JULIUS CAESAR

[charliechaplinfan]

I haven't seen the later version, I thought that the 1953 version was pretty perfect. I studied the text at school, taking a whole term to dissect the major characters and for me all the major characters had it spot on, Brutus I think is a difficult role to get right, he has to be honourable, above reproach and niave, I think Mason is superb as Brutus completely capturing the complexity of the part, John Geilgud captures Cassius equally well, I wonder how different it is to deliver that performance for film after being so used to delivering it on stage? Deborah Kerr and Greer Garson are perfect casting too in roles that really don't give them much to do. To cast Brando who would have added to the desirability at the box office could have been jarring but he's good and one gets the impression that he's really trying with Anthony, he makes Anthony a different breed, a new generation with different tactics and a breathe of fresh air and makes it feel modern just as we tire with politicians and celebrities tiday and want fresher models. I love the play, it's second only to Hamlet for me. I'd love to have seen Brando play Anthony again in Anthony and Cleopatra although Richard Burton is good in the film Cleopatra I'd love to have watched another Brando outing as Anthony.

[JackFavell]

You both really capture the film well, and make me want to see it again. It was a surprise to me that it was so good, in fact, I think it's a pretty near perfect version, and one of Mankiewicz's most successful films, from the vantage of time. I am not sure but was this a success at it's opening? I always thought it was considered a disaster so when I finally watched it I was completely blown away by it.

Agree with everything you both said, I think Clahern does capture something about Caesar that no one else has ever gotten, not quite sure what it is, just seems like a gigantic brain I guess. Mason is brilliant, and Gielgud as well, and surprisingly liked Greer Garson and Kerr very much.

Perhaps Robards knew he was not cast properly and decided to tank the performance by not even trying? He's SO good in the O'Neill plays.

I agree about Brando, he could have done more Shakespeare but I guess he was moving on, the type never to settle for doing anything over again.

[RedRiver]

I like the cast of this film, though I haven't seen it in many years. James "The Voice" Mason is wonderful as Brutus, the most interesting of the characters. Some people dislike Louis Calhern. Maybe that's because he's a stage actor. His facial expressions are exaggerated. His interpretations broad. I like him in ASPHALT JUNGLE, BLACKBOARD JUNGLE, and as Oliver Wendell Holmes in THE MAGNIFICENT YANKEE. I can't honestly say I remember his Caesar, but I had no complaints at the time.

Brando should have played his role in a ripped T-shirt, swilling beer. "Friends, Romans, STELLA!!!" Didn't Orson Welles and The Mercury Players stage this play in interesting fashion? A black cast, maybe? I believe I heard that.

[charliechaplinfan]

Louis Calhearn doesn't stand out for me and I think that's because the role of Julius Caesar is a figurehead but not the most enthralling character in the play, perhaps it's because we already know what history has told us about Caesar that he doesn't need to be fleshed out as much as the conspirators. I find Brando mesmerising in his early work, I find it difficult to look at anyone else on the screen but it's not so here, James Mason's Brutus is equally memorable. When I studied the text I didn't much care for Brutus, Anthony being the young Pretender, the romantic figure, I did study it at 16 so perhaps that reflects a change in my attitude but I did find I had more sympathy with Brutus in the film version.

[RedRiver]

Thank you. I knew there was a story of some kind.