Quo Vadis?

The M.G.M. lion roars, that big, fat, heartless lion, and the spectacle begins. "Quo Vadis?" To the Rome, of Nero at the cost of £3,000,000. to see 30,000 extras (dressed 15,000 costumes), to be struckdumb by the magnificence of the are, to shudder with the Christians in the Arena, But "when in Rome, do as the Americans do." Copy their accent, their sentiment. And for arts sake, be grateful that the sumptuous tapestries and collosal Roman architectural monsters, almost conceal the lack of imagination and taste of the producers.

"Qou Vadis" could have been colossal in many ways The original story calls for spectacle, admittedly, but there is pathos and a theme of broad significance. All this and good taste too is missing from the film version. Material spectacle is all very well but it becomes tiresome after one hour.

Deborah Kerr gave the best major performance—out of a poor lot. Yes, even beter than Peter Ustinov who was a great disappointment. His Nero was straight from the music hall, a stagy caricature. A performance rather than a characterisation. Robert Taylor gave a brilliant performance as Robert Taylor except that he was not convincing in his conversion to Christianity. Leo Genn's acting was polished but he failed in his trump scene.

I don't condemn "Qou Vadis" wholeheartedly. I must congratulate the script writers for keeping to simple English, without the "thys." "thous" and "theen" that belong to the language of Cecil B. de Mille. Some of the scenes are well directed when we consider he had not "the heart of the matter."

A character in the film remarked that "the lire was not good, but it was colossal." So be it with "Quo Vadis."

Grading: ***

Grading for Spectacle: *****