Antony and Cleopatra

Antony and Cleopatra (1974) follows the relationship of Marc Anthony and Cleopatra.It dates from the time of the Parthian war to Cleopatra's suicide with a snake.William Shakespeare is the author of the play this movie is based on.He is believed to have written that around 1606-1607.I read the play a little while before I borrowed the VHS from the library.It's not the finest works by the Bard but good anyway.This TV movie is something very average.It works mainly because of the fine performances the actors give.There's some strength in the performance by Richard Johnson who plays Marc Antony.Janet Suzman is wonderful as the Queen of Eqypt.Patrick Stewart is really good as Enobarbus.The way he turns and talks straight to camera is just magnificent.It's also a real treat to see the young Ben Kingsley as Thidias.The drama works from time to time.There's a lot of that in the end.So this was worth seeing.

I was in high school when I saw this version of "Antony and Cleopatra" on the short-lived, occasional "ABC Theatre" on the US ABC television network. I had read Shakespeare in English Literature class, of course, and had even attended some local productions of Shakespeare plays, but seeing this production totally changed my view of the Bard, even theatre in general. This was the first time I ever watched a play and felt as if I was watching something real, viewing snippets of life in progress. The actors weren't mouthing lines and feigning emotions - they were real and they believed, and that made me believe as well.

Perhaps the intervening years have affected my memory, dimming the details, but I cannot forget the awe I felt watching Patrick Stewart's Enobarbus. When I had read the play in school, Enobarbus was a minor character, and his speeches weren't important. Stewart's performance changed that. Now the role was central, and his descent from cheer to madness was a mirror of his world. Cleopatra's knowing chuckle as she spoke of her "salad days" was a lament as well a whimsey.

At that age, I may have been ripe for a change in my world view, but I cannot deny that it was "Antony and Cleopatra" that provided it. Ever since I have compared my response to a performance to that I felt from this production. Patrick Stewart has certainly gone on to "bigger and better" things in the last quarter century, but for me he'll always be Enobarbus, the man who defined Shakespeare for me.

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.

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.

This movie altogether made me lose faith in humanity. Most movies are set to stun you with good acting,or at least some acting. This movie, however, was set to painfully vaporize the viewer! It wasn't fast, like a good phaser, but slowly tortures anyone hit by it into nonexistence. This movie would be best described as a steaming pile of horse excrement laced with ebola-zaire. Cleopatra terrified me in this film. Not only was Octavia, the one who was supposed to be plain, more attractive than her, but is also a better actor for the simple reason that I didn't have to listen to her for very long. I have just seriously fallen from my chair thinking about having to watch more of this movie! If I was able to give a negative star rating to this movie, all the stars in the cosmos would not express my hatred for this movie.