The Guardian (USA)

Cleopatra at 60: the expensive epic that almost tanked a studio

- Guy Lodge

As I prepared to write on the 60th anniversar­y of Cleopatra, I asked a few friends and relatives if they had ever seen it. Some had, but more hadn’t: life, even or perhaps especially for the well-versed cinephile, is short, and four-hour-plus Hollywood follies with steadily mouldering reputation­s quite reasonably aren’t high on everyone’s catch-up list. But more than one person told me that they weren’t actually sure: “I definitely feel like I have,” said one film writer, citing the reams of well-publicised lore on its tortured production and imposing industry legacy, the popularly cemented visual iconograph­y of Elizabeth Taylor’s lavishly eyelinered Egyptian queen, and the film’s status as the origin of the most glamorousl­y turbulent romance in showbiz history. “But have I actually watched the whole thing? If so, I’ve forgotten all the connecting tissue between its most famous images.”

It was a response that to me captured the odd cultural status of a film that is at once a vast Hollywood behemoth and a dust-gathering curio, one that pretty much everybody knows something about, but precious few who weren’t alive for its noisy initial release have seen. I explicitly remember seeing it as a teenager, because doing so required some complicate­d VHS-era organisati­on: when it was broadcast at an inconvenie­ntly late hour on South African TV, I watched the first halfhour so the rest could fit on to a fourhour video cassette, and then dutifully trudged through it in instalment­s.

For years afterward, I maintained that the film was significan­tly better than its musty reputation – though perhaps at some level I was simply justifying to myself the time and effort spent on watching the damn thing. And like my uncertain colleague, whether he had seen it or not, I too formed few memories of the dramatic specifics on either side of its most extravagan­t set pieces. Revisiting it last week, it was clear enough why. Scripted, often quite literately but most inconsiste­ntly, by a hotchpotch of writers that included Lawrence Durrell, with eventual director Joseph L Mankiewicz finally claiming chief credit, Cleopatra rambles in a manner few blockbuste­rs this expensive – $31.1m in 1963, over $300m adjusted for inflation – would dare today.

It’s a more loquacious film than you might guess or recall: Mankiewicz, a director whose best work (All About Eve, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, A Letter to Three Wives) thrives on smallersca­le verbal tension and sparring, has immense faith in the power of conversati­on and argument to enliven Roman history, and to animate the two marriages – Cleopatra’s chilly, calculated arrangemen­t with Caesar, and her more passionate union with Mark Antony – that essentiall­y form the film’s two vast halves. As producers shovelled money into such spangly, jaw-dropping centrepiec­es as Cleopatra’s arrival in Rome – an exquisitel­y choreograp­hed and costumed ceremonial parade that puts certain real-world coronation­s to shame – you can’t help sensing that Mankiewicz would rather have made a chamber piece.

The upside of this focus on human smallness amid all the spectacle is a jagged quippiness: the chief surprise of the film, to the uninitiate­d, is how archly funny it is. “You dare ask the proconsul of the Roman Empire,” Antony bristles, when the queen instructs him to kneel before her. “I asked it of Caesar, I demand it of you,” she purrs in response. Later, when he professes a love for “almost all Greek things”, her comeback is as delicious as it is inevitable: “As an almost all-Greek thing myself, I’m flattered.”

Still, there’s an awful lot of hot air here, and Mankiewicz might have shed some of it by fudging a date or two. As the film lumbers rather methodical­ly through history, beginning with Julius Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus and arrival in Egypt, winding languidly to Cleopatra’s snake-assisted death, and taking in assorted military battles and personal contretemp­s along the way, the film’s grasp of the facts is surprising­ly solid in a genre given to radically rewriting the record. But its conscienti­ousness in this regard also yields a torpid evenness of pacing, a dull resistance to climax. Rest your eyes for 20 minutes at any point in the proceeding­s

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States