Quo Vadis (1951)

The translation of the title means' "Where Are You Going?"  One can always ask that question, and it can be taken literally, but in this case I beleive it is metaphorical.  We watched the movie not so much for the story but for the setting in the mid-first century in Rome.  My son is beginning a Classics major, and I find that while the story in the movie may have little to no historical relevance, often time they have gotten the costumes and settings down quite well.  This movie is close to 3 hours long and was nominated for 8 Academy Awards in 1951, including best musical score, two best acting nominations, and best picture--it is an epic movie, ino ther words, in both scope and quality.

The movie chronicles the treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire under Nero, starting in 64 and going up to the end of his regime in 68. It quite nicely illustrates the conditions of the empire under Nero, the sort of man that he was, and the people he surrounded himself with.  It is a nicely illustrative rendition of Nero's obsessions and why they were so destructive, ultimately leading to the end of the Julio Claudian emperors.  The film blames Nero for the Great Fire of Rome in 64--historians blame the long hot summer and the shoddy construction of the houses where the fire started, but agree that Nero did not return to Rome, despite the devestation, until his own house was threatened.  His behavior afterwards, where he built a sprawling palace on land that was once occupied by houses that burned, reinforced the opinion that he was not broken hearted about the devestation.  Reportedly he rebuilt Rome in a way that was rational and aimed at preventing another fire of that scope--houses needed to have stone fronts and first floors rather than just wooden ones.  Nero had more water brought to the city via aqueduct and constructed many fountains so that fire could be fought more easily, and he fed and sheltered everyone after the fire.  No matter.  He did blame the Christians and did crucify them as responsible for the fire.  There are other factual errors in the rendtion of history, but it is well worth watching none-the-less.