Second Paper Abstract
Spartacus is one of the best movies of its kind because of the dynamic story, brilliant acting, exquisite film techniques, and historical knowledge. There is a simple and powerful main story that has many side plots to it. The main story being the struggle of Spartacus and the various side stories deal mainly with the politics of Rome. By having more than one major plot line the audience is given a deeper story and relationship with all of the characters. The actors make the movie powerful, funny, and engaging. This makes the movie serious and emotional yet at times funny. There are scenes that make us laugh, like scenes with Gracchus, and scenes that are more serious, like the burying of a child. The movie also makes strong statements about the role of women and the business of slavery. The movie uses many different shot angles and widths to capture everything from simple conversations to grand battles. The movie also uses editing techniques to do this as well. There are various cuts of close ups to full shots to birds eye angles in the final battle. The film, in comparison to some of the other movies we have watched, is fairly historical. The film accurately depicts roman legions and their battle formations. It also shows realistic gladiator training. All great movies, however, have their faults. Spartacus could use more action, as there is only one major battle shown. The scenery could use some work. There are scenes where the audience can easily tell that the actors are on some set and not in the middle of a forest. Rome itself looks meek by comparison to other toga movies, the buildings are small and there is no grand forum that we are used to seeing in big toga movies. Despite these setbacks, Spartacus is an excellent movie that everyone needs to see twice.
I like how you talked about the comedy that is involved with this movie, and that its just just a serious acting film. It really does make a difference with how the film is played out, with plot lines and such, and the acting does a good job of making it smooth too.
ReplyDeleteYou have a clear thesis and explain them well later in the abstract. You even offer a counterargument which is good. In the paper just make sure to add detail to all your arguments.
ReplyDeleteYour thesis and your points are well organized! I like how you do put in a counterargument too, it makes the abstract stronger
ReplyDeleteI really liked the structure of your abstract, as I can clearly see your thesis and your main arguments, however, maybe you can also add to your counter argument that not all the weapons and armor were quite so historically accurate.
ReplyDeleteYour thesis is clear, but in the body of your paper, you address these points in a slightly different and sometimes, in my view at least, better manner.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you talk a lot about the film's humor, but your thesis addresses this definite strength of the movie only implicitly, under "brilliant acting". The great acting, esp. of Ustinov and Laughton, helps bring the humor across, but the humor is just as much a matter of the dialogue or script as of the acting. So while you should talk about the acting as well, I would actually list "humor" separately as one of the film's strong points.
Humor is, of course, not the most impressive strength of the film. I agree with you that this is the film's gripping, action-packed story and its moving message that a bunch of ill-treated and ill-equipped slaves, because of their hunger for freedom and love for each other, was able to take on the greatest military and political power of their time, even if only for a little while. . So just like you, I'd discuss first the film's (serious) story, then its wonderful use of comic relief, and then talk about the acting and the film's technical qualities.
Like the others, I appreciate that you don't conceal the film's weaknesses. I think what you say about them is fair, just as I agree that overall the film's good qualities weigh more.
P.S.: I'd probably not focus on the film's historical accuracy too much. When you look at the sources (http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html), you'll see that we actually know very little about Spartacus apart from his name and that he was a Thracian.
ReplyDeletePlutarch claims that he had a wife, a fellow Thracian, but we don't know her name and the entire story about her being a prophetess foreseeing his future greatness, but unhappy ending sounds as if Plutarch himself invented it (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/rome/f/spartacuswife.htm).
The gladiatorial armor the movie shows owes more to 19th century painting, esp. Jean-Léon Gérôme's "Pollice Verso", than to reality. Net fighters like Draba hadn't even been invented yet when Spartacus rebelled in 71 BCE; they became fashionable during the reign of the emperor Augustus, ca. 50 years later.
Everything the movie says about political parties in Rome, the office of dictator, Julius' Caesar's role, etc., etc. is nonsense. For more along the same vein, see, for example, see Juliette Harrison's blog review: http://popclassicsjg.blogspot.com/2011/06/spartacus-dir-stanley-kubrick-1960.html.