Caesar and Cleopatra (1946)

The Worst Film Ever

Best movie of this year hands down!

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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".

Whoever told GBS he was a screenwriter. Probably the same dork who told Pia Zadora she was an actress. This is the kind of movie where the blocks of dialogue complement the blocks of buildings in Alexandria.Talk about Burnham wood coming to Dunsinane, this is like the March of the Redwoods with people like Raymond Lovell, Basil Sydney, Stewart Granger etc, leaving a trail of sawdust all over the set and Ernest Thesiger anticipating Charles Hawtrey by a good ten years or so. It was shot in 1945 so that the sound is pristine with no concession to the great outdoors so there is literally no atmos of any kind be it an interior or exterior scene. Watching this is a new way to grow old.

I am curious about this film's credits listing 4 cinematographers...and not just any...Cardiff,Young,Krasker and Hildyard...big names that I recognize. Why would a single film need 4 main cinematographers? They are not (like other films) credited as 2nd unit and then one main person getting the chief DOP credit. So does anyone know why this film needed 4? Was there a succession of firings/or quittings and they needed to sub in another (and another etc.)? If not, how can 4 work simultaneously on one film?..one would think with 4, there would be a lot of on-screen noticeable discrepancies of styles etc. My untrained eye couldn't detect.

Observe Claude Rains' soliloquy at the Sphinx near the beginning of this film. His amazing voice and graceful delivery of the words prove once again why he is increasingly becoming more respected as one of the major actors of the 20th Century. Just watch and you will see that I am not exaggerating. Rains' outstanding performance is the chief reason that this film holds together and deserves your viewing time.Vivien Leigh is not Scarlett O'Hara here. I don't mean that in a negative way, its just that her life and career are in transition at this point. She is more mature, and her voice is obviously affected by cigarettes or by the tuberculosis that she was suffering from that year, and she appears pale and fragile at times. I mention this because it is significant, as she is forced to try to bring some of her once-youthful "Scarlett" and "Lady Hamilton" girlish liveliness to the early scenes but only barely succeeds. Later, through sheer acting ability she admirably begins to project a regal presence as the film progresses. Maybe not the best Cleopatra on film, but overall she is certainly more than adequate.The supporting cast is excellent although they are sometimes directed rather sloppily, as though maybe the production was rushed. The overall production seems odd to me because it is done as if it is simply the stage play on film, taking place mostly in a palace at Alexandria. Also, some heavy themes are played lightly or even frivolously at times. I am a bit puzzled about what style they were going for.Having seen this film several times I am always impressed by George Auric's theme music and scoring, but always the poor sound recording almost spoils its effect. Hopefully someday a reconstructed score or maybe a restoration or enhancement of this original soundtrack will be presented with the film.You must admire the obvious hard work and effort that Rains and Leigh contributed to this movie. Overall, if you view this movie primarily for Claude Rains' performance but don't expect a lot more out of it you won't be disappointed.