Cleopatra

This early silent (1912) is a bit creeky (canvas flats that move in the breeze and a ship pushed on from the wings) but is an early attempt to use ancient history as the inspiration for a film drama. Helen Gardner and her troupe filmed a stage production, typical for the time, with little awareness of the possibilities of the medium. The plot actually comes from another source than Shakespeare and is not the usual Anthony and Cleopatra story. It may be based on a French 19th century opera which, in turn, can be traced back to a short story by Alexander Pushkin. This film is an excellent example of the state of the art in the time that it was made.

Quite a remarkable production, a key film on the continuum of American film that set the bar higher. Considering King Tut's tomb wouldn't be found for another ten years, the sets and costumes were well done, funny chubby Egyptian figures painted on the walls. Thank goodness D.W. Griffith was compelled to innovate a few years later but restoration funds were well spent on this historical film.

Cleopatra is a very stagey film. Nothing happens here that could not happen in a theatre. Genuine exteriors are almost non-existent, and even simple exteriors, requiring only a field and a tree or two, are duplicated with backdrops. This of course was in an era when the theatre still commanded a good deal more respect than did the cinema. Remember that one of the earliest film companies, a precursor to Paramount, was originally formed by Zukor as Famous Players in Famous Plays. Also note that the extras seem to have nothing really to do. They are all standing around seeming to look for direction. Most of the film is very long shots, once again, going back to theatre roots.

The score is terrible and does not fit the film at all. I don't care for avant-garde stuff and the music definitely falls into that category. If someone were going to use that type of music I would think it would be better suited to something like a German expressionist style film, not a period piece "historical" type film.

That noise Ms. Gardner (Cleopatra) was making at the beginning was just odd and distracting. Then the actual "singing" (if you can call it that because the words were pretty much unintelligible) was again distracting. I was trying to figure out what she was saying and ended up missing part of the movie. However,the sounds and the score is somebody in modern times trying to augment the film, so I can hardly blame Ms.Gardner for it one hundred years after the fact.

I'm glad this film was restored, as it's an interesting piece of film history. Before the money men got involved there was a place for women behind the camera in writing and directing as well as owning their own studios as Helen Gardner did. It's also very interesting that she made many feature length films (80-90 minutes) as opposed to the one and two reelers of the time. Cleopatra is listed as being the first feature length film (6 reels) made in the U.S., although De Mille always incorrectly tried to claim that "The Squaw Man" - which he directed -was the first feature length film.

Worthwhile for the novelty of it all.

I happened onto "Cleopatra" on Turner after it had begun, so I didn't know who made it or when. I figured it had to have been made early, as it appeared to be little more than a filmed stage play: tableaux shot by a static camera; moreover, there were absolutely no close-ups. And I gathered it was something of an early "indie," as the costumes were howlingly inauthentic, the sets amateurish and many of the actors "stagy."

I decided the film's date had to be early, around 1910, 1912. But because of the production's growing sophistication – towards the end of the film the camera got more frisky and intimate – it was like watching the vocabulary of cinema being developed before your eyes, like seeing a toddler, very unsteady at first, gaining better equilibrium and more assurance as we watch. While it never gets to the level of either art or storytelling mechanics that Griffith was employing contemporaneously, "Cleopatra" is a fascinating time capsule... It would be intriguing to see her movies in sequence (the presumption being each is better and more sophisticated). It's a shame that so many have disappeared forever.

I had never heard of Helen Gardner, an ambitious actress who opened her own studio. As Cleopatra, she was sort of an ur-vamp whose eye makeup, heft, extravagant gestures and bare feet were several years later appropriated by Theda Bara. She was obviously an important actress, auteur and entrepreneur who should be far more celebrated than she is.

One last point, which others have made but I would like to reiterate: the newly appended score was so annoying and obtrusive that I muted it. I used to accompany silent films when I was in college, so I have a fair idea of the appropriate musical vocabulary. I once saw a revival of "Wings" in New York, and the elderly accompanist simply played everything she remembered from the 1920s, regardless of the on-screen action. Biplanes strafed trenches and killed soldiers by the dozen to the strains of "I'll be down to get you in a taxi, honey." Many of the major silent movies had their own scores written by studio musicians and played either by orchestras or reduced to organ or piano arrangements. I doubt that Gardner's "Cleopatra" had its own score, but SURELY somebody could have produced something more consonant with the time and place of this movie, something that sounded like, well… silent movie music.

Steffan Aletti

I just saw this version of "Cleopatra" as part of TCM's Women Pioneers in Film Series. Although I think they did a beautiful job on the restoration, I found the new, avant-garde soundtrack too invasive and distracting. In fact, I had to watch it with the mute on.

Having said that, though, I did find this adaptation interesting. It is true that, like many films of this era, it is a bit creaky and primitive. However, it provides a fascinating glimpse of early filmmaking--no closeups, the camera hardly ever moves, etc. I also found Ms. Gardener fascinating, given how much of the production was actually done by her, including costume design. I wish there were more information available on her life and career.

Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.

Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?

For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.

I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.

It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.