Julius Caesar

Like another reviewer stated, this is a respectable but highly flawed film adaptation of the play "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar". The performances are respectable enough, depending on the actor one references. Charlton Heston does a great job, but Robards performance as Brutus doesn't weigh in until about half way through the drama, and seems to be a little undirected for the first half of the play. It seems like a lot of the money that went into this project went into paying the actors' salaries, for the art direction gets the period wrong in several places, and puts Marc Antony's famous speech on an indoor set instead of an outdoor plaza as was meant.

The most jarring for the military afficionados is the inappropriate armor and armament for the soldiers. The generals wear naval hats, and the armor is some kind of mish mash from other periods in history. I can only guess that this was done because the director liked the style (which was common for this period in film making for Hollywood to take such atrocious liberties with history).

It's worth it for seeing Chuck Heston's Marc Antony, but the version with Marlon Brando some yhears earlier (shot in black and white) is the one to see.

For all it's flaws, and there are many, this 1970 version staring Heston is worth a look. Heston plays Marc Antony as a passionate loyalist who seethes with the angst of betrayal, and does an ecellent job of it. Gielgud's Julius Caesar is solid, but I think the audience deserved someone with more gravitas and "a martial countenance", to borrow from the language of the time.

See it once.

I don't know why they put Jason Robards in the starring role as Brutus. He is so flat, so emotionless and so miscast, it seriously mars the entire film. How the director couldn't once say "Jason! This is Shakespeare! Step it up a bit!"

No one likes anyone that chews the scenery but Robards is the other end of the spectrum. He sounds like someone giving the morning farm report reciting Shakespeare.

The saving grace of this film is Charlton Heston. It is obvious, he is too old for the role, but his mere presence and performance make up for his age and the flatness in the rest of the production. His "Friends, Romans, Countryman," speech is the finest performance of that speech you will ever witness. It is worth watching this film, simply to witness Heston outshine everyone else in the cast. and make this film worth the watch for his performance alone.

It is sad. I think what this film could have been, had a better actor been given Brutus, but alas, that is not the case. Fast forward through the rest of the film and just enjoy Heston!

There are two well-known cinema adaptations of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", the one from 1953 starring John Gielgud and the one from 1970 starring John Gielgud. (Gielgud played Cassius in 1953 and Caesar in 1970). This was the first Shakespeare play I ever read when we studied it at school, and the 1970 version was the first Shakespeare film I ever saw; our English teacher, who also ran the school film society, often used to show film versions of the books we were studying in his class.

Watching the film again recently for the first time since my schooldays made me think that I could have chosen a better cinematic introduction to the works of the Bard. It is a prime example of how one poor performance can spoil a film which might otherwise have been a good one. The film was not popular with the critics, and most of their reviews placed the blame for its shortcomings on the actor playing Brutus, Jason Robards. Howard Thompson calls him "incredibly dull and wooden", but that description seems like the highest praise compared with what Roger Ebert had to say, accusing Robards of staring vacantly into the camera and reciting Shakespeare's words as if he'd memorized them seconds before, or maybe he was reading from idiot cards. Now there were occasions when Ebert could allow his rhetoric to run away with him, but this was not one of them. Robards's performance was inert and soulless and betrayed an inability to speak Shakespearean verse convincingly. It fully deserved everything Ebert said about it.

This is unfortunate, because Brutus is the key role in the play. Although the title is "Julius Caesar", Brutus, the leader of the conspirators who plot to kill Caesar because they believe he is planning to establish a dictatorship, is the most prominent character in terms of time on stage and of lines spoken, far more prominent than Caesar, who dies halfway through. In fact, Brutus can be seen as the tragic hero of the play. Even his enemy Mark Antony dubs him after his death "the noblest Roman of them all", pointing out that while the other conspirators acted out of envy or resentment of Caesar, Brutus alone was motivated by idealism. He was regarded by Caesar as a friend, but concluded after a struggle with his conscience that his ideals of liberty and patriotism counted for more than friendship. So the role of Brutus, perhaps more than any other character in the play, demands a great performance. It got such a performance from James Mason in 1953; it did not get one here.

Gielgud has been criticised on this board for being insufficiently "virile", but this strikes me as a misguided criticism. The historical Caesar may well have been as much a conqueror in the bedroom as he was on the battlefield, but that is not how Shakespeare portrays him. His Caesar is ageing and diminishing in physical strength; stress is laid upon his physical infirmities, such as epilepsy and deafness. His strength is political, not physical, and this is how Gielgud plays him, as a successful general turned elder statesman who knows that his support is based both upon the legions at his back and on the support of the Roman populace, who have little reason to love the Republic which has always represented the interests of the patrician class. From a 20th century viewpoint the play was often interpreted as being about the clash of dictatorship versus democracy; from the viewpoint of the 21st it is startling to look more like authoritarian populism versus elitist liberalism

I liked Diana Rigg as Brutus's wife Portia, one of only two female characters of any significance. The other is Caesar's wife Calpurnia; this is one of Shakespeare's most masculine plays, revolving as it does around what were (in Shakespeare's day as well as Caesar's) two very male pursuits, politics and war. Other good performances came from Richard Johnson as a direct, blunt Cassius and from Robert ("Man from UNCLE") Vaughn- not the first actor I would have thought of for the role- as Casca. The best, however, comes from Charlton Heston as Mark Antony, a role he was to reprise two years later when he directed his own version of "Antony and Cleopatra". Although the two plays are very different in tone, Heston's Antony is recognisably the same character in both films- a sportsman, a sensualist and a skilled political operator, the polar opposite of the puritanical, priggish Brutus. Unfortunately, Robards is so poor that in the great rhetorical duel when Brutus ad Antony both address the crowds after Caesar's death, Antony wins by default.

Despite Robards's inadequate contribution, however, I have awarded the film an above-average mark, because to do otherwise would be unfair to the rest of the cast, some of whom are very good. It would also be unfair to Shakespeare, who cannot be held responsible for how actors perform his works, and this is one of his most fascinating plays. I would, however, recommend that any English teachers hoping to use the cinema to introduce their pupils to Shakespeare should show them the much better 1953 version. 6/10

Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar', first performed at the Globe in 1599, is indisputably the greatest political play ever written in which the playwright utilises the art of rhetoric which had been drummed into him as a schoolboy. Nowhere is this rhetorical skill used to greater effect than when Mark Antony, speaking over the corpse of the assassinated Caesar, gradually turns the plebs against the 'honourable' conspirators. Apparently Charlton Heston asked our greatest actor, Laurence Olivier, how Antony should be played. Olivier's advice was to "play him like an ageing film star"! Although a little long in the tooth for the role Heston is in good enough physical condition to get away with it and both his voice and presence carry him through. His is filmic Shakespeare to be sure. One wishes one could say the same for the Brutus of Jason Robards Jnr. On paper he is good casting but is alas abysmal in the role and weakens the film immeasurably. Heston was very scathing about Robard's portrayal and would have much preferred Orson Welles. Who wouldn't! Richard Johnson is excellent as the disgruntled Cassius and definitely has the 'lean and hungry look'. Sir John Gielgud as Caesar is a little too 'camp' for my liking. His particular style of acting suited far better his performance as Cassius in the 1953 version of Joseph L. Mankiewicz, during which he coached Marlon Brando as Antony in the finer points of Shakesperean delivery. Just as Edmond 0'Brien was a revelation as Casca in that film so too is Robert Vaughn in this. There are some excellent scenes here and this is a good introduction to the play but Stuart Burge is no Mankiewicz and has furthermore been lumbered with Robards, whereas Mankiewicz had the services of James Mason. As both a film and filmed Shakespeare the earlier version wins hands down.

I've seen plenty bum Shakespeare, but Jason Robards as Brutus he takes me the cake. He resembled nothing so much as a barrel with a head on top. The rest of the cast was pretty good, however, especially Richard Johnson as Cassius (why wasn't HE Brutus), Diana Rigg as Portia and Charlton Heston as Antony. John Gielgud as Caesar does his lines beautifully, as always, but does not quite convey the menace and power of Caesar. (He was better as Cassius in the 1953 version.) Interesting here is the contrast in line delivery between Johnson and Robards; it makes you wonder why Cassius isn't the leader and hope of the conspiracy. Production values are sometimes dubious; but battle scenes are better than the cowboys-and-Indians fight in the 1953 version. Of course, the text is shortened, but all essential scenes are kept.