Giulio Cesare

I think this is the best filming of a Shakespeare play, in terms of overall success. The filming is straightforward, with a minimum of distractions, cuts were made to the script to keep things moving, the dialog is clearly spoken, and the performances are terrific all around.

As just about every other comment here notes, if you only know Brando from The Godfather and some of his later, and sorrier films, you will be amazed and impressed by his Marc Antony. This is the Brando that I remember, buff, gorgeous and so talented that we were sure he could play just about any part and blow us away. His performance of the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech is a marvel of clarity, and is the linchpin that makes all of the other action of the play make sense.

James Mason is, I think, perfect as Brutus. He is very much like Shakespeare's Hamlet - mulling over every possible facet of every problem he faces, and agonizing to reach a decision. He was a master at portraying a person's ability, or inability, to reach a painful decision. The awesomeness of his responsibility and the consequences of his actions (after all, they are plotting to kill a king) are beautifully shown in his performance.

John Gielgud is my favorite Shakepearean actor. If you had ever had the privilege of seeing him on stage, you would have gotten the full force of his ability to control the character, the language, and to reach out and hold the audience all at the same time. It doesn't quite come across in this film, but I still think he shows that underneath Cassius' treason there is definitely an element of self-doubt and possibly shame at what he is about to do.

I have to disagree with most of the comments about Louis Calhern's Caesar. Several people have said that he didn't capture the majesty and military bearing that Julius Caesar would have had, but we have to remember that Shakespeare intended this as drama, not history. The whole point of the Roman senators' wish to get rid of Caesar is that he is no longer the Caesar they remember: he has become a smug, self-satisfied politician who thinks he is a king, while Rome is still a republic. I think Calhern captures this smarmy, oily, arrogant quality very well. Rome wanted a general, and this Caesar gave them a high-priced car salesman.

I own a copy of this film, and I watch it often. I think it would serve perfectly as an introduction to Shakespeare. By the way, I remember an anecdote related in the memoirs of John Houseman (the producer of this film). He said someone of importance in British theater (I now forget who - possibly it was Geilgud) had observed Brando's performance in the making of the film, and asked him to come to London to star in a Shakespeare festival. Brando said sorry, I can't. I have to get back to Nebraska to help my father get the crop in. Imagine if he had said yes.

This production stands as a shining example of how a big Hollywood studio, in this case M-G-M, can make a great Shakespeare film, cast it intelligently, and still end up with box-office names. No less than five Hollywood stars - Marlon Brando, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Greer Garson, and Edmond O'Brien, are in this film (although two of them have barely five minutes of screen time) and the entire cast gives fine performances.

James Mason, who actually has the leading role of Brutus (despite the fact that Brando gets top billing) is excellent, giving a conscience-stricken, restrained performance--he even LOOKS the way one likes to imagine that Brutus must have looked. Marlon Brando reminds us of what a brilliant actor he once was--for an actor who deliberately stayed away from Shakespeare, his performance is remarkable--and every word he says is understandable. This film was the great John Gielgud's first chance to immortalize one of his great roles on film and to show movie audiences what made him such a renowned Shakespearean actor---his Cassius is full of envy that seems about to boil over any minute. Louis Calhern, a rather hammy villain in other films, is subtly unsympathetic, yet vulnerable as Julius Caesar. The photography is fine and completely unobtrusive---as is the music; director Mankiewicz has filmed the play without resorting to any gimmicks or cheap "Hollywoody" stunts,and the adaptation is so faithful that no one gets on screen credit for it.

Who cares about historical inaccuracies when you can see a great play as well acted as this one?

'Julius Caesar' is not one of Shakespeare's best plays, neither is it one of his worst. The final scene is rarely nailed and the supporting characters are a lot more interesting than the titular character, but much of the characterisation is very well rounded, is intriguing thematically and has some of the bard's most famous speeches and lines. Further interest points in seeing 1953's 'Julius Caesar' was its fine cast, that it was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that it was scored by one of the greatest film composers at the time Miklos Rozsa.

Found myself not disappointed in 1953's 'Julius Caesar' at all. It may not be a perfect film, but it is one of the better adaptations of the play out there on its own merits and to me one of the best film adaptations of any Shakespeare play. Which is quite a compliment considering that great Shakespeare film adaptations are many, whether traditional or not. Adaptation-wise, there are changes and things left out but the spirit of the play is here and ambience wise and emotionally it's faithful.

There is so much to love here in 'Julius Caesar'. It is exquisitely photographed, though if it were in colour there would have been an even grander look, never trying to do too much while not being too constricted. The 'Quo Vadis'-like sets are grand and lavish, if the budget really wasn't huge that was not obvious here. Rozsa's score is typically lush and sweeping and has a real majesty about it.

Mankiewicz directs beautifully and it was appreciated that he went for drama rather than spectacle, which to me was the right approach that it would make the text resonate more and it lessened the risk of the characterisation being swamped. The drama has intensity and emotional impact in the play, both of which brought out wonderfully. The text does not sound stilted and is poetic and thoughtful, though like all Shakespeare it is talk heavy as a word of warning. The final scene is a problematic scene to get right, this is one of the better interpretations of it. The action excites and moves.

Almost all of the performances are superb. It was a very bold move casting Marlon Brando as Marc Antony, he sears in the role with a lot of fire and dignity. The famous "friends, romans, countrymen" speech is given one of the best and most nuanced interpretations here on film. James Mason is a similarly powerful Brutus, he brings out the character's conflicted feelings with sensitivity and a noble quality (despite what Brutus does, one cannot hate him). John Gielgud was similarly born for Cassius, the envy boils but is not exaggerated and Gielgud has a clear command over the language. Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr make the most of their small roles.

Only Louis Calhern disappoints as a rather bland Caesar. The pace initially is a little deliberate.

Excepting those quibbles, this is a great film version of 'Julius Caesar'. 9/10

Julius Caesar, the classic story of power corrupting and what happens when it's usurped, is the stuff of a near-masterpiece in 1950's Hollywood. The direction is elegant and timed just right to get the performers on their beats and delivering more and then some. Interesting to see the intensity so LARGE on the fronts of both fronts of British classical-trained theater (John Gielgud, as the most psychologically pathological character, Cassius, fully delivering the goods, plus James Mason being his Mason-iest) and the Method (Brando, seeming like he's always been in these robes - at least this week).

It's Shakesepare on Golden-age Hollywood scale, but it's kept intimate when it counts, and the material is allowed to shine fully. This is the Godfather of political dramas, and so many, many lines have been taken into just everyday grammar; aside from the 'fault is not in our stars' line, listen for others like ' O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth' or 'it was Greek to me'. And yet it's not simply that these actors get some of the meatiest-dramatic lines ever written, like in the history of all civilizations, but that this is all about what it means to have, take, live with, demolish and get back or keep protected Power, with a capital P.

It's almost unfair to give a proper review to the film after seeing it once, as certain big set pieces - or even a couple of the conversations that Cassius has with Brutus or the other Roman senators plotting the death of their "beloved" Caesar - are quite dense with visual touches and details of performance. When Brando has his major set piece (he's not in as much of the film as you might expect, but his presence is felt more, which seems to be a thing with Brando character), addressing the crowd devastated over the loss of their ruler, it's a pinnacle of acting. He isn't just talking to no one, or to himself. He's making it very personal, all the more sad and that the revenge against the betrayers all the more stronger. How to sway a crowd is the name of the dramatic angle here, and it's the stuff of the best Hollywood dramatic acting, writing and direction (and art direction too, what sets) could offer.

Is it perfect? Maybe not. The final battle is good but almost, to me, a little short, as if Mankiewicz steps up to make an epic conclusion, but decides to side-step it as if he isn't totally trusting in his capabilities (that would come later, one supposes, with Cleopatra as far as BIG epics went). And yet the final moments with Cassius and Brutus are so effective it makes one want to say nevermind. Especially Gielgud impresses here, with a role that requires a lot of forceful talking, bordering on yelling, with declarations and insinuations and other things - as big as his acting is, just as with Brando and Mason to an extent, though he kind of pulls it back when he can (see the tent scene between Brutus and Cassius before battle), there's subtleties there, little moments you can see the actor working through the emotional logic first, the dense Shakespeare poetry second.

As with many Shakesepare movies, it may help being familiar with the play ahead of time to get all of the words and idiosyncracies of the Bard prose. But as far as just the core story goes, it's the stuff of legend. Surely one of those films of the 50's, along with On the Waterfront and Streetcar, where you can run it in an acting school and it might almost be enough to show the movie without any lecture to understand how to command attention from a partner, the audience, the whole world.

I am certainly a fan of the bard's work. Therefor I was pleasantly surprised to see this movie and hear that it was almost the complete original text they used for the dialogue. Without subtitles it was a chore to keep up with, but when you do you are in for a treat.

This classic tale of politics, treachery, love and death was performed to perfection by people such as Marlon Brando (Marc Antony), John Gielgud (Cassius, delivering a powerhouse performance as usual), James Mason (Brutus). I was thrilled by the fact that this movie was produced so lavishly and yet so humble. It never made the mistake, like Cleopatra, to depict the scenes too grand. It all stayed very natural and believable. Of course there must be historical inaccuracies in this story, but was Braveheart so accurate. I think when you start watching a movie written by the Shakespeare you shouldn't expect a documentary on the life of Julius Caesar but a lyrical tale about ancient political Rome.

The photography was great, with its glorious Black and White footage.

Although the text can be offputting for some who are not at the least a bit interested in the language the Bard wrote in.

A must for Shakespeare fans.

8/10