Cleopatra (1912)

Simply Perfect

Absolutely Brilliant!

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Good but not great. Like some of the other commentors, I saw this on TCM with the new music soundtrack. Unlike many, I liked the new music. Since this film is so dated, the music "freshens it up" a little. It's really more effective as a time capsule rather than as a drama. The star, Helen Gardner, also produced, so this is her vision. We all know the story, but what is interesting is the acting style and visuals. I agree with the other viewer here about the female cast members. You can't help but notice. With all these surgically enhanced, or personal-trainer enhanced, washboard-abbed stars today, it is nice to see a movie full of people who weren't under such pressure to look a certain way. There's plenty of "unintentional humor" here too, for those looking for camp value.

The Queen of the Nile turns out to be a zaftig hausfrau with long tangled hair and, seemingly, no eyeballs. But to be fair, her handmaidens appear to have been noshing liberally on the pomegranates, too. This 1912 full-length feature may be ambitious for its day in its attempt to bring ancient history alive in six or seven reels, and it's admirable that Helen Gardner, the Cleopatra, was an actor-manager with unusual prestige and power for a woman. But the movie is still ludicrous: the posturing and finger-pointing and flailing, the static camera, the rudimentary plotting where the two most powerful rulers of the ancient world appear never to govern, because they're too fixated on each other.There's a smitten slave who escapes death three or four times, a Marc Antony who does little but glower (give him credit -- he does have a romantic profile), and a lithe Octavia I'd leave this Cleo for in a minute. The sets and costumes are flimsy but at least they're of a piece, and it's sort of fun to see the Hudson River, somewhere around Nyack, standing in for Egypt. But even by its primitive 1912 standards, it's laughably unconvincing -- if silent pictures could talk, this one would have a New York accent.

I just saw this version of "Cleopatra" as part of TCM's Women Pioneers in Film Series. Although I think they did a beautiful job on the restoration, I found the new, avant-garde soundtrack too invasive and distracting. In fact, I had to watch it with the mute on.Having said that, though, I did find this adaptation interesting. It is true that, like many films of this era, it is a bit creaky and primitive. However, it provides a fascinating glimpse of early filmmaking--no closeups, the camera hardly ever moves, etc. I also found Ms. Gardener fascinating, given how much of the production was actually done by her, including costume design. I wish there were more information available on her life and career.

This early silent (1912) is a bit creeky (canvas flats that move in the breeze and a ship pushed on from the wings) but is an early attempt to use ancient history as the inspiration for a film drama. Helen Gardner and her troupe filmed a stage production, typical for the time, with little awareness of the possibilities of the medium. The plot actually comes from another source than Shakespeare and is not the usual Anthony and Cleopatra story. It may be based on a French 19th century opera which, in turn, can be traced back to a short story by Alexander Pushkin. This film is an excellent example of the state of the art in the time that it was made.