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.

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.

Julius Ceasar
I am not able to view this dvd since you sent me a dvd that can only be seen in the US. I find that strange when you send it to me in Norway, Europe and obviously we don't use American systems here.

The spirit of the play brought to life
I have been raised on this play and saw many versions. I have had the real story pointed out to me and meaning behind many of the words explained. However it is this adaptation that brought it to life not just intellectually but emotionally.

One of the first things you notice is the setting is a balance between stage and reality. This film being in black and white may have contributed to the atmosphere.

The actors are not just popular names but are able to bring the characters to life. I was impressed with everyone's ability to the point that it took time to realize that Mark Antony is Marlon Brando; he among others is able to make the words real and meaningful, not just a bunch of Shakespearian phrases.

If somehow you missed the play or the history, basically Julius Caesar let his status go to his head and is about to take on the role of implorer. It is up to a handful of Noble Romans to see that this does not happen. The play is about these individuals, their individual purposes and what happens to them after the attempt to stop him. The focus is on Caesar's right arm (Mark Antony).

Julius Caesar

JOSEPH L. MANKIEWICZ, OPUS 12
****1/2 1953. Adapted from William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Shakespeare, William, Works.) and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Five nominations for the Academy awards but only one win in the Best Art Direction category. An all-star cast with Marlon Brando, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, John Gielgud, Louis Calhern, Greer Garson and Edmond O'Brien. The high points of this adaptation are Marlon -Mark Antony- Brando's speech at the Capitol, John -Crassus- Gielgud and James -Brutus- Mason's quarrel before the battle of Philippi and, of course, Louis -Caesar- Calhern's assassination. The quality of this Warner DVD is very good and the 20 minutes interview of Dennis Hopper, Laurence Fishburne and John Avildsen interesting. A DVD for your library.