Cleopatra (1912) User Reviews

Important early feature a developmental milestone

[DLewis · 6/10 · 11 August 2000]

Producer-star Helen Gardner has doubtless seen the Italian "Quo Vadis", and this "Cleopatra" runs an amazing 90 minutes for a 1912 feature (with 106 title cards!) "Cleopatra" is a case of trial and discovery in this exploratory era of American features. The first hour is filmed in the static "Film d'Art" style, save for one brief insert added probably very late in the production, and the modern viewer begins to wish that the camera were moved even just a bit closer to the stagebound action, despite the elaborate, if somewhat primitive, stage dressing. In the last third of "Cleopatra" more shots and setups are used, by far, than in the first two thirds. We also find the camera is moving closer to the actors and less of a concern is shown towards exposing the sets, costumes, and extras, resulting in an entirely more satisfying and intimate cinematic experience, though some of this section of the film is choppy in the GEH print aired on TCM. My feeling is that "Cleopatra" is a textbook example of how feature-length filmmaking helped open up possibilities towards a more sophisticated style of onscreen direction, cutting and camera setups. Gardner & co. are literally discovering as they go, and it seems much of "Cleopatra" was filmed in story sequence. By shooting using gradually smaller parts of the set, and closer to the actors, Gardner created a film that had considerably more dramatic power in the end result than was generally required by 1912 standards, and on this alone the film remains a genuine step-forward for the fledgling American feature industry.

Very interesting

[silent-12 · 6/10 · 11 August 2000]

I just saw this version of "Cleopatra" as part of TCM's Women Pioneers in Film Series. Although I think they did a beautiful job on the restoration, I found the new, avant-garde soundtrack too invasive and distracting. In fact, I had to watch it with the mute on.

Having said that, though, I did find this adaptation interesting. It is true that, like many films of this era, it is a bit creaky and primitive. However, it provides a fascinating glimpse of early filmmaking--no closeups, the camera hardly ever moves, etc. I also found Ms. Gardener fascinating, given how much of the production was actually done by her, including costume design. I wish there were more information available on her life and career.

One buxom Cleo

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 14 January 2017]

Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.

Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?

For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.

I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.

It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.

What WERE they thinking??

[Jane1023 · 24 September 2000]

I saw the restored version of this film, which was funded by and shown on Turner Classic Television. Realizing that it was a filmed stage play done in 1912, I had no unrealistic expectations for the production values. And, as an early 20th century stage play, I thought it was quite good, But...and I still can't get over this...the soundtrack was so inappropriate that I had to watch the film with the TV muted. I have nothing against "modern" soundtracks for silent films, and in some cases, they work very well, such as Moroder's "Metropolis", but this was downright laughable in many places.

Helen Gardner in Denial

[wes-connors · 2/10 · 23 September 2010]

At the peak of her fame, Vitagraph "vamp" star Helen Gardner formed her own company and released this ambitious multi-reel feature. But, while financially and critically successful, this dreadful "Cleopatra" proved to be a gross artistic miscalculation by Ms. Gardner and director/partner Charles L. Gaskill. Some context is required. In 1912, "movies" were widely considered to be a vulgar and cheap form of entertainment, when compared to the "legitimate theater." For example, snooty critics saw movie close-ups as inferior because they only showed part of the actor, and many performers refused to appear in flickering films.

Apparently, Gardner and her company shot "Cleopatra" with theatrical intentions. So, the carrying around of fake sets in front of a static camera was intentional; the crew could have gone out on location, but didn't. Moreover, Gardner's wild gesturing purposefully imitated a stage style of acting. Probably, Gardner hoped she and "Cleopatra" would surpass Sarah Bernhardt's recently released "Queen Elizabeth" (1912) in critical acclaim. Instead, it looks like Gardner forgot how to act. And, with her full figure unflatteringly accented by off-camera fans, she looks dreadful. This "Cleopatra" leaves us with only its historical importance.

** Cleopatra (11/13/12) Charles L. Gaskill ~ Helen Gardner, Charles Sindelar, Helene Costello, Harry Knowles

I give it points for being a film milestone but that score! Argh my ears!

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 13 April 2016]

Quite a remarkable production, a key film on the continuum of American film that set the bar higher. Considering King Tut's tomb wouldn't be found for another ten years, the sets and costumes were well done, funny chubby Egyptian figures painted on the walls. Thank goodness D.W. Griffith was compelled to innovate a few years later but restoration funds were well spent on this historical film.

Cleopatra is a very stagey film. Nothing happens here that could not happen in a theatre. Genuine exteriors are almost non-existent, and even simple exteriors, requiring only a field and a tree or two, are duplicated with backdrops. This of course was in an era when the theatre still commanded a good deal more respect than did the cinema. Remember that one of the earliest film companies, a precursor to Paramount, was originally formed by Zukor as Famous Players in Famous Plays. Also note that the extras seem to have nothing really to do. They are all standing around seeming to look for direction. Most of the film is very long shots, once again, going back to theatre roots.

The score is terrible and does not fit the film at all. I don't care for avant-garde stuff and the music definitely falls into that category. If someone were going to use that type of music I would think it would be better suited to something like a German expressionist style film, not a period piece "historical" type film.

That noise Ms. Gardner (Cleopatra) was making at the beginning was just odd and distracting. Then the actual "singing" (if you can call it that because the words were pretty much unintelligible) was again distracting. I was trying to figure out what she was saying and ended up missing part of the movie. However,the sounds and the score is somebody in modern times trying to augment the film, so I can hardly blame Ms.Gardner for it one hundred years after the fact.

I'm glad this film was restored, as it's an interesting piece of film history. Before the money men got involved there was a place for women behind the camera in writing and directing as well as owning their own studios as Helen Gardner did. It's also very interesting that she made many feature length films (80-90 minutes) as opposed to the one and two reelers of the time. Cleopatra is listed as being the first feature length film (6 reels) made in the U.S., although De Mille always incorrectly tried to claim that "The Squaw Man" - which he directed -was the first feature length film.

Worthwhile for the novelty of it all.

Historically interesting

[edalweber · 2/10 · 23 November 2008]

Like other people, I found the sound track to be rather annoying.I think that the main problem with this and similar films is that it appears that the actors forgot that they were making a silent movie and that no one could hear what they were saying.You have much too long sequences where two people are talking to each other, generally with not even many gestures, and only occasional subtitles.Of course this was a very early film, and people were feeling their way, but lacking both sound and any interesting settings, this turns out to be pretty dull.The peculiar movement of the barge as it moves on and off scene does give it a surrealist appearance.

Worth watching, still interesting after over ninety yrs.

[xavrush89 · 6/10 · 30 November 2003]

Good but not great. Like some of the other commentors, I saw this on TCM with the new music soundtrack. Unlike many, I liked the new music. Since this film is so dated, the music "freshens it up" a little. It's really more effective as a time capsule rather than as a drama. The star, Helen Gardner, also produced, so this is her vision. We all know the story, but what is interesting is the acting style and visuals. I agree with the other viewer here about the female cast members. You can't help but notice. With all these surgically enhanced, or personal-trainer enhanced, washboard-abbed stars today, it is nice to see a movie full of people who weren't under such pressure to look a certain way. There's plenty of "unintentional humor" here too, for those looking for camp value.

Cleopatra review

[JoeytheBrit · 3/10 · 23 June 2020]

A vanity project from stage actress Helen Gardner, produced by her own newly formed production company and directed by her husband Charles Gaskell. It's pretty dire stuff, little more than a filmed play with some dramatic over-acting, particularly from the leading lady. At 87 minutes, it's probably the longest movie produced in the States up to that point - and it feels like it.

Though the plot is very old fashioned and a historical nightmare, the film looks marvelous for 1912.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 21 September 2013]

"Cleopatra" is clearly a case where I am giving a film a favorable rating even though I really thought the plot was pretty stupid. After all, as a retired history teacher, the film is a mess and creates a ridiculous image of Cleopatra which history cannot support. Imagine...in this film she is SO seductive and beautiful that a lowly fisherman agrees to kill himself after they complete a short love affair! And, imagine that the mere sight of her compels people to destroy their lives! That's the Cleopatra of this film--an almost complete fiction created by French playwright Victorien Sardou.

The reason I STILL think it's worthwhile is the historical context for when the film was made. It was 1912--and a feature length film in America might be 20 or 30 minutes max---yet here we have a costume drama lasting nearly 90 minutes. And, although there's a bit of overacting here and there, the film is reasonably well directed by Charles Gaskill. Worth seeing as a curio at least--even if the story is pretty crappy.

Totally wrong added musical soundtrack!!!

[rogerdob · 3/10 · 5 October 2019]

Wow! The restorers of this important silent film added a music soundtrack that is totally inappropriate to the feel and nature of this film. First of all, good soundtracks are not even noticeable...they should blend with the film so naturally that a viewer should not be aware of them. This movie's soundtrack OVERWHELMS the film. It's loud...it's too contemporary...it's strange in parts. When watching this film on TV, just make sure you mute the sound!!!

Age cannot wither her...

[rudy-46 · 10/10 · 30 November 2003]

...nor custom stale her infinite variety. - Wm. Shakespeare

How fortunate we are that this early first feature epic survives in near entirety. It stands as a testimonial to one of the greatest and overlooked actresses of early cinema, the divine Helen Gardner. Miss Gardner was a prolific actress of the stage and early screen. She taught pantomine and was possibly the first star to form her own production company, the Helen Gardner Picture Corporation, of which this film was produced. Now granted this film seems stagey and it lacks some of Griffith's techniques but it boasts some fine performances and is important for its historical value. In my opinion Miss Gardner is the finest Cleopatra the screen has ever had. She is every inch the Queen of the Nile, beautiful, majestic, sexy. She had a strong screen presence and talent that is almost forgotten due to the fact that so many of her films are gone, which is why this film is of great importance. This film is based on the play by Victorien Sardou and was directed by Miss Gardner's husband Charles L. Gaskill. Miss Gardner also designed her costumes for this as she did for many of her roles. I had always wanted to see the 1917 Theda Bara version but as long as that film remains lost, Helen Gardner is the quintessential Cleopatra of the screen. Long live the Queen!

early full length silent film

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 November 2023]

Queen of Egypt Cleopatra (Helen Gardner) falls in love with slave fisherman Pharon. She promises him ten days of passionate affair if he commits suicide at the end. He goes through with the suicide but handmaiden Iras saves him. She lies to him that the Queen had saved him. Mark Antony arrives next and she seduces him.

This is a silent film put together by Helen Gardner and her New York theatrical group called Helen Gardner Picture Players. The production is big for its time. They used exteriors for location shots. It's more the costumes that I'm impressed with. Let's be clear. Forget accuracy in this one. It's very interesting for early cinema. It's a full length movie in the modern sense. The filmmaking is rudimentary. For the most part, they keep the camera stationary for long uncut scenes. It's been voted rather low here and that may have more to do with the new music being added. I don't like it. If they're adding new music, they may as well do something interesting like use middle eastern music.

An prestigious antique but no masterpiece

[lugonian · 2/10 · 15 July 2001]

"Cleopatra" (1912), directed by Charles Gaskill, which premiered on Turner Classic Movies in August 2000, stars stage actress Helen Gardner in the title role. In spite of when it was made (1912), I was prepared to witness a prestigious production handicapped by some overacting and bad camera shots. However, what makes the movie unbearable for me to watch is the really bad sound track that accompanies it: bongo drums, off screen chanting, etc. An organ score would have been sufficient. Presented in correct silent film speed, "Cleopatra" plays at 90 minutes, but again, complaining about the score, made it seem like it runs at 190 minutes. "Cleopatra" was obviously filmed in a studio sound stage, with backdrops moving about like a painted curtain. Had it been done a few years later under the direction of DW Griffith, then possibly it would have become a masterpiece as his 1916 production of INTOLERANCE. But because of that new underscoring (there I go again), maybe "Cleopatra" would have been somewhat bearable. I recommend the present version for insomniacs only.

Fascinating rediscovery

[michael.e.barrett · 13 November 2000]

I'm amazed to see a 1912 feature that's almost 90 minutes long. By contrast, "From the Manger to the Cross" is under 70 min. The tinting and restoration are good, the modern music by Chantal Kreviazuk is interesting if unnecessary (there's no reason to be turned off by it--you can always play your own music!). The film is not in "pure" tableau style but in modified tableaus. That is, there is some cross-cutting from different locations, and dialogue cards do interrupt the shots. The first scene is even somewhat distracting in its cutaways to a man who is a short distance away. During the battle of Actium, the camera suddenly goes in for a series of near close-ups of Cleopatra and Antony from the waist up, and the entire scene is told in these alternating shots with captions. (A way to avoid staging a battle.) The scene in which she barges down the Nile and seduces Antony is a typical example of "film d'art" tableau style, with only dialogue interrupting the shot occasionally. The major lengthy sequence at the end, however, begins in two locations: in Cleo's chamber on an upper floor and outside on the ground below, and Antony is raised up through the window on a rope, then for the rest of the complex scene the camera pans right and left as called for by the action. Fascinating and typically noble.

Dull Curio

[mastone-2 · 1/10 · 23 August 2000]

Dull Curio from 1912. Filmed stage play with few moments of interest. Suffers from pre-Birth of a Nation lack of close-ups. What makes this one particularly dreadful is its unusual length (for the times) of over 70 minutes. Only point of interest is the odd new soundtrack recorded by Ted Turner's restoration crew.

Creaky, but watch it for Helen Gardner

[gbill-74877 · 6/10 · 21 October 2019]

The highlights of this film center on Helen Gardner, who does it all. As producer, I appreciate what she was trying to do in forming her own production company, and to elevate the nascent art form by attempting a more substantial film. As Cleopatra, it's an exaggerated performance that hasn't aged all that well, but I loved her slow sensuousness and how she presents a view beauty different from the ones we're so regularly bombarded with. My favorite moment was when she shimmied closer and closer to the camera in a seductive dance, helping out the static camera view. I also liked the sexual daring of the slave subplot early on, where she spares a slave from death so that he might join her as a lover for ten nights, after which she expects him to drink poison and die (apparently this faced censorship in some places). Lastly, Helen Gardner as costume designer produced a wardrobe that may not come across as lavish as films even a decade or two later (Claudette Colbert wearing Travis Banton's costumes for the 1934 version comes to mind), but they were interesting and beautiful.

Unfortunately, the film shows its age and lags with a slow pace common to the period, starting at about the 30 minute point with the meeting between Cleo and Marc Antony which lasts about 10 minutes. You'll definitely have to put yourself into 1912 mode if you want to make it through the hour and half. The camera is set up as if this was the theater, and director Charles L. Gaskill was simply filming a stageplay. There are no montage sequences, tracking shots, or even close-ups. I think there may have been just one very slow pan, and it's no wonder actors from the period exaggerated their emotions and body movements. The script also suffers from giving the slave character Pharon much too big a role. Don't watch it for a history lesson either, although it tells us it's going to take liberties up front.

As for the controversial, modern soundtrack which also annoys many viewers, overall I thought it fit the emotions and breathed some life into a creaky old film. The two points at which lyrics are sung seemed a little off for a silent film, but I appreciated how brave the choice was and found myself liking it.

The Cleopatra of legend presented in a highly mannered style

[FISHCAKE · 5/10 · 5 October 2000]

Despite some added fictional characters, this is still essentially the legendary and historical Cleopatra and Antony story. It is only cinematic in making use of quick scene changes, otherwise it is very much a photographed play, more choreographed than directed. Acting is highly mannered and stylized in a way that will likely send modern viewers into gales of laughter sometimes. Compare this film to D.W.Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION only three years to see what a revolution occurred in cinematic technique. Fortunately Griffith's style prevailed, while Gardner's film remains a quaint curiosity.

Among the many curiosities, viewers will note that "Cleopatra" and all her attendant ladies are definitely of the matronly and well-fed type. Maybe in 1912 this was what the menfolk liked!

Cleopatra

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 11 September 2022]

I think this was quite a clever topic for Charles Gaskill to pick. It has all the ingredients for a sumptuous photoplay with costumes, grand sets and most importantly - a story that everyone is already going to be familiar with. The helps enormously as the rest of this all but 110 year old film is truly experimental. From any critical perspective, no - it's not very good. Helen Gardner in the title role lacks any sort of passion in her delivery, her eyes rarely engage with the camera and her gestures frequently reminded me of something almost pantomime in their nature. The camerawork is almost totally static - no panning or tracking, close ups - indeed anything to visualise the emotions that this story can engender. Sadly, that performance renders it at times quite tedious. It is ambitious, however - and the techniques used demonstrate creative attempts by cinematographer Lucien Tainguy to try to innovate - just not very successfully on this occasion. Anyone interested in the development of cinema ought to watch this - it is fine example of basic lighting and editing methods with decently spaced inter-titles, that I think you'll appreciate for what it is.... very, very young!

Wow. Bad

[arfdawg-1 · 2/10 · 23 December 2016]

The Plot. When she discovers that a slave named Pharon professes his love for her, Cleopatra makes a bargain with him: she will give him ten days of "love," at the end of which he is to commit suicide. He agrees, although the queen's handmaiden Iras, in love with the slave, isn't happy with the arrangement. Later when Cleopatra is seducing Marc Antony, her relationship with Pharon is used against her, but with little effect. She allies herself with Antony against Octavius, participates in a brief war, then meets her end rather than be subjected to Roman rule.

Wow. This movie is BAD. It is amateurishly filmed -- even for 1913. Also the focus is really odd. I don't think it was just the print. i think it was intentional. The entire mo0vie looks like it was filmed at the Château marmont, only it wasn't built yet.

I had never heard of Helen Gardner before seeing this film. How she got her own production company is beyond me.

Filmed Staged Play Sorely Missing Dialogue

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 5/10 · 30 September 2019]

I mean, OK, you go to see whatever version of Antony and Cleopatra you prefer on stage, but you get words, beautiful words. This movie gives you stagy pointing and pontificating, but long stretches of people speaking and staring, but not enough title cards. I don't doubt this would have been a huge hit in the early days of motion pictures. It's a commendable early effort. Gotta mention the soundtrack. Mute it when the credits are ending and there's all those bongos and all that moaning. But put the sound back on after 2-3 minutes. It's actually a very effective and, at times, moving soundtrack that enhances the experience. When the terrible singing kicks in again, mute it. I barely remember Chantal Krappycrazy as a one-hit piano-tinkling yodeler and her performance here didn't make me want to rush out and find her CDs.

Liked it..

[scott-946 · 8/10 · 14 December 2005]

This is a rare chance to see a very old picture that has been restored, and combined with a sound track that brings a rather classical approach to provide minimally invasive music that sets a tone for the tragedy together with a well measured modern song that adds color and personality to the character of Cleopatra. I'm sure that some viewers will be turned off by this, since the singer and the song sound rather out of place at first simply because they are unexpected and a surprise. Not everyone likes a surprise, especially when it's applied to something they think should be maintained in total integrity with the original presentation.

My personal view is that these early silent films were meant to be supported by the best efforts of musicians available at the time to add their own personal interpretation to the film, and to support the film with appropriate artistic sound to help convey the viewer into a more complete sensory experience. I know there are some musicians who could provide an accompaniment that would sound more like a 1912 accompaniment, but I liked what the musicians did with this film. I added to my enjoyment and brought me more emotionally into the whole story.

The film itself is an excellent example of how pure acting together with simple sets and costumes can by itself bring a good story to life for a viewer. It helps to have one of the greatest love stories of all time as the subject matter. And, the fact that almost everyone has some level of familiarity with the story as originally written for the stage by the greatest playwright, Wm. Shakespere, certainly provides a foundation that exceeds any minimum requirements.

Scott Indy

Early version of "The Nights of Cleopatra"

[Bill-258 · 19 May 1999]

This early silent (1912) is a bit creeky (canvas flats that move in the breeze and a ship pushed on from the wings) but is an early attempt to use ancient history as the inspiration for a film drama. Helen Gardner and her troupe filmed a stage production, typical for the time, with little awareness of the possibilities of the medium. The plot actually comes from another source than Shakespeare and is not the usual Anthony and Cleopatra story. It may be based on a French 19th century opera which, in turn, can be traced back to a short story by Alexander Pushkin. This film is an excellent example of the state of the art in the time that it was made.

A glimpse of early cinema

[mutiny-27268 · 8/10 · 7 December 2023]

When this film was released, William Howard Taft was president, the Titanic had just sunk and moving pictures were a relatively new concept. Helen Gardner made a good Cleopatra, although she probably couldn't have competed against Theda Bara or Elizabeth Taylor, both actresses having put indelible marks on the role of the Queen of the Nile after this film was made. Gardner was a teacher of pantomime, and thus used that ability in her film career. It is way overdone by today's standards, but it is not fair to judge a film made more than a century ago by today's standards of what is good cinema and what is not. Gardner put everything she had into the role, and made Cleo come to life on the screen. I believe that if Helen Gardner were alive today, she would sue Turner Classic Movies for the horrible and incomprehensible musical score accompanying this film...it is absolutely atrocious. If you come across this film on TCM, for your own enjoyment mute the sound because that is the real tragedy in this presentation.

Cleopatra 1912

[ROC-7 · 8 September 2008]

I was watching with interest the 1912 production and found it fascinating by the different acting styles strong and weak in the primarily static shots until I realized that each scene may have meant to be tableaux that come to life. Charles Sindelar was a strong looking Anthony and thought the actress playing Octavia was more accessible to modern audiences.

The so-called score made probably by some spoiled New York Artists especially that hideous groaning woman was really dreadful,but as with most scores to silents just a flick of the mute button can help as great silents stand on their silence alone!