Julius Caesar

I dare say Shakespearian purists will be abhorred by the very idea of condensing "Julius Caesar" into fifteen scenes for a run time of twelve minutes, but this is actually quite a decently staged and watchable précis of just what happened to the Dictator of Rome leading up to and following the Ides of March. It's all a bit chaotic and half the time the actors seem still to be rehearsing, but the ensemble effort does convey some slight semblance of the history even if it's clearly the same folk walking in and out of shot each time - just in different costumes. The inter-titles on the version I saw were in German, but that made little difference - good or bad - as if you don't know this story by now then the hammy antics of Charles Kent (Caesar) and Earle Williams (Brutus) probably won't encourage you to seek elaboration. This is worth a watch, though.

A historical film of some interest. The action is weak, Caesar especially, but the staging seems to be as nearly correct as possible. Tt is. however, marred in some instances by weak photography and an attempt to tone the film some color other than black and white. It would have been much better if it had been left black and white. From the first scene to the death of Brutus the film is watched with eagerness, proving beyond question that almost any audience can be interested in this class of films. The Vitagraph Company are aiming high, and that alone is commendable. -- The Moving Picture World, December 5, 1908

Vitagraph Studios, America's largest film company at the time, was infected by the Shakespearean bug in 1908 when it released eight of the Bard's plays within one year. These short, mostly 12-minute one-reelers, gave only the key highlights of his plays. Director J. Stuart Blackton's limited-budgeted series required the actors to construct the sets and props and make their own togas.

During the filming of "Julius Caesar," a stray dog happened to walk on the stage while the actor who played Marc Anthony was giving his famous funeral oration, ruining 200 feet of precious film. "Julius Caesar," and the other Vitagraph Shakespearean movies produced that year were hindered by the lack of dialogue titles, which weren't in vogue yet in these early days of silent cinema. But visually, especially the scene where Blackton staged almost the exact depiction of Jean Leon Gerome's famous painting, "The Death Of Caesar," must have amazed viewers by its stunning details.

There had been attempts to put Shakespeare on film at least since 1898's MACBETH. At first they showed brief excerpts of celebrated stage actors, like Johnston Forbes-Robertson as the Thane of Cawdor or Herbert Beerbohm-Tree as King John. These were never more than merest indications of what the stage performances looked like. The short length of films, the perceived superiority of the stage and, of course, the severe limitation on dialogue due to the movies' silence made a mockery of any attempt to film Shakespeare -- or indeed, any major work of stage or literature.

That is the problem with this version of JULIUS CAESAR. For most of this film, what you get is people in togas waving their arms about on a severely bound stage, with occasional titles. If you knew what was going on, you could tell what was happening; otherwise, not.

It does open up at the end, when Caesar's ghost pops into existence in Brutus' tent before the battle; and the battle, shot outdoors, opens up the screen and offers a cinematic vision.

For most of this movie, though, the work is too stagebound, too worshipful and far too short to make this more than a failed bid for respectability. It would take people like Percy Stowe, with his playfulness with stage and film grammars in THE TEMPEST -- produced the same year -- to start to offer a worthwhile vision of Shakespeare for movies.