Nero. Or the Fall of Rome.

Nero, or the Fall of Rome (1909)

** (out of 4)

The crazed Nero brings Rome down when he announces he's leaving his wife for a new woman. Historic changes are certainly made here but the biggest problem is that the film is downright boring and rather hard to get through. The one reason to watch it is for the dream sequence of Rome burning as well as the set design, which is very nice. The laughs are pretty stale though.

Policeman's Little Run, The (1907)

*** (out of 4)

A policeman sees a dog steal a piece of meat from a grocery so he gives chase and is soon joined by other police. An early slapstick comedy, this film doesn't have too many laughs but it's still quite entertaining and contains some nice effects including one where the dog and police climb up the side of a building. The twist where the dog starts chasing the police is nicely done.

This might be one of the earliest attempts to make a historical spectacle on film, and it's fairly interesting even though it's not really that good. It offers a look at the mad emperor Nero, with some settings and props that are rather lavish for its era. The sets and the characterization of Nero ring mostly true. The same cannot be said for the story; you don't have to know all that much about Roman history to realize that they took some liberties with historical events. At times it is also surprisingly slow. It's mostly worth watching to take a look at some of the means they used in trying to recreate the world of ancient Rome on film.

An early historical spectacle, Nerone is a forerunner of the likes of Cabiria which would five years later take the film world by storm. Today, it might look stagey, with some incredibly over-the-top acting at times, but it holds the interest more for what it signifies than the factually inaccurate story it tells. The costume and set design are far superior to most other contemporary films, giving at least some impression that the events we watch on-screen are actually unfolding in Ancient Rome rather than in a Turin film studio.

As you'd expect, Nero's a bit of a cad. He ditches his slightly dumpy wife Octavia when the younger Poppea catches his eye without a second thought, and then allows himself to be talked into killing the ex to clear the way for Poppea to become his new empress. So what we might possibly have here, in the form of Poppea, is cinema's first femme fatale - I certainly can't think of an earlier one.

As others have mentioned, the film is an uneasy mix of hokum punctuated by brief moments of artistic highlights. I certainly didn't find it as dull as some others seem to have done but, having said that, can see how this would chiefly be of interest to film historians and hopelessly completist film buffs like me...

Remarkable that five years from this film, "Nero", that "Cabiria", with its outstanding sets, would be released. In just two years, the production values in "Nero" were made dated by those of "L'Inferno". Additionally, Pathé's Film d'Art had already set the standard in production values for historical spectacles higher than that in "Nero" with the prior year's release of "The Assassination of the Duke de Guise". Yet, Italy's film industry had only recently begun. Rapidly, the national cinema led the world in historical and literary spectacles, longer films and grand set design. Thus, this film is historically noteworthy for being an early entry to the Italian spectacle—but it's not of much interest otherwise.

"Nero" contains the dated tableaux structure, with title cards preceding and describing static shot-scenes, and is theatrical as a result. The sets, which are just cardboard and backdrops, are also no better than what could be found on the stage. For what they are, though, they're not bad. Although the story is set in Ancient Rome, the sets are all Renaissance with their linear perspective. The positioning of the extras also adds to the deep staging and the illusion of a kind of artificial deep focus. If I recall correctly, the same tricks were used in "The Last Days of Pompeii", released four years later by the same company. In short, the sets here are better than most from the time, but are, nevertheless, artificial, theatrical and dated.

Another effect of note in this film is the vision scene. The special effect, however, is simply a superimposition (or double exposure), which had been used in films for over a decade even by then and in photography for longer than that. The real roots for the composition of these vision scenes in early films belongs to magic lantern slides.

I really do admire this film because of its amazing production values for 1909. While the sets certainly won't rival those of later Roman epics like QUO VADIS or CLEOPATRA, the costumes were awfully good for a time when budgets for films hardly surpassed the cost of film! So, this is a standout film in this sense.

However, when it comes to the style of the film and its value as history, it is of dubious value at best. The acting seems very vague and the actors mostly stand around and wait for the next inter-title card--there just isn't that much action on film and it seems as if the director was only yelling out a few suggestions here and there as the actors ad-libbed. This really was the style of many early films. Plus, the story is pure hokum--as if it was written by someone only vaguely aware of the facts. It implies Nero had Rome burned and talks about his love for Poppea, but this is odd since most historians today doubt if Nero had anything to do with the fire AND Nero apparently stomped his "beloved" Poppea to death during a fit of jealousy!! So much for the romantic aspect of the film! So I advise you to watch the film for its historic value and if you are a lover of early cinema. Otherwise, the film is pretty easy for the average person to skip,...and maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.