Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood (2001)

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
It has often been said that the production of some movies are more interesting than the movie itself. Such is the case, for me at least, with the 1963 film version of CLEOPATRA, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and Rex Harrison.

Executives at 20th Century-Fox were in a desperate in the late 1950s. The studio had struggled to turn a profit over the last several years, even with such stars as John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe working for them. As a result, producer David Brown Fox's catalog of films for a project to be remade quickly and at minimal expense. Brown came across CLEOPATRA (1917), which had starred Theda Bara and proved highly successful for the studio, and presented the idea to other executives. Fox readily agreed to a remake of CLEOPATRA, but had difficulty finding a producer. When Walter Wanger approached David Brown, he expressed enthusiasm at making CLEOPATRA, with Brown saying "we fell on him" to produce the film.

At first, Fox gave Wanger less than $2 million, the run of the studio's back lot, and the order to cast the picture with the studio's affordable contract players. Joanne Woodward, Suzy Parker, and Joan Collins were mentioned as possible candidates for the coveted role, with Collins even filming multiple screen tests with various potential leading men. Wanger persisted, however, that CLEOPATRA should be a more opulent epic, and spent money out of his own pocket to have glamorous sketches drawn up to show Fox "essentially what they could have, if they opened up their minds". While at least somewhat weary about the budget required for such extravagance, the studio executives saw the potential of larger profits with a bigger production. The budget soon swelled, which meant bigger box office stars could be considered for the lead, such as Audrey Hepburn, Sophia Loren, and Gina Lollobrigida. Wanger originally suggested Susan Hayward for the role, who had just won an Oscar for I WANT TO LIVE! (1958), which he had produced. When Hayward declined, Wanger offered the role to Elizabeth Taylor, who also declined, later saying the first script she received was "terrible". Wanger eventually got Taylor to accept the role in September 1959, after promising her a salary of $1 million, which then-head of Fox Spyros P. Skouras found appalling.

CLEOPATRA had a messy production right from the start. In obliging Taylor's contractual demands, Skouras and Wanger began looking at foreign locales to plant their production, while also agreeing to film the production in the Todd-AO format developed by Taylor's late husband, producer Mike Todd.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg... I'll link the documentary.


 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
It's one of those breezy, gossipy movie docs which is sometimes more fun that the actual film its tattling on. About 20 years ago, I recall watching it endlessly for whatever reason.

If only they could find that missing footage that would take CLEOPATRA from its four-hour (or less) theatrical version to its proper six hours that Joe Mankiewicz envisioned. But they didn't used to save extraneous footage back then, before the days of home video. (And no one apparently thought to save a full-length cut for the later sale to TV, which could have been even more lucrative).

Taylor demanded her bud, Roddy McDowall, be cast for Octavian (a mistake on the face of it -- it should have been an Oliver Reed). But she also got Monty Clift cast for SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER, another error.

Elizabeth-Taylor-as-Cleopatra.jpg
 
Last edited:

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
It's one of those breezy, gossipy movie docs which is sometimes more fun that the actual film its tattling on

Also true of the GWTW documentary, even if that film is much better than CLEOPATRA. The drama behind the making of CLEO is far more interesting than anything that ended up on screen; the film is more interesting to read about or talk about than actually watch.
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
It's one of those breezy, gossipy movie docs which is sometimes more fun that the actual film its tattling on. About 20 years ago, I recall watching it endlessly for whatever reason.
The documentary is more interesting than the film, even though I've only seen snippets of it. But the production itself seems like it would make a good TV ministries or something, especially if they didn't center it solely on Taylor & Burton.

If only they could find that missing footage that would take CLEOPATRA from its four-hour (or less) theatrical version to its proper six hours that Joe Mankiewicz envisioned. But they didn't used to save extraneous footage back then, before the days of home video. (And no one apparently thought to save a full-length cut for the later sale to TV, which could have been even more lucrative).
Mankiewicz originally wanted two movies, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA and CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA, which would've been three hours each. But Zanuck nipped that idea to increase profits by releasing the story as one film and capitalize on the Taylor-Burton fling that has been tabloid fodder for the better part of a year.

Also true of the GWTW documentary, even if that film is much better than CLEOPATRA. The drama behind the making of CLEO is far more interesting than anything that ended up on screen; the film is more interesting to read about or talk about than actually watch.
The MAKING OF A LEGEND documentary profiling GONE WITH THE WIND is epic in itself. It contains so many facts and artful recreations of voices and situations that paved the road to the screen.

GWTW is a far better movie than CLEOPATRA.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
GWTW is a far better movie than CLEOPATRA.

Yes, but with two Libra Rising leading ladies (despite current Internet charts), in such unprecedentedly grandiose productions, a vaguely similar impression is left behind.

Despite owning a copy, I'm rewatching (on something called a television set from something called a television station) CLEOPATRA today. And, as Katharine Hepburn once told her biographer: "Make no mistake -- Elizabeth Taylor is a brilliant actress."

Taylor gives an excellent performance in CLEOPATRA, even in her overwrought moments of which she has many. She hits precisely the right pitch, her wistful fishwife swathed in velvet.

I still hope the remaining two hours are found in somebody's basement.

P.S.: It is international law that Cleopatra be played by beautiful Libra Risings -- as were Leigh, Colbert and Taylor. (In real life, however, Cleopatra was Sun in Capricorn/Scorpio Rising/Moon in Cancer -- the same as Republican strategist Karl Rove: ugly, evil and brilliant... Interestingly, Mark Antony was also Sun in Capricorn/Moon in Cancer -- with a different rising sign... And pairing off by those of similar horoscopic persuasion often leads to superlative scandal -- even in fiction, a la "WSJR?").

Cleopatra-entering-Rome-with-Caesarion.jpg
d3de9a6b5c8654c4f837c63f64f1f582.jpg
 
Last edited:

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
I've been watching CLEOPATRA, for some reason, over the last couple of days on YT.

The main problem really isn't what's there (in the 4-hour version) but what's missing. With 90 minutes trimmed from what Joe Mankiewicz wanted, the conflict scenes between the principals being all that remains -- the relationship development largely removed, the context gone -- those conflict moments become more hyperbolic and soapy as a result.

The movie isn't too long; it's too short.

As one 1963 critic (Judith Crist?) said in their review: at 6 hours, CLEOPATRA might have been a movie, but (with the cuts) it becomes a series of coming attractions that will never come... (That's as close to the quote that I can get at the moment).

And it's really true. There's a decent film -- I think -- at the center of the slashed-up 4-hour theatrical version. Somewhere. (Some versions were mutilated down to less than 3-hours!).

Mankiewicz wanted it released as two movies six months apart. But FOX wouldn't allow it. Burton is featured most heavily in the second half, and Daryl Zanuck feared that the Taylor-Burton romance, the most scandalously celebrated in all of Hollywood history, might be over before Part 2 could be released.

When people talk about the movie, they often refer to it derisively as "pretentious," "bloated," "elephantine," "melodramatic," and "smart-talky." And it's frankly hard to disagree with that. But every time it comes on TV, I find myself sitting through the whole damned thing. (If I have the time)... But the one adjective I never find myself using for this boring motion picture is: "boring." I cannot flip it off. Unless my bowels become a problem.

Yes, it's stagey and static (Mankiewicz was a more inspired writer -- one of the best Hollywood ever had, as evidenced by ALL ABOUT EVE and other pictures -- than he was a director). And the expensive location footage from Rome and Egypt was completely removed for purposes of time. And the dialogue, although classically Mankiewicz and strangely brilliant (well, he's Scorpio Rising/Moon in Libra), he never had enough time, given that he was brought into the movie months after they'd started shooting, to do a second or third draft.

I guess it's the splashy, gauzy, early-'60s elegance of CLEOPATRA, the refined gaucherie of Taylor & Burton, and -- yes -- the mesmerizing pretentiousness of the picture, that always tends to hold my attention, even though I feel a loss of brain cells by the time it's over. (Which, at my age, I can't really afford). And the acting approaches goodishness, despite a certain stiffness that runs throughout.

Elizabeth Taylor is really quite acceptable. Her regal vulgarian era having begun with BUTTERFIELD 8, and running into the '70s until she porked up and collapsed.

But, Holy Jesus, whenever Roddy McDowall appears on screen (Elizabeth demanded he be cast) as Augustus Octavian, the cinematic disaster it already was is exacerbated beyond redemption. And it goes down like Cleopatra's golden barge hit an unremoved Anzio landmine: he is sooo miscast, it's ridiculous. (I still say, give me Oliver Reed).

Will the missing 90 minutes ever be found, after two thirds of a century? Probably not. But I'd like to see it.

1963-Cleopatra-07.jpg

oliverreeddynastier.jpg~original
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
I've started listening to the TCM podcast, "The Plot Thickens" sixth season about the production of CLEOPATRA. The podcast is produced and narrated by Ben Mankiewicz, great-nephew of Joseph L.

The first episode ("London Slog") was engaging, covering the aborted London production under Mamoulian. Nothing new, but it's well presented and the Mankiewicz insider information in future episodes might be enlightening.

Costumes from the production; only the headdress was used in the final film.

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicfilms/comments/1saz0d7
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
I've started listening to the TCM podcast, "The Plot Thickens" sixth season about the production of CLEOPATRA. The podcast is produced and narrated by Ben Mankiewicz, great-nephew of Joseph L.

The first episode ("London Slog") was engaging, covering the aborted London production under Mamoulian. Nothing new, but it's well presented and the Mankiewicz insider information in future episodes might be enlightening.

Costumes from the production; only the headdress was used in the final film.

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicfilms/comments/1saz0d7

Yes, it's pretty inteesting...



And the rest...!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhKrt23nTPg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU_fk6SwtL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nwLFam6Yt4&t=39s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU_fk6SwtL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgdpPKQPiJo
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
I saw some of BEN HUR again yesterday, and thought Stephen Boyd was pretty good (chuckling over the fact that the producer, screenwriter and Boyd were in on the underscored gay-lovers-reunited angle of Gore Vidal's script, and kept secret from Heston for 40 years because they knew he'd "fall apart" if he knew about it -- and he did).

They had already paid Boyd to do CLEOPATRA, but it's hard to imagine the movie with anybody but Elizabeth's frog -- greasy, overwrought Burton in the role of Mark Antony. (Joe Mankiewicz originally wanted Brando to reprise the part, but Marlon was busy with something .... and how do get around the billing issues??)

Joan Collins had the right look and gliding gait for the queen of the Nile but, as I've often said, there's a highschool drama club quality about her that limits her. She's just too self-conscious, too insecure and trying not to seem it. Joan was much better suited for embittered, narcissistic aging harridans out-for-revenge roles like Alexis. She could always play bitches (anger focuses some borderline actors) even back in her youth, but regal splendor in her twenties was more of a chore... She did okay in campy LAND OF THE PHAROAHS, but her screen tests for CLEO were pretty weak.

There's a reason she didn't become a full-on movie star in the '50s and '60s: she was pretty and had something perhaps, but she was going to have to crawl up the ladder in a different way.


"Don't you want the world...?"
hqdefault.jpg
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
I'm about midway through the podcast and enjoying it very much.

Joe Mankiewicz originally wanted Brando to reprise the part, but Marlon was busy with something

When I have engaged in fantasy recasting of this movie, I usually land on Brando & Olivier as Antony and Caesar. Such daydream diversions don't get as particular as how the billing would have worked out. One thing's for sure, Brando wouldn't have made the production easier. While I'm not a huge Brando fan, I like Burton in the negative range. I find his acting schtick of shifting between mumbling and booming to be tiresome. My fantasy recasting never gets far though. As critical as I am about Liz in the role, there really isn't another actress of the era who works any better. I usually just slap Sophia Loren into the part and call it a day. She'd have been even worse than Liz at handling the dialogue, but at least less shrill. And to add to your displeasure at my recastings, Roddy McDowall is the only one I don't replace.
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
Seems like pretty good casting to me. Unlike Taylor, Harrison and Burton, he looked like the figure he was portraying. Not a necessity, but a nice touch. And imo he's the only actor in the cast who created an actual character.

20260408_101100.jpg
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I saw some of BEN HUR again yesterday, and thought Stephen Boyd was pretty good (chuckling over the fact that the producer, screenwriter and Boyd were in on the underscored gay-lovers-reunited angle of Gore Vidal's script, and kept secret from Heston for 40 years because they knew he'd "fall apart" if he knew about it -- and he did).

They had already paid Boyd to do CLEOPATRA, but it's hard to imagine the movie with anybody but Elizabeth's frog -- greasy, overwrought Burton in the role of Mark Antony. (Joe Mankiewicz originally wanted Brando to reprise the part, but Marlon was busy with something .... and how do get around the billing issues??)
Although I've only seen pieces of CLEOPATRA, it is a little difficult to picture anyone besides Burton as Mark Antony. I don't personally care much for Burton as an actor, so I would've been totally fine had Stephen Boyd been able to stick around, or if they had found a way to get Brando on board. But, as you say, that would've been an exercise in itself. Brando, as we know, was in the middle of his own productional chaos over on the MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY remake.

Joan Collins had the right look and gliding gait for the queen of the Nile but, as I've often said, there's a highschool drama club quality about her that limits her. She's just too self-conscious, too insecure and trying not to seem it. Joan was much better suited for embittered, narcissistic aging harridans out-for-revenge roles like Alexis. She could always play bitches (anger focuses some borderline actors) even back in her youth, but regal splendor in her twenties was more of a chore... She did okay in campy LAND OF THE PHAROAHS, but her screen tests for CLEO were pretty weak.
For the cheap, backlot version of CLEOPATRA the studio had originally planned, Joan might've done alright, but she wasn't suited to the bigger, more opulent production Walter Wanger had envisioned. I've seen Joan's screen tests and they do leave a lot to be desired, even though she says it was the men they paired with her that needed the help, not her.

There's a reason she didn't become a full-on movie star in the '50s and '60s: she was pretty and had something perhaps, but she was going to have to crawl up the ladder in a different way.
She didn't really appear to be movie star material, at least not for "the end of the Golden Era," as Collins herself puts it, when she arrived just as "the gold was beginning to tarnish". Her mid-to-late-50s movies don't really work.
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
backlot version of CLEOPATRA the studio had originally planned

The movie likely would have been better as a cheaper, backlot production, but Collins would have given it the air a B-movie even if she (circa 1960) had not sunk to B-movie level yet.

Mankiewicz was entirely the right person to write and direct a movie about Cleopatra, and entirely the wrong person to write and direct this movie about Cleopatra. There's a reason this story works so well on stage (Shakespeare and Shaw) -- it's a character study, all foreground and dialogue. That was Mankiewicz's specialty. The story of Cleopatra doesn't need bombast and epicness. Mankiewicz was swamped by the production. Everything about this movie is ridiculous: the boring battle scenes, the interminable procession into Rome, the pristine and oversized sets that never look like anything but sets. The teeming, squalid streets in DeMille's version are far more effective for a fraction of the cost. This production should have been more I,CLAUDIUS and less THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.

Taylor likely would have benefited from a smaller, breezier production too, more like DeMille's version. Grandiosity brought out the worst in her acting.
 
Last edited:

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
The movie likely would have been better as a cheaper, backlot production, but Collins would have given it the air a B-movie even if she (circa 1960) had not sunk to B-movie level yet.

Mankiewicz was entirely the right person to write and direct a movie about Cleopatra, and entirely the wrong person to write and direct this movie about Cleopatra. There's a reason this story works so well on stage (Shakespeare and Shaw) -- it's a character study, all foreground and dialogue. That was Mankiewicz's specialty. The story of Cleopatra doesn't need bombast and epicness. Mankiewicz was swamped by the production. Everything about this movie is ridiculous: the boring battle scenes, the interminable procession into Rome, the pristine and oversized sets that never look like anything but sets. The teeming, squalid streets in DeMille's version are far more effective for a fraction of the cost. This production should have been more I,CLAUDIUS and less THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.

Taylor likely would have benefited from a smaller, breezier production too, more like DeMille's version. Grandiosity brought out the worst in her acting.
I will say that one of the biggest downfalls of 1963's CLEOPATRA is the sheer spectacle of it all, when it would play better in a "smaller" format.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Seems like pretty good casting to me. Unlike Taylor, Harrison and Burton, he looked like the figure he was portraying. Not a necessity, but a nice touch. And imo he's the only actor in the cast who created an actual character.

Roddy does look like Octavian there -- especially the hair. But Cleopatra was also ugly in real life.

Mankiewicz was swamped by the production. Everything about this movie is ridiculous: the boring battle scenes, the interminable procession into Rome, the pristine and oversized sets that never look like anything but sets. The teeming, squalid streets in DeMille's version are far more effective for a fraction of the cost. This production should have been more I,CLAUDIUS and less THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.

Taylor likely would have benefited from a smaller, breezier production too, more like DeMille's version. Grandiosity brought out the worst in her acting.

The battle scenes were terribly clunky. I actually like the procession into Rome and wish it was longer (and it originally was).

Despite Taylor's quirks, I have no problems with her performance in CLEOPATRA at all (as I do with some of SLS). I think she's really good.
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
Cleopatra was also ugly in real life

Ugly might be harsh but based on the limited representations that exist of Cleopatra VII, a young Glenn Close was probably more accurate than Colbert, Leigh or Taylor.

Theda Bara might just have been the screen's most accurate depiction of the queen.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Ugly might be harsh but based on the limited representations that exist of Cleopatra VII, a young Glenn Close was probably more accurate than Colbert, Leigh or Taylor.

Theda Bara might just have been the screen's most accurate depiction of the queen.

Yes, it's hard to tell what the silent divas really looked like. Theda and others had so much greasepaint, you couldn't really determine what their facial features were.

2-cleopatra-theda-bara-1917-everett.jpg
 
Last edited:

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
I finished the podcast, which I enjoyed a lot. Other than some Mankiewicz family anecdotes and insights, I don't think there was much new information; this was all well covered by earlier documentaries and books on the subject. Still, presented in an engaging, storyteller manner. I'll have to listen to more of this podcast. I've only ever listened to the Lucille Ball season (obviously).

I had wondered if this podcast would intrigue me enough to rewatch the movie. Uhh ... nope!
 
Top