Cleopatra

This early silent (1912) is a bit creeky (canvas flats that move in the breeze and a ship pushed on from the wings) but is an early attempt to use ancient history as the inspiration for a film drama. Helen Gardner and her troupe filmed a stage production, typical for the time, with little awareness of the possibilities of the medium. The plot actually comes from another source than Shakespeare and is not the usual Anthony and Cleopatra story. It may be based on a French 19th century opera which, in turn, can be traced back to a short story by Alexander Pushkin. This film is an excellent example of the state of the art in the time that it was made.

I happened onto "Cleopatra" on Turner after it had begun, so I didn't know who made it or when. I figured it had to have been made early, as it appeared to be little more than a filmed stage play: tableaux shot by a static camera; moreover, there were absolutely no close-ups. And I gathered it was something of an early "indie," as the costumes were howlingly inauthentic, the sets amateurish and many of the actors "stagy."

I decided the film's date had to be early, around 1910, 1912. But because of the production's growing sophistication – towards the end of the film the camera got more frisky and intimate – it was like watching the vocabulary of cinema being developed before your eyes, like seeing a toddler, very unsteady at first, gaining better equilibrium and more assurance as we watch. While it never gets to the level of either art or storytelling mechanics that Griffith was employing contemporaneously, "Cleopatra" is a fascinating time capsule... It would be intriguing to see her movies in sequence (the presumption being each is better and more sophisticated). It's a shame that so many have disappeared forever.

I had never heard of Helen Gardner, an ambitious actress who opened her own studio. As Cleopatra, she was sort of an ur-vamp whose eye makeup, heft, extravagant gestures and bare feet were several years later appropriated by Theda Bara. She was obviously an important actress, auteur and entrepreneur who should be far more celebrated than she is.

One last point, which others have made but I would like to reiterate: the newly appended score was so annoying and obtrusive that I muted it. I used to accompany silent films when I was in college, so I have a fair idea of the appropriate musical vocabulary. I once saw a revival of "Wings" in New York, and the elderly accompanist simply played everything she remembered from the 1920s, regardless of the on-screen action. Biplanes strafed trenches and killed soldiers by the dozen to the strains of "I'll be down to get you in a taxi, honey." Many of the major silent movies had their own scores written by studio musicians and played either by orchestras or reduced to organ or piano arrangements. I doubt that Gardner's "Cleopatra" had its own score, but SURELY somebody could have produced something more consonant with the time and place of this movie, something that sounded like, well… silent movie music.

Steffan Aletti

I was watching with interest the 1912 production and found it fascinating by the different acting styles strong and weak in the primarily static shots until I realized that each scene may have meant to be tableaux that come to life. Charles Sindelar was a strong looking Anthony and thought the actress playing Octavia was more accessible to modern audiences.

The so-called score made probably by some spoiled New York Artists especially that hideous groaning woman was really dreadful,but as with most scores to silents just a flick of the mute button can help as great silents stand on their silence alone!

Good but not great. Like some of the other commentors, I saw this on TCM with the new music soundtrack. Unlike many, I liked the new music. Since this film is so dated, the music "freshens it up" a little. It's really more effective as a time capsule rather than as a drama. The star, Helen Gardner, also produced, so this is her vision. We all know the story, but what is interesting is the acting style and visuals. I agree with the other viewer here about the female cast members. You can't help but notice. With all these surgically enhanced, or personal-trainer enhanced, washboard-abbed stars today, it is nice to see a movie full of people who weren't under such pressure to look a certain way. There's plenty of "unintentional humor" here too, for those looking for camp value.

Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.

Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?

For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.

I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.

It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.