Abstract: Quo Vadis
The plot of Quo Vadis is more in depth then the other movies of its genre. The
plot really looks into the background of the time while having the love story
intertwined, rather then mainly focusing on just one aspect. For example, the
plot addresses the background of the time by focusing on the reign of Nero and
problems the Christians are facing.
However it balanced out by also looking at the love story between Marcus
and Lygia. Compared to The Sign of the Cross,
which is of similar plot but mainly focuses on the love story between Marcus
and Mercia. One of the aspects of the plot that Quo Vadis did well on was that of the conversion. In another movie
similar to Quo Vadis (The Sign of The Cross) the conversion of
the main character Marcus Superbus took no time at all and converted to be a
Christian before he dies in order to be able to be with the love of his life in
Heaven. Where as in Quo Vadis the
conversion of the main character Marcus Vinicus was more drawn out and even at
the very end of the movie he wasn’t fully converted to the Christian faith.
This gives the audience a more realistic idea of how long it takes to pick up a
faith rather then converting instantly.
The acting and the characters in Quo Vadis are able to develop making
the movie distinct and on a higher level then that of other movies similar to
its kind. This is shown through the main characters of Nero, Mercia. In other
movies the character of Nero didn’t develop and the audience wasn’t able to see
how he changed and his own background and history. The character of Lygia is
strong because she stands up for her beliefs and unlike other movies of the
genre she doesn’t instantly fall in love with Marcus. The character of Marcus
is interesting because he isn’t instantly likeable to the audience, which is
good because his character develops into someone the audience wants to see
Lygia with while still upholding his own beliefs. This Marcus is better
compared to the Marcus in The Sign of the
Cross because he develops and changes. Whereas Marcus in The Sign of the Cross stays the same
personality wise and doesn’t change or become more in-depth.
The cinematography of Quo Vadis is done really well and the
transitions are smooth, as well as the film being in color. The transitions in Quo Vadis are done really well and
smoothly. An example of this is at the banquet scene at Nero’s palace where
there is always an establishing shot then goes into a pan showing the
characters that will be talking the scene and then going in for a close-ups for
when they are talking then jumping to the reactions of the other characters. This technique works draws the audience in and
makes it easier for them to understand who the characters are and their
personalities. The fact that the film is in color only brings out the grandeur
of the elaborate sets and costumes that accessorize the characters.
A weakness of the movie is the
happy ending. The fact in that they leave Rome alive and ride “off” together in
love is not realistic. Considering they act as if nothing happened and that the
majority of their friends were not murdered. This is shown where they are
leaving Rome to look for a new life but not grasping what had just happened to
them in terms of the fire and the massacre of Christians.
In conclusion, Quo Vadis is a great movie due to its acting, plot and
cinematography. But it does have its weaknesses, for example: the ending of the
film. The characters of Quo Vadis are strong because they are
able to develop and deepen the audience’s interest in them. Although the plot of Quo Vadis is similar to that if The
Sign of the Cross, Quo Vadis is
better because the plot is more balanced out between the love story and the
history of the time. The cinematography is beautiful and only draws the
audience into how grand the film really is. The weakness of Quo Vadis is the ending, in that in the
end the characters don’t take grasp and reflect on what has happened to their
beloved city of Rome but instead ride off to start a new life. Quo
Vadis is a great movie that people should go and see due to it’s grandeur
but also being able to stay relevant to the time.
This abstract is already quite elaborate and gives a good idea of why you think "Quo Vadis" is one of the better toga movies.
ReplyDeleteYou may, however, want to make sure that your thesis lists the film's strength in the same order in which you discuss them. So it should be "Quo Vadis is one of the better movies of its kind due to its plot, acting, and cinematography."
In the acting paragraph, you list the roles of Nero and Mercia (!) as examples of good acting, but then you discuss Nero, Lygia, and Marcus. What you say about them is fine, of course. I hope, though, you'll show, for example, in more detail in which way Nero's character develops or changes in "Quo Vadis", but not in "Sign of the Cross." You should explicitly select and discuss scenes that show that Nero is changing.
In the cinematography (and editing) part, you need to explain in far more detail _how_ camera movement and editing help to "draw in the audience and make it easier for them to understand who the characters are and their personalities." Basically, you claim that this is the effect of the shots and editing used, but you don't actually prove it.
I love that you discuss the effect of color, since the vibrant Technicolor is indeed one of the great things about the move, and I agree that color helps to bring out the grandeur of the sets and costumes. I only hope you'll say more about it. Just to give you a hint: "Spartacus" is also a color film, but the Roman forum in that movie looks very different.
I think it's also fair to argue that the ending is too neat and unrealistic. In any case, it takes a lot of liberties with actual history: Nero was indeed overthrown and did commit suicide, but that was four years after the anti-Christian pogrom of 64 CE for which he was responsible, and he was not overthrown because he persecuted Christians. Moreover, his death did neither mean the establishment of a more stable society (on the contrary, it started a year of civil wars among 4 potential successors) nor the victory of Christianity. One could argue, of course, that a film script, to achieve a satisfactory ending, is allowed to take certain liberties with history. The question is, if this ending is satisfactory.