I was recently forced to spend some semi idle time in front of the television. For reasons, I can't really explain, if I'm sick or injured, I don't read much. I will listen to things like podcasts, and I'll watch television, but I don't do much reading.
Anyhow, during that period, I watched this 1951 "epic". The plot surrounds a returning Roman general, Marcus, during Nero's reign who comes back from a long extended campaign just in time to experience, over a few weeks, the arrival in Rome of St. Peter and the great fire of Rome.
Condensing years of history into a few weeks, the plot is frankly improbable. Marcus returns from campaign and stays at the house of a retired Roman general who has converted to Christianity. He meets St. Paul there, but doesn't appreciate who he is. He also meets Lygia, a captive in the household who was raised by her captors as their adoptive daughter, who is also a Christian. In a matter of seeming hours, Marcus falls deeply in love with Lygia and vice versa, which leads to some drama. Marcus is present when St. Peter preaches, having just arrived in Rome, but remains unconvinced. Nero has Rome torched when he's at his out of the city estate, and Marcus races back, ending up being thrown in confinement with the Christians blamed for the fire. He saves Lygia and causes a Roman army to revolt against Nero.
This film was well regarded in 1951, but it's really just too thin on plot now. Indeed, darned near any Roman epic save for Ben Hur really suffers in viewing.
Usually, I review these films for historical accuracy and material details. I really can't do that in regard with Roman material details, as I don't know enough about ancient Rome of this period to do so. In terms of historic accuracy, Rome did suffer near destruction in a fire during Nero's reign, and he was blamed for it. The Christians were too. It was frankly most likely just a fire that spread by accident that was inevitable, given the conditions of the city at the time. Nero, who became Emperor at an absurdly young age was emblematic of what was wrong with Rome at the time, but he was probably not as weird as portrayed in the film by Peter Ustinov, who really does steal the show with his depiction. Christians were persecuted under Nero, but Nero's demise didn't come about in this fashion.
St. Peter did suffer execution, it is more than worth noting, following the great fire in 64. The title of the film comes from St. Peter's encounter with Jesus outside of Rome, as he fled persecution there, with his encountering the risen Christ and, in the Latin translation, asking "Quo vadis?", to which Jessu replied "Romam eo iterum crucifigī", or "Where are you going", and "I am going to Rome to be crucified again". This caussed Peter to return to Rome.
A much better film could have been made out of all of this, but at the time this one was highly regarded. One thing of note is that it would be hard to make a Hollywood blockbuster of this type now, as this film was 100% Christian in outlook.
