"Casina" vs. "The Braggart Soldier"

I prefer the play “The Braggart Soldier” over "Casina" because it dives deeper into the specifics of its story. With this, there is more character development, and the reader is fully capable of understanding the story and all its different parts. My favorite character from this play was Palaestrio because he was witty and hilarious throughout the work. He was the driving force behind all that happened, and his comedic presence was entertaining and fun to read.

Casina vs. The Braggart Soldier: Which would be better for the big screen?

I would argue that The Braggart Soldier would be better for a modern movie adaption. One of the key factors in deciding how or if to adapt something for the big screen is how understandable the plot, conflict, and characters can be to an audience. Although this is not to suggest that Casina is too difficult for most people to understand, but it has a sharp contrast between it's games of wits between Lysidamus and Cleostrata and the matter at hand of Casina becoming essentially Lysidamus's sex slave that may be incredibly off-putting for a modern audience. The Braggart Soldier presents a clear-cut antagonist in Pyrgopolynices and clear-cut protagonists in Philocomasium and Pleusicles, and follows a plot that has a natural progression towards the ending, that being Pyrgopolynices being publicly humiliated. All of these characters work far better in a modern comedy setting, and thus would be better for a big screen adaption.

Which Play I prefer. Casina or The Baggart Solider

"The Baggart Solider" to me was harder to follow. The actual format of the play was part of this. The paragraphs in this ply were longer and I lost focus easily. The names of the characters in the play were also very confusing. All the main characters started with P and they were hard to pronounce. Casina was much more entertaining for me. The humor aspect kept me engaged. While a girl getting fought over by two lovers is tiring story but the humor kept up the energy. I did like the scheming in "the Baggart Solider" play but even is this plot point it was still confusing to follow. I also like how Cleostrata was able to figure out her husbands plot and disrupt it. She is this play is not just the helpless wife unable to stop her husband.

Platus plays

I thought that Casina was hysterical. It is probably some childish humor but it was just too good to not laugh. I liked Casina because I felt that it was more straight forward to follow. In the braggart soldier, all of their names started with P's which made it confusing to tell who was who for a while. They were not common American names they were strange Greek names which did help in the slightest. I thought the story of the Braggart soldier was better but I would still give the win to Casina between the two.

"Casina" Vs. "The Braggart Soldier"

Personally, I prefer the play "Casina". This play was funnier and the story was much more interesting to me than that of "The Braggart Soldier". The formatting of the first play was much easier to follow along with and made the overall experience of reading it much more entertaining for me. In the second play, the format was less organized and made it a much harder read, and that led me to dislike that one just a bit more. The content of both plays were similar to me, the craving for love. Although that love was unrequited. Still, the first play stuck out to me more and was a more enjoyable and funny experience.

Plautus' Plays

The play "Casina" is the one I greatly prefer. I could follow the characters and idea of the play easily, which made it more enjoyable. It was an odd plot, but added to the comedy it was trying to portray. The constant scheming was funny, leading to the ending which was the most entertaining part of the play. After reading it I could remember what it was about and didn't find myself straying while reading. While reading "The Braggart Soldier" I could not follow it and found my attention not on the play. There was scheming but I did not find it humerus like in "Casina." The storyline of the characters was confusing to me, making the overall plot of the play confusing. It didn't seem like a comedy. 

Casina or The Braggart Soldier

I had some trouble reading and following along The Braggart Soldier, it was really easy to get the characters confused for me. So I enjoyed reading  Casina a lot more. I really liked how Cleostrata was able to figure out Lysidumus's plan all along and she was able to sabotage it and get revenge on Lysidumus. I think it was cool how Chalinus accepted to dress as Casina, maybe he did it to get back to Lysidumus for not letting him marry Casina. Other wise I can't really see why he would accept, I assume that back then dressing as a woman may not have been  seen as a thing a man would do, but still it was really funny. Something that confused me at the end was the fact that Cleostrata was not mad at her husband for his plan. Was she not mad because her plan worked? or maybe even she didn't even really love him so at the end of the day she didn't care? I think both plays could be good movie adaptations but I would rather see Casina in a film I think it would be  a great comedy .

Casina vs The Braggart Soldier

Topic: Which one did you prefer? and Which would be adaptable for modern theatre?

            This choice came obvious to me because I enjoyed Casina a lot more than the Braggart Soldier. Casina personally was a lot easier to follow and I found it more entertaining. The constant use of dramatic language was very descriptive and created good imagery. The absurd language also made it funny and enjoyable to read.

              One thing that I did enjoy was towards the end of the play when Cleostrata tricks her husband thinking that a male servant was his lover Casina. I liked this scene particularly because it gave the woman some power. She came up with this smart plan on her own and was portrayed as clever. I think this is not common for ancient times because women were viewed as unintelligent and fragile. You could see this in The Braggart soldier when one the of female characters was constantly fainting and needing male intention. The fact that in Casina a woman was able to trick men made me happy because who doesn't like seeing a strong woman! 

I also think that Casina would be better for modern theatre because of the extreme humor. I can see people liking the absurd language and there are lots of posibilites for funny scenes. One of my favorites of course was when Olympio almost kissed a male servant thinking it was his lover. In modern film that scene could be dramatized to be absolutely hilarious. 

Richards’ Analysis of Ben-Hur

Richards's analysis is well thought out and full of detail, and I agree with most of it. He notes that 1926 Ben-Hur best shows the relationship between the theater in the 19th century and film in the 20th century which I can see in relation to the acting and use of advanced color techniques for the time. He goes on to write that the movie is "structured around the conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome", I agree with this to some extent but I felt like the movie also focused on the lives of Ben-Hur and Jesus Christ, and how to stories connect and support one another. Richards also notes that he believes that the 1926 version is better overall compared to the 1959 film. I personally can't take a strong opinion on this as I haven't seen the 1959 version in full, but I do believe that after watching the earlier film, that the addition of color and sound could benefit and enhance the story.

Richards take on Ben-Hur

I thought Richard had a good analysis of Ben-Hur and I agreed with many of his points. However, when he talks about the film being visually superior compared to the 1959 edition of the movie I had to pump my brakes. I feel this way because I think that sounds and voices make the characters more personable and force a stronger connection between the viewers and the characters. The 1927 version did have a lot of great action scene and I think was innovative for its time in the movie-making industry. I can't help but lean to the color and sound edition of the film though. I may be my bias because I've always watched color and sound films my whole life, but that is just how I feel. Besides that, I think Richard's analysis was spot on.

Richards' Take on Ben-Hur: Tale of the Christ

Richard's take on Ben-Hur is solid overall. He covers many of the important aspects necessary for a short review, such as the plot, important character, some main themes, and important production details. I especially like all of the trivia, like the one with censorship. However, there was so much more information he could have added that would have made it more interesting. He mentions the censorship of the film in Fascist Italy due to the demonization of the Roman Empire. He could've added on how this could also tie into the regime's hatred of Jews as another reason, as an example of antisemitism. He also fails to mention the infamous chariot crash and how, potentially, how some extras died. One thing I disagree with is how he claims Christianity is the one in conflict with imperial Rome throughout the film. While, yes, it is a theme present throughout the movie, I feel like it isn't the main focus of the film, often times distracting from Ben-Hur's pursuit of revenge. In some cases, it feels shoehorned into random moments. I don't know how prevalent the imagery of Christ was in the original novel, but the only time I felt that it blended well was when Ben-Hur directly interacted with the main characters. This is about the only qualm I have, though. Richards otherwise does a good job analyzing this cinematic marvel.

Richard's Analysis of "Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ"

I agreed with most of what Jeffery Richards had to say about the movie "Ben Hur". It was also incredibly interesting to learn how the film was banned by Mussolini in Italy for portraying Rome as a villain, and banned in China for the religious aspects of the film. Plot wise, it might have been interesting to include and explore more about the character arc of Ben-Hur and his relationships with the other characters. However, I think that everything Richards mentioned was accurate, and I look forward to seeing if his comparisons of the 1925 film to the 1959 version of the film are correct as well.

Ben-Hur reading analysis

Jeffrey Richards did a good job of summing up the story of Ben-Hur. After reading his analysis, there wasn't much I disagreed with. However, I believe that there is a lot more he could've elaborated on such as parallel themes and racial conflict throughout the film. He briefly gives some quotes from Messala that show aspects of racism. I think it would've been helpful to put some more thought into the quotes and talk about some of the things that fueled Ben-Hur's desire for revenge. I also think it would have been helpful for Richard's to write about the rejection that Jesus faced almost immediately from his own people. Their expectation was a king and a fearsome leader to help them topple the Roman Empire. Overall I would say that Richard's analysis was accurate and informative, but could've spoken about some other aspects of the film to help readers.

Richard's Analysis of "Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ"

Throughout the reading of Richard's analysis of 'Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" I don't find myself disagreeing with him. I enjoy how he explains the process that went into the making of the film. It was not easy and there were many occasions where they had to start from scratch, with a new director, new cast, and new sets; making the film stand out to me. Before even talking about the plot and meaning of the film, he went into all the aspects, including the outcome and impact of the movie. With his summary of the story he seemed to cover the main points that the story is about. Focusing on the aspects of Christianity and Imperial Rome and what came about of Ben-Hur and Messala, and a star of the film, Jesus. The summary gave clear vision on the meaning of the story. He covered all the selling points and factors of the film that were important to making it the production it came to be. In comparing the 1926 to the 1959 film I am unable to speak on, because I haven't seen the 1959 version. I would have liked to read more about the incident of the accidental fire and accidental chariot crash. Overall, I agree with Richard's analysis of the film, everything I read about was important to the understanding of "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ." 

Richard's Analysis of Ben Hur

             Richard did a accurate job of describing the plot and connecting the major themes in the film "Ben Hur". He focuses on the fact that the plot line of Judah-Ben Hur and the story of Christ are indeed a  parallel. Some similarities include how Judah is betrayed by his past friend Masala. His family is sent to prison and he is thrown into slavery. The same can be said about Jesus and the betrayal of Judas in the Bible. 

Richard compares the two versions of Ben Hur and because I have only seen the earlier version I am unable to construct an opinion on his analysis of the two films. 

Richard's claim that the film is concentrated on the conflicts between the Roman Empire and Christianity is very accurate. The film Ben Hur supports his claim because throughout the film there is constant conflict between the Jews and Romans. 

One thing that I wish Richard would have spent writing about was the fire and revenge Judah felt for the Romans. That was a constant theme in the movie and I think that should have been mentioned in his analysis. 

Concluding, I agree with with Richard's analysis of Ben Hur. The plot is represented accurately and I can agree with the theme statement that Richard developed. 

Analysis of Ben-Hur

I agree with most of Richard’s analysis of Ben Hur. I believe that one of the main themes of the movie was centered around the conflict between the Romans and Christianity. I do wish that Richards had touched more on the Roman’s were oppressing the Jews in the movie. I liked that Richards highlighted both the sea battle and the chariot race. I think that these were some of the key movements in the movie and as well as contributed to the cinematic aspect of the movie. The fact that the producers were able to not only recreate a sea battle and chariot race but they were also able to film it is amazing. That shows the technological advancement of this movie. I do wish that Richards had touched more on the relationship between Jesus and Ben Hur. I think that this was an important aspect of the movie that Richards didn’t talk about. I haven’t seen the remake version of the movie yet so I can not comment on that aspect of Richards analysis. But I do think that a lot of the times remakes are not as good as the original.

Richard's Analysis of "Ben-Hur"

Richards Establishes that the film is structured around the conflict of values between Christianity and the imperial Rome. I don't exactly agree with this, from my understanding Christianity didn't began until several years after Jesus died. Although he had followers in the film, and he helped Ben-Hur have a change of heart,  I wouldn't exactly say that Rome was having conflicts with Christianity  since it was barely starting. I would say that the conflict was more between Rome and Jews, something that proves this is when Messala says " To be a Roman is to rule the world- to be a Jew is to crawl in the dust". He specifically said Jew, he never mentions Christianity. I have not seen the 1959 remake so I can't really agree or disagree with his thoughts about the 1926 version being the better film, however he mentions that the remake doesn't have some of the events and characters from the book like the 1926 film does. I would assume that based on that the 1926 film is better. I agree with Richards on the fact that the 1926 version film is gruesome, at first I didn't agree but when I started thinking about the previous movies we have watched and the fact that this movie was made in the 20's, I realized that it was in fact gruesome compared to other films from that time.  I also agree with the fact that this was a great film and no one should miss it regardless of of age ore religion.

Richards’ Analysis of “Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ”

Richards introduces the film Ben-Hur with a thorough production history, explaining the film's circumstances in the early 1920s; history that increased my appreciation for what was produced despite the turmoil. Most of what Richards summarizes isn't necessarily disputable, and I appreciated the reminder of what occurred in the film. I agree with Richard's take away of the film: "The film is structured around the conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome." This is clearly at the heart of Ben-Hur, as most of Judah Ben-Hur’s  scenes include his supposed hatred of Imperial Rome because of their values and treatment of his religion. Something I wished Richard's had discussed in more detail is the development of Ben-Hur's character due to his feelings of hate, revenge, and then ultimately Christianity. I feel as though that was one of the more central idea's of the film, as Hur's journey toward "enlightenment" and peace through Christ is the overall message that the audience receives and/or resonates with; Christ's journey itself is not the main focus of the movie, but rather context to Ben Hur. Ben Hur has a realization that revenge and monetary gain do not give him purpose and satisfaction the way that believing and following Christ do. As for Richards' comparisons to the 1959 adaptation, I myself have not seen that version yet, and can neither agree nor disagree with his conclusion that the silent version is superior.

Richards' Analysis: Agree or Dissagree?

Richards does a very good job describing the plot and preparation that went into making the movie "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ". I agree with Richards' analysis of the movie for the most part. When he states that the film is "structured around the conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome" I fully believe that this was one of the main themes of the movie. The conflict between Christians, or even the Jews, and the Romans is seen in multiple scenes in the film. The scene that sticks out to me is when Messala is reunited with Ben-Hur at the beginning of the movie and Messala shows his true colors by belittling Ben-Hur for being a Jew, because he has fully adopted the Roman mentality of superiority. Richards also describes the film as gruesome and gory, when compared to the 1959 version, which I would also agree with since I have seen that version as well. I also agree with the statement Richards made about the 1926 version being "visually superior" to the 1959 version. You see this is the realness of the action scenes and the fear that comes along with that. It creates a more real and human reaction to the chariot scene and the war at sea. One thing I wished Richards would have touched on is Ben-Hur's character development through the movie. His character shifts dramatically after he is taken in and adopted by the Romans. You see another change in character as he comes in contact with Jesus at the end of the movie, after Jesus had cleansed his mother and sister of their leprosy. Other than the lack of the character development, I agree with Richards' description of the film "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ".

In this particular screenshot of Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, she is entering Rome and putting on a show that stunned the Romans. Marc Antony even said "Nothing like this has come to Rome since Romulus and Remus". In this shot, the camera angle is aimed upwards giving Cleopatra the look of being above everyone else. After such a grand introduction, it is clear that Cleopatra is very regal and her style choice demands the attention from everyone around her including Caesar and Antony. Earlier in the scene she walks down from her throne which is elevated well above ground level so everyone in Rome can see her marching with her parade. She is dressed in an all gold outfit that is supposed to resemble the Egyptian goddess Isis. The sunlight is shining off of her outfit giving the illusion she is glowing. I believe the message of this scene is that Cleopatra has come into Rome with a chip on her shoulder. She is trying to show power and grandeur to win over the Romans opinion's of her.

Cleopatra Scene Analysis

This scene taken from the animated short Cleopatra (1963). In the movie Cleopatra is seen as a very powerful character, she calls herself a god on multiple occasions and is able to influence some of the strongest and smartest men in history. Throughout the movie Cleopatra and Julius Caesar are shown in powers of position through their proximity to the camera, their central location or the physical height difference between them and other characters in the shot. In this shot the back of Cleopatra's' head is much larger and closer to the camera thus showing her power. The camera is also at an angle looking down on the servant who is also far away and made to seem small and insignificant. In the scene Cleopatra is doing makeup on a fake human head, though it may be a stretch, I thought that this could have been used to show that she has so much power that she can sculpt humans like a god which she is often compared to. The scene ends with Cleopatra ordering the servant to drink the poisoned wine and kill herself, showing how much power she has. Overall the scene shows in a very clear way who has power through means that anyone who didn't know the context would understand what the dynamic of the scene is.

Cleopatra Scene Analysis

This scene paints some very stark differences between Caesar and Cleopatra. The shot is a medium shot, allowing us to get a good look at the attire of both characters. Cleopatra is covered in white, and is in a room colored white, surrounded by her servants, who are also dressed similarly. Caesar, in stark contrast, is covered in regal gold and red colors. In addition, Caesar is standing over Cleopatra in a very intimidating manner, while Cleopatra is half-naked, which shows her vulnerability in her current state. In this manner, Caesar is presented, both figuratively and literally, as an intruder into Cleopatra's life. The mise-en-scene has this scene covered in items that show Cleopatra's royal status, however the colors show that it is a different kind of royalty from Caesar. Cleopatra's royalty comes much from her image as a beautiful princess, while Caesar's royalty comes from his power and intimidation. In this scene, Caesar is moving in and taking over Cleopatra's life and status as the one true figure of royalty through means of intimidation and show of power.

Cleopatra Scene Analysis

As you can see, this scene is the one where Caesar dies. Right away, it is obvious that Caesar is lower than everybody else in the scene, showing that this is a moment of great weakness for him. He’s being attacked, and not only is he lower than everyone else, he is being pushed down to that level. This scene is filmed in a medium shot, which displays the people as the focus of the moment. We can tell that this is an extremely crucial moment to the plot because they are the only things in shot and they are in the very middle of it. This is happening in broad daylight, and the only colors seen are red and white, showing that this moment is not hidden away, it is purposefully being displayed. The color red also indicates that this is an extremely violent occasion. This scene is undoubtedly an immensely important moment where Caesar’s weakness is on display, and where the actions happening are incredibly violent.

Cleopatra Image Analysis

In this scene, we see Mark Antony at one of his lowest points. He had just lost the Battle of Actium and it has clearly taken a toll on him. Both Mark Antony and Cleopatra are placed in the middle of this eye-level angle, putting them level to the audience, allowing us to sympathize with the situation they are both placed in. Speaking of which, the tight framing created by the medium shot tells the audience that they feel trapped by their current situation, that being that Octavian requires Antony's head to ensure peace between Egypt and Rome. The only lighting in the shot appears to come from the fire to the left of the shot. The fire, much like their lives, will be put out in a matter of time. The audience doesn't see any light on Antony's face, only illuminating Cleopatra's face, signaling that the only light keeping Antony going is Cleopatra. Without her, it's safe to assume Antony would have jumped into the ocean to drown after losing the battle. Also, the contrast between Antony's lack of light with the light on the pillar to his left creates an outline that resembles a shadow, saying that Antony is a shadow of his former self.

Cleopatra Scene Analysis

In this scene you can tell without even knowing who is who which man is in charge. Caesar in the middle of the shot. He is also one of two people sitting. The other person happens to be the second most important person Caesar’s second in command. Caesar is the only person in this scene that is not wearing armor, rather he is wearing comfortable clothes. He doesn’t feel the need for it, he is not threatened enough to wear armor. I think that speaks to his power and confidence. The lighting in this screen shot is also very interesting. The light is coming from directly behind Caesar. Due to the lighting you can tell that Caesar is the main focus of this scene.

Cleopatra Scene

 At the beginning of the Cleopatra movie, Julius Caesar came to defend Alexandria and the scene I want to focus on was the scene when Julius was on the castle wall and called out to his army to form the "turtle" and they marched out. This was a large scale shot some the Camera angle was backed out so you could see the whole battleground and the army or platoon marched out into a crowd of enemies. It cut from shot to shot. It started out far but they got close to add more intensity and showed some people die to give you the feeling that you are on the ground watching it happen. The Scene took place at night and they wanted to create an ominous aura to the scene because most humans have some fear of what is lurking in the dark. This is the same reason why in scary movies they always have the victims or characters in dark places, to create a scarier vibe. It wasn't all black though, there were fires scattered around the battleground so you had just enough light to still understand what was going on. The mise-en-scene was collected of smaller infantry soldiers but they add some big objects that were the catapult that was firing on the walls of Alexandria. The director used those catapult to bring more order to the viewer. They made it clear to the viewer that those catapults were the object and that once the catapults were destroyed the conflict what somewhat resolved. They could not have a long and drug out fight scene they needed to show the military excellence that Caesar had. All of these attributes of the scene gave the mood of conflict and intensity. The message was to show all the viewers that Julius Caesar was a great leader and a very powerful commander.

Cleopatra: Screenshot

In this scene, they are using the camera technique of the long shot. You are able to see Cleopatra and her wide range of servants and advisors spread out on either side of her. In the foreground, you can see Mark Antony’s back as he kneels in front of her. This shot is important because it shows the amount of power Cleopatra has in this moment, and the complete lack of power Mark Antony has. It plays directly along with the scene, where she is commanding that he kneel. They also utilize the low angle shot, looking up from almost as low as Mark Antony. This too shows Cleopatra’s power in this moment.


As for lighting and color, the background is a mix of dark and light colors (mostly blacks or blues and whites or golds) in a slight shadow. Even Mark Antony, in the front, is in a dark red. The red is a show of power, but it doesn’t compare to Cleopatra. She is in more light than all the other objects in the shot, and she is dressed in mostly white with a red crown-piece on her head. She is also sitting on a shining gold throne, drawing all the attention to her figure in this moment.


Mise-en-scène is also important for this shot because Cleopatra is directly in the middle of the shot, along with Mark Antony. This shows how they are the two main important characters in this scene, but having Cleopatra higher up and facing forwards makes her more important than Mark Antony, who is kneeling and facing her. This, heightens the understanding of Cleopatra’s importance in this scene, and shows her position of power over Mark Antony.

Cleopatra and Mark Antony

In this scene we see Cleopatra and Mark Antony having their conversation after the death of Caesar is known to the world. Cleopatra is in a state of weakness and a period of mourn, being lower than Antony showing she is the lesser on of that two in this moment, also you could tell by her dark clothing. This is a medium shot showing they are the focal point of the scene, with nothing really in the background, except the setting. They are having an important conversation that is significant to the story line. We can tell because they are the only characters in the shot, close together, and from an eye level angle. The background is quite dark compared to the light on Antony and Cleopatra, the light being brighter on Cleopatra with Antony looking at her beauty. This is where we see the transition beginning stages of Cleopatra and Mark Antony.      

A scene from Cleopatra

In this scene where Cleopatra is entering Rome is one of the more visually striking scenes in the whole movie. Her sphinx is perfectly framed by the roman arch and all of the men pushing the sphinx show insinuates how grand the entrance is. The shot displayed here is a long shot which was chosen to show all the pieces and how elaborate Cleopatra's entrance is. In terms of the lighting, it looks brighter as your eyes go further into the shot and as we get closer to an all golden Cleopatra. The colors in this shot are also visually striking as all of the men pushing her are in black clothing but she is wearing an all-gold Isis costume and she has little Isis's on both sides of the sphinx. This color contrast makes it almost impossible for your eyes not to be drawn to Cleopatra. The mise-en-scene is obviously very carefully thought out as it shows every part of the entrance and shows Cleopatra's power, grandeur and wealth.

Cleopatra Scene

In this scene, we see Cleopatra angrily yelling at Caesar. This is significant in that it shows Cleopatra in a position of power to yell at Caesar for destroying the inland buildings, including the Library, of Alexandria. The medium shot shows enough of Cleopatra's emotion while simultaneously showcasing her dominance over Caesar in this scene; she is taller than him, bending down to get in his face, signifying her power. The medium shot also shows that Caesar is in his powerful Roman armor, yet he still falls beneath Cleopatra. Neither Caesar nor Cleopatra are in the exact middle in this shot, yet there is a line in the wall perfectly cutting the scene in two, physically showing the divide between the two characters in this moment. In the background a very large sphinx can be seen on the side in which Caesar is in, symbolically showing that he is smaller than Egypt in this moment, and though he is commanding his soldiers, Cleopatra gets the last say. On the opposing side, Caesar's men can be seen behind Cleopatra, yet they are smaller than her, reaffirming the power dynamic set up by the dialogue. The angle of the camera is not exactly at eye level, but a slightly lower angle looking up at Cleopatra, symbolizing her might.

In this scene we get introduced to the Roman Empire, and we can quickly see how  big it is with the help of an extreme long shot. The high angle helps us see all the people and it sets a mood of power. We can see all the people working and we get an example of all the man power Rome had. In my opinion they did a great job in this scene because right from the beginning the audience gets a sense of how big and powerful the Roman Empire is.

In this scene we see Caesar bowing down to Cleopatra. This scene is significant for a number of ways, but mostly because of the change in Caesar's character in this moment. This image shows a medium shot of both the Queen and Caesar. Cleopatra is the center point of the image. You can see her traditional attire and both of the crowns of Egypt, as well as other symbols of her coronation. Cleopatra is also showcasing white, gold and red, which are all powerful colors. Caesar is off-centered and kneeling at the feet of Cleopatra in his Roman crown and golden armor as well as the royal red under garments. The lighting is bright and angelic over Cleopatra while the background and even Caesar is dimly lit. This is a symbol of her power over Caesar, when it comes to love. The camera angle is not quite eye-level but a bit lower. This might symbolize that even as the viewer we are lower than Cleopatra, and is another way of showing off her beauty and power. All of these symbols and the way the camera is positioned helps to bring attention to the importance of this scene in particular. Caesar is declaring the greatest form of respect and love for Cleopatra as a woman and a Queen. He puts his own reputation aside and gives her the respect she deserves.  

Analysis of Scene from Cleopatra

                 This scene taken from the begging of the short movie of Cleopatra is very powerful. You can break down different angles, lighting and placement to understand why is it so strong. 

                 Julius Caesar is shown staring into the eyes of Cleopatra and he appears very dominant. Due to the fact that Caesar is positioned higher than Cleopatra and has to look down, it represents how he is in charge in this scene. Caesar control and has to physically look down to meet Cleopatras gaze. Cleopatra is filmed laying down and craning her neck up to meet Caesar's gaze, putting her in an obvious weak position. 

             This shot is a medium shot meaning that the audience can only see half of the bodies. The rest of the body is not important in this scene and that is why the camera is focused on what is happening emotionally. The scene is shot at eye level enhancing the fact that this scene is very intimate. I may be wrong, but in the scene Caesar and Cleopatra soon passionately kiss. Because it is shot at this angle, the audience easily understands that these two characters are sharing a moment of passion. 

            This medium shot scene uses an eye level angle to create a sense of intimacy and control. 

The character I found most interesting in the reading is Gaius Julius Cesar. I found him the most interesting because I learned so much about him and this new information contradicted what I thought I knew. I never knew that Cesar had a religious background and this was very interesting to me because I thought Cesar had always been in the upper levels of the Roman class system. Another reason I found Cesar very interesting is because his success is always talked about, but never his failures and the problems he caused the Roman republic. Cesar is made out to be this strong military leader who conquered and allowed Rome to prosper. This reading portrays him in a new light that changed my opinions on Cesar and what he did. 

Most Interesting character in the Matyszak Chapters.

         While reading the Matyszak Chapters we were introduced to a lot of key characters of Roman History. Out of all of the characters mentioned in the readings, I found Julius Ceasar to be the most compelling character. One reason being the fact that he used his own relatives funeral to put on a political show. It was a foreshadowing action that showed his ambition for power. A more obvious reason that Julius Ceasar was interesting was, of course, his love for Cleopatra. They both have historical names that are known worldwide and if you use both of their names in a sentence you can catch anyone's ear. I didn't know about Julius Caesar's path to ruling Rome before this reading and what really sold me on choosing him to be the most interesting person was the civil war he started to overthrow the republic of Rome and create a Dictatorship under his power. I remember when I was young I always thought of Julius Caesar as the "good guy". Although, now I see that he really is not and Caesar got a lot more clout than he deserved, because of the terrible things he did. All in all, he is a controversial character and that is why i find him the most interesting.

Most interesting character

After reading the Matyszak chapters and deliberating on which character I found most interesting. I ended up deciding on Marcus Tullius Cicero as he had made some of the greatest contributions to Roman society. He was a lawyer, he exposed false leaders, and tried to set some of Romes most well known politicians on a just path. Cicero came from an average background but showed great intelligence and political adeptness at a young age. He became a Consul and was part of Caesars attempts to rule Rome. I think that Cicero interests me most because of all the things he did with his life, he was not only a politician, but a philosopher and teacher who helped the greater good of Rome. He had immense power from pure intelligence and hard work which is what set him apart from the other characters.

Who is the Most Interesting Character?

Aside from the political and military juggernaut that was Julius Caesar, a figure that caught my eye was Gaius Flaminius. While a lot of the characters we read about were either dignified and of noble status, Flaminius came from essentially nothing (he's described as coming from an insignificant family) and he gives off this bombastic aura that, as a result, lead him to find power among the plebians, and created many enemies within the senate. He was a man of the people, appealing to their demands, starting civil service projects, all while trying to keep the senate in check. Fearing that said people would look up to him, the senate would constantly try to put him down, but in rebellious fashion, he always managed to stay one step ahead of the senate. Ignoring their mail urging him to withdraw from a battle, gaining popular support as a result, supporting a measure that would prevent senators from owning too many cargo ships, and skipping his investiture as consul to avoid an immediate rejection are a few examples. I find this rebellious nature to be quite interesting and is probably why he was popular among the common folk, along with his self-made status.

The Most Interesting Character

Throughout the entire reading of the Matyszak chapters, I found myself most engaged while reading about Julius Caesar and Marcus Tullius Cicero. They were the two to have the most influence on the Roman Republic and the history. Although, I do find Cicero more interesting due to his background, approach, and actions throughout his time. He came from little money and little family background involved in high status government, but was very intelligent and was able to further his education, leading him into politics. After some time in politics, succeeding in cases as a lawyer, he lost himself for some time and left Rome. Cicero then came back and became a philosopher, got involved in Caesar's civil war, and was made a consul. I am interested by Cicero, because he was loyal to him people and true to himself, and was able to become a man of power from pretty much nothing unlike all the others, which is the main thing that impressed me most about him and history.   

The Most Interesting Character in the Matyszak Chapters

After reading the Matyszak Chapters I found that the most interesting character was Julius Caeser because of the lasting impact he made on the Roman Empire. Caeser had many careers in his lifetime, first, he was Flamen Dialis which was a title of very senior priesthood but this made it impossible for Caeser to hold any other political office. Caeser didn't like this and therefore annulled these acts, in 73 Caeser regained some religious honors and became Pontifex. In 63 Caeser did the unthinkable and ran against a highly regarded politician for the post of Pontifex Maximus, Caeser won through bribery. Later in Caeser became praetor and then the Senate suspended him from office, a couple years later Caeser persuaded Crassus and Pompey to abandon their rivalry and become allies, with the threes separate strengths they became unstoppable. For the rest of Caesars years, he conquered numerous civilizations and by 47 he was the master of Rome and has left an unforgettable footprint that has continued to fascinate the modern world today.

Most Interesting Character

After reading the Matyszak chapters, I cannot help but find Brutus to be the most fascinating person in them. I feel his relationship with Caesar was one of the most influential to Rome. Only because Caesar spared Brutus, could Brutus later on orchestrate Caesar’s death. If Brutus had not designed the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, Rome’s fate could have been quite different. I also find that he spared Mark Antony, like Caesar had spared him, to be very interesting. The fact that he had later killed Caesar after being spared, and yet still spared Antony is incredibly perplexing. It almost makes me wonder if he in fact wanted Antony to rule after him. I cannot resist finding Brutus so interesting when he caused so many pivotal moments for Rome.

The most interesting character is....

I found Brutus to be a pretty interesting character. The only reason he lived a long life is because Caesar spared him. He then goes on to become Caesar’s advisor. It is interesting that the only reason he was alive was because of Caesar and he ended up being his demise. Even more interesting is that Caesar knew when he spared Brutus that he would not be explicitly loyal to Caesar and yet he still allowed him to move up in the ranks. In the reading it alludes that without Brutus the assassination would not have been successful. Brutus was the ideological backbone to the ploy and allowed Mark Anthony to be spared, who later went on to rule Rome. Brutus killed the dictatorship that threatened to ruin the democracy that had been found, thus making him a very if the not the most interesting character.

The Most Interesting Character in the Matyszak Chapters

I was going to say that the most interesting Character in these past few chapters was Marcus Cicero, because he seems like he actually contributed positively to Rome; However, in all honesty, destructive history done by Julius Caesar is far more interesting to not only me but Hollywood as well. The way he's even introduced is the most interesting as well, saying that he was actually very bald, but too embarrassed to let statues of him depict that. Caesar is a symbol of power, which inherently means brutality and destruction, as seen by his military dictatorship in Rome and Gallic War in Gaul. His only interest was power through war, and not really at all interested in actually being a good ruler to Rome. History, or rather pop culture, has been too kind to Caesar, leaving out just how brutal he had to be to gain the political status that he did. Not only is he responsible for the fall of the Roman Republic, but for his own brutal death. The story of his life, especially in a concise reading, gives the effect of whiplash, describing a very quick, tall climb to the top of Rome and a very hard crash back down to the bottom.

The most interesting character in the Matyszak notes

Classically the most interesting character from the chapter had to be Julius Caesar. That man was overwhelmed with power and confidence and I found those traits to be very interesting. He lead so many battles and was not afraid of death of honestly the consequences of his actions. The fact that he was so arrogant with power that he walked into his own assassination without fear is very interesting. Who in their right mind would be so arrogant with so many enemies? The way that he was such a ladies man was also kind of funny almost as good as being a hard partier like Mark Anthony. Overall I think that Caesar was really interesting because of his strong leadership, arrogance and power.

The most interesting character in the Matyszak chapters is...

The most interesting character to me is Marcus Atilius Regulus. Although his mythical status may be more based in, well, myth, the story behind how these ideas came to be is very fascinating. I find it fascinating how he managed to be nearly undefeated throughout his entire career and yet is not held in quite the same light as other great Roman figures like Caesar. I also find it interesting how he was nearly invincible up until what is described as the worst naval disaster in Roman history. Seeing a person go from powerful and almost untouchable to being swept up in a major defeat and then quite literally rotting in prison is a bizarrely awe-inspiring tale.

The most interesting character in the Matyszak chapters

Although in the Matyszak chapters characters with interesting stories like, Brutus, Cleopatra, Cicero, and Antony are mentioned, I think Julius Caesar is still the most interesting character. He served with military distinction in Romes army. At one point when he was returning to Asia  he was captured by pirates, when he was free he tracked down his captors and crucified them.  In 73 he regained his priestly honors. He had the power to rearrange the calendar and named a month after him, I feel like that alone makes him the most interesting character. Something that really surprised me was that Caesar was accused of having a homosexual relationship with king Nicomedes of Bythynia. Lastly I think it's interesting how he manged to accomplish so much and gain so much power without having a father figure to guide him or some one to look up to since his father died when he was young.

The Most Interesting Character

The most interesting character from these chapters is Marcus Tullius Cicero. I found him to be the most interesting because of his political skill, his lack of a “ancestral records”, and his humble beginnings. It is also incredibly fascinating how historians call this time period “the age of Cicero”. He schemed like the rest of the politicians of this time, but his scheming was a little more interesting since it involved generations as well as alliance changes that weren’t necessarily in his favor. I also find him the most interesting because of how much he wrote about the Roman Republic, giving us information about the era that we wouldn’t have otherwise.

What was the most interesting Character?

The most interesting character in the Matyszak chapters was Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina. I found him to be the most interesting character because he was so easily deceived by the Carthaginians and in turn became a disappointment to Rome. This resulted in them changing his name to Asina, which in short meant ass. A couple of years later, the Carthaginians thought they would be able to trick him again, but this time he was ready and it ending in a great victory for Rome. This characters story line was very interesting to read, and allowed for some comedic relief in the midst of the chapters.