Antony and Cleopatra

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.

Though the acting from the Royal Shakespeare company is first rate, this version of Antony and Cleopatra is little more than a photographed stage play. And a bit long for the cinema at that.

The title roles are played well by Richard Johnson and Janet Suzman. The story has been told three times in contemporary verse in the cinema by Theda Bara, Claudette Colbert, and Elizabeth Taylor as the seductive Queen of Egypt who tried to bend one too many conquerors to her will by use of her legendary charms.

William Shakespeare's Mark Antony was a principal character in two of his plays, Julius Caesar where he skillfully picked up the leadership of his late patriarch Caesar and routed the conspirators who assassinated the legendary conqueror.

To give legitimacy to his enterprise, Antony was forced into partnership with Octavian Caesar, Julius's grandnephew and a legion commander Lepidus made the triumvir of three. This play is a story of the dissolution of that partnership caused in no small part by Cleopatra.

Sex may have more a part in Antony and Cleopatra than in any other work of Shakespeare. Historians might very well argue that Mark Antony was using Cleopatra as his entrée to gaining alliances with various Roman dependencies in a power play against Octavian. But Shakespeare was no doubt titillating his 16th century audience with the tales of Cleopatra's erotic technique. Ahenobarbus, Antony's good friend played here by Patrick Stewart, says that while Octavia's sister's a pretty thing, when you get entangled with Cleopatra, she's so good that men are never satisfied, they keep hungering for more.

So that's the reason why Antony instead of tending to business and keeping an eye on Octavian gradually loses support in Rome where it really counts. The guy who was so shrewd in Julius Caesar in Antony and Cleopatra is just a love struck fool. It's the basis for his tragedy.

As for Cleopatra, three times wasn't the charm. Julius Caesar and Mark Antony may have succumbed although there is debate about who was using who. But in Octavian as played here by Corin Redgrave is all about business.

I was interested in the difference between Ahenobarbus in Cecil B. DeMille's Cleopatra which starred Claudette Colbert and the way Shakespeare writes him and Stewart plays him. In the DeMille film, Ahenobarbus is played by C. Aubrey Smith as a stout old soldier who finds it a matter of conscience to leave Antony and support his beloved Roman Empire which he sees embodied now in Octavian. Patrick Stewart's Ahenobarbus is far more of an opportunist who makes a calculated move at the right time.

The money here was spent on talent with the people mentioned and the others in the cast from the Royal Shakespeare Company. Down the cast list you'll find Ben Kingsley in a minor role. Look also for a very touching performance by Rosemary McHale as Charmian, Cleopatra's faithful handmaiden who makes the last journey with her.

This version of Antony and Cleopatra is not a movie per se, it lacks the production values of one. The Elizabeth Taylor Cleopatra had the spectacle to go with the acting. This one succeeds on talent alone.

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.

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.

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.