Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood (2001)

[ClassyCo]

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!]

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.

 

[Crimson]

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]

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!]

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?").

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

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.