Cleopatra

[frankq]

If you have or can get the book, read it. It's enlightening.

 

 

Very well. I accept your suggestion. I have read Michael Grant's The Etruscans and found it highly informative, if somewhat bland at times. (Though judging by what Pantagathus has written on Etruscans in the Forum Peregrini, Grant's research on the subject is somewhat out of date.)

 

Get Volkmann's book, too, if you are interested in this topic. In fact, there are several new books out on Cleo attempting to vindicate her and her position in history. And, again, by defaut, Antony, too. Both figures have been much maligned in the last 2000 years.

[phil25]

On the subject of Cleopatra's lovers, I think we have to be careful.

 

The first point is that we must drop hindsight. Cleopatra did not know in advance that either Caesar or later Antonius were going to come into her life. She may have made a deliberate attempt to seduce the latter (politically and sexually) but the former could easily have resisted her blandishments; or gone away to fight wars elsewhere much more quickly.

 

One question, therefore, must be - what would Cleopatra have done had neither man entered her life? Did she take any steps (now lost to us and the record) to ensure her that there was a successor to her throne.

 

Personally I doubt that Cleopatra did enter into any relationships (at least formally) other than the two we know of, because the rank of her "partner" would have ensured some notice of him survived. Also any children would have been acknowledged. Unless, of course, the Queen made a deliberate distinction between royal and state marriage producing heirs (such as Caesarion, Selene, Helios etc) and other offspring of non-royal or state partners. On that basis she could have had many lovers.

 

Which brings me neatly to the second point, that the sexual morality and culture of Egypt in C1stBC must be taken into account. As a divine Isis-figure, it is not impossible that Cleopatra took lovers in a religious context. Isis was, after all, a mother figure. It is largely covered-up by the Victorian-values of Egyptology, but there are clear indications from Pharaonic times that the king fertilised the land in a literal way, with his semen, and that his chief "queen" (pun intended) had a hand in this. I have no idea whether such rites survived into Ptolemaic times, but they may have done.

 

Cleopatra was also royal and this probably choosy about her "official" partners - who would need the same divinity and regal blood. On the other hand, in a slave-owning culture - male slaves would have been readily available and could be silenced if necessary. I doubt we would have heard of it. Caesar knew that any heir had to be Roman, and that marriage to a foreigner, however noble/royal, would be invalid in Roman law. Hence thre treatment in his will of Octavian - adoptive heir - and Caesarion (probably blood heir but ignored). Distinctions are being made here. Just so, Caesar could "marry" Cleopatra in a way that would be understood in the east, but knew that under Roman law his wife remained the noble Roman lady Calpurnia.

 

So I suspend judgement, but in practice - whatever went on behind closed palace doors in Alexandria - I suspect that Caesar and Antonius were the only men that "mattered" in Cleopatra's life. But what does that term mean? How did she spend the majority of her years - when Caesar and Antonius were not with her?

 

I doubt she was a nun!! And had she not been, I doubt it would have mattered, or been thought odd, in terms of the values of the day.

 

Phil

[frankq]

All good points. Again, the issue of Cleo's chastity has been hammered lately to offset the slander directed against her by Augustan propaganda. What she did in her private moments we will never know, but it is necessary to revise our image of her since Augustus spin doctors went to work presenting her as a royal whore and even nymphomaniac. I do find some recent historians bold statements like ''she had only two lovers'' just about as hard to swallow as her being accused of screwing everybody in the East. Yet I think their references are actually more as you put forth, what was officially happening, her lovers on the official roster.

 

Always remember that Augustus had much at stake in discrediting not only her, but Caesarion. And went to great lengths to foster the rumor that the child was not Caesar's.

 

 

By the by, it is interesting to note that, despite the centuries of hard propaganda set against her, in films she is always presented in a better light. Here, ironically, Octavian gets the bad deal he probably in part deserves. Roddy McDowell's portrayal of him as a conniving, seasick wimp has never left my mind. Unfair? Sure. But, hey, ironic, the supreme PR and propagandist had Hollywood come back 2000 years later to bite him in the ass.

[phil25]

Roddy McDowell was SUPERB. not only was he the spitting-image of the busts of the young Octavian/Augustus that we know, but I think he captured the spirit of the young adventurer excellently. To me this WAS the way the 18 year old Octavian would have been - unlikeable and a totally political animal - never relaxing for a moment, eye always on the advantage.

 

I think after Actium, as master of the world, he could relax, but his treatment of the two Julia's (and their lovers, including a son of Antonius) showed that even later on he could be as ruthless as necessary.

 

Do you recall an old ITV series from the 60s (I don't know whether it was ever shown outside the UK) called "The Caesars"? It was in black and white and is best remembered for Freddie Jone's Claudius (better in some ways to my mind than Jacobi in the later "I Claudius". In that series, Augustus was played by Roland Culver, an old actor with a wonderful "edge" to his characterisations (he later played the old Duke of Omnium in "The Pallisers". To me Culver captured the older Augustus better than Brian Blessed did (he played him as a "Godfather" style gangster, fun but inaccurate in appearance and manner).

 

I agree with you on the screen Cleopatras. I still like Liz Taylor's regal performance. The girl in "Rome" with her rope wigs was too immoral for my picture of the great Queen.

 

What do you think of "Caesar and Cleopatra" (Claude Rains and Vivien Leigh) from the late 40s? The script is pure Shaw, but some of the design is, I think, stunning.

 

Phil

[frankq]

Roddy McDowell was SUPERB. not only was he the spitting-image of the busts of the young Octavian/Augustus that we know, but I think he captured the spirit of the young adventurer excellently. To me this WAS the way the 18 year old Octavian would have been - unlikeable and a totally political animal - never relaxing for a moment, eye always on the advantage.

 

I think after Actium, as master of the world, he could relax, but his treatment of the two Julia's (and their lovers, including a son of Antonius) showed that even later on he could be as ruthless as necessary.

 

Do you recall an old ITV series from the 60s (I don't know whether it was ever shown outside the UK) called "The Caesars"? It was in black and white and is best remembered for Freddie Jone's Claudius (better in some ways to my mind than Jacobi in the later "I Claudius". In that series, Augustus was played by Roland Culver, an old actor with a wonderful "edge" to his characterisations (he later played the old Duke of Omnium in "The Pallisers". To me Culver captured the older Augustus better than Brian Blessed did (he played him as a "Godfather" style gangster, fun but inaccurate in appearance and manner).

 

I agree with you on the screen Cleopatras. I still like Liz Taylor's regal performance. The girl in "Rome" with her rope wigs was too immoral for my picture of the great Queen.

 

What do you think of "Caesar and Cleopatra" (Claude Rains and Vivien Leigh) from the late 40s? The script is pure Shaw, but some of the design is, I think, stunning.

 

Phil

 

Oooo. A 60's Brit TV series on Rome? I missed it, and growing up in NY in the 50's I caught most of the UK stuff because channels would try and get anything and the UK and US exchanged programs a lot. (Donald Pleasance played Prince John on Robin Hood, remember? And Roger Moore was Ivanhoe!) But the show you mentioned I never heard of.

 

To answer your question RE Cleo and Caesar. I find Shaw's rendition of Cleo insulting, and against the grain entirely about who she really was. This was a political animal. Even at 19 or 21 she was on to everything and knew what moves to take. Shaw depicts her as a flippant bimbo. Not that I dislike Shaw, I usually do very much, and I thought Korda's movie was well done. (I've only seen it once.) Still, it's the standard 19th century Victorian line on Cleopatra.

 

Speaking of Korda and Rome, have you ever had the chance to see what rushes and takes survive on Laughton's I, Claudius?

[phil25]

The documentary "The Epic That Never Was" (narrated by Dirk Bogarde) about the making of Korda's incomplete "I Claudius", is an extra in the UK dvd of the BBC "I Claudius. It dates from the 60s and includes most of the surviving footage. Excellent. Whether it would be an historically distinguished film, I don't know. But I think Laughton's performance might have made it a classic. Emlyn William's Caligula and Flora Robson's Livia were shaping up well too.

 

The Ivanhoe series I loved a a kid (Moore was my hero for a while); Pleasance was prince John in Robin Hood 9with Richard Greene) and Andrew Keir did the part in Ivanhoe. Moore's later "M", when he played Bond was his squire Gurth. Ivanhow has never been repeated or released on dvd/video as far as i know.

 

Some of the other 50s series of that kind - The Buccaneers (Robert Shaw); William Tell (Conrad Philips with Willoughby Goddard as fat Gessler); Greene's Robin Hood (Alan Wheatley as the definitive Sheriff); and Sir Lancelot (William Russell) have been issued complete on dvd in the UK. They stand up remarkably well.

 

The Caesars which I mentioned was an ITV production with a big budget for the time - in addition to those I have mentioned, I recall Andre Morell (TV Quatermass and the Pit/film Ben Hur) as Tiberius and Barrie Ingham as a chilling Sejanus. I can still visualise the scene in the curia as he sits and listens to Tiberius' message, and the truth gradually sinks in - superb. Michael Bates was the best Caligula I have seen too - they even got the "I'm not dead yet" line in as he is assassinated.

 

Earlier there was a BBC version of the Skaespeare Roman plays (c1960ish), called "Spread of the Eagle". this followed up a brilliant similar series of the history plays "An Age of Kings). Robert Hardy was Coriolanus; David William a cold Octavian, with I think Keith Michell (later a notable Henry VIII) as Antony. The Forum set was "under construction" in Coriolanus, then complete for the plays set later. It made a vivid impression at the time.

 

Thanks for helping to bring fond old memories to the surface.

 

Phil

[frankq]

Sorry to confess but I never could stand The Buccaneers with Bob Shaw. They used to show it on one of our local NY stations and I always thought Shaw overacted and was a real ham. The show was clearly too British for my grade school taste. Odd, too, since I love Robin Hood and William Tell. You remember the opening song to William Tell? ''Freeee, the right to be freeee!'' Can still hear the jingo and haven't seen the show since the 50's.

 

Another show we got from UK was The Invisible Man. Remember that?

 

I've only seen a few cuts from Laughton's film. What I saw made a big deal about Merle Oberon having some wicked accident that knocked her out of the production. Who was she supposed to play?

 

Speaking of TV epics for Rome. As a young boy I remember watching some production about Rome, something to do with after Philippi and there were stacks upon stacks of bodies being piled up for burning. And when I was real young I remember seeing some kind of Twilight Zone spin-off that had John Hoyt playing Caesar and getting stabbed to death in the Senate. I was so freaked-intrigued that I called my father in and asked him what it was about. My old man told me: ''Julius Caesar was a dictator, so the senators killed him.'' I went: ''Oh. OK. Cool.'' It all made sense. Still does.

 

Things about Rome always immediately sunk into my head and stayed there.

[Skarr]

Very well. I accept your suggestion. I have read Michael Grant's The Etruscans and found it highly informative, if somewhat bland at times. (Though judging by what Pantagathus has written on Etruscans in the Forum Peregrini, Grant's research on the subject is somewhat out of date.)

 

This quite true, Ursus. The information on the Etruscans is somewhat scanty and is a real challenge in terms of understanding their culture, as a lot of it is speculative and is based on interpretation of tomb art and other descriptions that have survived. Some of the accounts may also have been overly biased and there is a lot of controversy especially with regard to the way the Romans viewed their social behavior.

 

Rome so thoroughly absorbed them that in a few centuries, it was almost impossible to classify Etruscan separately as they became so Romanized and Rome did borrow a number of their innovations, including the all famous arch, the practice of using lictors and even their triumph, which was an ancient Etruscan purification ceremony for kings after victory in battle. Of course, the ancient triumphal ceremony was extremely simple and involved a circular route as moving in a circle was symbolic of purification. I think the display of enemy spoils, trophies, captives etc. were added by the Romans later on.

 

Of course, there is also the science of haruspicy, which was another Etruscan practice that was later adopted by the Romans, focused on examination of the liver of certain animals that were sacrificed as to their color, condition, etc. I'm looking for a good book on the Etruscans to research (apart from the work published by Grant). In case you know of any, please post.

[phil25]

I don't know what the film was that had bosies burning after Phillipi, but the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" begins with an exactly similar scene after Pharsalia. Could you be thinking of that and perhaps have conflated two memories?

 

Merle Oberon was to have played Messalina in Korda's "I Claudius". She had a car accident, but I think the film could have been completed with a new star - not much had been shot that involved her directly as far as I can see.

 

The implication is that Korda saw the film very much as a vehicle for Merle (his wife) and when she couldn't be in it, cancelled the show. But the documentary hints that Laughton was unhappy in his role and that the whole film was "troubled", and thus brought to a premature ending. But laughton was almost always "troubled" and the material he had shot on this film was brilliant stuff. The "I, Cl-cl-cl-claudius, will teach you how to... fra-me... your laws!" speech to the Senate sticks in my mind.

 

So I think Merle's accident was an excuse.

 

Oh - and Messalina appears to have been envisaged as a Vestal Virgin to start with!! They, by the way, according to the film were dozens strong and dressed in gauzy veils through which their nubile bodies could be glimpsed!! Some of the Head Vestals who's statues still adorn the Atrium Vestae might have been a little put out, I fear!!

 

Phil

[frankq]

<<<<<<<<< don't know what the film was that had bosies burning after Phillipi, but the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" begins with an exactly similar scene after Pharsalia. Could you be thinking of that and perhaps have conflated two memories?

<<<<<<<<<<

 

No, I don't think so. And didnt Taylor's Cleo start with a shot in Egypt, with Rex having Pompey's head brought to him in a basket?

 

What trouble did Laughton cause? Was he a problem actor? I know that he and Olivier despised each other and Kubrick handled them both really well. His youth here paid off.

[phil25]

Cleopatra - at least the version I am familiar with (which was the video and dvd version in the UK) starts with Pharsalia. Caesar only gets to Alexandria and receives the head of Pompey about five/ten minutes into the film.

 

Laughton was difficult on "Claudius" apparently because he couldn't "find" the character. He is said to have eventually discovetred the motivation he needed in a recording of Edward VIII's abdication speech!! But the rushes reveal none of this. His performance is deep, warm, touching, vulnerable and once Emperor, has command and intelligence - wit even. I think it would have been wonderful. But Charles always had to find part of himself to bring to the role, and I think he always doubted his genius. there was always a tortured, self-damaging aspect to his work - at least that is Simon Callow's view in his masterly biography.

 

Laughton and Olivier (for long my own hero as an actor) were like chalk and cheese. Laughton dragged a part from within, Olivier assumed it.

 

Do you know the story about Larry and an agonising method actor, DustIn Hoffman (whom I admire tremendously. In "Marathon Man" there was a need for both actors to be exhausted, and Hoffman made a frail and ageing olivier walk around for a long time to get the right feeling and mood. Eventually Olivier said, "Why not try acting, dear boy!"

 

Something of tht attitude may have influenced Olivier's view of Laughton. They appeared at Stratford around the same time that they made Spartacus together, and the same attitudes prevailed there. I don't know whether Olivier despised laughton, but they were chalk and cheese.

 

Phil

[frankq]

Yes, i'm very familiar with the famous bit between Hoffman and Olivier. To me it handily sums up the differences between US and UK acting techniques. US acting has been dominated in many degrees by method acting, ''getting in the right mood''. UK acting is considered a trade, you punch in your time card, perform, then punch out. No BS and no mystique. It's a profession, like welding, not a supernatural seance. Hence, one of the reason why 85% of most UK actors divide their time between cinema and stage and why at least 80% of US actor don't even know what footlights are. Funny that Laughton was of the other persuasion.

[Skarr]

Speaking about acting, no one said it better than Shakespeare in Hamlet. In a sense, Hamlet himself is a supreme actor in his own life, creating a dramatic persona of his own, in order to deceive his errant mother, his evil uncle and others like R & G, who also 'pretend'.

 

Hamlet's speech to the actors before they perform for his uncle is one of the most brilliant speeches and the 'to be or not to be' speech is a real 'tour de force', possibly the litmus test for any Shakespearean actor. Of all the actors that I have heard doing this speech - Burton, Gielgud, Olivier, Redgrave, Scofield and then later, Branagh and Gibson, each brought their own interpretation to this grand speech. Burton made it fiery, Olivier very reflective, Scofield - elegant, even poignant and Redgrave, quite grand. Gielgud was one of the very best, as he has a remarkable voice. Branagh was pedestrian and Gibson, laughable. There was another actor (I forget his name even - recent, modern version of Hamlet) - quite horrible.

 

I think US actors are brilliant in certain kinds of roles. However, for Shakespeare or anything which required crips, clear dialogue, give me a British actor any day. Look at Kevin McKidd in "Rome". He did a marvelous job and so did Ray Stevenson, in their key roles for the series.

[phil25]

I don't know whether this is the thread or forum in which to discuss acting styles, but:

 

I think until the late 60s, actors had to make their name on the stage. Even a fairly young man like James Dean had first acted on Broadway before getting his Hollywood break. A then anglo-phile America also liked the british accent - so there was an assumption that the Colman's, Oliviers, C Aubrey Smiths (in the 50s Burton) of the profession were the "actors". And "great" acting was established by conquering Shakespeare.

 

But from the 60s on the screen began really to overshadow the stage as the basis of decisions on effective acting. I would argue that Hoffman, Pacino and de Niro are three of the great actors on the basis of their screen work. These - not the Ken Brannagh's - are the ones who are emulated.

 

Brannagh chose the olivier path to glory - Royal Shakespear Company, solid TV roles, directing himself in Henry V, then to Hollywood. I would argue he has found fame, but not renown, because he took the wrong route. The greatest actors today are screen actors and the style is a natural, unforced one.

 

This is wholly in line with the development of acting, where each dominant figure - Burbage; Garrick; Irving; Olivier... has been seen as more "natural"/less theatrical than what cam before. 20 years later they are being seen as hams and a new generation of young Turks emerges.

 

So I think the US rules today in terms of acting greatness - though I'd defend the quality of our English actors (Holm, McKellen, Emma Thompson; Robert lindsay, Ioan Gruffydd; Bernard Hill....) to the death.

 

But I could be wrong. It's largely a question of taste.

 

Phil

[Denec]

I just got the book this week, and reading it now. Only into the second chapter but enjoying it.

 

Thanks all.