Cleopatra

One never thinks of Claudette Colbert as a sex symbol but she puts that to rest with her great interpretation of Cleopatra. What a siren she is as she vamps her way through this film. Henry Wilcoxon, truly an overlooked actor, is a perfect Antony. I have often wondered why he never made a bigger splash. I'm not as taken with Warren William as Caesar; he seems more at home in films with contemporary settings. The barge scene, with the ever increasing beat of the drums,implying what is happening or about to happen, is full of passion. More obvious scenes in modern movies leave nothing to the imagination....this leaves most of it to the imagination and is, therefore, much more effective. A highly recommended film.

Am also an admirer of many epics, especially medieval and biblical ones. The Antony and Cleopatra story is a timeless one, with Shakespeare's play having so many memorable quotes that stick in the mind for a long time. The cast is a talented one, with many giving fine performances elsewhere. Cecil DeMille was one of the kings when it came to epics lavish in spectacle, one of the finest examples being the wonderful 'The Ten Commandments'.

So 1934's 'Cleopatra' was seen with mixed expectations, am saying mixed because another epic re-telling of the 'Antony and Cleopatra' story was released in 1963 with a great cast (on paper) but to very overblown and heavily flawed effect. After watching it, 'Cleopatra' was a little better than expected as it was above mixed feelings at least. It is more romantic comedy and soap opera with a love triangle set in biblical times with the bare bones of the story rather than the real thing or being accurate, but it is a visually grand affair and is enjoyable as long as one doesn't expect a massive amount. Between this and the 1963 film, this to me is better by quite some way. Didn't care for that film very much, moderately liked this.

'Cleopatra' does have things that are easy to criticise certainly. Really didn't think much of Henry Wilcoxen as Antony personally, a character that should be conflicted and authoritative but Wilcoxen came over as too dull and bumbling (even Antony in the 1963 film wasn't this much of a lummox). Didn't always detect much passion between him and Claudette Colbert.

It is easy to understand why some criticise the dialogue too, it's better than that in the 1953 film but can be too heavy on the camp that it becomes very hammy and any laughter is not always intentional. And also the pacing, which is leaden in spots due to a few scenes going on for too long. As captivating as the scene on the barge is in visuals and staging it kind of goes on forever.

There are a lot of virtues however in 'Cleopatra'. The best aspects being the production values and Colbert. The way the film looks and its spectacle is the very meaning of lavish and grand. It looks expensive without being over-produced, it is not hard to see why the cinematography won an Oscar and the sets are a jaw-dropping feast. The costumes are of pure splendour, Colbert looks stunning in her garb. She sizzles in her acting too, in sensuality, shrewdness and wit. Of the two male leads, Warren William fares a lot better. Very theatrical (not unheard of for Caesar though) but he engages with the drama very well and at least seems to know how to approach his role, his chemistry with Colbert is more passionate too. Unrecognisable C. Aubrey Smith brings the conflicted edge, nuance and nobility to Enorbarbus that Wilcoxen's Antony should have had.

DeMille is very at home in the more spectacle-heavy moments without making them too overblown or stuffy. The music has the rousing splendour that fits the story well and adds to it. The dialogue is far from perfect but generally entertains and brought a few smiles to my face. There are memorable moments visually and how they're staged, those miniatures still look impressive. The story doesn't get too into overwrought soap opera territory and even if there is not much meat to the material it doesn't bore.

Overall, above average and a little better than expected but didn't wow me. 6.5/10

This movie is very different from the 1963 film starring Elizabeth Taylor. This version of "Cleopatra" doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as that film, and actually, it may be easier to watch for that very reason. However, Cleopatra as played by Claudette Colbert is definitely over the top. At times, she is so campy in her role that it seems inappropriate given some of the situations she is in and the gravity of the moment. I often had the sense that Claudett Colbert was straining to bring out a great performance of Cleopatra but that the director was guiding her to overdo it against her wishes and she somehow is letting the audience know! "Cleopatra" walks a fine line between being a tongue in cheek film and between being a serious drama, and sometimes the lines get blurred. Warren William is a bit irritating in his role as Julius Caesar. Henry Wilcoxon fares much better as Marc Antony and this film picks up steam as soon as he arrives on the scene. Several of the bit players are very good in "Cleopatra." This movie has an odd fascination to it. I actually found it to be better the second time I watched it than the first. It's worth watching for film buffs, but perhaps not everyone's cup of tea. I'd give this one an 80/100 despite the fact that it was nominated for "Best Picture" in 1934.

This movie is a typical DeMille PRODUCTION, with all the strengths-gorgeous sets, costumes and a sort of grandeur to all the proceedings-as well as the weaknesses-the lavishness often comes at the expense of things like the story, acting and plot. There's no question that it's beautiful (although, interestingly enough, none of it's five nominations for Academy Awards was for Interior Decoration.) Claudette Colbert does a wnderful job, but most of the other peformances are only average at best. 1934 was a particularly good year for Colbert, who won an Academy Award for It Happened One Night and starred in at least two other major productions that year-Imitation of Life and this movie. The picture feels a bit dated, but, while far from perfect, I think it superior to the 1963 remake in a great many respects and it's well worth watching.

Was Demille more daring than any other director or was he just clueless? What does one say when the curtains close on Antony and Cleopatra and suddenly the screen erupts with more sexual symbols than any moment in Hollywood's history? From the phallic symbols (oars) to the yonic symbols (curtains) until finally both orgasmically mesh together in a final combination (a drummer with his drum), the scene tells us we're viewing the artistry of a kinky genius or a shameless carney.

And along with the jawdropping visuals, the film is crammed with juicy Demille-like dialog. Unlike other Demille films, this one has a wonderful cast to deliver his unique oneliners, and there are so many. My own favorites are the moments of dumbdowned Shakespeare. Instead of speaking of Cleopatra's "infinite variety" we are told she is always "many colored" and, of course, instead of "Et tu, Brute?" we get, "You? You too, Brutus?" What can you say about a movie in which Julius Ceasar says "Nope" to his senators? Nothing. One can only savor every delicious moment of camp that only a Demille could serve up.

The Taylor/Burton version is more spectacular, more intelligent, and more historical, but for those who relish kitsch--and this story always lends itself to it--this version is the best.