I carried throughout the years a certain emotional , mark the word, admiration for this movie. I've first seen it in 1962-63 certainly in a bad copy and most probably with horribly translated sub-titles. My English was then rudimentary, to say the least.
Two or three years after I saw real Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" by the "Old Vic" with then Ralph Richardson, later "Sir" in the title role.
This was possible because Queen Elisabeth was then visiting my country and decided to offer "petty men, that since 1383, walked under the huge legs of the Lencaster House and since 1803 under the ones of the Duke of Wellington, to find a temporary Glory that lasted 200 years" and decadence which lasts to this day...(I beg your pardon, William Shakespeare)...
Now, some 40 years after, I find this a minor work...
Fist of all, bear with me. Theatre is the Art of the Word, Cinema is the Art of the Moving Image.
Transferring one to the other is simply not possible... Either you film the play, and it is a (probably worthy) documentary, or you make a movie with some quotations of the Play . Zeffirelli did that with the then couple (Elisabeth Taylor/Richard Burton) and I believe it is still watchable...
Joseph L. Mankiewicz, an American of probable Slavic/Jewish origins, worked for UFA as a translator of German Films in America. In 1929 he went to Hollywood, in 1934, Louis B. Mayer made him a producer.
He made some masterpieces, mostly Bette Davis's "All about Eve", but the "Old Rome" was almost fatal to him. Caesar, above all. Cleopatra almost sank FOX financially, some 20 years after...
Back to "Julius Caeser" (1953). The text is respected, almost to the letter, but the intonation of the words is almost Tex-Mex, mostly that of Marlon Brando, a complete miscast. Louis Calhern portrays a credible Ceasar for the worst of reasons : He is very tall but his voice does not fit it's stature..
Even the British actors fail. James Mason, studied architecture, before he went, briefly into the English scene "Having expressed dissatisfaction with the British film industry" according to the Encyclopoedia Britannica, went to Hollywood. To me he just fled certain failure in Britain to mild success in Hollywood. Let us say he was a precursor...
Even Hitchcock had problems with him in "North by NorthWest". Hitch knew very well why...
For reasons of profound respect I will not comment upon the work of Sir John Gielgud. I will just say he was slightly too young to play the role of Cassius, but he is the most accurate...
So, this is a FAILED MOVIE. Get your Shakespeare from other sources..
Two or three years after I saw real Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" by the "Old Vic" with then Ralph Richardson, later "Sir" in the title role.
This was possible because Queen Elisabeth was then visiting my country and decided to offer "petty men, that since 1383, walked under the huge legs of the Lencaster House and since 1803 under the ones of the Duke of Wellington, to find a temporary Glory that lasted 200 years" and decadence which lasts to this day...(I beg your pardon, William Shakespeare)...
Now, some 40 years after, I find this a minor work...
Fist of all, bear with me. Theatre is the Art of the Word, Cinema is the Art of the Moving Image.
Transferring one to the other is simply not possible... Either you film the play, and it is a (probably worthy) documentary, or you make a movie with some quotations of the Play . Zeffirelli did that with the then couple (Elisabeth Taylor/Richard Burton) and I believe it is still watchable...
Joseph L. Mankiewicz, an American of probable Slavic/Jewish origins, worked for UFA as a translator of German Films in America. In 1929 he went to Hollywood, in 1934, Louis B. Mayer made him a producer.
He made some masterpieces, mostly Bette Davis's "All about Eve", but the "Old Rome" was almost fatal to him. Caesar, above all. Cleopatra almost sank FOX financially, some 20 years after...
Back to "Julius Caeser" (1953). The text is respected, almost to the letter, but the intonation of the words is almost Tex-Mex, mostly that of Marlon Brando, a complete miscast. Louis Calhern portrays a credible Ceasar for the worst of reasons : He is very tall but his voice does not fit it's stature..
Even the British actors fail. James Mason, studied architecture, before he went, briefly into the English scene "Having expressed dissatisfaction with the British film industry" according to the Encyclopoedia Britannica, went to Hollywood. To me he just fled certain failure in Britain to mild success in Hollywood. Let us say he was a precursor...
Even Hitchcock had problems with him in "North by NorthWest". Hitch knew very well why...
For reasons of profound respect I will not comment upon the work of Sir John Gielgud. I will just say he was slightly too young to play the role of Cassius, but he is the most accurate...
So, this is a FAILED MOVIE. Get your Shakespeare from other sources..