I think Caesar wanted to be king his whole life as opposed to Augustus who really did not like the idea of kingship even though he was very powerful.I remember discussing Cleopatra on another thread years ago. I do not blame Burton in any way for the problems with the second half. He plays the role as written, and we get to hear that great voice as he declaims his speeches. The problem is with history. The second half of the film cannot really survive without Caesar's presence.
Rex Harrison is so dominant in the first half the movie seems to be more about Caesar than Cleopatra. The movie begins with Caesar in the midst of a civil war, shifts to Egypt and still does not introduce Cleopatra for some time. Since Caesar seems to be the main character of part one, his death brings the story to a complete stop.
When the second half begins without Caesar, Antony is not a suitable replacement. In spite of Burton's Shakespearean presence, the character of Antony is such a loser it is difficult to see him as a protagonist. And Cleopatra is just a power-mad (but beautiful) manipulator. If I were reading this story in a non-fiction book (which I have done many times), I would see the "hero" of part 2 as Octavian/Augustus. If you look at the story from the Roman point of view, Octavian stands for the real Rome while Antony stands for nothing. The movie does a good job of showing how Antony let himself become "Egyptianized" to the point he was betraying Rome's interests. I guess we are supposed to see it as romantic that Antony sacrificed an empire "all for love".
In spite of the movie portraying Octavian as physically weak and not Caesar's "real son", as Augustus he was really one of the greatest Romans. The Romans (including Caesar) would not have seen Octavian as anything less than Caesar's adopted son and heir. The Romans did not view adoption the way modern people do. They liked to limit their families to one or two children and would adopt out extras to childless Romans. Everyone regarded the adoptees as the children of their new parents. Caesar's son with Cleopatra would have been regarded by the Romans as just a foreign nobody. The Romans were so high on themselves that they regarded a Roman Senator as higher ranking than any foreign ruler. I think Roddy McDowell "got" the character, and even though he was supposed to be the antagonist. McDowell plays him as the real hero of part two (which he was from the Roman point of view).
I am annoyed with some of the inaccuracies in the movie, most notably Caesar's obsession with becoming a king. There is no evidence that Caesar wanted to do any such thing. He certainly never asked the Senate to name him as king with Caesarion as his heir. The movie downplays the power Caesar had as dictator. He was actually the Master of Rome. His power was such that the only way to defeat him was to murder him. I guess they put that fake plot in to show how Cleopatra was a manipulator.
Last edited:
