Antoine et Cléopâtre

Unlike some particularly grating Shakespeare adaptations of recent years, Charlton Heston's overlooked "Antony & Cleopatra" manages to work as cinema and as an adaptation of a work by the world's most famous playwright. The production values-- giant panoramas, expensive battle sequences, glorious period costumes-- are staggering, and Heston comports himself quite well in the triple role of screenwriter/director/actor. Not that I intend to use all my Shakespeare film reviews to bash Kenneth Branagh, but compared to Heston, he's awful, unpalatable in all three capacities. He is that anyway, but even Heston's just-decent acting is well balanced by his expert direction of others. The exception to that is Hildegard Neil, an awful Cleopatra. She has zero dignity in the role, and manages to bear a creepy resemblance to "Rock 'n' Roll High School"'s Principal Togar every now and then. John Castle's performance as Caesar is obviously the best in the film, but still doesn't touch Roddy McDowall's bold, furious, intense Octavian in the Liz Taylor mega-film. Comparisons with that other movie are inevitable, and the winner is hands-down the earlier epic. This version is not very well paced, and, let's face it, it wasn't exactly Will's best dialogue. And Hildegard Neil really drags the movie down a bit, although she's not as bad as everyone says. Visually it's majestic, and that John Scott/Augusto Algero score is certainly pleasing to the ears (though it can't rival Alex North's "Cleopatra"). It's okay, but I can't say I recommend it unless you're on a really serious Shakespeare kick and the only other movies available are Branagh's.

It would be very interesting to see how audiences in the 21st century would react to this movie if it were just released and shown in theaters -- the very same film, cast and all. My guess is that it would go over big. If for no other reason, than for the lavishness of the film and the tremendous action scenes. Many may also go for the love affair between the two leads. And, literary folks today would no doubt find it an interesting discussion topic for comparison with Shakespeare's play. Of course, historians might enter the discussion regarding the Battle of Actium, the personages, the politics and even the authenticity of costumes, ships, weapons, etc.

That should be enough to arouse the interest of any modern youths and older who have not seen this film. Because, "Antony and Cleopatra" was and is a first rate movie production of both a famous play, and of a piece of history that Shakespeare's play is about. It's not a great film, but a good one. Most of the filming was done in Spain, and the sea battle scenes were taken from earlier footage shot for the 1959 film, "Ben-Hur."

After watching this film again recently, I enjoyed it as much as I must have when I first saw it in a theater decades ago. It wasn't a blockbuster then, and due to some negative criticism after its release in Europe in 1972, it had only limited release in the U.S. in 1973. I don't know of anyone who saw it then that didn't think it was a very good film.

I think that movies of this nature and scale don't lose their appeal or impact with audiences. They are types of historical classics made on a grand scale. And that should make them appealing to audiences far into the future. Indeed, with all of the production involved, with so many properties, sets, costumes and more, such films reduce the need for future remakes. And, it doesn't hurt more recent generations and audiences to become familiar with the actors of the past who are in these roles.

All of the cast give fine performances. Charlton Heston helped produce and also directed the film, besides starring in it. Among superb roles and acting are those of Hildegarde Neil as Cleopatra and John Castle as Octavius Caesar. This is an entertaining fictional historical and literary-based movie. If William Shakespeare were alive to see it, my guess is that he would like this film as an extension of his play and for its historical portrayals.

This is Shakespeare lite in the sense that the play has been cut to fit a movie, not a play. It has been done quite well and the balance between movie and classic play is well proportioned.

Where the movie excels is in the locations, the epic battles and the camera work. It is a very strong production in the Hollywood way. It serves as a fine introduction should anyone wish to experience the original text.

The actors are all in good form and make the lines serve their character. The conditional here is Chuck Heston. He is of the Olivier 'ham' school of acting. Each line is painfully rendered, the jaw clenches, the syllables come as if Heston may then expire. There are some parts where he is just fine: the battles, especially but he seems ill at ease compared to the other actors.

Ever since I studied it at school, I have regarded "Antony and Cleopatra" as one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. It is both a "love tragedy" like "Romeo and Juliet" and "Othello" and a political tragedy like "Macbeth", "Coriolanus" and "Julius Caesar" to which it forms a sequel. It has long been popular in the theatre, but has proven to be less so with film-makers. This is the only feature film adaptation to have been made of it in the sound era, although there were two silent versions and there have been several made for television. None of the great cinematic Shakespeareans, such as Olivier and Branagh, have been tempted to have a go at it. There was, of course, the 1963 epic "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor, but although the second part of that film told essentially the same story it did not use Shakespeare's dialogue.

Fortunately, the late Charlton Heston shared my love of the play and decided to film it with himself as Antony. He originally asked another great Shakespearean, Orson Welles, to direct, and then also took on the role of director when Welles turned it down. This was Heston's first directorial credit, although it was an open secret in Hollywood that he had taken over the direction of "Major Dundee" when Sam Peckinpah was incapacitated through alcoholism. He was only to direct one more feature film, "Mother Lode", although he also directed a made-for-television version of "A Man for All Seasons".

Despite the title, there are actually three people at the heart of this drama, the third being Octavius Caesar, Antony's political rival. Throughout the play there is a contrast between Rome and Egypt. Rome stands for the masculine, for stability, order, morality, the martial virtues and for self-denial. Egypt stands for the feminine, for love, sensuality, mutability and for self-indulgence. (Shakespeare clearly understood the concepts of yang and yin long before they were formally introduced into Western thought from Chinese philosophy). The film was shot in Spain, which provides an appropriately "Mediterranean" look, although I would have preferred it if it could have been shot in Italy and Egypt, to bring out this contrast between two different worlds. Budgetary considerations, however, may have precluded this.

Caesar is the prime example in the play of Roman values, Cleopatra of Egyptian ones. Antony, who wants both political power and the love of Cleopatra, is caught between the two. At one point Caesar tries to heal their political rift by organising a marriage between Antony and his sister Octavia, but we know this will never work. Although she is beautiful and virtuous, Octavia is too much the Roman maiden, and too much her brother's sister, for her ever to be a serious rival to Cleopatra in Antony's affections.

I think that Heston plays Antony in the right way, emphasising the fact that his character is not just caught between love and ambition but is also caught between two worlds. Beneath the middle-aged sensualist one can discern the tough Roman warrior which Antony once was. John Castle's Caesar may have an authoritarian streak as well as a puritanical one, but it would be wrong to see him simply as a villain. Beneath the youthful prig one can discern the future Emperor Augustus, the statesman who was to restore peace and stability to the Roman Empire after decades of civil war. Among the supporting cast mention must be made of Eric Porter as Antony's lieutenant Enobarbus, who starts off as a cynical observer of events but then becomes a tragic hero in his own right when he has to decide between remaining loyal to his old friend Antony and throwing in his lot with Caesar, who appears certain to emerge victorious.

There will always be controversy about Cleopatra's ethnicity; the historical character was of Greek descent and therefore probably Caucasian in appearance, but lines in the play itself suggest that Shakespeare thought of her as a black African, and she is sometimes played by black actresses in modern stage productions. In 1972, however, a love affair between a white Antony and a black Cleopatra would have been controversial, at least in America, and the role went to the British actress Hildegarde Neil. (The previous year, in "The Omega Man", Heston had played a character in a romantic relationship with a black woman, but in that film their love was only one small element in the story. In "Antony and Cleopatra" the love between the title characters is the whole point of the play). Neil certainly had the looks for the part, and speaks her lines well, but I felt that she lacked the sensuality and seductive allure which Taylor brought to the role.

The film was not well-received by the critics when it first came out and only had a limited release in the US. Even today it is not well-known and rarely turns up on television. (Fortunately, I caught it recently on one of those rare occasions). Yet in my view it is a well-crafted piece of cinematic Shakespeare which deserves to be better-known. It can certainly stand comparison with Olivier's trilogy of Henry V, Hamlet and Richard III. 8/10

A goof. Octavius Caesar's lieutenant Marcus Agrippa is portrayed here as an elderly man with a grey beard, much older than Caesar himself. In fact, the two men were around the same age. Also, surviving portrait busts of Agrippa show him as clean-shaven.

I personally enjoy this version of Shakespeare's play in film form. It's beautifully filmed, directed, edited, acted out, written and the costuming and the sets are lavish. I feel as if I am taken back to ancient Rome and Egypt, I am also taken back to my childhood.

I'm not sure why some have a disdain for it. Some seem to dislike Charlton Heston in this one. To me, he's just as good in this film as any of his other films. But each of us are entitled to have our on opinions about Heston and this film adaptation.

I personally feel this film is a worthy entry in to the epic historical drama realm. It's almost up there with Ben-hur and The Ten Commandments.

7.5/10