Select one feature of the four films we have watched so far (Marcantonio e Cleopatra, 1913; Cabiria, 1914; Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, 1925; Cleopatra, 1963) and dicuss how it developed in the fifty years from 1913 to 1963, based on the evidence from these films.
Potential topics: acting style; portrayal of the Romans; portrayal of "the Other" (Carthaginians, Egyptians, Jews, Arab, black Africans); women's roles; use of the camera and editing technique; sets and props; costumes; stunts; action scenes; portrayal of sex and graphic violence; anything else that you can think of and that makes sense.
Please post a copy of your abstract below and comment on the abstracts of two different classmates, suggesting either evidence from the movies that would support their argument or alerting them to evidence that would seem to run counter to their argument so that they will have to respond to it in their papers.
Olivia Monical
ReplyDeleteRoman and Greek History in the Movies
due 9/11/12
The Portrayal of Egyptian and Other African Women from 1913 to 1963 in Films
In antiquity, Egyptian women were equal to men. Egyptian and other African women were depicted in the films before Cleopatra as promiscuous, dramatic, and even evil; the image of Egyptian women progressed (despite remaining stereotypes) by 1963 to be respectable, powerful, and intellectual.
In Antony and Cleopatra, and Ben Hur, Egyptian women are wicked, dramatic, and “uncivilized” due to the inequality of women in the early 1900's. It was unacceptable for women to be powerful, so they are shown to have attained it dubiously. In Antony and Cleopatra, Cleopatra uses magic and seduction to extort Antony.
The Egyptian woman, Iras, in Ben Hur (1925) is devious. The “ideal” woman is Esther: innocent, modest, and pure. Iras is Messala's whore, and tries to seduce Ben Hur. Esther's arrival saves him from her advances. Iras is exemplary of what was expected to happen to women with freedom, like in the Egyptian society.
Sophonisba in Cabiria is dramatic, emotional, and betrays Cabiria, a man's ideal woman. Cabiria is contently helpless, being saved by the two Romans. Sophonisba attempts to control her life, despite men. She betrays Cabiria and sends her to the dungeon because of a dream; she dies anyway. This African queen is another example of insolent women rebelling against society's expectations.
Cleopatra(1963) reflects the development of women's rights. When Antony and Cleopatra, Cabiria, and Ben Hur were made, women were unequal. Cleopatra's power and intelligence were unacceptable before WWI. Cleopatra is political minded and knowledgeable. There are political advantages to being with Caesar and Mark Antony; She loves them. When Antony remarries, Cleopatra grieves. Cleopatra loves her son. She lives until he is dead. There are still stereotypes, like her dark rituals.
The progression of the portrayal of Egyptian and other African women shows that movies sometimes mirror society. Word Count: 300
Olivia, I'm doing the same topic and I loved some of the points you made! I think Cleopatra is definitely an ironclad example of women in film and you chose really great examples! I would suggest focusing on Cabiria and Cleopatra for the two movies since the stark contrast between them is clear as day, but that's my only suggestion :)
Delete@Olivia & Lindsey:
DeleteJust one word of caution: yes, Sophonisba behaves like a "bad girl" when she meets a potential lover at night in the garden without her father's knowledge. But like a good, obedient daughter, she also submits to the marriage with the balding, elderly king Syphax that her father wishes and later becomes a "good wife" to him (remember the scene when he leaves her going into battle?).
Caroline Wenning
ReplyDeleteAncient Greece and Rome in the Movies
Tuesday, 9/11/12
Close-Ups
Practice makes perfect. This commonly known phrase is both a cliché and an undeniable truth. It can be seen in all things that people do, from something as simple as riding a bicycle to the greater challenge of making a feature length film. Over the course of film’s history, it can be seen how directors and filmmakers greatly improved in their chosen profession, particularly through the use of close-ups.
Using “Antony and Cleopatra” (1913) as an example for early films, we see that the camera did not deviate from its set location ever. Not even a slight shift to accommodate Cleopatra as she sat on her throne, halfway out of the shot. Every shot in this film was a long shot and once does the camera come closer for what today we call a medium shot—a view of Cleopatra from chest to head.
The next film, “Cabiria” (1914), was filmed only a year later and yet made a great step in the utilization of close-ups. There are few but significant moments in the film where the camera cuts in to get a close and personal shot, one prominent example being the ring Cabiria’s nurse steals from the treasury. Aside from the ring’s starring moments, there is not much else in ways of close-ups in “Cabiria.”
“Ben Hur” (1959) takes a greater step and offers an impressive amount of personal face-time for Judah and Messala during the famous chariot sequence. During the race, we get a close look at the expressions on the rival’s faces with stunning quality. We also get some phenomenal views of the horses as they power down the track and of rattling chariot wheels.
The final film, “Cleopatra” (1963), is a far stretch from its 1913 counterpart, utilizing a range of shots that weren’t possible before. “Cleopatra” gives us in-your-face sneak peaks at Cleopatra as she schemes and lets us see as expressions pass over Marc Antony’s face.
(321)
Caroline, you have great evidence and the one thing i would suggest adding is the sheer number of cameras used in Ben Hur and how they put the cameras in pretty crazy places (on the ground during the chariot race) as some examples of film progressing
DeleteI really enjoyed your hook into your essay and your examples are all very well thought out. My subject was also on the same sort of topic. I chose the shooting techniques. You might want to add something about how in the earlier movies, the acting was super dramatic in order to compensate with the static gaze camera.
DeleteVery good summary, I especially liked the intro paragraph. When talking about the close-ups in Cleopatra, remember to mention the ones used in the scenes with Cleopatra and Caesar, such as when he kisses her or she discovers his epilepsy.
DeleteIn "Cabiria", there is also a close-up of one of the two fake praying hands in the scene in the temple of Moloch when the Carthaginian High Priest sings his prayer to Moloch. Not sure _why_ director Pastrone chose to emphasize that hand, though. In "Cleopatra" (1963), there are repeated close-ups of the ring that used to belong to Caesar's daughter and that run like a leitmotif through the entire film: in the end, Octavian has put it on the hilt of his sword, and Cleopatra thus knows that he killed her and Caesar's son, Caesarion, the last wearer.
DeleteCatherine, this is a good topic and I think you have really good supports. Maybe one type of shot you could talk about are the ones in Cabiria that are medium shots of Sophonisba? I don't know enough about the shots to say exactly what kind they were, but there were a lot of the dramatic actress who played her.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Moriyama
ReplyDeleteSeptember 9, 2012
IDS 101
Women in Film Abstract
Women’s roles in film have drastically changed throughout the years, from the demure and reserved women of the pre-World War I era, to the defiant and rebellious women of the 1960’s, culminating with the overly thin, sex moguls that women are seen as today. Media and film portray women not as who they are, with histories and personalities, but as who society ideally wants them to be.
In 1914’s Cabiria, women are depicted as lesser beings, constantly in need of rescue by men and unable to fend for themselves. A prime example of women ranking below men is the scene where King Massinissa promises the hand of his daughter Sophonisba to Fulvius and Sophonisba instead of being angry at having been betrothed without her say-so, is happy and giddy. Historically, during this time, women were supposed to dress demurely, not wear make-up, had strict relationships with men, were low paid and could not smoke or play sports in public. Cabiria addressed these ideologies and painted women as restrictive and constantly subservient to men. These stereotypes were shattered during the post-World-War I period, when sex became popular in media.
The 1963 Cleopatra, completely turned the old stereotype of women on its head. Cleopatra in the film was seductive, make-up clad, scantily dressed, promiscuous and powerful. This Cleopatra, while over-exaggerating the legendary charms of the real life Egyptian queen, nonetheless addressed the whims of society. Historically at this time, women were rebelling for equality and rights, so media had to address this. Cleopatra is the ultimate femme-fatale, charming Julius Caesar, Marc Antony among countless others.
Women have moved through film and movies as demure classy ladies, rebellious femme-fatales and have culminated as overly thin, sex icons. Numerous examples prove that the media shows women not as who they are, but as who society envisions them as.
I definitely like your contrast between Sophonisba and Cleopatra! You might want to mention Cleopatra from Antony and Cleopatra of 1913 and state that while she was perceived in this movie as powerful, the sexual allure was not entirely there due to the time period.
DeleteThroughout the four films “Marcantonio e Cleopatra”, “Cabiria”, “Ben Hur”, and “Cleopatra”, the drastic measures taken by slaves in order to serve their masters are nothing short of heroism. However, there is an evident shift in focus through the films from that of a Greco-Roman standpoint, where the character’s heroism is manifested physically through feats of strength, to a more modern view, where this same heroism is demonstrated through both physical and emotional self-sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteIn the earlier two films that were produced in 1913 and 1914, the slaves, specifically Cleopatra’s handmaiden Charmian and Maciste, Axilla’s slave, seem to function primarily as protectors or bodyguards to their masters, a constant role that prevent them from developing any depth. However, this is contrasted by the roles of the slaves, such as Simonides and Esther in “Ben Hur” (1927) and Apollodorus, Charmian, and Iras in “Cleopatra” (1963), in the later two films who serve their masters by safeguarding them from both physical and emotional harm through self sacrifice, both on a physical and emotional level. Because of this, these characters attain a deeper level of significance as well as are more relatable to the audience in general.
The progression seen between these is drastic and quite sudden, most likely due to the substantial gap in time between the films. Despite this, the transition that is evident has a direct correlation to the origin of the film itself, “Cabiria” and “Marcantonio e Cleopatra” both having been produced in Italy and therefore having a more specific focus on Greco-Roman ideology whereas “Ben Hur” and “Cleopatra” were both produced in the U.S. and were more focused on “Americanizing” the roles in order to allow the audience to relate.
This is a really good topic! I think you could mention, if you are not already planning to, the animals that are representative of the characters they are with. For instance, Esther's dove, and the with/oracle's giant snake in Antony and Cleopatra.
DeleteWonderful topic! I'm looking forward to reading in more detail your observations about the changing role of the slaves in our movies. One thing the abstract seems to leave out is that slaves not only protect or selflessly serve their masters, but also serve to show the masters' cruelty. In the 1913 "Marcantonio e Cleopatra", there is a scene (which we didn't watch) in which a slave woman gets eaten by one of Cleo's crocodiles. In "Cabiria", there is the scene in which a slave presents Syphax his helmet, I think, and then Syphax casually pushes him aside with his walking stick while continuing to chat with another man. In "Cleopatra", Cleo forgives Lotus for assisting in Pothinus' attempt to poison her, but then insists that she drink the poison.
DeleteThe films Antony and Cleopatra (1913), Cabiria (1914), Ben Hur (1925), and Cleopatra (1963) each use costumes to portray groups within Roman society very differently in accordance with their perceived promiscuity and wealth.
ReplyDeleteThe women in Antony and Cleopatra wore dresses of a conservative cut and length. While the Cleopatra of this movie does not suggest promiscuity in the manner that the 1963 version does, she had a number of patterns and textures across simply one dress, making it evident that she was influential. Cabiria is an Italian epic that certainly demonstrates the fashions of the 1910s with aristocrats like Sophonisba. In one scene, she is clothing features a train and long, flowing sleeves, showing the free, pure side of Sophonisba. In other scenes, Sophonisba is adorned in tighter, corseted clothing, which emphasize her authority and dominance. Cabiria’s family has costumes that aren’t particularly spectacular; costumes don’t seem prioritized. In Ben Hur, though Judah is considered a prince, his tunic and vest were fairly plain, demonstrating that Roman power prevails. Arrius featured one of the few showy costumes that emphasized his authority as he stood within a room of galley slaves. Meanwhile, Cleopatra’s usual attire was form-fitting, attention-grabbing, and accompanied by striking eye makeup and flashy wigs. The costume designers used contemporary designs of the 60s adorned with stereotypical Egyptian attire like golden bracelets on the upper arm.
Cleopatra emphasized the pride within the Roman army through elaborate costumes that troops actually couldn’t afford. Caesar is clad in a tunic-style garment with an eagle engraved across the front. Though Caesar clearly possesses the majority of the power within the army, other generals are dressed as ornately as him.
Cabiria’s costumes hinted at the aristocratic attachment towards slaves and workers. For example, Croessa has approximately the same quality of clothing as Cabiria’s parents, which insinuates that she is not discounted in their house, but in fact respected. Maciste dons a toga virilis although togas were worn only by free men. Cleopatra of 1963 featured costumes that appeared particularly lavish for common people. While Lord Ptolemy’s adviser did have a commanding position, he also looked extraordinarily decorated for someone who was not of royalty: he was featuring a sea foam green and pink textured garment with an enormous gold collar.
From 1913 to 1963, filmmakers’ duties to the public definitely adjusted. Antony and Cleopatra and Cabiria had royals with decorative costumes, but their female costumes were lacking the promiscuity of later films. Ben Hur and Cabiria did not accentuate the wealth of some in the manner that Cleopatra did. Cleopatra made costumes a priority. Each movie’s costumes exposed particular class differences and female sexuality based on the time period.
In terms of film much evolved in the fifty years from 1913-1963. Not only did the visual and sound effects progress from silent black and white films to full sound color motion pictures but also acting transformed to meet the needs of the times. Overacting was common for the earlier years of film, however acting adapted and the nature of acting changed from gesturing to a more realistic approach.
ReplyDeleteThe acting in Antony and Cleopatra 1913 is very operatic in the sense that the camera shows only full shots causing the actors to have to respond with overly explanatory gestures instead of more realistic acting. In the scene just before Cleopatra goes to the oracle she walks in a very perceived Queenly way by having her hands perpendicular to her side, chin in the air.
The transmogrification of acting styles in the mere year between the filming of Antony and Cleopatra and Cabiria 1914 led to a more organic production. The scene where the nurse is pretending Cabiria is sick so she will not be sacrificed shows true emotion by the nurse who, by using facial expression, desolate look and despair, pleads with the guards not to take Cabiria.
Ben Hur 1927 epitomizes the period of transformation from overreacting to a more realistic approach. The use of close ups provides the viewer with a detailed view of the actors allowing them to use small facial movements for their portrayals instead of whole body acting. The first close up in the movie is of Mary. They use this close up to have her remove her scarf from her face and smile showing with realistic movements that she is kind.
Cleopatra 1963 marks the end of the movement from gesturing to realistic acting and marks the beginning of an age of growth upon the base created by the acting in the film. After hearing that Mark Antony had been killed the emotion displayed by Cleopatra makes the audience connect.
In conclusion during the fifty-year period from 1913-1963 the art of film changed and as it progressed acting advanced from operatic dramatic movements to organic and realistic acting that we recognize in modern day.
Cassie, great evidence throughout the entire piece. You might be able to add some in about how this overacting was also apparent in the closer shots, like the one of the creepy inn keeper, as well as the longer shots, like the pirate scene. I would be careful of classifying Ben Hur as a transformation period though because there are still some scenes where there is some over the top acting, especially during close ups.
DeleteCollin Fuller
ReplyDeleteProfessor Knorr
9/10/12
Culture Clash
The Romans are consistently glorified throughout Cabiria (1914), Marcoantonio e Cleopatra (1913) and Cleopatra (1963) as being the epitome of civilization and power. These films are juxtaposed to Ben-Hur (1925), in which Romans are demonized as being brutal, mindless, and heartless. The Roman Empire was one of the most successful and ambitious empires in history, thus lauding the citizens of such a great power comes easily. However, to slander such great power is nearly as easy, and no less controversial. With Ben-Hur, the protagonist being a Jew, securing the sympathy of the audience relies on portraying the Romans as a threat to Judaism, and thus Christianity. Creating characters that embody the ideals of the empire allows the scale of the plot to be shrunk down to the size of two individuals as opposed to two enormous powers, their interactions are symbolic of the countries relations, while at the same time their interactions remain personal and intimate.
Beginning with Marcoantonio e Cleopatra, Marc Antony hails from the power and glory of Rome while Cleopatra reigns over the mysterious and uncivilized Egypt. Marc Antony originally sets out to punish Cleopatra, but her cunning and guile enchant Antony and brings him to his knees for her. She walks off her boat and he immediately falls under her spell.
Exactly as in Marcantonio e Cleopatra, Julius Caesar becomes a “victim” of Cleopatra in Cleopatra. Their worlds and ideals collide forcefully when they first meet. Cleopatra is accustomed to ruling freely over her empire, but when she enters his palace, she must conform to the subservience that reigns in Rome. In their first interactions, her face is below his which precisely mirrors how Egypt is beneath Rome.
In Cabiria, the main character, Cabiria, is pulled from her life as a princess and she is sold to the Carthaginians so that she can be a sacrifice to the gods. The writers can clearly show this sudden change by presenting Carthaginians as barbarians who sacrifice innocent children.
Ben-Hur brings the final demonstration on how the worlds collide, but the presentation of the conflicting societies has been turned completely on its head. Romans are still portrayed as powerful, but the soldiers are portrayed as abusive and the entire Roman society is viewed as corrupt and even barbaric. Meanwhile, the Jews are shown as the noble and righteous people. When Ben-Hur meets Massala, he is equal with him, but the friendship quickly turns south when the “evil” Romans conquer the Jews. The purpose of Ben-Hur becoming a Roman is to allow the writers to easily show viewers just how different the Jews were from the Romans and the result of their worlds colliding.
But what about Quintus Arrius from Ben-Hur?
DeleteThis is a really good idea for an essay! I really liked the detail of your paragraph on Ben Hur! Just make sure that the part on Ben Hur doesn't overshadow your other sections in the final draft. I didn't understand how the paragraph of Cabiria tied into your theme of individual characters defining a society. Maybe you could compare Csbiria to Sophonisba, for lack of a more significant Carthaginian individul?
DeleteAncient Rome is a subject in which many documentaries, books, and movies are based upon. From the 1913 film Antony and Cleopatra, to the more modern film 300, movies have found multiple ways to express the struggles, moral character, and contemporary values of society, both old and new. One of the most common and impactful ways has been through symbolism. Symbolism was very hard to portray in the older movies like Antony and Cleopatra, where symbolism was quite literal. For example, Antony appeared in front of Cleopatra in a stereotypical Egyptian headdress to show that the time spent with her “captured” him.
ReplyDeleteIn the more modern piece Cleopatra (1963), however, the use of color allowed Egyptians and Romans to be seen as entirely different people in both demeanor and appearance. The sets and costumes for Egypt were very blue. Sets were cast with blue lights and villagers wore aqua and dark blue to show the relaxed and overall good spirit of the Egyptians. Romans, on the other hand, have square buildings for their sets and red and gold costumes, indicating that they are bad, rich and somewhat arrogant.
Colors are not the only forms of symbolism used in movies, however. In Cleopatra, the skies are thundering and there are thousands of dead leaves on the ground right before Julius Caesar goes to the senate. Thunder is known to be a bad omen to many cultures, indicating that something bad will befall Caesar, and the dead leaves symbolize life that has died off over time and fallen. There are many symbols throughout the 1913 Antony and Cleopatra, the 1914 Cabiria, the 19 Ben Hur, and the 1963 movie Cleopatra, and I will be explaining all of the symbols throughout this essay and how they are presented in order to give the fullest effect.
Be careful not to rely too heavily on Cleopatra even though it is the only film in full color in this group. You might want to have mentioned the colored lens films from Ben-Hur and use that in your final essay because those really help to set a tone/mood through the film.
DeleteThroughout early film, the people of ancient civilizations such as Rome and Egypt were portrayed differently depending on when a film was shot and which country was producing it. In earlier films such as Cabiria (1914) and Antony and Cleopatra (1913), both shot and produced in Italy, the costumes for Romans, Egyptians and other Mediterranean civilizations were not overly complex. In later films such as Ben Hurr (1927) or Cleopatra (1963), both produced by the United States and at least partially shot in color, the costumes and make-up of the same civilizations became much more elaborate and colorful. This drastic change was due mostly to the development of film from simple black-and-white to color; moving it from an awkward art form to the grand scale cinema is today.
ReplyDeleteIn films such as Cabiria and Antony and Cleopatra, costumes and other visual aids are minimal. Cabiria portrays the Roman characters wearing simple tunics most of the time, and there is only one sequence of the film in which the audience is shown Roman soldiers in full armor. Antony and Cleopatra is even less detailed, mainly due to the fact that the film quality is so awful that the audience can only generally tell what’s going on. Romans are dressed in simple armor and tunics, and the Egyptians are all dressed in attire that, while exotic looking, is not as elaborate as in later films, such as Cleopatra.
While only made around a decade after Cabiria and Antony and Cleopatra, Ben Hurr actually features much more detail in portraying the attire and look of ancient Mediterranean civilizations. Though the Jews and other civilians of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas are dressed in simple tunics, the Romans have much more detailed armor and costumes. Cleopatra, made almost forty years later, is the most detailed of all four films, mostly due to being filmed in full color.
It is fairly easy to see the development of costume and general attire from the time Cabiria was filmed to the epic that was Cleopatra. Color film makes it easier for the filmmakers to express detail and for audiences to observe it, which is why the overall development of film technology lead to greater detail in later films.
You may want to have another look at the costumes in the silent movies, in particular. Sophonisba's or Cleopatra's dresses are far from simple, but richly decorated and patterned costumes. The same is true for the males. Pay attention to the beard fashion (remember the beard protectors in "Cabiria") among Carthaginians and Romans and ask yourself _why_ they are so different; what is the effect on the audience? Look at who wears civilian dress and who martial-looking armor, etc. etc., and why? Why does, for example, the consul and general Scipio Africanus leave his tent in his civilian toga, when he meets the Numidian king Massinissa, not in his military uniform?
DeleteRegarding "Cleo" 1963, I hope you'll say something about the color distribution between Romans and Egyptians.
For my paper I will be discussing the portrayal of the Roman military and its culture in general. In the four movies we have seen, the Romans are always depicted as being much more superior when it comes to military combat. And are always dressed in a way that connotes power and strength. But when it comes to the arts, or the culture outside of the military power, little is ever shown. Throughout this paper I am going to argue that the movies we have seen have shaped the way many people view Rome and its empire.
ReplyDeleteIn each of the movies all the soldiers are dressed very uniformly, even in non battle situations, and in colors of power, such as red, black, white, gold, silver etc. But in each of the movies it seems to be more and more apparent. Besides the main characters, the soldiers seem to not have any personality; they do what they are told without asking any questions, giving us more of the idea that Rome was simply just a military power.
Also, little is ever shown of the artistic and civilian side of Rome, even though it was one of the most sophisticated cultures of its time the movies show little besides some of the architecture that we consider “Roman” such as the columns. But structures such as the 16th chapel and the aqueducts are completely left out.
Another thing the film shows is that all romans look similar, as if they are a single race. All the characters are Caucasian, slightly tan with short curly hair, usually brunette or blonde. And many speak with English accents. For and empire whose capital was in Italy, and controlled much of Europe, the middle east, and northern Africa, this seems extremely unusual compared to what the people who come from those area look today.
Having watched the four movies that were shown in our class, if it wasn’t for some background knowledge, I would be convinced that Rome was simply a horrible war hungry empire that cared little more than about taking over the world. But an empire isn’t made of just a government, there’s a culture outside of that, and in Rome’s case, multiple ones. And these movies showed extremely little, if any of them.
I did kind of the same topic, something you can use to improve your paper are specific events that happened in each of the films, like words or speeches that were spoken, actions done by the Romans in certain scenes, etc
DeleteMaybe talk about how the portrayal of a military culture draws in the simpler viewers who prefer the wars and chariot races that are keystones in almost any movie about Rome. The directors and writers are trying to cater to an audience that wants blood and fighting and unfortunately this greatly affects how the average person viewing the film sees Roman culture.
DeleteI think you are right that the Romans are mostly depicted as militaristic, although "Cabiria" offers an interesting exception, in that it starts with peaceful scenes in the Sicilian country side. I also think that the various films' attitude toward's the Romans' militaristic spirit changes from film to film, depending on that film's message, and I hope you'll say something about that.
DeleteThrough the movies Antony + Cleopatra (1913), Cabiria (1914), Ben Hur (1927), and Cleopatra (1963) there is a change in how the Romans are portrayed as the genre develops over the years. This is only natural, as every year historians discover more about the Roman civilization.
ReplyDeleteIn Antony + Cleopatra, Mark Antony and his soldiers, are seen marching onto the beach carrying spears and standards,. They stop and stand in front of an Egyptian, who immediately bows to Antony. Later in the movie, Antony sits at his desk, while one of his soldiers stands at his side, still carrying his standard. These scenes portray the Romans in a more authoritative light, highlighting their military prowess.
In Cabiria they are portrayed in a different light. We see less Roman armor and more civilian clothes. The beginning of the movie shows how much Bato, a Roman citizen, loves his daughter Cabiria. During the movie, the Roman protagonists Fulvius and Maciste rescue her twice. This movie portrays the Romans as the civilized heroes who always rescue the girl
In Ben-Hur the portrayal is more complicated. On one hand we have Messala, who falsely imprisons Ben-Hur to the Galleys and whips him during the race. On the other hand we have Quintus Arrius, who adopts Ben-Hur after he saves Quintus’ life. In this movie, it seems the Romans are portrayed as more ordinary citizens, with both good and evil people.
In Cleopatra the portrayal changes once again. Most Romans in this film are wearing a uniform. Both Caesar and Antony act forceful towards Cleopatra. the only female Roman citizen in the movie is Octavia, who is plain and refuses to listen to state affairs. This movie portrays the Roman as a masculine empire, complementing Cleopatra’s feminine Egypt and the romance story itself.
301 words
Counter argument: I would argue that the Roman stereotype remains very solid throughout the fifty years of film. As other types of characters change, the Egyptians go from very covered up, lots of patterned clothing, headdresses to the more sensual style that Cleopatra 1963 wears, the aboriginals change, and the servants or slaves change however the Romans remain very similar. They all wear the metal breast armor with golden embellishments, leather strip man skirts, gladiator sandals, and the plume helmets. In all the movies they have the same attitude as conquers and treat those under them just as poorly in every movie.
DeleteComparing the Use of Shooting Techniques in Antony and Cleopatra (1913), Cabiria (1914), Ben Hur (1959), and Cleopatra (1963)
ReplyDeleteDuring the years 1914-1963, the use of shooting techniques changed dramatically. The techniques in the movies altered the scenes substantially by creating a viewing experience that is more “true to life,” further affecting viewers. In this paper, I will argue that the effective use of more modern shooting techniques contribute to a greater viewing experience through the movies Antony and Cleopatra, Cabiria, Ben Hur and Cleopatra and compare the differing viewing experiences achieved through these movies.
Techniques like camera movement, lighting, and shots help develop a captivating experience for the audience by providing a focus point on which the audience can reflect while watching the movie. In Antony and Cleopatra, camera movement was absent which created a very one-dimensional experience for the audience, therefore the acting in these films was very dramatic in order to compensate with the non-existent camera movement. A year later, Cabiria came out breaking this static gaze of narrative films. Cabiria was among the first to use a “tracking shot”, which was a camera mounted to a dolly allowing it to both follow action and move within a film set or location. This alone gave a better experience for me. I was able to follow what was going on more because the scenes were more dynamic and engaging.
Lighting in the movies was also particularly important. In the movies Cleopatra and Ben Hur the lighting made the scenes, where as in the other movies the lighting was “day and night” and didn’t give much meaning to the movie as a whole. The different shots used in these movies give the audiences different perspectives of each character, which helped them understand more clearly what the character was going through at that point of the movie.
The use of the camera and editing techniques helped the audience feel more connected and snags their attention by using camera movement, lighting, cuts, and shots. With each and every movie, these factors became more and more complex thus capturing the audience more.
Word Count: 331
Further evidence: You could use the Cabiria scene in the Temple of Moloch where the lighting goes from dark to light. Anthony and Cleopatra uses only full body shots which means that the actors overact or use gestures. Cabiria uses more variety in the types of shots: close up (ring on the hand), long shot (water scenes), full body, etc.
Delete*Note: It was during the years 1913-1963 not 1914-1963.
Make sure you remember that the acting style was common for this time, as the Professor said. Actors were used to flailing their arms in despair or jumping up and down from excitement. You might want to mention that they needed to act the way they did due to the past places they acted at (operas, big theaters), and how actors as a whole slowly came to the realization that the camera can capture all of the emotions displayed by the face without use of the whole body. This became quite clearer to me when we watched Antony and Cleopatra, and then Cleopatra. In short, it changed over time.
DeleteThis is good, there is lots supporting evidence and it flows well. Remember that the only reason lighting was so "day and night" in the older films was because of their being shot in black and white. Personally, I thought the Carthaginian temple scene in Cabiria was very well lit for a film of that time. But again, it's hard to tell due to the film quality.
DeleteIf I were to talk about lighting, I'd make sure to mention the way lighting is used to convey meaning or for effect in these films, starting from the oracle scene with the eery fire lighting up the prophetess' face from below in "Marcantonio e Cleopatra" (1913) to the pale, wintry light on the Ides of March scenes in "Cleopatra" (1963). I'd also talk about the backlighting in "Ben-Hur" (1925) that gives Mary a kind of saint's halo or makes Jesus' arm glow. And most of all, I'd be very careful not to underestimate what the older movies are doing. Evan is right, the scene where our eyes seem to slowly get used to the dark in the temple of Moloch in Carthage so that everything slowly becomes light is a great example of the way these old directors already knew their craft.
DeleteScreen Shots in Ancient Rome
ReplyDeleteOf the many films that have passed through society since the dawn of the movie era, none have seemed to captivate an audience as well as those that have had to do with the classical civilizations. Classical of course is in reference to those of Ancient Rome and Greece. For so long have people been enthralled by the barbaric yet majestic ways in which these two great powers have been portrayed, that they fail to see the change that has come over the many years. Although movies on ancient Rome never seem to lose that sense of grandeur, there is no denying that there has been much change cinematically in that genre of film. To really appreciate this, four films will be analyzed from slightly different time periods. Starting with the 1913 Italian film “Marcantonio e Cleopatra”, transitioning to “Cabiria” (1914), and then to “Ben Hur” (1925), ending finally with the 1963 film of “Cleopatra”. In these films it is crucial to see how camera angles and costumes have affected the way in which the films depict the ancient civilizations, especially that of Rome.
In the first film, the 1913 silent film of Marcantonio e Cleopatra the camera angle is not to difficult to decipher. This is because they only really use one camera angle, which is the long shot. Now while this allowed for people to actually fully appreciate all the robust costumes and props along with the scenery of foreign countries, it made it really difficult to see the reactions of the actors. Because of this Romans seem very boisterous and incredibly over dramatic.
The second film in question is the 1914 Italian film Cabiria. The shots in this film are slightly more complicated because of the fact that they used a couple different shots. Here they also used long shots a lot, but the way the camera was set up allowed for people to see further than just the long shot. An excellent example of this would be the opening scene, in which you can see all the commotion in the house, but by the way the camera is set up, you can also see outside. This shows a different aspect of Roman culture, which would have been their lavish gardens and fields in the country side.
The other shot used in Cabiria is the close up. Although it is only used a couple times, it is crucial to this film because it added an element that we had not seen in the previous movie. It added diversity to the script and showed you exactly what was to be important at that moment.
In the 1925 “Ben Hur” the complexity of camera shots and angles was really ousted. This all boils down to the infamous chariot race and what a feat it was to film it. Now it is easy to pick this scene because of the fact that 48 different cameras were set up around the amphitheater at different angles, all capturing the same race. What came from this was astounding.
And finally to the 1963 American film “Cleopatra”. It is here so far that we have actually seen movie making have such an effect on the film. Where it not for the fact that there was every shot imaginable in that film, it would be very difficult indeed to sit through all 4 hours of it. In this film you can really get a sense of awe for the sheer power that this ancient civilization had.
For all of you who, I think, don't appreciate enough the technical mastery of "Cabiria", including the _repeated_, innovative close-ups and camera movements, please check out this wonderful blog post that offers lots of screen shots and great analysis:
ReplyDeletehttp://11east14thstreet.com/2011/10/27/the-epic-days-and-nights-of-cabiria/.
Here's Tiziana Ferrero Regis on Cabiria:
ReplyDelete"One of the most renowned aesthetic achievements of Cabiria was the use of the tracking shot, notably in the scene in which Maciste and Fulvio Axilla are escaping from the Phoenicians and barricade themselves in a cellar full of provisions. The camera pans from the barricade that Maciste and Fulvio Axilla erected to the stirs and down in the cellar. The camera then moves to explore the cellar from the two men’s point of view. The camera work was done by Spanish cameramen Segundo de Chomon, who had used tracking shots since 1909. In this sense, Cabiria is the aggregation of existing techniques employed by other national cinema industries.
In the film, Pastrone did not use trompe l’oeil sets, but relied on the combination of the natural scenery of the Alps, Tunisia and Sicily, and life size sets to increase the effect of depth, which was further enhanced by tracking shots. The altar to the god Moloch was an open set, a stage construction of enormous proportions that was directly inspired by Art Nouveau and could physically accommodate hundreds of extras. The open set magnified and emphasized the historical events that are represented in the film. The employment of a large number of extras enabled the refinement of techniques such as deep focus and tracking shots. And especially, the open set allowed the use of depth in the mise-en-scene and of a larger frame."