FSM Board: NEW VARESE: SPARTACUS (Alex North) (2025)

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0103.html

From reading it I gather that early on Ed Muhl, head of production for Universal-International, had desired the film to be more intimate portrait as well as far less costly movie.

This article mentions North who was very angry at the number of changes made to the film which he felt damaged his music.

I was in correnspondence with Duncan Cooper for some time a few years ago and he was kind enough to send me a lot of Spartacus material, including a letter from Howard Fast. His (Cooper's) contention was that the concept of the "large" Spartacus, the one who was historically a genuine threat to Roman stability in Italy and defeated numerous armies, was obscured by studio interference, the point being the the studio fat cats wanted to dilute the "communist" message of Spartacus that the poor and oppressed can indeed rise up and control their own destinies. Whatever the truth of that contention, I always disagreed that the studio had been successful. I think there are more than enough references in the film to make it perfectly clear that Spartacus was as great a threat to Rome as Hannibal or any other of its famous enemies, even if the rebellion was to a great extent played down by the Romans for obvious reasons. Anyone viewing the film would surely come away with the impression that Spartacus was a great leader and a genuine threat, and that the "large" Spartacus survived after all, despite all the "Crassusses" in the Universal boardroom.

I totally agree. The message Douglas and Trumbo wanted to convey remains pretty much intact. My only complaint with the film is it occasionally shows Universal's cost conscious cheese pairing with 90% of the production shot on the lot. The interior sound stage sets with their obvious phony exterior backdrops are quite jarring.

The film lacks the same power "Ben-Hur" had. Of the two films I much prefer "Ben-Hur." But that was Wyler and he was quite possibly the finest Hollywood director of actors. And of the two scores I prefer Rozsa's. It just might be the finest score ever composed for a Hollywood feature. Rozsa's magnificent main title remains my favorite. Plus he composed a wonderful overture. That's not to take away from North's achievement. I just prefer Rozsa's score.

As far as "Spartacus," I believe Kubrick wasn't seasoned enough to pull off such a colossal spectacle. But he did do a competent job all the same. I doubt the film would have been any worse had Douglas not fired Tony Mann.

"Spartacus" is not a "colossal spectacle"...it never was meant to be and it should not be expected to be one. That, in itself, is what most critics over the decades have found most refreshing about it. It sets the film apart from all the other larger-than-life (and WAY over the top, art direction-wise) film spectacles audiences were used to yawning through. As beautiful as the art direction in "Ben-Hur" was for Rome, it wasn't realistic. Rome was never THAT super-colossal. The Forum is considerably smaller in dimensions than was shown in FOTRE...and the processional parades were done on streets much narrower than the grand avenues the movies show us (for a huge laugh, look at the parade in "Quo Vadis" -- a grand scale and glorious to behold -- but there's nothing "to scale" about it...and it's doubtful Rome ever had so many grand marble-faced buildings standing side by side at one time). I find "Spartacus" more powerful because of that. It also has humor which "Ben-Hur" lacks except for some charming moments with Hugh Griffith and his four white horses.

As for Kubrick's ability to pull this film off, it has certainly withstood the test of time. And, for me, it's far and away the best movie he ever made because, happily, it lacks the coldly impersonal approach and Kubrick style...which I place lovingly at the feet of Douglas whose film it was and is. I admire Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001: A Space Odyssey", but I venerate "Spartacus".

North's "Spartacus" is my personal preference of "greatest film score ever written". To each his own, I know.

"Spartacus" is not that kind of spectacle...never was meant to be and should not be expected to be. I find it more powerful because of that. It also has humor which "Ben-Hur" lacks except for some charming moments with Hugh Griffith and his four white horses.

North's "Spartacus" is my pick for greatest film score ever written.

It doesn't surprise me.

As far as "Ben-Hur" having its own amount of cheese, I totally disagree. The production MGM mounted at that time is close to being flawless. No expense was spared. And that chariot race is one of the most exciting action sequences ever filmed.

"Spartacus" has no scene that matches it in that department. The big battle scene which was partly shot in Spain comes off lacking the excitement it should have had considering the film was building towards it. The way it's staged it's almost anti-climatic.

I don't try to make the claim both films shared any similarity plot wise, only that both films were spectacles costing each studio more than they had ever spent in the past and that "Ben-Hur was more successful telling its story.

As for the two scores, Rozsa's does everything a film score should do and it does it better than most other scores have achieved. Rozsa deservedly won the Oscar for Best Original Score. It's his finest work and stands the test of time.

North's score is quite effective. This is especially true of the music behind the gladiator school montage. But I really never cared that much for the love theme. That said, I still feel it's one of the best scores North ever composed. But I still prefer North's music for "Cleopatra."

As for humor lacking in "Ben-Hur," once again I disagree. There's plenty of humor. It's just a different kind of humor. More sardonic. Who can forget when Judah and Quintus Arrius are on the makeshift raft at sea and Arrius believing he lost the battle tries to drown himself. Judah stops him reminding him that "we keep you alive to serve this ship."

You've got to be kidding. Have you been there?

Back in 2005 when my wife and I travelled to Rome, we were both impressed by the vastness of the ruins of the Roman Forum nearby the Colosseum. Then there's the Colosseum which in person, even in ruins, is far more impressive than the phony digital matte version seen in "Gladiator."

The Roman Form ruins:

I have to agree with Ed on this one. Having been to Rome and also having a large coffee table book that presents reconstructions of ancient Rome at different time periods, Rome was very definitely THAT super-colossal. If anything, the sets of FOTRE under-represent the size of the city and forum just due to the fact that it would be cost-prohibitive to show more. But yes, the width of the avenues was a bit exaggerated.

But on to the CD release. I've had a chance to listen to most of it and read the book. It is in every respect worth the cost and one of the finest tributes to a single film score ever done. I don't have the problem with mono that a lot of folks have, but in any case the sound is crisp and clear and sounds just fine. The stereo CD is superior to any previous release. The much-maligned love theme variations are fascinating and not at all boring or repetitive. They give great insight into why North was considered a musician's musician because this deceptively simple and beautiful melody could lead to such inspiration, innovation, and improvisation. Great stuff!

One minor disapointment...I won't be able to play my favorite past-time of "pitch-the-boot". Some 10 or maybe 15 years ago, I picked up a 2CD version of the score at Tower Records in NY. I assumed it was legit...I didn't know anything about boots back then. The most fascinating thing to me were the piano, percussion, and vocal preliminary cues. While the new set has some new ones, the boot has a version of "The Mines" and a couple of others that the new CD does not...despite the fact that the alternates CD (#4) is only 43 minutes. Not something I would listen to every time, but worth having and a fascinating glimpse into the composing and orchestration process.

the Overture toanne frank was over the fox Logoin the the theater and also on the laserdisc version. Both of the fox DVDs got it wrong.

Another film where theoverture ends over theFox Logo is The Sand Pebbles.

the Overture toanne frank was over the fox Logoin the the theater and also on the laserdisc version. Both of the fox DVDs got it wrong.

Another film where theoverture ends over theFox Logo is The Sand Pebbles.

Fox had the right approach there. The curtains would part while the Overture was still playing.

As to the two films, I won't take an overall position. It's been a while since I've seen SPARTACUS, and I'm currently looking forward to rediscovery via BluRay and the new score album. One thing I've been wondering. Does the Douglas-Trumbo-Kubrick film make any serious attempt to account for the Thracian slave's leadership? To assemble and lead a slave army in several successful campaigns against Rome was an extraordinary achievement. Obviously the gladiators were all tough fighters. But toughness doesn't create an army. The film shows them as cruelly brutalized, but brutalization does not often result in self-sacrificing nobility and enlightened leadership. To put it bluntly, I would imagine the historical slave revolt to have included some serious leadership struggles and no small amount of bloodletting. The film, of course, takes an idealized view of the oppressed classes. "Prolier than thou" was Time's inspired phrase. I can accept the film on those terms, but I just wonder if it makes any attempt at all to explain Spartacus' emergence as leader.

Actually "The Mines" is labeled "Crucifixion march" on the fourth CD but fades out about halfway through the track.

As to the two films, I won't take an overall position. It's been a while since I've seen SPARTACUS, and I'm currently looking forward to rediscovery via BluRay and the new score album. One thing I've been wondering. Does the Douglas-Trumbo-Kubrick film make any serious attempt to account for the Thracian slave's leadership? To assemble and lead a slave army in several successful campaigns against Rome was an extraordinary achievement. Obviously the gladiators were all tough fighters. But toughness doesn't create an army. The film shows them as cruelly brutalized, but brutalization does not often result in self-sacrificing nobility and enlightened leadership. To put it bluntly, I would imagine the historical slave revolt to have included some serious leadership struggles and no small amount of bloodletting. The film, of course, takes an idealized view of the oppressed classes. "Prolier than thou" was Time's inspired phrase. I can accept the film on those terms, but I just wonder if it makes any attempt at all to explain Spartacus' emergence as leader.

No.

Well, that's flippant. The film has Spartacus gaining the gladiators' affections before the rebellion and naturally assuming leadership afterwards. Historically, Spartacus clashed with Crixus, and a mild allusion is made to this early in the film where the two conflict over a couple of Roman patricians being made to fight each other in the arena ("When I fight matched pairs they fight to the death!"). Otherwise I can't recall any scene where there's contention or doubt over the leadership.

Of course, whether it would have improved the film to have showed such contention is another matter. The point seems to have been that the slaves were simple, honest people who didn't plot to undermine each other like those evil, vicious Romans, and there's some validity in that approach. The sheer niceness of the slaves has never bothered me, but it has been a point of ridicule by some of the more cynical among us. Perhaps I'm too soft headed.

Anyone else having trouble posting here? My posts don't seem to go through, I try again and they go through double. Very frustrating.

You've got to be kidding. Have you been there?

Back in 2005 when my wife and I travelled to Rome, we were both impressed by the vastness of the ruins of the Roman Forum nearby the Colosseum. Then there's the Colosseum which in person, even in ruins, is far more impressive than the phony digital matte version seen in "Gladiator."

The Roman Form ruins:

Yes...I lived in Italy for 9 1/2 years, and I trod through the Forum, over the Palatine, into the Circus Maximus many times. I also traveled the circumference of the Colosseum and visited its heights and depths on several occasions.

Rome is most impressive. And standing in front of buildings that were, a couple of thousand years ago, the scenes of much historical activity is dumbfounding. The senses are dazzled, and yes, it's very impressive.

But, in spending time thinking about it, and comparing the real deal with what I'd seen on screen in many films, I could not avoid the reality of how over-scaled Hollywood epics presented it....the entire Forum area is much "smaller" than that in FOTRE...there aren't vast avenues or expanses of empty space. If one were to restore the buildings, especially the many palaces that were built upon the Palatine (which is directly beside the Forum), there would be great "height"...dizzying height, in fact, but not "width"...in other words, the procession into Rome in "Cleopatra" would have been claustrophobic with that many people and the oversized sphinx coming under that arch (which wasn't built for several hundred years after that "event").

The Colosseum is breathakingly colossal, yes....but I'm convinced it was never as huge as depicted in films.

"Gladiator" presented it in what I think was a more realistic context for its less-than-spartan surroundings, but the matte made it appaear larger than I remember it. Given the ravages of time, if the marble facings, and seating areas, and Imperial box were restored, there would be even less interior space than currently exists. It's large...but not as large as presented on screen..at least, IMO.

Every movie representation of the Senate is overblown, too. The shell of what was the Senate remains in the Forum (the actual doors to the Senate are now on a church in Rome). You couldn't fit "Hollywood representations" of the Senate within that shell. You just couldn't. And it certainly wouldn't be cinematic if the movies were 100% accurate. Rome was epic on any human scale...especially for its time in history...but I don't think it was quite as epic as the movies have depicted. But that's really quibbling, isn't it! My point is, though, that saying one epic is more convincing than another because of the size of this building or that area is a crap shoot. No matter the claims film makers have made about their recreations of Rome, the fact is that Rome on the screen is seldom "authentic" given the time of whatever the epic story is about.

I spent many hours lingering around ruins and pondering perspectives...contrasting what is there with what I've seen on screen...even the "alleged" accurate representations are not really accurate in context. No Victory Parade the size of the one in "Ben-Hur" could ever have been presented in the Forum. There's not enough real estate.

And Rome was never "complete" in terms of landmark buildings with gleaming facades of marble standing side by side. Rome was consistently "in decay". And those facades were more often brick than marble.

I think "I, Claudius" (Derek Jacobi) and "Rome" (HBO mini-series) got it more right than most movies ever did.

While I think Ben-Hur is probably the only truly great epic Roman film ever, and I dislike large swaths of Spartacus and really agree with you overall, I have to say there is one part of Ben-Hur where MGM disappointingly spared expense, and that's the sea battle. Oh how I wish some of the money Fox threw at Cleopatra could've gone towards this masterpiece. Cleopatra = real ships. Ben-Hur = unconvincing models. The one glaring thing that keeps it's production from being "flawless" as you say.

Yavar

Yavar

And yet, the sea battle in Cleo is as boring as hell (and incomprehensible, as cut), while that in B-H has real excitement for all the obviousness of the models. And tons of atmosphere.

I love Rozsa's music, but I love his "El Cid" more. I'm more fond of "The Diary of Anne Frank" and "The Nun's Story" among the 1959 scores.

I know! What I'm saying is what if they *money* that had been spent on Cleo had been combined with the *talent* applied to Ben-Hur?

Yavar

Yavar

And yet, the sea battle in Cleo is as boring as hell (and incomprehensible, as cut), while that in B-H has real excitement for all the obviousness of the models. And tons of atmosphere.

The sea battle in "Cleopatra" was mostly reshot after Darryl Zanuck took over the production, shut it down and then ran all the film. Less models were used in "Cleopatra" than in "Ben-Hur" which relied mostly on models filmed in their large tank on Lot 3 in Culver City. Fox only used model ships on "Cleopatra" for the extreme long shots showing all the ships in one angle. Those were shot on the newly constructed Serson effects tank on the Fox Ranch in Malibu. They built full-sized ships for the sea battle scene. But with all that, the sea battle in "Ben-Hur" is far more exciting. I feel it's more exciting than the battles scenes in "Spartacus" which suffers from a clinical detachment. I blame that on Kubrick. For all his expertise, the man just couldn't pull off what Anthony Mann could have done had he been allowed to continue directing the film.

About the only thing I didn't care for with the sea battle in "Ben-Hur" was the obvious blue backing anomalies that showed up as outlined halos around the actors. Decades after the film was made, Koday took some footage of that section of the film to their Cinesite facility and removed all of the halos using their proprietary digital process. I saw that test. They fixed it. But Turner refused to spend the money to fix the entire sequence.

I have to credit Kubrick with the picture's enduring appeal if only because Anthony Mann's spectacles are so flat by comparison, despite superior production values. FOTRE may be the best LOOKING of all these pictures but amounts to little in the end.

It was accurately built. Rome was vast. It was truly colossal.

The sets built for "The Fall of the Roman Empire" while vast, took up far less acreage than the real Roman Forum did.

Now for "Spartacus," penny pinching Universal built a truly small set depicting Rome on their backlot. Although it burned down, Universal has rebuilt it using the same exact plans. They call it Spartacus Square. I'v been all over it. It's relatively tiny.

Yavar