Antony and Cleopatra

Have enormous appreciation for Shakespeare and his plays ever since being introduced to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Macbeth' in primary school, when reading the text aloud and analysing as a class which fascinated and benefitted me (not everybody liked doing it though). 'Antony and Cleopatra' is for me towards the top ranking his plays, beautiful text (though the script is one of his wordiest), one of his most passionate stories and with two of Shakespeare's most justifiably iconic characters.

This 1974 version is not one of the best seen of 'Antony and Cleopatra', of the productions available almost all of them are uneven. It is also not one of the worst. Its biggest attribute is the cast, where almost everybody is good and more. Dramatically, this version is pretty much textbook in a good way. For anybody who wants lavish production values, a grand atmosphere and more risk taking, it's better looking elsewhere as this is not the most attractive Shakespeare adaptation.

Am going to start with the aspects that didn't come off particularly well. Visually, it is pretty shabby and indicative of under-budget. Neither the costumes or sets are attractive and there is nothing lavish or grand about them, shabby is a better description. Despite being traditional in setting, it was actually fairly difficult to tell where the action was meant to be set.

Photography also feels drab and does nothing to open the action up. While almost all the cast are terrific, Corin Redgrave for me was rather bland as Octavius. Lacking the menacing adversary edge the role requires and overdoes the rigidness, Octavius is not a one-dimensional character as one understands his frustration and point of view which one doesn't feel with Redgrave. That is just personal view. While admiring that it was traditional and tasteful, the production does too often feel too small scale and safe with not enough of its own identity.

On the other hand, a lot is done right to brilliant effect. Do agree that the cast don't just say/recite their lines but they also feel and live them. The rest of the acting is terrific, especially Patrick Stewart's noble and moving Enobarbus that guides us through the action in a way that draws one right in. Although she may not be one's idea of Cleopatra visually, Janet Suzman's dramatic interpretation of the character is spot on. Especially in the very powerful final 20 minutes. Richard Johnson is a virile and authoritative Antony, creating a deeply flawed individual with also many fine qualities.

Johnson and Suzman are like fireworks when together, their passion and love being very believable. Despite being hindered by budget, the staging is very tasteful with no questionable touches and is not over-cooked or static. It could easily have been but the actors and their chemistry elevate. The final 20 minutes are particularly good and brought a lump to my throat and the relationship between the titular characters is textbook, not much new but the passion is far from forgotten. Shakespeare's dialogue is still wonderful.

In summary, uneven but well above average. 6/10.

No, if you want spectacle, get the Taylor/Burton and forget about Shakespeare. This DVD wins on the Royal Shakespeare Company's deep bench and Trevor Nunn's meticulous direction. All do well with the verse, and there is none of the glaring miscasting that strangles the BBC version from 1981.

Richard Johnson was briefly married to Kim Novak. He also turned down the role of James Bond because he didn't want to be trapped in a long term contract. Here he hides his good looks behind a thick beard, and if he is not as grand as Antony might be, he's certainly got most of it right. Janet Suzman braves the considerable difficulties of Cleopatra without ever becoming unbearable, which you can't say of her competition. Octavius is played by Corin Redgrave, who once again projects his father's perpetual air of irritable grievance minus the family charm.

Patrick Stewart as Enobarbus pounds his competition to dust, and Ben Kingsley and Tim Pigott-Smith in minor roles are testimony to the strength of the company. Philip Locke and Derek Godfrey also make strong impressions.

This version is shot entirely in a TV studio, now a lost and unfamiliar art form. There are virtually no constructed sets. The actors are usually in limbo, with perhaps some waving gauzes, or diffusion on the lens. This may confuse some viewers who need literal settings, but it frees the rest of us to concentrate on the people, the plot and the poetry. Shakespeare is not about architecture; the movies do that better.

Until the Caedmon audio recording with Anthony Quayle and Pamela Brown resurfaces, this DVD is the best way to absorb a packaged version of Shakespeare's play.

In ¨Anthony and Cleopatra¨ the two eponymous heroes and lovers often argue each other in a battle of words, whims and wills. From such conflicts, the viewer apprehends the true nature of each of the two. From the beginning, Mark Anthony is portrayed as a ruler who lost his desire for domination, who lost his rigid loyalty to his empire, but found his beloved lover - Cleopatra. From the beginning, we have reasons to dislike this pusillanimous hero. But there would be no way that a masterpiece of the Bard , full of conflicts, loyalties and wars, would not captivate us - including its protagonist.

This movie altogether made me lose faith in humanity. Most movies are set to stun you with good acting,or at least some acting. This movie, however, was set to painfully vaporize the viewer! It wasn't fast, like a good phaser, but slowly tortures anyone hit by it into nonexistence. This movie would be best described as a steaming pile of horse excrement laced with ebola-zaire. Cleopatra terrified me in this film. Not only was Octavia, the one who was supposed to be plain, more attractive than her, but is also a better actor for the simple reason that I didn't have to listen to her for very long. I have just seriously fallen from my chair thinking about having to watch more of this movie! If I was able to give a negative star rating to this movie, all the stars in the cosmos would not express my hatred for this movie.

I was in high school when I saw this version of "Antony and Cleopatra" on the short-lived, occasional "ABC Theatre" on the US ABC television network. I had read Shakespeare in English Literature class, of course, and had even attended some local productions of Shakespeare plays, but seeing this production totally changed my view of the Bard, even theatre in general. This was the first time I ever watched a play and felt as if I was watching something real, viewing snippets of life in progress. The actors weren't mouthing lines and feigning emotions - they were real and they believed, and that made me believe as well.

Perhaps the intervening years have affected my memory, dimming the details, but I cannot forget the awe I felt watching Patrick Stewart's Enobarbus. When I had read the play in school, Enobarbus was a minor character, and his speeches weren't important. Stewart's performance changed that. Now the role was central, and his descent from cheer to madness was a mirror of his world. Cleopatra's knowing chuckle as she spoke of her "salad days" was a lament as well a whimsey.

At that age, I may have been ripe for a change in my world view, but I cannot deny that it was "Antony and Cleopatra" that provided it. Ever since I have compared my response to a performance to that I felt from this production. Patrick Stewart has certainly gone on to "bigger and better" things in the last quarter century, but for me he'll always be Enobarbus, the man who defined Shakespeare for me.