Ben Hur Analysis

I agree with Jeffrey Richards that Ramon Novarro looks more like the 17-year-old boy Ben Hur is supposed to be at the start of the story than Charlton Heston. I also agree with Richards' statement that the 1926 version of Ben Hur developed the relationship between Esther and Ben Hur better than the 1959 version, the relationship between the two felt more natural and real in the 1926 version, whereas it felt more stilted and awkward in the 1959 version. Not to mention that, whenever there was a scene between Ben Hur and Esther it always felt 'rapey' and uncomfortable.
When comparing both versions of the sea battles Richards' felt that the 1926's version was "more convincing", and I have to agree with him there too, as though it was shot well and with quite a lot of suspense, you could tell that the ships weren't real and that brought some of that suspense down.
Richards' also believed that the chariot scenes were on par with one another, however, for whatever reason I felt more interested in the 1959 version, and I was on the edge of my seat even though I knew Ben Hur would win.

In his brief analysis and comparison, I wish that Richards had talked more in depth about not only the different between the 1926 versions and the 1959 version in the way they portrayed the relationship between Esther and Ben Hur, but also the difference between both versions in the way they portrayed the relationships between Ben-Hur and his mother and sister, between him and the consul that eventually adopted him and especially the difference in the relationship between him and Messala.

Ben-Hur Analysis

Richards' gives both the 1926 and 1959 a brief analysis on the production of the film, and it's success in the theater. I felt that there were many parts of the movie that Richards should have gone more in depth with. This includes the new use of technicolor, shots and angles, and symbolism. The advancement in editing and overlaying colors onto film were quite significant but there was little recognition of this technological feat. In the previous films that were mentioned in the chapter, Richards went in depth on shots and colors used. When talking about Cabiria, he spent time talking about the different important long shots and how they kept the audience engaged with the film. For another movie he wrote about what the different color overlay meant in each scene. This type of analysis would be useful on Ben Hur film and should have been included. Richards talked about one symbolic moment in the film where Pilates palace crumbles in the earthquake and with it Rome's power. This statement made me wonder what other symbolic meaning could be behind other events.
I found the comparison between the Ben Hur movies very interesting. Richards brings up how characters were cut and background information thrown out of the 1959 version. I felt that Richards could have included more information on how it changed the movie overall message.

Response to Richard's Analysis of "Ben-Hur"

I disagree with Richard on his point that the 1926 "Ben-Hur" more accurately portrays the novel than the 1959 "Ben-Hur" because very few movies ever do accurately re-make the novel in a motion picture. Several scenes in the movie where not in the novel like the opening scene where Ben-Hur and Esther meet, and some scenes from the novel are not in the movie. They both do the story justice but to say one film is more like the novel than another is inaccurate. I agree with Richard's views on the character change, and how it was a better representation for the novels characters. Richard did not mention the fails on set during the filming that made the movie more realistic, such as the real boats catching on fire and the chariot race crash, and I feel he should have mentioned that.

Ben Hur Analysis

The 1926 release of Ben Hur is undoubtedly gruesome in its depiction of Roman hostility. According to Jeffrey Richards the film illustrates "the conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome." I agree in this overall statement of the overall basis of the movie. The two forces are constantly battling against one another as Ben Hur emerges to fight for Christ. Richards lists examples of the Roman violence in the movie and states that there is symbolism to the destruction of Roman power and Christianity prevailing. However, Richards does not explain how the story of Ben Hur as a character starts to parallel with the story of Christ. This is crucial to the understanding of Ben Hur as a symbol of Christianity. Because Ben Hur survives and is reunited with his family as a symbol of Christianity, the audience knows that Christianity will prevail. The message is embedded in the story line. Scenes of Pilate's palace being destroyed are supporting images to the greater symbolism. The movie ends with a scene of the cross moving to focus on Ben Hur's family because they are the symbol of Christianity that is created throughout the film.

Two-strip Techicolor Process

Since several you mention the importance of the innovative color film "Ben Hur" used, you may be interested in this brief video that explains the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iy_MjegGWY

Ben Hur analysis

I fully agree with Richards views on the character casting choice.  I think he is right in saying that Ramon Navarro is best for Ben Hur who is a smaller more timid character, as opposed to Messalla who played by Francis Bushman, who paints the the accurate picture of a much larger and aggressive anti-Semitic Roman. I disagree with Richards on another point he makes which is that the 1925 version of Ben Hur is much more accurate to the novel it is based upon the 1959 version. I have know seen both the 1925 and 1959 versions and after reading the summary of the novel on the internet I have come to the realization that neither of the two movies really do the novel justice. Richards can claim that the 1925 Ben Hur is more accurate to the movie but there are many parts of the book that aren't in the 1925 Ben Hur or 1959 version. An example would be After Messalla and Judah Ben Hur meet up, Judah in the book decides to go to a military academy in Rome to learn how to fight like a Roman so he can one day defeat them. This never happens in either of the movies. So I have to respectfully disagree with Richards.

Richards' Analysis of Ben Hur

Richards comments on several characteristics of the 1925 Ben Hur such as the accuracy of the plot, character casting choices, use of color and the elaborate sets. He praises the gruesomeness of the film as one of the most important defining characteristics because of the message that it sends about the Romans as well as the Christians. The sets were clearly very advanced and in detail and this was very important to the success of the film. I agree with the importance of the sets and gruesomeness but was surprised by how little Richards addressed the depiction of Jesus as well as the use of technicolor. The fact that Jesus was only portrayed as a hand or a foot on occasion and that he was always marked by a shining light was very interesting because of the sensitivity to the depiction of Christ at the time. The use of technicolor and tinting of the scenes was way beyond anything that had ever been done at that point and I would have assumed it would have been more important to touch on in the eyes of Richards.

Ben-Hur analysis

Richards analysis of Ben-Hur argues that Ramon Navarro is a more suitable Ben-Hur and I agree with this because Heston doesn't have the physical qualities of the underdog characteristic Ben-Hur portrays. Surprisingly, the color shots in the shades of pink, red, blue and yellow where not mentioned in his analysis yet they were very big for the time representing big moments from the bible. 

Richards’ analysis of Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ

Richards' comments on Ben-Hur (1925) give a brief synopsis of production, movie itself, and praise it  thereafter. He talks about how the 1925 version of Ben-Hur stays more true to the novel than the 1959 remake. A few of the key developement said to have been left out of the 1925 adaptation were romance developement between Ben-Hur and Esther, the character of Iras as a whole, and the subplot of Simonides building a fortune in Antioch. I'd have to agree with all of Richard's praises, such as the gruesomeness, sea battle, chariot races, and director Niblo's overall production. I especially like the comment, "man's inhumanity to man," when referencing the film's grimness and portrayal of Roman rule. I'm suprised he did not go into more depth on the use of tints, and Technicolor scenes. He does partially state that all of the Biblical shots are in Technicolor but doesn't go into anymore detail. Considering how every tint had a purpose or was related to the scene in some way, I think it should not have been reduced to a single sentence.

A big part of the film that Richards didn't even talk about was the part where Ben Hur and Jesus first met. It's a very important part for numerous reasons. Obviously it's important because it first introduces Jesus into the story. It also shows Jesus' immense generosity towards a slave. Jesus is some what sticking his neck out against the Roman army just so he can give some slave some water. Also it highlights how awful and painful it was for Ben Hur to go through the torture that the Romans were putting him through. It gives the audience understanding of why he has such resentment towards Massala and why he so deeply wants his revenge. To me this was a hugely important scene and the fact that Richards didn't even bother to talk about it kind of surprises me.

     Richards analysis of Ben Hur is beyond its time. The gigantic budget proved worthy as this epic movie told the tale of Christ in some color. I agree with the majority of the choices he followed from the bible minus his choice of John 18-19 of Jesus before Pilate. I feel having Jesus saying "My kingdom is not of this world" is not fitting. The rest of the story is fine and especially the revolutionary use of color in scenes with Christ.

Responding to Richards’ analysis of Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ

Richard's analysis of Ben-Hur (1925)  addresses several things.  As the film is an adaptation of a novel, Richard talks about how the 1925 version of Ben-Hur  is a more faithful adaptation than the 1959 incarnation, citing the more developed love between Esther and Ben-Hur and the inclusion of Messala’s Egyptian mistress as evidence.  Richard also makes the argument that Ramon Navarro makes a more convincing Ben-Hur than Charlton Heston.  Given Heston’s image as a hero of strength and masculine confidence, I agree with Richard as Navarro’s more youthful and less powerful appearance makes his struggle and physical “rebirth” in slavery more powerful.  Personally, I was a little surprised that Richard did not address the color scenes of the movie which were groundbreaking at the time.      

Cleopatra and Marc Antony Kiss Scene

My favorite scene from "Cleopatra" was when Marc Antony was wearing an undershirt signifying that he was vulnerable, and Cleopatra was wearing a green dress signifying permission to go ahead and greed. However Marc has the height advantage in this medium show with a high angle, allowing the side of both characters and the kiss the be seen clearly. They talk about being apart then they hold each other. Marc then says something similar to how he can never be farther from her than he his right now, when they are actually as close as they can get, this use of language and irony I found extremely interesting. It showed the audience a deep true love that Marc and Cleopatra shared through a "cheesy" and tender romantic scene.

Beginning Scene

We are introduced to Caesar on the battlefield, and we are shown that he is a very powerful man. This is demonstrated by the mise en scene not only in the way that he holds himself in this scene, with a puffed up chest, head held high, but also in the way that he is positioned in the scene so that he is taller than the other men, a sure sign of dominance or importance in film and imagery. We can also see here that Caesar had additional decorations on his armor, a sign of wealth or importance, in this case both. This scene takes place right after we see many legions so we are meant to understand that he controls all of them. This is a medium shot so we're a little more intimate with Caesar, and because of this we are more likely to sympathize and like Caesar. It's also almost an eye level shot with Caesar, but an argument could be made that the shot is almost a high angle shot, we are definitively looking down on the two soldiers to the left as we can see most of the top of their helmets, but we can also almost see the top of Caesar's head, this may be foreshadowing to Caesar bowing down to Cleopatra at her coronation. All these things send the message that caesar is a very powerful man.

    This is the scene where Marc Antiny goes onto Cleopatra's ship even though she is in a Roman harbor. She asserts her dominance by making him come to her.  In this picture you see that Marc Antony has his head and chest down pointing away from Cleopatra. While Cleopatra has her chest and head up looking confident. This shows that she is controlling the situation and has the power. It also shows that Antony is intimidated by her. The lighting is a little bit darker on Cleopatra's side possibly to give emphasis on Antony and his lack of confidence. The shot seems to be at right about eye level to give even more depth into the emotions of Cleopatra and Antony. Also so the audience picks up every little detail of Antony's expression and posture. This whole shot seems to be concentrated on Antony being the lesser of Cleopatra, it could only show that more so if he was kneeling before her which he actually does later on. Antony also seems to be a little bit closer to the middle of the shot than Cleopatra again to put a real emphasis on showing the audience that they show be looking at him and seeing his expression.

Cleopatra Still

This still is either from when Caesar first comes to Egypt, or from when Antony returns from Greece.  Either way, this picture gives off the vibe that Cleopatra is superior to whoever is below her.  It's a very regal shot, and she looks powerful here.  This shot is a close-up, but also between a low angle and an eye-level shot.  The sun or light coming off of her crown give the impression of maybe like the divinity of her, like the light of the gods is shining down on her. She looks a little bit disdainful, which would make a lot of sense in the context of the scene, whether it is Caesar coming in like he owns the place, or Antony coming back after marrying the sister of his enemy.

Antony and Cleopatra before he leaves for Rome.

     Antony and Cleopatra's relationship takes several twists that one might not expect if they failed to notice details that serve as the precursor to 'unexpected' events. In the scene above Antony is reassuring Cleopatra before leaving to Rome, uttering the famous line, "I could never be more far away from you than this," before they kiss. After that kiss Antony holds Cleopatra as depicted in the specific shot above. The lighting and angle of this shot shows that Antony will be responsible for some following negative event.
     Lighting is a significant tool in conveying good and evil. Light is good and dark is evil in common association. Therefore, in the shot above the light illuminates Cleopatra's face after Antony has sworn his love, indicating her confidence in him and her identity as the good character. However, darkness from shadow is cast over Antony's face as he looks down and away from Cleopatra. This indicates the evil in his character and given the context of their previous conversation, Antony is likely to break his vow to Cleopatra in some way. Thus, the lighting serves as a symbol for the upcoming betrayal of marriage to Octavia that is revealed later on.
     Angles can give and take power from characters as well as highlight specific moments in a film. The angle of the above shot is a close up of Antony and Cleopatra. Close ups are often used to convey intimacy and closeness between characters. This makes sense considering they were kissing and declaring love a moment prior. However, the director's choice to remain in a close up while the lighting changes on the two characters further proves that the dark betrayal to be committed will be of the intimate nature. Therefore, the close up is evidence that the evil shown by shadow on Antony's face will come in the form of contradicting his promises of love only moments before.
     All the aspects of this shot formulate into the foreshadowing of a dark event to come, one where Cleopatra is hurt at the fault of Antony. This is exactly what happens and the choices of angle and lighting in this scene were intent on expressing that.

Cleopatra Post Carpet entrance

This scene the shot it is a medium shot filmed at a high angle almost from the perspective of Caesar looking down on Cleopatra. This shot is filmed at the high angle it is because it puts Cleopatra at a vulnerable state because this is moments after she is unrolled from the carpet she was snuck in through and that is why Caesar is at a higher elevation because she is going to him for help. It is clear that Cleopatra is the center of attention because even though she isn't exactly in the center of the shot she is brightly colored compared to the rest of the room which is a dull mixture of brown and tan. The scene is set up with Cleopatra behind what looks like glasses and some sort of wine with a bed in the background, my initial thoughts towards this were a preview to Cleopatra's and Caesar's sexual relationship which forms quickly after this scene.

http://movie-screencaps.com/cleopatra-1963/13/ 

Cleopatra's entrance to Rome

This part of the elaborate entrance of Cleopatra into Rome. Although the entire scene was enjoyable to watch, I found this part the most interesting. The low set camera angle is used many times throughout this scene along with various aerial shots to really capture the performance done by the Egyptians. As the horses begin to move towards the camera as the first demonstration, the camera slowly moves backwards. Even as the camera is reversing the horses close in on it and then spit around you the viewer. This was a creative way to start the whole scene, especially since real horses and riders were required for the shot. Not only were the horses and riders real but every person you can see is an extra. Orchestrating this together must have been an incredibly difficult task.

In this medium shot the director establishes the power Cleopatra has over the great Julius Caesar. The level upon which the camera sits is about eye level making it seem like we the audience are there in person. However the even lighting does not seem to establish any important aspects of this scene. Color in this scene is very important. Gold is everywhere. This color establishes the wealth of the nation of Egypt and the power of these individuals. Most importantly is the mise en scene, the placement of Cleopatra above that of Caesar is telling of not only the plot but her power over him. He has basically handed her the throne by sentencing the brother to death. Despite this exchange of power Caesar still finds himself bowing before her. This is very telling of the power she has over him. The techniques in this scene deliver the message that Cleopatra has the power over the relationship.

Cleopatra and the High Priestess

The scene prior to this has Caesar being carried to the Senate leaving Cleopatra fearing for his life. Set in the High Priestess alter room, the scene has a ominous dark feel. The only light in the room is fire -- which casts a grim shadow to the various golden statues in the room-- and the outer rim of view is dark and indistinguishable. This scene is shot at high angle that strips Cleopatra of her title and rank. Anxiously awaits to hear the fate of her husband, she kneels before the High Priestess. She is a worried wife and mother here, not a queen.  Cleopatra's face is always brightly lit so we can easily discern her reactions of the vision she is shown. The High Priestess is placed in the top right side of the screen to display her power and influence in this scene. The priestess throws many powders into the main fire that create various types of smokes and add to the mood. Covered in a black and silver robe it is clear that the High Priestess is meant to signify mystery, death, and power. Through this foreboding mood the viewer is revealed Caesar's fate.

Cleopatra's power over Caesar

This is the very first moment that we see Cleopatra stand up against Caesar and show the audience that she does in fact have power. Having seen the entirety of their relationship play out on screen it is interesting to glimpse the moment that the audience is given a hint of the control that Cleopatra will have over the Roman ruler. The power is clearly expressed by the director in Cleopatra's positioning with Caesar, in all previous scenes he was standing in the foreground or looking down on her but this is the first eye level shot where they are looking at each other with equal positions of power. Her outfit is fitting for this as well because she has bands on her arms that look similar to the armor of the Roman's and her dress is the same color of his armor. While they show she how power in this scene they also make her look remarkably Roman considering she is the queen of Egypt in an effort to link the idea of power with Roman-ism in the minds of the viewers.

Cleopatra Deserts Mark Antony in the middle of the battle

My favorite scene in the movie Cleopatra is when  Cleopatra leaves in the middle of battle believing that the battle is lost. What makes this scene one of the most important in the film and my favorite is seeing the look that Mark Antony gets on his face when he see's his Queen and in some ways his master deserting him in the middle of a battle (in my opinion a winnable battle).  That scene itself is the turning point in the movie. The defeat breaks Mark Antony's spirit and his armies moral as well. When Antony tries to fight on land he loses spectacularly to Octavian ( his entire army deserts him). The angle in which the photo is shot perfectly it sums up the situation accurately. Antony believes he is winning until he sees Cleopatra leaving. Anthony is caked with sweat and ash from the smoke of ships surrounding him. They show a half shot of his face and upper body. Something the audience in particular can take note of is based off of the angle of the camera which is facing straight towards Antony we can see the expression on his face as one of utter disbelief and dismay at being abandoned by Cleopatra. Besides the angle of the shot and camera I also noticed something else that the director included in this shot. In that moment on a very sunny day in the battle the light seems to have grown dimmer. It could simply be a change in the direction of the suns light but I believe that this was an intentional move on the directors part to make Antony's disbelief and depression seem all the more real.

Antony Seeing Cleopatra Fleeing

Red Romans

Julius Caesar is best remembered for his assassination. His death, at the hands of his trusted friends and colleagues is associated with the Latin phrase “et tu, Brute.  This phrase which translates to “you too Brutus” is a famous phrase of pop culture due to it being featured in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.  However, Caesar never said this line upon witnessing Brutus among his assassins, indicating that Shakespeare wrote the phrase to add weight to Caesar’s betrayal.  Nevertheless, Shakespeare's creative liberties with Caesar's death resulted in one of the most popular pieces of pop culture.  This massive popularity was probably a factor in how Cleopatra (1963) portrays Caesar's assassination.   

 The first key difference from Shakespeare's version is Cleopatra's viewing of the event.  In the film, Cleopatra, consumed with unrest and paranoia over Caesar’s future (further fueled by a series of bad omens that Cleopatra witness such as Caesar having a fiery dream and Calpurnia’s own unrest) goes to consult a priest about the future.  The priest summons a vision from her fire pit for Cleopatra that shows Caesar's betrayal and murder.  Cleopatra's vision is depicted by showing silent footage of Caesar entering the Senate, being ambushed and attacked by his betrayers.  The scenes with Caesar are outlined with red fire due to the otherworldly nature of the ceremony.   Every couple of seconds, Cleopatra's distraught face in a medium close up shot is played over or behind the scenes of Caesar and his assassins.  Her distraught face is outlined in red, further highlighting the otherworldly nature of the vision.  The use of intersecting footage to show Caesar’s fate and Cleopatra's reaction makes the scene a movie in a movie due to the fact that Cleopatra is essentially watching the footage of Caesar being betrayed and murdered.  The repeated medium close up used to show her reaction to Caesar’s demise is done in order to increase the tension and fully show her reaction.  The use of red fire and having Cleopatra's face be tinted in red is done in order to add to the otherworldly nature of the vision scene.  The reason the film has Cleopatra watching a muted Caesar and his assassins is due to the fact that at this point in the film, Cleopatra has become a more active character and her future lover Antony has been introduced.  As the next hour and a half is focused on Cleopatra and Antony, Caesar’s death is more about Cleopatra's reaction than it is about Caesar in order to further develop her character.  This is highlighted by the departure from Shakespeare's vision and the famous “et tu, Brute?” line.  As mentioned previously, Caesar and his assassins cannot be heard over the ominous music and Cleopatra's reaction.  As their mouth’s are still moving, we gather that some dialogue is occurring but we can only guess what the characters are saying.  The muted characters led to the biggest divergence from Shakespeare's version.  This divergence is that fact that upon seeing Brutus among his assassins, Caesar does not say the famous “et tu, Brute?” line and gets killed.  Instead, Brutus is standing near a statute, away from his fellow assassins and is obviously conflicted.  After being surrounded and stabbed repeatedly by his betrayers, the wounded and bloodied Caesar spots Brutus backing away from him while holding his dagger in front of him as if trying to ward Caesar off.  Caesar rushes after him, holding his hands out in front of him as if asking for help or a hug.  He manages to grab a hold of Brutus which leads to Brutus fatally stabbing him in the chest, causing Caesar to slump over and die as Cleopatra begins crying over the fate of her son before fainting.                    

Favorite Scene From "Cleopatra"

Choose one of your favorite scenes from "Cleopatra" (1963) – one that we haven't discussed yet –, find a screenshot of this scene online or create your own. Explain how camera technique, angle, lightening, color and/or mise-en-scene support the mood or message of the scene.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:
Try to create your own New Post, rather than commenting on this post. Otherwise, you can't upload actual screenshots, and your links won't be hyperlinked. Remember to give your posts a TITLE and make sure your images aren't too big and that you've proofread your post! A good source of "Cleopatra" screen shots is http://movie-screencaps.com/cleopatra-1963/.

Everyone who has accepted my emailed invitation to become a co-author on this blog should be able to do this.

Julius Caesar

I know it might be a bit overdone, but Julius Caesar really was an incredibly interesting figure in history.  In his early life, he was in many ways disadvantaged.  His father died when Caesar was just fifteen years old.  At least from his early life, Caesar's is an underdog story.  He could have just basically given up after his father's death, but his ambition was much too strong for that.  Even though Sulla really hated him, he still found a way to gain power, and eventually full control of Rome.  Caesar's story is so interesting to me because he shows us how a person can do nearly anything with enough ambition (and money, to some degree).  His story is also a warning against having ambition at the cost of political connections, as Caesar gained many enemies during and after his ascent to power.

Marcus Antonius

Philip Matyszak highlights several key contributors to Rome during the fall of its Republic under the First and Second Triumvirates. While all of the politicians mentioned by Matyszak used Rome to further their own ambitions, Marcus Antonius is the figure that stands out. His political gain is peculiar given that he “…was of the plebeian branch” (p. 216). Even though Mark Antony was not from the wealthy patrician status held by most aspiring politicians, he made a name for himself by becoming close to his military leader Julius Caesar. Antony fought from the bottom for the connections that led him to his later positions by serving well in the military as a soldier rising through the ranks. He created the alliances that fueled his escape from near imprisonment after the death of Caesar. By joining the Second Triumvirate “Antony had gone from starving refugee to one of the three most powerful men in the world in a few weeks” (p. 219). From the beginnings of a plebeian family, Antony managed to get himself as close to the next Julius Caesar as the Republic had feared.

Although he met a classically tragic end, “…committing suicide by falling on his sword,” (p.221) Antony was the embodiment of a combination of political ambition and self-made glory that society remembers today as Rome. His historical significance was enough to serve as the story line for several films and even Shakespeare wrote a play on his relations with Cleopatra. While he is no Julius Caesar, his memory is still present in modern cultures.

Julius Caesar

I find Julius Caesar the most interesting because of his desire to obtain a position of power and complete ruthlessness. These two traits of his seem to go hand in hand on more than one occasion. When in incredible debt he sacked cities in Spain just to ease the burden of these debts and place himself in a better position for consulship. After the triumvirate was established, he gave himself a proconsular command in Gaul. For the next ten years in The Gallic War he spearheaded an immense loss of life and suffering for his own glory. Caesar was only able to reach dictatorship through crushing those who opposed him.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cicero was a man of very lacking political power yet built himself up to eventually become praetor at the earliest age possible. Both his humble ancestry and role in politics in Rome made him the most interesting to me. Cicero masterfully handled the Catiline conspiracy leading to praise as father of the country. More interesting is how this inflated his ego and led him to write poetry as Matyszak comments is glad it did not survive. Both humble yet human Cicero stands out from the over told story of Caesar making him more interesting upon reading about him.

The character that was most interesting to me was Julius Caesar. going into this class I knew little about him and after learning of his savagery and political attempts and failures Im more drawn to him than any of the others. The moment that sealed the deal for me was his ruthlessness when conquering territory, he would sack cities that had already surrendered for all there plunder. on top of this he was very goal driven and when politics had failed him he turned to military to rule and didn't care who he screwed over.

Caesar the show stealer

The character I thought to be the most interesting was Julius Caesar.  In many ways, Julius Caesar was the ideal tragic hero.  His rough start into the world of Roman society, his many military triumphs, his status as a hero of the Roman plebeians, his relationship with Cleopatra and his fatal move towards becoming a dictator, have made Julius Caesar an enduring character in history,  politics and art.  His many successes and his many mistakes have made the name Julius Caesar immortal in history and in the arts.  As an aspiring history major,  I find Julius Caesar to be the most interesting character due to the cultural and historical impact he made with his life and death.                  

Mark Antony

Mark Antony stood out to me as an interesting character from the reading we did because of his loyalty to the individuals that he created relationships with. Being as powerful of a man as he was, it was out of character for a man of that status to express such loyalty in a system that rewarded selfishness. He expressed this through his veto of the movement against Caesar, and his suicide on the behalf of Cleopatra, believing that she had  been killed.

Mark Antony

Mark Antony although smart and cunning when it came to battle strategies and commanding troops did not care much for being a governor or morals. The careless way he throws money away and spends his day trying to enjoy the bachelor life. What I find most interesting about Mark Antony is how different and more powerful he could have been had he upheld morals and obeyed laws. He could have been a very powerful, successful man.

The Most Interesting Character

I thought that Marcus Tullius Cicero was the most interesting character in the Matyszak chapters because even though he came from humble beginnings, he didn't let the great Roman families get to him, he even became Consul in 63 BC. Cicero was also witty, as shown in the first paragraph of his section, and smart, even though his narcissism could get in the way.

I think that the most interesting character in the Matyszak chapters is Julius Caesar. The reason I consider him the most interesting is because the man himself was many things. He was a General, a politician, a man of the people, a tyrant, and a scholar and because of these attributes he was able to achieve a tremendous amount of success, wealth, fame, and fortune that very few Romans could ever hope to match.