An ego production is still an ego production even when the names are big and the intentions honorable.
One has to respect Charlton Heston all the more, whatever his politics (which one need not respect at all) for wanting to prove himself as a real actor in the worst way even after all his success in overblown performances in various Hollywood epics. I hear you saying "that's exactly the way he did prove it," but no, as limited as this film proved with Heston using Shakespeare and other famous plays to get his own production company going in anticipation of the fast approaching days when real roles wouldn't be forthcoming, it isn't the disaster it might have been (how frustrating, though, that a genuinely great American Shakespearean like Orson Welles had to struggle for years to finance his Shakespeare while financiers lined up for "Moses" with relative alacrity). If one had not seen better versions of the story (even the 20th Century Fox fiscal fiasco with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton), it might have seemed more respectable. In this case don't blame Shakespeare, 'though it's not one of the best in his canon, but Heston's adaptation and the limited budget he had to work with.
One could *almost* forgive the obvious miniatures for the sea battles and the toy pyramid (Cleopatra's tomb - whose doll house proportions are emphasized by an idiotic pull back shot from the air at the end!) for the generally solid performances of the no-name cast, SOME of whom went on to solid stage careers. Best of the lot, John Castle as Octavian Caesar, is very good indeed. Heston himself, adapter, director and star, is certainly no worse an Antony than Marlon Brando's miscast attempt in 1953's JULIUS CAESAR (or might not have been if he had had a decent director to reign him in), but we realize we're in Heston-ego-silliness before the credits are even over and the overblown score is all but trumpeting (french horning?) "WE'RE SERIOUS" as a herald's horse barges through market sellers' tables and immediately after when Heston does the first of several literal "bodice ripping" scenes chewing scenery and scattering the pearls he's wearing just because news has arrived from Rome. Scarcely 12 minutes in, our star is stripping down to a mini g-string to show his still adequate body on the pretext of changing clothes to go to work. Shakespeare didn't need the help.
Still, Shakespeare IS there at the core, and even self centered direction and poverty row costumes can't ultimately undercut the excellent story. It plays out with all the political intrigue and personal passion the original author loaded it with. Even in an amateur (or at least underfunded) film, production values from people - cinematographers and editors - who have made big professional films can disguise many a self indulgent actor's flaws and give an overall production look larger than it is (the "Making of" documentary narration from Heston's son on the DVD - bending over backwards to honor his father - is both illustrative and amusing in this regard).
When not overacting, Heston has skills which better directors had been able to make the most of and are occasionally allowed to glow here with a far more effective quiet fire. If Heston, the director, can't quite make sense of "The Battle of Actium" sequence, he comes closer than many directors and serious historians have before him.
The Cleopatra Heston found he could afford, Hildegarde Neil, is more hampered by a passing resemblance halfway between Elizabeth Taylor and Sally Kellerman than any actual failings of her own or her director.
If the viewer is willing to indulge the excesses of a star just starting to show serious age and unaware how silly the film mannerisms picked up in a career as "star" could look as he tried to segue into a seniority as a serious actor, this ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA can be worth its two and a half hours screen time. Heston only played on Broadway four times in his career - appearances ranging from 1947 to 1960 - but the only time the show he graced managed to run longer than a single week (a fate which must have wounded) was his first appearance, in a Katherine Cornell production of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, in which Heston played the tiny role of Proculeius, one of Caesar's (Octavian's) soldiers who has two fine brief scenes with Cleopatra near the end of the play, for a very respectable 126 performances under Guthrie McClintic's direction. It was an experience which clearly stayed with him for the rest of his life (and he did well by the actor in his role in this film). It's his and our loss that McClintic wasn't around to direct the star for this film as well.
Certainly worth having, but don't expect Olivier.
One has to respect Charlton Heston all the more, whatever his politics (which one need not respect at all) for wanting to prove himself as a real actor in the worst way even after all his success in overblown performances in various Hollywood epics. I hear you saying "that's exactly the way he did prove it," but no, as limited as this film proved with Heston using Shakespeare and other famous plays to get his own production company going in anticipation of the fast approaching days when real roles wouldn't be forthcoming, it isn't the disaster it might have been (how frustrating, though, that a genuinely great American Shakespearean like Orson Welles had to struggle for years to finance his Shakespeare while financiers lined up for "Moses" with relative alacrity). If one had not seen better versions of the story (even the 20th Century Fox fiscal fiasco with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton), it might have seemed more respectable. In this case don't blame Shakespeare, 'though it's not one of the best in his canon, but Heston's adaptation and the limited budget he had to work with.
One could *almost* forgive the obvious miniatures for the sea battles and the toy pyramid (Cleopatra's tomb - whose doll house proportions are emphasized by an idiotic pull back shot from the air at the end!) for the generally solid performances of the no-name cast, SOME of whom went on to solid stage careers. Best of the lot, John Castle as Octavian Caesar, is very good indeed. Heston himself, adapter, director and star, is certainly no worse an Antony than Marlon Brando's miscast attempt in 1953's JULIUS CAESAR (or might not have been if he had had a decent director to reign him in), but we realize we're in Heston-ego-silliness before the credits are even over and the overblown score is all but trumpeting (french horning?) "WE'RE SERIOUS" as a herald's horse barges through market sellers' tables and immediately after when Heston does the first of several literal "bodice ripping" scenes chewing scenery and scattering the pearls he's wearing just because news has arrived from Rome. Scarcely 12 minutes in, our star is stripping down to a mini g-string to show his still adequate body on the pretext of changing clothes to go to work. Shakespeare didn't need the help.
Still, Shakespeare IS there at the core, and even self centered direction and poverty row costumes can't ultimately undercut the excellent story. It plays out with all the political intrigue and personal passion the original author loaded it with. Even in an amateur (or at least underfunded) film, production values from people - cinematographers and editors - who have made big professional films can disguise many a self indulgent actor's flaws and give an overall production look larger than it is (the "Making of" documentary narration from Heston's son on the DVD - bending over backwards to honor his father - is both illustrative and amusing in this regard).
When not overacting, Heston has skills which better directors had been able to make the most of and are occasionally allowed to glow here with a far more effective quiet fire. If Heston, the director, can't quite make sense of "The Battle of Actium" sequence, he comes closer than many directors and serious historians have before him.
The Cleopatra Heston found he could afford, Hildegarde Neil, is more hampered by a passing resemblance halfway between Elizabeth Taylor and Sally Kellerman than any actual failings of her own or her director.
If the viewer is willing to indulge the excesses of a star just starting to show serious age and unaware how silly the film mannerisms picked up in a career as "star" could look as he tried to segue into a seniority as a serious actor, this ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA can be worth its two and a half hours screen time. Heston only played on Broadway four times in his career - appearances ranging from 1947 to 1960 - but the only time the show he graced managed to run longer than a single week (a fate which must have wounded) was his first appearance, in a Katherine Cornell production of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, in which Heston played the tiny role of Proculeius, one of Caesar's (Octavian's) soldiers who has two fine brief scenes with Cleopatra near the end of the play, for a very respectable 126 performances under Guthrie McClintic's direction. It was an experience which clearly stayed with him for the rest of his life (and he did well by the actor in his role in this film). It's his and our loss that McClintic wasn't around to direct the star for this film as well.
Certainly worth having, but don't expect Olivier.