Julius Caesar

Title: Julius Caesar (1953)
Rating: 3.5/5
Genre: Drama
Starring: Marlon Brando, James Mason, John Guilgud
Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Here we have one of the great "Shakespeare's" greatest plays put into screen. While neither the first version to be filmed nor the last, I do believe it's the best. With a great ensemble to give life to a great text, and a competent director to it, this was a good experience to watch. The film is a good adaption of the play depicting the planning "Caesar's" assassination by the conspirators, the deed, and the aftermath. It didn't turn to a film studied in academics by copying the play word for word nor did it obscenely omit many parts of the play to suit the film's motives. What wasn't showed didn't ruin the work and what was gave it a good rendition. I especially enjoyed how "Mankiewicz" tried to focus mainly on the psychological and emotional struggles of the characters, thus giving life to a film that that can be still enjoyed in our time.

Let me begin with restating that Shakespearian roles either crush an actor or hail him. While I didn't see any one crushed in this film, I did see those that were hailed. While some might consider me choosing out "Brando" and praising him the most is a cliché, this is utterly wrong. "Brando" shows us how much of a versatile actor he is by handling the character of "Mark Antony" impressively. Every word he spoke was convincing. Even the looks on his face are enough to show us the struggle of friendship, honor, patriotism, loyalty… He truly did a remarkable job that isn't just remarkable by the mention of "Brando". "Guilgud" did an outstanding job portraying "Gaius Cassius". The look in his eyes alone is convening. "Mason" as "Brutus" is from my point of view one of the film's downturns. To me, in the protagonist issue of the play, I choose "Brutus". "Mason" just didn't convince me in his portrayal. He did present good emotions in many parts, I don't deny him that, but for the majority he seemed too idle for me. This is a man that should be going through I great conflict within, yet I believe he wasn't being portrayed as well as the others.

On a technical standpoint, the film is great in its fluidity. "Mankiewicz's" vision was to focus more on the characters while keeping it real. Yet again, he had a superb cast in general so I don't see him suffering much with bringing this film to life. I admired the gradual building up of events. Even if we had read the play, we still don't know how all will turn out. Sure we know the context, but the method also matters. I must not forget the electrifying score composed by "Miklós Rózsa" it had military power with gentle grace combined with a feeling of proudness. The building up in the final scenes is just tremendous. The other downturn in this film for me was that it didn't have the attracting power of other Shakespearean adaptations like that of "Branagh's Henry V". It was a good adaptation, but that's it. Greatly acted, but also didn't have that special touch that makes it work of which we can't flinch while watching.

Anyone who has read the play or interested in Shakespeare should watch this version. While not the greatest, it certainly holds its ground. It shows one of the greatest actors' versatility by handling a unique role in his filmography. Well presented, it won't be difficult to access to viewers un-familiar with the play, it might be also a motivation for them to read it. Even the set decoration was vibrant in portraying that time. It should be noted that I focused my review on the depiction of the play, which was done fairly well. It isn't a historically documentary, but it presented that period well I believe. It was a couple of hours well passed in the end.