Antonio e Cleopatra

Shakespeare's great play Antony & Cleopatra (1981) (TV) was directed by Jonathan Miller for the BBC. As with all the BBC Shakespeare productions, this film attempts to give us Shakespeare's plays as we think people would have seen them in Shakespeare's time. Costumes are excellent, but props are sparse and we don't ever see a cast of thousands.

The lovely Jane Lapotaire plays Cleopatra--whether childish or, later, older and wiser--in a direct and excellent fashion. Colin Blakely makes a fine Antony. However, in my opinion, Ian Charleson. as Octavius Caesar, gets the acting honors. I think that Charleson acts the part exactly the way it was written. In essence, he is telling us that Antony is ruled by his heart, but he, Caesar, is ruled by his head. Ultimately, of course, Octavius Caesar prevails in the play, as he did in history.

I enjoy the BBC Shakespeare movies because we don't have to accept a director's "concept" of what he or she wants to do with the play. It isn't shown in modern times, with automatic rifles instead of swords, it isn't shown with huge armies or navies doing battle. It's essentially a stage play, adapted very well for the small or large screen.

I have studied Shakespeare on film, so I have a standard of comparison based on what I have seen from non-BBC productions. If you want leaps of creativity, and the director's thoughts about how Antony would look as a World War II general, look elsewhere. If you want to see the play based on the text, look at the BBC production.

P.S. As I write this review, this movie has a horribly low IMDb rating of 6.1. It's much better than that. Find it and see it. It was made for the small screen, so, obviously, will work well on DVD.

First of all, those who have never seen this play, when they first view this film, will be puzzled that the play has been updated to Shakespeare's time. The clothing is definitely from the Elizabethan period. And that's the only interesting part.

After watching this film for about 15 minutes, I couldn't continue watching. It was so boring! It seems that the director is expecting the lines of the play to make the play interesting! I know it sounds bizarre, what I just wrote. But it's not just the lines of the actors that makes the movie, it has to have action! There was little action in this film, the actors kind of stood around and said their lines.

Jane Lapotoire was not bad as Cleopatra, she was the only one that seems to make sense. You can feel her Cleopatra as being frivolous and madly in love, or is it in lust, with Antony. The actor that plays Antony, alas, looked like an ugly old guy with a beard. What does the dainty, pretty Cleopatra see in this guy?

I didn't believe anything in this film. I am not a student of Shakespeare, like most people, I don't understand all the lines of a Shakespeare play, I rely on both action and words to understand the play. This film had precious little action and this is what makes the film fail. This film is just too static.

I give this Antony & Cleopatra version a "D-".

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. 'Antony and Cleopatra' is for me towards the top ranking his plays, beautiful text and with two of Shakespeare's most justifiably iconic characters.

As far as the BBC Television Shakespeare productions go, as said a few times already a must see for anyone wanting to see productions of all Shakespeare's plays in one series, 'Antony and Cleopatra' is somewhere in the low-middle. Regardless of any budget limitations, it is interesting to see Shakespeare mostly done tastefully, even if some productions are more gripping than others, and to see talented casts mostly doing good work with the odd oddity. As of now the BBC production of 'Antony and Cleopatra' is the lowest rated of this series and the reception at the time apparently was less than great, but for me, while it could have been much better, it is better than that. Not the best production of the play, but as of now it's lower rated than the production with Timothy Dalton and Lynn Redgrave, which from personal opinion was visually unappealing, static and over-acted, the best asset being the performance of Enobarbus, and do have to disagree on that front.

This production of 'Antony and Cleopatra' is not a bad one, though could have been quite a lot more. Will start with the good. The costumes are nicely tailored and lush on the most part, and the filming while not cinematic is neither chaotic or static. It is very clear as to why Jonathan Miller was chosen to direct more than one production of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, directing six of the plays for the series. This does not contain some of his best work by all means but nothing came over as distasteful, didn't ever really question why anything was there, and there are emotive moments without being overdone. Found myself quite touched by the latter scenes between Antony and Cleopatra.

Shakespeare's dialogue sings and flows beautifully and most of the cast are fine. Jane Lapotaire may not quite be sensual enough for Cleopatra, but she puts a lot of fire, passion and delicate emotion to the role which more than makes up for it. Emrys James' Enobarbus is movingly conflicted and Donald Sumpter is a text-book (in a great way) Pompeius. Found the best performance to come from Ian Charleson as Caesar, a very authoritative portrayal.

Conversely, the production also could have been done much better. It is rather stage-bound and momentum does sag frequently in the less eventful and more talkier scenes that feel longer than they are. There is a lack of grandeur visually, with some of the sets being simplistic and sparse and scenes that should have roused felt under-populated and static.

Despite saying that most of the cast are fine, am going to concur with the criticisms for Colin Blakely's Antony. This has nothing to do with his physique, actually couldn't care less for that, my problem was that for a character who should show lots of authority his presence felt anaemic and then in the more emotional moments he sometimes came over as overwrought. Would have liked to have seen more passion in the chemistry between him and Lapotaire, which has moments of spark later on but takes too long to gel.

In conclusion, not a bad production of 'Antony and Cleopatra' but there are short-comings. 6/10

The reputation of this performance is not good. The initial reviews were quite scathing. The competition from the Johnson/Suzman/Nunn version is decisive; the other version is better. However, there are many fine things about this video. Let's talk about them first.

Ian Charleson's Octavius Caesar is good, a schoolmaster with ice water in his veins. Many of the supporting players are quite fine. The almost completely blind Esmond Knight does a hilarious drunk scene as Lepidus, and Donald Sumpter gives Pompey a model reading.

The visuals are spare but more lushly colored than usual in the BBC series, giving a Mediterranean vividness to the whole show, even if lovers of spectacle will do better with the Taylor-Burton film.

Emrys James is less successful as Enobarbus. This part is generally considered actor-proof, but here James is charmless and without variation. His great speech describing Cleopatra's barge is completely ineffective. Whether the blame is his or the director's is lost to history, but I'm betting on Jonathan Miller's expressed annoyance with "tired" tradition.

However the real problem is with the two title characters. It's as if you'd gone to the theater, settled in your seat, and then heard an announcement that owing to the leads' illness, the actor playing Enobarbus would instead be playing Antony, and the actress playing Charmian would take on the role of Cleopatra.

Colin Blakely was a bright spot in many fine films during his career, but they were usually other peoples' films. Here he understands the character well enough and gives a good performance. He plays all the right notes, but he himself is the wrong instrument. He's simply not an Antony.

Jane Lapotaire is a bigger problem. Her portrayal of Cleopatra is small to the point of cramped, mechanical, calculating, and self-obsessed. A shopgirl's idea of a queen, she never strikes a single true note. In the first half of the play, she's merely wrong. In the second half she becomes an active trial for the viewer. When Antony is finally dead, instead of rising to greatness in understanding, she shrinks into dreary, unspontaneous hysteria. This is one Cleopatra who learns nothing from her experience. While she goes on and on shrieking and weeping, you wind up urging the snake to get on with it.

So it's not an out and out disaster, but with the poor casting of the two leads, the show never quite pulls itself together. Turn your attention immediately to the RSC version with Johnson and Suzman, and don't look back.

I found the performance disappointing. Anthony was cast as Colin Blakely, who looked like a portly professor. Cleopatra was played as middle aged and very English by Jane Lapotiere. Anthony is supposed to be a swashbuckling general. Cleopatra is supposed to be a dark scheming teen. They were simply wrong. It felt more like a play reading at aunt Hilda's than a real production. I don't think Shakespeare much liked Antony or Cleopatra. They continually repulsed me. The sexual innuendos came across as coarse and inappropriate for such old buzzards. Even murderers like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth had more emotional appeal. There was almost no budget spent on sets, costumes or locations. It all looks rather dusty, like old clothes from an attic trunk. There is very little action, just endless rather bland dialogue. It would probably work better if you turned off the video.