Julius Caesar

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

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.

I am certainly a fan of the bard's work. Therefor I was pleasantly surprised to see this movie and hear that it was almost the complete original text they used for the dialogue. Without subtitles it was a chore to keep up with, but when you do you are in for a treat.

This classic tale of politics, treachery, love and death was performed to perfection by people such as Marlon Brando (Marc Antony), John Gielgud (Cassius, delivering a powerhouse performance as usual), James Mason (Brutus). I was thrilled by the fact that this movie was produced so lavishly and yet so humble. It never made the mistake, like Cleopatra, to depict the scenes too grand. It all stayed very natural and believable. Of course there must be historical inaccuracies in this story, but was Braveheart so accurate. I think when you start watching a movie written by the Shakespeare you shouldn't expect a documentary on the life of Julius Caesar but a lyrical tale about ancient political Rome.

The photography was great, with its glorious Black and White footage.

Although the text can be offputting for some who are not at the least a bit interested in the language the Bard wrote in.

A must for Shakespeare fans.

8/10

Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 1953 film exploring the life and death of larger than life Julius Caesar wastes no time engaging the audience. With Louis Calhern in the titular role and Marlon Brando as his faithful friend Mark Antony, the film goes into great detail about what gets Caesar killed by associates of his, and even greater detail of the thirst for power after his death. Julius Caesar, the film, goes down a dark road proving Nietzsche's Will to Power lives within even the most trusted of our allies.

Caesar is enjoying more praise than ever when he returns to Rome after defeating Pompey. During a victory celebration Caesar attends with his most trusted allies Cassius (John Gielgud) and Brutus (James Mason) he is warned by a Soothsayer to beware the Ides of March. Caesar ignores the warning and goes about the celebration unknowing that conversations are taking place regarding his rise to power. They believe Caesar to be untrustworthy and think he will become a tyrant. Fueled by lies and anger, a plot is masterminded to murder Caesar. On the 15th day of March, Caesar prepares to go to the senate, his wife Calpurnia (Greer Garson) begs him not to go due to a vivid dream she had in which Caesar was murdered. Caesar scoffs and goes anyway, being warned by another Soothsayer along the way. Ignoring this second warning, Caesar makes his way to the senate where the conspirators circle him and begin to stab him one by one. Upon seeing his dear friend Brutus among the murderers, Caesar succumbs to his wounds and dies. Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), who was led away from Caesar on the fateful day under false pretenses, joins with Caesar's adopted son and successor, Octavius (Douglass Watson) to avenge his death. They achieve their goal with Cassius and Titinius (John Parrish) being killed in the war that ensues, leaving only Brutus left alive of the conspirators. Seeing death as inevitable, Brutus kills himself and is pardoned by Octavius as acting, in what he believed, to be the best course of action for Rome.

Audiences are immediately engaged in the film from the very beginning. A gripping speech in the opening scene catapults the audience to ancient Rome, bringing it alive through the production design mimicking Roman architecture and language. For one, Caesar dies at almost exactly halfway through the film. I personally love a movie that will throw the audience for a loop by killing off its main character. Of course, being familiar with the play Julius Caesar, I knew he would be killed, but I did not know he would be killed so early on, leaving half the film to deal with the aftermath of his murder. Likewise, Marlon Brando's Mark Antony was hardly in the first half of the movie; being a fan of Brando's I was initially disappointed about this, however, he more than makes up for his absence with a strong second act. The costumes and production designs were an absolute treat, recreating ancient Rome, and making me feel like I had gladiator sandals on. The film was more than deserving of the Oscar it received that year for Art Direction (encompassing set decoration). I am shocked however that it wasn't even nominated for a statuette in the Costume Design category. The ghost Caesar that haunted Brutus was a directorial feat considering the time in which the picture was filmed. Its looming presence agonized Brutus, leading him to believe that Caesar was not at rest. The film was a stunning achievement of its time and one that I recommend be enjoyed by all. Personally, I have a yearly tradition of watching this film every year on the Ides of March and it has yet to get old.

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!