Cleopatra

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!

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.

Producer-star Helen Gardner has doubtless seen the Italian "Quo Vadis", and this "Cleopatra" runs an amazing 90 minutes for a 1912 feature (with 106 title cards!) "Cleopatra" is a case of trial and discovery in this exploratory era of American features. The first hour is filmed in the static "Film d'Art" style, save for one brief insert added probably very late in the production, and the modern viewer begins to wish that the camera were moved even just a bit closer to the stagebound action, despite the elaborate, if somewhat primitive, stage dressing. In the last third of "Cleopatra" more shots and setups are used, by far, than in the first two thirds. We also find the camera is moving closer to the actors and less of a concern is shown towards exposing the sets, costumes, and extras, resulting in an entirely more satisfying and intimate cinematic experience, though some of this section of the film is choppy in the GEH print aired on TCM. My feeling is that "Cleopatra" is a textbook example of how feature-length filmmaking helped open up possibilities towards a more sophisticated style of onscreen direction, cutting and camera setups. Gardner & co. are literally discovering as they go, and it seems much of "Cleopatra" was filmed in story sequence. By shooting using gradually smaller parts of the set, and closer to the actors, Gardner created a film that had considerably more dramatic power in the end result than was generally required by 1912 standards, and on this alone the film remains a genuine step-forward for the fledgling American feature industry.

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 saw the restored version of this film, which was funded by and shown on Turner Classic Television. Realizing that it was a filmed stage play done in 1912, I had no unrealistic expectations for the production values. And, as an early 20th century stage play, I thought it was quite good, But...and I still can't get over this...the soundtrack was so inappropriate that I had to watch the film with the TV muted. I have nothing against "modern" soundtracks for silent films, and in some cases, they work very well, such as Moroder's "Metropolis", but this was downright laughable in many places.