A Few Words About A few words about...™ Cleopatra (1963) - U.S. Release -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Ed Lachmann]

Malcolm is spot on about the sadly neglected silent masterpieces, many that may never see an official BD much less DVD release. I love THE CROWD and would kill to own it, and I treasure my BIG PARADE BD more than most in my collection. What is more disheartening is the lack of interest in releasing a 100 year anniversary disc of Pastrone's recently restored 1914 CABIRIA, the great grandparent or all historical epics including CLEOPATRA. The 2014 San Francisco Silent Film Festival opened with Rex Ingram's FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE, a wonderful film I've seen several times in theater, already restored but without any DVD or BD release. At some point mere profit should cease being the ONLY factor for a film's release to home theater, especially to the multi-millionaires running WB who sadly own these plus countless other silent masterpieces and refuse to do the right thing, swallow hard, take the jump and get them to the people and to the libraries before they all end up like THE ALAMO!

 

[Dee Zee]

I just viewed the film for the first time. Even though I was 12 in 1963, I never saw the film at the theater or any subsequent TV and video reissues. During the process I read over this entire discussion for a little background on Cleopatra. That's why I love this forum as you can find so much info about films here.

Anyway, I thought the Part One narrative was a bit confusing. I thought Rex Harrison was actually miscast. And it was a whole hour before we see Marc Anthony. So I wasn't sure what to expect in Part Two after reading comments about the sections. However I found the second half completely engaging on every level. Very enjoyable.

The special effects on this film were very well done, seamless really. And Cleopatra's ship was spectacular. Also the "art to live action" transitional EFX were fantastic.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At some point mere profit should cease being the ONLY factor for a film's release to home theater, especially to the multi-millionaires running WB who sadly own these plus countless other silent masterpieces and refuse to do the right thing, swallow hard, take the jump and get them to the people and to the libraries before they all end up like THE ALAMO!

To a certain extent I agree - profit shouldn't be the only factor. But these companies are businesses, and they can't remain in business if they're constantly losing money. If there are titles that aren't in heavy demand, that will struggle to sell even three thousand copies, I can understand why studios and copyright holders might be hesitant to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring a title, and tens of thousands making a physical release, for something that has no hope of making that money back.

That said, Warner is not MGM, and even if some of my favorite Warner titles aren't on the disc format I'd prefer, I know that they're at least being taken care of. Warner has a reputation for having one of the best in-house preservation and restoration programs in the business, and they preserve and restore far more than ever gets release. So if I see a title I love that isn't out is owned by Warner, I can at least take some small comfort in knowing that it's not rotting away on a shelf somewhere. I can't say the same about MGM.

 

[cinemiracle]

I still regard CLEOPATRA as the most spectacular film ever made. I would love to see it again in TODD-AO. We screened it where I worked in 70mm but the season had to be cut short as it was not a big success. Shortly after the film arrived in the country ,Fox had it cut by 60 minutes from 4 to 3 hours. I understand that most 70mm roadshow prints were all later cut before being released in their countries.Sadly the cuts were so obvious when you saw the film. I got to see the film many times in 70mm.

 

[ScottHM]

I thought the Part One narrative was a bit confusing. I thought Rex Harrison was actually miscast. And it was a whole hour before we see Marc Anthony. So I wasn't sure what to expect in Part Two after reading comments about the sections. However I found the second half completely engaging on every level. Very enjoyable.

I'm just the opposite. I much preferred the first half of the film.
---------------

 

[cinemiracle]

I'm just the opposite. I much preferred the first half of the film.
---------------

The film was originally to be a five hour film with the first half about Julius Caesar and the second half about Mark Anthony. That is why you had to wait so long for Mark Anthony to appear. I understand that most of he extra footage from the five hour version has been lost.

 

[Allansfirebird]

The film was originally to be a five hour film with the first half about Julius Caesar and the second half about Mark Anthony. That is why you had to wait so long for Mark Anthony to appear. I understand that most of he extra footage from the five hour version has been lost.

As originally written and shot in Joe Mankiewicz's shooting script, Antony was supposed to appear at the beginning in the aftermath of the battle at Pharsalia. In the reshot version, all of Antony's lines were given to Canidius, because Burton was unable to come to Spain for the exterior shots (he was only available in England for the reshoot period at Pinewood Studios - look for Antony to suddenly be a George Hamilton bronze tone to mark the newer scenes).

One of the featurettes in the 50th anniversary talks about Cleopatra's lost footage, remarking that the outtakes and trims were junked during the 1970's to free up storage. An assembly cut, similar to the 5 or 6 hour version only ever screened once to Darryl F. Zanuck, was rumored to have been in the possession of a cagey collector. However, the participants in the featurette were skeptical that it existed at all. All that exists now of the excised scenes are the short trims and takes, the barest whiff of which were shown in the "Film That Changed Hollywood" documentary.

 

[Alan Tully]

Anyway, I thought the Part One narrative was a bit confusing. I thought Rex Harrison was actually miscast. And it was a whole hour before we see Marc Anthony. So I wasn't sure what to expect in Part Two after reading comments about the sections. However I found the second half completely engaging on every level. Very enjoyable.

That's an unusual view of the film, most people seem to think that the first half is the best & he second drags a bit. I'm with the majority, the first half is good (not great) & the second half is a bit tedious. If I'm in the mood I do enjoy it (I love ancient world epics), but I wish the colours on the Blu-ray bloomed a bit more.

 

[Nick*Z]

Agreed, Cleopatra on Blu-ray could have been better. I also would have liked to see the full outtakes of scenes included in the spectacular documentary: Cleopatra, The Film That Changed Hollywood, included as extras in their complete form. The trims were devastating to Mankiewicz's vision of the movie, summarized in Bosley Crowthers' review at the time as "...a coming attraction for a movie yet to come." I adore Rex Harrison, a consummate pro and think he is one of the picture's strongest assets.

Richard Burton doesn't live up to expectations as Marc Anthony; a very weak, conflicted, and ultimately uneven performance. And yes, I too think the second half of the movie lumbers along with too much Burton/Taylor romance without enough Burton/Taylor chemistry to go along with it. Herein, the fascination for many was their off screen affair, rather than the on camera sparks it generated - or lack thereof. The last act battles are mere hints of what Mankiewicz envisioned; his hands tied, his budget slashed and his extras canceled as Fox desperately tried to shore up their foundering coffers to save, not only face, but the studio, in very real danger of imploding and closing its doors for good.

We'll likely never know what Mankiewicz's Cleopatra could have been if he had had his way. It was a project ill-begun and badly timed to say the least; complicated by setbacks and blind faith and stubborn resolve to will a silk purse from a sow's ear. The script is so unlike anything Mankiewicz had tackled. It really wasn't his forte and, although there are some very fine moments scattered throughout, there are just not enough of them to cement the narrative into a forward-driving bit or prose to move the picture along. Instead, we get a lot of vignettes strung together; a sort of episodic TripTik through the history, embellished with some purely speculative scenes to heighten the melodrama. Don't misunderstand. I continue to be fascinated by Cleopatra - the monarch, the movie and the mayhem behind it all. But it remains, at least in my estimation, a sincerely flawed effort at best. Ditto for the Blu-ray. It needs a refreshed transfer.

 

[Dee Zee]

Again I thought Burton was fantastic in the second half. I had albsolutely no reference to the film's back story and long production. I was aware of the Liz and Richard romance as a 12 year old but that was it.

I'm glad we have this 4 hour version. I also watched the 2 hour doc which was very enlightening.

 

[benbess]

Even with its flaws, Cleopatra is probably my favorite movie released in 1963....I think the ending is haunting on multiple levels.

 

[OliverK]

Agreed, Cleopatra on Blu-ray could have been better. I also would have liked to see the full outtakes of scenes included in the spectacular documentary: Cleopatra, The Film That Changed Hollywood, included as extras in their complete form. The trims were devastating to Mankiewicz's vision of the movie, summarized in Bosley Crowthers' review at the time as "...a coming attraction for a movie yet to come." I adore Rex Harrison, a consummate pro and think he is one of the picture's strongest assets.

Richard Burton doesn't live up to expectations as Marc Anthony; a very weak, conflicted, and ultimately uneven performance. And yes, I too think the second half of the movie lumbers along with too much Burton/Taylor romance without enough Burton/Taylor chemistry to go along with it. Herein, the fascination for many was their off screen affair, rather than the on camera sparks it generated - or lack thereof. The last act battles are mere hints of what Mankiewicz envisioned; his hands tied, his budget slashed and his extras canceled as Fox desperately tried to shore up their foundering coffers to save, not only face, but the studio, in very real danger of imploding and closing its doors for good.

We'll likely never know what Mankiewicz's Cleopatra could have been if he had had his way. It was a project ill-begun and badly timed to say the least; complicated by setbacks and blind faith and stubborn resolve to will a silk purse from a sow's ear. The script is so unlike anything Mankiewicz had tackled. It really wasn't his forte and, although there are some very fine moments scattered throughout, there are just not enough of them to cement the narrative into a forward-driving bit or prose to move the picture along. Instead, we get a lot of vignettes strung together; a sort of episodic TripTik through the history, embellished with some purely speculative scenes to heighten the melodrama. Don't misunderstand. I continue to be fascinated by Cleopatra - the monarch, the movie and the mayhem behind it all. But it remains, at least in my estimation, a sincerely flawed effort at best. Ditto for the Blu-ray. It needs a refreshed transfer.

Excellent post, I see you also belong to those who preferred the first half.

Unfortunately Cleopatra also does not look as good as one may have hoped for.
It is ironic that Fox did 8k scans for Oklahoma!, The Sound of Music and Hello Dolly! but the initially better looking Cleopatra and The Agony and the Ecstasy got the short end of the stick by comparison.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I just viewed the film for the first time. Even though I was 12 in 1963, I never saw the film at the theater or any subsequent TV and video reissues. During the process I read over this entire discussion for a little background on Cleopatra. That's why I love this forum as you can find so much info about films here.

Anyway, I thought the Part One narrative was a bit confusing. I thought Rex Harrison was actually miscast. And it was a whole hour before we see Marc Anthony. So I wasn't sure what to expect in Part Two after reading comments about the sections. However I found the second half completely engaging on every level. Very enjoyable.

The special effects on this film were very well done, seamless really. And Cleopatra's ship was spectacular. Also the "art to live action" transitional EFX were fantastic.

I'm just the opposite. I much preferred the first half of the film.
---------------

That's an unusual view of the film, most people seem to think that the first half is the best & he second drags a bit. I'm with the majority, the first half is good (not great) & the second half is a bit tedious. If I'm in the mood I do enjoy it (I love ancient world epics), but I wish the colours on the Blu-ray bloomed a bit more.

Again I thought Burton was fantastic in the second half. I had albsolutely no reference to the film's back story and long production. I was aware of the Liz and Richard romance as a 12 year old but that was it.

I'm glad we have this 4 hour version. I also watched the 2 hour doc which was very enlightening.

Count me in the "first half is far better" crowd. When ever I watch the second half, I find myself wondering why would anyone follow Marc Antony into battle. Burton portrays him as a sniveling, lovelorn weakling. He sees Cleopatra's ship leaving the scene of a battle and deserts his men to go after her.

I often watch the first half and call it quits.

 

[David_B_K]

Count me in the "first half is far better" crowd. When ever I watch the second half, I find myself wondering why would anyone follow Marc Antony into battle. Burton portrays him as a sniveling, lovelorn weakling. He sees Cleopatra's ship leaving the scene of a battle and deserts his men to go after her.

I often watch the first half and call it quits.

I think the first half is far better because it revolves around Caesar and Rex Harrison's marvelous portrayal of him. Caesar is one of the most brilliant people who ever lived. He was a great lawyer. author and orator, and inspirational battle leader and winner of the corona civica, one of the highest Roman military honors. Antony was at best Caesar's right-hand man. He was always going to be in Caesar's shadow. Caesar's affair with Cleopatra was little more than a dalliance, while Antony became enslaved to her. He was a sniveling, lovelorn weakling, and I do not fault Burton's performance.

Because I read a lot of Roman history, I tend to side with the Romans against their foes because I admire their civilization so much. When I was a kid, Hannibal was one of my heroes because he inflicted so many terrible defeats on the Romans. Now I take the opposite view - the Romans came back from several ruinous defeats in which they lost entire armies to the Carthaginians and yet they ground them down and totally defeated Hannibal and eventually wiped Carthage off the map. Likewise, I tend to see Octavian as the hero of the second half of Cleopatra. Basically, everything that Cleopatra and Antony do in the second half is wrong. Cleopatra foolishly provokes Rome to war. Antony betrays Rome for Egypt and meets his just fate. Octavian embodies the Rome of his adoptive father Caesar and become the first and one of the greatest Roman Emperors. Sure, the story ends tragically for Cleopatra and Antony, but Octavian and the Romans notch up another win.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I think the first half is far better because it revolves around Caesar and Rex Harrison's marvelous portrayal of him. Caesar is one of the most brilliant people who ever lived. He was a great lawyer. author and orator, and inspirational battle leader and winner of the corona civica, one of the highest Roman military honors. Antony was at best Caesar's right-hand man. H was always going to be in Caesar's shadow. Caesar's affair with Cleopatra was little more than a dalliance, while Antony became enslaved to her. He was a sniveling, lovelorn weakling, and I do not fault Burton's performance.

Because I read a lot of Roman history, I tend to side with the Romans against their foes because I admire their civilization so much. When I was a kid, Hannibal was one of my heroes because he inflicted so many terrible defeats on the Romans. Now I take the opposite view - the Romans came back from several ruinous defeats in which they lost entire armies to the Carthaginians and yet they ground them down and totally defeated Hannibal and eventually wiped Carthage off the map. Likewise, I tend to see Octavian as the hero of the second half of Cleopatra. Basically, everything that Cleopatra and Antony do in the second half is wrong. Cleopatra foolishly provokes Rome to war. Antony betrays Rome for Egypt and meets his just fate. Octavian embodies the Rome of his adoptive father Caesar and become the first and one of the greatest Roman Emperors. Sure, the story ends tragically for Cleopatra and Antony, but Octavian and Romans notch up another win.

I will defer to your greater knowledge of history by presuming the movie got Caesar and Cleo's relationship wrong. In the movie, they are not dallying, it's a true love affair ended by his assassination. Are you also saying history indicates Antony was accurately portrayed in the movie?

 

[Allansfirebird]

I will defer to your greater knowledge of history by presuming the movie got Caesar and Cleo's relationship wrong. In the movie, they are not dallying, it's a true love affair ended by his assassination. Are you also saying history indicates Antony was accurately portrayed in the movie?

The screenplay makes it clear that Cleopatra entered into the relationship with Caesar purely as a power play for her, and later, her son, Caesarion. There's a reason she screams "my son" as she sees the vision of Caesar's assassination - she's been manipulating and using him, and now her court's influence in Rome falls with Caesar.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The screenplay makes it clear that Cleopatra entered into the relationship with Caesar purely as a power play for her, and later, her son, Caesarion. There's a reason she screams "my son" as she sees the vision of Caesar's assassination - she's been manipulating and using him, and now her court's influence in Rome falls with Caesar.

Yes, she does act as you say, but my impression is that she does come to love Caesar and Caesar loves her. Next time I watch the first half, I'll be keeping your opinions in mind.

Historically, is Antony really that sniveling fool?

 

[trajan007]

Part two is the best. The tragic downfall of Mark Antony is much more interesting and demands a much more complex performance through which Richard Burton delivers.

 

[David_B_K]

Yes, she does act as you say, but my impression is that she does come to love Caesar and Caesar loves her. Next time I watch the first half, I'll be keeping your opinions in mind.

Historically, is Antony really that sniveling fool?

I don't doubt there was affection between C&C, but their love was not a consuming passion like that of A&C.Caesar had been married several times, and was renowned for his mistresses. I cannot see Caesar throwing everything away over a foreign woman, even a queen. The fact that Antony did shows what a weakling he was.The Romans had a very pompous view of themselves. They felt that a Roman Senator was of higher rank than any foreign potentate. The idea that Antony would desert the Romans for Cleopatra and Egypt would have been shocking to the Romans. I think Antony's "sniveling" was due to Burton having to deliver the pseudo-Shakespearean speeches that Mankiewicz felt compelled to add - the one on Cleopatra's barge and the later one when he explains his desertion from the battle.

The film makes too much of Caesar's son, at least from the Roman point of view. Caesar's son by a foreign queen would have meant nothing to the Romans. All Romans would have regarded Octavian as Caesar's son and heir. There would have been no snickering about Octavian not being Caesar's "real" son. The Romans were "practical" in family matters to a level that we would find rather shocking today. They did not have large families because it would be a financial burden to support more than a couple of sons and a daughter. There are many stories of Romans who had more children than they felt they needed, so they would adopt them out to childless Romans. Once a guy gave up his son to another, the son was the other guy's son and no one would have questioned it. A famous example is the case of Lucius Aemilius Paullus (not the Paullus killed at Cannae - that was his father). Paullus had four sons, which was 2 too many. So, he adopted out the two eldest and kept the two younger ones. Unfortunately, the younger ones died and Paullus ended up dying childless.

 

[Dee Zee]

Interesting that a first time viewing can elicit so many responses on a discussion that was quiet for 2 years. Quick question: what is the best book about the Roman Empire out there?