Goya’s Ghosts opening scene is the Holy Office of the church discussing Goya’s work as an artist.  It is described as “disturbing and hideous”.  This scene sets the tone for the remainder of the movie because there are countless scenes that portray these characteristics.  Also, the movie accurately displays the corruption of the church and the frightening events that occurred during the Spanish Acquisition.  Torture and corruption were common themes, although the men did not see it that way, since they referred to torturing people as “The Question.”  The viewers could hear Lorenzo’s shoulders breaking, which caused an uneasy feeling.  Also, prisoners of the Holy Office were bloody and wounded very badly.  However, is it true that that period was very horrific.  The actors’ costumes correctly portrayed that time period, as well as the architecture.  For example, the royal court was shown wearing fancy clothing, while lower class citizens were shown in unpleasant clothing, which would be accurate for that time period.  The background of scenes had Spanish art and small sculptures.  There were paintings displayed in Lorenzo’s office and also throughout the royal’s buildings to set the scene.  

The movie was able to capture some accurate things about the work of Francisco Goya.  Goya painted almost demonic paintings, but also portraits of the royal court.  His more gruesome drawings and paintings make him seem like an artist who wasn’t afraid to step out of the comfort zone.  He was merely observing the true nature of the atrocious events that people endured.  He was also famous for his printmaking.  The director decided to dedicate a scene to the steps of printmaking to demonstrate the careful consideration that factors into each print.  Goya’s portraits of the royal court were also shown throughout the movie, but mainly focuses on his muse, Ines.  Also, Goya drew events that he observed during the French Revolution and even executions.  I found it interesting that the director created a point of view that involved the audience for a short period of time.  For example, when Goya first went completely deaf, two dogs were shown barking, but there was no sound.  It was a peculiar, yet intriguing take on it.  It felt as though the director wanted the audience to experience the same thing Goya was undergoing.  

Although the director names the movie after Goya, he is not the only main character.  The movie depicts several different storylines, which can be hard to follow.  The movie takes on several points of view of the characters such as; Ines, Lorenzo, and Inquisitor General. Each character basically has their own story, which some may find overwhelming.  However, the actors create raw emotion that draws in the audience in.  Natalie Portman did an excellent job portraying Ines after she was released from prison.  Ines was clearly disturbed after all those years in prison, and the movie showed that through the scene when she thought she found her daughter in the tavern.  

Overall, I thought the movie was entertaining to watch.  The actors gave depth to the characters that created an emotional and dramatic film.  I do wish the movie focused a little more on Goya as an artist, since it is titled after him.  In the movie, he acts as more of an observer.  It doesn’t focus much on his life, but the war and people around him.  However, the director purposely focused on that because much of Goya’s work was centered around the people in his life and the events that occurred in history.  The director clearly put thought into this film and created a movie worth watching.  

On June 3, 1963, director Joseph L. Mankiewicz and 20^th Century Fox introduced the movie Cleopatra to the United States and with a budget of 44 million dollars, Joseph Mankiewicz performed an excellent presentation of Ancient Egypt and the depiction of Cleopatra alongside her life struggles and independency. Elizabeth Taylor played a magnificent role as Cleopatra with her beauty, strong emotions, and excellent acting. In the movie, there were multiple marble statues of gods and goddesses, hieroglyphic writing on the walls containing stories and legends, the sphinx was shown multiple times, intricate designs on the headdresses and jewelry, the Roman chest plates and their shields, and the Roman Empire was also shown. All these objects, paintings, and architecture played a major role in displaying the era of the Egyptians and Romans as well as who or what would have been worn, what buildings were used as for courtrooms, bedchambers, or temples for gods and goddesses. 

In the movie, there were statues of both gods and goddesses, such as women holding objects or dog or alligator heads with human bodies. One god shown quite often was Anubis, who is portrayed as a black pharaoh hound or the god of death as if foreshadowing the future deaths within the movie. Another statue shown quite often was the goddess Mut, or mother, who wears two crowns that represent Upper and Lower Egypt. This was statue was shown multiple times, almost representing Cleopatra as the mother of Egypt because she nourishes her land and protects her people with a motherly instinct. Her people also look up to her for answers, as if a child looking up to their mother to help them understand something new or heal their wounds. The last statue shown quite often was the god Sobek, or the Crocodile God, he was known to protect against evil, cure the ill, and ensure fertility within the Egyptian people and crops. It is unclear why Sobek was shown so often, but it may have been a hidden message, such as Cleopatra’s intelligence and her ability to help her people. 

Another artistic element we see often is the hieroglyphics on the walls inside the palace and buildings outside, or on the boats. When Cleopatra first met the Great Caesar, you can clearly see that Mankiewicz went into exquisite detail pertaining to the palace’s room and the stories of gods and goddesses or ancestors before Cleopatra. It is almost as if you are in the room and can clearly see how many or what exactly the hieroglyphs were. The movie projected the hieroglyphics through focusing the camera at a specific angle so no matter where you looked, you still saw the hieroglyphics. Also, if you pay close attention, you can see the Sphinx, or the body of a lion with the head of a king or god, within the room representing strength and wisdom. It is shown more often throughout the movie, in one of the rooms, outside the palace, and presented to the Romans as a gift of the unification of Rome and Egypt when Cleopatra and Caesar married. The Sphinx seems to have a symbolism for Cleopatra’s strength and independent nature that did not allow her being a woman affect how she rules her empire. Also, it would also be a very stereotypical symbol of ancient Egypt for the audience.

The movie also includes the lavish but revealing clothing for Cleopatra and her servants. Even though it was used to sexualize Cleopatra through the look and revealing clothing or nude scene, it also allowed the audience to understand her seduction better rather than through her words and actions. It sort of gives her a little extra pizzazz to her already boisterous personality and attitude towards those who look down upon her because she is a woman. Besides the lavish designs of her clothing as well as her subordinates and husband, the designer for the movie included intricate jewelry, headdresses, bracelets with snakes and such made from gold. Also, throughout the movie, we are introduced to the flail, which looks like a whip or the punishment to maintain order in Egypt, and the crook, the hook or the shepherd and care of the people, which were used in Ancient Egypt to represent the respectable position of a King or Queen. 

There was also the inclusion of makeup, which was another form of art due to the techniques and materials used. The Egyptians were famously known for the almond-shaped eyeliner and skincare oils, but also the perfumes used to protect the skin and avoid bodily odors because it was offensive to their gods. The kings and queens of Egypt were known to use thick eyeliner and like Cleopatra, wear “eyeshadow” up to their brows. It was known as a form of rank in hierarchy and to appeal to the audience’s imagined vision of Egypt, also the movie included this part of the history of Egyptians to provide visual understanding of who would wear it and why. As you can see in the film, servants or civilians did not wear makeup, they were barefaced and kissed by the sun, unlike Cleopatra who stayed in the shade and contained makeup.  

Even though the movie did not follow the exact history of Cleopatra for the sake of dramatization, such as making her younger brother seem to be a man in his twenties rather than thirteen years old and killing Cleopatra’s son before her suicide rather than showing he was executed after her suicide and claimed the new ruler. Mankiewicz did an excellent job of interpreting Egypt, Cleopatra’s life, and the artistry and architecture used. He showed the momentous buildings in Egypt and Rome with beautiful and detailed hieroglyphics, the detailed clothing and carvings on Egyptian and Roman jewelry and armor, and also included the statues of gods and goddesses repetitively to show Egyptian pride and religion. He even picked the best actors and actresses who played their parts beyond what words can describe, the costumes used within the movie were outstanding, and the designs on the jewelry, armor, shields, and headdresses were so intricately designed that even I had to take a step back and enjoy the beauty of the well thought out and designed pieces as well as the rooms and buildings within the movie. Overall, the movie was an excellent masterpiece and contained excellent details within the subtlest things that catch your eye with a moment’s glance and make the audience feel as if they are truly in the same room as the actors and actresses or beautiful settings. Also, due to there being such detail in the settings down to the smallest design, and being mostly historically accurate, the movie showed Cleopatra’s independence and strength, but also the struggles she dealt with throughout her life.

When Caesar leaves Egypt and returns to Rome, Cleopatra finds out she is pregnant. She begs Caesar to stay; without telling the news of her pregnancy. When their son is born, she lifts him up on the castle and shows all of Egypt her son. Cleopatra then travels to Rome to tell Caesar the news of their son. In Rome, Caesar finds a wife and has already picked Octavian as his successor. When Caesar finds out of his son, he is not pleased; but eventually claims him. The Romans seem to not be pleased as well; as they chant “Caesar’s whore!” when she arrives. Varela’s pouty face and dynamic acting show her anger and distress from this. Cleopatra meets Mark Anthony here, played by Billy Zane. The charismatic Mark Anthony surprises Cleopatra with their chemistry.

After Caesar’s murder, Anthony and Cleopatra move into lovers; the bloody battle for the heart and soul of the Roman Empire begins. It was no shock that Cleopatra’s entrancing behavior led Anthony to her; leaving Octavian with whom he was ruling Rome. At the end of the film, Cleopatra kills herself with the snake bite. All dressed in gold and jewels, Cleopatra wears her iconic eye makeup as she takes her final breaths. 

Throughout the film, the battle scenes are staged for excitement and come off realistic. We see blood and sweat from the men fighting for their lives. Scenes are cut to views of beautiful landscapes of Egypt’s and Rome’s beautiful scenery. Varela’s acting was amazing and powerful. She fulfilled her role as Cleopatra and made the audience envious of her. She can be a seductress queen while maintaining the power of her country by selling herself to men in power. The beginning love story between Caesar and Cleopatra was no match for the love between her and Anthony. I find it interesting how two powerful love stories were put in one. The film seemed to be made for drama purposes, not so much for historical purposes. There was a lot of drama and betrayal that we see in this film. Yet, we do see parts of history such as Cleopatra’s status and her death. There are a lot of faults in historical accuracy. This was a very theatrical film; if you are looking for solid ancient Egyptian history, then you have come to the wrong movie. 

The movie is set in first century BC Rome. The main character, Spartacus, is a man who was sold into slavery as a boy and has spent years working in mines. Being the strong man he is he tried to fight the guards and bit one in the ankle. He was then tied up and made an example of until a wealthy Roman man came along to buy him. The man was looking for strong, fit men to fight. The movie continues into a montage type scene where they have the slaves training and preparing to fight. In my opinion, this scene was very silly, I understand the movie is from the 1960s but some of the training techniques they do don’t seem realistic to me. There is one point where they basically are playing jump rope with a blade and also have to duck another blade. Around this time they also introduce a love aspect with a slave woman that he has feelings for. So far through the movie, most of the costumes and sets are very convincing. The quarries look just how I would imagine ancient Roman quarries would look like. There were large pits with hundreds of slaves with pickaxes and chains around them. Even the slaves and wealthy people have proper attire with the slaves wearing ragged robes and the wealthy people wearing clean white robes and gold necklaces, arm, and headpieces. 

Spartacus is also made to fight another slave gladiator with four rich Roman men watching. You could tell these men were rich because they wore clean white robes with gold accents and jewelry. It looked very convincing with how this fight would actually have been set. The fighting itself wasn’t too convincing but it did fit the scene. The set here again is very convincing. About this point in the movie, he makes a rash decision and drowns the man who was training them to fight. This scene is a strong turning point and also refers back to earlier in the movie when the trainer attempted to make Spartacus fight him in an attempt to make an example and kill him. I like how the directors choose to kill him because this shows how the tables have turned. Spartacus beings freeing the other slaves and starts a large rebellion against his owner. He is eventually elected as leader of the rebellion by the other freed slaves. Next, they begin to plunder and pillage many small villages across the countryside, getting rich while they do it. While they are continuing their raids, stealing and freeing slaves, Varinia escapes her owner and is reunited with Spartacus. Spartacus then convinced his rebellious army to fight against the much stronger republic in the hopes of freeing all people who are enslaved. The movie ends with a large battle and Spartacus getting to see his son before it ends. 

In all honesty, this movie really kept my attention the entire time. In my personal opinion, the plot was very predictable and it didn’t really keep me on the edge of my seat.  Just like a lot of movies from this time period the plot is straightforward and the next move can usually be predicted. The characters and the acting were very good and the actors seemed like they had real emotion and anger. The real strong suit of this movie was the sets and costumes. The sets and costumes were so period-correct I felt like I was actually there. The buildings looked very accurate for the time and did just appear as normal set backgrounds. Considering this movie was only the Fifth one that Stanley Kubrick directed it was very good. This was one of his first big movies and it was done very well. It obvious why it won multiple awards and it is so memorable. It is definitely a movie I would recommend to a friend or to anyone who is looking to watch a classic movie filled with action. 

The movie is based on the Stealing Klimt documentary where they interview Maria Altmann. It goes through her life in Vienna and her escape, to her work in recovering the five stolen Klimt paintings. Randol Schoenberg (played by Ryan Reynolds) and Hubertus Czernin (played by Daniel Brühl) were the lawyer and Austrian journalist that helped provide and compile Maria Altmann’s evidence to make her case to retrieve her paintings from the Belvedere Gallery. The movie contains and utilizes all the elements of the documentary and even provides a thank you in the end credits to the Stealing Klimt documentary for providing all the background information and personal interviews that assisted in the making of the movie.

Though this is an art historical movie the artist himself is only shown briefly. We see during the opening credits Klimt manipulating a piece of gold leaf for his portrait of one of his models Adele Bloch-Bauer. Klimt himself was a very famous painter in Austria. So, when Maria Altmann comes asking for her aunts’ portrait, they claim that it is the Mona Lisa of
Austria. This is due to Klimt’s fame and the paintings mysterious roots. We know who the Woman in Gold painting is of now, but in the Belvedere Gallery at the time when the Nazis took the painting, they couldn’t disclose who she was since Adele Bloch-Bauer herself and family were Jewish. Just like the Mona Lisa in the Louvre in Paris, France the people who came to view a famous artist’s work were drawn in by the mystery of who this woman was. Therefore, on the political side, this panting marks an important part of Austria’s past and is regarded very highly. So, despite Maria Altmann’s roots and proof that this portrait is of her aunt the Austrian Government and more importantly, the gallery cannot afford to give up such a famous part of Austrian history.

This movie is deliberately highlighting the contrast between political versus personal meaning in artworks. Besides the Belvedere Gallery not being able to relinquish such a prevalent work of art, the younger generation also had their own thoughts about this art restitution hearing and the events of the Holocaust. In the movie, Maria Altmann is leaving the building after the art restitution hearings and is confronted by a man. He comments on how “she gave a moving speech”, but that “not everything is about the Holocaust”, and that “people like her never give up do they?”. This shows that the Austrian public views these works as a part of Austria now and no longer part of a personal collection or of a family member in this case. Klimt’s fame as an Austrian artist made this artwork a staple of the Belvedere Gallery’s collection and resonated with the younger generation of Austria. This left Maria Altmann questioning whether it was worth it to get her aunt’s portrait and other paintings back. All this back and forth about what is right for the sake of the Belvedere Gallery or for Maria Altmann leaves the viewer to think about their own moral compass. Whether the viewer sides with the political or the personal, the viewer must see what they think is right. There are many descendants of those who survived the Holocaust who could influence whether you as a viewer think what Maria Altmann is pursuing is worth it.

Woman in Gold overall is extremely powerful and will resonate with everyone. It challenges your beliefs and brings to light the prevalence and need for art restitution following the Nazi occupation of many other countries.

The sculpture and architecture was nothing that could compare to modern art. Seeing the detail created in the stone, such as faces and muscular textures in different suggest the hard work and patience was required to make them. The setting of the movie starts showing slaves breaking down a lot of stone. Enforcing them were soldiers with whips, which definitely indicates the time period was a long time ago, during the time of empires and slaves.

The clothing worn by the slaves was beat up, and torn apart, aside from the already torn up cloth it was meant to be. The torn cloth they used for clothing was sweated out and dusty, indicating that they were the slaves of the setting. The soldiers were all armored, in uniform with weapons. Not only did this physically show their positions in the movie but this backed up traits of their actions.

As an example, the soldiers physically a slave who appeared to be dead, from exhaustion. He was so exhausted he was unresponsive, but one slave noticed this unresponsive man with a pack of bricks on his back and tried to help. The soldiers, seeing this good act of the slaves began whipping both slaves. This shows the bad mentality of not only the soldiers but also the  empire who are obviously doing a job, that was being enforced by an emperor.

Spartacus and the people on his side were all dressed in different neat clothes, and wearing shoes on their feet. This aspect of the movie shows the difference between the citizens of Rome and the slaves of Rome. People wearing such costumes help to create the setting of ancient Rome. Spartacus shows independence, bravery, and integrity in the difficult situation with him being against such a big empire as Rome. The Roman army, big and brutal, gathered in one scene. The army was praising the death of the notorious slave Spartacus, who had a slave army of his own.

Spartacus’s slave army all lived peacefully but yet so depressed. During the movie a scene played where people were all just resting, exhausted. Many were still awake just making sure their loved ones were comfortable, but you can sense the mood with the fires and people cooking their meat on sticks. Slave agriculture was being displayed through all the people in poor
clothing just trying to escape Rome. In the movie Spartacus witnesses a little girl asking her mom, “When are we going home.” As her mother comforted her with a goodnight trying to get her to just sleep, indicating that they all just want to leave.

After being made a captured slave once again and brought back to Rome, the foundation of the environment very much indicates the culture. From the soldiers of Rome in a organized line formation overseeing the march of the slaves back into Rome. In the end Marcus, the Roman army general, took Spartacus’s wife into his home, trying to win her love.

While this movie stays true to clothing and sets that would have been common for this time, the movie is still “Hollywoodized.” While the makeup that Taylor worn in the movie was a common style for this time. They made the colors more vibrant than they would have been in ancient Egypt. The clothes that were worn in the movie showed a lot of gold detailing in it. In reality, it would have been more common to wear clothing that was more of a cotton fabric. The sets were Hollywoodized in the sense that in ancient Egypt they would not have typically been as over the top as they shown in the movie. Overall, this movie does the job of showing ancient Egypt in the ways that people recognized. Certain parts were changed but it doesn’t take away from the movie.

I have seen Spartacus in all sorts of entertainment thought my life: as a child in my grandparent’s house, on episodes of Family Guy as a 1960s, and more recently in the Netflix/Stars series. Through all of these adaptations the message remains the same and creates a story that many can enjoy. But this film had many things it did well as well as many it portrayed poorly. With many other films about history, there is a danger that costumes, would end up becoming out- of -date and this was very apparent to me in that many of the actors looked like they belonged in the 1960s rather than in ancient Rome. The set pieces may have looked innovative and realistic at the time but have aged terribly, combining this with fake blood and overly choreographed deaths/fights made this movie a bit of an eyesore. At one point in one of the battle scenes, you can even see plane contrails in the sky. However, when it came to depictions and symbols they did very well in using Roman culture and societal norms in the film. The best of this can be seen in the Roman general’s armor. They used vibrant reds and depictions of lions and eagles built into their armor and banners. In contrast, they did the exact opposite for the slave army they depicted the clothing as simple and almost poor with leather armor and rag- like underwear. They also included many frescos on the walls including depictions of gardens with cloth and vases as expected in high-class houses. The architecture was often simplified but still showed aspects of arches as well as post and lintel constriction formed in smooth limestone or granite. The weapons of the time also matched well with what was used not only by soldiers but as well as gladiators. This was a good choice by the filmmakers to give the gladiators a look of authenticity especially in combination with their armor and clothing.

To truly enjoy this movie one cannot compare it to films of the times we are living in. Instead one must look to the theme and delivery of the message of the film. This film’s most interesting element is the political assumption that the enslaved will eventually rebel against the rich and that so much can be endured before there is nothing left to suffer in the hope of being truly free. In the end, Spartacus lost to the Romans and ultimately paid the price of rebellion with this life but his dreams would live on and some two thousand years later this would be achieved in the society of today with the abolishment of slavery seen throughout the world. The movie was able to shape our perception of the horrors seen by slaves of the time period as well as the beauty that was by unfortunately brought about because of the practices of the time. Art, architecture, and material culture was able to be created due to the use of slaves but nonetheless must be must be remembered that to achieve all of this the lives of many were forfeited for the needs of the few.

The story of Cleopatra, Julius Cesar, and Marc Antony is indeed a true one, taking place during the rise of the Ancient Roman Empire.  But how well did Mankiewicz know his history? Proceeding the intermission, the movie is historically accurate. There are of course dramatic flares, such as Cleopatra being snuck into the palace rolled up in a carpet; but not every detail of history is recorded. The important part is that she met Julius Cesar, stole his heart and bore him a son. Following the intermission however, history gets slightly altered. For example, it isn’t made clear that Marc Antony is also in the running for the succession of Rome. The movie makes it seem as though he is simply trying to conquer Octavian. It also completely leaves out that Antony and Cleopatra have three children together; it instead focuses on Cleopatra and Julius Cesar’s son Caesarian.

Moving away from historical context and into the setting, the movie was filmed in England, although Mankiewicz does a fine job producing sets that make the audience feel like they are in Rome,Alexandria, and Actium. The extravagant sculptures in both Egypt and Rome replicate the ancient style sculptures created during the time beautifully; with tall columns and the stylized ancient Egyptian paintings. Further, the water in Actium can’t be mistaken for being anywhere other than Greece with its magnificent aqua blue glow.  One major aspect of Roman architecture that was left out however, were arches.  Nearly all of the buildings shown in the movie feature massive columns but we rarely see the arches the Romans are known for inventing. A flaw, but a minor one, as Mankiewicz does an exquisite job portraying the statues and artwork of Egypt.  Showing the building of Cleopatra’s massive tome was a perfect touch in displaying Egyptian architecture and culture as the Ancient pyramid tomes are something that comes clearly to mind when thinking of Egypt.

One place where Mankiewicz adapted 1960’s culture into the film were the costumes. For an ancient queen, Cleopatra would probably not have been wearing the low cut dresses she is often shown in and Marc Antony’s typical dress is also seeming rather short for a Roman general. While perhaps not following ancient styles of dress, displaying the characters in more scandalous, and stylish costumes again give the movie a dramatic flair that attracts an audience. One thing Mankiewicz gets right is Cleopatra’s hair and makeup. Often she wears gold tassels in her hair, and she always had thick black eyeliner extending to the side of her face. Two elements that are often found in the stylized paintings of ancient Egypt. While we don’t have a portrait of her, Cleopatra’s hairstyles and makeup seem to fit the one’s own perception of the Egyptian queen.

The making of Cleopatra seemed to prove many challenges for director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Filming in England rather than Egypt or Rome, one might say would be enough of a trial.  Then spending $7 million to produce only ten minutes of the film, should make anyone want to quit.  Followed by a huge time delay posed by an emergency surgery needed by the leading lady Elizabeth Taylor. Why would Mankiewicz persist in creating the four hour long epic Cleopatra?  Because it became the most grossed film in 1963, bringing in $57.8 million.  Because the movie and its actors were nominated for and won many prestigious awards and because the movie was a huge success!   Along yet beautifully put together film that truly encompasses many cultural and artistic aspects of ancient Egypt, and Rome. Bosley Crowther ends his New York Times review of Cleopatra saying, “I don’t see how you can fail to find this a generally brilliant, moving, and satisfying film,” and once again in 2018, I’m inclined to agree with him.

Work Cited:
Crowther, Bosley. “The Screen: ‘Cleopatra’ Has Premiere at Rivoli: 4-Hour Epic is Tribute to its Artists Skill.” The New York Times, 13 June 1963.

Spartacus was chosen by him and would be sent to the gladiator academy and trained in the arts of combat. Here the men would be treated no better than before although now they got the chance to bathe,eat, and sometimes have the company of a woman. You can tell throughout Spartacus still wants his freedom and wants to reject this madness for he says he is not an animal. In locked cages and very little social time to none at all is very much similar to how they would have kept the slaves during this time period and how they treated them when the Roman empire was at large.  

There were two things I think that really set Spartacus off and made him make some really interesting but called for decisions. One was when the wealthy powerful man Crassus and his wife consort came from Rome. The spoiled, selfish men ask to be entertained by the sights of men fighting to the death, Spartacus must face a skilled gladiator named Draba who spares Spartacus’s life and goes for Crassus, only to be speared in the back by the guard. In historical context the weapons used in the movie where very similar to what would have been used, shield sword or staff-like blunt object. Along with the entertaining of a higher authority.  I think this meant something to Spartacus not because he was near moments from death and saved but because before that when trying to equate himself and become friendly with Draba he says “gladiators don’t make friends. If ever matched in the arena, I’d have to kill you.” He said this to Spartacus one of the first days he was there and on his last, he decided to save his life. This scene is a more fabricated part of the movie,but I think it gave it a lot of emotional meaning.

Along with Varinia, when taunted and teased by the guards he is told he does not deserve her. With time Spartacus grew fond of this girl,and when she was sold to Crassus from Rome and again teased by one of the trainers and infuriated that his soon to be wife was going to be sent to Rome,he couldn’t take it and instinct took over. Drowning a guard in some beans in the kitchen Spartacus causes a riot, and before you know it, the slaves have taken over the gladiator camp. Of course, no one knows of his love life for sure nor anything about his family either but the movie added that to give more of a reason to start this revolt known as the third servile war.

After the outbreak and the gladiators have taken it over and are filled with rage and wine.Fighting Batiatus and other head trainer, Spartacus intervenes and speaks of us being no better than them if we do the same thing. Spartacus had other plans for the trained gladiators and would turn them into a guerrilla force and combine with the pirates to defeat Rome and help free all slaves. Spartacus started a huge revolt grabbing attention all over Italy. Defeating less experienced smaller cities his campaign grew more prominent than ever the number is estimated to be around 90,000 slaves who joined him. And not all were capable of fighting. In the movie women and children did not precisely train or fight but help cook food ands make clothes or armor this is accurate to what would be happening if any civilization was to start up again from nothing.Leading up to the war the scenes were accurately displayed. The politics behind his campaign and unique techniques were right but when it came to the war scene itself we know that Spartacus did not survive the battle, he died from a spear wound in the thigh, and his comrades retreated. Although in the movie it is shown he does survive and that Crassus doesn’t know what he exactly looks like yet. To make it more difficult and frustrating for him when he calls out who is Spartacus to the remaining survivors many many of his followers stood up and said they were Spartacus proving they would give their life not only for the name of that man but in the name of their freedom.