Demetrius and the Gladiators

Demetrius and the Gladiators is a sequel to The Robe. It's directed by Delmer Daves and stars Victor Mature as Demetrius, a Christian slave made to fight in the Roman arena as a gladiator (and ultimately entering into a bigger fight, that of faith), and Susan Hayward as Messalina. Filling out the support cast are Ernest Borgnine, William Marshall, Michael Rennie, and Jay Robinson as the maniacal emperor Caligula. The screenplay is from Philip Dunne (How Green Was My Valley/The Agony and the Ecstasy) and cinematography comes courtesy of Milton R. Krasner (Academy Award winner Best Colour Cinematography for Three Coins in the Fountain 1955).

Following straight on from The Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators is a safe and enjoyable Biblical picture that doesn't outstay its welcome. Running at just over 100 minutes, the film is far from being epic in its telling. However, and without cramming in, it does contain all the necessary ingredients to make up a sweaty sword and sandals pie. Filmed in CinemaScope it has a persecuted hero, a bonkers villain, a sexy babe, huge sets, colourful costumes and fights, lots of fights. Thankfully the serious dialogue is mostly kept brief, as there a few things worse in this genre of film than bloated discourse on religious beliefs and political dalliances. Just get in there, let us know what is going on, and move on to the next chapter of the story. This is something that Daves' film does very well, it has an eagerness to entertain with dots of gusto and sexual swagger. The acting is mixed, Mature is solid without ever really convincing as the heroic figure of Demetrius, Hayward and Robinson are camping it up and thus entertain royally, while Borgnine and Rennie earn their respective pay.

Very much like another Phillip Dunne screenplay genre piece, David And Bathsheba, this one is often overlooked or forgotten in discussion about the sword & sandals genre. That both films are not in the same league as the likes of Ben-Hur and Spartacus is a given, but both have much to offer the discerning cinephile. So this one is recommended Sunday afternoon fare with a flagon of claret and a roast ox dinner. 7/10

The historical epics which were so popular in the fifties and early sixties frequently had a religious theme. Some were based on stories taken directly from the Bible ("The Ten Commandments", "Solomon and Sheba", "King of Kings"), while others tried to convey a Christian message indirectly. Thus the central character of "Spartacus" is treated as a metaphorical Christ-figure, and "The Egyptian" draws parallels between Christianity and the monotheistic religion of Atenism which briefly flourished under the heretical Pharaoh Akhnaten. "Demetrius and the Gladiators" is one of a number of films (the most famous is "Ben Hur", but others include "The Robe", to which "Demetrius" is a sequel, "Quo Vadis" and "The Fall of the Roman Empire") which deal with the early days of the Christian church and its persecution by the Roman emperors. The stories told by such films were normally fictitious, but were set against a background of historical fact.

The central character, Demetrius, is a former slave who, after assaulting a soldier who is molesting his girlfriend Lucia, is sentenced to fight in the arena as a gladiator. This causes him difficulties as he is a Christian whose moral code will not permit him to kill another man, even in self-defence. He survives, however, largely because he attracts the attention of Messalina, the wife of Claudius, uncle of the Emperor Caligula. Later, believing that Lucia has accidentally been killed by another gladiator, Demetrius renounces his Christian faith, and fights fiercely, killing the man he believes to have been responsible for her death and several others. His courage and skill with a sword lead to his being made a tribune in the Praetorian Guard, and he becomes Messalina's lover. As in "The Robe", the robe which Christ wore to His crucifixion plays an important part in the film; Caligula wants to get his hands on it because he believes that it has magical powers and that it will give him the secret of eternal life.

Several of the epics of this period combined, incongruously, an improving religious message with a good deal of eroticism, with much bare female flesh on display- examples include "Solomon and Sheba", "Esther and the King" and "Salome", where we get to see the famous dance of the seven veils, but it is made clear that, contrary to the Biblical version of the story, Rita Hayworth's character is in fact a virtuous heroine who only is flashing her legs in public in a desperate attempt to save John the Baptist from his fate. There are elements of this strange combination of godliness and sexiness in "Demetrius", but the sexiness is very much downplayed. Messalina's notorious promiscuity is alluded to rather than shown on screen, and the scene between the gladiators and the women brought in to entertain them may be an orgy, but it is a very decorous one. The film-makers were clearly more interested in the element of godliness, and, unlike some films of this type, "Demetrius" raises genuine moral issues about pacifism, non-violence and Christian forgiveness.

Demetrius himself is a man who goes through a crisis of faith and abandons his Christian beliefs in favour of an ethic based on revenge and worldly ambition. His conscience, however, is troubled, especially after he is reproached by his old friend St Peter. He is a more complex and interesting figure than many epic heroes, so it is unfortunate that the part was played by Victor Mature, an actor whose success often seemed to owe more to his ruggedly masculine good looks and his virile physique than to his acting technique. Susan Hayward (an actress who could often look bored and listless when asked to play roles that did not interest her) makes a weak Messalina. Neither give their worst performance (in Hayward's case that must surely have been "The Conqueror"), and Mature brings a certain rough sincerity to his part, but I felt that the film might have been improved with other actors in these roles.

Nevertheless, there was much I enjoyed about the film. Michael Rennie was appropriately dignified as Peter, played as a sort of ascetic philosopher, although I would agree with the reviewer who pointed out that it would be hard to imagine him ever working as a fisherman. I also liked William Marshall as Glycon, the former African king now forced to fight as a gladiator, who befriends Demetrius. ("Spartacus", a better film than "Demetrius" although it owes something to it, also features a sympathetic black gladiator who befriends the hero).

Jay Robinson, who played Caligula, has been criticised by some reviewers for overacting, although I must say I liked his performance. Historians have doubted whether the real Caligula was actually insane, although he was undoubtedly cruel and eccentric, but in the context of this film he is definitely presented as a lunatic, a man who has literally been driven mad by power to the point where he believes himself to be a god. (Not even Hitler went that far). There is an interesting contrast with a modern epic, "Gladiator", in which Joaquin Phoenix plays another tyrannical Roman Emperor, Commodus, as a basically weak and insecure young man. Although Phoenix's performance works well in the context of that particular film, the way the role of Caligula was written called for something quite different- the sort of ranting, over-the-top performance which might be unfashionable now but would have been less controversial in the fifties.

Although the standard of the acting is mixed, I generally enjoyed the film. It does not reach the standard of the really great epics, such as "Spartacus" or "Ben-Hur", but it works well on the level of spectacle, with fine sets and costumes and some exciting scenes of gladiatorial combat, and has a more intelligent script than many epics. 7/10

Once you have seen this movie you will never ever forget Jay Robinson's performance as deranged but cunning Caligula.Is it great acting or just one of the greatest slices of ham ever put on film?I don't know but it proves the maxim that one actor can make a basically routine movie into a personal favourite."Demetrius" is in some ways superior to its predecessor "The Robe" -it lacks the ponderous religiosity,theres more action,and Caligula moves into centre stage.

As a young boy going to the movies was entertaining and wondrous as I imagined how they could make men and animals so lifelike and real. When I first saw this movie " Demetrius and the Gladiators ", I was very impressed with the acting skills of both my favorite actors at the time. I loved the dynamic style of Victor Mature who plays Demetrius, and awed with his being able to fight a tiger to the death. I was further enthralled with my other favorite Richard Egan who played Dardanius. As a regular 'good guy' it was entertaining to see him play a heavy. Then again I felt that way about Ernest Borgnine who is Strabo and William Marshall as majestic 'Glycon, King of Swords'. The story is actually part two of the movie "The Robe" which I believed centered more on the Icon than on the slave character. There was something shortcoming about this sequel in that it concentrated on the search for the robe by the Mad Emperor Caligula, played to the hilt by superb actor Jay Robinson. With additional actors like Michael Rennie playing Peter the apostle and Barry Jones playing Claudius, the director tried to make this sequel as reverential as the first. But that was not what I sought when I first saw it. It was a great film for the arena action and that's what made it fun. I realize there are superior movies out there like 'Gladiator' by Ridley Scott, but I remember early films as a child and that's what made this one a Classic. ****

Talk about guilty pleasures. I saw this film for the first time when I was about 8-years old.

Back in those days you really only saw movies once - with mum and dad at the local cinema on Friday night. But my memory wrapped around this film almost as if I had a rewind button inside my head. It was one of those big-screen epics that made an impression on me.

With your Roman Empire movies, your best bet is to set the story in the reign of one of the three mad emperors - Nero is tops, but Caligula and Commodus are the next best thing. Someone like Augustus with his stable, 40-year reign is just a little too sedate when it comes to drama - a bit like the Eisenhower era.

Set in Rome during the reign of Caligula, all Demetrius (Victor Mature) wants to do is hand over the robe of Jesus to Peter (Michael Rennie), and lead a quiet life as a potter. Instead he has his faith shaken, and ends up in the arena where he dispatches many opponents and a streak of tigers. Along the way his most dangerous enemy turns out to be Messalina (Susan Hayward), the wife of Caligula's uncle Claudius. It takes Peter and a good buddy from the arena, Glycon (William Marshall), to guide him back to the light.

Well that's the story; the script is there to keep the spectacular arena scenes apart, and clear the set for Jay Robinson's viperish and eye-poppingly campy interpretation of Caligula. Despite tigers, dancing girls, oiled muscles, nets, tridents and short swords, the movie would have been pretty heavy going without Jay.

Victor Mature is on screen for just about the whole movie and for the most part is either angry or anguished. I've always thought he was pretty good for a guy who once told a club, which did not accept actors as members, that he wasn't an actor and he had the reviews to prove it.

One actor who was perfect in his role was Richard Egan. He plays Dardanius, a gladiator with attitude, and he looks the part with more muscles and teeth than Burt Lancaster.

Susan Hayward gave Messalina some of the same medicine Jay Robinson gave Caligula; together they keep the movie from getting too serious. I love the way Messalina does a complete turnaround right at the end to wrap the whole thing up in about two minutes flat.

Debra Paget is beautiful. Michael Rennie has gravitas and William Marshall is imposing - two great voices in the one movie.

Although technical aspects weren't things I noticed much back in the 50's, I can now appreciate how Franz Waxman's score gave the film spirituality and depth. Waxman was a composer who contributed intelligent scores to every film he did without repeating himself.

I must admit I still have a soft spot for this film; the arena scenes alone are worth the price of admission.