Film Friday: ‘Cleopatra’ directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Since the controversy and behind-the-scenes dust has mostly settled, is is possible to look at the 4-hour plus Cleopatra (1963), directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, for what it is. That’s not to say that it is some hidden masterpiece, weighed down by its reputation. The critics who slammed the film in 1963 were right about some things, but they were wrong about calling it a complete disaster.

The film tells the story of the young Egyptian queen Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor), who tries to take advantage of Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) to become sole ruler of Egypt. Her relationship with Caesar, their marriage and birth of their child take up the first half of the film, which ends with her future in question as Caesar is murdered by Brutus and his friends. In the second half, Cleopatra starts a relationship with Marc Antony (Richard Burton), attempting to gain more territory for Egypt while starting another war between Romans.

There are many horrible aspects of Cleopatra, but on to the good stuff first. Rex Harrison easily deserved the Best Actor nomination he got for his performance as Caesar. While both Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton could easily be seen as over-the-top, Harrison is his usual restrained and stately self. Harrison almost feels out of place, like he should be in an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. (Ironically, Mankiewicz directed Caesar in 1954, with Louis Calhern as Caesar and Marlon Brando as Antony.) The other great aspects come from the technical side, like the beautiful cinematography, fantastic artistic design and Taylor’s innumerable amount of costumes, all of which the film did win Oscars for.

The bad is pretty clear, though. Burton is a little competent, better than Taylor, but the scenes with the two of them are almost laughable. The sequence just after Antony loses the Battle of Actium, when Cleopatra leaves, believing Antony is dead is one that sticks out. He isn’t dead, but goes on a vow of silence, claiming to be really dead. Taylor is on her knees, crying and begging for his forgiveness, but Burton refuses. It just fails to come off, with the two looking like squabbling infants.

Mankiewicz, who is lauded for witty scripts for films like A Letter to Three Wives (1949) and All About Eve (1950), also misses the mark. Sure, he was forced to write and direct simultaneously. Many of his sub plots (like Cleopatra’s insane devotion to the Egyptian gods) are also not fully fleshed out because of 20th Century Fox’s desire to make the whole project into a single movie. However, some of the flaws are still too obvious to gloss over. Caesar and Antony frequently overshadow Cleopatra in their respective halves and other characters are marginalized into one-dimensional personalities. Look particularly at Octavian, who is played well by Roddy McDowall, but he is turned into little more than a power-hungry teen.

The film also nearly bankrupted Fox, since they kept pouring money into the film, ending up spending $44 million on it, which is nearly $300 million in today’s money. This over-extravagance hurts the film and just makes it hard to not think about how much every aspect of the film cost while watching it. Sure, Cleopatra’s entrance into Egypt looks fantastic, but were all those scantily-clad dancers historically accurate? Plus, it looks like that whole sequence alone probably cost as much as it did to make all of Ben-Hur (1959).

We can only wonder what the film would have been like if Fox granted Mankiewicz’ wish to split the film into two three-hour epics called Caesar and Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra, but thinking that way only takes away thought from what we have. Cleopatra as is, is a flawed epic. There are some fantastic moments of pure cinema (especially the way that last half hour comes together), but Seven Samurai (1954) or Gone with the Wind (1939) are better ways to fill an extra four hours.

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on your website.

Learn more about debugging in WordPress.