You make some interesting points, but your history and dramatic sense are, I think, flawed:
I don't think the film is "one-sided and propagandistic". Rather, it has a "point of view". All good drama has a "point of view". Shakespeare's "Richard III" is, decidedly, anti-Richard.
We know very little about the "Christianity" of Nero's time. Your assertion that early Christianity was not anti-slavery is specious for this reason. We just don't know. We do know that early Christianity took a great many of its converts from the ranks of slaves and criminals (free thinkers). Attitudes are formed in all kinds of groups, in part, by the sentiments of their memberships. As to "freedom", the early Christians were so dedicated to it that the creation of "bishops" and "presbyters" was delayed for years, though they recognized that the rules of organization required some form of hierarchy.
You're correct in saying that "polytheism caused rifts in the (Roman?) society". The concept of immortality lay at the root of this tension. However, Gibbon explains that the Roman Empire as a ruling entity cared little about religious hegemony except as it defined the Roman character (superior) and "its right to rule" the more effeminate, animal-worshiping peoples of the East. (A big part of Octavius' propaganda campaign against Cleopatra and her besotted lover, Antony, was based on the Roman people's identification with Hellenistic - masculine - behavioral precepts.) Roman administrations in Italy, and the more far-flung provinces, were welcoming to Eastern beliefs (however reluctantly) as political panacea. The problem, for the Romans, with Christianity and Judaism was that they, as you and the film point out, rejected Rome's offer of a public status equal to the pagan pantheons displayed throughout their capitol. The Christians sought to keep themselves from the temptations of the secular pleasures Roman society offered (the events of the arena) its population. Compounding the problem was the insistence on the part of some of the Emperors that they, too, while still living, were gods themselves. Neither the Christians nor the Jews could "sign that".
BTW, early Christians did believe they had a "monopoly on kindness and miracles". A bothersome trait for the Romans. In this sense, the film had it right. I have trouble with your connected assertion, as well -- we're Christians so "we're right, we're perfect . . ." Of course they thought they were right. That's the basis for martyrdom, isn't it? To die for what one believes is right. The "perfect" part, not so -- saw no indication of that in the film. And, certainly, when it comes to Christian orthodoxy, such a pretense couldn't be tolerated. A fundamental tenet of Christianity, as I'm sure you know, is that we are all sinners and in need of forgiveness. Pretty much rules out a personal sense of "perfection", doesn't it?
As to the love affair between Marcus and Lygia, well . . . My wife and I have differing religious and philosophical beliefs -- always have. We're very much in love, however. So much, at least for me, for the "unbelievability" of the lead's attraction in "Quo Vadis?" I submit, too, that Marcus does change. I mean, he tries to save the Christians (Lygia principally) at great risk to himself, and moves, gradually, from despising the Christian character to admiring it. Given the film's "point of view", I'd call those "redeeming qualities", wouldn't you?
Actually, post-Nero, the Christian community lead a generally calm and prosperous existence within the empire until Decius.
reply
share