Antony and Cleopatra

First the good: this production is traditional: set in Ancient Rome, with appropriate costumes. Otherwise, it stank. Almost none of the actors could deliver a Shakespeare line. In Anthony and Cleopatra, some lines are rhymes, some are in blank pentameter, and some are in prose. Here it hardly mattered, since the director and actors had no respect for words. The two leads were the worst offenders. Cleopatra (Janet Suzman) was light-weight, shrill, cheap -- far from regal. She would howl out a word or two from a line, letting all the other words fall by the wayside. Always she was mugging for the camera, with limited facial expressions to mug with. She seemed spiteful, silly, and quite frankly unattractive. Anthony was almost as bad, in different ways. He tried to invest almost every line with gut-wrenching emotion -- bawling out line after line, that should simply have been spoken. With lines blurted out, it was hard to understand what was happening, except that the actors were terribly emotional about something or other. Whenever someone told a joke, and there is a lot of humor in A&P, the actors would laugh and laugh. Not funny. It's we, the audience, who ought to do the laughing. None of the poetry came through. The famous description of Cleopatra by Enobarbus ("Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety....") got lost in the noise. There are no subtitles -- which might have helped. Than again, it might have been distracting to see the lines the actors were supposed to be speaking, in contract to what they were actually yelling out or whispering.

The Royal Shakespeare Company's 1974 production of William Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, though a slightly truncated version, stands out among Shakespeare interpretations on film for the quality of the direction and the convincing nature of the performances that bring the main protagonists to life as three-dimensional human beings. Produced by Trevor Nunn and directed by Jon Scofield, the film stars Richard Johnson as the full-bearded Roman statesman/warrior Mark Antony and Janet Suzman as the voluptuous Egyptian Queen Cleopatra whose seductive allure may have changed world history. Though filmed entirely in a TV studio with extensive use of close-ups, the RSC interpretation is a riveting and involving experience, especially in contrast to the vastly inferior BBC performance of 1981 (I have not seen the Charlton Heston version recently reviewed here).

There is no commonly accepted date of publication for Antony and Cleopatra, although most orthodox historians favor the date of 1607 since it was first entered with the Stationers' Register in 1608. There is, however, no compelling evidence to support that date. The play was not performed until at least 1607, perhaps because Cleopatra, the ruler of Egypt, bore striking resemblance to Queen Elizabeth I who died in 1603. Cleopatra, according to Dr. Ren Draya of Blackburn College calls Cleopatra "larger than life", a woman who cannot be explained but can only be felt. "She is a woman who stands for power but at the end gains lyricism and achieves nobility." Indeed, according to one reviewer, "Antony and Cleopatra is an unusual tragedy in that its protagonists start out flawed and gradually grow to heroic stature over the course of the play." According to Professor Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University, Cleopatra is suggestive of Queen Elizabeth 1, a "drama queen" who used her feminine wiles to gain political advantage. Perhaps that is the reason why the play was not performed until after the Queen's death, if indeed it had been written prior to that event. Shakespeare is mostly faithful to his source material, Plutarch's Lives, though he concentrates on the relationship between Anthony and Cleopatra and ignores some of the historical events reported by Plutarch. Antony alone is a tragic hero in the Plutarch chronicles but, in Shakespeare, Cleopatra is invested with an equally tragic character and soul-searching introspection, delivering eloquent soliloquies that can be compared to those of the most powerful Shakespearean male protagonists.

Shakespeare makes no moral judgment at all on either of the main characters and allows the audience the freedom to become emotionally invested in the drama without being spoon fed the prevalent Puritan morality as in the high moral tone of Mary Sidney Herbert's free translation of Garnier's Antoine, published in 1590. The story revolves around Antony's decision to provide free rein to his impulses by courting the Queen of Egypt rather than carrying out his soldierly duties in Rome and the consequences of such. Antony, who was one of the ruling triumvirates of Rome along with Octavius known as Augustus Ceasar (Corin Redgrave) and Lepidus (Raymond Westwell), is summoned back to Rome where he makes a deal with Ceasar to marry his widowed sister Octavia (Mary Rutherford) and return to fight Rome's battles against the aggressive Pompey.

Not willing to give up his Egyptian connection, however, Antony unleashes a civil war against Ceasar but is defeated at Actium after many of his trusted men including his close friend Enobarbus (Patrick Stewart) desert him and his reputation begins to decline sharply. Meanwhile, Cleopatra is torn between saving her life and protecting her children by supporting Caesar or remaining loyal to the defeated Antony. Both unfortunately meet a tragic end that can only be called "Shakespearean" in its noble grandeur.

In ¨Anthony and Cleopatra¨ the two eponymous heroes and lovers often argue each other in a battle of words, whims and wills. From such conflicts, the viewer apprehends the true nature of each of the two. From the beginning, Mark Anthony is portrayed as a ruler who lost his desire for domination, who lost his rigid loyalty to his empire, but found his beloved lover - Cleopatra. From the beginning, we have reasons to dislike this pusillanimous hero. But there would be no way that a masterpiece of the Bard , full of conflicts, loyalties and wars, would not captivate us - including its protagonist.

Have enormous appreciation for Shakespeare and his plays ever since being introduced to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Macbeth' in primary school, when reading the text aloud and analysing as a class which fascinated and benefitted me (not everybody liked doing it though). 'Antony and Cleopatra' is for me towards the top ranking his plays, beautiful text (though the script is one of his wordiest), one of his most passionate stories and with two of Shakespeare's most justifiably iconic characters.

This 1974 version is not one of the best seen of 'Antony and Cleopatra', of the productions available almost all of them are uneven. It is also not one of the worst. Its biggest attribute is the cast, where almost everybody is good and more. Dramatically, this version is pretty much textbook in a good way. For anybody who wants lavish production values, a grand atmosphere and more risk taking, it's better looking elsewhere as this is not the most attractive Shakespeare adaptation.

Am going to start with the aspects that didn't come off particularly well. Visually, it is pretty shabby and indicative of under-budget. Neither the costumes or sets are attractive and there is nothing lavish or grand about them, shabby is a better description. Despite being traditional in setting, it was actually fairly difficult to tell where the action was meant to be set.

Photography also feels drab and does nothing to open the action up. While almost all the cast are terrific, Corin Redgrave for me was rather bland as Octavius. Lacking the menacing adversary edge the role requires and overdoes the rigidness, Octavius is not a one-dimensional character as one understands his frustration and point of view which one doesn't feel with Redgrave. That is just personal view. While admiring that it was traditional and tasteful, the production does too often feel too small scale and safe with not enough of its own identity.

On the other hand, a lot is done right to brilliant effect. Do agree that the cast don't just say/recite their lines but they also feel and live them. The rest of the acting is terrific, especially Patrick Stewart's noble and moving Enobarbus that guides us through the action in a way that draws one right in. Although she may not be one's idea of Cleopatra visually, Janet Suzman's dramatic interpretation of the character is spot on. Especially in the very powerful final 20 minutes. Richard Johnson is a virile and authoritative Antony, creating a deeply flawed individual with also many fine qualities.

Johnson and Suzman are like fireworks when together, their passion and love being very believable. Despite being hindered by budget, the staging is very tasteful with no questionable touches and is not over-cooked or static. It could easily have been but the actors and their chemistry elevate. The final 20 minutes are particularly good and brought a lump to my throat and the relationship between the titular characters is textbook, not much new but the passion is far from forgotten. Shakespeare's dialogue is still wonderful.

In summary, uneven but well above average. 6/10.

Good acting in this version; however, as befits a lower-budget television version, the sets are awful. This makes it harder for the actors to convince the viewers that they are indeed watching a story taking place in Rome or Egypt. Thankfully the actors are able to overcome this obstacle in most scenes. Patrick Stewart shines as Enobarbus. He really communicates the strong friendship between him and Antony, and how troubling it is to leave foolish Antony for Caesar's army. I had to blink twice after seeing the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air butler Geoffrey (Joseph Marcell) in a small role. Janet Suzman plays the role of Cleopatra well. Suzman isn't as beautiful as one might expect for an actress portraying Cleopatra, but she exhibits the powerful sensuality that surrounds the character.