Skip to main content

Nothing like this has come into Rome since Romulus and Remus.

 

Cleopatra
(1963)

(SPOILERS) Bloated, ungainly and rambling, but not without compensations. Perhaps the most sobering aspect to Cleopatra’s preposterous profligacy is that, just occasionally, it advances an engagingly louche performance or rash of sparkling dialogue, offering a glimpse of what might have been had all its ducks been in a row. Such moments in no way makes up for the four hours the movie takes up, but they ensure it’s a less arid journey than, say, The Ten Commandments.

One might have reasonably assumed Cleo’s disastrous excess put the kibosh on epics for a while, given their propensity for budgets spiralling way beyond the level grosses would sustain. And given audiences’ tastes were far from guaranteed to remain the same. Certainly, the sword-and-sandals picture’s days were numbered, but there’d still be The Greatest Story Ever Told and The Bible: In the Beginning… to come, the latter a last gasp for the Biblical picture (the second biggest hit at the US box office that year, but then, does anyone remember Hawaii, which beat it?) By the end of the decade, even the musical, the sure-thing of ’60s cinema, was too creaky to sustain, with both Hello, Dolly! and Doctor Doolittle victims to similar out-of-control costliness.

If the problem was simply the price tag however, Cleopatra would have long since undergone a rehabilitation. It was, however, an unwieldy behemoth on every level. Original director Robert Mamoulian was fired after the production shutdown in 1961, with Peter Finch and Stephen Boyd replaced by Rex Harrison and Richard Burton respectively. Elizabeth Taylor was so unwell (including an emergency tracheotomy) that a replacement was considered (Joan Collins tells it that she originally had the role, if only she promised to sleep with the head of the studio). And Burton and Taylor’s affair made more headlines than even the production woes.

Cleopatra eventually came in at six hours, before being cut to four. It was then reduced to three in order to satisfy theatres, much to the chagrin of replacement director Joseph L Mankiewicz (the other Mank). His envisaging of a two-parter, Caesar and Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra, was reportedly nixed on the basis that no one would be interested in part one, absent as it was one half of the scandal sheets’ darlings.

It was also said that Fox boss Darryl F Zanuck was unimpressed at Mank’s handling of the battle scenes. Which I can believe. For such an expensive movie, Cleopatra is a very static one. It might be commendable that it’s so talky, were that talk gold. What this epic undoubtedly has to spare are sumptuous sets, though. Epic ones, even, so in that sense, it is undoubtedly a spectacle. Not a vibrant one, however. And ironically, given Zanuck’s concerns, the picture is by far at its most engaging during the first half, thanks almost entirely to Harrison’s witty Caesar. You might almost believe he had his own scriptwriter.

Agrippa: What happens at dawn?
Caesar: I thought you knew. The Sun comes up.

Caesar arrives in Egypt rather like the Empire on Coruscant, with a troupe of stormtroopers in tow. “You look so impressive, any one of you could be king” he merrily mocks, and proceeds to show how unimpressed he is with everyone, including Gregoire Aslan’s chief eunuch (“An exalted rank. Obtained, shall we say, not without certain sacrifice”). He’s not having any of Cleopatra’s nonsense either, a demanding brat he believes has “escaped the nursery” and is deluded by her own irresistibility (“I’m not sure I want to be rubbed at all by you, young lady”). The unfortunate side effect of this is that Caesar’s inevitable intoxication with Cleo is entirely unbelievable, even to the point of his kneeling before her (“not only bony, but unaccustomed to this sort of thing”).

This isn’t helped any by the simple fact that Taylor’s an all-too-ordinary Queen of Egypt. Whatever may have gone on off screen, she can’t convince as a scheming seductress; even her wink at Caesar lacks the necessary sly sauce. One might have expected this to change when Burton enters the fray as Mark Antony, what with both couple’s famous frisson. Unfortunately, despite his experience with the period epic (The Robe, Alexander the Great), Burton lacks the initial noble vigour that might underscore his fall from grace.

He isn’t haughty enough for Alexander’s best lines (“Why did you bring Agrippa? Were you expecting rain?” He asks of the unwelcome arrival of the head of the navy). He also looks rather debauched from the off – apparently, he had a hangover on his first day on set, so that isn’t so surprising. Which also means we’re not remotely surprised that Antony spends most of the last third of the movie pissed out of his head. During the Bacchus dance he makes a convincing inebriate, undone by lust and liquor, but because he has form, and because Mank is rather overwhelmed by the scale of it all, his going into battle with a goblet in his hand should be a grander folly than it is. Antony experiences his downfall in a rather lethargic way.

It’s only towards the end – a long time to wait for too little reward – that there’s a frisson of drama, with the Shakespearean fake-out death of Cleo (Apollodorus lies to Antony) and Octavian being hoodwinked so she can be bitten on the asp. But the back and forth between Antony and Cleopatra is more like watching a warm up for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? than titans setting to against an epic tapestry. It smacks a little too much of the squalid.

There’s little sense of organising principle either, again unsurprising since this was being rewritten on the fly. If none of the spectacles are that spectacular, the plotting is also routine. Antony or Caesar does something iffy, cut back to the Senate. Stir and repeat. There are intermittent rewards in the supporting cast, as you might expect. I didn’t recognise either Robert Stephens or Francesca Annis in their roles, even though they’re on screen quite frequently, owing to how young they both look. However, I did recognise Richard O’Sullivan as Ptolemy; you can’t help but wish he’d had more scenes, as he both looks and sounds like a Goscinny and Udezo character. George Cole is cast against type as someone who can’t talk. Andrew Keir, later of the best Quatermass, is Agrippa. Martin Landau makes a memorable Rufio, Michael Hordern gets about two scenes, and Hume Cronyn is sympathetic as Cleo’s advisor Sosigenes. Rather unkindly felled by a spear to the chest hurled by Roddy McDowall, firing on all cylinders as Octavian, and undoubtedly stealing the last half of the movie from its stars.

McDowall received an apology from Fox for messing up his awards prospects through putting him in the lead rather than support category. It’s easy to see that he would have been nominated, as his is a very Ustinov-type role. The picture won four out of nine Oscars nominations, including Cinematography, Art Direction and Visual Effects, beating The Birds (no noms for writing or directing, while Rex was nominated for lead actor despite dying halfway through). As told by Anthony Holden in The Secret History of Hollywood’s Academy Awards, the New York Times didn’t hold back with the justified cynicism of its unearned awards recognition, following as it did in the suspect footsteps of the the previous year’s The Longest Day and joined by fellow nominee How the West was Won that year: “If either Metro or Fox spends a great deal of money on a movie, the members of the Academy may feel an obligation to reward those studios”. At $381m all in (inflation-adjusted) Cleo nearly bankrupted Fox, and with further examples that decade (Doctor Dolittle, Hello, Dolly!) such sentiments towards purchasing Oscar recognition would be valid for the foreseeable.

Amid all this, any overtures toward historical authenticity are, of course, irrelevant. That’s assuming the historical Caesar or historical Cleopatra bore any relationship to the ones popularised over the last couple of centuries. The main onus, as ever, was to make an entertaining piece of artifice. Fox failed spectacularly, but since Cecil B De Mille previously had a Cleopatra both Best Picture nominated and the most successful film of its year, it’s unsurprising Angelina Jolie and most recently Gal Gadot have been circling another incarnation.



Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.