Seneca

Senator Seneca (John Malkovich) is a close advisor and supporter of Emperor Nero (Tom Xander). He has been Nero's teacher since childhood. He talks non-stop and constantly advises Nero to be an ethical ruler. As Nero becomes tyrannical, he is forced to bend his views into excusing Nero's excesses. After an attempt on Nero's life, an innocent Seneca is still accused. Nero gives him the gift of taking his own life.

This is a historical dramatization of the Stoic Seneca. It's a smallish production with a nice cast led by Malkovich. It reminds me of a play in the park except it's in beautiful Morocco locations. I find myself drawing parallel lines between this movie and the present day. Some connections are more clearer than others. It's funny that he asks why bad things happen to good people. That's probably my high point. All his excuses ring very real for today. I'm less interested in his decline and his declaration of the Roman decline. He is centuries too early for Rome and anyone comparing this with America is probably almost as early.

To be honest, I almost turned it off at the very beginning of the film because it seemed like a bad joke. I read some very bad reviews and some great praises, so I decided to be open-minded about it. Obviously, it's controversial, which might be what's so fun about it.

I appreciated hearing some of the insightful thoughts presented by Seneca (John Malkovich) about the human nature, life and death etc. In this way, the film is meditative.

I enjoyed the visuals to an extent. I noticed the grotesque visual elements, which were certainly not easy on the eyes, but they had a purpose and actually went well with Nero's horrible character, as well as the absurdity and malignancy presented in the movie. There also were some "quirky" and seemingly unnecessary components.

However, in general, the characters and spaces seemed to be visually portrayed in accordance with the personalities - when you observe them, it just makes sense. Furthermore, this piece also contains elements more pleasing to the eye. I liked the recording style, the perspectives, the way scenes were organized, the colors used. That being said, the movie still definitely has a bizarre quality to it and not everyone could enjoy it.

While the piece offers some profound thoughts, it also contains plenty of frivolous elements. There were things I liked and things I disliked, as well as some choices that just didn't seem to make sense.

All things considered, I don't regret watching it. It was certainly entertaining and even thought-provoking. It's an occasionally smart movie, but it's not supposed to be taken too seriously.

Seneca the Younger was a fascinating character and this movie is an interesting exploration of that character. I think that historians will be displeased with the liberties that this story takes with truth and historical accuracy, and I suspect that much of the general audience will be lost because of the lack of historical context that this movie provides. I am a fan of Seneca and I enjoyed this, but it definitely isn't a tentpole film.

There is an audience for this film though, and I wish that it had been better promoted in the U. S. and that it had seen a wider release, because John Malkovich, Lilith Stangenberg, Tom Xander, Geraldine Chaplin, and Andrew Koji and several others have delivered excellent performances here. Frankly, John deserves an Oscar for his performance, and, while John, Lilith, Geraldine, and Andrew are all seasoned actors, Tom Xander in particular deserves special credit for taking on and nailing such a complex role.

The cinematography is beautiful, the directing is great, the writing is tight, and the acting is on-point, but the subject is somewhat obscure, and so it is probably never going to be a top-ten film. Perhaps some day Seneca will get the Oppenheimer treatment, but until then, this may be the apogee of Roman history in 21st Century cinema.

No pun intended - and a movie that is walking on a thin fine line. Nero is someone that most if not all have heard of. But Seneca ... I doubt it is only me, I am quite sure that not many know of him or a lot about him. On the other hand, his name seems connected with Nero, so maybe more have at least some peripheral knowledge.

But this is not out to tell the story of him in a traditional way. No we get characters from back then - but with a newer, fresh take on them. And while the language is or sounds sometimes like it is from the olden days (back then), it also goes back and forth and gives us a lot of newer sentiment. And swear words .. something not everyone may agree with or find good to hear.

John Malkovich really relishes in his role - and seeing Julian Sands in this reminded me, that he went missing a few months ago. I was hoping he was found (alive), but as of today no sign of him yet. Which makes it unlikely that he is still alive. Something that his character and the other ones surely aren't - this plays almost 2 centuries ago - so there is that.

Apart from the swear words though, some might also have issues with some graphic depiction of violence and gore/blood. While that doesn't happen a lot or often - the spikes we get can be hard to stomach. One individual wasn't prepared for that and left the cinema. I imagine that happend in other screenings too.

Again not an easy watch for many reasons, but if you like theatre and performances in general ... you will have a hoot .. well you know what I mean. Just be prepared that the movie seems to go on forever ... or "torturing" the viewer by having "multiple" endings ... which is fitting to the character of the ever so clever title character/person ...

The film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" unfortunately misses the mark. While the philosophical ideas in the original work are fascinating, the film version fails to capture the essence of the text. Instead, the film creates a badly theatrical style that is always over-explaining jokes and making edgy commentary. This is a shame because the philosopher is portrayed extremely badly in the film, and his ideas are not given the attention they deserve.

I had the opportunity to watch this film during its premier week at the Berlinale festival, and unfortunately, many people left before the film ended due to how bad it was. While the idea of adapting Seneca's work for the big screen is admirable, this particular attempt falls short of expectations. The film fails to convey the beauty and depth of the original work, and instead opts for a style that tries too hard to be clever and edgy.

In conclusion, while the film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" has its merits, the overall execution leaves much to be desired. The badly theatrical style, combined with the over-explaining of jokes and edgy commentary, detract from the philosophical ideas that are at the core of the original work. It is unfortunate that the film did not do justice to the brilliance of Seneca's ideas.