Cleopatra (1963)
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Rouben Mamoulian

Film Review

The film that came within a whisker of bankrupting Twentieth Century Fox and very nearly killed off its lead actress now stands as a lasting monument to the hubris and arrogance of the Hollywood studio moguls who saw themselves as the latterday equivalent of the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt.  Producer Darryl F. Zanuck not only created Cleopatra, one of the most lavish and expensive films of all time, he destroyed it, insisting on cuts that reduced it to a virtually incomprehensible mess that the critics took create delight in kicking into the dust.  Despite its jaw-dropping set-pieces and gold-plaited production values, Cleopatra became a cinematic joke, the most expensive joke in history.

What began modestly enough, with a budget of two million dollars, rapidly spiralled out of control and ultimately consumed 44 million dollars, a colossal sum for the time.  A botched attempt to shoot the film in London was aborted when its star Elizabeth Taylor (hired for a miserly one million dollars) fell gravely ill and the production relocated to Rome, where the costs escalated at an alarming rate with no one apparently totting up the bills.  The sets were so grand that they created a shortage of building materials in Italy and highly paid actors spent most of their time hanging about for weeks on end, waiting for their scenes to be recorded.   Virtually all of the London footage (shot by director Rouben Mamoulian) had to be discarded (along with Mamoulian), not least because of the change of principal cast. When Joseph L. Mankiewicz wasn't directing the film he was busy digging an early grave for himself by constantly rewriting the script, creating further production delays.  The only good thing to come out of the London shoot was that it provided sets and costumes for Carry on Cleo (1964), a scurrilous parody of the film.

The film that Mankiewicz ultimately delivered was a spawling six hour epic, which he envisaged as being released as two separate films, entitled Caesar and Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra.  Big boss Zanuck would have none of this.  He saw the sensational revelation of the love affair between the film's two lead actors, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, as a publicity coup from Heaven.  To capitalise on this, and recoup as much as possible of the film's massive cost, Zanuck insisted that it be released as one three-hour long film.  The gloriously over-the-top set-pieces (including Cleopatra's entry into Rome, a spectacle which consumed more money than your average A picture) were retained but much of the narrative exposition was junked, and so the result was the merest shadow of what Mankiewicz had envisaged.  Despite being mauled by the critics, Cleopatra was the highest grossing film of the year, but not enough of a success to prevent it from posting a loss of 18 million dollars.

Even in its restored form, which now runs to just over four hours, Cleopatra fails to be entirely satisfying.  The set-pieces are certainly impressive, some of the grandest ever shot for a motion picture, but such flamboyant largesse does not a great film make.  Mankiewicz's script may be both literate and (for the most part) historically accurate but it is rambling and unfocussed - worse, it invites a theatrical style of acting which does nothing for the film's credibility.  Roddy McDowall is often singled out for praise, but whilst his portrayal of the overwrought emperor Octavian is the most enjoyable thing about the entire film, his performance positively dribbles with ham.   Electrifying as they may be in their scenes together, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton both fail to live up to their reputation and just seem to be going through the motions, shouting one minute, looking bored as Hell the next (a good preparation for married life).  Of the leads, only Rex Harrison manages to give a sustained performance of some quality, and you can understand why he alone was nominated for an Oscar.

Cleopatra may not be quite be the ultimate cinematic endurance test you might expect, but it's not far off.  Hammy performances, a confused narrative and a surfeit of pointlessly overblown opulence that soon becomes wearying make this an ordeal to sit through.  But even as you sit dying of boredom and counting the precious minutes you will never see again it is hard not to be impressed by the commitment and artistry that went into the film.  Few films are as visually stunning from start to finish, few films have such ornate and ambitious set design, and few films have battle scenes to rival what is on display here.  Cleopatra has a scope and bravado that are truly breathtaking and it is tragic that it ended up as one great tombstone to the worst excesses of the old Hollywood system - a system which genuinely  believed quality could be bought just by flushing huge wads of cash down the proverbial toilet.  Never again.  Cleopatra's official tagline was "The motion picture the world has been waiting for!". It should have been: "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.

Film Synopsis

In 48 BC, Julius Caesar pursues his enemy Pompey to Egypt, where he hopes to forge an alliance with the Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII and his sister Cleopatra.  The Roman emperor is so beguiled by the beautiful Cleopatra that he agrees to make her Queen of Egypt in exchange for her support in providing the resources that Rome needs to expand its empire.  Cleopatra bears Caesar a son and the two rulers imagine that the fruit of their union will one day be the head of a vast empire spanning the entire world.  In Rome, the Senate has grown wary of Ceasar's political ambitions and some conspire against him.  After Caesar's assassination, his faithful general Mark Anthony is appointed controller of the eastern provinces by his successor, Octavian.  To succeed in a campaign against Parthia, Anthony has no option but to turn to Cleopatra to supply him with the supplies he needs.  Cleopatra takes Anthony as a lover and sees in him a man who may succeed where Ceasar failed...