Cleopatra (1963)

Director/Screenwriter: Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Cleo3.jpg

By Roderick Heath

It probably began as an idea tossed about the luncheon table during some, long alcohol-lubricated, executive sojourn—make a film about ancient history’s most famous beauty starring the most famous beauty of the early ’60s, Elizabeth Taylor, as a kind of a Ben-Hur (1959) with more sex appeal. And so may have commenced the making of 20th Century Fox’s colossal folly, a melodrama in itself: either way, the Fox executives found a ready partner in producer Walter Wanger, who had been wanting to trying to get a film about Cleopatra off the ground for several years. Filming began with Peter Finch playing Julius Caesar and Stephen Boyd as Marc Antony, on sets built at Pinewood Studios in England, in a climate that caused a recurrence of Taylor’s chronic pneumonia. This setback helped to hold up the shoot for months, necessitating relocation of the production to Cinecitta in Rome, and Finch and Boyd were replaced with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton. Lacking a workable screenplay, the producers brought in Joseph L. Mankiewicz, four-time Oscar winner and a late choice to save the project, to replace the fired Rouben Mamoulian. Mankiewicz often wrote scenes the night before they were shot. Cleopatra finally cost so much (Fox had to sell part of its studio for real estate development to pay the bill) it managed to be both the biggest hit of the ’60s and nearly the biggest flop, finally eking out a profit after a number of years. The execs may well have thanked the movie gods that they made as much back as they did thanks to the publicity generated by Burton and Taylor’s legendary on-set romance.

Cleo12.jpg

The resulting movie has been largely dismissed as a lumbering and bloated misfire, and there are indeed points where it threatens to collapse under its own weight. But it’s still a fascinating and underrated film, being generally far more ambitious, not just in scale of production but in narrative scope, than even its many rivals in the genre of the epic. At the very least, it can be seriously regarded as a superior Joe Mankiewicz film, certainly his most cinematically expansive work. Blockbuster cinema of the ‘50s and ’60s still generally has a hard time of it in terms of critical appreciation, but I admit some nostalgia for an era of filmmaking when event movies meant tackling meaty historical subjects with grand productions rather than bland CGI battles between toy robots.

Cleo6.jpg

Moreover, Cleopatra displays the split personality of many of those mega-productions on the most gloriously erratic of scales. Making epics had a different meaning in this period than it had in the ’30s, when it entailed DeMille, dancing girls, and hilarity-inducing historical invention. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra is, by and large, historically accurate, and more than that, presents in Mankiewicz’s script a conflation of some serious literary sources. Cleopatra is not a better film than, say, Spartacus (1960), but it is in many ways a more complex and intriguing drama. Mankiewicz had hoped that Fox would release the film in two parts, but the studio insisted on one colossal hunk, slicing out a lot of substance from the script that, rather than streamlining the work, rendered its development clumsier and making the last hour gracelessly protracted.

Cleo8.jpg

The bifurcated structure is still, however, more or less intact, with the first half detailing Caesar’s coming to Egypt in pursuit of his enemy Pompey and to sort out the civil war between Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy (Richard O’Sullivan). He falls in love with and marries her, and they have a son, Caesarion. He returns to Rome with Cleopatra’s idea that he take up the mantle of Alexander the Great and attempt to erect a worldwide empire, ringing in his ears. As the dictator of Rome, the example of her rule by divine right is all too tempting to him, finally inspiring his enemies to assassinate him. The second half accounts her disastrous romance and alliance with Mark Antony, their defeat at Actium, and their suicide in preference to being captured by rapacious rival Octavian (Roddy McDowall).

Cleo9.jpg

Cleopatra presents its titular character as neither outright femme fatale nor a victimised martyr, but as an anti-heroine admirable in her ardour and determination, but disturbing in her belief in her own divinity, a relentless self-promoter with a thirst for power who has monstrous hissy fits when other people use her in the same way she uses them. The depth of Mankiewicz’s engagement with the epoch is quite absorbing, as he illustrates the burning of the library of Alexandria as a side effect of Caesar’s campaigning, which he’s only vaguely embarrassed by, illustrating a barbed notion of militarist zeal overwhelming cultural iconography. Cleopatra is constantly accompanied by her Greek tutor Sosigenes (Hume Cronyn), who laments the library’s burning and whose murder by Octavian signals the commencement of an age of dictatorship. How many other movies like this spared time for moments such as when Caesar and Cleopatra discuss their liking for the poet Catullus in spite of Catullus’ well-known contempt for Caesar?

Cleo11.jpg

The first half sticks with some fidelity to the template of George Bernard Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra (which had previously been filmed in 1946 starring Claude Rains and Vivien Leigh), as the two titanic figures taunt and tantalise each other, and try to outwit the traps set for them by Ptolemy’s noxious courtiers and warrior hordes. The second half, naturally, takes its cues from Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra and from Plutarch’s history. The film’s greatest asset is Harrison’s strident performance of Caesar, full of high wit and feeling, warming up for and in many ways outclassing his Oscar-winning turn as Henry Higgins the following year. He wraps his lips around Mankiewicz’s sharp dialogue with aplomb, refusing the offer of a slimy Egyptian eunuch, Pothinus (Grégoire Aslan), to escort him with a disgusted “Anyone but you!” or beadily eyeing Cleopatra after she suggests she’s done nothing but rub him the wrong way, stating, “I’m not sure I want to be rubbed by you at all, young lady.” And the same goes for the remarkable depth of the supporting cast: Martin Landau as Caesar and Antony’s loyal offsider Ruffio, Andrew Keir as Octavian’s tough-minded henchman Agrippa, George Cole as Caesar’s mute servant Flavius, Michael Hordern as Cicero, the teenaged Francesca Annis and Isabel Cooley as Cleopatra’s favourite handmaidens Iras and Charmion, Robert Stephens as stalwart soldier Germanicus, and particularly MacDowall’s inspired ham of an Octavian.

Cleo4.jpg

The faults are occasionally, however, as marked as the virtues. The production is gorgeous to look at, almost turning into something like the science fiction film set in the past as Fellini wanted his Satyricon to be, with its lustrous set design suggesting the ancient world was a helluva lot prettier than you ever guessed. But there’s also a variety of high-camp pizzazz infusing the proceedings, especially the DeMille-via-Playboy evocations of Cleo’s palatial splendour, constant changes of costume, and her cohort of pneumatic multiracial gal pals dispensing baths and massages. Mankiewicz keeps suggesting ironic layers to the gilded spectacle, emphasising that Cleopatra is, in essence, a showwoman of statecraft who knows how to dazzle statesmen and the populace alike. Having overheard Caesar’s aides bandy stories of her immorality, she contrives artfully to have Caesar come across her lying around semi-naked, surrounded by her beautiful bevy of servants, to give him an eyeful. The film’s split personality reaches an apogee in the staggering, sometimes silly recreation of Cleopatra’s arrival in Rome. Mankiewicz makes clear that event is Cleopatra’s greatest coup of political theatre, which the lady herself caps off with a sly wink to Caesar, but it’s also a splashy opportunity for Hollywood hype: Hermes Pan’s choreography of scantily dressed dancers shaking their boobs at the screen is less an evocation of classical decadence than a reminder of the Hollywood variety.

Cleo2.jpg

Another not exactly minor problem is theoretically indispensable star Taylor. Even at her best, in films like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), Taylor was a limited, archly affected actress, and she’s downright clumsy in trying to portray a woman of titanic guile and intellect to match the ego she wears on her sleeve. Not that there were many rivals of the era who might have provided the necessary looks, charisma, and innate, exotic complexity: the closest I could come up with were Irene Pappas, or possibly, in some glorious alternative universe, Barbara Steele (legend has it Dorothy Dandridge was also considered). But Taylor sure ain’t it, wading in with a grating mid-Atlantic accent brayed in graceless tones, before offering a scene of nihilistic rage when she finds Antony has married Octavian’s sister (Jean Marsh) for political reasons and trashes her bedroom; this display completely misses whatever emotion it was supposed to inspire other than mild hilarity. Taylor’s few interesting moments come towards the end when she quietens down. Nor does it help that Burton flounders through much of the film. To a certain extent, his look of bewildered, almost exhausted confusion suits his character, envisioned as a macho sot who goes to pieces when he realises he’s not the man Caesar was. But it also sees Burton reduced to throwing a lot of his pet actor tricks at the screen with little real investment in the part.

Cleo7.jpg

That neither actor is at anything like their best saps the dramatic force that the project ought to have possessed. Nonetheless, Mankiewicz’s hoped-for balance in portraying Caesar as brought down by external forces and Antony as consumed by internal faults emerges largely intact, as well as that of Cleopatra as a genius politician who finally commits fearlessly to a self-destructive path rather than submit to a merely macho, Machiavellian age. She’s presented as both an arbiter of single-minded rule by right and an heir to Greek and Egyptians cultures; she’s fascinated by Alexander’s ideal of uniting the peoples of the Earth under a common law and tongue and achieving peace, only to run into the less equitable version of the same idea welling from Octavian Augustus. Inevitably, their drama is romanticised—excising how, for instance, they actually offended Roman public opinion by murdering Cleopatra’s sister in a temple to ensure Cleopatra’s grasp on her throne, and the vindictive nastiness behind Antony’s assassination of Cicero. But historical storytelling is always a hard task of picking compelling narratives out of the mess of history.

Cleo1.jpg

Mankiewicz languished for a long time in being considered a talented wordsmith but not a forceful wielder of the camera. That reputation isn’t entirely deserved: some of his best films, like The Ghost and Mrs Muir (1947) and House of Strangers (1949), have a lucid cinematic intelligence, and here he pulls off a few excellent visual coups. As Antony gives his oration to the crowd outside the Forum over Caesar’s dead body, Mankiewicz has his words drowned out by the outrage thrum of the crowd piling furniture onto Caesar’s pyre, as the camera drifts back in a long crane shot to find Flavius weeping the truest tears for his dead master. When he’s left alone by his troops, Antony saddles up in one corner of the frame whilst an endless number of enemy legionnaires streams over a hill in the distance. When Caesar is assassinated, Mankiewicz has the scene projected, as a vision a priestess (Pamela Brown) conjures, over Cleopatra’s distraught face. And there’s the affecting shot of Cleopatra’s ship fleeing Rome after the assassination disappearing into the darkness.

Cleo13.jpg

The film stalls more than a little on its lack of action, skipping around the Battle of Philippi, and then offering some rather stodgy shipboard dueling in a Battle of Actium that’s not half as punchy as the similar set piece in Ben-Hur. Then we have the oddly wasteful sequence in which Antony confronts Octavian’s army single-handedly after his own soldiers desert, frustrated by their refusal, at Octavian’s order, to kill him, thus forcing him into the less martially vainglorious recourse of stabbing himself in the stomach and expiring in Cleopatra’s arms. All that’s left for Cleopatra and her handmaidens is take the bite of the asp and cheat Octavian of his hoped-for prize in a close replication of Plutarch’s account. Her end, like the film, is a stab at making the best of an impossible situation, and likewise Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra retains more than a little of her dignity, because for all its unwieldiness, it deserves recognition as a lush, witty, dramatically rich work. l

  • Samuel Wilson spoke:
    28th/12/2009 to 10:12 pm

    Cleopatra is nearly fatally flawed but I retain a fondness for it. It’s an excellent example of spectacle for its own sake, and the massiveness almost seems necessary to convey that the fate of the world (from the Roman/Egyptian perspective) is at stake. It hits neither the highs nor the mawkish lows of Spartacus, and like that film it’s helped quite a bit by a powerhouse Alex North score. If you want a really camp Cleopatra than William Castle’s Serpent of the Nile is the film to see.

  • MovieMan0283 spoke:
    28th/12/2009 to 11:21 pm

    This goes for Marilyn & Roderick both:
    I’m soliciting submissions for a year-end round-up on my blog: a “best of the blogosphere” in which bloggers pick their favorite piece among their own writing. My own blogging and blog-reading has been sporadic this year, so the entries will be enlightening for me as well – hopefully to help me play catch-up among other things. You guys have had so many enticing posts that I bookmarked and then got distracted from returning to, that music video one in particular had me salivating and yet it got lost in the shuffle. Anyway, consider this a fearsome blow against the ephemeral tendencies of blogging!
    Hope you guys’ll participate! Here’s the relevant link:
    http://thesunsnotyellow.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-of-blogosphere.html
    Believe it or not, I’ve actually fixed a spot on my weekly calendar for perusing other blogs so hopefully my attendance is more consistent this year, here and elsewhere! Anyway, keep up the good work!
    Happy new year,
    Joel (MovieMan0283)

  • Rod spoke:
    29th/12/2009 to 12:16 am

    “(T)he massiveness almost seems necessary to convey that the fate of the world (from the Roman/Egyptian perspective) is at stake”
    Well put, Samuel. No, no I don’t need to see a camp Cleopatra. For an uber-camp epic, I recommend in return The Prodigal with Lana Turner and Edmund Purdom. It’s amazing(ly awful).
    Joel: I’ll get back to you.

  • Peter Nellhaus spoke:
    29th/12/2009 to 1:29 am

    It’s interesting to think what might, and might not have happened, had Cleopatra been made, as originally planned, in 1958, with Joan Collins. For myself, the first half of the film works better than the second half, with the Mankiewicz verbal wit most evident.
    On a side note, in Robert Benton’s Bad Company, the character of Big Joe was modeled after Mankiewicz, including the line, “I’m the oldest whore on the block”.

  • Rod spoke:
    29th/12/2009 to 2:57 am

    Very much agreed, Peter, that the witty first half outshines the second: of course it’s got Harrison, although Landau says in his commentary for the DVD – that man can talk, I tell you – that a lot of good Burton’s and Taylor’s good lines bit the dust in the editing. Some of it’s still there (Cleo: “As an almost all-Greek thing myself, I’m flattered”; Antony: “I always envied Ruffio his long arms”). But yeah, first half definitely stronger.
    The thought of Joan Collins however…an even worse actress than Taylor…doesn’t excite me.

  • tdraicer spoke:
    29th/12/2009 to 10:54 pm

    I have a higher opinion of Cleopatra than most people, but I admit that any film that takes a serious stab at history, has a few good performances, and a great musical score has me already won over, so that I can overlook a great many flaws (even in the performance of the title character).

  • Rod spoke:
    30th/12/2009 to 12:16 am

    Which is pretty close to where I come from, TD. As a student of history, I gravitate to historical movies out of sheer curiosity, where the general approach is deride them, I prefer to maintain that curiosity.

  • Jake spoke:
    9th/01/2010 to 8:52 pm

    Barb Steele as Cleopatra? WOW! I want to live in THAT alternate universe!
    (Speaking of alternate universes, Joan Collins has made a few noteworthy films; check out “Quest for Love” if you can somehow miraculously get hold of a copy. Of course, I don’t know what might be available down under…)
    Great site, by the way!

  • Rod spoke:
    9th/01/2010 to 10:16 pm

    Yeah, Jake, you are right about Quest for Love, which I’ve seen a few times, and could well be the best John Wyndham adaptation on film. Another decent Collins movie is The Bravados.

  • Michael O'Farrell spoke:
    27th/03/2011 to 9:14 am

    I re-visited “Cleopatra” the other evening, watching all 4 plus hours in one sitting (I hate watching parts of movies as many people are wont to do now in the age of Home video). I agree with the above review. I think “Cleopatra” is a very good film. Certainly it’s a stellar looking production with a strong cast, some intelligent writing and overall fine direction from Joe Mankiewicz. I think the film deserved its 9 Oscar nominations. and rightly won 3 outof its 4 wins(“The Birds” should have won the Special Effects Oscar). Unfortunately the film’s notoriety will always overshadow its significant attributes. As for Elizabeth Taylor, I enjoyed her performance, it may not rank as one of her best but she acquitted herself admirably. Rex Harrison was superb as Caesar. Richard Burton’s performances is problematical. He appears haggard looking and unfocused during the film’s first half but after the Intermission he really comes into his own, giving a fiery, emotionally riveting performance. All in all, I think “Cleopatra” is one of the best epic movies ever made, despite some pedestrian dialogue, and a few campy sequences (Antony’s seduction by Cleopatra on her barge and a few too many bathtub shots). technically the movie is a stunner : cinematography, art direction, costumes and a strong Alex North music score add immeasurably to the look and feel of “Cleopatra”.

  • Rod spoke:
    27th/03/2011 to 10:38 am

    Can’t really argue with any of that, Michael except perhaps about pedestrian dialogue. There’s a lot of really good dialogue in with the ordinary lines, so it’s better off than most movies.

  • deDeurs spoke:
    28th/03/2011 to 6:35 pm

    Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn; they all would have been a graver mistake. It cannot be denied that Taylor had the absolute, the definite Cleopatra looks. Even with the double chin she was sporting at the time. But she horribly failed in Cleo’s CHARACTER. And that voice…Walter Wanger should have had the nerve to say: ‘My dear, you do the costume and make up wearing, I’ll take care of a dubbing alt.’

    Angelina Jolie is now in the picture? She has better Macedonian/Egyptian features to begin with. Taylor simply looked too Anglo-American. It would be interesting to see what Jolie can make of it. In The Tourist I found her incredibly elegant and sexy. She really knows how to wear design. But is she ‘royal’ enough? She certainly wasn’t in Alexander the Great.

Leave your comment






(*)mandatory fields.

What others say about us

"You put a lot of love into your blog." – Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert's Journal
"Marilyn and Roderick … always raising the tone." – Farran Smith Nehme, The Self-Styled Siren
"Honestly, you both have made me aware of films I've never seen, from every era. Mega enriching." – Donna Hill, Strictly Vintage Hollywood
"You have my highest praise!" – Andreas, Pussy Goes Grrr




Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogs

Chicago Resources

General Film Resources

Categories

Archives