In January of 1961, Joseph L. Mankiewicz began directing what would become the four hour long epic, Cleopatra. After sixteen weeks of filming, and $7 million spent, Mankiewicz had only produced ten minutes of the film. Nevertheless, the budget increased $31.1 million, and the filming of the drama continued on. Money wasn’t the only setback however, poor weather conditions, and health concerns with the film’s leading lady, Elizabeth Taylor, extended filming to last for over a year. After a long filming process with many complications, the film was finally released on June 12, 1963. The following day, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times wrote that Cleopatra was“envisioned handsomely,” and even in 2018, I’m inclined to agree.
The story of Cleopatra, Julius Cesar, and Marc Antony is indeed a true one, taking place during the rise of the Ancient Roman Empire. But how well did Mankiewicz know his history? Proceeding the intermission, the movie is historically accurate. There are of course dramatic flares, such as Cleopatra being snuck into the palace rolled up in a carpet; but not every detail of history is recorded. The important part is that she met Julius Cesar, stole his heart and bore him a son. Following the intermission however, history gets slightly altered. For example, it isn’t made clear that Marc Antony is also in the running for the succession of Rome. The movie makes it seem as though he is simply trying to conquer Octavian. It also completely leaves out that Antony and Cleopatra have three children together; it instead focuses on Cleopatra and Julius Cesar’s son Caesarian.
Moving away from historical context and into the setting, the movie was filmed in England, although Mankiewicz does a fine job producing sets that make the audience feel like they are in Rome,Alexandria, and Actium. The extravagant sculptures in both Egypt and Rome replicate the ancient style sculptures created during the time beautifully; with tall columns and the stylized ancient Egyptian paintings. Further, the water in Actium can’t be mistaken for being anywhere other than Greece with its magnificent aqua blue glow. One major aspect of Roman architecture that was left out however, were arches. Nearly all of the buildings shown in the movie feature massive columns but we rarely see the arches the Romans are known for inventing. A flaw, but a minor one, as Mankiewicz does an exquisite job portraying the statues and artwork of Egypt. Showing the building of Cleopatra’s massive tome was a perfect touch in displaying Egyptian architecture and culture as the Ancient pyramid tomes are something that comes clearly to mind when thinking of Egypt.
One place where Mankiewicz adapted 1960’s culture into the film were the costumes. For an ancient queen, Cleopatra would probably not have been wearing the low cut dresses she is often shown in and Marc Antony’s typical dress is also seeming rather short for a Roman general. While perhaps not following ancient styles of dress, displaying the characters in more scandalous, and stylish costumes again give the movie a dramatic flair that attracts an audience. One thing Mankiewicz gets right is Cleopatra’s hair and makeup. Often she wears gold tassels in her hair, and she always had thick black eyeliner extending to the side of her face. Two elements that are often found in the stylized paintings of ancient Egypt. While we don’t have a portrait of her, Cleopatra’s hairstyles and makeup seem to fit the one’s own perception of the Egyptian queen.
The making of Cleopatra seemed to prove many challenges for director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Filming in England rather than Egypt or Rome, one might say would be enough of a trial. Then spending $7 million to produce only ten minutes of the film, should make anyone want to quit. Followed by a huge time delay posed by an emergency surgery needed by the leading lady Elizabeth Taylor. Why would Mankiewicz persist in creating the four hour long epic Cleopatra? Because it became the most grossed film in 1963, bringing in $57.8 million. Because the movie and its actors were nominated for and won many prestigious awards and because the movie was a huge success! Along yet beautifully put together film that truly encompasses many cultural and artistic aspects of ancient Egypt, and Rome. Bosley Crowther ends his New York Times review of Cleopatra saying, “I don’t see how you can fail to find this a generally brilliant, moving, and satisfying film,” and once again in 2018, I’m inclined to agree with him.
Work Cited:
Crowther, Bosley. “The Screen: ‘Cleopatra’ Has Premiere at Rivoli: 4-Hour Epic is Tribute to its Artists Skill.” The New York Times, 13 June 1963.
