In terms of sheer size and scope, legend and excess, few Hollywood films will ever be ableto hold a candle to Joseph L. Mankiewicz's epic production of Cleopatra. Fromthe beginning, when filming commenced in 1960, Cleopatra was doomed to beone of the largest, most expensive, and most problematic productions ever, and its inordinatecost almost sank 20th Century Fox (it was bailed out by the mega-success two years later ofThe Sound of Music).

Adjusting for inflation, Cleopatra is still the most expensive movie ever made.When all was said done at the end of 1963, after three years of production, the cost wassomewhere between $40 and $44 million, which is estimated today to be well in excess of$200 million (some estimates put it as high as $270 million). There was trouble on the setfrom the very beginning: Elizabeth Taylor, who was the first actor ever to be paid $1 millionfor a single movie, had health problems that kept her off the set for extensive periods oftime. The original director, Rouben Mamoulian (Mark of Zorro, Blood andSand), left the production after six months of principle photography at PinewoodStudios in London, along with the two leading male stars, Peter Finch (as Julius Caesar) andStephen Boyd (as Marc Antony). At this point, Joseph L. Mankiewicz stepped in to direct,and Rex Harrison took the role of Caesar and Richard Burton took the role of Marc Antony.The entire production was moved to Rome. At this point, there was 10 minutes of usablefootage in the can, and the movie had already cost $7 million and taken up 16 weeks ofproduction time.

When Cleopatra finally premiered in 1963, audiences turned out in throngs to seeit, but it would be years before the movie made back its enormous production costs. Thesteamy rumors about on-set sexcapades between co-stars Richard Burton and ElizabethTaylor (both of whom were married to other people) helped generate interest in the movie,even though critics were generally mixed in their responses (Pauline Kael later called it"terrible, but compulsively watchable"). The popularity of the widescreensword-and-sandals genre that had made such big hits out of The TenCommandments (1956), Ben-Hur (1959), Spartacus (1960), andEl Cid (1961) was waning, and the perceived box-office failure ofCleopatra sealed its doom.

Returning to the movie almost 40 years later, without the clouded lens of high expectationsand swirling rumors, one can see Cleopatra for what it is: a moderately successful,generally entertaining, both overly ambitious movie. There are moments inCleopatra that are as stunning as anything ever committed to film: Cleopatra'sgrand entrance into Rome on a giant rolling sphinx while thousands cheer, the great Battle ofActium involving hundreds of warships, and other scenes literally definespectacle. Yet, the spectacle is not enough, and it is the human drama in the storythat is generally lacking. There is much love and passion, jealously and betrayal, but muchof it feels too much like historical plot machinations and not enough like the turmoil enduredby real human beings.

The screenplay for Cleopatra, written by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, RanaldMacDougall, and Sidney Buchman (the list of inspirations in the opening credits range fromthe ancient history of Plutarch to C.M. Franzero's 1957 history The Life and Times ofCleopatra), sticks fairly close to the basic historical trajectory of Cleopatra's attempt toreassert her power in Egypt by forging alliances (both sexual and political) with Rome'sgreat leaders, but most of it plays like a soap opera. The movie opens in 55 B.C. at the endof a bloody Roman civil war between the armies of Pompey and Julius Caesar (RexHarrison). After Pompey is defeated, he flees to Egypt where he is killed by Ptolemy, whois in the midst of his own civil war with his co-ruler and sister, Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor).

Cleopatra becomes Caesar's mistress, and he puts her in full command of Egypt afterdisposing of Ptolemy. Cleopatra, ever hungry for power, appeals to Caesar's own sense ofgreatness, urging him to accept the position of dictator of Rome, something the Romansenators do not appreciate. Cleopatra envisions a worldwide empire ruled jointly by her andCaesar as king and queen, but her dreams are cut short when Caesar is murdered by therepublican-minded senators.

This does not stop her, however, as she then becomes involved with Caesar's loyal chieflieutenant, Marc Antony (Richard Burton). As she did with Casear, she appeals to Antony'sdesire for power and convinces him to start another civil war in Rome so that Cleopatra'sson by Caesar, Caesarion, would be ruler of Rome, rather than Octavian (RoddyMcDowall), Caesar's nephew whom he had chosen in his will to be his successor.

That brief plot description does not even begin to elaborate the complex power relationshipsthat are forged and destroyed throughout the four-hour-and-eight-minute movie. It iscertainly political and military power that are at the heart of the story, and Mankiewiczfocuses primarily on how that power is earned and lost. His Cleopatra is a wily, intelligentwoman of great contradiction. She thirsts for control, yet she realizes the only way to get it isthrough the Roman leaders she seduces. Yet, at the same time, it is clear that she truly lovesthese men, even as her romantic passions are bound up in her passion for power--they areone in the same.

Elizabeth Taylor holds the center of the film well as the great Egyptian queen, even if weknow that Cleopatra was most likely not a fair-skinned, voluptuous brunette. Taylor mixesthe right amounts of lusty passion and cold calculation. Her then-record 65 costume changesdoesn't feel excessive--one would imagine that this woman would change her clothes to suither various moods (the majority of her wardrobe choices seem designed with the singularpurpose of displaying Taylor's ample cleavage, which should have received second billing).

Rex Harrison does equally well as Julius Caesar, but it's amazing how quickly he can beforgotten once he is assassinated and Richard Burton's Marc Antony takes center-stage.Antony is the more interesting character (at least as he's portrayed here), and his downfall ofself-destruction has a certain tragic resonance, even if Burton's performance is a bit weak.

Despite the vast and convincing historical settings (the film won richly deserved Oscars forart direction, sets, special effects, costumes, and cinematography), the screenplay fills thecharacters' mouths with a combination of pseudo-Shakespearean poetry and banal moderndialogue that often runs amusingly contrary to expectations. This is not a serious detriment,however, and in some ways contributes to the movie's watchability--it grabs you the sameway a soap opera does, with multiple plot lines and interwoven conflicts that seem to haveno resolution.

Even at more than four hours in length, there are only a few segments that seem to draguncomfortably. The rest moves along at a steady clip, bogged down only when thescreenplay traps the characters in having to make long, unwieldy speeches. Some judiciousediting of some of the longer monologues would have likely resulted in a movie half an hourshorter and better paced, but it still wouldn't have been enough to save Cleopatra'sreputation as one of the biggest debacles in movie history.

Copyright ©2001 James Kendrick