Seneca

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.

John Malkovich is amazing in this movie!! Despite being the great philosopher, the character Seneca is shown as a human being, with back and forth and reevaluation of his thoughts and feelings, almost letting the audience enter his mind. His opinions though are unaltered and consistently recited from Seneca throughout the movie, mostly to the regret of his companions.

Incredible work also by Robert Schwentke who put the movie into a somehow theatrical setting. At some points he leaves the audience in question with modern requisites and scenery in the picture only to reveal their meaning in the end.

I saw this movie at the Berlinale '23 and it left me laughing, disgusted and enlightened. In its unique style, it didn't fail as delightful food for thought.

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.

Seneca was a stoic philosopher and moralist known today for his letters, dialogs and plays, all of which are readily available and eminently readable. He survived the brutal reign of Caligula, was exiled under Claudius, and was a tutor and advisor to Nero. Like many close to this emperor (or Mr. President in the film), Seneca did not survive the experience, and committed suicide in 65 AD on orders of Nero.

Malkovich delivers a fine performance while quoting various Senecan type things. It's very close to a monologue. Being an art film, it has some very weird twists, most of which fall very flat indeed - from Nero's sunglasses to the bizarre paper-mache microphone and the bizarre staging of the play-within-a-play, Seneca's own Thyestes. That aside, it's an interesting meditation on death, and worth watching if you're a fan of the classics.

The modernization and attempted comparison to modern falls flat, and spoils what might have been a fascinating stoic 'letter' to the present.

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.