Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Blistering performances.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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".

I am not sure if I can say anything more about this film than I have already said in the book review of the play (though because I cannot do hyperlinks here it makes it a little difficult to link the review up, but in any case here it is: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1008928652). Anyway, despite not wanting to repeat myself, I probably should go over the themes one again for those who don't want to jump over to Goodreads to read my review, but first of all the movie.I was quite surprised to discover that this play of Shaw's was also turned into a Hollywood movie, which means that there are (I believe) four of his plays that have made it to film (and that is not counting any BBC production that may have been created because apparently back in the fifties and the sixties the BBC would cycle through a number of plays and then destroy the film afterwards). The adaptation itself was pretty good, and it seemed to stick quite close to the play (something that did not happen with the Devil's Disciple). I also though that Stewart Granger played a very good Caesar, doing great justice for the character created by Shaw, and the historical figure himself.The play itself is a political satire set in the period just before Caesar's assassination where he travels to Egypt to locate Pompey. As it turns out Pompey had been murdered prior to his arrival, something that Caesar is not to happy about. However the entire expedition was designed to make Egypt another protectorate of Rome (much in the same way that Judea was a protectorate). However the major theme of the film focuses on the interplay between Caesar and Cleopatra, the ruler of the new empire and the ruler of the old; the elder statesman and the child queen; the benevolent princeps and the traditional monarch.As I was watching this film the idea kept on going through my mind that this seems to be reflective, and somewhat critical of, Britain's colonial ambitions. To me the movie itself was analogous to Britain and India, or moreso Britain and China. Here we have Britain, like Rome, as the new empire built on a different model of government, while we have Egypt being analogous to China and India, an ancient empire that had persisted with the same model for centuries which resulted in the system becoming stagnant and rigid, unable to change and unable to challenge the might of the new power. However we must remember that the British leaders were not the wise and noble leaders that Shaw created in Caesar (and Shaw himself is very critical of many of their ways).What we see in this film is the leader of the old empire living the same way that they had done for centuries – marrying their brother, sleeping in luxury, eating extravagantly and doing no work for themselves. Opposing this we have the leader of the new empire who works, sleeps in a cot, lives rough, and eats frugally. While this was not necessarily the case with all Roman rulers, there was this idea that they were a nation of farmers and soldiers who lived frugally and eschewed luxury. The reason for this is a luxurious lifestyle makes one decadent, and when one because decadent one loses the ability to fight, to think, and to even do things for oneself.I was quite pleased to have found this movie because it has opened up another of Shaw's plays to me that would most likely have remained on paper simply because they do not tend to be performed all that much anymore. It seems that, at least here in Australia, all we ever see performed is Shakespeare (and maybe the occasional other playwright) and a bunch of by modern Australians (none of which I have ever bothered going to see, though I am sure some of them are pretty good).

It's easy to write a whole review praising Claude Rains and Vivian Leigh because they're both so fabulous in the title roles. But the other actors are all extremely good as well, most especially Flora Robson, who plays Cleopatra's terrifying nurse/assassin-slave. Raw, lanky, and athletic; commanding, loyal to death and absolutely ruthless, she really gives the impression that she could take on four Roman soldiers simultaneously with her bare hands and kill all of them in a few seconds.Other excellent character actors include Cecil Parker representing Britain and British national character; outstanding child-actor Anthony Harvey, hilariously earnest as Prince Ptolemy; and Francis L. Sullivan, one of the finest masters of the big-and-fat actor's craft.If there's a flaw, it's the fault of George Bernard Shaw, whose play is very difficult to follow by today's standards. Focus on the characters and don't try to keep track of the plot, and you will find this one of the most absorbing historical-epic movies.

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.