Historical drama (officially), farce (actually). The film adaptation of the play of the same name by the famous English writer and playwright, "The Second Shakespeare" by Bernard Shaw (whom I respect very much for his views and creativity), and since I have not read the original source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. I unearthed this ancient folio by accident, since Vivien Leigh herself starred in the main role here, and decided to take a look. But, it was the wrong decision. For some folios it is better never to dig up. Once again, I was convinced that not all old movies can be watched and praised. And here's my brief opinion - A stupid farce for a lot of money. Despite all the failure, there were not only disadvantages in the picture, but also some advantages, which are also worth telling. And this should be the end of this introduction and move on to the interesting.
So, the pros: 1. Actors "look good" in their roles - this is exactly what we are talking about. The actors look similar to the characters (except Rufio - he has a beard, whereas the Romans shaved their moustaches and beards at that time). Claude Reis as Caesar and Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra certainly dominate here, but all this charm subsides when they start talking, because after that the historical drama turns into the English equivalent of modern Russian "Bremen Town Musicians" (I'm talking about the film, not the Soviet cartoon).
2. Interesting thoughts in the dialogues - there are only three of them (dialogues in the sense), in which the creators of the picture (and the author of the script and the play Bernard Shaw) talk about wisdom and rule. And the thoughts are interesting, but the problem is that they made a very boring picture around it, which is difficult to watch without long breaks.
So, the cons: 1. Theatricality - in a bad way. The whole picture is not a feature film as we used to see and imagine it, but rather a Show play transferred to the screen, with theatrical pauses, minimalistic scenery and long monologues. If I want to watch a theatrical production, then suddenly I will go to the theater, and if I want to watch a movie, then suddenly I expect to see a movie, and not a theater play transferred unchanged, which is difficult to adapt for cinema. Not all directors succeed in this.
2. Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra is not the great Egyptian ruler who seduced Caesar and Anthony and strengthened Egypt during her reign, not to mention her love affairs. In this picture, she is not a symbol of a strong woman capable of ruling a large country. No, forget it, the local Cleopatra is a silly fool who was enthroned by a certain citizen Caesar, whom she did not even know. He teaches her to rule (and in the presence of the entire royal court and his people). The local Cleopatra is a spoiled, vindictive, beautiful girl who is easier to remove from the throne than to take away a candy from a child. What can I say, this role is not suitable for Vivien Lee at all. Vivien is not Elizabeth Taylor (who was able to show a strong woman capable of twirling men while remaining a woman). Cleopatra Vivien would not have lived to see Caesar arrive in Egypt, because royal children grow up very early, they automatically join the "big game", in which their lives are at stake. And in it you either win or die, literally. Vivien in Gone with the Wind and Waterloo Bridge was great, but she doesn't look good here.
3. Claude Rains as Caesar - the local Caesar loves Egyptian culture, behaves like your inveterate friend, is able to easily violate a foreign custom and behaves as if he had eaten immortality. I think it's not worth saying that the real Caesar had nothing to do with this one. Caesar was modernized and simplified by the screenwriter here as soon as he could, and this played a cruel joke on the picture. It's not even worth describing where Caesar is wrong, otherwise the review will take too long (and we don't want that).
4. Logic - it fell to the death of the brave here already in the first minutes of this narrative, mainly it concerns the historical part, although it also concerns the internal part. Especially amusing is the six-month siege that Caesar and Cleopatra "endured", along with servants and Roman legions, until they came to their aid. This is ridiculous. I had to look at the whole picture with my hand covering my face, but sometimes I had to look out, but only sometimes.
5. Drudgery - for all its disadvantages, this picture is also extremely mournful, which makes the situation simply catastrophic. Everything stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches. It takes two hours and seven minutes - and it's not interesting or useful to watch.
The picture for 1945 was the most expensive for England, but this did not save it from a grandiose box office failure (which it deserved). The painting was quickly forgotten. No wonder they say that some doors are better not to open.
My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!
So, the pros: 1. Actors "look good" in their roles - this is exactly what we are talking about. The actors look similar to the characters (except Rufio - he has a beard, whereas the Romans shaved their moustaches and beards at that time). Claude Reis as Caesar and Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra certainly dominate here, but all this charm subsides when they start talking, because after that the historical drama turns into the English equivalent of modern Russian "Bremen Town Musicians" (I'm talking about the film, not the Soviet cartoon).
2. Interesting thoughts in the dialogues - there are only three of them (dialogues in the sense), in which the creators of the picture (and the author of the script and the play Bernard Shaw) talk about wisdom and rule. And the thoughts are interesting, but the problem is that they made a very boring picture around it, which is difficult to watch without long breaks.
So, the cons: 1. Theatricality - in a bad way. The whole picture is not a feature film as we used to see and imagine it, but rather a Show play transferred to the screen, with theatrical pauses, minimalistic scenery and long monologues. If I want to watch a theatrical production, then suddenly I will go to the theater, and if I want to watch a movie, then suddenly I expect to see a movie, and not a theater play transferred unchanged, which is difficult to adapt for cinema. Not all directors succeed in this.
2. Vivien Leigh as Cleopatra is not the great Egyptian ruler who seduced Caesar and Anthony and strengthened Egypt during her reign, not to mention her love affairs. In this picture, she is not a symbol of a strong woman capable of ruling a large country. No, forget it, the local Cleopatra is a silly fool who was enthroned by a certain citizen Caesar, whom she did not even know. He teaches her to rule (and in the presence of the entire royal court and his people). The local Cleopatra is a spoiled, vindictive, beautiful girl who is easier to remove from the throne than to take away a candy from a child. What can I say, this role is not suitable for Vivien Lee at all. Vivien is not Elizabeth Taylor (who was able to show a strong woman capable of twirling men while remaining a woman). Cleopatra Vivien would not have lived to see Caesar arrive in Egypt, because royal children grow up very early, they automatically join the "big game", in which their lives are at stake. And in it you either win or die, literally. Vivien in Gone with the Wind and Waterloo Bridge was great, but she doesn't look good here.
3. Claude Rains as Caesar - the local Caesar loves Egyptian culture, behaves like your inveterate friend, is able to easily violate a foreign custom and behaves as if he had eaten immortality. I think it's not worth saying that the real Caesar had nothing to do with this one. Caesar was modernized and simplified by the screenwriter here as soon as he could, and this played a cruel joke on the picture. It's not even worth describing where Caesar is wrong, otherwise the review will take too long (and we don't want that).
4. Logic - it fell to the death of the brave here already in the first minutes of this narrative, mainly it concerns the historical part, although it also concerns the internal part. Especially amusing is the six-month siege that Caesar and Cleopatra "endured", along with servants and Roman legions, until they came to their aid. This is ridiculous. I had to look at the whole picture with my hand covering my face, but sometimes I had to look out, but only sometimes.
5. Drudgery - for all its disadvantages, this picture is also extremely mournful, which makes the situation simply catastrophic. Everything stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches, stretches and stretches. It takes two hours and seven minutes - and it's not interesting or useful to watch.
The picture for 1945 was the most expensive for England, but this did not save it from a grandiose box office failure (which it deserved). The painting was quickly forgotten. No wonder they say that some doors are better not to open.
My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!