Caesar and Cleopatra (1946)

Although "Caesar and Cleopatra" has this fantastic reputation as the British Cinema's most expensive flop, all this talk about a financial disaster is simply not borne out by the figures. (The Motion Picture Guide even repeats this myth, alleging "a then staggering loss of $3 million"). Allowing an extremely generous estimate of print and distribution costs, the most that would have been lost on first release would be £70,000 — and this would surely have been earned back in the 1948 re-issue alone. In fact, by 1950 the movie was firmly in the black. Since that time, non-theatrical, including TV and video sales have produced windfall profits for the Rank Organisation. But it suited Rank at the time to cry foul. He had no love for Pascal. Or Shaw either. He didn't like being put on the spot when he was forced to bail them out. And it suited him to make "Caesar and Cleopatra" the scapegoat and a cover- up for the enormous losses sustained on movies he did heartily endorse like "Blanche Fury" and "Esther Waters".As for the movie itself, unfortunately Rains is forced to carry it virtually single-handed. Leigh is patently too old for the role — though she looks great in her opening scene. Whoever photographed that was a master of illusion. Alas, the other three cinematographers can't match him. On many later occasions, Miss Leigh is definitely not flattered at all. True, her health declined during production, but no efforts are made to disguise her often ravaged face. Her acting too seems to have fallen away with her beauty.One thing you can say though is that all the money spent on the movie is right up there on the screen, not squandered on inflated star salaries or wasted on half-shot and then abandoned footage. The sets are truly breathtaking, so impressive and expressive as to make the scenery in the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" seem garish, disorganized and second-rate. Full marks to Bryan and Messel for such dazzling and beguiling triumphs of artistry. A pity neither the script in particular nor the performances in general seem worthy of such visual magnificence.Fortunately, the superb ITV DVD manages the seemingly impossible. On the small screen, everyone comes out with honor – except Vivien Leigh, for whom the color restoration is considerably less than kind, and Flora Robson who not only tends to over-act but seems unsure how to play her role. Is she a comic character or a very sinister one? Shaw, of course, would like to have it both ways, but a subtle actor who has read the script would play the comedy with not just an overdose of asperity but with an intimation of evil. Hard to do, I'll admit, but that's what real acting is all about.Stewart Granger has the right idea. He plays his role tongue-in- cheek. A pity some of his dash and vigor didn't rub off on Claude Rains who is far too solemn for a Shavian hero. Rains is admittedly an adequate Caesar but he lacks the dash he brought to "Casablanca".

Shaw's hardly a speck on the windshield of American cultural consciousness anymore. Too bad. "The Devil's Disciple," "Major Barbara," "Arms and the Man," "Candida," "You Never Can Tell." Witty, clever, insightful, intriguing... a century and more later.For those who haven't discovered him yet, this colorful, fast-paced rendition of "C&C" makes a nifty portal. The film -looks- like "Quo Vadis" or "Samson and Delilah" (of more or less the same vintage). It even looks like the Taylor-Burton-Harrison marathon done almost two decades later.But it doesn't -feel- like -any- of those. Shaw always had a great story to tell -- and a something worthwhile to -say- -- and he (or his characters) almost invariably told and said it well. One could hardly call the 1934 or 1963 films "insightful romps." This, however...I've been a sucker for Vivien Leigh since I watched her whip the boys into shape in "GWTW," but as interesting as she was there, she's miles beyond Scarlet O'Hara here. Shaw gave -his- Cleo a far more complex character than Young or Mankiewicz gave their Cleo's; this alabaster Leigh is both adolescent and guileful. But to Rains's conflicted but self-suspect Caesar, she's about as transparent as that look-alike, late-night, hottie-cum-biblical-scholar who inherited Gene Scott's TV ministry.The relationships here are no different from those in the Mankiewicz mess, but they move along in far more sophisticated -- and entertaining -- fashion here. We already know the resolution, it's the unfolding of the drama that matters. Rains ("Casablanca," "The Invisible Man") and Leigh bring the wise, amused, self-effacing old man and the desperate, manipulative, narcissistic young woman in Shaw's play far more credibly to life than was the case in the DeMille or Manciewicz films. And supporters like Robson, Granger and the rest add plenty. But as in any Shaw play, it's the playwright's sophisticated revelations that matter.The "big success" narcissist who thinks a "trophy wife" is a good idea might learn plenty from a trip to Blockbuster and a two-dollar investment.

The first few minutes are dry and dull but suddenly the sun comes out with the appearance of Leigh. Granted, I'm infatuated with her but I don't think anyone else could deny the sparkle and power of her presence in this film as, though in her thirties in real life, she becomes a teenage girl just beginning to experience her sexuality and the power it has over men. In those scenes where Raines acts with her, he reflects her and shines, too, and the picture takes on a light air. And there are patches of British style humor. But in those rather long stretches where GBS indulges himself in dialogue where he fancies himself to be Shakespeare (and Shakespeare he ain't!) it is dry torture, like licking a pyramid.So watch it. To deny yourself seeing Leigh even in her few, spotty scenes of sunlight would be like denying yourself a picnic because of intermittent Raines.

This is a total misrepresentation of History. Cleopatra, was an extremely powerful, beguiling, highly educated women. It was not her beauty that won over men,(she was rather homely, bordering on ugly)but her intellect, powers of conversation, persuasion, and affective leadership skills. It was Caesar, and Antony who learned about life, and governing, after encountering the glorious and stupendous Greco-Egyptian environment Cleo had established around her. At time the movie seems like a two man show on stage..The only positive thing(s) about this movie is seeing Claude Rains, and Vivian Leigh. However the image it leaves movie watchers who may be ignorant of that periods History is upsetting. I guess it is like an Oliver Stone film of it's day, totally devoid of any truth, not historically accurate, and self serving, promoting, bordering on psychotic (a vehicle to show, fairy tale, beliefs of Author, and how they would of wished things were like). History is so beautiful,funny, sexual, at times perverse, so much so, that great, and interesting movies can be made, without changing or distorting it. Instead of a censoring committee, perhaps they should run each film through a Historicaly Accurate committee, to avoid such travesties, and misrepresentations. Thanks for Listening