Cleopatra

I had the crazy idea of watching both of these at the same time - a few scenes of one followed by the "same" scenes of the other to compare the two. So which is best? It's a surprisingly close call but mainly because it's a bit more fun, the Cecil B de Mille one wins by a whisker.

Both these films have two of the most sexually charged performances ever seen on screen. Colbert's and Taylor's queens both derive their power from their ability to engender lust in any man they care to focus on. In reality it was politics which drove the relationship between Rome and Egypt but in these films, it's not politics, it's not trade, it's solely the sex appeal of Cleapatra this drives story. It's the story of how lust literally changed the entire history of the world. The dreamlike and uncontrollable drowning in eroticism is conveyed to us in both films by the same method. Mankiewicz and deMille use their stars' natural sensuality and indeed natural curves, enhanced with some very daring outfits to create quite the breast-fest!

Both Claudette Colbert and Elizabeth Taylor were born to play the ultimate seductress. Both succeed in convincing you, whilst you're watching, that they're the most alluring objects of sexual desire imaginable. Miss Colbert was unquestionably one of the most beautiful actress of the 1930s and under the direction of C B deMille she virtually melts the screen with her sexuality. Elizabeth Taylor was unquestionably one of the most beautiful actress of the 1960s and under the direction of Joe Mankiewicz she virtually melts the screen with her sexuality. I can't decide whom I'm more besotted with - probably Claudette - it's that naughty twinkle in her eye!

What's most noticeably different is their style. The 1963 version is much more austere and somber whereas the 1934 picture doesn't take itself completely seriously. In the early thirties, deMille still had quite a sense of humour and he gently sprinkled that in his productions (apart from the abysmal SIGN OF THE CROSS) This is also reflected in the script: Mankiewicz seemed to consider himself another Shakespeare - that's not a bad thing at all - it's actually really beautifully written but four hours of worthy seriousness can be a bit of a slog. Waldemar Young on the other hand (although he wrote the truly abysmal SIGN OF THE CROSS) lighted the mood here going for entertainment rather than historical accuracy. That subtle and quirky humour along with Claudette Colbert's naughty little winks makes her version, not quite fun but more accessible.

The mega-bucks production of the 63 version is incredibly impressive as is Roddy McDowall but the old version's got Warren-Mr Pre-Code-William as Caesar - he's actually brilliant in that role. You feel more upset when he gets murdered than when Rex Harrison gets his Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me moment. Can't say I'm too familiar with Henry Wilcoxon but he's also a great Mark Anthony, a bit more human and curiously more modern than Richard Burton who's a little bit too Shakespearian at times.

Both are good films but for sheer entertainment I think I'd go with CARRY ON CLEO..... which famously used the same set.