Julius Caesar (1953)

Well, the Ides of March has come to General Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) in Joseph Mankiewicz's 1953 film version of William Shakespeare's play based on the real life Roman figure. The movie is the story of how Julius Caesar met his fate with the Senators whom fears the worst can come to Rome as his dictatorship come into play. Brutus (James Mason) is a man stuck in the middle between his beliefs of being loyal to Caesar and the peer pressures of the Senators lead by Cassius (John Gielgud) whom wants to get rid of Caesar. Brutus emerges as the most complex character in the film and is also the play's tragic hero. In his soliloquies, the audience gains insight into the complexities of his motives. He is a powerful public figure, but he appears also as a husband, a master to his servants, a dignified military leader, and a loving friend. Brutus's rigid idealism is both his greatest virtue and his biggest flaw. Public Self versus Private Self term plays in Brutus's mindset. Much of the play's tragedy stems from the characters' neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines. He wants to do what is good for the people, but questions himself if it means getting rid of the man that help him on the way to power. John Gielgud is magnificent as Cassius, and James Mason is a fine Brutus. But Marlon Brando, more than anyone or anything else, compels attention. Brando's casting was met with some skepticism when it was announced, as he had acquired the nickname of "The Mumbler" following his performance in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), but he prove them wrong with his role as Mark Antony. Just watch his two speeches. One is the 'Cry Havoc! Let slip the dogs of War' and the other is the speech to the public. Brando had little or no experience with verse, and there are points in this speech where more such experience would have served him well. But his fierce passion transcends all that. Brando's passion surpasses any rules he misses with this piece, this is the type of acting that can excuse the rules of Shakespeare. He is so alive and real you know he created some great circumstances to get through those lines! Antony's rhetoric and delivery is over 9000. Now I see why Marlon Brando was legendary. He is a powerful speaker. There are certain things that the film does do right. Julius Caesar gives detailed consideration to the relationship between rhetoric and power. The ability to make things happen by words alone is the most powerful type of authority. Words also serve to move hearts and minds, as Act III proofs. The movie is powerful, but it's does have faults. One of the biggest things I wish the movie had was color rather than black and white. It's not like they couldn't do it at the time, as many movies were in color. Don't get me wrong, I like Black and white movies, but this movie has an epic Roman Era theme that could have work better than Director Henry Koster's Biblical sword-and-sandal epic The Robe that also came out that year. The Roman Empire in this film seem lost in black and white with its bland look. Technicolor could have the sets, props and costumes and production values would have been shown off to much greater advantage in color, like its predecessor, Quo Vadis (1951). The movie also suffers from a lot of misinterpretations and misreadings that confused the audience with its text. It's really hard to understand what they are saying if one does not read a lot of Shakespeare. Shakespeare did this on purpose, so that confused the characters in the story speaking to each other, but also cause a lot of people to shake their heads wondering what does he mean with that? At less in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, it manage to avoid any cheap good or evil scheme like in Richard III but does justice to all the characters and their motives. I would give it a watch for any Shakespeare fan, but it's not for everybody. Movies like this are acquired taste. No way was it better than Orson Welles's Macbeth, but it's still a great watch.

I really didn't like the movie even more then i hated the book. For starters the movie was in black and white , everyone looked the same and i was extremely not interested in this film. while reading the book i made pictures in my head of how i thought each character would look but when watching the movie all the characters looked alike to me. The language i think was the hardest thing for me to cope with because i am already not good with big words and having to watch a whole movie with nothing but huge words made me not interested at all. i didn't know who was who or what was going on in both the story and film. I didn't like the fact that the movie was in black and white.i think i didn't really like the movie because i already hated the book which made me not even care to pay much attention to the movie. i think if i payed more attention to the movie i could of understood it a little more but since i didn't ... thats why i was so lost. One thing i do like about the movie was that it was very close to the book we were reading which made me a tiny bit able to be focused. Now looking back i wish i had payed more attention to the story so that i wouldn't be so lost right now trying to write reviews and things on the book.

I have not read the Shakespeare play, or seen it performed, though I would like to. This adds the epic scope of a big motion picture production, but keeps the focus on the people and dialog, merely adding larger sets(that do not distract the viewer), grand groups of extras and incredible production values. The plot is interesting and compelling, and develops nicely throughout. Every acting performance is excellent, particularly those of Brando, Mason and Gielgud. The writing is marvelous, and as is the common practice for William's scripts, the "old English" language is kept intact, and from what I know, a lot of the original lines are, as well. They're all perfectly delivered, too. This is exciting when it means to be, and dramatic and engaging from start to finish. The two hours pass by swiftly, and the pacing is great. Music is a broad, sweeping orchestral score that fits well, and sound tends to be good. There is violence and disturbing content in this, and that's about it for what might bother some audience members. I recommend this to any and all fans of the famous source material and/or those who made it. 8/10

Of course the most talked about actor of this movie is Marlon Brando but what about James Mason? He deserves just as much recognition and appreciation for his role in this movie and in my opinion he's also being the actor in the movie and perhaps also plays the biggest role in it.This is a very old fashioned movie and I'm not talking 1953 old but Shakespeare kind of old. The movie is filled with long and difficult to follow dialog, like only Shakespeare could had wrote it. You obviously need to be able to appreciate Shakespeare in order to enjoy this movie, otherwise you'll probably have difficulties finish watching it.Best things about a Shakespeare movie, next to its writing, are always the acting performances. A good Shakespeare-performance can make or break a movie. No risks were taking with this movie, as the movie its cast is being filled with some big name actors. Besides Brando and Mason the movie also stars the likes of John Gielgud, Edmond O'Brien, Deborah Kerr and many other actors that had already made name at the time of this production, both in theater and in movies.The movie is one about betrayal, loyalty and idealistic motives. It focuses on the assassination of Julius Caesar and its conspirators who committed it. One the one side we have the senators who are afraid of Ceasar's growing power and idealistic motives, while on the other we have Mark Antony, loyal to his leader and friend Caesar. After the assassination both become opponents. The movie and its story are mostly being based on historical facts, as they got documented during and after the first Caesar's reign.Of course the movie foremost is being a stage-play, brought to the silver-screen. This means that the acting is very stagy and also the movie its sets often look like they come straight out of the theater. This however very rarely matters for a Shakespeare movie, fore the movies are all about its writing and acting performances from the leading actors.Simply a great Shakespeare adaptation, with a first rate cast.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/