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

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was