Julius Caesar

1953's JULIUS CAESAR was a milestone in it's time, and still is, perhaps, the finest American production of a Shakespeare play ever recorded on film. Until Joseph L. Mankiewicz's production, only Laurence Olivier's British versions of HAMLET and HENRY V had truly displayed the power and poetry of the Bard's work. Hollywood seemed content to either truncate it in miscast all-star extravaganzas (A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, and ROMEO AND JULIET) or turn it into a weird kind of carnival sideshow (Orson Welles' MACBETH, performed with incomprehensible Scottish accents). Perhaps American film makers were afraid audiences would be put off by Shakespeare's text, with its archaic words, or felt that a British cast and the confines of a stage were 'required' to do a 'proper' rendition. For whatever reason, the British seemed to have a 'lock' on filmed versions of the Bard.

But Mankiewicz understood that Shakespeare was both universal and timeless, and in his capacity of director and (uncredited) screenwriter, he 'opened up' JULIUS CAESAR, eliminating the 'studio' feel of key scenes, and, with producer John Houseman, gathered together an impressive array of talent, with British actors John Gielgud as Cassius, James Mason as Brutus, Greer Garson as Calpurnia, and Deborah Kerr as Portia, and stage-trained American actors such as Oscar winner Edmond O'Brien in supporting roles.

Where the greatest gamble, and payoff, came was in the casting of Marlon Brando as Marc Antony. While Brando was already being hailed as the finest American actor of his generation, there were critics, prior to the film's release, who called his acceptance of the role an ego trip, and expected him to fall on his face. Were they ever WRONG! Brando gave the role a power, a physicality, and charisma that stunned critics and audiences alike. With a flawless British accent, he easily held his own with the veteran cast, and displayed a magnetism that is still enthralling, over 50 years later. His performance became the keystone of the film's success.

Not that JULIUS CAESAR is without faults; it is, occasionally, stagy and artificial, the pacing is a bit too slow and deliberate at times, and, as the title character, Louis Calhern is woefully miscast (he looks and sounds more like a jaded grandfather than the charismatic despot who both enthralled and frightened the Roman world). Still, the film is so strong and dynamic that subsequent versions (such as Charlton Heston's ambitious 1970 production) pale in comparison.

Hollywood finally got it 'right', and we can be grateful that a truly unforgettable presentation of JULIUS CAESAR is available for us, and future generations, to enjoy!

This production stands as a shining example of how a big Hollywood studio, in this case M-G-M, can make a great Shakespeare film, cast it intelligently, and still end up with box-office names. No less than five Hollywood stars - Marlon Brando, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Greer Garson, and Edmond O'Brien, are in this film (although two of them have barely five minutes of screen time) and the entire cast gives fine performances.

James Mason, who actually has the leading role of Brutus (despite the fact that Brando gets top billing) is excellent, giving a conscience-stricken, restrained performance--he even LOOKS the way one likes to imagine that Brutus must have looked. Marlon Brando reminds us of what a brilliant actor he once was--for an actor who deliberately stayed away from Shakespeare, his performance is remarkable--and every word he says is understandable. This film was the great John Gielgud's first chance to immortalize one of his great roles on film and to show movie audiences what made him such a renowned Shakespearean actor---his Cassius is full of envy that seems about to boil over any minute. Louis Calhern, a rather hammy villain in other films, is subtly unsympathetic, yet vulnerable as Julius Caesar. The photography is fine and completely unobtrusive---as is the music; director Mankiewicz has filmed the play without resorting to any gimmicks or cheap "Hollywoody" stunts,and the adaptation is so faithful that no one gets on screen credit for it.

Who cares about historical inaccuracies when you can see a great play as well acted as this one?

Julius Caesar is a fragment of Roman history, which saw the rise and fall of titans such as Caesar and Mark Antony. The play is a continuation of a magnitude of events, wars and happenings that have already occurred and have resulted in the might of a man called Julius Caesar. Our knowledge about Caesar's past is faint and can be only updated through Caesar's current state and from the characters surrounding him. We sense mercilessness, pomposity, boastfulness, egoism in him through his statements and those made by others such as Cassius but we cannot deny his intelligence, his astuteness and experience also through the statements made by him, Mark Antony, Brutus. Our sparse knowledge about Caesar and certain contradictory attributes regarding him can only construe that he was human, imperfect not inept. The other characters such as Brutus, Mark Antony, Cassius, and Casca were all humans, struggling to fulfill their personal ambitions in a variegated world. Perhaps that's why Julius Caesar the play has none of the high-mindedness of some other plays, and that also makes the narrative a breezy read unlike Hamlet and The Tempest. I think the better play would be Hamlet, because it more organic and definitive, but the more accessible play would certainly be Julius Caesar. When we look at the current anarchy and revolutions in many countries, we think of Julius Caesar and the concept of use and abuse of power and its consequences.

Julius Caesar's characters are not as complex as those in Hamlet and their motives are not as well defined either. After watching the movie twice, reading the play and watching the film again, over two days, I still could not find clarity in Cassius' agenda. He certainly was incendiary in persuading the Senators to persecute Caesar, and he also paltered with Brutus by turning a blind eye to bribery and possibly having itching palm himself. In a play so short, his ambitions could not be well articulated, and I don't criticize Shakespeare here, since one needs a 1400 page epic like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace to fully flesh out characters (even then Tolstoy's characters kept evolving with changing times). But we are better told about Brutus, who seems to be too moralistic to adopt practicality that Cassius possessed. When he plunged the dagger into Caesar, his soul was not at rest but rather disquiet at the failure of trust on his part. "Et tu Brute? Then fall Caesar" utters Caesar before succumbing to the stab wounds, and these words do not affect Brutus immediately because the deed is done and he has to face the music, but slowly he realizes that he too face doom in the near future. Mark Antony does not come into prominence till Caesar's death and has a game changing speech that shall put him on the throne and cause the Senators to scurry away. Being one of Caesar's most trusted confidantes, Antony must've certainly inherited some qualities from him, and that may be how he sways an agitated crowd against Brutus by targeting their emotions. The women, namely Calpurnia and Portia, act as possible negators of Caesar's fall, and their main purpose it to bring some tension to the play as they unknowingly try to prevent the chain of events. The soothsayer and Artemidorus are also for the same purpose.

Coming to the movie at last, I commend Joseph L. Mankiewicz for (i) giving much freedom to the actors who were well versed with Shakespeare (ii) leaving out redundant portion such as Antony telling a how he would try to extract revenge on Brutus and (iii) keeping the production minimalistic unlike some gaudy historical works (not of Shakespeare) such as 1963's blinding Cleopatra or 1979's execrable Caligula. Acting-wise, I was never certain about which of the three performances – Brando's, Mason's and Gielgud's – was the best. On my first viewing, I was unimpressed and slightly irritated by Brando, but I realized it took time to get used to sharp tonal quality. Mason was thoroughly consistent in making Brutus a heroic character, and I note here that Brutus' momentary disgust, shock and shame at witnessing Caesar's attack is the only time I felt a chill down my spine looking at the rush of emotions on Mason's face. Gielgud has a mellifluous voice and his enunciation was noteworthy. By the third viewing, Brando grew on me and I began realizing the potential of his performance. He role is risky since the monologue he utters is of prime importance, and I admired the rhetoric that he put in his speech to make the same lines "But Caesar was ambitious. And Brutus is an honorable man" sound assertive, affirmative, dispassionate, questionable, accusatory and then sarcastic each time uttered. Even when he points out the stab wounds casted by the Senators, his tearing voice sounds like tearing of flesh by the stab wounds inflicted. I yet felt he was not the leading man, but a great supporting character. Gielgud now seemed slightly theatrical and mechanical at times yet very competent. Therefore, I thought Mason was the leading man worthy of an Oscar nomination for his touching portrayal of the misfortunate Brutus. Edmond O'Brien was good, and Deborah Kerr did her job, though she could have created more personality to her character- who is supposedly a pale, neglected and distraught wife who constantly endeavors to bear her husband's doubts that he keeps hiding from her. The camp, goof and schlock comes with Louis Calhern and mainly, Greer Garson, who did a magnificent job in Mrs. Miniver but sounds over-the-top and mawkish. Fortunately, she still can't beat Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra who gave an orgasm-like reaction at Caesar's death and had murdered every emotion you could think of. The supporting cast from the beginning to the end was very complimentary for the movie.

All in all, a fine transition of a Shakespearean play to the big screen.

My Rating: 8.3 out of 10

'Julius Caesar' is not one of Shakespeare's best plays, neither is it one of his worst. The final scene is rarely nailed and the supporting characters are a lot more interesting than the titular character, but much of the characterisation is very well rounded, is intriguing thematically and has some of the bard's most famous speeches and lines. Further interest points in seeing 1953's 'Julius Caesar' was its fine cast, that it was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that it was scored by one of the greatest film composers at the time Miklos Rozsa.

Found myself not disappointed in 1953's 'Julius Caesar' at all. It may not be a perfect film, but it is one of the better adaptations of the play out there on its own merits and to me one of the best film adaptations of any Shakespeare play. Which is quite a compliment considering that great Shakespeare film adaptations are many, whether traditional or not. Adaptation-wise, there are changes and things left out but the spirit of the play is here and ambience wise and emotionally it's faithful.

There is so much to love here in 'Julius Caesar'. It is exquisitely photographed, though if it were in colour there would have been an even grander look, never trying to do too much while not being too constricted. The 'Quo Vadis'-like sets are grand and lavish, if the budget really wasn't huge that was not obvious here. Rozsa's score is typically lush and sweeping and has a real majesty about it.

Mankiewicz directs beautifully and it was appreciated that he went for drama rather than spectacle, which to me was the right approach that it would make the text resonate more and it lessened the risk of the characterisation being swamped. The drama has intensity and emotional impact in the play, both of which brought out wonderfully. The text does not sound stilted and is poetic and thoughtful, though like all Shakespeare it is talk heavy as a word of warning. The final scene is a problematic scene to get right, this is one of the better interpretations of it. The action excites and moves.

Almost all of the performances are superb. It was a very bold move casting Marlon Brando as Marc Antony, he sears in the role with a lot of fire and dignity. The famous "friends, romans, countrymen" speech is given one of the best and most nuanced interpretations here on film. James Mason is a similarly powerful Brutus, he brings out the character's conflicted feelings with sensitivity and a noble quality (despite what Brutus does, one cannot hate him). John Gielgud was similarly born for Cassius, the envy boils but is not exaggerated and Gielgud has a clear command over the language. Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr make the most of their small roles.

Only Louis Calhern disappoints as a rather bland Caesar. The pace initially is a little deliberate.

Excepting those quibbles, this is a great film version of 'Julius Caesar'. 9/10

I think this is the best filming of a Shakespeare play, in terms of overall success. The filming is straightforward, with a minimum of distractions, cuts were made to the script to keep things moving, the dialog is clearly spoken, and the performances are terrific all around.

As just about every other comment here notes, if you only know Brando from The Godfather and some of his later, and sorrier films, you will be amazed and impressed by his Marc Antony. This is the Brando that I remember, buff, gorgeous and so talented that we were sure he could play just about any part and blow us away. His performance of the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech is a marvel of clarity, and is the linchpin that makes all of the other action of the play make sense.

James Mason is, I think, perfect as Brutus. He is very much like Shakespeare's Hamlet - mulling over every possible facet of every problem he faces, and agonizing to reach a decision. He was a master at portraying a person's ability, or inability, to reach a painful decision. The awesomeness of his responsibility and the consequences of his actions (after all, they are plotting to kill a king) are beautifully shown in his performance.

John Gielgud is my favorite Shakepearean actor. If you had ever had the privilege of seeing him on stage, you would have gotten the full force of his ability to control the character, the language, and to reach out and hold the audience all at the same time. It doesn't quite come across in this film, but I still think he shows that underneath Cassius' treason there is definitely an element of self-doubt and possibly shame at what he is about to do.

I have to disagree with most of the comments about Louis Calhern's Caesar. Several people have said that he didn't capture the majesty and military bearing that Julius Caesar would have had, but we have to remember that Shakespeare intended this as drama, not history. The whole point of the Roman senators' wish to get rid of Caesar is that he is no longer the Caesar they remember: he has become a smug, self-satisfied politician who thinks he is a king, while Rome is still a republic. I think Calhern captures this smarmy, oily, arrogant quality very well. Rome wanted a general, and this Caesar gave them a high-priced car salesman.

I own a copy of this film, and I watch it often. I think it would serve perfectly as an introduction to Shakespeare. By the way, I remember an anecdote related in the memoirs of John Houseman (the producer of this film). He said someone of importance in British theater (I now forget who - possibly it was Geilgud) had observed Brando's performance in the making of the film, and asked him to come to London to star in a Shakespeare festival. Brando said sorry, I can't. I have to get back to Nebraska to help my father get the crop in. Imagine if he had said yes.