad 26:58
Yeah, because I believe that Pilate actually gave Jesus to Herod, Antipas and and this particular Herod was like, no, no, I’m

Dr G 27:04
not doing anything about

Dr Rad 27:06
that you deserve.

Dr G 27:08
I don’t want to get involved. Yeah,

Dr Rad 27:10
and Pilate. Therefore, Pilate was like, Okay, fine, crucifixion, it is so, yeah, it is interesting to sort of look at, like the very high level involvement of church and state, as you say, like the Jewish powers in the region in a political sense, Jewish power in the region in a religious sense, and also the Roman powers in the region to this whole thing that’s happening. And

Dr G 27:29
the Romans, For all of their vaunted pragmatism, are a highly religious people themselves. So it’s not like they’re above any of that, no. And it’s just trying to figure out, from their perspective, how can they get the best leverage on a population that they’re seeking to control for their own ends? Yes. So I mean, in short, the answer to the question, What have the Romans ever done for people in the provinces? The answer is,

Dr Rad 27:54
not much. Ouch.

Speaker 1 27:56
It’s it’s devastating, and it is a process of sort of cultural wiping out over time. Yeah, it is imperialism in its very core form. Life of Brian. Definitely engage with that in really interesting ways. So, but

Dr Rad 28:11
before we get into that fully, I guess we have to obviously acknowledge that it is intended to be a satire. I have as a film scholar, I therefore have questions about, obviously, what do you do with something that’s not necessarily trying to be historically accurate, but is set in a historical period? Because, quite frankly, the men involved enjoy dressing up in costume.

Dr G 28:32
Well, you know, they saw an opportunity, and they really took it, yeah, but as

Dr Rad 28:36
you said before, I think this is where we obviously have to acknowledge like their goal is, obviously to produce a comedy that is what they are. They are a comedy troupe. And I kind of think that comedy is obviously one of those mediums that is naturally going to be taking risks, perhaps more than other formats, even tragedy. I think comedy kind of takes risk, and I think it also does, to a certain extent, obviously reflect the time in which it is made, because obviously people are going to find things funny that are relevant to their to their lives. I think kind of the genius of Monty Python is that some of their stuff has stood the test of time and that we still find it really funny. And I will go out and say, right now, I’m a huge fan of life for Brian, I think it is hysterical, in spite of the fact that I can obviously see there are certain things that may not have dated as well as others, but I still think overall, it’s a really funny film. But of course, like any movie, it reflects the time in which it was made and what was considered funny then. And also, I suppose what even is what was considered cutting edge back then. You can, you can see it, obviously, but that’s something I think is true of any film, yes, and

Dr G 29:39
I think you’re totally correct in terms of thinking about like context is so relevant. So there are some jokes in this film that would not fly today, I would think. And there are some moments that I think in hindsight if, for instance, John Cleese knew i. The future when he was making this film. Some of the some of the lines that he’s given in this script that he reproduces, I think, are really they’re foreshadowing of certain things that we see later in his life, and that, I think is quite interesting as well. I’m going to leave that a complete mystery. I’m not going to go.

Dr Rad 30:18
Are you going to tell me what these moments are. Well,

Dr G 30:22
look, let me see how I feel later on, we can return to that subject. So I don’t know about you, but I’ve gone through this film, and I’ve sort of gone chronologically, looking at ways that Romans and Rome is kind of represented, and thinking about what could that mean, and not thinking about necessarily the humor of it, because I don’t know that I, I am not worthy to comment on the humor of the film. And clearly they’re doing something which is ahistorical and a make believe fictional story set in a historical time period which obviously has all sorts of potential issues associated with it. So anything you might say could be dismissed. Yeah, look absolutely. But I have things to say nonetheless. I’m

Dr Rad 31:04
very happy to move in that direction. But before you start, I feel like there’s some filmy stuff that I’m going to use for additional context. So we’ve had some context now about Monty, Python, the group, I think we obviously have the context of the satirical nature of the film. And as you said, the satire is not even necessarily of life in the 30 CE in Judea, Monty, Python, in all of their historical films, and also in their TV show. As we said, it’s about British society at the time. So basically, they are plucking British characters out of the 1970s and plunking them in 30 CE. And you can see this in many, many ways, because that’s basically what all of their characters are. And these are some of my favorite moments, which I’m just going to mention in terms of examples. So you’ve got the liberal bureaucrat in Michael Palin, who’s organizing the crucifixion. Crucifixion, yes, one crossmeres down to the left.

Dr G 31:58
Next. Good, yeah, good, good. That

Dr Rad 32:02
is absolutely one of my most favorite moments in the entire film. You’ve also, of course, got the working class often represented in characters played by Eric Idle. They’re sort of cheeky, pulling everyone’s leg every moment. Oh, and also, again, one of my other favorite aspects is the way that Monty Python makes fun of the working class trade unions in the People’s Front of Judea, as well as the Judeans Popular Front and all those sorts of groups, as well as the style of bureaucrat that you see in like John Cleese’s high priest at the stoning, all of that kind of stuff. As well as the women. Obviously, they’re not huge characters, but they are there as well. And also, of course, in scenes like Sermon on the Mount, you can see it. I’m sure we’ll get into that in a bit of into that in a bit of detail, but in terms of the film context. So one thing I wanted to highlight in particular, because it’s not something that people from outside of Britain or British Dominions might be aware of, is that there is in British comedy a really strong tradition of drag, yes, yeah, as a style of comedy, which people might not be aware of. So I guess I flag that drag has a really big part in British music hall comedy, and that’s gonna say it’s a staple of pantomime. Yes, it’s still exactly and to this day it still is a really big thing. So that’s just something to be aware of in terms of where Monty Python is coming from in the way that they do their comedy and the way that they often have men obviously dressing up as women rather than getting women to play those particular parts. But in terms of feel more generally, I’m sure that anyone who’s listening to this podcast is aware of this. But just in case you’re not, here it goes. Obviously, by the time we get to 1979 when Life of Brian comes out, the golden age of epics has peaked and gone. But those films, I think, are still very much there in that people of that time period, like in the 1970s would be familiar with the big blockbusters of the 1950s in particular few in the early 60s. So for example, your Quo Vadis, you’re Ben Hur those sorts of big biblical epics. And Monty Python was certainly very aware of those films. And so I think there’s sometimes deliberately playing on or playing up to those biblical epics. I know that Terry Jones in particular, like basically sat in a room for a while and re watched a lot of those sorts of movies. And you can see that right from the get go in, that the nativity scene is definitely very similar to the nativity scene that you see in Ben Hur even the way that Terry Gilliam has illustrated the credits. It’s obviously a play on the types of credits that you get in even Spartacus, which is obviously like a weird kind of it’s not a biblical epic, but there are those weird Christian elements to it, as well as some of the other big blockbusters of the time, like Ben Hur and King of Kings. So you can definitely see them playing with that. And even the idea of having someone in this time period leading a parallel life to Jesus is obviously very famous from other movies like Ben Hur. That’s literally what Judah Ben Hur is often up to. You know he’s what I know he’s. His life is intersecting with the Christ as he goes. As we get out of the 1960s though, we’ve obviously seen like the collapse of the studio system in America, and we start to see slightly more irreverent films coming out about Ancient Rome in general. So you have in 1966 movies like A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. And as we move into the 1970s because the studio system has been truly dismantled by then, there is this brief period where you get a lot of, I suppose, what we would call more realistic films, like the audience wanting to see things that aren’t maybe so stage managed and escapist in nature, things that are more gritty, more about real life and real problems and that sort of thing. So you can obviously think of these are American examples, but you can think of movies like, you know, the godfather and Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, films that are more reflective, I suppose, of 60s and 70s culture in multiple facets, films that are dealing more with issues like race. Again, I am thinking of America here, but the influence, obviously, is out there that that’s the way film is going, as a sort of context for Life of Brian, gritty realism, yeah. Anyway, just that, I’d sort of say that the other thing that we can obviously see that’s very much influencing this film, in the credits, anyway, is James Bond, Brian. His name is Brian.

Dr G 36:22
Yeah. I thought it was a great Shirley Bassey. Impression

Dr Rad 36:24
it is. I actually thought, I actually checked, because I was like, Oh, my god, is this Shirley? I

Dr G 36:28
don’t think it is. It wasn’t, no, it

Dr Rad 36:29
was like, some 16 year old. Oh,

Dr G 36:31
wow, yeah, yeah, no, but I picked up that reference straight away. I was like, Oh yes, I see where this is going. But I do like starting with the opening credits. Yeah, there’s a few things that I quite enjoyed about them, in terms of nods to Rome. Some of them are the Christian references. So we get the giant head of Constantine, which is smashing through everything. He won’t be alive for another few 100 years. So he is out of place. Good for him, though, we also see the Mouth of Truth, the bocca della Verita, yeah. Okay, you know, just like an odd, quirky thing. And the original purpose of that piece is unclear, and so it’s set up in Rome, and most famously in Roman Holiday. I

Dr Rad 37:22
was gonna say, I think I can tell you what the purpose is. The purpose is to have a delightful moment between Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in a reality comedy,

Dr G 37:31
Roman Holiday. Everybody, but that popularity of that particular stone, which we think might be the head of Neptune, maybe, but it has the open mouth, and it looks a bit like a theatrical mask as well. So the identification is not at all clear, and people line up to stick their hand in the thing and whatnot. And we think it might be related to the Temple of Hercules, which is across the way. Okay, yeah, just across the square. But the fact that it’s there, I think is cute. I mean, it’s ancient, but we don’t know from when, but it’s a very visual symbol of Rome. Yes, well, so I imagine this is something that,

Dr Rad 38:07
again, particularly by this time period, because, again, Roman Holiday we came out in the middle of the 1950s

Dr G 38:12
Yeah, exactly. So this is something that, like, even if you didn’t know much about Rome, you’d never been there, you would have recognized it. Presumably you get some nods also to the Arch of Constantine as it’s going along. And

Dr Rad 38:23
I was like, wait a minute, he was the first Christian.

Dr G 38:27
And then the other part that I really enjoyed, and I’m sorry, Tiberius, but it’s the Prima Porta Augustus just whacked in there, which is on trend. That’s fine. You could easily have run into a statue like that in this period, maybe not in Judea. To me, this is,

Dr Rad 38:45
again, this is like, one of those things where I’m like, okay, yes, if we’re being super accurate a lot of these things, you’re like, anachronistic, not the right setting at all. But it doesn’t matter with Monty Python, because they are anarchic in the way that they play with things. And so I kind of feel like it’s one of those things where it’s like, well, of course,

Dr G 39:02
well, I think that’s fine actually, because one of the things that I think comes across in this, and you’ve touched on it earlier, yeah, is that because of their university education, their humor is both absurdist and for some considered too highbrow, like the references are just out of touch. You have to have already known a whole bunch of things to get them, which might be the very reason why you and I quite enjoy these kinds of films, because it’s like, they’re kind of full of little easter eggs for people who have studied history and are aware of some of this stuff. Because I’m like, I understand that these things are that are out of touch, but I also recognize them, and I’m excited to have seen them, and I know that at some point they had to decide what was going to be in there. Yeah, you don’t become an illustrator and an animator without making really clear decisions about what’s included and what’s not included, and so those choices really matter. And I love the way that this opening credit sequence sets us up really nicely for what is both. Both a historical light touch for people who get it and absolutely bonkers for people who enjoyed the Absurdism of it.

Dr Rad 40:07
Yes, yeah, and that’s the thing, like Spartacus credits are so memorable with all the bits and pieces of sculpture and statuary. I mean, it was such a big film, people who were seeing this would mostly, I think, be very familiar with that particular thing. And so, yeah, the way that they take that and then twist it, yeah.

Dr G 40:29
This leads me to, I don’t really have much to say about the nativity scene, like, it’s fine, it does its job, but I was focusing on, like, Where do I see Romans? And so then I end up at Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, I

Dr Rad 40:39
would say I love the Nativity in the way that she’s like, well, what is he there?

Dr G 40:45
They’re like, Oh no. They take back all the gifts, and she’s like,

Dr Rad 40:47
Oh, wait, yeah, and the Virgin Mandy, I enjoy it. That’s, that’s, I suppose, one of those moments. So where we I can highlight something that would be considered problematic by these standards, but wasn’t considered maybe as problematic in the day is that there is a brief moment of blackface in that particular scene. There is. It’s very brief. And obviously it’s one of those things where, knowing Monty Python, it’s one of those things where I think it’s just because they play all the characters at the time, they wouldn’t have thought about it, whereas it might be different these days, obviously, in terms of both the makeup of the group, potentially, but also in how they would handle that kind of thing. But it’s one of those things where you could easily miss it because of the way that they’ve got the three wise men, yeah,

Dr G 41:29
the way the costumes are done. Yeah, yes, there is black face. So content warning, not ideal, to be honest, I’d

Dr Rad 41:35
actually never noticed it before, because their faces are so covered up, but because I was paying more attention, I suppose this time, I suddenly realized that, of course, it’s one of the Monty Python group who’s playing the three wise men. I just I’d never even thought about it before, because my attention is always on the Virgin panty.

Dr G 41:52
So Jesus’s servant on the mount. This is like the one time in this film where we we clock Jesus, the man himself.

Dr Rad 41:58
And I will note, it’s actually very unusual to have Jesus Christ shown directly in that when you think about again films like Ben Hur, they tend to avoid it just like a shaft of sunlight, yeah, like, like a hand, or, like, you see the back of his head, or something like that. A lot of these, he’s

Dr G 42:18
like a dentist. We can’t show his face on television.

Dr Rad 42:22
Nine out of 10 dentists recommend, but I don’t, because they’re owned by a company that does on animals. It happens, but it’s unusual, although, of course, again, there was kind of like a bit of a slew of Jesus stuff that was coming out at this point in time. The biggest hit, obviously, being Jesus Christ Superstar. So superstar. So it just depends what you’re looking at, I suppose. But Jesus Christ Superstar is something that people would have seen, obviously, in the theater. Okay?

Dr G 42:50
So he does make his appearance, and he’s going to increasingly make his appearance in cultural representation from this point onwards as well. So we do get to get a glimpse of Jesus. He is saying things that he is purported to have said, so they don’t change his script. But the real focus of this whole scene is what is essentially British class, absolutely infighting at its best, where right at the back of the crowd there is some quibbling going on about what is being said and then how it’s being said, and then people starting to insult each other in various particular ways. And you can tell who’s supposed to be the upper class, and you can tell who’s supposed to be middle class, and you can tell who’s supposed to be working class from the ways in which they engage with each other. Yeah,

Dr Rad 43:39
so we’ve got Mr. And Mrs. Gregory the upper class rather, rather.

Dr G 43:45
And I think what’s great is that there’s a lot of mishearing of the of the sermon itself. Blessed are the cheese makers? Okay, we got

Dr Rad 43:53
Mr. And Mrs. Big nose, who are meant to be like the up and coming middle class and then Mr. Cheeky working class. So in the bickering, as you say, there’s the mishearing of stuff, but funnily enough, it actually highlights something which is hugely relevant to historians, which is, where did the Gospels get their material? How reliable are eyewitnesses? Yeah,

Dr G 44:13
and this is a huge challenge, because as far as we can date the Gospels. So these are the four books which are considered to be interconnected with each other and accredited to different people, but seem to have been written together. Perhaps the earliest date that people can put to them is probably about the 70s and 80s. CE.

Dr Rad 44:34
I think even, I think even 60s has been given for one of them, just one of them. I think, I think Mark from memory, which

Dr G 44:40
we’re talking Well, after, oh, yeah, like a good generation or so

Dr Rad 44:44
absolutely. And that’s the earliest, as you say, in most people, earliest that

Dr G 44:48
people were willing to accept based on the evidence. Yeah. So if you can mishear things when you’re at the venue, in the moment, I mean, just think about when you’re out and about or you. Go somewhere and you’re like, Excuse me, or you’re like, you turn to the person they say that all the time, or you’re at an event and you turn to somebody like, what did they just say? And the amount of misreporting and the mishearing that happens, generally speaking, the idea that there’s some sort of coherency to these texts is perhaps the biggest question we should have

Dr Rad 45:20
absolutely and I mean, even I’ve actually read. I was reading in preparation for this. Some people who identify as Christian, who teach this kind of material, as in, like, teach about historical Jesus and that sort of thing. And even they were saying that Life of Brian also kind of highlights one of those things, which is, how on earth were the three wise men supposed to have followed a star to figure out what tiny little manger somebody was in. There obviously are elements to these stories which don’t make like a logical sense, and that’s not necessarily what they’re obviously meant to be doing, just the same way that life of Ryan isn’t meant to be providing a super historically accurate version of Judea. What do you mean? This

Dr G 46:03
is clearly what was going on. I mean, there are Roman soldiers in attendance at this sermon. So I think for me, this was the key part of the reason why I noted down this scene at all. Yeah, because they’re standing around and they’re just sort of glancing over their shoulder and shaking their heads while the class warfare plays itself out in the background, and they only start to intervene when it comes to a physical altercation, when people start trying to punch each other, and then they’re like, Okay, break it up. But

Dr Rad 46:32
I think that the hilarious thing, of course, is we start to see, obviously, that whole idea of it’s what people make of it that’s funny in that when they think they’ve heard Blessed are the cheese makers. They say, well, obviously they don’t just mean the cheese makers. They mean manufacturers of any sort of dairy product.

Dr G 46:51
It’s not meant to be taken literally,

Dr Rad 46:52
yeah, and all the classic ones, where we get a lot of classic lines, you know? Oh, Blessed are the meek. Oh, that’s nice, because they get so little, I have such a hard time.

Dr G 47:03
From there, I jump ahead to the stoning scene, which I think might be the next scene. Anyway, it

Dr Rad 47:07
is because, of course, the virgin Mandy and Brian, they decide,

Dr G 47:11
they decide to leave the sermon of the mountain because it is getting out of hand in the background with the fights that are happening. So they decide that they’re going to attend the local stoning instead. And wouldn’t you know that there’s a whole bunch of bureaucratic rules around Stoney, and it’s really quite unfortunate, because women are forbidden to participate. And what this has led to is an underground market for fake beards so women can dress up as men and then attend stonings. And I suppose the part of the humor here, which is, in a way, quite parallel to the way that ancient humor operated as well, if we think about Greek comedy, sure is that we’ve got Monty Python, a male comedic troupe dressing up as women who are dressing up as men to attend stoning. So the layers upon layers of this kind of the drag, meta drag moments that are happening here, I

Dr Rad 48:14
think it allows the voices to be funnier, because then they can do the whole high pitched imitation of a woman. Are

Dr G 48:21
they ready with women here. Apologies. I mean, if you’re listening, I mean, we’re obviously just doing the film as we’re doing it as we analyze. So this puts me in mind of the way that ancient Greek comedy often sets up some of these things, and certainly, if we think about English traditions of comedy as well, this is very much something that Shakespeare would have lent into as well. Definitely the way in which characters try to hide their identity, by assuming the dress of another gender and then having to maybe go into hiding again, all of this kind of thing we have seen. It’s very English and in that sense, also very ancient. So I quite enjoyed that aspect of this scene. I note that there are some Roman soldiers there as well. They don’t seem to be quite as impressive as some of the other Centurions. They seem to be more low level infantry, and they just watch as the crowd eventually turns on the priest who is leading the stoning,

Dr Rad 49:25
which, and this is, I think, one of the things that I sort of lighted on as being the funny moment, because I love John Cleese’s priest. But again, the humor is so much that he is meant to be a kind of British bureaucrat slash schoolmaster type of figure in the way that he deals with the crowd, oh, there’s always one, and making sure that rules are being followed and that sort of thing. The way that he is dressed is very anachronistic. The idea of a stoning actually even taking place, is very debatable in terms of historical accuracy. It might seem like something you. SPECT in a biblical era film, but it is actually really uncertain whether such things would have been taking place in Jesus’s time. There’s like these weird references where it’s almost like they’re talking about stoning, but it’s almost like, are they saying that zonings actually happen? Or is this or are they just making a reference, because could maybe happen. It’s very unclear, but yeah, definitely highly debatable, but the fact that he is wearing something that’s so overly religious, again, kind of taps into criticisms that are made of certain Jewish groups in this society, of trying to advertise their piety, perhaps by wearing particular types of clothing. So I believe the Pharisees are sometimes critiqued by other Jewish people for overly advertising their dedication to religion and the type of clothing that they wear. So even though it’s anachronistic, it kind of potentially is highlighting that about this particular character. Yeah,

Dr G 50:55
and certainly, I think when we think about religious dress, there is a sense in the ancient world and even today, that the visual distinction is one of the ways in which you establish the authority of the Church, regardless of which church it might be. So style of dress and being visually recognizable from a distance is super important. And John Cleese is a tall man, and he’s wearing a very tall hat in this scene, which makes him even taller than he needs to be. So he definitely does stand out. So I’m

Dr Rad 51:25
guessing that your next scene that you liked was, of course, the children’s matinee.

Dr G 51:29
So in the lead up to that, though, yeah, I mean, yes, definitely the children’s matinee at the arena, which is a horrifying sort of take on, like, what is gladiatorial combat and the games of the hunt and things like that, as if they might be okay for children while people are dragging bits of meat out of the arena. But important in the lead up to this moment is the moment that Brian understands that his father is a Roman Ah,

Dr Rad 51:55
yes, okay, see, I didn’t think you’d talk about this one because there are no Roman characters present until, but till the end, it does become

Dr G 52:04
important later on, so as a Roman reference, but also like that happens in their home. So they and there is a Roman there. That’s true, yeah, they return home from the stoning and find that there is a Roman Centurion in their house. Brian’s bit put out by that, and his mom’s like, well, you know, maybe you shouldn’t be so worried about those sorts of things, because maybe your dad was a Roman so this is like an earth shattering revelation for Brian to learn that his father was a man called Nautius Maximus, and he understood understands in that moment that perhaps his life isn’t what he thought it was. It certainly calls into question, what has ever what was happening in the nativity scene with the Virgin mangy? Yes,

Dr Rad 52:54
well, even his name. I mean, I didn’t actually know this, but the last name Cohen, whilst it is quite a common name. Now, for people who have Jewish backgrounds, it actually indicates priest like, if you have the last name Cohen, your ancestors, presumably at one point, were from one of the priestly families. So it’s obviously not only a common Jewish name nowadays, which I’m sure is what they were playing on a little bit there, but it also has this connection to a very special group within that Jewish community that were setting this movie in and Brian was just chosen because, apparently that was the name that the Monty Pythons like to give to anyone who was seen as being very ordinary and kind of a bit stupid. Well,

Dr G 53:34
his character does live up to that in some respects. So he finds out his father is Nautius Maximus, and this puts him into a little bit of a tailspin. He makes a quip about his nose being Roman, and me like that. Explains

Dr Rad 53:53
I’m a Hebe, a Kike, a Red Sea pedestrian.

Dr G 53:58
And so, you know, he has this realization which frustrates him. It doesn’t really he doesn’t seem fixated beyond the fact that he’s noticed that there’s a Roman Centurion there because he wanders off because he’s now he’s got his own existential issues to deal with. But it turns out that his mother is also entertaining the Roman troops in a sexual way, perhaps, and she does make the point that they perhaps owe more to the Romans than he realizes, yeah, and he doesn’t seem to clock what that means, no, but the audience is allowed to see through that sort of veil and get a sense that this is a difficult life for her, yes, and that the Romans are part of the oppressive structures that she is navigating personally, while the province of Judea is navigating at large. Yes, absolutely. So yes, that leads us to the arena my favorite.

Dr Rad 54:53
So the subtitle children’s matinee is obviously, again, a play on something from British culture. Yeah. Dear the children’s madness that we provided pantomimes and theater and that sort of thing. I actually love this, though, because you do tend to get, I think, quite glorified, obviously, images of the arena in your more traditional epics. And this is kind of looking at, well, what happened when it was just an ordinary Saturday?

Dr G 55:21
And it’s like the arena isn’t particularly full. There are Brian’s there trying to sell some snacks, which, uh, he’s told that they’re just Roman tat.

Dr Rad 55:32
But again, even, like, even the types of things that he’s trying to sell, like the the wolf sniffles and that kind of stuff that, again, is kind of a play on the main evidence that we have of Roman food, which is typically by the elite, for the elite. So they are these ridiculous delicacies that we have preserved for us. And we, when we look at the recipe thing, we’re like, Oh my God. What you know the Romans love to think of all these new kind of delicacies, which, similarly to these days, I suppose, had to do with what was rare, what was hard to procure, and and so they did kind of eat sometimes things that we would look at as being absurd, but that would have been the very, very elite who were all caught up in this desire to impress one another. The average person would have been eating far more basic but

Dr G 56:23
I do like the idea that it’s playing into the idea of stadium culture and the sort of snacking that goes on there. But the arena is like the original Stadium in this sense. And so it makes sense that if you’re there and you’re out in the sun and you’ve been there for a few hours, you’re probably peckish, yeah, it would not be beyond imagination that nobody would be trying to sell you

Dr Rad 56:45
some just maybe not quite the fair that Brian is selling. But yeah, this

Dr G 56:49
is a super important scene for Brian, though, because it’s when he finally gets to meet the People’s Front of Judea love, and he’s already seen one of the members, at least when he was at the sermon of the mount, and because he spied Judith off in the distance, and was kind of like, and she was engaged in a very sort of intellectual conversation with another member of the group, yes,

Dr Rad 57:14
where they ridiculing my Jesus.

Dr G 57:18
And he’s seen her, he’s taking a look at her and being like, I’ve got a crow. And so it’s in this moment that he gets to meet her, because members of this group are attending the arena, mostly to criticize it and to lampoon people that they’ve exiled from their group or have defected to a different group. Spears, all of these people seem to be swilling around this idea that in order to get out from under the oppression of the Romans, they need to find a way to eliminate the powerful structures at play that are ruining the province so they can claim it back as their own.

Dr Rad 57:57
And this is the kind of thing that I like about Monty Python, because they’re making fun of every single class that they come across. So they make fun of the working class, they make fun of the middle class, they make fun of the upper class like no one is off limits because it’s really about institutions and authority that they are. That’s who they’re taking aim at really a lot of the time. So but I do, I just love their take on the trade unions. You’re like, you have to really hate the Romans to join our group, but I do,

Dr G 58:25
all right, we’re in and so this is the moment that Brian, you know, joins one of these groups, and he’s led into a new world. And this is on the back of him finding out about his own Roman heritage. So he’s running away from that in some respects, and fighting against it. And can he prove to himself, you know, how loyal he is to the local cause? Yeah, and

Dr Rad 58:50
this is, this is where we get into that interesting conversation, I suppose, about the presence of Rome in this area. So it’s hard to completely, I think, understand Jesus’s death at this distance, particularly because, as we talked about, the Gospels are written sometime after and they’ve obviously got a very particular agenda in mind. Even the Roman sources that mention Jesus Christ are again written a couple generations later, decades later. So whilst I definitely believe that there was a person who identifies as Jesus, it’s really hard to know I think exactly what was happening, but I don’t necessarily think that, as I said to before, I think it’s there’s often a lot of factionalism in this area, and there’s a lot of internal tension. And actually, I feel like it’s some time later that we get more anti Roman, more widespread anti Roman sentiment. And even then, it’s not universal and it’s not unified. I’m sort of thinking of in the sort of 60s and 70s, where we get the first udayan revolt. That’s when we tend to see really anti Roman sentiment springing up. But it’s not universal in Jesus’s lifetime. I’m not really sure. And I’m not an expert in this period, obviously, but I’m not really sure how widespread the anti. Roman sentiment would have been. It flares up a little bit under Caligula, because Caligula is a bit of a douche towards towards certain things that they hold dear. But otherwise, I’m really not, I’m not sure.

Dr G 1:00:09
I think this gets into the broader question of the history of the whole region, and so I’m not going to give too much away about something that comes up later in the film. I think we’re almost there, yeah, sure. But having thought about like we think about the layered history of this region, yes. And this area, broadly, what is now known as the Middle East, is considered, in many respects, cradle of civilization. This is where we understand agrarian culture to develop in a profound way. What about 6000 6000 7000 years ago? So this is an area that has always been populated. It has always had a multitude of societies. And this group that sits along this eastern edge of the Mediterranean are known for being traders. So the Punic peoples come from the Phoenician peoples. Yeah, the Phoenicians are just to the north of this region. But it’s not the case that the people to the south are not also traders. They are plenty of archeological evidence to suggest that there are social structures at play, that there is trading at play, that they are very involved in the broader Mediterranean community in which they sit. The Romans are just another player within this in that respect. So the idea that the Romans are necessarily terrible depends very much on how the Romans are behaving,

Dr Rad 1:01:44
and sometimes they can be behaving in ways that works for the people that live in that region.

Dr G 1:01:50
And in this time period, we are not yet at the conquest of the area by the Romans. No, we are certainly at a period of high levels of influence by Rome? Yeah, definitely. They’re doing some imperialism, for sure, sure, but they are not necessarily trying to wipe people out. No, and they do not have full control of this area, no,

Dr Rad 1:02:13
and that’s exactly it, like there’s and they’re not going to for quite some time. No, that’s what I mean. Like, I feel like there’s it. There’s more tension between various groups in this area. And I don’t just mean within Judea. I mean also more wider

Dr G 1:02:27
this whole area is, is complex already, the part of which we suffer from, I think, as historians who specialize in Rome, is that we are not Near Eastern specialists, and there are Near Eastern specialist, and we should get some of them on the show. We should talk about that region, because there is a lot going on here, and this, this film, is kind of touching on some of it. And I think maybe inadvertently, because I’m not sure how much Monty Python I know about some of I

Dr Rad 1:03:00
think they did a lot of research, but it’s the kind of material that they would have access to in the 1970s it’s obviously different scholarship, different time, and I don’t know how deep and they were influenced, definitely, I think, by more medieval things as well, like medieval passion plays as well as, obviously contemporary stuff. But even, I think, in terms of understanding this area, one of our major sources to sort of focus on relations between the people of this area and the Romans is, of course, Josephus. And Josephus is notoriously a hugely problematic source because he was someone who was captured by the Romans, or so he claims, during the first Judean revolt, and ends up becoming associated with flavians, because they are, of course, involved in the more troublesome time in Judea, with the first the destruction of the temple. Yeah, they are, and then they be, but then at around the same time that that happens, they obviously also become the next Imperial dynasty, everyone which allows them to allows them to control narrative somewhat. And Josephus is their client. He becomes like a Freedman of their family. And so his loyalties are all over the shop, all over the shop, and it’s so complex, like, it’s not to say that he’s like, Oh well, I’m I’m with the Romans. Now, he definitely doesn’t, but it’s so hard to tease out at any one moment what is going on in Josephus account of things, yeah,

Dr G 1:04:26
and his work is really important for our understanding of what is happening in this sort of Flavian period. And again, it’s that sort of thing where it’s like our sources just outside of the timeline, yes, that we’re interested in, like he does refer back to this period of history in the region totally, but it’s also the case that he wasn’t necessarily compos mentis there, no,

Dr Rad 1:04:49
and he’s also Jewish. He’s not Christian, so Jesus is going to mean something different to him. Anyways, yeah, it’s just a very, very complicated source to use. And. Yeah. Well, we

Dr G 1:05:01
love our complexities. We do. This leads us to the Latin scene.

Dr Rad 1:05:05
Okay. Now this is a scene that I laugh at whilst crying, as I have had so many, so many issues of Latin over the years.

Dr G 1:05:13
So I think one of the things that came out maybe on Twitter a few years ago, was like, you can tell the difference between a classic student and an ancient history student from their favorite from their favorite scene in Life of Brian. Yes, because the classic students will pick the Latin scene and the ancient historians will pick, well, What have the Romans ever done for us 100%

Dr Rad 1:05:33
and I am 100% true to that. The What have the Romans ever done for us is my favorite, but

Dr G 1:05:38
the Latin scene really does some special things. And I think it does some special things for classic students in particular, because it basically replicates the British education system for teaching classics to students at that time. Yes, yeah, in that moment. And so the play seems to be that Brian is put up to this moment by the People’s Front of Judea. They’re like, You got to prove your loyalty you want to be part of this group, you know, you’ve got to go and write a message on the Roman palace. Romans go home. Yeah. So Romanos

Dr Rad 1:06:12
ahaan rocks

Dr G 1:06:17
up and he’s he’s painting in big red letters. Romanes eunt domus and it’s kind of like twilight. He doesn’t realize that some Roman soldiers are marching up behind him, and they kind of watch him, and then they start correcting his grammar. They’re like, people call the Romans, They go to the house? and I was like, What are you doing? And then it goes through all of this thing where they’re trying to basically inculcate the rules, you know, like, you know, will it be accusative, you know, to place, it’s the locative, you know, blah, blah, blah, on all of these sort of like crazy grammatical terms, which you would only ever encounter if you had had to study Latin. Yes, it ends up being that they end up changing the phrase to Romani ite domum. Romans go home, and then they tell him that he has to paint it 100 times, which is one of those sort of classics of like the school system, where it’s kind of like you now have this really repetitive, boring task on your hands, and he does do it, like he takes him all night, but he Brian finishes this task. But you do get that sense that the play here is on the importance of form over everything else. This idea then gets linked to this Roman fetish for mindless punishment, which is something that runs through this whole film as well. And then as soon as Brian completes this task, it’s like there’s been a changeover of the group, and new guards show up. Don’t realize that this has been a task that has been set by the Romans to Brian. Look at what he’s written on the wall, and it’s huge, and it’s all over it, and then he has to run away very, very quickly to get himself out of trouble,

Dr Rad 1:07:58
yeah. Which I think, as you say, this perfectly highlight the educational background of the Monty Python group and the way that they would have had to study Latin because of the type of school they went to, which, again, is kind of interesting, because in the 60s, there had been a big shake up of the British education system, and there were definitely people that by the time that They, I suppose, were going through their education, there were definitely schools that were breaking with the tradition of having to learn Latin, and that was maybe seen as something a little bit old fashioned. But the Monty Python group, because the nature of their education, definitely would have had to learn Latin and learn it this way. And in fact, it wasn’t just trying to think when they would have been at university. I suspect that for a lot of them, they actually would have had to have studied Latin in order to get into the universities

Dr G 1:08:45
that they went to. So I assume so as well. And it’s pretty clear from the way that this scene is done, that they understand Latin, yes.

Dr Rad 1:08:52
And you’re like, okay, that I never will,

Dr G 1:08:56
and that they have been educated in very particular way about it. Yes, exactly. So the idea that they’re giving that experience to Roman soldiers in itself is quite funny, absolutely. Yeah, so the People’s Front of Judea, my favorite. I don’t know if you’re gonna like what I have to say about them. So these are just one of the many groups, the PJ, PFJ, as they’re known, one of the many groups seeking to liberate the area from Roman control and oppression, which

Dr Rad 1:09:27
is what I think I find so funny about it, because it taps into what I think is accurate to this period. The factionalism might not have been in this exact way, and it might not necessarily been directly anti Roman, but I think the factionalism is kind of oddly accurate.

Dr G 1:09:39
Yeah, definitely. And I think we can see this in many movements where it’s like, you can have broadly similar goals and yet be pursuing it in very different ways. Absolutely, yes. And certainly there are times and I think this happens, particularly you see it in online culture, where the discussion is around. And leftist groups being more challenging to each other than they are to tackling the cause itself. Yes, and this kind of thing can be a real hindrance to getting things done. Absolutely. The People’s Front of Judea sits in this category really quite nicely. Yeah, they spend a lot of time talking and writing notes and minutes and whatnot. They have a plan to kidnap the wife of Pontius Pilate. That’s their plan. They’re going to enter through the underground heating system the hypercoast. Good on them. I quite like that. So you know, they’re playing into like, what do we know about what the Romans had? And then we get to What have the Romans ever done for us? Now I

Dr Rad 1:10:41
think I think I know what you’re going to say about this scene. Wow, I’m

Dr G 1:10:44
going to say it, and then you can tell me whether your assumption was correct. Okay, this is the classic justification of imperialism. I

Dr Rad 1:10:51
knew you were going to say that. Yeah, you’re right. It’s not accurate to the situation in this area. It’s

Dr G 1:10:57
not accurate to the situation, and it’s hugely problematic. And what we have is the English playing the oppressed people and then selling back to them the idea that they were civilized by the arrival of their oppressors. This is British imperialism writ large in a single scene, which is ironic in its placement in this film. And I don’t know that Monty Python necessarily are aware of it. Well,

Dr Rad 1:11:29
I think they probably are now. I think the thing is that, again, this is where context, I think, is important. I think what people broadly would have thought about Rome and the Roman Empire back in that time when they were making this film, is that they would have looked at Rome as the great civilisers As much as we might question that critique it now that’s with the benefit of over 40 years of hindsight and new scholarship and also people looking into things from the point of view of the people that do live in the provinces, looking at the archeology that comes out of that area, not privileging the Roman perspective. You know, there’s a lot that has happened in the last 50 years of academia that has enabled us to look at that scene and recognize that it’s not accurate that the Romans did not invent aqueducts, that there were roads before they came, and all of that kind of stuff. What I wouldn’t like. I obviously haven’t looked into it in the sense of saying there definitively was no academia out there that could possibly have disproven this. But I do think that I know enough to say that widely speaking, I feel like the point of view would have been way more positive in terms of imperialism, and Roman imperialism in particular, but that’s, that’s the way I kind of look at it. Yeah, I

Dr G 1:12:48
think there’s an interesting parallel to be drawn between the way that British imperialism justifies itself and the way that we now have British people justifying Roman imperialism within the context of this film. So I think that’s an interesting point of note. So the things that get mentioned as benefits of what the Romans have done for us, aqueducts, roads, medicine, sanitation, irrigation, education, wine, public baths and law and order. Now, objectively speaking, all of these are incorrect. Just as a point of note, all of these things predated Rome in the area,

Dr Rad 1:13:31
and Rome was not particularly sanitized. I mean, like sure they would have, they had certain aspects of their culture which may have been more hygienic than otherwise at that time in other places. But certainly, when you think about things like the bars, I think they would have just been germ soup. I was

Dr G 1:13:49
gonna say, are you calling into question my beloved cloacker maxima, yeah,

Dr Rad 1:13:53
sure. They had certain things like the aqueducts, which they adopted. I mean this. And this is the thing about the Romans. I think the thing about the Romans I think the thing about the Romans is that a little bit like America, I suppose, oh, that parallel again, they’re very good, I think, at adopting things and then rolling them out. They adopt things and because they ended up having control over wide amounts of territory, they can organize, like mass manpower, for example, or whatever, in order to build these things or create this infrastructure. It’s not that they came up with the original idea, and it may not be that they’re the only ones doing it, but once they’re in charge, I feel like they are relatively good sometimes at rolling it out when it’s in in their interest to do so to like, have an aqueduct or have a theater? Yeah.

Dr G 1:14:41
So I mean, notably, if we’re going to give the Romans any credit in this region, and we can, I suspect it is the fact that under Herod, there was an aqueduct constructed into the port city of Caesarea, Maritima, Caesar’s maritime port. And the reason for that is that there was no access to fresh water at that location, and there was still evidence of that ancient aqueduct, which was then sort of enhanced a few generations later. So that exists. So, yes, I mean, we could say that, you know, they brought some aqueducts, yeah, but they

Dr Rad 1:15:19
didn’t. They didn’t invent aqueduct. They didn’t invent paved rows. They did not invent wine. Law and order. I certainly did not

Dr G 1:15:26
invent wine. And arguably, it’s more likely that this region invented wine and irrigation. This is

Dr Rad 1:15:35
what I mean. I think the Romans are kind of like the inheritors, in the sense that they’re bringing the infrastructure, I suppose it’s in like, the ability to act on it at that moment in time, yeah.

Dr G 1:15:45
And so I suppose this is the idea of the increasingly militaristic influence of Rome in this area, yeah. And the fact that they’ve decided to go in, and people have not yet been able to throw them out or to throw them off. We

Dr Rad 1:16:00
obviously don’t know what would have been here if the Romans weren’t here. That’s not to say that the people in this area were incapable of doing such projects without the Romans. I just think it’s the Roman army, Roman slavery. Those systems mean that you can potentially have these large scale building projects, as sad as that is,

Dr G 1:16:24
indeed. And so they the PFJ decide that they’re going to enter through the Caesar Augustus Memorial. Sewer, excellent. And I do really love the scene where we get the footage of them entering, and it’s like they come through a floor mosaic lifting up a little leaf that’s covering somebody’s private parts. The Romans wouldn’t have bothered to have a leaf there in the mosaic. They would have just left it open. So that was a cute little nod, I think as well.

Dr Rad 1:16:52
See, this is where I love the kind of non Roman stuff, in a sense. So I love the fact that they encounter rival groups and they start fighting each other rather than concentrating on the task.

Dr G 1:17:03
Oh, yeah. So, I mean, the PFJ managed to run into this rival liberation group who have happy to dance people front, yeah, who have happened to have the same plan to execute on the same evening. Absolutely hilarious. And they all managed to kill each other inside the villa, and Brian’s the last one left standing when the Roman soldiers notice that anybody has infiltrated.

Dr Rad 1:17:28
And this, of course, brings us, I suppose, to one of the most notorious scenes, which is the Pontius Pilate scene. Oh,

Dr G 1:17:35
we’re calling it that, are we? I call it the biggest sticker scene. That’s right, yeah. I really liked this scene. I feel like I have an academic paper to write, because this scene is full of frescoes.

Dr Rad 1:17:48
Ah, okay, that’s what caught your eye. See, I was, as usual, very focused on Michael Palin, who is probably my favorite of the pythons. He is very good, and this is perhaps with his loose

Dr G 1:18:01
one of his star turns in this film as the most objectionable Roman, Pontius Pilate. And so Brian, having been arrested by the Roman guards and doing a bit of a tour of the jail, gets brought before Pontius Pilate himself. And this is where, in order to try and avoid punishment, Brian reveals his half Roman identity, yes. And he’s like, Well, my father is Nautius Maximus, at which point the Roman guard is like, convinced that this is a joke name. And Pontius Pilate is like, what are you talking about? And this leads the guard to say, well, you know, it’s a, it’s a joke name, like Biggus Dickus, or, yeah, and Pontius Pilate is like, Excuse me, because Dickus is a great friend of mine. And this scene is just, it plays out for like, you know, a good while. Yeah,

Dr Rad 1:18:56
it’s the accent that sells it as well, the way that Pontius Pilate has this absurd list. And of course, when we eventually meet him, bigger stickers will have an even more exaggerated speech impediment. And the lyric thing, of course, is that nobody can understand him, not even the Romans.

Dr G 1:19:12
Yeah, so people keep responding back to him as if he’s asked a different question. Which,

Dr Rad 1:19:16
Look, I get that because of someone who’s hard of hearing. I do do that sometimes, where I respond completely inappropriately, because I have 100% miss her what someone said to

Dr G 1:19:24
me, the joys of this podcast. So what is happening in the background with these frescoes is that they can be cross referenced quite distinctly to frescoes from the villa of mysteries. Oh, actually, you

Dr Rad 1:19:41
know what? I did notice that. I actually did notice it, and I totally forgot, you’re right, the red like the red, the red ones like so the red ones, the ones with the predominantly red color in the background.

Dr G 1:19:53
You know those red fresh skirts.

Dr Rad 1:19:56
But no, like it is the red color, the red background. Is what makes them so distinctive to me. And it’s

Dr G 1:20:02
not just the red background, it’s the fact that they’ve replicated key panels from that fresh Yeah. So yeah, I’ve started to go through and collate the parallels visually from the villa of mysteries for my own edification. Yeah, hi. I paused the film

Dr Rad 1:20:23
research. Hello, pot. It’s kettle here. Hi.

Dr G 1:20:29
So what I like about this is one it suggests that somebody on set knew enough. So this is like a little easter egg for people who know enough. Well, this

Dr Rad 1:20:40
would be where it would be curious for you, because I don’t know enough about the set design to know this. But as I said before, they did make use of the sets that were there for the TV series that have just been made. But I know that they what they describe the processes that they built their sets into those sets. So it would be interesting whether that was a set that already existed, or whether it was something that they, as you like, that they made their own. Yeah,

Dr G 1:21:06
yeah. So it makes me think I’m gonna have to go and watch what Zeffirellis. Yep, definitely go and have a watch. So, I mean, part of me thinks maybe not in zephyrellis, partly does seem too common, partly because the villa of mysteries is from Pompeii, so maybe doesn’t make a lot of sense, but also because of the potential time period and dating of these frescoes. Yeah. Anyway, yeah, that was besides the things that are very funny about this scene, which I enjoy. It’s one of my favorites. I did get distracted with my Roman historian hat on,

Dr Rad 1:21:46
so I believe that there is a very random scene that comes after this one, which is, of course, the alien sequence. Oh,

Dr G 1:21:54
yes. Well, I didn’t include any notes on that because I was like, there were no Romans. Well, Brian

Dr Rad 1:21:59
is being pursued by the Romans, I guess in this chase sequence. Now, I’ve heard various explanations for this. So 1979 that’s around the time that Star Wars is coming out. So it’s possible that they’re referencing like, the, you know, mania for science fiction. I have heard that the pythons just didn’t know how to get Brian out of this situation where he’s like, running up a very tall building find someone working on the top of it and really can’t figure out how to get down. Instead of decided just to insert this. I also read an academic who felt that it was a play on a book and documentary which came out of Germany, and then, I think, was adapted into English, the Chariots of the Gods, showing the aliens sort of interfering with life on Earth. I’ve also heard that it’s meant to be some sort of allusion to Brian’s ascension. Oh,

Dr G 1:22:53
yes. I mean to me, that makes the most sense. Yeah,

Dr Rad 1:22:56
yeah. So to be honest, there are so many explanations of what is going on in here. I have to admit, I kind of would go with the Python explanation of they just didn’t know how else to get him out of here. Well, I

Dr G 1:23:07
mean, part of me finds that hard to believe. I mean, they put him there, I guess so.

Dr Rad 1:23:11
But yeah, it could. It could have been a play, obviously, on the idea of Jesus being taken into the heavens. This is Brian’s moment to do that. And of course, it happens in a ridiculous fashion, as everything does in Brian’s life, as opposed to Jesus’s life,

Dr G 1:23:25
certainly. And I mean, the key thing for Brian, I guess, and for the film, is that he does escape set back down in a slightly different location, which allows him to get back to Matthias’ house. Now, Matthias’ house, is where the People’s Front of Judea meet, yes,

Dr Rad 1:23:44
and hides so well.

Dr G 1:23:47
And unfortunately, it seems like the guards are just close enough to Brian to spot which house he goes into, which causes all sorts of trouble.

Dr Rad 1:23:57
And there is a very tiny scene, which I do appreciate, though, when the Romans are like, storming into the house, and you see, like, 1000 Roman soldiers storm fast into this tiny, little house.

Dr G 1:24:06
Yeah. And I like, I do enjoy this sequence, because I think it gives us a sense of one how much Rome does. Rome things where you’re like, okay, just always send all of the guards all the time. And it’s like, this is how they managed to dominate everybody. It’s through this sheer numbers. Yeah, impressive numbers. Yeah. And it also seems to be a play on the classic sort of, how many clowns can you fit in a car kind of joke? Exactly. Matthias house is not that large, and there are many men running into it.

Dr Rad 1:24:40
I love it.

Dr G 1:24:41
So this leads me, from a Roman historian perspective, I suppose, straight to the crucifixion. Okay, you’re

Dr Rad 1:24:52
gonna skip right over the nude scene and the he’s just, he’s not the Messiah. He’s just a naughty boy.

Dr G 1:24:57
It’s got nothing to do with the Romans. Oh. Haha, by all means. I mean, now’s your chance.

Dr Rad 1:25:03
Obviously, that this is one of my other favorite scenes. It’s also obviously gives us one of the most well known quotes, I think, from the scene. And the thing I’ve the reason why I find it interesting, and I thought you might as well, is that it’s probably the most woman heavy, even though the women in question is, in fact, Terry Jones Indra, but it kind of did maybe think about things a bit differently here. So basically, Judith and Brian hook up at this moment in time, and we get very big full frontal nudity from both Brian and Judith in this scene. But to be honest again, this is where I feel like Monty Python and just say general measles. Saying they kind of are maybe unintentionally accurate. Number one, I kind of think the way that they’re just so at ease with being nude in like a small space in a family situation. I think that kind of is how people would have had to have been in the ancient world, you know, just more at ease with nudity, more used to bodily functions and things happening around them. I think the the dirtiness of this world, the you know, the smallness of this world, you know that like the way that the average person lives, I think is actually kind of more accurate than the gleaming marble we tend to see in a lot of Roman epics. But I do also like the way that they are, again, playing up with a character that’s probably more familiar to modern audiences, in that the way that Brian and his mother have a relationship. It does seem to be playing on the trope of maybe the Jewish mother, the way that she’s disapproving, that sort of thing which we see in modern shows like The Nanny, that line coming out of that depiction of, again, like a very modern character, but put in an ancient world, definitely.

Dr G 1:26:40
And the the way in which that this is like the the climactic point for the Messianic journey, exactly

Dr Rad 1:26:51
so funny, the way that the crowd, and this is where we see the crowd reacting in ways where the pythons are making fun of prophets springing up and preaching on corners, and the way people are responding to them, and the way that Brian’s like, just think for yourself. This is essentially the message of Life of Brian, as far as the pythons were concerned. It’s about thinking for yourself. Yeah,

Dr G 1:27:12
so to backtrack slightly, how did Brian even get here? So the Roman troops went into Matthias’ house. Brian was trying to hide, but he was hiding on a little balcony outside. That balcony eventually gave way, and he ended up standing on a strip of various other sort of wise prophets who were sort of promulgating a crowd. So it’s a bit like people are on their soapbox and people are gathering around, you know, the person who’s talking, who they think is most interesting? Yeah,

Dr Rad 1:27:40
with my favorite one of and there shall be a time where all things will be lost, and the little bits and pieces will be very hard to find. And Brian

Dr G 1:27:50
ends up in this situation. He’s knocked somebody off their plinth. Now he’s in front of a crowd, and he starts sort of making some stuff up. And there are some biblical references in there, stuff that has been attributed. And then he sort of trails off because he’s really waiting for that coast to be clear of the Romans, to be able to get back into the house and all of that. So once he sees that the moment has arrived, he just sort of trails off and doesn’t reveal anything. And it’s the mystery that is set up by him not finishing a sentence that prompts people to start to follow him, because they want to know what the message is, yes, which, when he was completing his sentences was of no real interest to any of them, but because they can’t and they don’t know what is the next thing he’s going to say, they become obsessed with him. Start following him around. Anyway, he ends up with this huge crowd around him, and when he wakes up the next morning at mum’s place with Judith, he is unprepared for how many people are outside his house. Yeah,

Dr Rad 1:28:52
but the crowd scene, the interaction between Brian and the crowd and the Virgin Mandy and the crowd, is just hilarious. The whole idea of Yeah, thinking for yourselves, doing your own thing. And they’re all like, yes, we’re all individuals. I love it, and I kind of love to be as well. A bit later on, not not too long before the crucifixion scene, we also see, obviously, like the fetishizing of objects associated with Brian, the gourd and the sandal. And the way that you you see factions forming around these two different objects, which is exactly the kind of stuff you see happening in Christianity in real life. I mean, this is, you know what? Relics, 101, yeah, but, but also the idea that, like, tiny details about the faith are what cause factions to form within Christianity, and leads to a lot of bloodshed, to be honest, in the later Roman Empire, as people are fighting for their particular brand of Christianity and their particular interpretation of things, which I think is what still rings true, because obviously we still see that factionalism between Christian groups. It might not be quite as extreme, but we certainly still see different and not just Christianity. Obviously in other religions as well, there are obviously different groups which are sprung up, and we still see infighting between those groups. And that, again, is one of those things that I think is just kind of timeless, even the absurdity of the kind of ascetic that Brian accidentally knocks out of his hole, which, again, is kind of, I feel like an allusion to the Desert Fathers. I feel like there has to be an illusion. I

Dr G
feel like it must be, yeah, he gets very upset. The poor man who’s been out in the desert in his little hole for a long time keeping silent and eventually makes a sound, because Brian accidentally steps on his foot or

Dr Rad
something. But that’s exactly the kind of his vow of silence is over. Yeah. That’s exactly the kind of extreme esthetic behavior we end up seeing a bit later, I was gonna

Dr G
say they just this is a historical as far as where or where from, from a Christian perspective, certainly those sorts of figures don’t start to pop up until we’re in the depths of sort of like Christian belief on the rise.

Dr Rad
Totally. The things that they do are pretty extreme, pretty extreme, yeah, when they get to them, yeah, yes, now is not the time. No, all right, the crucifixion, the crucifixion, just one crossbears, yeah,

Dr G
well, you’ve alluded to it already. I really, I do love this, this sort of like the the empathetic bureaucrat, yeah, next crucifixion, good, out the door, line of the left one cross each next crucifixion, good, sort of plays out. And I was like, oh, there’s that sense in which you can also see the character, the bureaucrat here, sort of getting to the point where they’re kind of like, Oh no, that’s, that’s not okay. You know that has to do their job anyway, yeah, and just keeps doing their job. And this feeds in nicely to something that happens to Brian later, where he says to one of the Roman guards, as they’re putting his cross up, you don’t have to take orders. The guard immediately replies, I like orders. And I think for you, this is the moment where we also get the beautiful reference to Spartacus. Yes,

Dr Rad
absolutely, yes.

Dr G
And so as it turns out, one of the scenes that’s playing against this scene is that we’re back with bigger stickers and conscious

Dr Rad
who, to be fair, again, I’m just going to pipe in and say to be historically accurate, the reason why Pontius Pilate probably actually deserves a bad reputation is history is that he does not seem to have been very skilled at negotiating the Jewish cultural beliefs and laws and practices in this region. He does not seem to be very respectful of them, and therefore probably does deserve a poor reputation as a governor for the things that went down. And probably was not a very soft and cuddly person, but being played by Michael Palin, I love him.

Dr G
Yeah, look, and I don’t think the Romans would expect anything less from themselves in this situation than to enforce Roman attitudes and beliefs. Yeah, so the things that Pontius Pilate gets accused of probably all quite deserved. Yeah.

Dr Rad
I mean, it seems like yeah, he probably wasn’t the best person for the job at this point in time, which probably is kind of why things got out of hand with Jesus. But was he any different to any other Roman governor? Yeah? Like, I

Dr G
can’t see a timeline necessarily where a Roman governor wouldn’t have gone yeah. Obviously they need to be executed, yeah. And from a Roman perspective, Jesus is not someone special, no. And in this moment, this cross cutting scene in the sort of lead up to the crucifixion of Brian is this scene where Pontius Pilate has said that he will squeeze someone, he will save one of the of the people to be crucified. There’s apparently going to be 140 crucifixions as a special celebration, and one of them will be released. And the crowd just goes wild because they’re aware of his speech impediment, and they just offer him names that he’s going to mispronounce. Watcher. Is there a watcher? And so they just keep going on on this path, and eventually somebody suggests Brian, in which Yeah, conveniently also doesn’t work for the speech impediment, and a messenger does get sent to the site of the crucifixion like, you know, we need to release Brian. And Brian is currently distracted having, he’s in a chat with somebody else. I don’t know, he’s not across, but he is like, you know, and somebody hears this, and one of the Mr. Cheeky,

Dr Rad
yes, Mr. Cheeky, yeah. Mr. Cheeky, telling him that it’s all right, my brother’s gonna come and rescue me.

Dr G
And then they have this moment where a guard turns up and says, you know, we are to release Brian. And so then the people organizing the crucifixions are like, well, who’s Brian? I’m

Dr Rad
Brian, and so is my wife. I’m Brian.

Dr G
And so the parody of the Spartacus scene writ large absolutely to enjoy. But

Dr Rad
again, what is historically accurate is that Jesus was not alone at his crucifixion, and he certainly was not the only person to be penalized this way under the

Dr G
Romans. No, although apparently some of the initial critique. Of this film was that there were too many people getting crucified at one time. Absolutely.

Dr Rad
Look, I think, I don’t think the Romans would have generally crucified this many people at one time. But then again, if you think about the aftermath of Spartacus war, allegedly 6000 of the surviving slaves, 6000 that is, were crucified up and down the Appian Way, so they were capable of it. Oh, yeah.

Dr G
So yeah, this is basically the end of the film. It is

Dr Rad
where we get to Always Look on the bright side of life. Now this is this actually segues nicely to thinking about the fact that this scene, in particular, I think, was one of the ones that aroused a lot of controversy when this film was released. So it did do very well this film, it made a huge amount of money. I think it was something like $60,000 in its first five days. I presume that means $60,000 in like 1970s money. It did do very well at the box office, but it was considered controversial by some people, and it was banned in certain areas. So it was banned in Norway. It was banned in the Republic of certain parts of the Republic of Ireland. I believe it was even maybe banned in parts of America. I think so. Definitely. It was a controversial film, and this particular scene was notorious because people felt like they were making fun of the crucifixion and, you know, Jesus’s death, something that’s hugely important for Christians. So if you, if you watch, and we will link this in the show notes, because it’s fairly available on YouTube, if you watch the BBC Two appearance of John Cleese and Michael Palin on Friday night, Saturday morning, which I have to say, my favorite part of watching that whole show was the fact that that show starts with a couple in bed having sex, and they turn to watch the program. That’s like the opening credits. But anyway, they were basically responding to criticisms from Malcolm Muggeridge and an Anglican bishop called Mervyn Stockwood, and the thing that they kept coming back to was that crucifixion scene. They felt like it was making light of death. They felt like it was really attacking a core moment for their belief. With the crucifixion, they kept coming back to that scene so you can kind of see how some people react, if you want to watch that YouTube thing, my favorite part of that whole episode is that, in terms of standing the test of time, those men don’t come across well nowadays the way that they I mean, you want to talk about being central to like Western culture and British culture, the way that they prioritize Christianity and that as being the basis for Western culture, the only thing that ever inspired anybody, completely ignoring the way that Christianity was forced upon people at the point of being burnt to death, completely ignoring all the negative conflict that has come with religions like Christianity, but it doesn’t stand the test of time. What you can see as well on YouTube, which I will also link, is the not the Nine O’Clock News sketch starring a very young Rowan Atkinson. I was gonna say that was one of his first Yeah, where? So about two weeks after that, initial debate appeared on television, not the Nine O’Clock News decided to do their own sketch making fun of the debate, where they have a bishop played by Rowan Atkinson coming on. He’s just made a movie about the life of Christ, and he’s being accused of lampooning Monty Python, particularly our Lord on high, John Cleese. And that might be a good moment, I suppose, to wrap up. Dr, G, yeah. Look, I

Dr G
think so. So I would encourage you, if you haven’t watched this film, to go and do so. It’s currently on Netflix, but it might be in other places as well. It is definitely worth thinking about as you also enjoy it. And yeah, I’m just in my mind, I’m just, I’m excited about the prospect of learning more about this historical period from non Roman material and and I think that’s one of the challenges that we always face as Roman historians, is that there is that element of the victor leaves the record, and that has definitely flow come down to us, and we can see it manifesting in this film. But there’s also like things to think about, in terms of imperialism generally, and ways in which we engage in decolonizing as we go. So yeah, and

Dr Rad
look, I think the thing that will stand the test of time about this film, I say, I do like that. It’s probably a bit more I lived in kind of Roman world, and I actually do like the fact that a lot of the characters we’re engaging with are more ordinary, I suppose, than a lot of the people we see in films about ancient Rome, who tend to be more emperors and generals. And we actually get to know these sorts of characters who, funnily enough, probably were the kinds of characters that. Jesus was moving around. You know, amongst us, that’s kind of why Brian and his mother are so perfectly placed to have that sliding doors kind of life with Jesus Christ. They’re exactly the kind of people that he probably would have been associating with. So I do kind of like that. But I think the thing that really stands the test of time is the fact that the characterizations like we all know people like the characters that Monty Python plays even 50 years later, including one that we didn’t really mention, but the leper, the X leper, without so much as a buy your leave, the people like that, who are kind of timeless characters, I think, and I think that’s what makes Life of Brian stand out so much, but perhaps also the fact that it is a bit of a riff on biblical epics, which some people might still be very familiar with, and I obviously number amongst those people.

Dr G
Well, it has been an absolute joy to learn more about this film with you.

Dr Rad
It certainly has, let’s say, arrivederci to Brian. His name is Brian.

Thank you for listening to this special episode of the partial historians, you can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina Joy De Guzman. You too can support our show and help us to produce more fascinating content about the ancient world by becoming a Patreon. In return, you receive exclusive early access to our special episodes, and you get to make suggestions for future episodes. This one was one of our Patreon requests. So of course, we’d like to thank all of our wonderful crew over at Patreon and also our ko fi supporters for helping us to cover the costs of making the show and taking it in new directions. However, if you’re experiencing a serious lack of sisters, please just tell someone about the show or give us a five star review that goes for our book as well. You can now purchase Rex, the seven kings of Rome, right from our Patreon store as well as through Gumroad and Amazon. Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome, you

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

This episode we return to the ‘Golden Age of Hollywood’ with a classic sword and sandal epic, Quo Vadis (1951). This film is available through many streaming platforms and we highly recommend revisiting it.

In Part One of two episodes on Quo Vadis, we examine the context for the film and the plot.

Quo Vadis (1951) helped to ignite Hollywood’s passion for ancient epics in this decade. It was a smash hit with some of the legendary stars of the era, including Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov. This film is not only epic in terms of length, but in terms of all the aspects that you could discuss in connection with it.

Special Episode – Quo Vadis (1951) – Part One

The tale itself has a lengthy backstory which takes us all the way back to 19th century Poland. Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote the book in a serialised format between 1894-1896. Poland had been going a through a tough time over the course of the preceding century, in the sense that it did not exist independently between 1795 and 1918. During this period, the Catholic Church was crucial in preserving Polish culture. Sienkiewicz often wrote historical novels that would lift the spirits of his fellow poles, and Quo Vadis was no exception. For Sienkiewicz, the triumph of Christian characters such as Lygia and Ursus (meant to be from Lugii, i.e. Poland) represent the ultimate triumph of Poland over its cruel oppressors, with Nero representing nations such as Russia, Austro-Hungary and Prussia.  

Sienkiewicz’s novel was well-received, and was therefore adapted into toga plays, operas, and several films. The earlier film versions were made in Europe, including the notable 1912 silent classic.

Join us for the fascinating background of the 1951 film and stay tuned for Part Two!

There are a LOT of characters to keep track of in a film of this length, so if you need a handy reference, check out the cast list on IMDB.

The main people that you need to know for our episode include:

Fictional main lady love interest. Christian, hostage-turned-adoptive daughter of Roman general Aulus Plautus, and his wife, Pomponia Graecina.

Fictional main manly love interest. Roman, not Christian (yet). Militaristic, aggressive to start, turns all moral as the film progresses.

Lygia (Deborah Kerr) and Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) in the courtyard of her adoptive parents’ home in Rome.
Source: FilmAffinity.

Historical figure. Really was Roman emperor from 54-68 CE. Known as the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Really was terrible, although maybe not quite as unrelentingly awful as many suggest – including this film. Probably not as amusing as Peter Ustinov!

Historical figure. Elite Roman lady. Complicated love life. Winds up as Nero’s second wife. Called beautiful but awful in the surviving sources. We say – the jury is out on that one. Typical fun, adulteress type character used to contrast to the ‘good girl’, Lygia. Historically, she is murdered by Nero while pregnant with their child. In Quo Vadis, Nero strangles her. An awful demise in reality and in film.

Historical figure. Served as governor of Bithynia and was consul in either 62 or 63 CE. Did a decent job, but in his personal life seems to have made pleasure his main goal. Dubbed the ‘Arbiter of Elegance’ by Nero. Accused of being part of a conspiracy against Nero and suicided whilst chatting casually to friends. Thought to be the author of the novel, The Satyricon, which is a very unusual piece because it does NOT focus on the elite and is pretty … eye-opening. Possibly makes fun of Nero through the gross figure of Trimalchio, a freedmen who has become a wealthy show-off with no taste. Close associate of Nero. In the movie, Petronius is Vinicius’ uncle and an elegant, witty, intelligent member of Emperor Nero’s inner-circle. He also has a weird obsession with the enslaved Eunice…

From left: Petronius (Leo Genn) attempting to advise Nero (Peter Ustinov) in a scene from Quo Vadis (1951).
Image source: FilmFanatic

Fictional character. Bodyguard of Lygia, Christian convert. Super strong.

That’s St Peter to you! Follower of Jesus Christ. Christian (to state the obvious). Supposedly was crucified upside down, making him a martyr, which Sienkiewicz worked into his novel. Has a very famous domed building named after him.  

Historical figure. Elite Roman lady who was related to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Mentioned by Tacitus for her ballsy behaviour. She wore mourning for DECADES after Julia was bumped off by Messalina, which could have led to her own downfall, but Claudius did not punish her. (Julia Livia, granddaughter of Tiberius, daughter of Livilla and Drusus Caesar – mother of Rubellius Plautus). Her husband was told to deal with her privately after she was charged for believing in an “alien superstition”, which some have taken to mean she dabbled in Christianity. Good choice to turn into a character with Christian leanings in Quo Vadis! Adoptive mother of Lygia in the film. V V Virtuous.  

Historical figure. Really was a Roman general who won an ovation for a campaign in Britain. Really married to Pomponia Graecina.  

Historical figure. An imperial freedwoman that teenage Nero fell for HARD, much to his mother’s displeasure. Suetonius reports that she was one of the few to attend the interment of his ashes, so her devotion in the film tracks. In the film, not a Christian but still a good woman as she is virtuous and loyal. As the movie is set late in Nero’s reign, it makes sense that he has moved on from her by now. Sympathetic to Christians, so that’s something. Is in love with Nero but keeps it real with him. Helps him to commit suicide when everyone else has abandoned him. A good choice, as Nero’s suicide was supposedly aided by his slave.

Fictional enslaved woman. For reasons that make absolutely no sense, she has a crush on her master, Petronius. He eventually loves her back – depends on the version of Quo Vadis that you consult as to how that happens. It’s fair to say, we’re not keen on her storyline.

Thanks to the fabulous Bettina Joy de Guzman for our theme music.

The classic film poster for Quo Vadis, the Roman and Christian epic!
Image course: Wikipedia.

Interested in how Rome is depicted on screen? Check out our back catalogue where we cover films and television.

Edited for clarity! The AI does seem to have challenges with both Latin and Australian accents!

Dr Rad 0:08
Welcome to this special episode of The Partial Historians. I’m Dr. Rad and normally Dr. G and I discuss the history of Rome from the founding of the city. But today we begin a deep dive into Quo Vadis 1951. We ended up talking for so long about this epic that we have split the episode into two parts. This is part one of our coverage of Quo Vadis, in which we will examine the context and the plot. We hope that you enjoy this sword and sandal classic as much as we did.

Dr G 0:54
Hello, and welcome to this very special episode of the Partial Historians. I am Dr. G

Dr Rad 1:03
And I am Dr. Rad.

Dr G 1:05
And we are so excited because we’re going to be talking about the film, the film,

Dr Rad 1:12
Indeed

Dr G 1:13
Quo Vadis.

Dr Rad 1:14
Yes. And now we have talked about this on someone else’s podcast before but it was years ago really a long time ago. We’ve never done it just the two of us. So we thought we would revisit because as our time of recording it is Easter.

Dr G 1:29
It is Easter. And we did have a special request come through from one of our supporters. So shout out to you.

Dr Rad 1:37
Yeah

Dr G 1:38
This is Quo Vadis

Dr Rad 1:40
Indeed

Dr G 1:40
From us.

Dr Rad 1:41
So Quo Vadis is one of the biggest blockbuster films – sword and sandals – of the 1950s it really kicks off the decade.

Dr G 1:53
I was gonna say this is 1951.

Dr Rad 1:55
Exactly.

Dr G 1:56
And boy is the bar set high. Because this film is probably what just as long as “The Fall of the Roman Empire”. But better, like I didn’t get bored.

Dr Rad 2:04
Ah, that’s good to hear! Well see, I never know how people are going to respond to all these different ones. But yes, it was definitely I think the film that kind of set the tone for the decade you know, had Hollywood chasing the ruins constantly like this is where we’re going to make money people. This is how we’re going to save our industry. But it didn’t just come out of nowhere, Dr. G. So I thought before we actually talk about the 1951 film, we have to acknowledge some of the background.

Dr G 2:35
Ah a true historian you are

Dr Rad 2:37
Can’t help myself, because this is actually based on a blockbuster novel.

Dr G 2:44
Yes. And the success of the novel is part of what engenders the film.

Dr Rad 2:48
Exactly, exactly. So it was written in the 19th century like right at the end, it was appearing in sort of a serialised version between 1894 and 1896. Originally written in Polish, because the author was Polish. And unsurprisingly, so far makes sense. Yeah, his name was Henryk Sienkiewicz. I think that’s how you pronounce it anyway. And he he was known for writing quite a few novels, basically historical novels, generally ones that I think, showed the Polish people in a way that was going to lift morale for the people of his own time. And that I think, has a lot to do with what Poland was dealing with at this point in time. And I’ll come to that in a moment. But essentially, in this particular book that he was writing, it’s meant to be that the Christians kind of stand for, like the very earliest version of the Catholic Church, which had come to be very important for representing Polish interests against the other nations that wanted to control Poland at this point in time.

Dr G 2:48
Fair enough. Fair enough.

Dr Rad 3:58
Yeah. But I think also, it was also maybe sparked by the fact that there were large scale excavations going on in Rome at around the time that he was writing as well, from about 1870 to 1914.

Dr G 4:14
There’s lots of things being uncovered. And lots of exciting finds being shared across Europe.

Dr Rad 4:19
Indeed, yeah, because Poland, Poland has such a sad history, there is no independent Poland between 1795 and 1918, essentially, but resistance continues throughout this entire time. And the Catholic Church is just crucial for trying to preserve Polish culture, when it’s going through one of those classic periods of oppression where, you know, occupying powers are saying, “Hey, you can’t speak your language. No, not even in school”, you know, so they’re trying to preserve their identity and that sort of thing. So, one of the main characters of the novel is a girl called Lygia.

Dr G 4:57
And would I be right guessing that this is supposed to be a stand-in for Poland?

Dr Rad 5:00
Yes. As well as the blonde hair, yeah, as well as her kind of servant Ursus. So both of them are meant to be representing Catholic Poland and the Polish people.

Dr G 5:15
Nice. All right.

Dr Rad 5:17
And the fact that Nero does not end well in this novel is meant to be a bit of a threat, I think, against the various countries that are exploiting Poland at this point in time, namely, Russia, Austro-Hungary, and Prussia, not to be confused with Russia.

Dr G 5:37
All of whom would be utilising Roman symbolism as part of their regalia as part of their politics. So this is not a huge jump for the imagination of the Polish reader to be like, “Oh, I see where you’re going here.”

Dr Rad 5:52
Yeah, definitely. So I just thought that was really interesting to note and Quo Vadis, did become an international bestseller was published in many different translations. So lots of people end up becoming familiar with this particular work. In fact, in 1905, Sienkiewicz, our author, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature

Dr G 6:12
Well, but not for Quo Vadis? For something else?

Dr Rad 6:15
I actually feel like it was for Quop Vadis, but now I’m doubting myself. Maybe it’s just the way I’ve organised my notes where I’m like Quo Vadis, international bestseller, awarded Nobel Prize. Either way, he’s a good writer.

Dr G 6:31
He’s doing well for himself.

Dr Rad 6:32
Yeah, people are captured by the story. And it ends up being adapted many times into plays into operas. And eventually, there are multiple film versions of this particular novel. I thought it might be a good point, however, to pause and talk a little bit about when this is supposedly set. The context.

Dr G 6:54
Yeah, so we’ve got – we’re in the late period of Nero’s reign, from what we can tell.

Dr Rad 7:02
Yeah.

Dr G 7:03
There is the story of Agrippina, his mother, already having been knocked off.

Dr Rad 7:09
Yes.

Dr G 7:09
He’s also gotten rid of Octavia.

Dr Rad 7:13
First one.

Dr G 7:13
Yes. And he’s now married to somebody called Poppaea.

Dr Rad 7:19
Yes. So Nero, Nero is someone who’s pretty infamous. But just in case you don’t know who the Emperor Nero is – and that’s completely fine – he is part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, draw their descent from well, I mean,

Dr G 7:33
Julius Caesar, ultimately, but most people leverage the connection to Augustus.

Dr Rad 7:38
I was going to say, it’s really Augustus they’re concerned about and one of the Claudian gens.

Dr G 7:43
One of those Claudians. One of them in there somewhere.

Dr Rad 7:47
That blended together in this amazing McFlurry of a family. And Nero when he comes to power in 54. See, he is a teenager, about 16 years old about to turn 17 when he comes into power. And if you’re thinking to yourself, I don’t think I trust teenagers with that much power. You’d be correct.

Dr G 8:10
Yes, you shouldn’t. And we don’t recommend putting them into power that young because, well, there’s plenty of historical evidence to suggest they cannot handle the heady heights of power at that age.

Dr Rad 8:21
Yeah, particularly when you have a mother who, whilst amazing is extremely dominating, like Agrippina the Younger, who may very well have committed murder of her awn uncle slash husband, in order to make you emperor.

Dr G 8:35
Oft!

Dr Rad 8:36
Yeah. So in spite of all of this, allegedly, the first few years of Nero’s reign started. Yeah, well, I suppose you could say.

Dr G 8:46
There is talk of the five good years of Nero.

Dr Rad 8:50
Yeah.

Dr G 8:50
Where he’s following his advisers. He’s got a few: Seneca is probably the most famous of them.

Dr Rad 8:56
Yeah.

Dr G 8:57
And Agrippina seems to also be a moderating maternal force. She may be quite domineering, but Nero seems to –

Dr Rad 9:06
Sometimes it’s a good thing

Dr G 9:06

Dr Rad 9:09
Yeah. And Burrus head of his Praetorian Guard set. Yeah, absolutely. All these people seem to be actually the ones calling the shots. And that’s from the good thing, because I don’t think Nero is particularly interested in the reality of politics. He’s okay with the benefits, but I don’t think he’s super interested in ruling per se. Unless it’s like, get me another eunuch.

Dr G 9:38
Yeah, look, he’s young. He’s got a lot to learn and maybe he steps into leadership in a slightly bigger way as time goes on. Certainly he makes a play to be the one who gets to decide things ultimately, and we see the shift away from what is thought of as the five good years into like, “Oh, Nero’s in charge now.”

Dr Rad 9:59
Yeah,

Dr G 10:00
“Oh, well then!”

Dr Rad 10:01
How’s that gonna go for everyone? Not Great.

Dr G 10:04
Look, if this film is anything to go by: pretty terribly.

Dr Rad 10:09
The historical accuracy we will get to that in a sec. But yeah, the major I think signs of like a turning point is that number one in 59 CE Agrippina the Younger is murdered by Nero. And I don’t think anybody disputes that.

Dr G 10:23
Everybody seems to credit him as being the killer. Yeah, there are various methods and when the collapsible boat doesn’t work out, he moves on to more fatal measures.

Dr Rad 10:35
More straightforward, certainly. And then a few years after that, Burrus dies. And Seneca also appears to take a step back, maybe because he’s losing influence. And this is around the time that his marriage falls apart with Octavia, his first wife is very popular with the people and also one of his relatives. Creepy. Yes, but let’s not dwell on it.

Dr G 11:00
Pretty normal for the Julio-Claudians.

Dr Rad 11:02
Yeah, exactly. They could look they could be closer related, let’s just say, and he starts hanging out with this other elite woman who’s apparently far more depraved Poppaea Sabina. Eventually, she will become his next wife. But he starts making more audacious moves after 62 – not just because he gets rid of Octavia and when I say it gets rid of her he doesn’t just divorce her. He also puts her to death in a really terrible way, which does not win him any friends. But in 64, we start to see Nero performing publicly on stage which is a real no-no for anyone in the elite, but particularly the emperor.

Dr G 11:40
Ah, yeah. So Nero has this reputation as somebody who enjoys the arts, enjoys the theatre. And while you might think to yourself, well, they’re innocent diversions, and many people enjoy the theatre and the arts

Dr Rad 11:54
Without being raving psychopathic murderer and mother.

Dr G 11:57
It’s not quite the same in ancient Rome, some forms of entertainment are considered very low brow. And for Nero himself to be a stage performer is considered well outside the bounds of what is morally and socially acceptable for somebody of an elite stature.

Dr Rad 12:19
Oh, definitely. And I think it also has to do with the idea of putting yourself publicly on display in that way, like using your body in that kind of a way

Dr G 12:28
Oh, hello.

Dr Rad 12:29
Yeah, it just it just ugh.

Dr G 12:31
But apparently, he counted himself as being quite the artiste. Yeah, a bit of a singer. Yeah, a bit of a instrumentalist.

Dr Rad 12:37
Oh, what can’t you do, Dr. G, is really the question? Or at least what won’t he pretend he can’t do.

Dr G 12:44
The other problem with this kind of thing is from a Roman perspective is these kinds of pursuits are also seen as being a little bit too Greek.

Dr Rad 12:52
Yes. And we know that Nero seems to have been very fond of Greek culture.

Dr G 12:56
And yes, for the Romans, this is concerning because they feel the Greeks are a little bit too effeminate for their liking.

Dr Rad 13:04
Way too soft. That’s not how you conquer the world – can be tough. The Romans, apparently, yeah. Anyway, it’s in at 65 that we have the Great Fire of Rome, we’ll get to that. I’m not going to talk about the accuracy of this event right now. I mean, there is a fire. Don’t get me wrong. That’s true.

Dr G 13:20
Rome definitely suffers from a fire and there’s definitely a rebuilding programme which Nero leads.

Dr Rad 13:25
Yeah. So there’s a very big fire very damaging, not uncommon to have a fire and we’re in but a fire on this scale is unusual. And then of course, we have one of the largest and probably better known conspiracy against your in that same year, the Pisonian conspiracy. However, Nero still –

Dr G 13:46
He survived!

Dr Rad 13:47
Yeah, he performs at the Neronia, a Greek festival he throws.

Dr G 13:53
Named after himself, Oh, how sweet!

Dr Rad 13:55
I think we’re getting a bit of a feel for him so far. And then we see a real degeneration. I think after this point, you see the death of Poppaea also, allegedly, because of Nero’s actions, he murders her, with the plague in Rome in 66 CE, which, again, is not Nero’s fault, but it’s not great. And many people are being put to death in this year. On top of that, nothing to do with the plague, just because of the conspiracy of the previous year. And if that weren’t enough, there’s another conspiracy in 66. Nero still goes on holiday in Greece. And there’s a revolt in Judea.

Dr G 13:55
Ah yes.

Dr Rad 13:58
Yeah, which isn’t great. And then in 67 CE, we start to see the execution of very competent and popular generals like a guy called Corbulo, which doesn’t again, win Nero any friends, and finally in 68, this is where we’re going to see one of the more notable revolts against Nero, mostly because it’s successful and near will eventually be ousted from power and commit suicide.

He comes to a sticky end.

Yeah. So that’s just a bit of a rough context. For those of you who don’t know Nero particularly well about when Quo Vadis is set because Quo Vadis is taking place in these latter years as you said.

Dr G 15:15
Yeah, we’re definitely in the post five good years by the time we see Nero on screen in Quo Vadis. He is married to Poppaea Sabina. Yeah. And that is where all of this is heading. And we also see the way that Nero was constructed in this film is very much in service of the broader Christianizing narrative, which is the dominant narrative for this whole film.

Dr Rad 15:41
I’m so glad you said that Dr. G, because one of the things I wanted to mention is that, I think one of the forms of adaptation that has a real legacy in the films that we see toga plays. Now toga plays were very popular in the 19th century, and even I think, into the early 20th century, to be honest, the Quo Vadis versions were not necessarily themselves, like huge smash hits like they did, okay. But the hallmarks of a toga play, I think you can see in the film version, so for example, the fact that you have to have this kind of generic Christianity, because you don’t want to specialise or get specific, because that way, everyone who’s even remotely Christian can endorse the film as being, you know, leading the way with Christianity and that sort of thing. But perhaps more important than that, even are the female characterizations that you tend to see spring up in toga plays. So you often have a Christian female in these productions, who is self-sacrificing, domestic, and she has a interesting influence over the more aggressive, perhaps bolder, smarter, even funnier, perhaps even more attractive male in the story.

Dr G 17:03
Well, well, well, I think there’s also some interesting parallels to be drawn between the way that these kinds of films and it sounds like these toga plays as well, that I’m less familiar with, are also doing a very similar thing to the way that Christian philosophical literature from the second and third century CE are doing in terms of building a convincing case for why it would be good for you to also be Christian.

Dr Rad 17:29
Yes, definitely. Well, I think that’s the interesting thing about toga plays, and then sword and sound type films or, you know, just films about Rome in general, in that Rome, for both the British and North Americans in the Victorian age, they’re often the bad guys in these sorts of things, you know, these toga plays in the early films, and even the later films, to be honest. But even though they’re the bad guys, and therefore they are the other, because of course, Britain and North America see themselves as being on the side of Christianity. But at the same time, there’s obviously got to be a lot that they recognise in themselves in terms of empire: wanting power wanting conquest, you know, the pillars of civilization.

Dr G 18:16
Oh, it’s the duelling sides of the soul, isn’t it? It’s that desire for the material gain that Rome represents so well. Yeah. And I think spiritual richness of the Christian soul.

Dr Rad 18:28
Yeah. And I always have this phrase in my head, which I didn’t actually need you to write it down, even though I have to because it really stood out for me when I was doing my research into this kind of stuff from Mayer and he says Rome and its empire were painfully familiar. I think that always sums up very well the kind of relationship that the British and American audiences are going to continue to have with Rome. Now, of course, Quo Vadis, does make it to the screen very early, in fact, and it has been adapted many times. We’re focusing on the 1951 version, but there are a couple of silent versions and there was a version from 2001. That was a mini series in 1985. You know, Quo Vadis is one of those ones that people keep going back to, like Ben Hur. And as we know, Hollywood likes to repeat success story.

Dr G 19:16
They certainly do.

Dr Rad 19:17
Hey, this works. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Nero’s reign really works on a Hollywood level, because it allows you to have this extravaganza of consumption and excess and lavishness on the screen whilst also being like it’s not cool.

Dr G 19:40
Oh, guys, don’t do do this. Look on but a heaven forfend that you do this?

Dr Rad 19:49
Yeah, exactly. So there was a very famous version in 1912, directed by Enrico Guazzoni. And this is generally seen as a pretty spectacular early film, you know, because they’re still experimenting with the the medium and that sort of thing. So it’s seen as having some really interesting technological innovations, which makes the story I think, much more powerful. And then we have another version in 1925, which is also interesting, because of course, it’s like the rise of fascism is happening in that at that point in time. So it’s not overly influenced by that. But anyway, but we do want to focus on the 1951 version today. So let’s skip ahead to that. Shall we talk about the general plot of the 1951 version is a bit different to the novel.

Dr G 20:38
All right. So Quo Vadis, 1951. So we’ve got essentially a cast of our Roman characters and our Christian characters. Yes. And we start with our Romans, we’ve got a Roman commander coming back to Rome, yeah, as you should, after successfully leading these legions over in Britain or whatnot. And where this sort of takes off is that he’s not allowed to go into the city straightaway, he’s got to camp outside. And he finds out later that this is for good reasons. Nero wants to put on a proper display with a whole bunch of legions and commanders coming back soon. But this means that our main character Marcus Vinicius has to end up staying with a friend, rather than popping home and doing his own thing.

Dr Rad 21:25
Awkward crashing on the triclinium.

Dr G 21:27
Yeah. And it’s a guy that he’s known for a long time, used to be a Roman commander himself. So they’ve got a history there. And that’s nice. But what seems to have happened that maybe Vinicius has hasn’t picked up on between the last time he saw this guy is that this family has become Christian.

Dr Rad 21:43
Gasphow disgusting!

Dr G 21:47
You know, he kind of doesn’t come into this knowledge for quite some time. He’s –

Dr Rad 21:51
They’re secretive!

Dr G 21:52
Yeah, he’s pretty oblivious and they’re really not being overt about it. They’re not being like, “Ooh, something new in town. Have you tried Christianity?” They’ve been very calm, very quiet. And it’s during this moment that Vinicius is also runs into their daughter, the daughter of this guy and his wife, Lygia, in the household. And he’s like, you know, every time the camera pans to her, it’s a Vaseline moment. She is. It is incredible. But he immediately starts to deploy his – what I think he thinks is charismatic charm – but is really Roman boorishness.

Dr Rad 22:32
Well for particularly someone like her and she’s, she’s an interesting character because she is meant to be a hostage of the Lygian king, but she’s become like a daughter to these people.

Dr G 22:42
Well, she’s – they say – that she’s been adopted.

Dr Rad 22:45
Yes, exactly.

Dr G 22:46
And they’ve taken her in as their own.

Dr Rad 22:48
Yeah

Dr G 22:48
But she is a hostage of a foreign kingdom. And she does have a bodyguard, who’s also from a kingdom who also lives in the household. Yeah, and this whole arrangement is very interesting. But also Vinicius is kind of like just sort of like tramples all over things, tries to do a bit of a clumsy seduction. After he’s just seen her for the first time. And she’s not having a bar of that.

Dr Rad 23:12
Yeah.

Dr G 23:12
Which is fair enough. Smart move, lady. But this means that a friction has been set up where because Vinicius has been denied, in this very sort of materialistic Roman way that they’re being characterised, you start to develop this thing, “Well, if I can’t have it, I really want it.” And, and this colours, a whole bunch of things.

Dr Rad 23:32
Yeah.

Dr G 23:33
So this leads him to create a scenario through his contacts with Nero to have Lygia transferred out of that household. He finds out that she’s the hostage. Yeah, he’s like, what do we know about how hostage law works? And they’re like, well –

Dr Rad 23:49
Sneaky bastard!

Dr G 23:50
Yeah, if the emperor says so. I mean, the hostage can be transferred to a different household. Yeah. So Vinicius sets this up. So Lygia is first of all ripped out of the home that she has come to know

Dr Rad 24:02
Totally going to win her over. 100%.

Dr G 24:04
Definitely. Yeah. She gets gussied up at the Imperial Palace into some fancy dress.

Dr Rad 24:08
I think you mean, she gets slut-ified.

Dr G 24:12
They put her in a very nice gown.

Dr Rad 24:15
Yeah, I don’t think she’s too comfortable in it. It’s too revealing.

Dr G 24:18
Too revealing and maybe a little bit too shiny. Yeah. And they put her on display in front of the emperor at a sort of a dinner party situation where Vinicius is like, “you look ravishing”, and she’s like, “What? Why am I even here? Like, I’ve just been ripped from my family, like, whatever.” Yeah. And he’s like, “Oh, well, the good news is I did that.” And she’s like, “Excuse me?. And he’s like, “So your mine now by imperial decree. Did you know?” And she’s like, “Oh. My. God.”

Dr Rad 24:49
This guy can’t take a hint!

Dr G 24:52
She finds a way to escape essentially from that situation. Yeah. Nero is kind of oblivious and doing his own thing in the meantime, and I think this is an important subplot, Poppaea has spotted Vinicius and she’s like, “Well, he looks pretty hot.”

Dr Rad 25:07
Oh, yes.

Dr G 25:08
And her reputation for debauchery knows no bounds. So everybody’s kind of like they’re not really surprised when she tries to sort of she calls him over for a bit of a chat. Yeah. Nero doesn’t seem perplexed about this kind of thing at all, like Poppaea is being Poppaea. She’s an interesting one.

Dr Rad 25:24
This is just how women act. Yeah. May want me?

Dr G 25:28
My tiger, my cheetah. So she does a bit of a thing where she makes sure Vinicius knows that she’s interested in him. Yes. And he’s like, Okay, that’s cool. But my chick’s over there. Then she disappears. Lygia is sort of whisked away. And secreted away. And it turns out –

Dr Rad 25:47
This has something to do with Acte, doesn’t it?

Dr G 25:49
Yes.

Dr Rad 25:49
Yeah. Acte is actually a historical person. Yes. Yeah. Actually, as her [Lygia’s] adoptive parents, I should say. Yeah. Acte is mentioned in connection with Nero.

Dr G 26:01
Yeah. Acte is somebody who is written about in the source material as being one of these people that he has a relationship with. And she’s an actress. I think

Dr Rad 26:11
I actually thought she was a freed woman or a slave?

Dr G 26:15
Yeah, there’s something going on there. She has, she loves she has very low status, but they have a connection. And she is written about. And in the film, she sort of running the sort of the ladies of the household. She’s kind of like a high up sort of servant it would seem.

Dr Rad 26:31
Yeah. And but she’s obviously madly in love. With Nero.

Dr G 26:35
Still in love with Nero. Nero no longer seems to care. He’s moved on – Poppaea is where it’s at.

Dr Rad 26:40
Yeah, hashtag move on.

Dr G 26:43
And Acte is very implicated in the escape of Lygia. Yes. From the imperial palace. She shows Lygia the sign of the fish.

Yeah. But she’s not a Christian herself?

No, but she she’s sympathetic.

Dr Rad 26:56
Yeah. And again, this kind of ties in with what we know about early Christianity in that it does seem to been something that I think appeals to those lower down the social scale, rather than those at the top.

Dr G 27:09
And so we find out that the Christians are sort of getting together in the caves on the outskirts of the city. Maybe they’re catacombs, maybe they’re not, but they’re getting together underground. And it’s in this sort of moment. That Peter turns up.

Dr Rad 27:28
As in St. Peter, not Dr. G.

Dr G 27:30
I didn’t turn up. You can look for that cameo You shall not find it. St. Peter turns up and he gives a bit of a sermon. And at that sermon, Marcus Vinicius, by this point, has figured out that she’s been taken by the Christians and whisked away and he’s found a way to infiltrate into the cave and the meeting. So he gets gets to hear this sermon as well. He doesn’t really buy into the Christianity stuff, but he’s certainly hearing some different material –

Dr Rad 28:00
Yeah

Dr G 28:01

Dr Rad 28:27
She’s easily spotted.

Dr G 28:29
Ursus the, which lighting Latin for Bear, which is beautiful, because he’s a big, tall, strong guy. He’s like, “I can hear people following us.” And she’s like, “Whaaat?”, and he’s like, “No, seriously. You go. Yeah, you go ahead, and I’ll wait here.” And so he catches them unawares manages to kill the gladiator that Vinicius has hired to be his strong man for the night. He’s Greek friend who helped him infiltrate the cave runs away.

Dr Rad 28:58
Of course.

Dr G 28:58
And Vinicius gets sort of a smoosh on the head and Ursus takes him to where they’re hiding Lygia. So they’re staying in somebody else’s place. Yeah. And it’s pretty clear from the architecture that this is a bit of step down for her. Yeah, this is not the former general’s household

Dr Rad 29:16
But she’s cool with it because she’s Christian.

Dr G 29:17
She’s very Christian. She doesn’t mind. They’ve created a cross out of two sticks tied together. And that’s good enough for her. And this moment, this is kind of one of these really pivotal scenes in this film.

Dr Rad 29:29
Such a Florence Nightingale thing.

Dr G 29:32
So pivotal, because Vinicius is like, “Why did you not kill me?”

Dr Rad 29:37
Yes.

Dr G 29:37
And Ursus is like, “Well, it’s sin.” Even though he just killed a gladiator.

Dr Rad 29:41
Yeah. Yeah, him I’ll kill. You on the other hand…

Dr G 29:45
“That guy was trying to kill me. So that’s self defence.”

Dr Rad 29:47
Yeah.

Dr G 29:48
“Wheras you, you’re already out for the count.”

Dr Rad 29:50
Yeah.

Dr G 29:51
“So anyway, so it didn’t kill you.” And so there’s this moment of exchange. And then Vinicius is like, “Well, you know, all of this trouble. I – I don’t understand it. I’m just going to leave you to it. You’re not a hostage of me anymore, Lygia, I don’t care. I don’t want anything to do with it anymore.” And as soon as he rejects her, yeah, this is also opening up the pathway for her to be open and honest about how she feels because she’s no longer in a position of coercion. And immediately

Dr Rad 30:20
She’s secretly got the hots for him!

Dr G 30:22
She’s like, “but I’ve always loved you.” It is baffling.

Dr Rad 30:28
Yeah.

Dr G 30:29
And one can only assume it’s because he’s so good looking.

Dr Rad 30:32
Yeah, look, I mean, obviously, Lygia is played by Deborah Kerr, you know, she’s obviously big star at this point in time. And Vinicius is paid by Robert Taylor, also a big star of the time known to be quite attractive.

Dr G 30:48
So yeah, so apparently, he’s hot enough. And even though he’s silly. I mean, he’s really he’s really only revealed himself to be very silly up until now to her, you know, it’s like, you know, he’s tried to seduce her by being rude to her. And then he’s stolen her from her hostage family taht she likes living with.

Dr Rad 31:09
Yeah.

Dr G 31:10
And then he’s trying to follow a home from a Christian gathering, like he’s done nothing –

Dr Rad 31:15
But cause her pain

Dr G 31:15

Dr Rad 31:18
Yeah.

Dr G 31:19
And she’s like, “But I’ve always…” So I think she might be talking with her downstairs rather than her upstairs at this point in time.

Dr Rad 31:25
Well, isn’t that what women think with?

Dr G 31:27
Oh. Oh! And that’s exciting because Vinicius is then immediately back in. He’s like, “Let’s do this.” Yeah.

Dr Rad 31:37
“I was just kidding. I take back everything I just said.”

Dr G 31:39
Really? Really? You’re? Now you’re into it? Cool. And so you can see how the, sort of like the people who play The Game, those sort of like, yeah, those pointed like, sort of those dating gurus that are sort of like quite popular in the late 90s- early 2000s. Yeah, about all of that kind of stuff like Mystery and things like that. You can see how they might have watched a film like this and being like, negging her was the thing that worked.

Dr Rad 32:08
Yeah.

Dr G 32:08
Like, that’s just like, No, but you’re always a terrible person. And a guy wrote this script. It’s really, really clear.

Dr Rad 32:15
Yeah yeah.

Dr G 32:16
Because Lygia is just a little bit unbelievable in this moment, but they have a discussion about you know, how they’re going to stay together and how it’s gonna be amazing and she’s like, “well, if you stay with me, you’ve got to believe in my faith”, and Vinicius is like “I could just be with you – you can bring whatever gods you want. I don’t mind. You do you.”

Dr Rad 32:34
“The more the merrier, I’m Roman”

Dr G 32:35
Yeah, he’s like “I don’t mind, there’s heaps of Gods – there’s enough for all of us.”

Dr Rad 32:38
Yeah

Dr G 32:38
And she’s like, “that’s not good enough. No, you actually have to really try to buy in here.” And he’s like, “What is wrong with you?” He snaps the wooden cross.

Dr Rad 32:49
“I thought we were together! Now you’re saying there’s all these conditions?!”

Dr G 32:53
Yeah. And he gets really mad has a temper tantrum breaks the cross throws it on the ground storms off,

Dr Rad 32:59
Like these people haven’t suffered enough. For goodness sake, their cross is made of out sticks.

Dr G 33:04
So anyway, it’s a that’s kind of like this moment of crisis for these two.

Dr Rad 33:10
Absolutely.

Dr G 33:11
And then it kind of switches to this more Nero focused side of the story.

Dr Rad 33:17
Now we’re gonna set it alight, Nero and the fire of Rome.

Dr G 33:23
In the background, while this story has been playing out between Vinicius and Lygia in the background, we’ve been seeing Nero doing little quirky things here and there. And he’s starting to get a little bit inspired by this idea that he can’t be a true artist unless he experiences the things that he wants to talk about

Dr Rad 33:42
Which to be fair,

Dr G 33:44
Is method, very method.

Dr Rad 33:45
I was gonna say kind of what some people have actually said and still practice to this day.

Dr G 33:50
Yeah, method acting never out of fashion. Nero’s buying in big time.

Dr Rad 33:54
Yeah.

Dr G 33:54
There’s been –

Dr Rad 33:55
You know Stanislavski, tell me about it.

Dr G 33:59
For Nero, there’s this really interesting dynamic that is playing out across this whole film with his relationship with one of his advisors, Petronius, and Petronius is kind of like this – like hilarious, quasi-historical, like there is a Petronius in history.

Dr Rad 34:16
Yes. And he was a friend of Nero’s. Yeah. But in this version, he’s also the uncle of Marcus Vinicius.

Dr G 34:22
Yeah, they’ve taken some liberties and that’s okay. Yeah, but Petronius is this kind of really intelligent figure who is able to say the right thing at the right time, even when it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be the right thing to bring Nero around to a certain perspective.

Dr Rad 34:40
Yeah. And he’s definitely on damage control. Like his whole mission seems to be that I mean, very much looking at himself like

Dr G 34:48
and also looking out for his nephew, Vinicius, as well. Like Nero does have a moment where he spots Lygia and he’s like, oh, wait a minute. Maybe I gave away too good a prize.

Dr Rad 34:57
Yes, exactly. Yeah. So Petronius is a all about damage control in the sense that he wants to have a pleasant life, he wants to look after his family. Standard. And then he also seems to be trying to make sure that Rome is not governed too stupidly. So he tries to always talk Nero around to something that would actually be not terrible.

Dr G 35:18
Yeah. But unfortunately for Petronius, he also seems to make maybe a slight error, where he kind of suggests that Nero needs to focus more on his art and things like that.

Dr Rad 35:27
Yeah.

Dr G 35:28
And Nero takes that up seriously, and runs with that. And the problem with that is that Nero then gets into his mind that he needs to see Rome burn in order to be able to create the Rome of his vision.

Dr Rad 35:45
Yeah. And also, you know, that idea of like, reciting a song about Troy, and, you know, writing about that, and that sort of thing, he needs to see it.

Dr G 35:54
Yeah. And it’s like, so Petronius is trying to get him to sort of exceed his own capacity as an artist being like, “you know, you know, you could go beyond Homer, you know, you could go beyond Virgil.” And Nero is kind of like, “how will I do it?” Petronius is like, “you’ve got to live it.” And Nero’s like, “well, if I have to live it, let’s burn the city, so I can live the emotion of it. And then I can build it from the ground up.” And he kind of has this relationship with the people where he needs them. But he kind of dislikes them at the same time. It’s kind of this sort of, they feed his sort of need for attention. But he’s also kind of annoyed with the fact that they’re always there and in the way.

Dr Rad 36:41
Yeah, definitely. And in this version, I think it’s probably clear, there is no doubt that Nero is responsible for lighting a fire. Not personally…

Dr G 36:50
No, but they make it Yeah, yeah. And this is something that is in contradistinction to the real complexities of the ancient evidence.

Dr Rad 36:58
Yeah, which we will, we will get into

Dr G 36:59
Yes so hold that thought. But the film definitely blames Nero. He’s the architect of the fire. He also has an architect with a new plan for Rome constructed for what will be built after the city has burned. So realistically, Nero is to blame here.

Dr Rad 37:13
Definitely. But he soon realised that I mean, I think only all his elite hangers-on they seem to be willing to tolerate Nero’s behaviour, I think up until this point, that this is something else. And so Nero is, you know, obviously feeling very unpopular from multiple angles, and he’s like, I need to do something about this, and therefore, he’s going to pin it on the Christians.

Dr G 37:40
Yes. So this idea in the film comes from Poppaea.

Dr Rad 37:44
Yes, that’s right.

Dr G 37:45
So we have this moment where Rome is on fire at that time, most of Nero’s court is in Antium. Vinicius hears that Rome is burning, realises that Lygia is still there. And even though they’ve had this thing where it’s like they’re clearly not together and it’s not working out. He’s had a chain, he’s realised that he has to go and save her –

Dr Rad 38:06
Of course.

Dr G 38:07

Dr Rad 38:32
Breastplates all the way.

Dr G 38:33
Yeah, and he’s never thought to take them off. Even though he’s not leading an army right now.

Dr Rad 38:37
Apart from that first scene there’s been no reason to do so.

Dr G 38:41
There’s been no, no soldiers under his command. He’s just chilling out in Rome.

Dr Rad 38:44
It’s for good posture.

Dr G 38:45
Yeah, look, he loves it. Yeah. And he turns up, and people are sort of like trying to push him away. But he manages to save people by redirecting them into the sewage system. That’s clever. Yeah. And then he does spot Lygia. And so this is a moment of reunion and all of this sort of thing. Finally, sadly, it does not last, he does end up getting arrested as does Lygia as does Ursus as, as do a whole bunch of people

Dr Rad 39:14
who are Christian

Dr G 39:15
because they’re rounded up because they are considered to be Christian.

Dr Rad 39:18
Yeah.

Dr G 39:18
Because Vinicius is hanging out with Lygia that, that doesn’t help his cause at all. So he gets lumped in with them.

Dr Rad 39:18
Yeah.

Dr G 39:20
So Poppaea has had this amazing idea that the Christians will be blamed.

Dr Rad 39:24
Yeah

Dr G 39:28
For the fire. And then they will set up a whole bunch of games and put them on display in the arena.

Dr Rad 39:40
Sounds like a fabulous evening.

Dr G 39:42
It’s a good Roman time out. You know what I’m saying?

Dr Rad 39:44
Yeah, totally, man.

Dr G 39:47
So there were some very dramatic scenes with a lot of lions.

Dr Rad 39:51
Yeah, well, you know, you don’t want to do things half hearted.

Dr G 39:55
No, but like in terms of I’m just thinking from a like a film perspective, like they were a lot of lions showed on screen,

Dr Rad 40:02
Let’s be real, I don’t want to, I’ve never looked into it because I don’t want to know what may or may not have happened on that set. This is before, really strict regulations are in place about how animals, you know, be treated by the entertainment industry. And given that we’re still in an era where factory farming is somehow okay. I just don’t want to look back. It’s not going to be good news for anybody.

Dr G 40:25
It’s fair enough. But yes, I have some concerns about how many lions were involved. Yeah. Anyway, they bring out the Christians in kind of like groups, and part of what happens in this moment of the film is Nero becomes increasingly agitated because the Christians start singing as he’s, yeah, finding a moment of peace between like the moments where they’re getting slaughtered.

Dr Rad 40:48
Yeah.

Dr G 40:49
And this discomforts him greatly.

Dr Rad 40:51
He doesn’t understand it.

Dr G 40:52
Doesn’t understand it, doesn’t like it. And you know, other people are singing and he’s the singer, really.

Dr Rad 40:58
Yeah. So no, I don’t like living under your spotlight.

Dr G 41:09
I could see him standing up and doing that. Doing doing a sing back. A dramatic scene,

Dr Rad 41:15
Don’t tell me not to live, just sit and putter.

Dr G 41:20
This kind of thing is going he’s not very happy. He kind of wants to get them all out all at once and just get rid of them all. Yes. And Poppaea is like no, no, wait. And he also does an inspection of the bodies. At the end of the first day of the Christian sort of

Dr Rad 41:35
Always this creepy inspection of bodies in these films, I’ve realised.

Dr G 41:39
He wants to see what’s going on, because a lot of them have died with smiles on their faces.

Dr Rad 41:44
Yes.

Dr G 41:45
And this creeps him out.

Dr Rad 41:46
Yeah, well,

Dr G 41:46
And fair enough. I mean people don’t die with smiles on their faces usually.

Dr Rad 41:50
Not horribly in an arena, they don’t.

Dr G 41:52
No.

Dr Rad 41:53
Now he has also managed to round up St. Peter as being a part of

Dr G 41:57
Well, yeah. And so I was just about to get to that. Because parallel to this, yeah. we had Peter, giving a sermon in the caves underneath Rome. Yeah. But then he seems in a an assigned plot kind of element. He seems to be leaving Rome with a young boy,

Dr Rad 42:14
Busy guy.

Dr G 42:14
yeah, busy guy, young kid, and they’re on the road together, and they’re heading out of the city. And Peter is in this moment where he does the famous line, “Quo Vadis, Domine?” Because he doesn’t know where to go next. He doesn’t know what to do next. He’s seeking some guidance, and a light. The light of the sun shimmers through the trees. And it seems that the Lord speaks through the child tells him that he needs to go back to Rome. And that is how he has to save people, otherwise – either Jesus has to come back down, and then do another thing where he gets killed in Rome. And Peter’s like, oh, well, we can’t have that.

Dr Rad 42:58
No.

Dr G 42:58
And he also talks to the child being like, say it again. And kid’s like, “I didn’t say anything.”

Dr Rad 43:06
“So shut up, Mr.”

Dr G 43:07
So we know it’s a miracle. So they turn around and go back to Rome. And Peter appears in the arena, and gives us a speech again, and that’s when he’s arrested. So he speaks on behalf of the Christians. And the crowd is kind of like laughing at him. And he gets arrested and he gets trapped in with the Christians, which is great, because that means that Peter is in the same cell as Lygia and Vinicius. And those two finally get married.

Dr Rad 43:34
What better place to tie the knot? Again, it’s a bit of a trope of the genre. I mean, you know, you think about Diana, Marcellus in “The Robe” True, I don’t think they actually ended up getting married per se. But you know, they got together in their moment of absolute desperation.

Dr G 43:51
Everybody gets together when they’re locked up when you’re on death row.

Dr Rad 43:54
Yeah.

Dr G 43:55
Like this is my best option.

Dr Rad 43:56
Yeah.

Dr G 43:57
And so they are now married, and this makes Poppaea’s plan for them – because she said to Nero save those two, I’ve got something special,

Dr Rad 44:09
I’m sure

Dr G 44:10
And he’s like, “Oh, I love your –

Dr Rad 44:11
“That man is no longer my sexual toy.”

Dr G 44:14
She’s like, “Yeah, I’m feeling rejected by Vinicius. I’m definitely gonna kill him the hard way.” Yeah, she’s like, “Just you wait.” They bring out Lygia all dressed up in this beautiful sort of diaphanous purple robe actually, looking gorgeous. So much Vaseline. Tie her to a post. They bring out Ursus – don’t tie him to a post – and they bring Marcus Vinicius up to the imperial stage tied and chained to a metal post so he can’t get down into the arena.

Dr Rad 44:43
Yeah, he’s gonna have to watch her die.

Dr G 44:45
He’s gonna have to watch her die. And they send out a bull.

Dr Rad 44:49
Sounds nasty.

Dr G 44:50
It’s, it is nasty. I do wonder what happened to the bull. So I hope that the bull was okay.

Dr Rad 44:55
Again, I don’t want to know,

Dr G 44:55
I don’t really want to know either. Ursus takes down the bull. That’s the essence of it.

Dr Rad 45:02
Which is an amazing feat. And obviously not what Nero was expecting. Oh, yeah.

Dr G 45:06
And somebody had said to Nero, while they were like sort of watching on, “Look, if Ursus is able to take out the bull. I mean, you’ll have to let you have to let Lygia off.”

Dr Rad 45:17
Yeah. And then you know that that’s in keeping with what we know about it, how the arena works. If the crowd are wowed by a particular performance, they’ll probably ask the patron of the games to please spare the person. Yeah.

Dr G 45:28
And as predicted, the crowd is wild for Ursus’ success. And they’re like, they’re all – they’re all like, “yes, you have to let him off!”

Dr Rad 45:36
“Set him free! Her too! Set the, both free!”

Dr G 45:41
And Nero has his most dramatic moment of doing – almost as if he’s going to go one way and with the support of the crowd, and then goes the other way. And everybody turns and it’s chaos. And it’s at this moment, where the other subplot that I have not mentioned, really comes into play. Yeah, so in parallel to some of this stuff happening, before Vinicius is arrested, he and Petronius are colluding together with others to get Galba into power. And so I’m finding it I’m getting emotional. I’m getting emotional. So they’ve organised for Galba to come with some other legions and basically depose Nero with enough signatures Galba will accept the imperial leadership.

Dr Rad 46:37
And wouldn’t you know, they turn up right about now.

Dr G 46:40
Right at the moment, where Nero has decided that Ursus will have to die.

Dr Rad 46:45
Yeah.

Dr G 46:46
The army turns up.

Dr Rad 46:47
Yeah.

Dr G 46:48
In support of Galba. Are they’re like, “Galba is your new emperor!” Vinicius is down there yelling to everybody, “It’s over!”. And Nero has to run away. Poppaea runs away. Yeah, they go back. They retreat back to the palace. Yeah, that doesn’t go well for either of them.

Dr Rad 47:05
No, because Nero blames Poppaea for this whole mess.

Dr G 47:09
Yeah, he’s like, “You were the one who wanted to blame the Christians for the fire. And now look where we are.”

Dr Rad 47:13
Yeah.

Dr G 47:14
And then proceeds to strangle her, which she was not expecting.

Dr Rad 47:17
No, but is somewhat historically accurate in that Nero did murder Poppaea, but not for that reason, or in that way.

Dr G 47:25
Yes. And so Poppaea’s then dead, and he sort of retreats further into the palace. And then there is this shadow in his room. And he’s, like, clearly, clearly scared. Like, this. Is it? Somebody’s gonna kill me? And it turns out that it’s Acte.

Dr Rad 47:45
Loyal to the end. Yeah, yeah.

Dr G 47:48
She’s like, “I told you, I’d be here at the end.” And he’s like, “I didn’t believe you. I thought I told you to go away?”

Dr Rad 47:56
Yeah. But of course, she’s not there because she’s gonna make everything goes away. I mean, she is just a freed woman slash slave woman slash something.

Dr G 48:07
She gives him the opportunity to take his life with dignity, rather than being trampled down by

Dr Rad 48:15
The Roman way.

Dr G 48:16
Yes. You know, do something honorable with your life.

Dr Rad 48:19
Yeah.

Dr G 48:19
He’s not able to do it.

Dr Rad 48:21
No.

Dr G 48:22
He asks her to do that. And she does.

Dr Rad 48:25
Yeah.

Dr G 48:26
So that’s, I think devastating for her because she’s still in love with him.

Dr Rad 48:30
Yeah. But a fitting end for Nero. But of course, we do get a happy ending, because Vinicius and Lygia have managed to come out unscathed, basically, apart from maybe being traumatised, but

Dr G 48:43
And they seem to be heading out of Rome with Ursus and the kid.

Dr Rad 48:43
Yeah, they’re heading to live on Vinicius’ property in Sicily. The remainder of their lives undisturbed. In spite of their Christianity, I’m basing that on what the novel says.

Dr G 49:02
Nice.

Dr Rad 49:03
Yeah.

Dr G 49:04
And that’s the film.

Dr Rad 49:06
Wow. And we didn’t even mention that Petronius committed suicide in the midst of all that.

Dr G 49:10
Yeah. And has Seneca deliveries letter which is scathing to Nero.

Dr Rad 49:15
Yeah.

Dr G 49:15
I love the weeping vessel, “Bring the weeping vessel.” And Nero puts one tear from each eye into the jar and he’s like, “Seal this, to memorialise my feelings for Petronius.”

Dr Rad 49:15
And look this is the issue with Quo Vadis. It’s a it’s a massive novel. It’s a massive film every time you do it.

Thank you for listening to this special episode of The Partial Historians. We’d like to thank all of our patreons for their support and allowing us to make these additional episodes especially Nick, who requested a discussion of Quo Vadis. If you too would like early access to our bonus shows, please consider becoming a patreon. This has been part one of our coverage of Quo Vadis so stay tuned and Part Two. We’ll be with you shortly. Our sources and credits for the episode can be found on our website. And until next time, we are yours in ancient Rome.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Quo Vadis (1951) – Part One appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

The Robe (1953) is a cinematic classic of Golden Age Hollywood. With its mix of ancient Rome and early Christianity, it was a winner with audiences around the globe. In this special episode, we tap into Dr Rad’s expertise in reception in film and come to grips with the power of The Robe!

Special Episode – The Robe

It was tricky to deal with modern political issues in this era of Hollywood under the influence of HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee). For the makers of The Robe, which explicitly dealt with the life of Jesus under the Romans, there were additional challenges due to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Returning to the Old Testament was often a safer bet for Hollywood films.

The rights to The Robe were initially purchased by RKO, before finally being canceled in 1948. It found a new home at 20th Century Fox. The fact that The Robe was in production for a long time has raised some interesting questions about the impact of historical context.

The script was initially written by Albert Maltz, one of the infamous Hollywood Ten. The original script does seem to touch on blacklist themes. In Caligula’s original speech at the end of the film he refers to the “sedition” of the Christians and Marcellus has to deny that he is involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the state. This sounds eerily close to the experience of Hollywood Communists, who were generally not radicals trying to seize control of the government. There were also more references to the naming of names in Maltz’s version of The Robe…

People protesting in favour of the Hollywood Ten. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

But HUAC lay in his future, as Maltz only worked on this project from 1942-1946. As Smith (2005) has highlighted, while Maltz could not have worked HUAC references into the script before his HUAC experiences, it is possible that the tension over Communism still shaped his draft. There were moves against Communism before the Second Red Scare that swept America in the late 1940s and 1950s, such as the actions of the Tenney Committee in the early 1940s, or the foundation of the right-wing Motion Picture Alliance for American Ideals.

Or perhaps Maltz was more focused on providing a critique of Italian fascism, given the backdrop of World War II? Maltz wrote Cloak and Dagger (1947) immediately after The Robe, which definitely took aim at Italian fascism, whilst exalting the resistance from the Communists. He would also write Crossfire (1947), a film that tackled issues of anti-Semitism within the USA.

Film poster for Cloak and Dagger (1947)

Is it possible that the next screenwriter to work on The Robe worked in some sick burns? Phillip Dunne followed Maltz and would eventually receive sole credit for the film, thanks to the blacklist. He was known to be a liberal and helped to establish the Committee for the First Amendment. This group formed in reaction to the HUAC hearings in 1947. Fellow members included other Hollywood luminaries such as William Wyler, Lucille Ball, Lauren Bacall, Bette Davis and Dorothy Daindridge.

However, Dunne was not a Communist; quite the opposite. He may have intended The Robe to be a veiled criticism of HUAC, but he may also have seen the repression of the Romans as being akin to Stalin and the Communist regime.

A lobby card for The Robe

Provided by Otter AI

Dr Rad 0:16
Welcome to the Partial Historians, we explore all the details of ancient Rome. Everything from the political scandals, the love of ours, the battles waged, and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr. Rad.

Dr G 0:34
And I’m Dr. G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories. Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Dr Rad 1:03
Welcome to a special episode of The Partial Historians, I am one of your hosts, Dr. Rad.

Dr G 1:10
And I am a somewhat healthy, Dr. G.

Dr Rad 1:15
I know this is true dedication, Patreons, Dr G has been suffering from the vid.

Dr G 1:22
I’ve been on my deathbed. But I’ve bounced back. Thank goodness.

Dr Rad 1:27
It was Rome that calls you for and said live live another day.

Dr G 1:33
And one must always follow the commands of Rome. And here I am. as ever.

Dr Rad 1:39
Well, I suppose luckily, or unluckily. I’m not sure. We’re not doing our normal narrative today. But instead, we’re taking a journey into Hollywood land, which could be good for a sick person, or maybe not.

Dr G 1:54
I look, I think it’s gonna be it’s gonna be good. I’m excited for this golden era. Hollywood is one of my favorite times in Hollywood.

Dr Rad 2:03
We all love it. We all adore it. So let’s get into this special episode where we get to talk all about The Robe 1953.

Dr G 2:50
What a film. I mean, I think the best thing about it is Richard Burton.

Dr Rad 2:54
Definitely let’s let’s give a bit of a cast rundown. So in typical Partial Historians fashion, we’re doing this slightly backwards in that we looked at the sequel first. But that was only for our Patreon. So for everybody else, we’re just doing The Robe. So first of all, we have Richard Burton playing the lead male character Marcellus Gallio.

Dr G 3:19
A fine specimen of a young Roman if I ever saw one.

Dr Rad 3:21
Indeed. And then we have my favorite Jean Simmons playing the lead female part, Diana, I think she’s actually really good in this role. Yeah, well, you know, she’s got that pure beauty about her. She looks very innocent.

Dr G 3:39
She does.

Dr Rad 3:39
Yeah. And then, of course, we’ve got the hero of our Patreon bonus episode Demetrius and the Gladiators, because, of course, being a sequel, he’s in this one too big to mature, playing Demetrius,

Dr G 3:53
And he does look mature, doesn’t he?

Dr Rad 3:57
He does have a mature look about him. But lest we forget, he retired at 44. So I guess he was in his 30s at this point in time.

Dr G 4:04
Oh, wow.

Dr Rad 4:06
And then we have Michael Rennie playing St. Peter.

Dr G 4:11
Yeah, I feel like that was a bit of a that’s a bit of a throw into the sequel as well, isn’t it?

Dr Rad 4:18
I believe so. I think he was in both. Yeah, definitely. I mean, they knew they were filming both when they started, as I discovered last time. And then we have Jay Robinson playing Caligula.

Dr G 4:30
Hmm. Yeah. We’ll come back to that one.

Dr Rad 4:33
Yeah. And then I think the main ones that we have to deal with there are major characters. Yeah, I think that kind of covers it. Yeah, yeah, definitely. So The Robe 1953 is a big film in many ways. Not only is an epic from the age of epics, the Golden Age of Hollywood epics, but it also has won some fame for some of the other milestones that are associated with this film. Now, just to give us an idea of exactly how big a smash it was, it costs a smidgen over $4 million to make. And, yeah, it took in $17 million in the US a market and $36 million world wide.

Dr G 5:25
Okay, so this was a profit making engine?

Dr Rad 5:29
Well, yeah, I mean, it has a cycle that’s going to tell something

Dr G 5:35
built in, apparently, as well. So yeah,

Dr Rad 5:37
I do like this detail, though, that some of the ticket sales would have been to teachers who were pressed into going to see this movie for their students, or with their students, maybe?

Dr G 5:50
Yeah, goodness. I mean, that kind of made up the bulk of sales, surely.

Dr Rad 5:56
Anyway, so let’s talk a little bit about this ethic, Dr. G. So what were your initial impressions? I’m dying to know,

Dr G 6:03
Oh, look, I think longtime listeners of this show will be well aware that I tend to classify myself as a pagan, and my position has not changed. As a result of watching the Rome, it did feel like very much that they were utilizing Roman history as a vehicle for getting to the Christian story. And I’m not a fan of that, to be honest. Christianity is not huge. In this initial face, like this is set sort of right at the moment of the passing of the Messiah.

Dr Rad 6:39
Jesus is alive in this film. That tells us something. Yeah,

Dr G 6:43
Jesus starts alive in this film. Yeah, he doesn’t stay alive. So that gives us almost everything we need to know about what moment in history we’re in. But the sense in which there is a really strong Christianizing moment that comes over all of the players who’ve been closely associated with that moment of Jesus’s death is really interesting. Yeah, and I would say, anachronistic.

Dr Rad 7:09
For sure. I mean, it’s historically accurate to place Jesus’s life in his time period. So the time period we’re talking about is the tail end of the reign of Tiberius, aka the best period ever. And we then end up going into some of calculus, rain as well. And calculus, definitely around this whole movie. He’s not, you know, off to the side, and Tiberius is a circle regular, I think, is definitely the main Roman imperial character that we get to know over the course of this film. And that is historical. As far as we can tell, Jesus was indeed around in the latter half of Tiberius, his reign. So anyway, the general setting for Jesus’s lifetime, and when he starts to become a problem for Rome, all is accurate. And so we’ve got our major players, you know, being where they should be. But as you say, this is a classic Hollywood epic in that in order for you to have a good guy and a bad guy, you know, someone to root for and someone to despise while still enjoying the things that they get up to. It’s pretty normal for Hollywood to go to a Christians versus Romans storyline, or at least Christians slash Jewish people. Question Mark versus Romans?

Dr G 8:30
Yeah. And this leads us into some like really interesting directorial choices, or maybe casting decisions as well, because the Romans quintessentially played by the English. So they’ve got that very sort of RP accent going on. Yeah, but then the people of Palestine appear to be American. Where, I mean, it’s something

Dr Rad 8:53
But I think that that actually does keep into the whole accent divide. Because I think it’s kind of meant to be the people who are on the side, that you’re meant to be rooting for generally American.

Dr G 9:06
Hmm. So Hollywood would want you to believe.

Dr Rad 9:09
Yeah, yeah, I mean, it’s not. It’s not uncommon for the movies of this era to have that accent divided so that it’s super clear, just in case you were thinking of rooting for the Romans that were crucifying Jesus, just in case you had a moment where you thought maybe I’m on their side. They go for the accent just to make it very clear.

Dr G 9:30
That and the way that they decide to portray particular were Romans. Now, Caligula, as we know, doesn’t have heaps of redeeming features, ultimately, and the Romans themselves get pretty jack of them very quickly, they do. So this is what what is about to follow is not the saving of Caligula. Now, when I say I think he might have been overplayed a little bit in this film.

Dr Rad 9:59
Oh, Though I have to admit, though, I kind of enjoy the guy who played here. And he does have the kind of voice that really grates on you in a way that makes you think, yeah, I could assassinate this guy after a few years. I think I’d be annoyed enough.

Dr G 10:15
He is frustratingly inept in his presentation, and because we don’t get a good read on motivation from Caligula, and because it just feels like he’s being played for the sort of the hysterical, maniacal, power driven figure that is portrayed as in this film. It makes him feel a little bit unbelievable, whilst also holding down the position as the bad guy.

Dr Rad 10:46
Yeah, fair enough. Well, before we get too much further into Ahala, we probably should say something about the general storyline of this film. So why don’t you tell us about the the story of Digi

Dr G 10:57
Okay, all right. Well, I mean, it starts off great opening scene. It seems like we’re in the Roman Forum. Everyone’s having a good time. It’s clearly slave-buying season. Not that anybody should be excited about that.

Dr Rad 11:11
I say Why does it not slave-buying season in Rome?

Dr G 11:14
It seems to b a particularly busy time at the moment. And this sets up the few really important dynamics. It allows us to see Marcellus re-meeting his childhood sweetheart, Diana, they haven’t seen each other for many years. So that sets up that relationship. We learn about Diana’s connection as a ward of Tiberius to calendula, potentially as a love interest for him. But we also learn about myself versus ongoing tension with Caligula as well apparently those two don’t get along. And then we have this sort of moment with the slave market, which introduces us to Demetrius as well, who is perhaps the most stoic character in this whole

Dr Rad 12:00
Oh, my God, yes.

Dr G 12:01
So stoic, and this guy kind of just accepts his fate as it is, doesn’t seem to fight one way or the other. But does seem to be motivated by an internal set of principles. And for whatever reason, Demetrius ends up coming to the attention of both Marcellus and Caligula during this slave sail. And this becomes an important point because it’s this moment. And this tension between Marcellus and Caligula, which turns Demetrius is fate. So you technically gets freed in a slave auction through being purchased at such a high price for Marcellus to sort of jab coelicolor A little bit. But because Demetrius feels that this isn’t appropriate to be bought at such a high price just to be set free, he decides to become the manservant of Marcellus anyway. So these two are now bound up together in what appears to be a kind of odd duo, because my Seles then goes on to be like, let’s be friends, if we’re going to hang out together like this. Demetrius is, like, we are not friends. I really owe you. It’s different.

Dr Rad 13:15
I do like the pairing, though. I mean, Burton’s got the voice and Mature’s got this shoulder.

Dr G 13:22
Yeah, so these two end up on adventures together, which are all bound up with calendula in particular ways Caligula is annoyed at Marcellus for this whole debacle in the slave market. So he sends him to Palestine as a bit of a punishment. While he’s there, he ends up in a situation with Pontius Pilate, so that’s good news. Everybody likes it when Pontius Pilate enters the enters the scene, Pontius Pilate sort of commands myself is to be in charge with the crucifixion of Jesus, which is awkward, but also at the same time has a Lady Macbeth moment, which is kind of beautiful, where he’s washing his hands, and he’s like, I need to wash my hands. And he’s slaves like you just wash your hands. Yeah, like the bloods invisible but he’s having trouble guys. He’s ordered the death of Jesus. Then we have some really interesting moments in Palestine, one of which is this trading of the robe. So pivotal to this entire film, it would seem is that we don’t see Jesus very much. We don’t really see his face. We sometimes hear his voice, but we he’s a mysterious figure who seems to have an effect on Demetrius straightaway. When he is on the cross, the robe that he had been wearing has been laid at the bottom of it. One of the Roman soldiers picks it up and it’s like that. We could throw this into the old gambling table. Let’s when the robe of Jesus and Marcellus wins it, but is then sort of overcome when he tries to put it on himself when it’s raining and he wants To protect himself it seems like it has a huge negative effect on him like almost like burns his skin or something. Anyway, it’s it’s horrifying to him and Demetrius just wanders off with the robe in the end does like I’ll take that.

Dr Rad 15:14
But he does have that amazing scene because there’s all that storm happening around them and I must have been I think this is probably one of Victor Mature’s finest moments on screen, where he sort of screams and Richard Burton’s face as he’s, you know, dealing with the effects of the robe and all of that kind of stuff. And he does that whole “murderers, thieves, jungle animals. Masters of the world you call yourselves. I’m curse on you. I curse on your empire.” Mwahahahaha

Dr G 15:51
Lightning strikes in the background and this thunder?

Dr Rad 15:54
Yeah, it’s great. Yeah, the evil laughter was my addition, I should say.

Dr G 16:00
Very intense moment. And Demetrius ends up walking off with the robe, completely unharmed by it, because clearly it’s there’s a connection between his faith and one’s capacity to hold this garment. Sacred as it is. Marcellus ends up back in Rome and seen Tiberius on the Isle of Capri being like what I do, I’ve got this madness. And the Romans in the wisdom decide that the road must be cursed, which is for the Romans had excellent choice really. It’s like that would explain it. So Marcellus is given an imperial commission to destroy this robe. And it’s like, use whatever means you need to.

Dr Rad 16:45
So this is great guys, how many people might have tried it on by now? Yeah,

Dr G 16:48
it’s a disaster. We’ve got to find it as soon as possible.

Dr Rad 16:52
If anybody finds out about this garment, it’s going to be a PR nightmare.

Dr G 16:56
That’s basically what Tiberius says, when when everybody leaves. And he’s like, this is the worst thing that has ever happened in my entire rule.

Dr Rad 17:03
And I’ve had some stuff happen.

Dr G 17:06
We must deal with this instantly.

Dr Rad 17:08
I mean, my brother died, I had to divorce the wife that I loved. I then had to marry a woman I hated the child that we had died, then both my natural son and my adopted son birthday, that was pretty bad. But this this robe. Okay.

Dr G 17:25
It is up there. Yeah. So Marcellus finds himself back in Palestine, because that’s where he last saw Demetrius with the robe. It is like, Well, I’m gonna go back to the source that look for more clues. And this leads to a whole bunch of unfoldings. There’s storytelling things. There’s this slow journey of Marcellus from like quintessential Roman, to like, somebody, embodied in faith, very dedicated Christian, very dedicated across this journey. Yeah, he meets some villagers who really shift his perspective on things. He finds Demetrius again. And all of this sort of nourishes his flourishing belief. So by the time he does get back to Rome, he’s now committed to the cause. And he also hasn’t told anybody that he’s back for ages as well. So

Dr Rad 18:16
Well, yeah, he’s got he’s got new friends now, the Christians. And so Peter,

Dr G 18:20
yeah. And you know, when Diana finds out about this, because she’s been waiting for him this whole time, that he’s hidden, his return from her. She’s not happy about that, and she is that she demands to be taken to him. And that’s when we find out that the Christians are living in the catacombs. Yes. Which, which is awkward, because they should not really exist. Yeah.

Dr Rad 18:47
Minor details, minor details. Yeah,

Dr G 18:50
Look, I was I was all fine for them to just be underground caves, like, Rome is literally riddled with natural springs and cave systems anyway, it’s completely, completely fine and legitimate, but they do refer to them as catacombs. And I was like, guys, you know, that people would have have to be buried in them for them to be catacombs. And the people that we know are buried in the catacombs are. And you guys are the first Christians in Rome. So

Dr Rad 19:17
There’s been a lot of persecution already.

Dr G 19:21
So much, so much persecution already. Anyway, as it turns out, one of the things it’s getting more complicated as the film goes on, but Demetrius has been captured and the Christians have to save him, cuz he’s been tortured for information. Yeah, yeah. And calendula has Demetrius in his grass. Yeah. And is turning the screw as it were. So the Christians all gather together and they managed to pull off a very effective saving of Demetrius and they hide him weirdly at Marcellus his dad’s house. Yeah, although,

Dr Rad 19:57
I was going to say it’s, I like the I like the infiltration because they use myself as a mole. You know, he’s got the clothes, he’s got the accent, he can penetrate into the palace itself in order to rescue Demetrius, which I did appreciate,

Dr G 20:14
Although it is a concern to me that throughout this entire film, Marcellus has been known consistently as the Tribune. So he’s pretty low down on the cursus honorum. And he’s definitely not progressing any higher, because for him after this film, but the thing is that I feel like given the nature of the events, we’ve had two trips to Palestine, at least in the course of this film, that we are looking at over a year. Oh, it’s way more in terms of time. Yeah. And as a magistrate holding the tribuncianship, it seems very unlikely that Marcellus would continue to be attributed over the whole course of this film, or that given the way that he’s behaved, that people would continue to recognize him as Tribune.

Dr Rad 21:03
Yeah, I definitely think it’s meant to be more than a year for sure. But do we think that he is tribune of the plebs or just a military Tribune? That? I don’t know. I feel like I kind of figured he was like a military Tribune.

Dr G 21:17
Well, that is an unfortunate place for the son of a senator to have ended up in terms of his career.

Dr Rad 21:23
I could be wrong, but that because they never really clarify that. But

Dr G 21:27
They don’t. They don’t. And he continues to be attributed throughout the whole that’s true.

Dr Rad 21:31
Yeah, that is true. I think they do use that more than his actual name. Tribune. Give me Yeah, Tribune. I’m having some trouble

Dr G 21:39
You sir, Tribune. I want you to do the crucifixions. today. I’m bored. Yeah. So our final scene. Ultimately, the plot leads us to this moment where it’s the ultimate showdown between Caligula and Marcellus.

Dr Rad 21:56
Yes. Because he’s been captured, he ends up getting captured when he’s trying to get everybody safely. Well, out of Rome, I think they’re going after.

Dr G 22:04
Yeah, he’s trying to get Demetrius safely out of Rome. Yeah. And in the course of that, they’re being run down by some cavalry. And Marcellus chooses to sacrifice himself. Yeah, that his friend can get away. Absolutely. It’s never really been clarified that they are friends now. But what assumes over the course of the travails that they’ve encountered that they now like each other, I think they do. Yeah. Yeah. This means that there is a huge public trial. Myself, his parents are there. All of the elite of Rome there.

Dr Rad 22:38
Yeah, all of them. It’s a massive crowd.

Dr G 22:40
It’s a huge crowd. So many people. Caligula comes in, in what is the reddest garment that has ever been seen on film,

Dr Rad 22:51
that the marvels of Technicolor for you?

Dr G 22:53
It’s incredible. Everybody else looks pale and washed out in comparison. But Caligula Boy, that is some Imperial read that he’s got. This leads into our whole sort of three ways sort of struggle between Diana, Marcellus and Caligula verbally duking it out, essentially.

Dr Rad 23:15
Actually, we should perhaps mentioned that Diana was meant to marry Caligula for a little while there. So yeah, yeah, it’s a triangle or

Dr G 23:24
it’s a triangle. And she certainly makes it clear where she stands to Caligula to the point that he changes his mind about being unwilling to punish her to her definitely having to die.

Dr Rad 23:37
Yeah, well, I mean, it’s a no brainer, really. I mean, when you’re choosing between Richard Burton’s sultry tones, and those of Jay Robinson, I mean, can you imagine that in the bedroom data, add data?

Dr G 23:54
It’s quite something. I mean, I hope he’s got an indoor voice. Just whispered to me, Caligula.

Dr Rad 24:03
Yeah, yeah. So basically clears like, you know what, you guys believe so much in this afterlife and this kingdom of heaven and being saved. No big deal if I execute the both of you, and so they match off quite happily just chip off into the clouds.

Dr G 24:18
Yeah, it’s the way this film ends is a little bit surprising. I felt like after two and a quarter hours of viewing time, I was not expecting the end scene to be a gentle walk by Marcellus and Diana, out of the trial into heaven.

Dr Rad 24:41
I know, I know, but I guess I guess because they knew the sequel was coming. That maybe they felt that that was okay. And look, you know, it’s kind of an anti Hollywood ending. I mean, it’s a happy ending. But it’s not your typical Hollywood ending, I suppose.

Dr G 24:56
Yeah, they do get to stay together forever in love, I suppose. Oh,

Dr Rad 25:01
there’s that. But I mean, I think if you were going for a real Hollywood ending that somehow they would both survive and Galio would become the emperor or something like that. And also maybe the Pope.

Dr G 25:14
Yeah, look, I mean, if you’re gonna rewrite history, I mean, lean in guys.

Dr Rad 25:19
Yeah, exactly. So that’s the rough storyline, which, as you can tell by the fact that it took us 13 minutes to tell you the story. But you know what, we’re saving you from watching a two and a quarter hour movie. So although if you want to it could be fun. I’m not saying you shouldn’t watch it. But you know, 13 minutes on two and a quarter hours. It’s not too bad. So let’s maybe talk about where this movie came in from Dr. G. So whilst Hollywood does love a Christians slash Jewish people versus Romans storyline, it did not come out of thin air is of course, based on a book, of course. Yeah. So it was actually written by a guy called Lloyd C. Douglas. And he was the son of an Indiana pastor. And he became a Lutheran minister himself, before moving over to the Congregational Church, for his career. But he started writing as we got into the like, the late 1920s, he started writing, he wrote this book called “Magnificent Obsession”, and it sold 3 million copies. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. And so by 1933, he was like, You know what, I don’t think I need to be a minister anymore. I think I’m going to be a novelist.

Dr G 26:35
I’ve got a winning formula. And all I need to do is write my books. Yeah,

Dr Rad 26:39
he honestly became one of the most popular novelists in America in this time period. And this is not the Rube is not the only one of his books that was adapted into a film. So well, well, well, they’re not they don’t they’re not only popular in terms of people reading them. They are popular in terms of being picked up and made into Hollywood films. So the robe had been a best seller from 1942 until 1945.

Dr G 27:09
Wow, okay. Yeah. It was on the bestseller list for years.

Dr Rad 27:13
Yeah, absolutely. I presume that publication was maybe slightly slower for like the big novels. I know. They were dying novels and stuff out, you know, in the 1950s that people could buy. And they were turned out very quickly. But I feel like it is a slightly less crowded market, perhaps at this point in time.

Dr G 27:31
It’s a very interesting time for the novel to come out as well, like you’re in the middle of the Second World War.

Dr Rad 27:38
Yeah, you are indeed. So it was eventually bought by RKO. However, they didn’t really act on it. They just sort of bought the rights to it. And you know, by the late 1940s, it’s still something that they’re just sort of sitting on at that. At that point in time. Howard Hughes is in charge of RKO biblical films were not really his thing. He wasn’t as into them as other people seem to have been at the time.

Dr G 28:06
Sounds like how would use it, I might get along. Exactly, yeah.

Dr Rad 28:10
But eventually, Darryl Zanuck and Fox Studios step in. And this is how the film finally kind of gets off the ground and gets made. So that’s just sort of a little bit of background to the film. But as a result, and not, to be honest, this is pretty common for Hollywood movies of this time. There are a number of people who ended up working on the script for the film, because it has such a long production process. But even with the ones that were shorter, it was pretty common to have more than one person, you know, take a look at the script and give their input and that sort of thing. When the film was finally made, it definitely got a huge publicity campaign. So we’re talking radio ads, we’re talking television, we’re talking newspapers, everywhere you look there’s an ad for the road.

Dr G 28:58
Have you seen Cinemascope?

Dr Rad 29:02
Nobody has. It’s the first one to have it. So of course, it’s going to be viewing this new widescreen format which the studios are hoping is going to keep people coming to the movies rather than sitting at home and watching their televisions which of course the becoming a big thing in this post World War Two era and so they make the film’s bigger, more colorful, more extravagant, the kinds of thing that television which is generally a little square, black and white box just can’t really offer you know, we’re talking about also sound you know, stereophonic sound, it’s it’s all a big thing. And it’s given this huge premiere, where it’s like a freaking circus. We’re talking about, you know, the spotlights outside the cinema, the stars are attending, you know, it’s a very, very big deal.

Dr G 29:53
There’s gladiators playing games.

Dr Rad 29:58
Yeah, so it’s definitely a huge to do when it when it comes out. So as you highlighted when this novel was first written, and people were maybe first toying with the idea of making this film, it was a world war two time. And that seems to have been thought to be part of the message of the film when they were first, you know, throwing it around that in some way, Caligula and Rome are meant to be this sort of, you know, decadent place, that they’re somehow the way they’re treating Jewish people slash Christians, because of the crossover. It’s kind of meant to be like the persecutions that were carried out, in particular, I suppose, by Hitler, but also to some extent by Mussolini. So this was definitely meant to be something that people were, I think, picking up on when they were first, you know, developing this into a film.

Dr G 30:59
Look, I think that sounds reasonable. Yeah. Yeah, you do get the sense that the way that the Romans are being positioned in this film is quite particular. And it’s quite different from other epics of this era that I’ve watched so far, because I’m not going to pretend that I’m conversant in all the Hollywood epics.

Dr Rad 31:20
But there are quite a few now.

Dr G 31:22
I have watched a few but I wouldn’t say I’m in any way an expert at this point in time. But it did feel to me like the Romans were being very much positioned in a particular way. And it was, in part to do with, obviously, the focus is on the Christian story. So the Romans are, by default, the bad guys here, but also, that it’s coming out of that sort of post Second War mindset. Well, how do we understand conflict? How do we understand the persecution of peoples? And so while I wasn’t really consciously thinking about it, when I watched it, the vibe that the Romans are giving off in this film is intriguing.

Dr Rad 32:04
Yeah. And I think it’s kind of one of those things as well, where were these sorts of moralizing films, it’s kind of that thing of people get to enjoy watching the Romans have this very fancy schmancy life that they have, whilst also being like, Oh, isn’t a terrible, look at what they’re doing to those poor Christians. So it’s like they because the moral is there, they get to enjoy watching the decadence of Rome. But I didn’t feel like it was as over the top in the robe, as it has been in some of the other movies, we’ve watched, like quovadis, and that sort of thing.

Dr G 32:38
And I feel like the decadence was actually a little bit pared back in this film, like note that it didn’t have like all of the highly colored interior scenes and the layering of different stones and things like that it was obviously trying to be quite opulent in its way. But it also felt like maybe they didn’t have quite as much budget as some other films for some of that stuff. Yeah, definitely.

Dr Rad 33:00
Now, the other interesting thing I’m going to throw in contextually Dr G is that so when this film was purchased, and when it was being made, we’re still in the time of the studio system. So this is a period where you’ve got kind of like five major movie studios that really dominate the production of movies in Hollywood, there are some minor studios. And then there are also some truly budget, you know, just pump out these really crappy movie studios, they do exist. But the major films, particularly the ones that most people would be familiar with today, they’re going to be made by one of these major studios. And it’s kind of that idea of it being like the dream factory time of Hollywood, you know, where they’re manufacturing movies. And so they’re in charge of who gets hired to be director who’s the producer, who’s on contract, like the stars are all under contract at various studios, and they have to make so many pictures per year, and they get paid this much to do it and all that kind of stuff. So huge amount of control. Now, most of these Hollywood studios, these major ones are owned by Jewish movie moguls. This puts them I suppose in an interesting position in the 20th century. Now, of course, I think part of the reason why that ended up being the case is that typically, when when movies first sort of became a thing, it wasn’t necessarily the most admired or respectable profession to be involved in, you know, I mean, it wasn’t the theater.

Dr G 34:33
In the same way that actors in ancient Rome were suffering under the pool of a lack of respect for their craft. Exactly. So too, did early filmmakers, people like that’s not

Dr Rad 34:46
exactly yeah, and I think it’s so it’s something that you do tend to get people that perhaps aren’t risking a wider reputation, I suppose, or aren’t too concerned about what this wider society You may or may not think we’re also talking about people who are potentially immigrants. You know, there’s a whole bunch of reasons why you might end up getting maybe a higher percentage of Jewish people getting involved in the film industry in the early days. And their investment, of course really pays off, because everyone starts to really fall in love with movies, which makes, which makes the people that got involved in the early film industry, very wealthy when they rise to the top. Now, it’s not by any means only Jewish people that are involved. But there is a trend where a lot of the big movie Americans at the studios are Jewish people. Now, they don’t want to be seen to be putting prou Jewish propaganda into their films or things like that, particularly once we get into this time period that we’re talking about, you know, with, obviously, World War Two, I mean, even I mean, obviously, we talk about American history, obviously, there’s always been, I think, a certain stigma against anybody who’s perceived to be an outsider. But particularly in the early 20th century, we know that we see a spike in terms of racism, not just directed against African American groups, but also directed against any immigrant groups, and Jewish people in the 1930s, are increasingly being associated Well, in the 1920s, and the 1930s. Really, they’re increasingly being associated with communism. So especially with everything that’s happened with World War Two, especially, it’s not really a great time, I suppose, to be seen, to be putting out film sort of openly, you know, Pro, the Jewish course. 1919 48, I think makes it particularly touchy issue. Because, of course, this is when we get the creation of the State of Israel. So with the creation of the State of Israel, there was actually a film release that was touching on these sorts of issues, and was kind of pro Israel called the sword in the desert. But there was a riot that broke out in a London cinema when it was shown. And so it was actually withdrawn. And so I think that showed a message of, you know, people aren’t really going to want to see these sorts of films, or at least that’s the feeling. And obviously, we’re talking about Hollywood, it’s a business, you’ve got to, you know, make your money somehow. So a way I suppose, of dealing with that was by making biblical epics, where there is a bit of a focus on, say, the Old Testament. So we do see a lot of Jewish heroes turning up in some of these 1950s epics, another one, of course, played by Victor mature Samson, Samson and Delilah. And then of course, we’ve got Moses turning up in the 10 commandments. And then you’ve got characters like Joshua Solomon, and even in terms of women, you’ve got people like Ruth and Esther turning up in some of these biblical epics. So the robe is kind of an interesting one, because it is obviously crossing that, that line between Old Testament days and entering the New Testament led by one Jesus Christ.

Dr G 38:02
Yeah, we’re in this very interesting storyline. I suspect, and it doesn’t necessarily, I don’t think it’s over in this film. But it’s clear as well, that this is about the genesis of Christianity. And it emerges out of Palestinian culture, that’s clear, both from the geographic location. And it’s clear from the way in which the robe engages with this story as well, like Marcellus goes on this journey, which involves him going into Palestine as part of his job as a Roman, but also learning and discovering things about himself while he is there. Yeah. And for him, that’s not necessarily about Jesus in the beginning. It’s a much longer journey. And so I think part of what this film is trying to do is to try to capture what does this historical moment really mean? For so that sense in which we know that there are people in Palestine during this time period historically, who are being crucified? And what kind of effect does that have on the people who are there at the time? And what kind of stories are they telling about these people? Because one of these stories ends up becoming very influential, and being retold and retold. So this is an interesting way to tackle it, I think, through the eyes of somebody who is Roman, and also through the eyes of someone who is not Roman, but he’s also an outsider.

Dr Rad 39:34
Yeah, it is a really interesting film in that respect. And I think also the choice of having it I mean, obviously, they had to place it when they did if they were going to be accurate about when Jesus was supposedly alive and when he was being crucified. But I think there is also a tendency to set these sorts of movies during the Empire, not just because historically it makes sense, but also because there are publican era of Rome had been such a model for the USA itself. And they like to think of themselves as you know, inheriting some of those Republican Roman values. So a way I suppose dealing with the fact that they like, we’re like the Romans, they’re like, oh, wait a second. Not those Romans. Yeah. When like their republic and Romans, not those decadent, Imperial Roman, it’s not the USA.

Dr G 40:26
I mean, they’re very lucky in that regard that the timeline is what it is. Because imagine if this had happened in the Republic, and it very well could have because

Dr Rad 40:35
Their heads would literally explode

Dr G 40:38
We are not that far into the imperial period.

Dr Rad 40:44
Now, of course, for that there were some minor contextual factors. So the rivalry from television, we’ve got the studio system, and the people that are behind the studio system, follow the money, did you?

Dr G 40:57
Well, yeah. Like I hear Jean Simmons had to, like, break contract and get a different contract in order to do partly to be in this film.

Dr Rad 41:04
That’s generally what they had to do. There’s always sort of like they it was, it was almost as though the celebrities were like trading cards. And, you know, studios would be like, Look, I really want so and so from this picture, they be just right for the role. What can you do I will trade you these two women for that woman for six months? Or? Or yeah, they will, they had to renegotiate their contracts. Because often their contracts would be like for seven years. So it’s quite a substantial chunk of time. So we’ve got television, we’ve got the studio system, we’ve got the creation of Israel, whilst this film is very slowly being developed. And then of course, the big thing that we need to talk about is the Red Scare of the 1950s. Don’t know. Thank you, thank you, I needed a sound effect. So by the time the room is finally like properly in production, which is by the early 1950s, we’re looking at a second round of huge hearings, which is the house of UnAmerican Activities Committee. And these are the people that are most notorious for trying to root out communists in various industries in America, but in particular, in Hollywood, and I say in particular, in that it was probably obviously the most widely publicized.

Dr G 42:23
Yeah, it’s a horrifying time to be for the progressive political nature.

Dr Rad 42:27
Yes. So there’s been a lot of talk about the robe and the whack hearings. Because of course, there are some key scenes in the room, which some people have taken to mean, that this film was trying to talk about the present happenings in America, whilst extensively talking about the past. I’m wondering if you can guess which scenes I’m talking about Dr. G. I

Dr G 42:53
don’t know that I can. I didn’t have this moment where I was like, aha, that’s a clear us moment. I had moments where I was like, this is another Lady Macbeth reference.

Dr Rad 43:04
Very possibly,

Dr G 43:05
maybe they’re the same. Look, there is this scene on the ship back to Italy, where Barcellos seems to be involuntarily moaning a bit like a lady while he’s asleep. As there is the sound of the hammer on the deck of the ship. Could this be a hammer and sickle reference that I’ve missed? Could this? Could this be a recollection of his role in the crucifixion? Where the sounds are the hammer of minds him of the of the nails that he drilled into Jesus’s body? Anyway? I don’t know. But that was a great scene.

Dr Rad 43:43
Well, basically, it is the scene where Tiberius is talking to Marcellus, the Tribune, about finding out about the road, like tracking it down. Yeah, reaching out all the Christians, all of that kind of stuff. So he explicitly says to Marcellus, you know, I need a list of names every name, I need to know who these people are, we need to hunt them down, we need to route them down. So that has sometimes been seen as a not very subtle reference to what he wack was trying to do in the late 1940s. And in the early 1950s, because this film, of course, came out in 1953. So it was out after two rounds of Hollywood hearings, the of the committee, so some people have seen that as being a reference. But I did find this article which delves into the complicated production of this film. And part of I think the reason why people were so keen to see a parallel is that the major screenwriter during the early days of production for the robe was Albert moths. Now, Albert mult isn’t a minor very well, because he was one of the Hollywood 10. So he’s one of the original guys that ends up getting called up in 1947. Before he work along with another guy, I know, Dalton Trumbo, he and Trump We’re pretty tight.

Dr G 45:02
Of course they are.

Dr Rad 45:05
Yeah, yeah. And then the next guy to work on the script is a guy called Philip Dunne. Now he ended up being part of a group of people in Hollywood called the committee for the First Amendment. So this is a reference to the fact that when the US UK hearing started to happen in 1947, quite a lot of the more liberal people in Hollywood were, of course horrified by what was happening, these people that they know, these people that they’ve worked with, and they perhaps were just liberal enough to not think that this was actually something that should be happening in America. So a bunch of them get together to try and rally support for the Hollywood 10. And they end up calling themselves the committee for the first amendment because one of the decisions one of the key decisions that the Hollywood tena decided to make in 1947, is that they were going to plead the First Amendment and not the fifth. Okay, so they’re not they’re not pleading,

Dr G 46:04
now, you’re really testing my understanding of the US Constitution, because I do not know what the First Amendment stands for adults. Basically,

Dr Rad 46:13
we’re talking about the Fifth Amendment is your right to not incriminate yourself, which tends to be what happens later on in the huge tech hearings, because the First Amendment doesn’t work. The First Amendment we’re talking about things like your freedom of speech. Okay, your your basic freedoms, like some of the things that Americans cling to, most daily, I see. And they basically say that they want to do that rather than pleading the fifth when they get called up in front of this committee, because to plead the fifth kind of has the connotation, I suppose that you have done something criminal, I was

Dr G 46:49
gonna say, surely pleading, the fifth is already an implication of

Dr Rad 46:53
kind of, I mean, like, it’s not really, that’s not really what it necessarily means, but it does have that connotation. Whereas the First Amendment, it’s more about fundamental freedom, like if you’re at risk

Dr G 47:04
of incriminating yourself, doesn’t that make you criminal?

Dr Rad 47:07
Well, I mean, this is the thing. No, it doesn’t have to, it’s more just the fact that obviously, you have the right not to incriminate yourself, maybe accidentally, but it just, it just has that connotation. So yeah. So that’s why it became a big thing because they took that stance that they were going to plead the First Amendment and argue this and it does not go well for them. And why? Yeah, yeah, that’s a shame. He’d been one of the he was he was known to be a political liberal. And he was one of the founding members of this group, which also included some very well known names like you know, Lauren Bacall, Humphrey Bogart. Yeah. Lots of people who would do you know, radio announcements, telling people look, this is what is happening right now. This is terrifying. We need to do something about it. We need to rally and show support. So there’s definitely some leftist feelings coming out of the screen writing. There’s just just like, catch Dr. G. O. Albert molts was riding the robe up until about 1946. I wonder if you can do some quick math for me and tell me what the problem is with that? Well, it’s

Dr G 48:10
after the Second World War for the huge tech hearings? I don’t know. That’s exactly

Dr Rad 48:15
right. It’s before the HUAC hearing. So how could he be making coded reference to the US hearings before the hearings?

Dr G 48:24
I mean, the guy’s got four. So what can I say? He’s a smart man. And he saw it coming. Yeah. So

Dr Rad 48:33
while says obviously potential for there to be some Anti Fascist stuff, because yeah, that album also sort of worked into the script. You know, in terms of what everyone’s just been going through with World War Two, it seems unlikely that Albert moulds would have been able to work in huge references before the huge hearings, that became a problem for him in 1947.

Dr G 48:59
You do make a very sound argument and I am convinced,

Dr Rad 49:03
I would like to claim this as my own but somebody else went into the archives in this effort. However, that still leaves the question of fill Phillip done. Okay.

Dr G 49:15
Yes, sinister.

Dr Rad 49:18
Well, not necessarily mean, I actually quite like the sound of him. He sounds like I’ve gotten a guy.

Dr G 49:23
Philip is done. That’s what I’m told.

Dr Rad 49:26
I suppose there are also they’re also supposed to pretend potential references to kind of like blacklisting and curricula being a somewhat McCarthy like figure particularly in that last big scene that you talked about. Okay, the way that he talks about the way he’s talking to Gallio in that final showdown of his seen,

Dr G 49:49
also the way he has plants in the audience to backup his position, which, which aren’t enough to get it across the line anyway, which is kind of hilarious because you think As the Emperor he’d be able to buy off more people. But he’s then also immediately called out for this by Diana being like, that’s all you got the people you planted in the crowd.

Dr Rad 50:10
I know she’s very outspoken. I love the fact that in both Demetrius and the Gladiator, and sorry, Demetrius of the Gladiators, and The Robe, we have these final scenes where Roman women are super outspoken in a public fora. Yeah, in a way that I think would not fly in reality. No, just laying into them. Yeah. But I think the thing that really came through for me when I was rewatching, it is that Marcellus is very clear to Caligula that look, this is just what I believe. I’m not trying to take down Rome, you know, I can, I can be loyal to both of you, which I think is very interesting, because that’s kind of the line that a lot of people who were brought up before the huge tech committee in the 1940s, and the 1950s, were trying to argue, the majority of them, I mean, particularly those who worked in Hollywood, sure, I’m sure there are some rogue communists out there in the states who were aiming higher, but in terms of the Hollywood people, they weren’t trying to take over the state.

Dr G 51:14
And this is also I think, tapping into some bigger ideas that I think America at this time had about itself. And maybe these ideas linger today in various ways, which is when Marcellus makes this dichotomy between his ability to serve Rome, which is completely uncompromised and his perspective, and his personal interest in pursuing his beliefs, to the extent to which they don’t affect his capacity to serve Rome, is tapping into that idea of freedom of religion. And also, this vaunted, but potentially quite false idea of the separation of religion and state, which is a very modern invention. And once we look into any state system, almost completely unsupported by the evidence at play on the ground in any nation state of today.

Dr Rad 52:10
Yeah, definitely. Now, one of the interesting things is that we do actually have a record of Maltz’s version of the script, which Philip Dunne would have used to develop his idea. And Maltz definitely had more scenes that develop this idea of the need for the naming of names. And it also included a bit more development with the character of Abbey door. Now Abbey door is the informant, that must sell us users to try and find out about the Christian, the Jewish slash Christian community that he is tracking down. So in Maltz’s, version, Marcellus actually gives avatar a coin in exchange for every name that is brought to him. These These were not kept, obviously in Dunne’s version, which begs the question, was it purely because if there’s already an incredibly long fail, or was it that by the time that done was working on the script, those sorts of references might have been seen as maybe too problematic?

Dr G 53:19
Maybe unseemly, given the circumstances that we’re facing right now in Hollywood? Let’s not mention that.

Dr Rad 53:26
Exactly. Yeah. Because it is no doubt that Philip Dunne is was somebody who was anti-HUAC, but the thing is, he was also anti communist. So the people that were part of this committee for the First Amendment, they weren’t necessarily communists themselves. In fact, I would say that generally, they were not communists at all. They were just people who thought that he work was wrong. And thought it was important to speak out against the freedoms that were to speak out because they were basic American freedoms that were being trampled on. And also because I presume, again, because of that natural affinity for people that you knew and people that you worked with being, you know, put in this horrible situation.

Dr G 54:11
Yeah, look, I think that’s completely fair. You always want to stick up for your friends.

Dr Rad 54:16
Yeah. So I mean, I guess it’s like one of those movies that in a way you can kind of read it, however you like, in that you can see it as being a critique of totalitarianism. Okay, it could be seen, as you know, you could see Caligula and the Romans as being kind of Stalinist communist figures and that you’re living in a repressive state, or you can read it as being I suppose, a critique of the kind of repression that was going on during the hue Acura, I think

Dr G 54:45
it offers itself to a range of these sorts of interpretations and the importance of the positioning of the audience in this to very much be on the side of Marcellus and that unfolding personal journey Ready to understanding is part of the key way that it’s navigating all of these tension.

Dr Rad 55:06
Yeah, definitely. Yeah. So overall, Dr. G, after, after us talking all about all these various contextual issues for the making of the room. What is your final impression of this film?

Dr G 55:21
Oh look, I don’t want to see it again. I know, I like my Roman history to just be a little bit more grandiose. I don’t know that I’m into it as being a backdrop for some other sort of moral didacticism, which it feels very strongly as what’s going on here. I did enjoy the elder Tiberius, he seemed like the most reasonable guy around traps in this building.

Dr Rad 55:54
Although I must admit, I thought you would pick up on this, did you pick up on the fact that Tiberius was very skeptical about Roman religious practices?

Dr G 56:03
I mean, I suppose he should be. He’s seen enough in his time. And in terms of my overall I probably gonna give it maybe three stars, it’s clearly been very well put together for its time and its age. I want to see more Romans, the robe, it didn’t feel like it was well explained.

Dr Rad 56:26
You mean how the magic worked.

Dr G 56:29
Look, guys, what’s going on with this robe?

Dr Rad 56:33
Well, I think it’s kind of interesting, because I suppose like a lot of blockbuster films these days. Interestingly, there was a bit of a divide between critics and the audience. So as I mentioned at the beginning, clearly it was well patronized, lots of people went to see it, you know, and I think that, that has to be partly put down to the fact that it was a new screen technology. And even though television might have been enticing people away from the movies a little bit, there’s still no way that a 1950s television could compete with the sort of star studded epics. That was so colorful. And you know, the other than that, you know, the sound has been so rich, and the colors were so dazzling. I don’t think television could really compete with these sorts of things. So I can see why the average person on the street with like them, but critics were a little bit more hesitant about this sort of film. So I did find an article which I will cite in the show notes, which had some of my favorite ways of summing up the robe, so I thought you might enjoy them as well. So from the New Statesman on the 28th of November 1953. Most of the film I have found dull and the rest nauseating.

Dr G 57:50
Goodness me Well, that one’s not not enjoying it at all.

Dr Rad 57:54
From the Daily Mail on the 20th of November 1953, fundamentally, distasteful

Dr G 58:00
Distasteful.

Dr Rad 58:03
From the evening news on the 20th of November 1953, just money down the drain. From the Evening Standard, on the 20th, November 1953, boring heavy faltered and ham fisted

Dr G 58:18
look, I think I’d agree with that, to be honest,

Dr Rad 58:21
from the Sunday Express on the 22nd of November, tediously earnest and crushingly sentimental. And finally, my favorite one from the Financial Times 20th of November 1953. Although why the Financial Times of reviewing the robe I will never know. A long lacrimose, high class sleeping draught.

Dr G 58:44
I spent a lot of money and I napped very well. Thank you. Yeah, look, and I hear that I did find it tough to get through this film. And I will say that there is a moment where I expected the robe to really do itself justice. And the robe failed to show up. And that’s the moment where Demetrius is clearly at death’s door. Oh, sure. Yeah, there at Marcellus, his dad’s house, and the Roman physician is there. And he’s like, look, there are limits to what science can achieve. It’s like I can’t put the blood back in his body. And yeah, kind of gives up on it. And then he walks out there, we have pee to go in. I was like, it’s now time for the robe. Surely a healthy application of the robe is going to fix this guy. But not only do we not get to see it, but it doesn’t seem like the robe was involved. There’s some other miracle happening there. And I was like, Guys, you really missed a trick. The robe could have done the job, and it would have made the magic. palpably real for everybody at that point.

Dr Rad 59:52
I know exactly what you mean. But it since they were already planning a sequel, lest we forget that that’s what cures Demetrius’ love in Demetrius and the Gladiators, part two of The Robe. So I wonder if they knew that that was going to be the plot device for that. Alright. I don’t want to undercut the power of the robe. No, yeah, you can’t, you got to overuse a piece of fabric. And of course,

Dr G 1:00:14
I went into this already knowing that piece of information because we’ve talked about the sequel before we’ve talked about the original. So I was kind of like, surely it’s robe time, just to wave the robe over and gently have a stand. Yeah, that’s a little blanket. And it’s like, he’s gonna come good. Trust me. We know this. But they don’t. And I was like, Ah,

Dr Rad 1:00:35
I wonder if it’s because they needed to make use of, you know, Peter, a little bit more St. Peter. They needed his talents on display. I mean, he was

Dr G 1:00:42
definitely under utilized in this film. I think I was like, Why is he here? He’s got to get to Rome. Somehow. I suppose.

Dr Rad 1:00:49
I met the guy who plays him. I mean, come on, he really does look like something out of a DaVinci painting. I love that guy. Like already, hats off to you definitely has the look. Yeah, yeah. And I think we mentioned this when we talked about Demetrius and the gladiators. Lest we forget that Christianity became a vehicle for showing your patriotism in this time period in America. And we all know how much Americans love and showing their patriotism. And so it was kind of like one of those things where if the Soviets your enemy in the Cold War, godless communists, then Americans, freedom loving Christians, and so going to church every week was a sign of not only your personal religious faith, but your loyalty to America and your patriotism. So I kind of presume that going to the sorts of films, it must have been something that was very much a part of the, you know, the general vibe, particularly in certain areas in America in this time period.

Dr G 1:01:56
Oh, yeah, definitely. And I can imagine there’d be people trying to sell the robe after you left the cinema as well.

Dr Rad 1:02:05
Well, funny, you should mention that because I do have another statistic here from also another article that I will cite in the show notes. That said that tells me that between 1950 and 1963 Ancient World epics topped the US box office in seven out of the 13 years, so I don’t so we have Samson and Delilah, Victor Mature in 1950. David and Bathsheba in 1951, The Robe in 1953. Then there’s a little bit of a lull, is it because of The Robe?

Dr G 1:02:39
Probably everybody’s like I brought all my tickets. I really can’t afford to go to the cinema.

Dr Rad 1:02:44
The Ten Commandments in 1957 Ben Hur in 1960s Spartacus in 1962 and Cleopatra in 1963. And Quo Vadis in 1952 was second only pipped at the post by the greatest show on earth. Wow. And this is the same. This is the thing whilst we might say okay, so maybe there’s a bit of a yearning for Christianity in this time period because of the cold war. But it’s the same way the world over. Now. To be fair, the world is more Christian, as in there are more people that would probably identify as Christians in general, in this time period, as well. So perhaps not surprising, but they don’t have to go and see it to show their loyalty to their governments or whatever they’re trying to do. So that’s true. Yeah, yeah. But I thought I wanted to use this to sum up with, okay, the road, we’ve done it, I agree with you. It’s not my favorite, although I do love Richard Burton and Gene Simmons, as actors in this film, and I do enjoy a bit of curricula. I actually think I enjoyed Demetrius and the gladiators more. But I thought a good way of summing this up was to take this little snippet from a Sunday Times critic called Delos Powell. She wrote something which I really enjoyed, which were the Scripture prizes 1932 to 1961. Are you ready for the awards? Dr. G?

Dr G 1:04:06
I’m ready.

Dr Rad 1:04:07
Okay. The award for most vulgar film goes to the side of the cross. Applause Applause Applause

And that’s a film from the 1930s. The award for Most nauseating film goes to Quo Vadis.

The award for the most exhausting film goes to The Ten Commandments.

Dr G 1:04:38
That is exhausting as true.

Dr Rad 1:04:40
The award for the most nondescript film goes to The Robe.

Dr G 1:04:47
Nondescript, yeah,

Dr Rad 1:04:50
the award for the most luxurious bloodbaths goes to Samson and Delilah. The award for the most idiotic additional dialogue goes to the big fisherman. award for the most genteel orgy goes to Solomon and Sheba.

Dr G 1:05:15
She’s just making these categories up.

Dr Rad 1:05:18
Yeah, that’s the point. And finally, a special chariot race award goes to Ben Hur,

Dr G 1:05:29
Hur hur hur. I mean, I’d be very surprised if it went to The Fall of the Roman Empire. But it’s up there.

Dr Rad 1:05:38
Oh, I think that would definitely be number two, surely. And I will I very much like talking to you about the road because whilst the robe might not actually be the most flashy of the ethics of the Golden Age in the 1950s, it certainly has a lot of the things that I like to talk about, which is the war on television, the studio system at play modern politics, in terms of the foundation of the State of Israel, and of course, American domestic politics, the background of the huge tech hearings and the hunt for reds under the bed.

Dr G 1:06:19
Yes, wow. Caligula did have a very red robe and that should be a hint to anybody

Dr Rad 1:06:25
Absolutely.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – The Robe appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

We were thrilled to sit down and talk with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller about her research into the representation of enslaved women during slave revolts in ancient Rome. This conversation reveals plenty of food for thought about the representation of women in the ancient world as well as exploring the way women go on to be represented in later eras.

Special Episode – Enslaved Women during Slave Revolts with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller

And rightly so. Conditions for enslaved people in ancient Rome could vary widely from difficult manual roles such as mining and agriculture to the challenges of proximity to enslavers in the domestic sphere. Human trafficking also has a significant role to play in understanding gladiators. Assistant Professor Huemoeller takes us through some of the main ways to consider slavery in Rome before turning our attention to three key slave revolts:

These examples offer the opportunity to consider enslaved women a little more closely and it’s here that the conversation gets really interesting.

A coloured mosaic depicting two lovers together surrounded by attendants (likely slaves).
One pour liquid from a vessel; one attends beside the bed.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Taken in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna, Austria)

A painting called ‘The Slave Market’ by Gustave Boulanger (1886) which shows a range of enslaved people waiting to be sold. Most wear discs around their neck indicating their enslaved status.

Thanks to the glorious Bettina Joy de Guzman for our theme music.

Generated by Otter AI. Hopes and prayers for the AI learning our Australian accents, Latin terms, and other very niche phrases!

Dr Rad 0:16
Welcome to The Partial Historians,

Dr G 0:19
we explore all the details of ancient Rome.

Dr Rad 0:23
Everything from the political scandals, the love of ours, the battles waged and when citizens turn against each other. I’m Dr. Rad

Dr G 0:34
and I’m Dr. G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.

Dr Rad 0:43
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.

Welcome to a special episode of The Partial Historians, I am one of your hosts Dr. Rad

Dr G 1:07
and I’m Dr. G.

Dr Rad 1:09
We are joined by a very exciting guest who shares some of our interests today, we are joined by Professor Huemoeller. Assistant Professor Huemoeller worked for a nonprofit, the National Women’s Law Centre in Washington, DC for several years before returning to the academic world. She has taught at Princeton University, Middlebury College, and at US correctional facilities through the prison teaching initiatives. She is currently the Assistant Professor of Roman History at the University of British Columbia. And we are very excited to talk to her today, because her special areas of interest include things like slavery and sexual violence, and we’re going to be another word excited about sexual violence. But we’re excited that we’re going to be talking about issues of slavery and gender. That’s probably what I should say. So welcome to the show.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:59
Thank you so much. That always happens to me. I can’t wait to teach this class on slavery. It’ll be interesting that Yeah.

Dr Rad 2:08
All right. So let’s kick off with one of our introductory questions. So you’ve obviously written a lot about incidents of slave results in the Roman Republic, but just to set the scene for our listeners, can you tell us a little bit about the status of slaves in Rome?

Katharine Huemoeller 2:24
Yeah, absolutely. So I’ll talk specifically about slaves in the Republican era, because slavery is quite distinct in different periods of Roman history. And it really sort of takes off in terms of numbers in the Italian peninsula, in the third and second centuries BCE, as Rome expands, more and more people are trafficked into Italy, and sold on the slave market. So there’s a direct link between Roman conquest and the growth of the Roman Empire and the growth of the Roman slave system. But what slavery looked like and how it was experienced was extremely diverse. And some people were were employed on plantation style, agricultural estates, for surplus, you know, production of food, with very, very tough conditions, very harsh conditions, and very little chance of ever being manumitted, much less living a very long life. Other people lived in an urban context, or worked in a domestic context. And the lived conditions were perhaps a bit better than agricultural slavery. But it came with its own horrors, including proximity to owners, maybe increased chance of sexual violence and sexual exploitation, especially for enslaved women, but also for enslaved men. So it looked really different depending on who your owner was, and where you lived, and also, who you were, where you came from. And if you are a man or a woman or a child or an adult.

Dr G 3:58
Yeah, it’s a there’s a lot to take in when it comes to thinking about like the status of slaves in the ancient Roman world, just because there are so many diverse areas that somebody could end up in in terms of like, their place, either like, maybe it will be mining, maybe it will be in the field, maybe it will be in the home. And all of those come with their own risks. And to I don’t think we should ever underestimate the nature of the human workforce that is being utilised in many ancient societies in particularly ancient Rome, just in terms of when you look back to see what was achieved and also the labour that was utilised to achieve those things. So thank you so much for giving us a bit of a taste of the things that are going to be coming out. As we delve further into the questions.

Katharine Huemoeller 4:53
That point about under estimating is an important one too, because the big challenge with ancient slavery is I mean, we can say It looks very diverse, that’s clearly true. But it’s hard to say much else definitively because our record for ancient slavery is is so difficult. And certain types of slavery, certain sleeving strategies appear appear more clearly in the historical record than others. So we have more information, for example, about agricultural slavery in this period, you know, and sort of less idea what’s going on in a domestic context or more information about enslaved men than about enslaved women. So it’s always the question of filling in these very large gaps in our archive.

Dr Rad 5:35
Oh, definitely. Look, we’ve found we’ve been looking at the Roman monarchy a bit because we’ve been working on a book on that period. And as you said, I tend to think of slavery more later in room’s history, you know, during the Republic, when we start to see those big wars that are happening, and lots of people being captured in a conflict and then being made slaves, and then that obviously setting up the possibility of having more slaves because their people are bought into slavery, etc, etc. But the crazy thing was that when we actually stopped and looked at the records, there were references to slaves, and they were everywhere, even in that very early period. And whilst Okay, yeah, some things you know, you might look at them as being maybe troops or something like that. There’s just so many references to think that slavery itself wasn’t a part of Roman society, even all the way back at the beginning.

Katharine Huemoeller 6:27
Yeah, I completely agree. And I think there’s still a lot of work to be done on these earlier forms of slavery. I mean, obviously, it’s in the tall tables, which I know you guys covered. And that’s a great indication that it’s, you know, significant, and it’s a maybe a fairly clear demarcated legal status. But then, of course, it’s also, you know, only one of many different types of dependency in that period, including debt bondage, and, and maybe there was less of a clear line between these types of exploitation. And then the other issue, of course, is that I think in that early period, maybe there are more enslaved people coming from closer to the city of Rome, as opposed to from very far away. And so I expect there, you know, there’s a difference there in terms of the relationship of ethnicity and slavery, but I think there’s a lot more work to be done.

Dr G 7:17
Definitely. Yeah, once you start looking into the little tidbits that we do have access to is like, Yeah, you get the sense that this is a much wider picture. And there’s much more that we can learn as we go along. So thinking about your work and where it has led you in your research, you have focused on three main revolts, slave revolts. So when people are rising up against these conditions that they have found themselves in their lack of agency, and then recapturing that through the process of revolt. And I’m wondering if we can just go through the details of them a little bit. So starting with the revolt of the Volsinii in 265 BCE? What’s going on there?

Katharine Huemoeller 8:00
Yeah, this is one I really didn’t know much about until I started researching this topic. This the Spartacus revolt is very famous, right?

Dr Rad 8:07
I’ve never heard of it.

Katharine Huemoeller 8:14
So um, so this revolt is as definitely more small scale earlier on right in the third century, middle third century. And the sources for it are a bit sketchy, but it is attested in multiple sources. And what seems to happen is that there’s some sort of uprising in this atrocity and city. And it’s a sort of class struggle, and the exact identity of the people rising after it is different in different sources. In some sources, they’re enslaved people. And it’s a serious enough for revolt that the city asks Rome to intervene and assist and, you know, setting the social order back to what it was. So that’s, that’s one of these revolts. And I think it’s an interesting one, because it’s clear that there’s actually a lot of smaller scale revolts happening in the third and second century that we only hear little snippets about, but it seems actually to have been quite frequent. And Amy racialist has done some work on gathering these into a timeline in her slave theatre book. So, just recognising that probably this is happening quite frequently in the Italian peninsula and these two in these two centuries, even though you know, the ones we hear about are these larger scale ones that are called the really the first second and third servile wars essentially. So moving into the second one there, or the first one there, that’s a little less than a century later and the 130s in on the island of Sicily. So, all of these are taking place, you know, I guess I say the Italian peninsula but including Sicily, so in you know, Italy, Southern Italy and Sicily, in regions where agriculture is, you know, predominant. And this first slave revolt is led by a charismatic figure named Yunus As who sort of rises up in one of the major cities in the Catanian plain of Sicily, again, this really important sort of grain producing region, and he manages to, you know, work with other enslaved people in the area to capture the city, and then the revolt spreads to the whole island. And you know, that’s when, of course, Rome takes notice. And then the third one that’s quite that I focus on is the Spartacus slave war, sometimes known as the third slave war, which again, is happening a little less than a century after that. So in the 70s BCE, and in this one, an interesting man, a very enigmatic man named Spartacus, who is maybe Thracian, maybe not, is captured and enslaved in a gladiatorial school in Capua, and manages to break out along with other enslaved Gladiators, and maybe his wife, but we’ll get to that. And once again, you know, similarly to the first slave revolt, the revolt is sort of, at first seen as a minor thing, and not much effort is put to putting it down. And then it sort of grows in size as the rebel army starts to grow as encompasses other people, other enslaved people, but also maybe other free but disenfranchised people in the south of Italy. And it becomes a quite massive revolts that, you know, the Roman army actually takes a few years to suppress.

Dr Rad 11:29
Amazing, thank you so much for that. So obviously, there’s a lot that is interesting about these slave revolts. But I believe the reason that you have focused on these ones in your article was that these revolts involve violence, and particularly, they are revolts that involve sexual violence. And we’ve got records of that. So what did you notice about the way this violence has been represented in the sources?

Katharine Huemoeller 11:57
Yeah, so these these revolts came to my notice, because I am currently working on a book project on the sexual exploitation of enslaved people. And what I noticed in these revolts is that one of the types of violence that the enslaved rebels are said to direct at the free people, and particularly at their enslavers is sexual violence. And so I was interested in looking at sort of what how that manifested itself, not so much to understand what happened during these revolts. But instead to understand from the perspective of these free writers, what did they think enslaved people wanted to rebel against? What kind of violence did they think they wanted to inflict on the Masters, understanding that this is essentially a sort of role reversal, where the enslaved people are said to inflict the types of violence that they themselves have experienced as slaves? So I thought this could tell me something about the conditions of slavery. What I found when I looked at the sources is that there’s actually lots of different types of sexual violence that are inflicted on free people in these revolts. But it’s all directed at free women. And so what we see is that the slave rebels are said to commit acts of rape, and other types of sexual outrage, essentially, it’s very vague, to free matrons and to free virgins, and that these are done in front of their husbands or fathers. And that second part of that second detail clued me in to the fact that these acts are actually sort of intended to injure the free men, using the free women sort of as an instrument. And so that’s, that’s what I became interested in, through studying these is the way in which these enslaved men are sort of claiming the privileges of free masculinity in the revolts.

Dr G 13:56
Yeah, this is a really interesting aspect and insight into Roman sexuality, isn’t it? Because the this ties back into these ideas about the power that is thought to be inherent from a Roman perspective in sexual encounters, where it’s partly to do with the gender of the people involved, but it’s also partly to do with how you place yourself in the patriarchal hierarchy of Roman society who gets to do who to white becomes super important for being able to like know exactly where you sit socially, not just sexually, and the utilisation of women in this not as sort of agents in their own right, but perhaps as vehicles for conveying something about Roman masculinity is not at all surprising, but incredibly infuriating. I feel like

Katharine Huemoeller 14:50
yeah, that Yeah, that’s exactly right. What I’ve what I found is that it wasn’t just that these enslaved men were raping the free women. It was also the If they were, for example, protecting some free women from rape and choosing to rape others, or so this idea that the free masculinity or hegemonic masculinity and Roman society is about not just getting to do what you want to other people, but choosing right, who experiences what and who was allowed to do what. And so that includes not only, you know, sexual violence directed and enslaved people, but also that includes the sort of protection or maybe you could say, I don’t know, supervision, control of free women. So one of the stories that we get in the slave revolts is that the slave rebels choose this one teenage free woman who was very kind to them when they were enslaved, and they escort her to the house of her family members, and explicitly are protecting her sexual virtue. And I think that is as much a privilege of free masculinity, as you know, raping the matrons in front of their husbands.

Dr Rad 16:06
Absolutely. And I mean, obviously, this sexual violence is taking place in a broader context as well. Like, that’s not the only privilege that they’re claiming all of the time. And the one that particularly stood out to me in this regard is the the revolt of Athena, which I never really heard of before reading your article, as you said, it’s the lesser known. So thinking about what the slaves might have been trying to achieve through their actions, you know, more broadly speaking, because I know that during that particular revolt, they take all sorts of crazy actions, you wouldn’t expect slaves to, you know, to be able to take or to even maybe want to take in trying to, you know, set themselves up in a new way of life after their revolt. Yeah,

Katharine Huemoeller 16:49
this is a really interesting one. So supposedly, they, they sort of enact a number of reforms. It’s actually very, it’s very legalistic, rather than, you know, crazy violence, right. So one of the things they do is they become senators, they set up a sort of their own Senate. Another thing they do is they sort of rewrite the rules of inheritance. And it’s a little unclear, either they become the heirs to their former owners, or they write their own wills, it’s not clear which one and then they also rewrite the rule of stupid, which is illicit sex in Roman law. So this is technically happening in an attractive city, but extremely Roman. And always. And so what they say is that a free woman is is not allowed to get married to a free man, until an enslaved man has, has had sex with her first, which is just an extremely strange reform, and is again clearly linked to these ideas about what masculinity is and how to punish free men. And this is the sort of ultimate punishment right to make them marry a woman over whom they’ve had no control over her chastity or sexual virtue.

Dr G 18:05
I think this also tells us something about the nature of what our written sources, perhaps fear most, they’re kind of writing a narrative about, like, what are they most afraid of happening to them? If the slaves succeed? This is not a narrative of how slaves might have pursued their own freedom or how they would have defined it. I don’t know if I was a slave, I’d want to be my first task would be inheritance law, for instance.

Katharine Huemoeller 18:30
Right? Yeah, absolutely. This is like all of these sources are about what free people fear, they, I think have give us almost nothing about what actually happened with these revolts, or what the enslaved people want. But yeah, what’s so notable about about their desires, as represented in these sources is that they just want to be the free men, they want to take over all of their life and their privileges and their wives and their daughters. There is nothing in these accounts, hardly about enslaved women, or children. Right. So the idea here is that these men, when they sort of take control of society, they want to marry the wives of their former owners. That is not like what we see, for example, in Roman comedy, which is from a similar time period, right in which matrons are like gross, no one wants. They’re not. They’re not like objects of desire, right? But in these narratives, they are like, these are the women who are raped or taken as wives by these by these freed slaves. And so what we’re seeing there definitely is intended to show what emasculation looks like, I think in the Roman worlds, that’s what’s feared. And of course, you get that in the military context, right? The slaves are actually winning battles against the Romans. That’s really embarrassing to and emasculating. And now we also see sort of what’s emasculating in the private sphere in the home, or in the domestic sphere. Well, it’s

Dr Rad 19:58
so fascinating that you mentioned this, but because we one of the categories that we use in our show, when we’re ranking, the Romans performance when we’re doing a narrative is where source. So this inherently masculine, you know, like value, I suppose you’d call it or quality. And we try and think of that as obviously the, in a way, it’s like that right to take action, and to do so in a particular way. And it kind of ties into what you’re talking about, I think a little bit here about what the slaves are trying to claim potentially.

Katharine Huemoeller 20:32
Yeah, absolutely. It’s, it’s definitely where to send the Roman the Roman definition of virtue of manliness, the ability to dictate what gets done to other people, all of these other people who are subordinate to the, you know, the free male head of household. And I think that this is really encapsulated in one other event from these revolts that we haven’t talked about, which is a very another very strange one. It is the slave supposedly throw a funeral for a free captive matron, who has committed suicide, because she was raped by these slave rebels. And then to make this inversion even stronger, they force the men to perform the free men who are also captive here to perform gladiatorial combat, in honour of this woman at her funeral, because initially, that’s where gladiatorial combat came from, it was a funeral thing. And so, you know, they’re putting the men obviously in the position that they once were as gladiators. But they’re also forcing them to, you know, to participate in this sort of strange mourning of this woman who they should have been able to protect but failed to.

Dr G 21:49
Yeah, it’s a complicated situation for everybody to be in, I mean, the woman and what she went through that led her to her committing suicide, the situation where the roles have been reversed with the slaves and the Romans, and then the gladiatorial lair of a formal mourning process.

Katharine Huemoeller 22:09
And yeah, yeah, especially an interesting story. That’s so yeah, ripe for analysis. I mean, she’s very much the woman is like, very much like this Lucretia figure, right?

Dr Rad 22:18
Yeah. And so they that particular incident that you’re talking about, I believe, takes place allegedly, in the third serve our war, or the Spartacus revolts, whatever you want to call it. And I believe it comes from a source, a rosiest? Yeah, who’s writing a lot later, who’s actually writing in a Christian context. And I think that this kind of highlights not that this is something that you’re necessarily focusing on. But this sort of highlights, I suppose the issues that you must encounter with the varying kinds of source material that you’re working with for the sorts of incidents?

Katharine Huemoeller 22:50
Oh, yeah, that’s a huge problem. You’re using a Christian source to look at sexual norms in the Roman world. It’s gonna be quite different. Certainly, then, you know, Salas, for example, who’s you know, writing in the Roman Republic, the sources for these revolts, especially, you know, as we’ll go on to talk about for, you know, the presence of enslaved women and these revolts or the participation of women, these revolts there, so fragmentary and problematic, they’ve come down to us by chance, often, and they just kind of feel like they got in there by chance. Like, we weren’t even supposed to know about this. Yeah.

Dr G 23:27
Yeah. Like, I feel like I’ve got a question forming that’s related to the way that women are represented in these in these source materials. I mean, it’s partly the Euros Yes, question, I suppose in that sort of like that Christian framing, although I do love a good a rose. Yes, he does a lot of things that we don’t get to wear. But that sense in which none of these sources seem to really consider a woman’s perspective. They’re always a sort of utilitarian device in these narratives. And I’m wondering how much we can actually get out what it might have been like for these women, either as enslaved peoples, or ones who were free and become part of these enslaved narratives through these sorts of revolts with this role reversal stuff going on? Yeah,

Katharine Huemoeller 24:15
it’s really tough. The women and the stories, both free and enslaved women are very much sort of instruments of male competition, you know, violence. Yeah, just they’re sort of communicate with each other through these women is how I see it. And that’s true of the free women and the enslaved women. So when it comes to trying to understand their experience of revolt, their role and participation in it, we kind of have to work against what our sources are doing frequently. So that’s kind of a project I’m working on now is trying to understand the role of, of women in these revolts. It’s quite clear that there were women present In all of these revolts, enslaved women present in the revolts because they kind of creep into the sources just occasionally. So you just get these sort of casual asides about them, which are very tantalising. And then so I’m trying to sort of use each of these very, you know, casual references, and you focus in on it and try to unpack what it can tell us about women and these revolts. So I could we could go through a few of them if you’d like, because they’re really fascinating.

Dr Rad 25:28
I really hoping that this is the part where you’re going to bring up the women who apparently separated themselves from the Spartacan army because they’re almost exactly my favourite.

Katharine Huemoeller 25:36
They are my favourite example. We have to excitingly we have two references to this one incident, probably the same incident, where these two women are separated from the rest of the Spartacan army. They’re on a hill of sorts. And they’re doing something on that hill. And from the vantage point of the hill, they see the Roman army approaching, trying to stage an ambush, and they sound the alarm and the ambush fails. So what’s so interesting about this, the sources that are this incident is that the two writers who record it, record different reasons for why the women are up there. So Salas, who’s writing in the Republic tells us that the women were Adminster Russell window, which is you a phrase used in other texts, in reference to menstruation. But it basically means like carrying out their monthly things, duties,

Dr Rad 26:30
rituals, women’s business.

Katharine Huemoeller 26:33
Yes, exactly.

Dr G 26:36
Just up on the hill doing what,

Katharine Huemoeller 26:38
we don’t want to get too detailed about it, but there and then Plutarch, writing later, and probably looking at Sallust says that the two women are up there sacrificing or carrying out some sort of religious ritual. These things aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, right? They might be carrying out some sort of monthly ritual.

Dr G 26:56
Look, I feel like in the ancient world, if I was menstruating, I would definitely want to have a ritual associated with that of some kind and be like, Gods what’s going on? Yeah, it’s been days. When does this stop?

Katharine Huemoeller 27:07
Yeah, yeah. But once you do it in the middle of a revolt,

Dr G 27:13
like it’s tough, and it’s like, you know, if you hang out with the revolt, and you’re down on the ground, and it’s happening, and the men are turning to you being like, Are you wounded? And you’re like, I am? I am. That’s definitely what’s happening here. Like the enemies no where here. And there is definitely a situation, I don’t know what to tell you. Like, maybe it would be easier to go up the hill and be like, you know, I just need some respite from this revolt. These guys. I don’t know.

Katharine Huemoeller 27:38
Yeah. And I’m gonna take a friend with me here, the two of us are going off. Yeah, I mean, this. So this is a perfect example of the way these women sort of creep into our sources, because the only reason we even know about the stylist is that tiny fragment was excerpted for grammatical reasons. They liked the reference that women are Gallic, and there’s this weird word for Gallic in it. So they’re accepted by this later group, Marian. And then we have one single manuscript that preserves this reference by the Grimm Aryan. So that is how these women come down to us, like, by so many different elements of chance, and without the stylus, we would really not understand what foods are. So it’s just like, they’ve kind of slipped into the record, I like to think of it that way. And, and so it’s exciting opportunity for us to, to think about, you know, in what other ways they’ve slipped in, but also like, all of the ways that they’re missing, but clearly there. So in this case, you know, my, what I think is so funny about this account is like, this is basically a very embarrassing situation for the Romans, they are already engaged in a war against enslaved people, which is embarrassing, and then they’re, they’re, you know, about to, you know, have this ambush and to women. Foreign enslaved women are the ones that spy

Dr Rad 28:57
on their periods like, yeah, it’s

Katharine Huemoeller 29:00
Just like the worst of the worst for them, right?

Dr G 29:03
Yeah, it’s hitting me, right in my virtus as a Roman man, I don’t know.

Katharine Huemoeller 29:08
Talk about virtus, exactly. Like, of course, to me. Of course, these writers want to explain their presence. In other ways. They don’t want to say, hey, they were up there scouting, and they were successful.

Dr G 29:21
Yeah, these women were actually great at reconnaissance. And that’s why we sent them up there. And their sole job was to like, watch for the Army coming. And boy, did they nail that assignment?

Katharine Huemoeller 29:31
Exactly, exactly. Instead, they’re like, well, they just happened to be up there. And like, you know, they were very lucky that they saw us, you know, and that’s the other thing. It’s like, why would why do we trust Plutarch or stylist to tell us with us? I remember doing I mean, it’s crazy talk about like, you know, who has authority to tell us information? The Roman army would have maybe they would know they had been spied right. But they would have no idea like by who or why I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.

Dr G 29:57
Oh, come on. There’s gotta be somebody from ancient Rome Entertainment Tonight interviewing people afterwards. Like you were there. What did you see? What were you doing?

Katharine Huemoeller 30:06
Yeah, I mean, actually think that the most likely source is a cat a later captive, right? Because we know like Julius Caesar, for example, regularly interrogated captives to ask like what happened to them? And you know so so that’s kind of interesting. But yeah, I just love this this incidence of you know what, to me very clearly is these women you know having a strategic role essentially in the military and instead are explained away for other reasons.

Dr Rad 30:32
He reminds me of one of my favourite scenes from Parks and Recreation, where the whole gang from Parks and Rec are out on a shooting trip, someone gets shot accidentally. And a polis character is trying to cover for how that’s happened by taking responsibility herself because she has a gun licence and the person who did it doesn’t. And so when she’s being interviewed by the Ranger, or the sheriff, or whatever, she’s like, I don’t know, I’m wearing this bra that like open at the front, and it just threw me I want chocolate. I love my period, bitches be crazy.

Katharine Huemoeller 31:05
Every possible

Dr Rad 31:07
everything related to him and every stereotype at it, you’ll it’ll land, it’ll land. And actually, I

Katharine Huemoeller 31:12
should note too, like, it’ll lands not only with an ancient audience, but with a modern one. Because What’s so weird about this source is that there is actually no attestation of menstrual seclusion. As a practice, no, in the West, like, that is not a thing. And yet everybody’s like, Oh, there it is. So we knew it was happening here, too. And you’re like, What is this the source we’re gonna use for this? Really?

Dr G 31:34
You’re one fragment that’s from a single source. Good luck, guys. Yeah.

Dr Rad 31:42
So interesting. And then of course, the other woman that we we can’t neglect to talk about is Spartacus’ wife, very intriguing character.

Katharine Huemoeller 31:51
I was about to say Varinia. But then it was like, wait, no,

Dr Rad 31:53
I was about to say exactly the same thing. Because to me, she is for any issue will always be Varinia, yes. But if we’re going by the ancient source material, the nameless woman that is known as Spartacus is why

Katharine Huemoeller 32:05
exactly, yeah, we have we here plutonic that Spartacus, basically it’s sort of Plutarch introducing Spartacus as a character, a person and he says that he came from Thrace, and that he had a wife with him, who prophesized that he would be, you know, a great force, essentially, by seeing a snake curled up around his head, I think, and this was taking place in, you know, the slave market, and then somehow that they actually wound up together at the gladiatorial school, because he also, Plutarch also says that she was with him when he escaped, or she took part in the escape. So that’s interesting, because it suggests right, that this idea that, you know, they were together for a longer period of time, and that they somehow managed to stay together. Yeah. Yeah. I think that fact especially has attracted a lot of attention and made them like kind of a good opportunity for romance, essentially. Because for a story, right, because it’s so such an interesting, unusual detail.

Dr Rad 33:04
Absolutely. And she’s such a, she’s become so much a part of Spartacus as legend, I suppose in subsequent interpretations as well. She’s been really fully fleshed out. But we have so little about her apart from the fact that she might have been, like some sort of profit tests. And that Yeah, and that she managed to stay by his side, which just seems so unlikely in given what we know about slave auctions and gladiatorial schools, it just seems so rare that they would still be together.

Katharine Huemoeller 33:34
This whole episode is we’re like, no, that didn’t happen. to happen. It didn’t happen. But I was curious Dr. G, what, like, just because the other element of her that’s interesting is right, that she’s this really yeah, she’s his profit figure. And then, you know, these other women that were part of the revolt were maybe, you know, engaged in sacrifice. So there is this sort of like aura of religiosity around these women. I was wondering what your take on that was, as you know, someone who’s looked at?

Dr G 34:01
Yeah, look, I think it’s really fascinating the way that when women crop up in narratives, it’s one of the ways that’s acceptable for them to do so is through the practice of ritual. And what we’re seeing is that this pertains not just to Roman women, but to non Roman women as well, because the in all of these cases, we’re dealing with, presumably enslaved women who have at this stage by the time we’re in the Spartacus war period when we’re talking about foreign slaves, really. And so we get that weird sort of sense. But it also, I feel like this taps back into like, really ancient narratives and stuff, and I feel like the figure that pops out to me at the moment, mostly because I’ve been working on the Roman kings is Tana Quill, and this idea, so she’s the Prophet Hess. She can read the auspices and she ends up being able to prophesize the role of her husband, Lucia Tarquinius, Priscus well, before he get gets into power. And so this kind of sense in which Romans explain unusual rises to power and shifts in power through the divine, and not just through the divine, but through a female interpretation of the acts of gods. And so those women up on the hill, maybe it was the ritual, and Renea, my flesh, rabbit. Maybe it was the ritual, although I don’t know how anyone could possibly explain her being in that gladiatorial school as being like a realistic idea about the narrative. But so I’m really fascinated to understand more about gladiatorial schools to be like, do they always just take the ladies with them to keep them happy? Or something? I don’t know. Do they come as pairs? I’m looking around. And but yeah, this idea of direct line between like Women’s Action, informing men’s action through ritual understanding in the middle, it’s really common. And I think it’s partly because of that patriarchal framing of like, one way to women fit in this society, and it’s not at all clear. And God’s being somewhat unexplainable, like women, God,

Katharine Huemoeller 36:11
both unexplained, mysterious. Yeah, I think that’s definitely that, that that makes a lot of sense to me. And it’s, I think putting that the religious aura of Spartacus, in the context of the slave revolts is important, too, because a number of this sort of leading figures are said to have this some sort of religious significance or prophetic charismatic, fire, breathing, whatever, in whatever way it manifests itself. And so in some ways that actually may have been a really important part of Spartacus is leadership of this revolt. And she’s clearly an important part of that. And yet, her significance to the revolt Overall, though, is still really slim with it. So it’s kind of interesting, because you could think, oh, this made her a really key part of the revolt, because, you know, his charisma is really significant to the revolt success. And yet, you know, it’s she’s only associated with him at the moment of breaking out and then we don’t hear what if she’s involved in the revolt for as it grows larger and larger and more significant, she drops out of the narrative altogether. So it kind of minimises her role by placing her at the very beginning, even though there’s a possibility that that prophecy was actually really significant to the level.

Dr G 37:27
And it also helps, I think, from a Roman perspective, to really explain why things don’t go their way. And having those sorts of prophecies. It really taps into that sense of like, well, we didn’t make a mistake. We’re Romans, the gods were against us.

Dr Rad 37:43
Yes, good point. Well, I mean, it kind of depends as well on what their background is potentially like, if if Spartacus was genuinely Thracian, not fought as a Thracian. Maybe she was also Thracian. And so it’s just there’s so many question marks, though, about whether they actually weren’t any of this. But certainly, in relation to your earlier question, Dr. G, it’s not out of the question, obviously, that there are women who are being used for sexual purposes in a gladiatorial school. Certainly, if you became a highly prized successful gladiator you earned, you know, more privileges in the greater terrorist gladiatorial school where you were staying, you know, you could actually be like, somewhat tolerable, apart from the fact that you had to, you know, fight for your life and that kind of thing. But I don’t know whether a new recruit to a gladiatorial school will have earned any such privilege. And so I guess it just sort of, it must be chance if it actually happened, although I’ve also highly dubious about whether it did, but it must be chance that she also just happened to be what they were looking for in terms of, you know, like pitch and stuff. Or maybe they did want her for sexual purposes. Like, who knows. But yeah, whatever the purpose was, it must have been purely accidental. There is no way they’d be doing Spartacus anything. That’s yeah,

Katharine Huemoeller 39:01
and especially the way it’s represented in Plutarch is that they are captured together, right? They come from the same place, and then they that’s why they’re together and the slave market. And then it’s like, almost like they’re bought in a lot.

Dr Rad 39:13
Exactly. Yeah. That’s very possible. Yeah. But it does seem a little a little weird for a gladiatorial school to be like yeah, man, women. Yeah, whatever. We’ll take them all. Yeah, yeah. Cuz this is before the time when it’s common for women to be fighting in the arena, so she wouldn’t have been bought for that purpose. So yeah, strange. Very strange. Yeah, but ripe for fictionalisation. Right? Yeah. Well, that’s just said I was thinking like, I spend a lot of my academic career being like, where is vernia? Why isn’t she more prominent, speaking to you just and it made me realise that actually, it’s really pretty accurate for her to drop out of the store. But it’s my sister button for modern purposes. I constantly am like, Why isn’t she more fun of the story? Why has history are being downgraded? You know, why isn’t she represented the way that she was originally intentioned by Howard Fassler novelists, you know?

Katharine Huemoeller 40:09
Well, that’s, you know what? Yeah, that’s what’s so interesting, I think about this idea that she was a prophet test because, you know, when she does appearance in fiction, and you can speak more to this, because I can’t now I don’t know exactly the distinction between the script and the way the movie, I only know the movie, the way Spartacus 1960 ends up representing her, but, you know, she is she’s a completely domestic figure, at least in the second part of the movie during the revolt itself, important as you know, a vessel for bearing a child essentially. And so that’s so different actually, from from the, you know, her significance in Plutarch.

Dr Rad 40:46
That is, I mean, I think this is where the TV show by stars plays more with her religious role. You know, it’s a, they go back, because they have more time to play with obviously, they kind of start before the revolt, obviously. And they make Spartacus and auxilary. And they, they give him a whole backstory about why he turns against Rome and all that kind of stuff. And she’s a part of that story. Her death is a part of that story. But her prophecy about how he’s going to achieve like great and glorious things and, and the snake. It’s a theme that goes throughout the whole series, because she is his motivation. And those words are constantly going back to so they make something of that angle in the TV series. But they don’t really talk about that angle very much in the Howard first novel that was used as the basis for the 1960 film. And they don’t really in all of the various versions of the script. The religious side is not really what she’s known for. But she is actually a very significant figure in how it fasts novel, because his novel is told entirely through flashback. So Spartacus is dead by the time you start reading the book, and it’s told through the memories of Varinia, and David, the Jewish guy, who’s also one of Spartacus, his crew. And so it’s really told through her through her reminiscences a lot of the time, and she’s the one that like in the movie ends up surviving goes on to have children and it’s through her and her children that the legend of Spartacus is kept alive. But she’s she’s very significant in terms of being represented as very fierce. So unlike Spartacus, who is born into slavery, and like his life is pretty dreary from the beginning. Varinia has, Varinia is more a person who earlier versions of scripture has been free, and then becomes a slave. And so she fights back like there, there were scenes that were meant to be shown of the slave, the owner of the slave school raping her and her fiercely resisting. And that’s why he gives her to Spartacus, because he couldn’t physically overpower her or at least not to his satisfaction, like it’s, it’s a bit unclear, like they don’t always see obviously, it’s like we see the attack, we see the fight, and then we see her or bruised and stuff. In some versions, I think she’s meant to have been raped in some versions not. So the way it all plays out. It’s really crazy. And then once you get into the actual scripts, they have all these different versions of what she was meant to be in some versions, she was actually meant to be really highly educated. And she teaches Spartacus to read. Yeah, yeah, they. So there’s, there’s all these sorts of things. But certainly in the in the early versions of the script, you see what you see in the Howard first novel, which is that she’s a fighter, she actually there’s actually a line from the Howard fosse novel, which always stands out to me, she says, I can fight like a man can fight. And she’s, she’s definitely portrayed as being at the forefront of these attacks is like this, almost like Valkyrie, like, you know, kind of figure. And when the slaves in the novel erect this big statue to themselves to sort of commemorate who they are, they have representations of all the men from different ethnicities, but then they also have the figure of a woman, and that’s meant to be Varinia. So she’s, she’s definitely like the mother of the slave revolt. But as they get further and further into the script development, her character receives less and less attention, and she does sort of drop out a little bit, and what you’re left with, there are elements of the novel. So her being this figure of fascination for any man that meets her, you know, Batiatus, Spartacus, Crassus, Gracchus, they all fall in love with her. That’s retained, but she’s made much more passive. And it was actually something that the screenwriter, when he first saw the first kind of the film, he rebelled against it. He’s like, what the hell this is not the Varinia that I envisioned and where all the other slave women they just like disappeared, and so they actually did reshoots to add in more families, more slave women more Varinia but I think because of the nature of the ratios, she did end up becoming this What I like to call Stepford Varinia type character?

Katharine Huemoeller 45:03
Yeah, yeah. Cuz the, these, these scenes they interspersed are like, women like doing the laundry in the river, you know, during the revolts, and these, like, very domestic.

Dr Rad 45:14
Yeah. Which I mean, to be fair, again, if I’m, if I’m being fair, obviously, it’s not like, in the Roman world, it’s not like that wouldn’t have been the kinds of things that women would have been doing if they were attached to a slave army. But it is disappointing when you know, how she could have been represented, I suppose, as this, like she only really stops fighting in some of the earlier versions of the script, because she gets pregnant.

Katharine Huemoeller 45:36
Right, right. It’s so interesting to hear that, that there was this distinction made between them, where she was the person who had experienced freedom and therefore was considered to be sort of more, you know, was willing to rebel more, because that’s, that is, you know, sort of that’s kind of a debated topic, like some of the scholarship on the slave revolt says that one of the reasons these happened in this period was because a lot of the people who are being trafficked and you know, into slavery are recently free, and that they like have this sort of memory of freedom, or, you know, impetus for it that other people who are born into slavery might not have, which I don’t think bears out historically. I’ve also recently published an article that argues that, you know, many of the people who are enslaved in Conquest were already enslaved in other contexts, right in other cities, because they’re the people who are most likely to be trafficked to be taken captive and trafficked, a lot of the male, you know, free combatants are killed. And it’s women, both enslaved and free, and enslaved men, elderly people that are the ones who are taken captive. And so I think just because these people are recently sold in, you know, Italy or Sicily, that doesn’t mean that they were free in their lifetime, necessarily, nor does that mean that you would like, be more, you know, willing to revolt necessarily, I think

Dr G 47:02
Some of this must be about like, what are the suitable conditions for a revolt to take place? Like, yeah, like, there’s the moment of becoming enslaved whenever that might happen, whether you’re born into slavery, or whether you’re captured, and you have this understanding of our freedom. But I think it would be very naive to assume that people born into slavery don’t have an idea about freedom. What conditions would permit a moment where you’re like, Okay, this is this is the time to stand up and and take that risk, because it is a risk.

Dr Rad 47:32
Yeah, look, I think it has a little bit to do with a quick of how I’d fast novels, or how I fast I was attracted to write about Spartacus because of the connection with the revolts, or attempted coup that took place in Germany in 1919. And he started looking into Spartacus and he decided that he was going to make Spartacus, someone who was born into slavery as someone who had worked in the mines most of his life. Now, anybody who knows anything about slavery, whilst you might say, whilst we might not know anything about Spartacus, a backstory that we can definitively prove, I think it’s safe to say we all know that slaves in the mines do not live for really long periods of time. So the idea that he would have somehow been a slave working in the mines, like, basically his whole life or something like that. It just, it doesn’t make sense. But it’s something that they played with, I think, in the various versions of the movie in terms of making Spartacus, someone who was born into slavery, they had all sorts of different ideas about how they were going to start the movie, they were always going to start in the minds like they do. But yeah, either way, I think it’s a quirk from Howard fast, which is probably one of his less credible interpretations of the material.

Katharine Huemoeller 48:48
That’s really interesting. Do you think that there was that, you know, he wanted him to be why did he want him to be born into slavery was this idea that he had to be slowly shown another way to live?

Dr Rad 48:59
I think that was part of it in a way. Part of the part of the thing about Spartacus is that he learns from other people like he learns from people like David Perdue, who he comes into contact with, but I think it’s meant to be his nature. His his nature, and the nature of Ernie or the nature of all the slaves is meant to somehow be in stark contrast to the Romans, almost like it’s something genetic, though they are meant to represent the right way of life, which is that men and women come together because they love each other. They have to have children, they take an interest in raising those children. It’s it’s heterosexual. And the Romans, on the other hand, everything’s perverted. So they might not have children at all. If they do. They’re not interested in them. They’re not interested in family life. That’s not their thing. They take part in all sorts of twisted sexual practices. Now I say that in the sense of 1950s contexts which for a 1950s context involved homosexuality, but also incest

Katharine Huemoeller 50:07
And the women choosing which gladiator to watch.

Dr Rad 50:12
That’s that, yeah, that kind of thing. Exactly. So everything about them is meant to be like kind of impure debauch deviant, whereas everything about the slaves is meant to be much more pure. And I think that’s, and it’s also because he’s he’s offering a commentary. I mean, he was a communist. He is he’s offering a commentary on the way that industry and business contributes to this corruption of the soul. So he has actually like some quite lengthy passages where he talks about, I think it’s crisis’s perfume business. Because you do, but yeah, so it’s meant to be about obviously, like, the way that wealth works in each society, and what each society is valuing and how they’re treating workers and the class system. It’s all of these kinds of things, which is why the slaves are meant to be kind of more pure, and the way that they the way that they erected the statue, it’s obviously very, like Soviet Union, in terms of, you know, putting up that kind of imagery of themselves.

Dr G 51:17
We need a monument. Quick, somebody

Dr Rad 51:19
Yeah, exactly.

Katharine Huemoeller 51:21
And that that actually works really well with those scenes from the movie then where there’s these kind of, it’s sort of like this idyllic pastoral existence, like they’re engaged in the middle of a revolt, but they’re, like, you know, taught like singing around a fire and out in the fields. And well, and

Dr Rad 51:37
that’s very much, that’s very much how Howard Fast had envisioned the slave society is being like faily. It is like proto communist, you know, that’s exactly how he envisioned is everything working, even the way that he imagines men and women coming together, women are supposed to be able to choose their sexual partners, they’re not just like claimed by another, Gladiator or another man, just because, well, we’re out of the gladiator school, but you’re still a woman, and I still get to say what you do, he still has this vision of people being able to choose, and that includes women being able to choose who they cohabit with, and who they have sex with, as part of their whole,

Dr G 52:14
As long as it fits the heteronormative status quo…

Dr Rad 52:18
As long as that does that. Yeah.

Katharine Huemoeller 52:21
I mean, it’s so interesting that even though, you know, the reasons that these scenes wound up in the movie contemporary to his era, and very historical, in the end, one thing that the movie does, that I think is more true in some ways, is it does indicate, you know, it represents other people and engage in revolt besides just the, you know, enslaved adult men. And so, I mean, not that I think it accurately represents what their women might be were doing necessarily, or whatever, in the revolt, but it does, it just adds new people to the scene. And so that I think that that then can make you think, as a historian think, Okay, well, is there any truth to that? What were these people doing? And, and this, you know, goes beyond just the experience of enslaved women to just to think about when, you know, these rebel armies are, you know, moving up and down all over Italy? And what is the experience of everyone in in this context of revolt, right, the people who are in the town where the rebels arrive in the rebel army, this is obviously something that’s going to affect everyone in society. But we don’t often consider right, everyone.

Dr Rad 53:35
Well, definitely, as you said, the Spartacus slave revolt does manage to last for a couple of years. And therefore, we know that there are women part as part of this collective that have gathered behind Spartacus and the other slave leaders. It is certainly not out of the question that people are having sex, women are getting pregnant women are giving birth, you know, like, it’s not another question that that is happening,

Katharine Huemoeller 54:01
Or that families joined it to begin with, because, you know, we know that what’s happening on these agricultural estates that, you know, although are the writers tend to talk mostly about enslavement on these estates? You know, historians have done work already to reveal that women were absolutely there. And children were absolutely there. They’re just not the focus of the agricultural treatises. Right. But so, you know, in that case, are they you know, what is their relationship to these revolts as the rebels move through? Are they joining? Are they assisting their owners in hiding them, right? They have to make choices essentially, there’s no way to stay neutral. And I think you know, that that is that does come out of the narrative ancient narratives, right? There’s a story in the Spartan revolt where the slave rebels enter a town and it talks about how many in the town were sympathetic allies to the slaves and basically people had to make a choice whether they were going to reveal where their masters were hiding or you know, help them hide right it it was not On a possibility to remain neutral. Yeah, then we have to think okay, so then what is the experience or revolt like for all these people?

Dr Rad 55:06
Yeah. And that’s that’s something that has was toyed with in there’s actually there were actually two Spartacus movies that were going to be made based on two Spartacus novels that came out around the same time or early 20th century. So we had the one by how fast which becomes the Kirk Douglas movie and then we’ve got the one by Arthur Koestler, which was meant to be made into a Spartacus film called the gladiators, but didn’t end up happening because of character, Douglas’ project. But in there’s an interesting crossover with these, which is some of the stuff that I’ve looked at where the director of Spartacus 1960s to cook Douglas protect Stanley Kubrick became interested in the novel by Arthur Koestler, which was meant to be the basis of the other film. So there’s all sorts of weird crossovers between them. But certainly, in the novels in the various versions of the films, there are scenes that were toyed with about the slave men having conversations about, look, these women and children and old people is slowing us down. Like what are we going to do about this? And so they have toyed with these sorts of questions about how do you actually deal with a revolt? And certainly there, there certainly were going to be scenes and whether other movie, I can’t actually remember which one at the moment, I’m pretty sure it was Spartacus, 1960, where they actually had conflicts between the slave leaders over the question of whether they actually just welcome anybody or whether they only welcome those who can fight.

Dr G 56:28
So thinking about this situation for the slave revolt and their organisation? Isn’t this presumably just as problematic fit any kind of armed force, like logistics in the ancient world depends on the people. And you’ve always got this sort of, presumably entourage that has men and women, in addition to the fighters themselves, in which case, you possibly if you’re on a really significant campaign, there may be births involved there as well. And it’s like an armed forces, not just dudes wandering around with their swords out just waiting to reach the battlefield, I don’t think and so this logistics issue that the slaves are facing is presumably the same kind of logistical issue that the Roman army proper might also be facing conceivably in different points in time,

Dr Rad 57:20
I think. So I think the difference is that obviously, the Roman army is supposed to be helped by the state, you know, they’ve got this additional backup of baby, maybe they’re helping with food supply, depending on where they’re fighting, of course. But logistically, there’s like backup, whereas I suppose for a slave rebel force, they’re constantly having to look out for potential attack people turning on them. And I guess they’re not necessarily going to have like a bunch of trained fighters, whereas the Roman army presumably has a reasonable amount of men who have seen battle or have been trained,

Dr G 57:59
and maybe not supply lines, you know, just kind of a wandering force.

Katharine Huemoeller 58:04
I think you’re right, though. I think you’re right, that that that is an issue, because, you know, there is quite a lot of concern about camp followers called, and, you know, marriage bans, right, like there is a there is there are attempts throughout human history to sort of control outside of the army and like concerns about that slowing them down and messing with discipline as well.

Dr Rad 58:25
Yeah. And I think to be fair, although I’m, I’m really speaking off the cuff here, because it’s been a little while since I’ve looked over my material. But I have a feeling that part of the arguments, and at least one of the things they imagined was actually about, do we accept fighters. So we’re sick of accepting agricultural workers, whether they’re men or women who are coming to join us, because they imagine that there’s, you know, a core group of gladiators who know how to fight. And so I think it was partly about that some of the time or their training then their gender or their age. But they also played with those questions, obviously, of children and the elderly, and women in particular, slowing people down. But yeah, I mean,

Katharine Huemoeller 59:13
that is true to the ancient sources, too. And that the way slavers thought about women was as a way to actually attach men to the estate to reduce the chances of rebellion. Women were thought of as like instruments in that way to you know, have control that men would be less likely to revolt if they have wives if they have children. Right. So the agricultural writers are very attuned to that dynamic. And I think that’s one reason that they don’t conceive of women as participating in the revolt because they’re supposed to be doing the opposite, right?

Dr Rad 59:47
Yeah, exactly.

Dr G 59:49
You were supposed to save us from a vote.

Dr Rad 59:53
Yeah, exactly. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. Obviously, this could be an entire episode in itself because Varinia is endlessly fascinating, or the character of Spartacus, his wife is endlessly fascinating. She’s had many, many different names, and many, many iterations where she had no name at all.

Dr G 1:00:13
I suspect it’s probably a good time to wrap up. So we’ve got one final question. So when we were talking about you, in the introduction, we noted that you have a background that’s not just in academia, which is, you know, cool and interesting. You know, some people have a very straight path, and some people don’t. And so, you know, the paths into these sorts of things, I think, are really fascinating. And we’re interested in your work in the nonprofit sector, and also how that might have impacted the direction you took when you came back into academia?

Katharine Huemoeller 1:00:47
Yeah, absolutely. I left university unsure what I wanted to do. But knowing that I was passionate about reproductive justice in particular, and gender equity. And so I worked for a few years in the nonprofit world, working on contemporary issues. And it didn’t end up being what I wanted to do long term. But it definitely informed my interest in the ancient world. So when I decided to go back to graduate school, it took a little while before I could combine these interests, of course, you know, not in Greek lit survey so much. But eventually, when I got to, you know, choose my own research projects, I wanted to do something that touches on these these long issues of gender inequities, and in particular, reproductive injustice. And so I, I became really interested in Roman slavery, and the path and currently I’m most interested in particular in the hereditary nature of Roman slavery, and the fact that it goes through the maternal line. And I’m interested in how that shapes the experiences of enslaved women, what kinds of sexual and reproductive exploitation that leads to. That’s why I’m so fascinated by for example, right? That this idea that in the movie, Spartacus is supposed to be born of an enslaved woman that’s like the opening lines of the 1960 movie, right? Or is that a woman I think it’s something like a woman gave birth to a child, and that increased her masters a state and that child was Spartacus. And, and you know that it’s fascinating to me that that’s in this movie, because that’s actually not really in the scholarship. We don’t we don’t talk that much about the importance of maternal dissent in slavery. So that’s absolutely shaped by my experience in the nonprofit world. And by thinking about how legal systems shape inequities in society, and and also what people do within, you know, the actors within legal systems, how to slavers, choose slaving strategies, knowing that women will bear enslaved children.

Dr G 1:02:50
It’s really interesting, isn’t it? Because just thinking about what you’re saying at the moment about the maternal line, because we know that’s the easiest way to measure a line. And it’s like, you know, a woman grows, and then all of a sudden, it’s like, oh, yeah, and there’s a cord attached for a little while. You’re like, yep, that that one definitely came from me. Exactly. Yeah.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:03:10
In Roman law, it’s the the only the mother is ever truly known.

Dr G 1:03:16
Yeah, exactly. And so it’s like, it’s like, there’s never really any doubt about the mother, and yet Roman society and many, so societies, like from a Western perspective that sort of grown out from that, a very patriarchal, they’re like, No, we’ve always got to know who the dude is. And it’s like, do though, because it’s like, really easy, really easy if we just decided that the

Dr Rad 1:03:36
difficult thing,

Katharine Huemoeller 1:03:37
Yeah, that’s why they’re so anxious about protecting about women’s chastity, right? Because that is the way so for Roman citizens status is transmitted through the line of the Father, and that creates paternal power and, and legitimate air. And so for anyone who’s not a citizen, including enslaved people, but not only enslaved people, which status transmitted through the mother, but that, you know, that is what comparatively looking at slavery over time and space. That’s not the only pattern of transmission. It’s the one that was used during the TransAtlantic slave system, slave trade. And so it’s one that’s very, I think, present in most of our minds, but actually, sometimes status is passed through the parent of highest status, or lowest status, or whatever household they’re in, or there’s lots of possible patterns of status transmission, and they all had rippling effects on the experience of being enslaved. Yeah, definitely.

Dr G 1:04:31
I think it’s really fascinating because it’s kind of like there is always in operation, a two tiered system where there is the perceived status quo of patriarchy as like the right way from for being free and things like this. And then there’s all of the other systems that will fall under that which can be classified within slave strategies, and to see that the maternal line comes out so free Currently there and I was like, Oh, guys, you know, the real answer here is just, you know, patriarchy, maybe you could put that to the side a little bit, and you make it really easy for yourselves. But it obviously goes against something that’s really quite ingrained in Roman society and how they understand themselves, it’s just not possible for them to do something like that.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:05:18
Yeah. And what’s so what’s so interesting about it is that they see transmission to the maternal line as what is natural, that’s part of the you scan to my natural law, that’s what everyone does. But what Roman citizens do, right, the special privilege of Roman citizens is to have status transmitted through the Father. So that is like wrapped up in what it means to be a citizen and what and all these you know, special, this special treatment and special privileges you get with being a citizen, that’s a key one, it’s this transmission through the Father. And that’s kind of like, unnatural, it’s like part of Roman Civil lots, you know?

Dr G 1:05:53
Yeah, yeah. And it is obviously built into the all of the sort of adoption laws that are at play within the elite classes as well, where it’s like, well, we can we can rearrange your male line a little bit to make things a little bit easier here. And that’s sort of on theory legal.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:06:10
Exactly. But I mean, getting back to that, remember that crazy revolt at Volsini right, the idea that the slaves are, you know, wanting to reform the system of inheritance, like, to me that speaks to the significance of status transmission, right, this idea that, like they can decide who their heirs will be. That’s, you know, that is a privilege of, again, we’re two’s to Roman citizen masculinity. That’s, it’s just kind of wrapped in everywhere you look, all of a sudden you see it significance, I think,

Dr Rad 1:06:40
I guess it must be particularly interesting for you to be considering these issues at the moment, given the recent developments, which have been highly publicised all over the world in terms of control over reproductive rights in America.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:06:53
Yeah, absolutely. This, I would say that my present day informs this work in many different ways and informs my work because while I’m been writing this book, I’ve had two children. And so I’ve thought a lot about what it means to be a mother, how we can, you know, think about that over time and space, what reproduction looks like in different political contexts. Now, being in Canada, I’m in a very different political context than how I grew up. In the US. I’m very relieved not to be there right now, with the current climate and the current loss of reproductive autonomy for women* there, it’s hard for me to imagine myself being there or putting my children, my two daughters there, right, bringing them there. And so that all of that informed the way I look at the past. [* Dr. Huemoeller wishes to make a correction to what she said during the recording: people of all genders, not only women, are being stripped of reproductive autonomy in the US.]

Dr Rad 1:07:45
Definitely, well, we might wrap up on that note, but we hope very much that by the time we talk to you the next time because I’m sure that our research interests will cross paths again, that maybe the situation let’s call it over there has changed so that people have more rights rather than less.

Dr G 1:08:02
Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with us. We really appreciate it and such a fascinating topic of conversation.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:08
Thank you.

Dr Rad 1:08:09
Absolutely. Before we before we sign off, would you like to say anything about publications or where people can find you and your work?

Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:17
The best place to find me would be at my university website. So University of British Columbia, and you can search my name. I have a few recent articles out on these topics, if you’re interested in one that’s I think, particularly accessible is in the Journal of Roman studies. And it follows one woman’s story, one woman who was enslaved and then freed to marry her owner, and then ended up leaving him of sort of form of rebellion and was cursed for it. So it’s a really interesting personal story that I think helps you maybe sort of connect on an emotional level to the past, so that would be the one I would I would recommend.

Dr Rad 1:08:54
Well, I think we’ve got our next podcast collaboration topic. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Katharine Huemoeller 1:08:59
Thank you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The post Special Episode – Enslaved Women During Slave Revolts with Assistant Professor Katharine Huemoeller appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

Join Dr Rad as she reminiscences about one of her film favourites and pays tribute to the man that has unwittingly dominated her life for over a decade.

Special Episode – A Tribute to Kirk Douglas

2020 has been on my radar for a while, listeners, as it marks sixty years since the iconic movie Spartacus was released. However, just a few days before the Oscars, the star of this film has passed away at the age of 103. Given the helicopter crash, the strokes, it is amazing that he lived this long, but I still feel very melancholy that a film star of his stature is no more.

The Chin Dimple that COULD launch a thousand ships. Kirk Douglas’ magnificent face-acting during the famous ‘I’m Spartacus’ scene. Image courtesy of https://hollywoodrevue.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/simpson-sunday-cartoon-without-pity/

I have a strong affinity for Issur Danielovitch (Kirk Douglas) and not just because I grew up watching his movies (which I did). Loyal listeners will be aware that I ended up studying the production of Spartacus (1960), the historical film based on the famous slave revolt against Rome. As the titular hero, but more importantly as the producer of this film, Douglas played a key role in shaping the representation of the rebellious gladiator.

Indeed, it was quite an accomplishment that this movie made it to the screen at all, as film star/producer Yul Brynner was also championing a Spartacus project at the same time. On top of this rivalry, Douglas’ project was plagued with personality clashes and squabbles about the overall vision for the film. This led to constant changes to the script, and Douglas did little to contain this, earning the nickname ‘General Mixmaster’ on set.

Douglas in costume on set talking to his young, and not particularly well-known, director Stanley Kubrick. The men had worked together previously on Paths of Glory, but the tensions over Spartacus would cause a rift to open between them. Image courtesy of https://www.rapportoconfidenziale.org/?p=36320

However, it is undeniable that Douglas’ drive is one of the most important factors that led to the completion and success of this film in 1960.

The movie is largely remembered these days for the iconic ‘I’m Spartacus’ scene and its’ status as the film that finally broke the blacklist (in America at least). The real story about the breaking of the blacklist is a little more complicated, which you can read about here.

During this dark time in America, screenwriters were some of the only professionals in this environment who could potentially evade the restrictions placed on their employment. One such blacklistee, Dalton Trumbo, had been hired by Bryna (Douglas’ production company). Trumbo had been working tirelessly to see his name restored to the credits by the time he started writing the Spartacus script. Douglas probably did not intend to grant this desire during the early days, but he had changed his mind by the time of the premiere.

Kirk Douglas spent hours trying to get his scene on the cross just right. Whilst he may have been one of the causes of confusion on set, no one could question his dedication to Spartacus. Image courtesy of https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20161208_02615140

There were a variety of external pressures that went into this decision (cough cough Otto Preminger), and we shouldn’t imagine that after Spartacus, the blacklist vanished. Really, this was a sign that change was ahead. The blacklist lingered painfully into the 1960s, but the rebel gladiator had once again struck a blow for freedom.

Although there’s a lot more to the end of the blacklist than this one film, Douglas does indeed deserve a large share of the credit for making what was a bold decision for the time, and one that could have had unfortunate consequences for himself, Bryna Productions or Universal-International.

Farewell, Kirk Douglas, you charismatic egomaniac. Like Spartacus, you will not be soon forgotten.

If you enjoy learning about the 1950s in Hollywood, check out our previous episode on Spartacus and the blacklist series of You Must Remember This.

The post A Tribute to Kirk Douglas appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

We are super excited to announce that we sat down recently with Stephen Guerra, the host of the History of the Papacy Podcast to talk all about the classic 1951 sword-and-sandals film Quo Vadis.

This is a three way conversation with a variety of perspectives to enjoy. Stephen offers insights into the representation of Christianity. Dr Rad offers an intimate understanding of Rome in Hollywood cinema. Dr G has an eye for all things Roman politics.

Quo Vadis is a Latin phrase which translates as ‘Where are you going?’ and connects with the apocryphal story of Peter fleeing crucifixion in Rome. As he is leaving the city, Jesus appears to Peter in a vision. When Peter asks Quo vadis, Jesus confirms he is heading to Rome to be crucified again. The title of film alludes to the connections between ancient Rome and emerging Christian ideas.

This film deserves to be described as epic! From the MGM studio and filmed in technicolor, it ambitiously seeks to combine Roman history under the rule of Nero with a narrative of early Christianity. Although famous now for Peter Ustinov’s engaging performance as the emperor Nero, he was not the big ticket actor drawing audiences when the film was initially released. Bona fide Hollywood star Robert Taylor plays the lead role as the Roman soldier Marcus Vinicius and Deborah Kerr plays Lygia, the central Christian of this story.

Join us as we explore Quo Vadis from a variety of perspectives and consider things like:

• The origins of the film in Henryk Sienkiewicz’s novel
• The challenges of bringing this story to the silver screen
• Just how epic this film was in terms of sets and design
• Roman history on screen and how it shapes understanding
• Interpretations of the Christian-Roman conflict and conversion narrative
• The reception of the film through time

We send a huge thank you to Stephen for having us as guests on his show and for the editing and post-production work on this episode. This is also a first for us in the sense that Dr Rad and Dr G were also in different locations for this recording. This episode is a big moment for us talking together but not in the same room. We’re crediting the powers of technology for making this project possible!

The post *Special Episode* Quo Vadis with the History of the Papacy Podcast appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.

The intrepid Doctors return with an all new, all fabulous episode! The episode in which Drs R and G explore the Coen Brothers take on the Golden Age of Hollywood with Hail, Caesar!

We may have been enticed by the prospect of George Clooney as a Roman general, but we stayed for the tribute to the big studio days of American cinema.

Take a sojourn with your ears and see how the film stacks up according to your resident expert on Rome on film – Dr Radford, with curious questions and comments from Dr Greenfield!

Episode 61 – Hail, Caesar! (2016)

With kind thanks to: Rayukk via wikimedia commons

The post Episode 61 – Hail, Caesar! (2016) appeared first on The Partial Historians - Ancient Roman History with smart ladies.