# Julius Caesar (1953)

### reviewed by
Ted Prigge

    JULIUS CAESAR (1953)
    A Film Review by Ted Prigge
    Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge

Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz Adapter: Joseph L. Mankiewicz (from the play by William Shakespeare) Starring: James Mason, Marlon Brando, John Gielgud, Louis Calhern, Edmond O'Brien, Greer Garson, Deborah Kerr, Douglass Watson, Richard Hale, Alan Napier, John Hardy, Jack Raine, Lumsden Hare, Paul Guilfoyle

I've finally come to the conclusion that the aspect of a Shakespeare adaptation that makes or breaks it is the quality of the acting, and everything else in the film, the direction, what it leaves out of the text, the time period, yada yada yada, are all secondary. If you've ever seen the 1970 production of "Julius Caesar," you'll know that it looks good and everything, but the acting by Charlton Heston, Jason Robards, and John Gielgud is rather weak, and the film is ultimately not a success. Even a film like Baz Lehrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" is only marginally successful because the sets and direction are great, and some of the supporting actors are magnificent, but frankly, the two leads have no clue what they're saying (Claire basically does a vapid redux of her character on "My So-Called Life").

That's why this adaptation of "Julius Caesar" is so goddam good! You have Marlon Brando in his fourth screen performance, back in his prime (sandwiched between performances in "Viva Zapata!" and "On the Waterfront," the latter for which he won an Oscar), playing the big scene-stealer in the play, Mark Antony. You have James Mason, an extraordinary and very underrated actor, who had the guts to play the lead in Kubrick's "Lolita" and did it to perfection, playing the tragic protagonsit, Brutus. You have John Gielgud (again), firing up the screen as my personal favorite character in the play, Cassius. And in small supporting roles, you have people like "The Wild Bunch"'s Edmond O'Brien, "The King and I"'s Deborah Kerr, and the villain from "Duck Soup," Louis Calhern, playing the eponomously-titled character. Just amazing.

The play itself is actually not one of Shakespeare's better ones. The climax pretty much comes around the middle-to-end of Act III, and everything else almost seems to feel like an afterthought. Mark Antony hardly has any part in the play, save for Act III when he stuns everyone with a brilliantly given speech that turns the entire tide of the play around...and then disappears again, only to show up intermittently. But in all reality, Shakespeare at his most mediocre is still brilliant.

The play deals with the inner workings of the conspiracy concerning the assasination of Julius Caesar (Calhern) by several of the senators working for him, but is told from the perspective of Caesar's most trusted friend, Brutus (Mason), who in the beginning, is gradually convinced by Cassius (Gielgud), one of the conspirators, to help them kill him. After giving in and helping them murder Caesar in a brutal scene, he wins over the public with a big speech, only to have Mark Antony (Brando), the sole supporter of the Republic, turn things right around and convince everyone to hunt down the conspirators and kill them.

Although whomever plays Antony often gets top bill (as Brando did), the play's heart and soul is in Brutus, the man who is too easily folds and convinces himself that what he's doing is good. The play is an inner battle for Brutus, and the film masterfully embraces that. The best moment in the film for me is not Antony's speech but rather the assasination scene. Often a gory scene (the one in the '70 version lasted, oh I dunno, for about two minutes), the camera actually pulls away from the murder once it has started, and shows a close-up on Brutus, who stands shocked by it, still trying to figure out if he wants to join in. It's just one of the many examples of the way this film is superior to most Shakespeare films.

The acting is still the real highlight though, and this is one of the best-acted Shakespeare screen adaptations. Of course, it only helps that the three leads are all method actors (I think), and that they are all trained in the acting style that means acting with full emotional force. Marlon Brando got an Oscar nomination for his performance, and his acting in his few scenes is just incredible. His funeral speech is probably the most stirring and jaw-droppingly awesome acted scene in any Shakespeare film, and he does it so well that it's easy to believe that the Roman citizens would change their minds so easily. Meanwhile John Gielgud is amazing as Cassius. He actually turns the scene where he tries to convince Brutus to join up with the other Senators into a seduction scene, playing not only on Brutus's insecurities, but also, well, his latent homosexuality.

And James Mason...well, he portrays perhaps the most sympathetic Brutus I have ever seen anywhere. I remember Jason Robards was merely "boring" as Brutus; Mason breathes actual human life into the character, and creates someone we can all identify with. His final scenes are probably his best, though, where he has to finally fess up to the fact that he made a terrible mistake, and has to face the destruction it has caused, including the suicide of his wife, Portia (Deborah Kerr). Mason's performance gives us a reason to care after Brando's speech midway through the film, because we still want to see him handle his psychological battles. While Brando's is scene stealing and Gielgud's is masterful, Mason's is emotional.

I've probably said way too much about the acting; everything else about this film is great as well. The sets are wonderful, the black and white cinematography gives it a sometimes eerie and conspiring feel, and most of all, the direction by Hollywood great Joseph L. Mankiewicz. With his almost gritty direction and weird camera angles, he brings the play alive, which is no shock because he's one of the best directors of films with lots of great dialogue (see "All About Eve" and "Sleuth," two of the best Hollywood films of all time and both directed by Mankiewicz). He has a certain knack for allowing dialogue to take precedence while still managing to keep things moving. If anything, his "Julius Caesar" is wonderfully paced.

The best Shakespeare films are ones that are filled with life, like the films by Branagh and Olivier, who were also able to give their Shakespeare films a lot of depth as well. And the very best ones were acted by actors who connected with the audience, and gave them a real reason to care what happens to a bunch of people speaking in poetic verses. "Julius Caesar" the play may not be one of Shakespeare's best, but weirdly enough, "Julius Caesar" the 1953 film is one of the best film versions of his plays.

    MY RATING (out of 4): ****

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews