23 pugnali per Cesare

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.

One of the things that I always thought about Julius Caesar is that in the life of one of the great movers and shakers of the ancient world, he's merely a figure in which all kinds of people at the end are busy weaving their schemes around, be it his death or his conferred immortality.

Antony and Brutus are each worried about their place in Caesar's affections and Brutus figures he's lost out to Antony. It makes him an easy mark for Cassius's plots. After the dirty deed of assassination is done, it's Antony and Octavius though they are teaming up against the conspirators, you can tell both in this version and in the better Fifties version that MGM put out that they will soon be at odds.

Charlton Heston is a strong Antony here, but unfortunately for the play to succeed you need an equally strong Brutus. That's not what you get in Jason Robards, Jr. For a man who in his time was considered the greatest interpreter of Eugene O'Neill, when it comes to Shakespeare the man was out of his league. No reflection on him, everyone has casting limitations.

A real good interpreter of the Bard who played Cassius back in 1954 plays Caesar here. John Gielgud is equally fine in both versions. And Richard Johnson and Robert Vaughn are superb as conspirators Cassius and Casca. And Richard Chamberlain who was trying very hard to shed his Dr. Kildare image is fine as the cunning Octavian who Antony ultimately underestimates.

Charlton Heston in his memoirs takes blame for casting Robards and Robards himself realized he was miscast. Oddly enough in that earlier version James Mason as Brutus was the best one in the film.

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.

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.

When it comes to cinematically pulling anything off that has its basis in the world of William Shakespeare, the task can frequently be enormous. In general, Orson Welles and Lord Laurence Olivier (but call him Larry) are the two men most identified with successes at the Bard's work, on both sides of the camera; then there's Franco Zeffirelli (especially with his classic 1968 film version of ROMEO AND JULIET), and the later adaptations of Kenneth Branagh. And much more controversially, there is director Roman Polanski's extremely violent 1971 take on MACBETH, which was as close as The Bard came to outright horror.

And then there's the political/historical tragedy that is JULIUS CAESAR.

The 1953 version, adapted for the screen and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, was and still is considered one of the best of the Bard's adaptations ever to make it to the screen. And then in 1969, an enterprising and young Canadian producer named Peter Snell decided to mount a new adaptation of this work. The result was, by all accounts, one that arguably fell into the shadow of Mankiewicz's version, which after all had Marlon Brando as Marc Antony; Louis Calhern as Caesar; and Sir John Gielgud as Cassisus, one of the conspirators. Indeed, many consider this film wildly erratic for various reasons, including one quixotic bit of casting that didn't come off. Still, the play is the thing, as the old saying goes.

For this go-around at JULIUS CAESAR, the film is helmed by English director Stuart Burge, who did a yeoman adaptation of the Bard's OTHELLO in 1965, with Robert Furnival faithfully adapting the play to good effect. And you have, in the main, a great cast. Gielgud appears here in the title role, and he does a superlative job. Charlton Heston does a solid turn as Marc Antony (although in his journals he admits that's not such a big trick, since, in his view, if you can't do Marc Antony, you probably shouldn't be doing The Bard in the first place). The film also benefits from the turns given by Richard Chamberlain (as Octavius Caesar), Robert Vaughn (as Casca), Christopher Lee (as Artemidorus), Richard Johnson (as Cassius), Diana Rigg (as Portia), and Jill Bennett (as Calpurnia).

The thing, though, is that a lot of the focus of the play, and subsequently the film, is not so much on Caesar as much as it is on Marcus Brutus, the man torn between his allegiance to Caesar and a need to save the Roman Republic from Caesar's machinations. It takes a solid performance to pull it off really well; and if the actor doing Brutus isn't well versed in Shakespeare, the film will invariably suffer. This is what happens here, with Jason Robards having accepted a role he just wasn't cut out for, when the oft-elusive Orson Welles was unavailable.. What worked in the plays of Eugene O'Neill, and on screen in films like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, and MAGNOLIA doesn't really work well here. He is simply a great actor in a great role, but it was not one that he could have ever showed his best at—though over the course of the film, he does improve.

That having been said, the stellar performances of Heston, Gielgud, Vaughn, and the others make up for Robards' inadequacies; and Burge's direction, while not really on a par with Welles, Olivier, or Zefirelli, is solid enough. Clearly, this isn't the most successful adaptation of The Bard. But given how hard it is to pull Shakespeare off cinematically, it is worth a 7 (out of 10).