Julius Caesar (1953)

Julius Caesar

The movie is in black and white and is the Shakespeare version. Who wouldn't enjoy seeing any movie with the youthful Marlon Brando, who was not only attractive, but a gifted actor. However, if you're looking for historic accuracy you won't find it here. That was obviously not one of Shakespeare's priorities. Actually, his version of "Julius Caesar" is more about glorifying a fictitious Mark Antony. In truth Mark Antony was anything but a hero. I was very disappointed in the actor they chose to play Julius Caesar: an extremely unimpressive, doddering old man. Caesar, from most accounts, and from sculptures created not too long before his murder, was a well-built, youthful and handsome man. And from his very own war commentaries as well as other sources was brilliant and a military genius. Fans of Shakespeare will no doubt disagree with me but I found this movie to be a disappointment. December 27, 2008

Excellent rendition

I first saw this as a film in 10th. grade English as an assignment. it is one of Marlon Brando's finest works. October 30, 2008

Rarely has Shakespeare Been Adapted This Well for the Screen

A fine cast and a faithful reading of the play contribute to one of the most satisfying transfers of Shakespeare to the big screen ever filmed.
Marlon Brando is fine as Marc Antony but for me James Mason and John Gielgud are absolutely brilliant as Brutus and Cassius respectively.
This is truly a fine production that has held up well and remains one of the better film adaptations of Shakespeare alongside the Olivier works.
October 17, 2008

Bardolotry vs. Brandolotry

Marlin Brando as Antony unquestionably dominates this production of Julius Caesar. Although James Mason as Brutus, is equally strong and has more lines, Brando's Hollywood aura shines more brightly. Directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, Mason and Brando together nearly succeed in making the jump from a traditional, theatrical presentation on film of Shakespeare to a movie with the values expected by today's audiences. Examples of recent successes are Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet and Trevor Nunn's "Antony and Cleopatra."

John Gielgud as Cassius, brooding mastermind of the plot to assassinate Caesar, illustrates perfectly the difference. Gielgud's every syllable, down to his slightly rolled letter "r"s, and his nuanced facial expressions and gestures, exhibit theatrical perfection. Gielgud earns perfect marks as a Shakespearean stage actor. However, movies unfurl on Hollywood sets, not a stage, and they ask audiences to suspend more of their disbelief than do plays. Brando and Mason, better than all the other fine actors in this movie, understand the difference and give film performances that are as natural and convincing as Gielgud's theatrical performance is impressive.

The question of tyranny was certainly present in Shakespeare's experience of Elizabethan monarchy and intrigue in the late 1600s. Awareness of the abuse of power must have been more present to audiences in 1953, when the film came out than now for today's carefree consumers. Then, fascist dreams of world domination had been recently put to sleep by the allies in World War II. Mankiewicz's massive roman architecture, the trappings of a propaganda-state, the heavy orchestral score, the ever-present imperial guard, and putting to silence of dissenters, signify despotism.

Seen from a distance, there is something both ridiculous and frightening about people with too much power. Caesar is supremely self-important, "constant as the northern star," but soon dies bleeding at the foot of Pompey's monument, his most famous conquest. Louis Calhern, as Caesar, comes across nicely as a pompous windbag, ultimately deflated by the conspirators' daggers. But Caesar is not just another man, who would have better listened to his wife Calpurnia's plea to stay home on the Ides of March. He occupies an office of state with absolute power and many subordinates who depend on him for their influence. Imperial Rome had perfected the bureaucratic art of using a power-elite to control the masses.

The central moral question of the play, personified in Brutus, is how to defend the assassination? There is wonderful irony in Brutus' blind confidence that Caesar's growing power justified the murder "as a serpent's egg which, hatch'd would, as his kind, grow mischievous, and kill him in the shell." As with Caesar, Brutus should have listened to his wife Portia's pleas. However he could not see past the deed to an inevitable power vacuum and civil war. Cassius too easily eggs him into action with the comment, grossly wrong in retrospect, that "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."

It is the stars, the forces of history (Caesar's will), that finally kill Brutus and Cassius. There is more grim irony in that Antony, coldly manipulates the chaotic aftermath to take control with Caesar's son Octavius. Antony pursues the killers and is the instrument of vengeance. Although not in this play (see "Antony and Cleopatra"), Octavius later turns on Antony and becomes the absolute ruler of the roman empire. At journey's end we are back where we started. While Shakespeare doesn't judge his characters, he might be saying that Brutus should have thought more deeply. What follows assassination is worse than what precedes it.

A flaw in Mankiewicz's film is the absence of humor. In all Shakespeare's tragedies, no matter how black, humor is a foil to the drama. There is ample opportunity for humor in Julius Caesar, but little in the production. Shakespeare's jokes in the initial street scene with the cobbler, "mender of soles," cannot be totally ignored, but Mankiewicz comes close. Casca's description of Caesar refusing the crown could be very funny (and is so in Heston-Robards film). When planning the assassination the conspirator's hilariously conform to Brutus' every whim. Time after time Brutus dismisses Cassius' better judgement, to the point where audiences must laugh, if only the director will permit it. Shakespeare's sexual comedy is present here as in all his plays, but is completely left out. Even in the puritanical 1950s it must have been possible to include some sexual innuendo in films. This is a very good movie, but it could have been even better. June 22, 2008

Julius Casear for high school

This movie nicely follows the text in the Prentice-Hall 10th grade literature book until Act V. Then it seems like the director ran out of time and rushed the ending. Even though it is in black and white, the acting is excellent and the students are able to follow the dialogue. I teach play from this movie and have had good success in doing so. It would be nice if it were colorized, but oh, well. I recommend this version to get a clear understanding of Brutus'conflict and of Antony's manipulation of the crowd. June 17, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...