This is an admirable attempt by MGM to do Shakespeare. The studio cast a range of great actors to fill the roles, and the result is generally very agreeable. Great production values, set design and costuming set off a quite fine Shakespeare production.
The film is probably most memorable to today's audiences because it features Marlon Brando in a rather atypical role. Proving his astounding acting talent, Brando mastered the language of the Bard and is truly excellent as Marc Antony. Yet James Mason, as the quiet, thoughtful Brutus, is even better. Mason's subtely and underplaying perhaps makes audiences forget how great he truly was. As someone one said, he could suggest a whole range of emotions in his relatively passive, calm face. Mason is a brilliant Brutus, and it is a performance that ranks amongst his best.
John Gielgud brings his classical English stage training to Cassius, and Gielgud is as fine as ever. Louis Calhern at first seems an unusual choice for Julius Caesar, yet he brings a great sense of dignity to his role. Edmond O'Brien shows what a great actor he really was in playing Casca, and although Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr are wasted in sub-ordinate roles, they are a welcome presence. I also liked George Macready as Marullus. Macready's sinister Ballin Mundson from GILDA is forever burned into my brain, and he is again memorable here.
Overall I liked the film, Mankiewicz was a very able director and he handles Shakespeare well. The only problems I have with it is, although the MGM sound stage looks as fantastic as ever, it is perhaps too glossy. It also very moves slowly, and I think part of the blame lies in Shakespeare's play itself. JULIUS CAESAR is not a perfect play, and it does have one big flaw- it loses dramatic tension after Marc Antony's big speech. So I think many of the film's faults are attributed to MGM and Mankiewicz trying to film the play verbatim. Unlike the Olivier films, the play here is not really adapted for the film medium, different from the stage, and a few different techniques could have been used to bring the themes across. Nevertheless, its still very worthwhile.
The film is probably most memorable to today's audiences because it features Marlon Brando in a rather atypical role. Proving his astounding acting talent, Brando mastered the language of the Bard and is truly excellent as Marc Antony. Yet James Mason, as the quiet, thoughtful Brutus, is even better. Mason's subtely and underplaying perhaps makes audiences forget how great he truly was. As someone one said, he could suggest a whole range of emotions in his relatively passive, calm face. Mason is a brilliant Brutus, and it is a performance that ranks amongst his best.
John Gielgud brings his classical English stage training to Cassius, and Gielgud is as fine as ever. Louis Calhern at first seems an unusual choice for Julius Caesar, yet he brings a great sense of dignity to his role. Edmond O'Brien shows what a great actor he really was in playing Casca, and although Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr are wasted in sub-ordinate roles, they are a welcome presence. I also liked George Macready as Marullus. Macready's sinister Ballin Mundson from GILDA is forever burned into my brain, and he is again memorable here.
Overall I liked the film, Mankiewicz was a very able director and he handles Shakespeare well. The only problems I have with it is, although the MGM sound stage looks as fantastic as ever, it is perhaps too glossy. It also very moves slowly, and I think part of the blame lies in Shakespeare's play itself. JULIUS CAESAR is not a perfect play, and it does have one big flaw- it loses dramatic tension after Marc Antony's big speech. So I think many of the film's faults are attributed to MGM and Mankiewicz trying to film the play verbatim. Unlike the Olivier films, the play here is not really adapted for the film medium, different from the stage, and a few different techniques could have been used to bring the themes across. Nevertheless, its still very worthwhile.