Roy Elal
Ms. Moore
Humanities
1/2/12

Judas Iscariot Superstar: Jesus Christ Superstar movie review

Norman Jewison’s “Jesus Christ Superstar” is the story  of Jesus’ last couple of weeks before he was crucified tragically, by the people’s decision. This film, shot in Israel, 1972, essentially met the expectations it was given, even though it attracted some criticism from some religious groups because of the ending, which didn’t show Jesus’ resurrection. Carl Anderson, who played the character of Judas Iscariot, definitely proved his outstanding performances throughout the hippie rock-opera version of Jesus Christ’s way to crucifixion. Although the movie was based on Jesus Christ who was played by Ted Neeley, and in my opinion failed the expectations he was (or at least should have been) given before the movie, but Anderson showing a superior understanding of the plot, made the movie somewhat worthwhile.

Alongside Ted Neeley (Jesus Christ) and Carl Anderson (Judas Iscariot), some of the other major roles played by Yvonne Elliman (Mary Magedeline), Barry Dennen (Pontius Pilot), and Bob Bingham (Caiaphas), all had some impact throughout the storyline, as they acted some of the more major roles of the story. The Director, Producer, and the Screenplay was all mostly done by Norman Jewison, who was definitely one of the two men who made this rock-opera somewhat amusing, or entertaining. What one must realize about this is that Ted Neeley demolished the movie with his singing, acting, and enthusiasm shown all together, but thanks to the multi-tasking director Norman Jewison and one of the main characters; Carl Anderson (Judas Iscariot), this movie was in my opinion a successful G-rated film.

As stated above this movie was based on the last couple of weeks of Jesus’ life, but more specifically, this movie is based on the conflicts and connection between Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot. Judas started off being one of Jesus’ first and closest followers, yet as the plot begins, Judas sees that Jesus is going to a new direction, where he is more concerned about his own popularity, than the message he was sending in the beginning, which eventually really bothers Judas; and in the end decides to assist the Jewish religious leaders in catching him, and sending him to Pontius Pilot.

One of the more humorous parts of this movie is the fact that some of the guards had guns, how this movie is supposed to be G-rated, yet there are prostitutes everywhere when they arrive to the market, or when Jesus doesn’t really show interest in Mary Magdalene. To be honest, this movie might have been a bit too modern with the guns, and the hipster King Herod was also bit over the top.

My opinion is very straight forward. Ted Neeley ruined this movie completely, whereas Carl Anderson drew my attention back into it, and made the movie somewhat worth watching. I have to say that in some way I actually did enjoy this film, which is absurd because of how fake it is and how it doesn’t even go with the real story (or at least how Christians believe.) All in all, the only reason I might recommend this movie is because of Carl Anderson and how he showed his efforts throughout the film, and because of the humorous parts in it including plains and tanks.

Was Caesar a Reformer or a Tyrant?

In my opinion, Julius Caesar was, in fact, a reformer. As he was a great leader, he ended the ruling of the dishonest, and corrupt nobles. Caesar upheld justice, which means he was fair. He restored the cities and aided the poor, and homeless. On top of that he also granted more citizenship and brought peace to Rome. Many people might say that he enjoyed the attention, the fame, and the power, but in my opinion, Julius Caesar was a motivation to people, and an admirable one. Everyone should always have a reason to do something. Even if Caesar's motive was definitely not selfless, his actions were for the good for many, and he was respected and appreciated him by most of the people of ancient Rome. By the end, when he was murdered by the senators of Rome themselves, a civil war started in Rome, which proves that he was the great leader, and reformer, of Rome.

Augustus and Julius Caesar

Gaius Octavius (Augustus), born September 23, 63 B.C., was the son of Octavius, a praetor from Velitrae, and Atia, the daughter of Julius Caesar's sister Julia. When Caesar went to Spain to fight the Pompeians in 45 B.C., Gaius Octavius went with him. Caesar arranging the schedule in advance, named Gaius Octavius Master of the Horse for 43 or 42 B.C. Caesar died in 44 B.C. and in his will adopted Gaius Octavius. Octavius took the name C. Julius Caesar Octavianus at this point.

I think Julius Caesar was a much more critical and major leader than his grand nephew Augustus. Julius Caesar did so much more for Rome; he was a disciplined and very strong leader, he was a great military commander, and he was a tactical genius. Julius Caesar also tried to prevent poverty in his homeland and was loyal to his followers and friends, and would punish criminals who broke the laws. He was the individual who started the Roman Empire. In the end he might have been crazy, had a disease, or he could have just been hungry for power and control, but in this debate, what he accomplished is what counts. Once he was murdered, in other words stabbed by all his friends and followers who were in the room, Rome went into another civil war. The other side of the debate, Augustus did bring 200 years of peace to Rome and expanded its Empire, but without the commence of Julius Caesar, Augustus would have been just another senator; bringing me to the point that without Julius Caesar, Rome would have never become the almighty Empire we know of.

The Geography of Rome

Geography of Rome is characterized by the Seven Hills and The Tiber River. Rome city situated on the eastern banks of river Tiber has a geographical position of 41° 54' N and 12° 29' E. Rome lies to the west of the Apennine Mountains that forms the backbone of peninsular Italy. Being close to the Tyrrhenian Sea, Rome experiences a Mediterranean climate. 

Rome is popularly called 'the city of seven hills'. These seven hills namely, Viminal, Quirinal, Palatine, Esquiline, Capitoline, Caelian, and Aventine were separated by marshy land and the River Tiber. Of these seven hills, the Caelian, Esquiline, Quirinal and Viminal hills were portions of a volcanic ridge. The Aventine, Capitoline, and Palatine hills formed the western group of hills. In ancient Rome each of the seven hills had separate walled cities. 

Works cited:

www.mariamilani.com%2Fancient_rome%2FAncient%2520Rome%2520Geography_.htm&ei=p9vETuHAE8X1-gaG3NXZDQ&usg=AFQjCNGpSjoA_9GISz5Vho2mvOIh9V4j9Q&sig2=cls-7dQR_086U8mx8uSymA

Founding of Rome

                 Remus and Romulus, twin brothers that were abandoned near the Tiver River, found by a wolf, and reaised by a shepherd, were the two who founded Ancient Rome.at around 753 B.C. they decided to build a city. The twins quarreled over the wall that Romulus built, and eventually lashed out at Remus and killed him.
                Even farther back than Remus and Romulus though, the famous epic by Virgil, the Roman poet, 
have really flashed out the creation of the empire. Aeneid was the story of the great Trojan hero Aeneas. According to the lefend, him and his band of travelers, crossed the mediterranean Sea after the Greeks captured Troy. As the Trojan armies managed to reach the Tiber River, Aeneas united both Trojans and the Latins, and become what is known as the "father" of Rome.
                Historians of today are not quite sure how Rome really began. Some say that Latins lived there at about 1000 B.C. The built hurts on Rome's hills, tended herds, and grew crops.
  

Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great. Great. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the word great means: Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent. Was Alexander III of Macedon remarkable in degree or extent? In my opinion he was. Alexander is known as Alexander the Great, Alexander III of Macedon, and the leader who conquered Europe and half of Asia, he is known as a ruler who wasn't ruthless and included Greek culture in his rule, and he tried to tie the Greek culture and the culture's of the cities he conquered together. Alexander is believed not to have lost a single battle he fought, and that just proves the man's superiority physically and mentally. 


Historians say "Alexander was very intelligent, he was even tutored by the great philosopher Aristotle. While conquering the world, Alexander came across the great Gordian knot, which was untied for centuries, he just cut it." This quote will show a person Alexander's mental preparation and readiness for it all, and how his intelligence was the key to success on the battlefield.


After all this, I would like to conclude that Alexander the Great, was in fact great. He was truly unbeaten in battle, but he also helped the cultures and people he conquered. Instead of killing the opposing soldiers and devouring their food and wrecking the city down, he hired the soldiers for his own army, he also invested in cities he took over and advanced and improved their living standards. After all this being done, Alexander will keep his title as the Great, and forever it will last with him.

Article Summary - The Spartan Way

Roy Elal

Due: October 11, 2011

Ms. Moore

Humanities 8B

Article Summary #2

For over 200 years, Sparta was considered as the most powerful city-state in Ancient Greece, along with Athens. Its power came from the strong, tough, and professional army. Brutal training that the kids faced from the age of 7 made every man a warrior and the army one of the most-feared fighting forces ever.

 Athens was the birthplace of democracy and freedom. Great artists and thinkers built the foundations of Western culture. Sparta, on the other hand, was a secretive place run by an oligarchy (an oligarchy was a type of government in which the ruling power is in the hands of a couple of people). This city-state has been admired over the centuries for how they valued great discipline over everything else. Sparta also ruled ancient Greece between approximately 600 B.C. and 371 B.C. leaving an immense amount of history behind themselves.

The army consisted of all men above the age of 30, which is also the age when they become full Spartan citizens and are gifted the ability to vote. Sean Price claims, "About 10 percent of Spartan men were full citizens known as equals. Their job was to serve as soldiers in Sparta's army." (Price, 176) This is a very substantial fact, because it tell us that 90 percent of the population was not above the age of 30, that Spartan males die at a young age, and that most males are still in training as boys and young men. Also the women, they were not considered official citizens of Sparta. Boys that are above the age of 7 are forced to join the forces for training, so that when they grow up, they will also be a part of the sturdy Spartan army. When they are born, city elders come over for examination. If the baby was not healthy looking, or did not have a strong organism, they left it on a mountainside to die.

        Women in Sparta had much more freedom versus any other city-state in the whole entire Ancient Greece. They were allowed to move around, and didn't have to stay home all the time. They could own land, which was unacceptable in Athens. They could also do business. Such power was shocking to men from other city-states.

        When Sparta started to fall apart, and getting conquered by the Dorians, all the rituals also became forgotten, but they left a long history behind them, the history of the extroardinary Ancient Greece.

Price, Sean. "The Ancient Olympics." The Ancient World. 2010. Print.