The first of Shakespeare's plays dealing with Roman history, this is quite a good adaptation but it could have been considerably better. The play is a brilliant psychological drama that explores the themes of honour, loyalty and patriotic necessity and the conflict between them through the characters of Brutus and Mark Antony. Caesar himself is only a supporting character but the entire play pivots around him. Sadly, this pales in comparison to the brilliant 1953 version directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. This is largely due to the fact that, in stark contrast to Mankiewicz, Stuart Burge is a rather mediocre director who shoots the film in a very awkward manner. He previously helmed the excellent "Othello" (1965) but that film's success lay in the strength of its central performances more than the direction, not least because it was really a filmed stage play in style as opposed to the film adaptation of a play. This film has a distinctly low budget look and feel, something which a more talented director might have been able to obscure or possibly prevent altogether. The crucial assassination scene and the battle scenes towards the end are unconvincing and more than a little hysterical. When it comes to directing Shakespeare, Burge lacks the flair of Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh.
Brutus is one of the most complex characters that I have come across in a Shakespearean play and this version does not do him justice, to put it mildly. He is a tragic hero who reluctantly agrees to participate in the plot to assassinate Caesar. This leads Mark Antony to describe him as "the noblest Roman of them all" as he genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing while his co- conspirators "did that they did in envy of great Caesar." He is a patriot who tells the plebeians that he loved Caesar but loves Rome more. However, Brutus is too noble for his own good as his idealism causes him to insist that the conspirators spare Antony's life. In allowing Antony to deliver the funeral oration after the murder, he gives his rival the opportunity to turn the plebeians to his side, damning himself in the process. I said in my review of "All the President's Men" yesterday that Jason Robards' Oscar winning performance as Ben Bradlee was mostly monotone. Had I watched this film beforehand, I would have been more complimentary as his turn as Brutus is considerably worse. It is the cinematic equivalent of dead air. Except when he shouts (unconvincingly), Robards seems incapable of altering either the intonation of his voice or the expression on his face. When Brutus announces that his wife Portia is dead, he seems indifferent, which wasn't really what Shakespeare was going for. For most of the film, Robards looked and sounded like he was trying to remember his lines. Maybe he thought that getting them out was enough and he didn't have to worry about delivering them in a convincing way, something which he fails to do every single time that he opens his mouth. The fault, dear Brutus, was in the star this time.
The best performance certainly comes from the great John Gielgud, who played Cassius in the 1953 version, who is brilliant as the title character. Caesar is just as ambitious as the conspirators claimed that he was. His extreme arrogance and his refusal to heed the supernatural omens surrounding the Ides of March prove to his undoing. Charlton Heston, reprising his role from an obscure 1950 version, is very good as Mark Antony but I certainly preferred Marlon Brando's take on the character. Whereas Brando was mesmerising during the lengthy funeral oration scene, Heston goes a little over the top. Mark Antony is a fascinating character: willful, impulsive, fiercely intelligent, shrewd and ruthless. Unswervingly loyal to Caesar both before and after his assassination, he is nevertheless not as honourable as Brutus as he manages to persuade the conspirators that he is on their side. Heston's Mark Antony seems much more openly cynical than Brando's and I would have preferred it if Heston had taken the more subtle approach.
Richard Johnson, a highly experienced Shakespearean actor, is excellent as Cassius. His motives for plotting against Caesar are far less idealistic than those of Brutus as he is extremely envious of the fact that the Roman people are treating the dictator as if he were a god. Deceitful, ambitious and totally lacking in integrity, he is the consummate politician. Robert Vaughn is suitably sneaky as Casca whereas a perfectly cast Richard Chamberlain has a great extended cameo as Octavius. The two of them, Heston and Robards are the only Americans in the film. In spite of the fact that they receive star billing, Diana Rigg and Christopher Lee have very little screen time as Portia and Artemidorus respectively but are likewise excellent. Lee's only other appearance in a Shakespearean film was a non-speaking role in "Hamlet" (1948), which is a shame as I would have loved to have seen him tackle a meatier part in one of the Bard's plays. The always wonderful André Morell is completely wasted in the oddly silent role of the great orator Cicero while the usually reliable Jill Bennett goes quite far over the top as Calpurnia. The film also features nice small appearances from Michael Gough (who played Cassius in a 1959 TV version directed by Burge) as Metellus Cimber, Derek Godfrey as Decius Brutus, David Neal as Cinna and Thomas Heathcote as Flavius as well as not one but two future "Blake's 7" stars, namely Steven Pacey and Michael Keating.
Overall, this film has a great deal of unfulfilled potential but there is plenty of good acting on display, notwithstanding Robards' performance (for lack of a better word). The first half was generally much stronger than the second.
Brutus is one of the most complex characters that I have come across in a Shakespearean play and this version does not do him justice, to put it mildly. He is a tragic hero who reluctantly agrees to participate in the plot to assassinate Caesar. This leads Mark Antony to describe him as "the noblest Roman of them all" as he genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing while his co- conspirators "did that they did in envy of great Caesar." He is a patriot who tells the plebeians that he loved Caesar but loves Rome more. However, Brutus is too noble for his own good as his idealism causes him to insist that the conspirators spare Antony's life. In allowing Antony to deliver the funeral oration after the murder, he gives his rival the opportunity to turn the plebeians to his side, damning himself in the process. I said in my review of "All the President's Men" yesterday that Jason Robards' Oscar winning performance as Ben Bradlee was mostly monotone. Had I watched this film beforehand, I would have been more complimentary as his turn as Brutus is considerably worse. It is the cinematic equivalent of dead air. Except when he shouts (unconvincingly), Robards seems incapable of altering either the intonation of his voice or the expression on his face. When Brutus announces that his wife Portia is dead, he seems indifferent, which wasn't really what Shakespeare was going for. For most of the film, Robards looked and sounded like he was trying to remember his lines. Maybe he thought that getting them out was enough and he didn't have to worry about delivering them in a convincing way, something which he fails to do every single time that he opens his mouth. The fault, dear Brutus, was in the star this time.
The best performance certainly comes from the great John Gielgud, who played Cassius in the 1953 version, who is brilliant as the title character. Caesar is just as ambitious as the conspirators claimed that he was. His extreme arrogance and his refusal to heed the supernatural omens surrounding the Ides of March prove to his undoing. Charlton Heston, reprising his role from an obscure 1950 version, is very good as Mark Antony but I certainly preferred Marlon Brando's take on the character. Whereas Brando was mesmerising during the lengthy funeral oration scene, Heston goes a little over the top. Mark Antony is a fascinating character: willful, impulsive, fiercely intelligent, shrewd and ruthless. Unswervingly loyal to Caesar both before and after his assassination, he is nevertheless not as honourable as Brutus as he manages to persuade the conspirators that he is on their side. Heston's Mark Antony seems much more openly cynical than Brando's and I would have preferred it if Heston had taken the more subtle approach.
Richard Johnson, a highly experienced Shakespearean actor, is excellent as Cassius. His motives for plotting against Caesar are far less idealistic than those of Brutus as he is extremely envious of the fact that the Roman people are treating the dictator as if he were a god. Deceitful, ambitious and totally lacking in integrity, he is the consummate politician. Robert Vaughn is suitably sneaky as Casca whereas a perfectly cast Richard Chamberlain has a great extended cameo as Octavius. The two of them, Heston and Robards are the only Americans in the film. In spite of the fact that they receive star billing, Diana Rigg and Christopher Lee have very little screen time as Portia and Artemidorus respectively but are likewise excellent. Lee's only other appearance in a Shakespearean film was a non-speaking role in "Hamlet" (1948), which is a shame as I would have loved to have seen him tackle a meatier part in one of the Bard's plays. The always wonderful André Morell is completely wasted in the oddly silent role of the great orator Cicero while the usually reliable Jill Bennett goes quite far over the top as Calpurnia. The film also features nice small appearances from Michael Gough (who played Cassius in a 1959 TV version directed by Burge) as Metellus Cimber, Derek Godfrey as Decius Brutus, David Neal as Cinna and Thomas Heathcote as Flavius as well as not one but two future "Blake's 7" stars, namely Steven Pacey and Michael Keating.
Overall, this film has a great deal of unfulfilled potential but there is plenty of good acting on display, notwithstanding Robards' performance (for lack of a better word). The first half was generally much stronger than the second.