Spartacus

I was taking a class called "Ancient World on Film" and wrote this as an assignment:

Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, a film about the struggle of a gladiator to liberate himself and others from slavery under the Roman Empire, was released during a very significant time period in the history of the United States. The year 1960 saw the end of the McCarthy era, a time when the political rights of U.S. citizens were infringed upon to protect the nation from the greater threat of communism. In telling the story of a historical figure under the thumb of a long-extinct empire, Spartacus aimed to remind the American audience of 1960 of the universal human right to be free.

The film explores the theme of oppression through the exposed body of the male. It is specifically through the characters of Spartacus and Crassus that free will is visually displayed—in the case of Spartacus, it is oppressed; in the case of Crassus, inadequate. Nudity, or various stages of undress, is typically indicative of vulnerability within a character. The costume is the face he presents to the viewer and to the world within the film. Within the context of a film, the removal of that costume is indicative of some deeper emotional nakedness. Both Spartacus and Crassus expose much of their bodies throughout the film, but Spartacus does not do so by choice. The exposure of the male body in Spartacus highlights the disparity between Spartacus’ and Crassus’ freedoms, informing the effect this has on their respective relationships with other people and to the Roman Empire.

Spartacus’ body is exposed at various key points throughout the film. The opening shot of Kirk Douglas as Spartacus depicts him chained to a rock, shirtless. This primary image sets up the mentality behind the rest of the film. The combination of his defiant expression and bondage encapsulates the film’s ultimate affirmation of the continuing human fight for freedom. As viewers, we are to be aware that oppression does not completely eradicate our free will—we still have the choice to fight.

The most significant instance of Spartacus’ exposure occurs during his gladiatorial fight against Draba. Before they enter the arena, Spartacus and Draba sit behind a wooden gate wearing tunics. Once they are called into the arena to fight for the amusement of Crassus and his friends, they must remove their tunics and fight in very minimal clothing. The transition into objects on display is emphasized by the removal of their tunics. Not only are their lives to be gambled for the amusement of the aristocracy, but their bodies are not their own. Maria Wyke identifies the display of the male body as integral to the narrative, a technique “which traces the hero’s attempt to liberate himself from the humiliating condition of being looked at....” Exhibitionism is a vital aspect of Spartacus’ slavery, a means by which his oppressors try to dehumanize him. As a result, Spartacus possesses a very potent hatred for the Roman Empire which perpetuates the system of slavery. On the other hand, his fellow gladiators develop camaraderie by a shared oppression. Antoninus loves Spartacus as a son loves his father because Spartacus has shown him how to use his singing talents of his own free will. During the scene where Antoninus sings of homecoming, he learns from Spartacus to use his talent to further the cause of the revolt. Though he initially wished to learn how to fight against oppressors such as Crassus, Spartacus taught him his own value in bringing culture to the family of slaves. As a result, Spartacus and Antoninus develop a close relationship.

Crassus is an example of freedom in the hands of inadequate persons. As a citizen of the Roman Empire, Crassus possesses the power to decide life and death for his slaves. His consistent failure to forge meaningful relationships is evidence that power over another person does not necessarily ensure loyalty. The famous bath scene between Antoninus and Crassus strongly develops the storyline of Crassus’ inability to connect to other people. In the scene, Crassus is voluntarily exposed but forces the exposure of his body servant, Antoninus. Though they are physically in the same state, Antoninus feels no devotion to Crassus because Antoninus did not choose to be naked. While he is being washed by Antoninus, Crassus carries the majority of a thinly-veiled dialectic on the morals of eating either snails or oysters. His pressing questions and Antoninus’ minimal answers reveal Crassus’ ultimate failure to seduce Antoninus. His seduction fails because he is forcing the relationship instead of letting it develop naturally. Spartacus’ slowly developed but strong relationships with both Antoninus and Varinia demonstrate his ability to connect to other people. It is the affirmation of the other’s freedom that is essential to form a lasting bond. Crassus does not recognize this, which is why Antoninus leaves at the end of the scene, and why Varinia will not give herself to Crassus at the end of the film. Crassus’ relation to Rome is symptomatic of his failed relationships with people. Crassus constantly speaks of Rome as a woman, an object to posses but not to be violated. Ideally, Crassus wishes to be desired by the people and the empire he wishes to possess. As long as he wishes to be the possessor, however, he will never be desired.

The film Spartacus speaks directly to the American audience of 1960 through the lens of Roman history. Without knowing the context of the film’s release following the era of McCarthyism, the true significance of the film cannot be understood. The title Spartacus immediately sets up the gladiator as the main character and invites the audience to identify with him. By demonstrating Spartacus as a slave whose body is consistently abused by the powerful Roman Empire, the film invites the audience to draw parallels to the American public and Senator McCarthy. Though Spartacus is killed at the end of the film, his newborn son is a reminder that the struggle for freedom continues so long as one person continues the fight.

Don't Stop Believing in Vampires

When you think back on the last few years, what comes to mind? The year 2009 may finally be winding down, but I am skeptical that the pop culture trends it buoyed will sink with the proverbial ship. Though sensations like Lady Gaga and Twitter have entered the public consciousness only recently, I think 2009 can mainly be characterized by the resurgence of older trends.


Don't believe me yet? Here are the four fads I see everywhere I go, the cultural fevers no one can seem to sweat out, the furies that haunt me in my sleep:


1) Vampires
2) "Don't Stop Believing"
3) Michael Jackson
4) Leggings

Just to be clear, I don't necessarily hate all of these trends, but I am growing tired of how their popularity seems to be inexhaustible. So, to start off: vampires. I don't need to identify all the media outlets that have jumped on the vampire bandwagon, not to mention the incredibly disturbing vampire paraphernalia that somehow has a market. I understand that Stephenie Meyer rewrote the rules on vampires, causing an upheaval from the purist sector. The vampires of Anne Rice novels and "Buffy" were resurrected as the model of what a true vampire should be, and new shows like "True Blood" and "The Vampire Diaries" added their two cents to the vampire lore (I haven't seen The Vampire Diaries, but True Blood for the most part is awesome and is everything that Twilight should have been). But truth be told, I need to take a break from vampires, y'all. They are so front and center in the public eye that I'm almost beginning to check especially pale boys for sparkles in the sunlight. Almost. It's nice, however, that vampires have somewhat become the base for striking up a conversation with strangers, (Have you read Twilight? What did you think of it? OMG, I hate it too! It's so deliciously awful! Yeah, Lestat could kick Edward's butt any day.) I love vampire lore as much as the next sexually-repressed girl, but I think the craze needs to retreat from the public conscious for a while. Vampires lurk best in the shadows, anyway. 



Secondly, "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey. Not only was it my friend's ringtone for an eternity, it has recently graced the airwaves in a multitude of contexts--the narration of Elliot's love for a dolphin trainer on Scrubs, the overture during the dramatic conclusion to The Sopranos, and Glee's crowning effort to prove in its pilot episode that a high school glee club can be both campy and inspiring. This anthem makes regular appearances at karaoke nights and in college dorms, when nervous freshmen connect over the sound of their straining vocal chords as they belt out the song that got them all through high school. "Don't Stop Believing" is an undeniably popular song, but does it deserve to be? Structurally, it's one of the most effed-up songs ever conceived by man, but I think this adds to its charm. Song formats and screenplay arcs are so organized and contrived that we are hardly surprised anymore. We know to look for the chorus following a verse or the redemption of the fallen hero, and when things don't play into our expectations, we become uncomfortable. Honestly, I never noticed that "Don't Stop Believing" didn't follow the usual format. I just thought it was a good song. So what is structure worth anyway? 

I'm going to combine Michael Jackson and Leggings in this section. Obviously, since Michael Jackson died over the summer, his music has been played more frequently to honor his passing. I'm not going to get into sticky issues here, I mostly just want to note that the King of Pop is, for all intents and purposes, back. Actually, he never really left and is rather immortal in that respect--like vampires. Lastly, leggings: a fashion fad from the late '80s/early '90s in which even I partook. Now, however, leggings seem to be the trademark of the sorority girl, a signifier of the upper echelon of the physically fit.

So what do the resurgences of these old trends mean? It seems to me that in the year 2009 we have affirmed the classical status of all these motifs. And years after their initial popularity, something must have stuck because here we are resurrecting them. We might get tired of them after a while, but they'll never fully go away because they signify our culture and somehow unite us. And I guess that's alright with me.