Expensive, l-o-n-g, mostly grim

Anthony Mann’s “Fall of the Roman Empire” goes on and on--even though it only covers the start of the decline. Alec Guinness as Marcus Aurelius in his last days is very impressive, and Christopher Plummer, as his successor Commodus, has a good time being profligate and undoing the wise policies of his father and the Greek advisor played by James Mason.

There are tedious battles north of the Danube and in Armenia and a stupendous set of the Roman forum (in which the climactic battle takes place, rather than in the Coliseum), the interior of the Roman senate, and a temple of Jupiter. There is a cast of thousands and an array of costumes in a parade before Marcus Aurelius. Obviously, this was a very expensive production. Also obviously, much of the epic effect is lost on television screens (even big television screens).

The main problem, even more than the slow pace, is the lack of chemistry between Stephen Boyd and Sophia Loren and between Stephen Boyd and Christopher Plummer. The common element is Stephen Boyd. I found Boyd the only interesting character (other than the brief appearances of Hugh Griffith) in “Ben-Hur,” But in “Fall” he has a Charlton Heston role (one of Heston’s better performances was in Mann’s earlier epic, “El Cid”). At least there’s a chariot race (a more interesting, cross-country one than the circuits in “Ben-Hur”).

I adore Sophia Loren, but not in epics (also “El Cid”). In her first scene she is wearing a parka, and even when things get very hot for her, she never warms up. She is noble and devoted to her father’s vision of a Pax Romana, but is all duty and ferocity without any of the wit of her roles in less grandiose enterprises. And any passion for Stephen Boyd is not visible.

I think that the viewer is supposed to conclude that arbitrary rule and a permanent war economy doom an empire. There are portentous quotations from Gibbon as prologue and epilogue and the bribing of the masses with circuses (precursors of Hollywood movies?) sickens the noble Romans, Boyd and Loren. But they are such cardboard figures that it is hard not to feel sorry for the devious, spoiled Commodus. He is so incapable an emperor, but at least has some ironic wit, rash courage, and more than a little political savvy. Guiness’s Marcus Aurelius also has ironic wit, political and strategic brilliance, the courage and the analytic ability to see what is needed to consolidate the empire (an Obi-wan-kenobi with supreme power--perhaps George Lucas saw this film in his youth?). Generally, villainy is more interesting to watch than virtue. When virtue is represented by Guinness here, it can be interesting. For the first hour of the film, it does not have to compete. The virtuous emperor has more nuance than his daughter (Loren) and adopted son (Boyd) when try to carry on his heritage in opposition to the flamboyant crowd-pleaser Commodus.

So, “Fall” is better than “Ben-Hur”-- even its chariot race is better (and the chariot race is the best thing in "Ben-Hur"). But “Fall” is less interesting than “Becket” (with a similarly disappointed ruler whose valued friend becomes his virtuous enemy) or “Spartacus” (the Roman epic with the most vivid range of characters--and a film from which Anthony Mann was fired by producer-star Kirk Douglas) or other epics from that era such as “Lawrence of Arabi,a” or “Doctor Zhivago” -- or even “El Cid” or “The Big Country.” And less interesting than most any of Anthony Mann's psychologically more complex westerns from the 1950s with James Stewart.