The Sign of the Cross: Nero, Togas, and a Whole Lot of Excess

Is this thing worth a watch?

If you like your history movies with a side of over-the-top camp and sets that look like they cost more than a small city, sure. If you’re looking for something that respects the timeline or feels grounded, you’re gonna have a bad time. It’s for the people who want to see Charles Laughton have the time of his life being a villain.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Sign of the Cross (1932) through its definitive frames.

Honestly, nobody needs to be told how old this is. You can feel the dust on the film reel, but that’s part of the charm.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Sign of the Cross (1932) through its definitive frames.

Nero is having a blast

Charles Laughton as Nero is just... wow. He’s eating grapes like they’re the last food on earth and looking bored while people are literally being mauled. It’s almost too much, but then you realize he’s the only one actually having any fun.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Sign of the Cross (1932) through its definitive frames.

There’s this one scene where he’s watching the arena games, and the way he just kind of slumps in his chair? It’s pure 1932 sass. It’s so different from the vibe in something like Road to Rio where everything feels a bit more calculated and light. Here, it feels like the director just said, "Charles, do whatever you want," and he did.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Sign of the Cross (1932) through its definitive frames.

The Roman vs. The Christian

Fredric March is trying so hard to be the stoic soldier, but he’s fighting an uphill battle against the sheer scale of the production. He spends a lot of time looking intense while someone else is doing something insane in the background.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Sign of the Cross (1932) through its definitive frames.

The romance part is... well, it’s there. It feels a bit like a required homework assignment for the plot. You can almost feel the movie trying to convince you that this star-crossed love story is the heart of the film, but the real heart is just the spectacle of it all. It reminds me of the weird pacing issues in Shadows where you just want to get back to the good stuff.

• The lion scene is genuinely stressful for all the wrong reasons.
• The sets are huge, like, ridiculously huge.
• Claudette Colbert in that milk bath? An iconic image, even if the context is total bonkers.

It’s not perfect. It’s not even close. Some of the dialogue is so stiff you could build a house out of it. But for a movie from the early 30s, it’s got this weird energy that just keeps you watching. It’s like a car crash you can’t look away from, except the car is made of gold and feathers. 🦁