In this paper I am going to argue that in the four films that we watched as a class, over time Romans were portrayed as more powerful and influential.
In Cabiria, the main Roman characters were a spy and his slave. Both of these characters do nothing to show the grandeur of Rome. The Roman navy is portrayed as weak and incapable. At the Battle of Syracuse, they are destroyed by a giant lens that burns their ships. In the first Ben Hur, the Romans are more imposing. They are shown oppressing the Jews of Jerusalem, they deny Ben Hur water as he is marched to the galleys, they have a navy that wins a battle, and they have great spectacles such as chariot racing. In the second Ben Hur, the Romans, while similar to the Romans in the first Ben Hur, are portrayed as even more powerful and influential. They show the same as the first Ben Hur and more, including long shots of Rome itself. However, it is Cleopatra that outdoes them all. In Cleopatra, Rome is a superpower. It takes what was done in both Ben Hurs and multiplies. There are large Roman armies, along with multiple military victories, and grand shots of Rome. The soldiers are heavily armed and clad in shiny armor. There are a lot of powerful Senators and rues dressed in robes and outfits that signifies that they have power. And even though the Romans are not always united, they remain just as powerful. When one Roman fails, another takes his place. This is the case with Caesar and Antony. And when the Romans lose trust in Antony they turn on him and are victorious. Both Caesar and Antony fail when they turn their backs on Rome and instead focus on Egypt and Cleopatra.
In conclusion, Rome and Romans, in the four movies that we watched, increased in power. That is not to they are not powerful in all four movies, but it is to say that they are more powerful in Cleopatra than they are in Cabiria.
I fixed your post's font colors. Apparently, when you copy and paste text from a word document directly into the blog, the font color comes out as black on black (i.e., you can't read a thing). Make sure that you change the font color to white before you hit "publish" next time.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I hope you'll have a more exciting title for your final paper than "First Paper". ;-)
DeleteThat's quite an interesting observation that the Rome and the Romans appear as more powerful in the later movies than in the earlier ones. It can surely not have been Giovanni Pastrone's intention in "Cabiria" to show the Romans as weak. Think, for example, about the scene where Scipio orders Massinissa, the Numidian king, to him, and then forces him to surrender his wife (!), Sophronisba, because he wants her to march behind his chariot when he enters Rome in triumph. Or think about the way Fulvius Axilla and Maciste play around with the little Phoenician inn keeper.
ReplyDeleteActually, it's Sofonisba (no "r" and "f" instead of "ph", at least as long as we are using the Italian spelling that the movie uses to refer to these characters.
DeleteActually, it's Sofonisba (no "r" and "f" instead of "ph", at least as long as we are using the Italian spelling that the movie uses to refer to these characters.
DeleteYou have a clear thesis and reading this paper should be a fun one to read. Your evidence is overall decent, Knorr does have a point about the spy and his slave controlling the inn-keeper. Though the evidence about the lens destroying an entire Roman fleet offers a good counterpoint, and maybe suggests that the Roman army isn't unstoppable as in the other movies suggest.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Roman navy is destroyed by Archimedes' inventions in "Cabiria". Still, everyone in the audience would know that the Roman Marcellus eventually did capture Syracuse. And I'd say even Fulvius is not just a weakling. Remember the two stunts he is involved in, his climb up the huge walls of Carthage by means of the human ladder formed by Roman soldiers and their shields (that seemed to impress all of you when you watched it) and his daring leap into the Mediterranean Sea from the top of the ramparts?
Delete