Though he probably thought
of himself as an actor in the classical sense, Charlton Heston was inextricably
linked with a florid performance style. Whether he was fighting postapocalpytic
vampires, parting the Red Sea, or telling a damn dirty ape what to do with its
stinking paws, Heston’s best lines were often screamed at ear-splitting volume.
Like Spinal Tap’s customized amps, Heston went to 11. This preamble should
calibrate expectations for Heston’s directorial debut, Antony and Cleopatra, adapted from Shakespeare’s immortal play. The
movie doesn’t work, for myriad reasons, but it speaks to an interesting mixture
of misguided artistic ambition and pure thespian ego. Watching the movie, one
can actually feel how badly Heston wants everything to coalesce.
Set in ancient
Rome and Egypt, the story takes place after the death of Julius Caesar, and it
depicts the tragic romance between Caesar’s second-in-command, Mark Antony
(Heston), and Caesar’s former lover, Queen Cleopatra (Hildegard Neil). When the
tale begins, Antony is part of the triumvirate ruling the Roman empire, but he
becomes so obsessed with Cleopatra that he merges his armies with her forces in
Egypt. War among former allies ensues, and the whole situation is complicated
by Cleopatra’s caprice—although she betrays Antony’s trust more than once, he
keeps returning to her. Quite literally, this is the stuff of legend, so
Heston’s grandiose style isn’t inherently incompatible. Had an experienced
filmmaker taken the reins and kept the star focused on acting, Heston’s
interest in the material could have delivered stronger results.
Alas, Heston
the director is the worst enemy of Heston the leading man. In addition to silly
indulgences, such as gigantic close-ups during macho speeches and a semi-nude
scene showcasing the actor’s burly physique, Heston displays a stunning lack of
visual imagination. Antony and Cleopatra
is shot roughly in the style of the leaden ’50s Biblical epics that first made
Heston a star, even though the flat lighting style and ultra-wide compositions
of the ’50s had become boring clichés by the early ’70s. Additionally, Heston
took erratic liberties with the text. (He’s credited as the principal
screenwriter.) Heston excised a huge swath of the play’s opening passages,
making it impossible to track how Antony and Cleopatra became involved—and yet
he retained massive speeches that could easily have been trimmed, notably
Cleopatra’s final monologue.
And while Heston delivers basically competent
results with intimate scenes, since the mostly British supporting cast is adept
at handling Shakespeare’s language, the battle scenes are laughably disjointed
and old-fashioned. Damning the whole enterprise to mediocrity is the casting of
Neil as Cleopatra. While she’s attractive and skillful, she’s nowhere near
magical enough to persuade viewers of her character’s power to change the
course of history, and her pale English features seem ridiculous whenever she occupies
the same frame as dark-skinned extras.
Antony and Cleopatra: FUNKY
I've never really thought of Heston as loud. Overwrought? Anguished? Most definitely, but I think of those more as qualities than quantities. He directed little else, only an adventure called "Mother Lode" and a two-part TV version of "A Man For All Seasons." One review of that accuses Heston of "bombast." A bombastic Thomas More? We have been warned.
ReplyDelete