 |
| Fredric March (Marcus Superbus), Claudette Colbert (Poppaea), and director Cecil B. DeMille enjoying a Coca Cola during a break while filming Sign of the Cross. |
1. Write a 200-word review of Sign of the Cross and post it to our blog.
2. Comment on at least one review:
a) What do you like about the review?
b) What would you encourage the reviewer to add or change?
The Sign of the Cross is a somewhat unrealistic film, juxtaposing the virtuous Christians and the corrupt Roman government. Marcus Superbus and Mercia are the two dimensional star-crossed lovers in the film, barred from their love by Rome’s vicious prejudice against Christians. The movie was utterly absurd in the sense that the relationship between Marcus and Mercia was barely developed; they speak a few times, have a shallow attraction and then somehow fall in desperate love. With religion as their primary hurdle, Marcus somehow becomes a devoted Christian and believes that praying to Mercia instead of God will allow him to go to heaven with her. Of course, Marcus agrees to be a Christian because of his love for Mercia, not because of his love for Jesus. So while Marcus’s sentiment was admirable, it would not have gained him a slot in heaven. Notwithstanding the unrealism of Marcus and Mercia’s relationship as well as Marcus’ supposed conversion to Christianity, the movie was unrealistic in the famous execution scene. Emperor Nero brings in a series of exotic creatures (alligators, gorillas, lions, elephants) to execute the Christians he captured. The Sign of the Cross was absurd, very inaccurate, and does not do Christianity justice.
ReplyDeleteLindsey, I really liked your use of evidence. You present a progression of examples that are very well organized and clearly demonstrate your point. If you wanted, you might add in how although Mercia and Marcus are portrayed as wildly in love, they have kind of a twisted relationship. He is constantly trying to have sex with her as he seems to be more about the physical side of the relationship than the emotional, yet she doesn't really seem to see this as a problem.
DeleteYou have a lot of instances from the movie to support your view on this movie, which is also very clear due to your diction: such as "somehow", "shallow", and "un-realism"
DeleteI like and agree with your point about Marcus' conversion in the end of the film. By Christian definitions, he would not even be allowed in to heaven because he never expressed an absolute faith in Jesus as his Lord and Savior. He simply converted because he loved Mercia, and had faith in her.
DeleteThe film “Sign of the Cross” presents a very provocative and unique portrayal of the Roman Empire during the time of the Great Fire and the persecution of the Christians. However, in many scenes this originality seems slightly implausible. For example, the ending leaves the viewer slightly perplexed as to how Marcus could go from an atheist to a born again believer who is willing to sacrifice everything for his new found faith in God and in the assurance that he will be with Mercia in Heaven. He experiences a complete 180 shift when it comes to his beliefs all in the span of several minutes. This abrupt transformation can also be seen through his sudden love for Mercia, as they’re entire relationship spans the length of two or three days. Although it is shown as a charming love story, the relationship between the two characters consists of sporadic interactions that portray lust, not true affection. Marcus is continually trying to get close enough to Mercia to touch or kiss her despite the fact that she always puts up resistance. This acts as a façade and hides the true nature of their relationship. Overall, the film “Sign of the Cross” succeeded in telling a thrilling tale yet it lacked a sound foundation of logic.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even look at your post before I posted my review, but I find it very interesting that we used a lot of the same words! I completely agree with your review.
DeleteI agree with you Jill, i think the idea of lust being a focal point in the relationship is a very intriguing idea and i think it's often overlooked. and i agree with the point that there is a lack of logic in the film. i would encourage you to add onto the lack of logic by including other parts from the movie besides just the romance.
DeleteI completely agree that the film was not very explanatory in its plot turns. To an extent, mystery and individual interpretation is nice, but The Sign of the Cross really did it in a way that didn't make the events very believable. I liked how you focused on the relationship between Mercia and Marcus.
DeleteIf you were to develop this further, I would suggest considering the relationship between Marcus and Poppaea. If Marcus merely seems lustful after Mercia, why does he not simply go after Poppaea, who would clearly resist less?
The Sign of the Cross sacrifices historical accuracy in order to show the stark contrast between stereotypical ideas of the Romans versus the Christians. The costumes are lavish and intriguing, but completely inaccurate in order to help show the differences between the whorish and sexual obsessed Romans, and the pure, loyal Christians. The only part of the movie that wasn't predictable was Marcus's abrupt religious conversion, which did not make logical sense. The filming of the movie and shots were very interesting, however, and the close ups were used well.
ReplyDeleteCecil B. DeMille’s The Sign of the Cross spared no expense at all in the filming and production of this movie, especially in the portrayal of Romans. There are cute, terrifying, and exotic animals of all kinds, fabulous costume and hair design in every scene, and a spectacular set. There’s even a scene where Empress Poppae and her friend Dacia bathe in milk. Although all this extravagance is no doubt pleasing to the eye, it is all done to highlight the sin of the Romans. At every moment the Christians are shown as extremely pious. In one scene Mercia, dressed in a white modest gown, is surrounded by provocative Romans and being danced around by Ancaria, who’s wearing an almost see through dress. She’s also relentlessly chased by Marcus, who falls quickly in love with Mercia. When Mercia condemns herself to death rather than convert to Roman paganism, Marcus finally gives up and converts to Christianity at the last second, walking Mercia to the stadium. Even though Mercia and Marcus died together, I felt this was just a cheap ending. To sum everything up, between the racy costumes and morbid ending, I would go so far as to say this movie promotes Christianity in all the wrong ways.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your ideas in your review. I can't really see many Christians fully agreeing with the ideas presented in the movie, though it may have had those intentions. Plus, your ideas were very organized and thoughtful.
DeleteI think it could be interesting if you tried to add an explanation of the various speeches of Christian ideals in the movies. You could try to include the speech of Titus or the dungeon scene with the Christians and ponder what real-life Christians would have felt about these scenes.
I like all of the evidence you used. It all fits together, but I guess the question I would have to ask is what your opinion of the movie is. You tell us that Christianity is promoted in all the wrong ways, so I'm guessing you didn't like the movie.
Deletealso this is bea i have no idea why it keeps posting under this name, i think my email account hates me :(
DeleteIt posts under the beochtrice moniker because you must be signed in to your old Google account. Try signing in with your full WU-email address, and see what happens.
DeleteWhile The Sign of the Cross featured characters that were not very relatable, the film can definitely be admired for its extravagance. The character Nero was very well-acted out as he calls himself “master of the world,” but it was not very historically accurate. I wish they had given him a more major role in the movie. Although Marcus would claim things relating to Mercia like, “Nothing I want so much will get away so quickly,” their relationship was not particularly believable and the movie certainly could have done a better job of portraying this romance. It seems absurd that Mercia could have such a strong belief in Christianity, yet Marcus could call Christianity stupid and vicious when Mercia’s whole life is based upon this religion. Poppaea is also a character with confusing motives; her dominance over Nero is consistently emphasized throughout the film. Despite these many flaws with the characters in the film, The Sign of the Cross did create an entertaining yet bewildering scene in the arena. Exotic animals like elephants, tigers, crocodiles, gorillas, and lions were used to execute the prisoners. This scene was disturbing as the camera would zoom in to feature various Romans that were not troubled by these events. This movie can be commended for its creativity, but its acting and explanations were not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI like how your review hits on many things that I found to be problems in the movie like the lack of Nero's character and the area scene. I also found it interesting that you pointed out the fact that the characters are not very relatable. I think that it would be nice if you expanded on this.
DeleteI thought that the movie “Sign of the Cross” is a good movie when it comes to the technicalities of filmmaking, but the lack of a good and reasonable plot are what make this a bad movie. The director of this film was very good at making shots believable, especially for the time period. For example, the scene where the midget is stabbed with the spear and carried by the Amazonian woman looks quite realistic, even though we know that she did not really stab him. There are several of these death scenes that look very real, especially for that time period. The plot of this movie, on the other hand, was dreadful. The best example of this lies in the ending, where Marcus sacrifices himself in order to spend his afterlife with her. The whole movie, we only see them talk. There is no real connection between them until they randomly confess their love for each other. A real person wouldn’t decide to off themselves and go to a heaven they never believed in because they think they’re in love. There are some aspects of this movie that I really like, but the storyline makes it hard to call this a good movie.
ReplyDeleteI was really curious about how they passed off the stabbing of the midget and made it look so realistic. Almost every time someone dies or gets hurt intentionally, the camera breaks away and has a shot of something or someone right next to the victim. You might want to mention how the movie aims to be a little more tasteful by shifting the camera away from someone being killed or in the scene with Mercia's brother being tortured, the camera focuses on the eagle.
DeleteIn my opinion, I liked this movie until the ending. I thought it was an interesting plot and way to communicate Ancient Rome in this time period. I could not wrap my head around the fact that he basically commits suicide because he suddenly believes in God. Marcus was an atheist throughout the whole movie and then in the last few minutes of the movie he suddenly has faith that he will go to heaven with Mercia. It was also baffling that he kills himself for a girl, whom he claims to love, but has only known for 3-4 days. Nero also seemed like an unrealistic character. I don’t think the director effectively display how Nero would have acted in Ancient Rome. I thought that Nero was a bit too dramatic and “fake” for being the emperor of Rome. Although, there were some points in the movie I genuinely enjoyed. I enjoyed the gladiator event and I thought the costumes were very close to being what they would have looked like. Although some factors in the scene were different. I don’t think there should have been that many gladiators fighting at once. The torture scenes with the different animals were also very disturbing. I found the gorilla scene most disturbing after finding out what the gorilla symbolized and did.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points about the film. I dont think that Marcus was atheist, but more so he followed the normal Roman mythology up until the Christian rule. This would have been a system much like the ancient Greeks with different gods for different aspects of life. I do agree that the torture scenes were to much, and that that many gladiators did not belong in the arena together.
Delete"Sign of the Cross" in one swoop is a good movie with memorable characters. However, when you begin to analyze each aspect of the film, it begins to fall apart. The acting is strong, but it undercuts itself with unbelievable characters. The main character, Marcus Superbus falls for a Christian girl and seemingly the next day, she claims she loves him back even though when they first meet she is afraid of him and sees him as an oppressor. Although Marcus is told to persecute all Christians and he is clearly not a Christian, a few days later when the Christians are being killed en mass, he is suddenly willing to die with her in hope that he can live with her forever in Heaven. Many of the shots were dynamic and allowed us to feel as if we were in the movie with the characters. The constant goings on in the foreground and background allow for a very busy feel to the movie when the high action sequences take place. The gladiator fights as well as the scenes of the people in the seats around the arena use many different people in the shot to provide a sense of how hectic and exciting these times are. The gaps in the plot are made up for with dynamic and intriguing action scenes and scenes of "love" and "devotion".
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you on how some of these characters are ridiculous, and i liked the evidence you used. Something you could use was how physical Marcus got, or tried to get, with Mercia
DeleteI like your outlook on the dynamic shots. I didn't even consider the shots when I wrote my review. But I agree with you when you said that the shots help the audience feel more engaged and apart of the movie.
DeleteIn all honesty, I was not at all a fan of this film. In my hopes to express my dislike of this film, I would be so bold as to say I would rather watch Cabiria again than to have to sit through another sitting of this preposterous story line. The simple fact that a man who just barely met a woman is all of a sudden willing to die a gruesome death alongside her completely undercuts what little dignity this film might have had. While you can make an argument that yes for their budget, they produced a good film cinematically; there is no forgiving the horrid acting and the less than brilliant plot line. The ridiculousness of the scenes where 60 gladiators fight to the death, a woman is raped by a gorilla, or that crocodiles tear apart an already naked woman give clear way to harsh criticism and mockery. The portrayal of Romans and their way of being was so off that it made it painful to watch even to one who is not learned in the art of Classical studies. Namely I do not think it was a good idea to present such a movie after the wonder of a film we watched last week which was "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum".
ReplyDeleteI wanted to be absolutely clear that I was in no way attacking anyone who enjoyed this film, I was mearly expressing that I was not a fan of this work. In having seen some other magnificent works in this class, I did not feel that this one competed well with the rest. I wish people to understand that this is simply one mans opinion, and that it in no way is meant to bring down anyone who enjoyed the film. My sincere apologize to anyone who might take offense to my writing.
DeleteThanks, Nikolas, for such a devastatingly frank critique of the movie! ;-) I guess you don't believe in true love?
DeleteJoking aside, I think you are right that the script writers could have worked harder to motivate Marcus Superbus' conversion and, in fact, also to explain what Mercia sees in him. I'm not sure whether this is solely a flaw of the movie or whether the roots for this were already laid in the 1895 play that inspired the movie. DeMille was clearly more interested in shocking his audience with the murderous spectacles in the amphitheater than in sound characterization.
That his reconstruction of Roman life, gladiatorial games and public executions is not very authentic is something this movie has very much in common with later movies, such as "Gladiator" or, mutatis mutandis, "300".
That is one of the reasons why I think it's worth seeing this movie, or how else could we appreciate the pervasiveness of this stereotypical way of portraying the arena? Apart from that, I myself enjoy the sets, which with their many inscriptions are actually unusually authentic, the many humorous vignettes, such as the quarreling couple on the stairs of the arena, and the skill with which DeMille creates suspense and excitement, whether we are talking about the build-up to the milk bath scene or many of the arena scenes.
For as important as Nero was in history and how much we read about him I thought that “Sign of the Cross” would include him more into the movie beyond the beginning and the end he was involved very little in the movie. In addition Poppea was able to have a large amount of control over Nero, which although refreshing from the feminist point of view wasn’t necessarily historically accurate.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I particularly liked in “Sign of the Cross” was the repeated symbol of the cross. I appreciated the opening with the two Christians each drawing half of the cross and the repeated symbol throughout the architecture of the movie.
One of the scenes that I did not like was the Nero’s games. I thought that there was too much build up to the scene of the killing of the Christians. The battle between the Gladiators and the parade of large zoo animals slowed down the movie and dragged the ending out longer than it needed too. I think that the movie would have been more realistic if it showed the Christians in the area with the lions or the faces of the Christians as they exit the staging area. I would have liked to have seen Marcus and Mercia’s reactions also.
I agree, Nero seemed a whole lot dumber than I expected in the movie. Not only was he flaky and lazy, but also very easily manipulated. Good points about the games as well.
DeleteI also liked the way the symbol of the cross (or should we say, "sign of the cross"?) pops up again and again, in the sand next to the fountain, in Paul's arm, in the iron lattices of Marcus Superbus' door, in the dungeon, and later in the arena, when the door to the arena shuts for the last time.
DeleteIronically, however, this is one of the most inauthentic parts of the entire movie. The cross became the symbol of Christianity extremely late, not before the 6th century, if I remember correctly. Before, while crucifixions were still going on, the cross was too tainted with negative associations since it was, after all, a form of execution reserved for non-citizen criminals and slaves.
The sign 1st-century Christians would have used in reality is the fish, since the Greek word for fish, ichthys, is an acronym for Iesous Christos, Theou Hyios, Soter (Jesus Christ, son of God, Saviour). But if DeMille had truly been interested in authenticity, he probably would not have tried to make a film out of William Barrett's play "The Sign of the Cross."
It is interesting that the arena scenes feel too long to you. They clearly take up an inordinate amount of time, and so they must have been particularly important to DeMille. At the same time, I know that some of the most sexually charged and violent scenes were cut in later releases, such as the Gorilla and the girl, the alligators and the girl, the elephant crushing the Christian man, the cart with dead gladiators being dragged out of the arena, and so on, and I think that no one except for DeMille will have noticed their missing, because they are so episodic and they make, basically, the same point again and again, namely that the pagan Romans are cruel and sexually perverted barbarians.
Delete“Sign of the Cross” was a film with a much darker feel than the other films we've viewed so far. Beginning with Rome burning and ending with mass executions, it paints an interesting picture of Nero’s Rome. However, this doesn't’ necessarily mean it was better. I thought some of the plot was rather unbelievable, especially the love between Marcus Superbus and the Christian girl. From the start Marcus seems to force himself upon the girl. Though she defies the Roman oppressors until her dying breath, for some reason she gives-in to Marcus’ affections within a day. This seems very inconsistent in regard to her character, which is strong-willed and independent. It would make more sense if the more Marcus wanted her, the more she fought him, rather than deciding to love him back after their first meeting. Stranger still, Marcus, who seems strong-willed and stubborn enough even to challenge Nero to his face, switches religions on a dime at the very end of the film after fervently denying Christianity the whole film prior. Overall, “Sign of the Cross” is a well shot and fairly well acted portrayal of Nero’s ruthless escapades with an unrealistic love story at the very core.
ReplyDelete