Cleopatra

source: Cleopatra

Claudette Colbert certainly had one banner year in 1934. An Oscar for It Happened One Night for Harry Cohn and Columbia Pictures and back at her home studio, she starred and got great reviews for Paramount's big budget item of the year, Cleopatra. As the slinky siren Queen of the Nile who got Julius Caesar's and Mark Antony's hormones into exponential overdrive, Claudette is one sly little minx. The traditional story is told in the classic DeMille style, eye-filling spectacle, plenty of sex, and Victorian type dialog. Because in 1963 Joe Mankiewicz released his version of Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, DeMille's version has become dated. Because Mankiewicz's cast talk like real people instead of classical figures of antiquity, DeMille's version now suffers by comparison. Warren William who in profile looks and acts like John Barrymore makes a classical Caesar who always gets shortchanged because his character in all versions gets killed off halfway into the story. Antony is played by Henry Wilcoxon who became very close friends with DeMille. DeMille tried to make him a star in this and in The Crusades, but the public didn't buy. Wilcoxon's greatest screen success was away from DeMille over at MGM as the vicar in Mrs. Miniver. DeMille relates a story in his autobiography about how Claudette was deathly afraid of snakes and was in horror of shooting her death scene. That scene was shot last in Cleopatra. And DeMille relates how before the scene he approached a terrified Colbert with a 10 foot python draped over his shoulders. As he got closer and closer Colbert was getting more and more anxious. When he got within three feet of her, he disgarded the python and had one of his retainers produce a small 8 inch garter snake for the asp. Colbert gave a sigh of relief and did the scene. Though it's outdated in every way by Mankiewicz's film including the spectacle DeMille loved, Cleopatra is still an interesting film to watch.

One never thinks of Claudette Colbert as a sex symbol but she puts that to rest with her great interpretation of Cleopatra. What a siren she is as she vamps her way through this film. Henry Wilcoxon, truly an overlooked actor, is a perfect Antony. I have often wondered why he never made a bigger splash. I'm not as taken with Warren William as Caesar; he seems more at home in films with contemporary settings. The barge scene, with the ever increasing beat of the drums,implying what is happening or about to happen, is full of passion. More obvious scenes in modern movies leave nothing to the imagination....this leaves most of it to the imagination and is, therefore, much more effective. A highly recommended film.

This movie is a typical DeMille PRODUCTION, with all the strengths-gorgeous sets, costumes and a sort of grandeur to all the proceedings-as well as the weaknesses-the lavishness often comes at the expense of things like the story, acting and plot. There's no question that it's beautiful (although, interestingly enough, none of it's five nominations for Academy Awards was for Interior Decoration.) Claudette Colbert does a wnderful job, but most of the other peformances are only average at best. 1934 was a particularly good year for Colbert, who won an Academy Award for It Happened One Night and starred in at least two other major productions that year-Imitation of Life and this movie. The picture feels a bit dated, but, while far from perfect, I think it superior to the 1963 remake in a great many respects and it's well worth watching.

This film can be thought of as a camp classic or a comedy, but certainly not as a serious film. The film is essentially moronic but fun. Cecil B. DeMille is probably the most overrated movie director in the history of cinema. This film, as all his others, has an infantile script with obvious directions to camp it up and overact as much as possible. Claudette Colbert is good in her role but the male leads are awful. This movie deserves only a 4 out of 10 and that is being generous. Watch this for fun but do not expect real history.

DeMille directs this pseudo-historical epic with all the dash and none of the subtlety that could have made it a great film. Colbert is a fine actress but here in exotic and aggrandized raiment and bearing seems very out of place. Spectacle is well done, but the acting and dialogue are on a generally low level. Almost put me to sleep in the middle of the day.

... because it looks so different from his modern Warner Brothers' precode look. But then, if they hadn't rearranged his hair a bit, I would think I'm looking right at the empathetic precode cad. Instead Warren William is playing Julius Caesar as the empathetic precode cad. This just goes to show that DeMille paid great attention to art and costume detail, because - unpopular opinion as it may be - he was overall quite lacking in making his characters come to life. So DeMille's version of this tale has Julius Caesar as a user who really doesn't love Cleo but instead wants her for her ability to open up India for him, and Marc Anthony as someone who can be easily led about by the wily Cleopatra. Octavian, Caesar's nephew, is playing it more masculine in this version versus the1962 version by Fox. Strangely enough this version has King Herod (Joseph Schildkraut) show up at Cleopatra's court for ... a few laughs? That's better than what I first suspected - that DeMille was using this opportunity to get a few lines about the Christ child thrown in. And I wasn't even sure WHICH King Herod he was referring to. Overall, the state of the art and science of cinematography is just not up to snuff for what DeMille is probably trying to go for. You can't just yet shoot the expansive scenes of battles and charging troops in 1934 that he would probably like to have had. Yes, 1931's CImarron did it in the land rush scene, but it took 47 cameras over 40 acres to do so. This is probably worthwhile viewing just because DeMille directed it. If someone named Earl Fischbind had been the director, with the exact same output product, I doubt it would still be remembered.

Impossible to surpass, CLEOPATRA stands out as DeMille's finest work, without question the defining moment of his career. Colbert is ravishingly beautiful as the Egyptian Queen. Warren William is unsurpassed to this day as the quintessential Julius Caesar. Henry Wilcoxon, with his stellar good looks is the doomed Marc Antony in the greatest role of his career. Unquestionably breathtaking to look at down to the last detail of costume and performances. The only misfortune is that DeMille was not given a dream budget so battle scenes are lifted from some of his other pictures. However, this is the definitive CLEOPATRA of all time, superior even to the Elizabeth Taylor version nearly thirty years later. AN EPIC MUST-SEE!!!

I wasn't looking forward to this one as much as THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (considered by many as De Mille's best film) but I must say that I was just as impressed by it. The pacing here is smoother, and we do get to see some wonderful action montages towards the end as opposed to the rather middling arena stuff of CROSS. Claudette Colbert, too gets a lot more coverage this time around and certainly clinches the title role far better than the positively annoying Elizabeth Taylor in the ill-fated 1963 version. However, the male leads here are less interesting, for lack of a better word: Henry Wilcoxon and Warren William are adequate but, naturally, no match for the thespian skills of Richard Burton and Rex Harrison respectively. The supporting cast is notable (Ian Keith, Irving Pichel, Joseph Schildkraut, C. Aubrey Smith) and the film features a number of great scenes: Caesar's murder (partly filmed in a POV shot), following which is a delicious jibe at Antony's famous oratory during Caesar's funeral as envisioned by Shakespeare; the long - and justly celebrated - barge sequence, in which Antony (intent on teaching Cleopatra, whom he blames for Caesar's death, a lesson) ends up being completely won over by her wiles; Cleopatra's own death scene is simply but most effectively filmed. Like in THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, the film's production values are truly awe-inspiring and, in fact, Victor Milner was awarded with a well-deserved Oscar for his lush cinematography here. Needless to say, De Mille's take on Cleopatra, despite feeling hurried since it runs for less than half its length, is a more satisfying viewing experience than the stultifyingly dull, overblown and misguided (if still worthwhile and not quite as catastrophic as the history books would have it) later version.

I have been very fond of this movie for years, particularly as compared with Fox's bloated monstrosity of 1963. Colbert is admittedly somewhat miscast (her face is altogether Parisienne), but she handles the part with considerable charm. Warren William, usually a very limited actor, is as good a Caesar as I have seen on film, commanding and uncomfortable by turns; while Henry Wilcoxon is the definitive Mark Antony, laughing, brawling, swaggering, crude and brooding. C. Aubrey Smith as Enobarbus, the last of the hardcore Roman republicans, is perfect. Victor Milner's cinematography is superb, if old-fashioned. There is one magnificent pullback shot aboard Cleopatra's barge, with more and more stuff entering the frame, which as pure cinema is worth more than all four hours of the Liz Taylor version for my money. Shakespeare and Shaw have both been drawn upon here and there, and the movie has generally good (and fun) dialogue, not always one of DeMille's strengths. Consider also the scene of Cleopatra's entrance into Rome: contrary to DeMille's usual reputation, this scene is underplayed, depicting a plausible parade through a very real Roman street with authentic trappings, compared to the outrageously bogus and overblown spectacle given us in 1963. A word is also in order for the music of Rudolph Kopp, an extremely obscure Hollywood composer, who turns in an atmospheric score redolant of the old silent movies. This style is easy to make fun of, but see how effective it is in the highly theatrical opening credits! DeMille used silent film technique well into the talkie era, particularly in crowd scenes, and it still works. The battle scenes are the weakest point, since evidently Paramount ran out of cash and C.B. had to make do with a bunch of short shots put together with Russian cutting; nevertheless, this is still as good a picture on the subject as has yet been made, a bit of extravagant old Hollywood at its most polished.