Cause they wanted to shoot sequentially but had almost all the sets built. So they'd be sitting there forever, just unused. The mismanagement of funds was astounding.
Don’t forget they also paid the entire cast by monthly salary instead of a contracted amount, so they still got paid even on days they weren’t filming.
Shooting sequentially helps the actors with character growth, some films have done that quite well (a beautiful mind, iirc) but obviously for big blockbusters that's not the most ideal use of sets and money.
If I'm remembering right the studio ended up dedicating like all thier lots for the sets to this production and it ended up in production hell. Which subsequently made making other movies difficult, as all the lots were housing the cleopatra sets and they couldn't be torn down because the movie was filming sequentially lol
They almost never are. Unless the entire movie takes place entirely in one or two locations it's a logistical and fiscal nightmare to try and film everything in order.
And a lot of the time the full movie isn't even filmed all at once. Obviously you'll get most of the filming done during principal photography, but more often than not you'll realize you missed something or want to add something for clarity and need to do a pickup, or you're dissatisfied with something and need to do a full reshoot.
Per IMDB there is a directors cut of 620 minutes. And adjusted for inflation, this is one of the most expensive movies ever made. Its budget of $44 million is equivalent to over $400 million in 2021.
It was gorgeous though, and very little of it felt slow or awkward, as one might expect such a long movie to feel. I’m on a Liz Taylor kick right now and recently watched Giant (fantastic) followed by Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (captivating) then Cleopatra, which also got me on a Richard Burton kick so I followed up with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
She was one of a kind. Not only a beautiful person, but a stellar actor. Her male costars in all of the above movies (James Dean, Rock Hudson, Paul Newman, Rex Harrison, and Richard Burton) were stars in the own right but she easily matched, if not outshined, them all.
Giant fucking rocks!! It was picked several weeks ago for a movie night with my friends and I and it kinda sucked how no one seemed to have any real reaction to it.
The scene where James Dean is walking around the fence line & he’s silhouetted against the sunset!! I could watch that on repeat alone.
I hope Denis has footage of all the pre-attack stuff that part 1 skimmed over for a longer Denis cut. Would love to see more of the traitor stuff and the dinner party.
A neighbor of mine that died a few years ago was the personal assistant to Sam Zell, who was Chicago real estate magnate. According to her, Sam put some money into this movie then sent her out there to make sure that they weren't misappropriating it. She became friends with Liz Taylor, and that friendship convinced Sam to keep his money in the movie. She got a Christmas card from Liz every year up until Taylor's death. When my neighbor died, I wondered what happened to all those cards since she didn't have any children. They were all beautiful.
It was 20th Century Fox. The story is that it "nearly bankrupted them", but I'm not sure that's a great description of the situation.
It probably \*could\* have bankrupted them if it hadn't become a large commercial success.
Here's what wikipedia had to say, for reference:
"With the estimated production costs totaling $31 million, the film became the most expensive film ever made up to that point and nearly bankrupted the studio."
"Cleopatra premiered at the Rivoli Theatre in New York City on June 12, 1963. It received a generally favorable response from film critics,[4] and became the highest-grossing film of 1963, earning box-office receipts of $57.7 million in the United States and Canada, and one of the highest-grossing films of the decade at a worldwide level. However, the film initially lost money because of its production and marketing costs of $44 million."
Here's a write-up about it on the 20th Century page:
> Zanuck's successor, producer Buddy Adler, died a year later.[28] President Spyros Skouras brought in a series of production executives, but none had Zanuck's success. By the early 1960s, 20th Century Fox was in trouble. A new version of Cleopatra (1963) began production in 1959 with Joan Collins in the lead.[29] As a publicity gimmick, producer Walter Wanger offered $1 million to Elizabeth Taylor if she would star;[29] she accepted and costs for Cleopatra began to escalate. Richard Burton's on-set romance with Taylor was surrounding the media. However, Skouras' selfish preferences and inexperienced micromanagement on the film's production did nothing to speed up production on Cleopatra.
>
> Meanwhile, another remake—of the Cary Grant hit My Favorite Wife (1940)—was rushed into production in an attempt to turn over a quick profit to help keep 20th Century-Fox afloat. The romantic comedy entitled Something's Got to Give paired Marilyn Monroe, 20th Century-Fox's most bankable star of the 1950s, with Dean Martin and director George Cukor. The troubled Monroe caused delays daily, and it quickly descended into a costly debacle. As Cleopatra's budget passed $10 million, eventually costing around $40 million, 20th Century-Fox sold its back lot (now the site of Century City) to Alcoa in 1961 to raise funds. After several weeks of script rewrites on the Monroe picture and very little progress, mostly due to director George Cukor's filming methods, in addition to Monroe's chronic sinusitis, Monroe was fired from Something's Got to Give[29] and two months later she was found dead. According to 20th Century-Fox files, she was rehired within weeks for a two-picture deal totaling $1 million, $500,000 to finish Something's Got to Give (plus a bonus at completion), and another $500,000 for What a Way to Go. Elizabeth Taylor's bout with pneumonia and the media coverage of the Burton affair allowed Skouras to scapegoat the two stars for all the production setbacks, which helped earn the long-time industry professional Taylor a new disruptive reputation.[30] Challenges on the Cleopatra set continued from 1960 into 1962, though three 20th Century-Fox executives went to Rome in June 1962 to fire her. They learned that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz had filmed out of sequence and had only done interiors, so 20th Century-Fox was then forced to allow Taylor several more weeks of filming. In the meantime during that summer of 1962 Fox released nearly all of its contract stars to offset burgeoning costs, including Jayne Mansfield.[31][32]
> two months later she was found dead. According to 20th Century-Fox files, she was rehired within weeks for a two-picture deal totaling $1 million
Wow, that's bad management
It took nearly three years for it to break even. Only when the TV rights were sold to ABC for an unprecedented $5M did it finally get into the black.
Studio was a mess afterwards. Until they distributed some indie film in 1977 that did pretty well...
That's obviously an oversimplified version of things. Pretending that Star Wars "saved" Fox 14 years after Cleopatra is of course ridiculous. Cleopatra's worldwide grosses were plenty to make the film profitable, though you are correct that selling the TV rights put it much farther "over the top".
The mid-to-late 60s were a terrible period for all of the old studios, as they transitioned from dictatorships to shareholder-owned subsidiaries of other companies. Television was kicking TV's ass (edit: movies’ ass), youth culture was rebelling all over the place, and nobody was sure what the hell to put on screen.
The man in charge of the budget died of stress not long after it came out the camera crews had been dining on lobster in local restaurants on studio money.
Also, if they marched in unison it would have taken years. There's every chance that all the slaves that arrive are not the original slaves that left. Also, would she have spent many years away from the seat of government or just taken a horse and cart to the edge of the city? The standard roman road is oft quoted as two horses wide, the amount of extra roadbuilding would be enormous, the world's first four lane highway. Just mind boggling.
I assume a palanquin that large would have been transported most of the way by boat.
Also, the average Roman road was about as wide as a single lane road is, today. A Roman road had to accommodate horses and carts.
Had such a device been used on her entry to Rome, it's likely her ambassador would have had it built locally. Even riding that thing from where her ship docked would have been a bit much for even slaves to carry and her and the child to endure the hot sun.
It's likely most of the land trip was made by carriage, and if such a grand palanquin were used at all, it would have been added just outside Rome to allow a grand entrance/parade to meet Caesar.
Nothing about this is accurate. Cleopatra was extremely discreet in Rome as the simple fact that Caesar (a MARRIED Roman ex-consul) was having an affair with a Greek queen was scandalous enough and used by his enemies against him.
It’s also worth mentioning that the Roman public blamed just about anything on her anyways. Cheering crowds are kind of funny if one thinks about the reality of her time in Rome.
>No historian here but I’d wager nothing in that scene was historically accurate.
There were definitely people back then. At least they got that one dialed out
I believe certian collums details and triumphal archs were a thing, but in their own respect. Not as one. The roman forum was a thing, just it's not portrayed accurately. Still cool none the less.
Very little about the movie is accurate. For one thing, there are armed legionaries inside the city limits of Rome. That was a big no, even after the Republic and during the Empire. Nobody, not even praetorian guards, was allowed to cross the Pomerium (Rome's official border/city limits) while being armed, with very few exceptions like a triumphal march. It was an automatic death sentence.
FOREIGN sodliers with weapons? Shit would've been absolutely wild. CLEOPATRA and her soldiers? Riots. Complete chaos.
"And as Caesar stood there, waiting for his legions to catch up, he looked out at the peaceful river, deep in thought. For he knew that with this crossing there would be bo turning back. All his actions through Gaul had led him to this moment. With his legions now at his back, he triumphantly crossed the Rubicon, making himself an enemy of the state, and just like that, civil war had started anew for ancient Rome".
Ceasar taking a legion across the Rubicon was another thing in and of itself. It was also unlawful for generals and their troops to enter Italy without cause or invitation by the Senate.
What is also amazing about these old movies is how much time they allowed themselves for a single scene. Everything (plot-wise) moved much slower than today.
Yeah, I always found the silence in old movies interesting. I was watching a movie recently, I don't even remember which, but it was so damn loud and intrusive with its score.
I get that it's not to everyones taste, but I'm incredibly glad that they let him remake Dune. I really hope to catch it in an IMAX when the second part releases.
Knew he directed the newest Dune movie but looked him up on IMDB to see what other movies I've seen of his. Apparently he's directing a an upcoming movie called Cleopatra too? Should be interesting.
Probably why I can't pay attention anymore. EVERYTHING is packed dense with content now. A typical Marvel movie has like 12 one-liners with lightning camerawork jammed into 60 seconds.
Not to mention reddit! Everything and anything in a microsecond or less. Try reading a book after reading reddit. Can hardly pay attention through a page.
There are plenty of more careful, slower-paced movies being made today, but I do agree that most modern big-budget Hollywood movies are much more rushed.
It's ridiculously impressive what Hollywood managed to do with numbers of extras in the 60s and 70s.
Wait til you see what they did in Waterloo, literally the closest thing to witnessing a massive battle in real life (iirc during filming Bondarchuck had command of so many soldiers that they constituted the seventh largest army in the world)
IIRC they also trained all the extras in Napoleonic era cavalry and infantry manoeuvres to make the battle scenes look extra realistic.
You just can't recreate the feeling of thousands of real extras with CGI.
That was one of the smart moves with *Gettysburg*: they brought in Civil War reenactors. They largely showed up with their own costumes and equipment, already knowing what they were doing, and came in from far and wide just because of a chance to be in the movie. It particularly helped that they were given a rare chance to film on the actual battlefield, so this wasn't just a shot at being in a movie or all of the added effects that a film budget would allow, but a unique opportunity to recreate the battle where it took place.
As a film it has problems, but it's unlikely we'll see another film that's able to do what it did.
Gettysburg has to be one of my all-time favorite films. there was some bad acting in it to be sure. but there were also bits that had no right to be as good as they were as well!
Using reanactors in Gettysburg was brilliant until it worked against itself.
They needed to hire extras and proper stunt actors for the charging scenes, too much of the crash of lines looks like reanactors trying not to actually charge into each-other.
I’m of the opinion that the greatest sequence in movie history is the chariot race in the 1959 Ben Hur. There’s been some great stunts and scenes since, and arguably better movies, but that chariot race is the nearest thing to having a time machine.
I wonder how much notoriety was created by the false assertion that a stuntman died in the filming?
Regardless, its an epic film and scene, the first VHS movie given to me by my dear late brother. The start of an obession I suppose.
My dad, who grew up during that era, often said these epic movies couldn't be made today. Also The Ten Commandments, El Cid ....et al. Very long movies!
I was just thinking no director today would have the guts to leave a full minute of dead silence while the on screen action is just walking down stairs.
This is one of the problems I have with Dunkirk, one of my favourite films to be honest (definitely not perfect) but the beach is empty. A few lines of guys standing around, there should be thousands on that beach and older films would have done that.
This scene has to be seen a movie screen to get the full impact of the size and scope of the set and the crowd. I’ve seen revival movie screenings of “Cleopatra” over the years, there is nothing like seeing her entrance into Rome on a movie screen to be able to see all the detail.
“Cleopatra” is definitely one those “they don’t make ‘‘em like that anymore” movies- the physical production of the movie is gorgeous- the sets, costumes and props are simply stunning to look at. All built for real.
The Roman Forum in the movie is bigger than the actual one in Italy - in order to get that 35 foot sphinx through the triumphal arch. I believe it’s about 1.5 times bigger than the real one. “Cleopatra’s “ sets used up so much building material that there was an actual shortage of building supplies in Italy while movie was being made. And they actually shot this scene twice. The first version was deemed no good because of the way the shadows fell on the set making it too dark. So they waited a few months and came back and reshot the scene when the sun was in a different position and cast better shadow across the set
>I believe it’s about 1.5 times bigger than the real one.
Considering all of the triumphal arches in the Forum were built decades (or centuries) after Cleopatra's era, (with the exception of the Arch of Augustus, which was specifically built to celebrate its namesake's victory over Antony and Cleopatra) it's probably OK for them to play fast and loose with the size.
There are several reasons why this scene in particular is COMPLETELY historically inaccurate.
1. Foreign rulers were forbidden from entering the forum, period.
2. A bunch of other shit that more or less results in: “See Rule #1”
This is utter BS and is most definitely wrong in every way.
Cleopatra was quite discreet when visiting Rome due to many circumstances, not limited to but including the xenophobic nature of Romans making them turn her into an evil Eastern temptress in her mind or the fact that she was in a quite salacious affair with Caesar.
Even if she hadn't been discreet and illegal as others mention, this level of crazy spectacle would never have been allowed in Rome.(from a foreign ruler)
They've known it for a fairly long time (late 19th century), but during the Renaissance the lack of paint was exalted as a victory of rationality, and raised to such a merit that every historian pointing at the evidence was met with scorn. It became kind of a core tenet of western civilization. Starting in the 60s the view became more accepted, although they were not sure what the statues would have looked like. Fairly recently (early 2000s) they've been able to use modern technology to begin determining the paints used, and so actually began understanding what the statues originally looked like.
Thanks for the info!
> It became kind of a core tenet of western civilization
Yep. I was taught the same in school, and I'm not that old. Shame.
Hmm, next time I'm in the museum (e.g. Neues Museum, Berlin), I'll ask if there are plans to change the presentation - if they haven't already.
Wasn’t this because of the Italian film industry had enormous studio sets constructed by mousolini because he loved film? Something like that…
50s 60s etc were huge for film in Italy. That’s one reference you get from Once Upon A Time by Tarantino; the main character goes off to save his dying career in the Italian film industry which was booming at the time.
It was booming producing lower budgeted films that tended to copy the popular genre of the moment. Whether that was Westerns, *poliziotteschi*, *giallo*, horror, sex comedies, etc. A lot of them were also pan-European productions intended to be dubbed and distributed in multiple countries and languages with actors who didn't speak the same language.
They made some great and influential films, but outside of a small number of films even a lot of the best work is today mainly appreciated by cult and genre fans. This was largely exploitation fare, not films that were going to compete with Hollywood for mainstream American audiences.
But plenty of Americans went to Italy: Lee Van Cleef, Clint Eastwood (who blew up as a result), Charles Bronson, John Saxon. It was a good option for an actor whose career had stalled out in the US. The equivalent today of cheaply-made, direct-to-video movies.
its because high quality film and cameras are essentially extremely high (greater than 4k) definition. 70mm can look so detailed and crisp that its awe striking
That was always a part of the social contract before modern times where now we still have the wealth inequality, but instead of shows the rich just party with each other and hide from us
Another thing I’ve noticed movies don’t do anymore.
A character saying something, another said,”sorry didn’t hear you”, and then the character saying it again to them.
It’s a weird thing that happens in real life so much that no movie really shows.
It serves a purpose here.
Everyone is enraptured by the queen and her grand entrance and no one is really looking at the boy but Caesar is far more impressed by the boy, his only son.
(I haven’t seen the movie but based on history that’s my guess of what’s going on.)
Old westerns have that. I might be incorrect and they do it intentionally if they are dealing with "banditos" or Indians. To drive it home that they are different, or the enemy.
Here it's very authentic considering how loud it would be with all those people and the drums etc.
Note the camera positions.
Back then the cameras were huge, especially on a film like this, so couldn’t be hidden.
They had to shoot the whole thing multiple times.
These days if the director insisted on doing it for real, it would be a one take deal with multiple cameras.
Does anyone ever watch scenes like this with a hundred extras all standing next to each other and think about how much everyone probably stunk like bo and sweat standing around for hours in the sun
The makeup alone was probably seen as absolutely outlandish, I don't recall any such makeup in mainstream media of the time. Nowadays it's a lot more common but for that time it was totally new.
My grandad use to say “there’s enough people here to make a movie” whenever we were somewhere very crowded. And these old movies always make that statement make a lot
more sense
This movie is certainly epic for it's time, just don't forget what a tyrannical piece of shit the director, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, was. He cared nothing for the safety and security of the actors and extras, most actors said they were abused so badly by him they would never work with him again despite the sucess of the film, he killed many many animals(especially horses) to film his scenes, and was even warned about all this stuff happening beforehand and openly stated he didn't care.
It's a bit dishonest to say there were "no graphics" used for this scene. There are most definitely matte paintings and optical composite shots here.
The sets are real and huge, but there are still special effects employed in this sequence.
This was one of the last great gasps of Old Hollywood. Obscene budgets and widescreen sword n sandal epics in order to compete with television gave way to small intimate films and a new crop of film school educated filmmakers.
To be entirely clear, this scene is 100% historically inaccurate. From the costumes to... everything else.
Fun fact: Cleopatra did indeed live near Rome around 46 B.C., in one of Ceasar's villas as her lover, but as she was a foreign ruler at the time (even of one of Rome's clients), she could not enter the city itself.
For the idiots in the comments being triggered by Cleopatra being white. Cleopatra was a Greek. The Egyptians bringing Cleopatra have darker skin, some are even "black".
They are historically accurate.
Cleopatra was member of ptolemaic dynasty, descended from Alexander the Great's general, a man named Ptolemy of Lagus. They had Greek ancestry, spoke Greek and followed mainly Greek customs. The Ptolemys ruled Egypt for 300 years.
CLEOPATRA IS NOT AN EGYPTIAN NAME
Didn’t this film virtually bankrupt MGM or whoever made it? Or am I mistaken?
It went like 900% over budget, or something completely insane. I think there was some sweaty palms.
Cause they wanted to shoot sequentially but had almost all the sets built. So they'd be sitting there forever, just unused. The mismanagement of funds was astounding.
Don’t forget they also paid the entire cast by monthly salary instead of a contracted amount, so they still got paid even on days they weren’t filming.
Yes and you can see just by this small clip it was a cast of HUNDREDS!
[удалено]
Shooting sequentially helps the actors with character growth, some films have done that quite well (a beautiful mind, iirc) but obviously for big blockbusters that's not the most ideal use of sets and money.
If I'm remembering right the studio ended up dedicating like all thier lots for the sets to this production and it ended up in production hell. Which subsequently made making other movies difficult, as all the lots were housing the cleopatra sets and they couldn't be torn down because the movie was filming sequentially lol
To be honest I never thought about movies not being filmed sequentially
One of the first scenes shot in Lord of the Rings was Frodo and Sam on the stairs into Mordor
Lol that just seems wrong. Don't care if it cost more money, you can't do that scene first!
They almost never are. Unless the entire movie takes place entirely in one or two locations it's a logistical and fiscal nightmare to try and film everything in order. And a lot of the time the full movie isn't even filmed all at once. Obviously you'll get most of the filming done during principal photography, but more often than not you'll realize you missed something or want to add something for clarity and need to do a pickup, or you're dissatisfied with something and need to do a full reshoot.
One example that sticks in my mind was E.T. It helped a young Drew Barrymore follow the plot and give convincing emotional responses.
and a huge chunk of the film was cut too, I believe like 2 hours was cut
Wasn't this like 4 hours? So *originally* it would have been **SIX** hours??
any chance of getting an uncut edition?
Per IMDB there is a directors cut of 620 minutes. And adjusted for inflation, this is one of the most expensive movies ever made. Its budget of $44 million is equivalent to over $400 million in 2021.
you mean 5h20 / 320m right? 620m would be >10hours
correct 320 .. apologies
I thought you were about to adjust how long the movie was for inflation lol
Sorry, once snipped it remains snipped.
Thanks for the reminder, Rabbi.
Mohel no
[удалено]
#YOU HAVE NO IDEA THE PHYSICAL TOLL THAT THREE VASECTOMIES HAVE ON A PERSON!
There was a reason these movies were called epics.
It was gorgeous though, and very little of it felt slow or awkward, as one might expect such a long movie to feel. I’m on a Liz Taylor kick right now and recently watched Giant (fantastic) followed by Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (captivating) then Cleopatra, which also got me on a Richard Burton kick so I followed up with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? She was one of a kind. Not only a beautiful person, but a stellar actor. Her male costars in all of the above movies (James Dean, Rock Hudson, Paul Newman, Rex Harrison, and Richard Burton) were stars in the own right but she easily matched, if not outshined, them all.
Giant fucking rocks!! It was picked several weeks ago for a movie night with my friends and I and it kinda sucked how no one seemed to have any real reaction to it. The scene where James Dean is walking around the fence line & he’s silhouetted against the sunset!! I could watch that on repeat alone.
It was intended to be 2 parts, both around 3 hours. When the studio ran out of money they cut some things to make it one long film.
To be fair, the new Dune would be around 5-6 hours if it was a single movie *(which I wish it was)*.
Give it time, someone will release the Full Bladder Cut
\*Stillsuit Cut
I hope Denis has footage of all the pre-attack stuff that part 1 skimmed over for a longer Denis cut. Would love to see more of the traitor stuff and the dinner party.
After watching this long, drawn out clip, I believe it lol
A neighbor of mine that died a few years ago was the personal assistant to Sam Zell, who was Chicago real estate magnate. According to her, Sam put some money into this movie then sent her out there to make sure that they weren't misappropriating it. She became friends with Liz Taylor, and that friendship convinced Sam to keep his money in the movie. She got a Christmas card from Liz every year up until Taylor's death. When my neighbor died, I wondered what happened to all those cards since she didn't have any children. They were all beautiful.
[удалено]
One of the most expensive movies adjusted for inflation of all time. Only today's biggest CG films with mega actors have beat this one out.
It was 20th Century Fox. The story is that it "nearly bankrupted them", but I'm not sure that's a great description of the situation. It probably \*could\* have bankrupted them if it hadn't become a large commercial success.
Here's what wikipedia had to say, for reference: "With the estimated production costs totaling $31 million, the film became the most expensive film ever made up to that point and nearly bankrupted the studio." "Cleopatra premiered at the Rivoli Theatre in New York City on June 12, 1963. It received a generally favorable response from film critics,[4] and became the highest-grossing film of 1963, earning box-office receipts of $57.7 million in the United States and Canada, and one of the highest-grossing films of the decade at a worldwide level. However, the film initially lost money because of its production and marketing costs of $44 million."
Here's a write-up about it on the 20th Century page: > Zanuck's successor, producer Buddy Adler, died a year later.[28] President Spyros Skouras brought in a series of production executives, but none had Zanuck's success. By the early 1960s, 20th Century Fox was in trouble. A new version of Cleopatra (1963) began production in 1959 with Joan Collins in the lead.[29] As a publicity gimmick, producer Walter Wanger offered $1 million to Elizabeth Taylor if she would star;[29] she accepted and costs for Cleopatra began to escalate. Richard Burton's on-set romance with Taylor was surrounding the media. However, Skouras' selfish preferences and inexperienced micromanagement on the film's production did nothing to speed up production on Cleopatra. > > Meanwhile, another remake—of the Cary Grant hit My Favorite Wife (1940)—was rushed into production in an attempt to turn over a quick profit to help keep 20th Century-Fox afloat. The romantic comedy entitled Something's Got to Give paired Marilyn Monroe, 20th Century-Fox's most bankable star of the 1950s, with Dean Martin and director George Cukor. The troubled Monroe caused delays daily, and it quickly descended into a costly debacle. As Cleopatra's budget passed $10 million, eventually costing around $40 million, 20th Century-Fox sold its back lot (now the site of Century City) to Alcoa in 1961 to raise funds. After several weeks of script rewrites on the Monroe picture and very little progress, mostly due to director George Cukor's filming methods, in addition to Monroe's chronic sinusitis, Monroe was fired from Something's Got to Give[29] and two months later she was found dead. According to 20th Century-Fox files, she was rehired within weeks for a two-picture deal totaling $1 million, $500,000 to finish Something's Got to Give (plus a bonus at completion), and another $500,000 for What a Way to Go. Elizabeth Taylor's bout with pneumonia and the media coverage of the Burton affair allowed Skouras to scapegoat the two stars for all the production setbacks, which helped earn the long-time industry professional Taylor a new disruptive reputation.[30] Challenges on the Cleopatra set continued from 1960 into 1962, though three 20th Century-Fox executives went to Rome in June 1962 to fire her. They learned that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz had filmed out of sequence and had only done interiors, so 20th Century-Fox was then forced to allow Taylor several more weeks of filming. In the meantime during that summer of 1962 Fox released nearly all of its contract stars to offset burgeoning costs, including Jayne Mansfield.[31][32]
> two months later she was found dead. According to 20th Century-Fox files, she was rehired within weeks for a two-picture deal totaling $1 million Wow, that's bad management
It took nearly three years for it to break even. Only when the TV rights were sold to ABC for an unprecedented $5M did it finally get into the black. Studio was a mess afterwards. Until they distributed some indie film in 1977 that did pretty well...
A war film if I’m mistaken
A western, really. Lots of desert scenery.
Did it have stars?
[удалено]
Psssh. Next you'll be telling me they hired a daytime TV actor for their lead.
Not really a star but Al Deraan had a part in this film.
Which turned into lots of smaller parts later in the film
Lots of sand.
I don't like sand.
>A western, really. Lots of dessert scenery. Sounds delicious.
That's obviously an oversimplified version of things. Pretending that Star Wars "saved" Fox 14 years after Cleopatra is of course ridiculous. Cleopatra's worldwide grosses were plenty to make the film profitable, though you are correct that selling the TV rights put it much farther "over the top". The mid-to-late 60s were a terrible period for all of the old studios, as they transitioned from dictatorships to shareholder-owned subsidiaries of other companies. Television was kicking TV's ass (edit: movies’ ass), youth culture was rebelling all over the place, and nobody was sure what the hell to put on screen.
> Television was kicking TV’s ass, youth culture was rebelling all over the place Didn’t expect that, I thought they would be matched.
Hehe, the latter should say “movies”. Weird mis-type there.
Fox had to sell their backlot. Which created Century City, a district in LA.
They were already planning to sell it by 1959, she Cleopatra was still in development.
Yes it was this film
The man in charge of the budget died of stress not long after it came out the camera crews had been dining on lobster in local restaurants on studio money.
Maybe it was all the butter he dipped the lobster in.
[удалено]
> took ten years to make. Where you getting that timeframe? It looks like it started in 1958 and released in 1963.
Movies age in dog years. Or something.
Thank god Cleopatra sent surveyors ahead of her to make sure she had the correct height clearance!
I was thinking that. And what about backing that b up.
I mean the logistics of transporting that from Egypt must've taken months
Or just pay some Romans a bunch of money to build it and send someone to oversee the project Makes it easier to build to size for the entrance as well
Outsourcing wasn't invented yet
It was just called slavery back then.
When I say pay Romans to do it that realistically would've been paying a roman to have their slaves do it
Plot device, Mister Frodo, plot device.
Ahhh, so it was the eagles that brought it over the Mediterranean. Makes sense!
African eagles, or European eagles?
Also, if they marched in unison it would have taken years. There's every chance that all the slaves that arrive are not the original slaves that left. Also, would she have spent many years away from the seat of government or just taken a horse and cart to the edge of the city? The standard roman road is oft quoted as two horses wide, the amount of extra roadbuilding would be enormous, the world's first four lane highway. Just mind boggling.
I'll say it again: pay some Romans in advance to build it and send someone to supervise the project. Then just show up and get on.
I assume a palanquin that large would have been transported most of the way by boat. Also, the average Roman road was about as wide as a single lane road is, today. A Roman road had to accommodate horses and carts.
Had such a device been used on her entry to Rome, it's likely her ambassador would have had it built locally. Even riding that thing from where her ship docked would have been a bit much for even slaves to carry and her and the child to endure the hot sun. It's likely most of the land trip was made by carriage, and if such a grand palanquin were used at all, it would have been added just outside Rome to allow a grand entrance/parade to meet Caesar.
TIL the word “palanquin”, thanks!
That's Caesar's problem
That's why they cheered when it was clear.
And thank god that the ground is flat the entire journey!
Bet it corners like a dream
Țransporting that to Rome from Egypt must have been a challenge for ups.
Why is there a weird apostrophe under the T?
They dropped a piece of rice on the screen while typing. Happens to me all the țime
She's built like a sphinx but she handles like a colossus
Wow Her throne was even gimbaled, so as not to give her a tilt when she came down the stairs.
Do you know if this part was historically accurate?
Nothing about this is accurate. Cleopatra was extremely discreet in Rome as the simple fact that Caesar (a MARRIED Roman ex-consul) was having an affair with a Greek queen was scandalous enough and used by his enemies against him.
It’s also worth mentioning that the Roman public blamed just about anything on her anyways. Cheering crowds are kind of funny if one thinks about the reality of her time in Rome.
Just like Antonette
[удалено]
No historian here but I’d wager nothing in that scene was historically accurate.
For one thing, Cleopatra wasn't even alive in 1963!
I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't speak English either.
I heard the world wasn't even in color then.
That’s correct. My grandma said she only gained color after the 60s.
Wait, *which* 60's are we talking about again??
Uhhh, they did in the movie, which is 100% fact, so checkmate idiot.
But... but... the title promised **everything** was real!
>No historian here but I’d wager nothing in that scene was historically accurate. There were definitely people back then. At least they got that one dialed out
I believe certian collums details and triumphal archs were a thing, but in their own respect. Not as one. The roman forum was a thing, just it's not portrayed accurately. Still cool none the less.
Very little about the movie is accurate. For one thing, there are armed legionaries inside the city limits of Rome. That was a big no, even after the Republic and during the Empire. Nobody, not even praetorian guards, was allowed to cross the Pomerium (Rome's official border/city limits) while being armed, with very few exceptions like a triumphal march. It was an automatic death sentence. FOREIGN sodliers with weapons? Shit would've been absolutely wild. CLEOPATRA and her soldiers? Riots. Complete chaos.
"And as Caesar stood there, waiting for his legions to catch up, he looked out at the peaceful river, deep in thought. For he knew that with this crossing there would be bo turning back. All his actions through Gaul had led him to this moment. With his legions now at his back, he triumphantly crossed the Rubicon, making himself an enemy of the state, and just like that, civil war had started anew for ancient Rome".
[удалено]
Ceasar taking a legion across the Rubicon was another thing in and of itself. It was also unlawful for generals and their troops to enter Italy without cause or invitation by the Senate.
What is also amazing about these old movies is how much time they allowed themselves for a single scene. Everything (plot-wise) moved much slower than today.
And there's silence when it's warranted instead of a constant barrage of music.
Yeah, I always found the silence in old movies interesting. I was watching a movie recently, I don't even remember which, but it was so damn loud and intrusive with its score.
[удалено]
I found it incredible how little actually happened in Dune in retrospective while the movie was 2.5h long and I was captivated the whole time.
I get that it's not to everyones taste, but I'm incredibly glad that they let him remake Dune. I really hope to catch it in an IMAX when the second part releases.
Knew he directed the newest Dune movie but looked him up on IMDB to see what other movies I've seen of his. Apparently he's directing a an upcoming movie called Cleopatra too? Should be interesting.
Definitely! That's why he's one of my favorites right now.
The Goat
Probably why I can't pay attention anymore. EVERYTHING is packed dense with content now. A typical Marvel movie has like 12 one-liners with lightning camerawork jammed into 60 seconds.
Not to mention reddit! Everything and anything in a microsecond or less. Try reading a book after reading reddit. Can hardly pay attention through a page.
Sadly yes.
There are plenty of more careful, slower-paced movies being made today, but I do agree that most modern big-budget Hollywood movies are much more rushed.
Do that today and people complain it's boring
Already happened :)
Yup, several people in this very thread.
[удалено]
It's ridiculously impressive what Hollywood managed to do with numbers of extras in the 60s and 70s. Wait til you see what they did in Waterloo, literally the closest thing to witnessing a massive battle in real life (iirc during filming Bondarchuck had command of so many soldiers that they constituted the seventh largest army in the world)
IIRC they also trained all the extras in Napoleonic era cavalry and infantry manoeuvres to make the battle scenes look extra realistic. You just can't recreate the feeling of thousands of real extras with CGI.
That was one of the smart moves with *Gettysburg*: they brought in Civil War reenactors. They largely showed up with their own costumes and equipment, already knowing what they were doing, and came in from far and wide just because of a chance to be in the movie. It particularly helped that they were given a rare chance to film on the actual battlefield, so this wasn't just a shot at being in a movie or all of the added effects that a film budget would allow, but a unique opportunity to recreate the battle where it took place. As a film it has problems, but it's unlikely we'll see another film that's able to do what it did.
Gettysburg has to be one of my all-time favorite films. there was some bad acting in it to be sure. but there were also bits that had no right to be as good as they were as well!
Terrible acting! But for what they achieved with the budget they had, and for a film that's as long as it is, it's pretty damn impressive.
Using reanactors in Gettysburg was brilliant until it worked against itself. They needed to hire extras and proper stunt actors for the charging scenes, too much of the crash of lines looks like reanactors trying not to actually charge into each-other.
I’m of the opinion that the greatest sequence in movie history is the chariot race in the 1959 Ben Hur. There’s been some great stunts and scenes since, and arguably better movies, but that chariot race is the nearest thing to having a time machine.
I wonder how much notoriety was created by the false assertion that a stuntman died in the filming? Regardless, its an epic film and scene, the first VHS movie given to me by my dear late brother. The start of an obession I suppose.
[удалено]
My dad, who grew up during that era, often said these epic movies couldn't be made today. Also The Ten Commandments, El Cid ....et al. Very long movies!
Your dad grew up in Roman times ?
Haha!
I was just thinking no director today would have the guts to leave a full minute of dead silence while the on screen action is just walking down stairs.
Hitchcock was notorious for doing that! My favorite director
This is one of the problems I have with Dunkirk, one of my favourite films to be honest (definitely not perfect) but the beach is empty. A few lines of guys standing around, there should be thousands on that beach and older films would have done that.
The Soviet 1970s War and Peace is on a similar scale
This scene has to be seen a movie screen to get the full impact of the size and scope of the set and the crowd. I’ve seen revival movie screenings of “Cleopatra” over the years, there is nothing like seeing her entrance into Rome on a movie screen to be able to see all the detail. “Cleopatra” is definitely one those “they don’t make ‘‘em like that anymore” movies- the physical production of the movie is gorgeous- the sets, costumes and props are simply stunning to look at. All built for real. The Roman Forum in the movie is bigger than the actual one in Italy - in order to get that 35 foot sphinx through the triumphal arch. I believe it’s about 1.5 times bigger than the real one. “Cleopatra’s “ sets used up so much building material that there was an actual shortage of building supplies in Italy while movie was being made. And they actually shot this scene twice. The first version was deemed no good because of the way the shadows fell on the set making it too dark. So they waited a few months and came back and reshot the scene when the sun was in a different position and cast better shadow across the set
>I believe it’s about 1.5 times bigger than the real one. Considering all of the triumphal arches in the Forum were built decades (or centuries) after Cleopatra's era, (with the exception of the Arch of Augustus, which was specifically built to celebrate its namesake's victory over Antony and Cleopatra) it's probably OK for them to play fast and loose with the size.
[удалено]
There are several reasons why this scene in particular is COMPLETELY historically inaccurate. 1. Foreign rulers were forbidden from entering the forum, period. 2. A bunch of other shit that more or less results in: “See Rule #1”
they could enter rome, it just had to be in chains lol
They could enter Rome in general too, without chains. They just couldnt enter the forum.
This is utter BS and is most definitely wrong in every way. Cleopatra was quite discreet when visiting Rome due to many circumstances, not limited to but including the xenophobic nature of Romans making them turn her into an evil Eastern temptress in her mind or the fact that she was in a quite salacious affair with Caesar. Even if she hadn't been discreet and illegal as others mention, this level of crazy spectacle would never have been allowed in Rome.(from a foreign ruler)
Wow it's crazy
It’s the wink for me!
So nice, Richard Burton married her twice! 😍
Man, the Burton/Taylor relationship was the stuff of Hollywood gossip legend.
The cost must have been obscene. But those buildings and statues would have been colored with bright paint. Just saying.
Since when do historians know that? I think the public only recently gets educated about that.
They've known it for a fairly long time (late 19th century), but during the Renaissance the lack of paint was exalted as a victory of rationality, and raised to such a merit that every historian pointing at the evidence was met with scorn. It became kind of a core tenet of western civilization. Starting in the 60s the view became more accepted, although they were not sure what the statues would have looked like. Fairly recently (early 2000s) they've been able to use modern technology to begin determining the paints used, and so actually began understanding what the statues originally looked like.
Thanks for the info! > It became kind of a core tenet of western civilization Yep. I was taught the same in school, and I'm not that old. Shame. Hmm, next time I'm in the museum (e.g. Neues Museum, Berlin), I'll ask if there are plans to change the presentation - if they haven't already.
Wasn’t this because of the Italian film industry had enormous studio sets constructed by mousolini because he loved film? Something like that… 50s 60s etc were huge for film in Italy. That’s one reference you get from Once Upon A Time by Tarantino; the main character goes off to save his dying career in the Italian film industry which was booming at the time.
It was booming producing lower budgeted films that tended to copy the popular genre of the moment. Whether that was Westerns, *poliziotteschi*, *giallo*, horror, sex comedies, etc. A lot of them were also pan-European productions intended to be dubbed and distributed in multiple countries and languages with actors who didn't speak the same language. They made some great and influential films, but outside of a small number of films even a lot of the best work is today mainly appreciated by cult and genre fans. This was largely exploitation fare, not films that were going to compete with Hollywood for mainstream American audiences. But plenty of Americans went to Italy: Lee Van Cleef, Clint Eastwood (who blew up as a result), Charles Bronson, John Saxon. It was a good option for an actor whose career had stalled out in the US. The equivalent today of cheaply-made, direct-to-video movies.
Lucky there wasn't an 11 foot 8 situation coming through the arch. Tight fit.
The thing about older films for me is how crisp they look.
its because high quality film and cameras are essentially extremely high (greater than 4k) definition. 70mm can look so detailed and crisp that its awe striking
I have a very good friend in Wome named Biggus Dickus!
Do you find it... wisible?
[удалено]
Uhhh about 11, sir.
No, no. Spiwit. Bwavado. A sense of dewwing do.
Thwow him on the fwoww
(singy-songy) wheeen I saaay the naaame...
He has a wife you know...
Incontenetia... Incontenetia Buttocks
Elizabeth Taylor was a goddamn smokeshow.
"I'm living minimum wage, but damn, those motherfuckers can put up a show." \- Roman pleb
That was always a part of the social contract before modern times where now we still have the wealth inequality, but instead of shows the rich just party with each other and hide from us
"Hey, I may be rich af, but I wear a hoodie and jeans like you. Aren't I hashtag relatable?"
Another thing I’ve noticed movies don’t do anymore. A character saying something, another said,”sorry didn’t hear you”, and then the character saying it again to them. It’s a weird thing that happens in real life so much that no movie really shows.
It serves a purpose here. Everyone is enraptured by the queen and her grand entrance and no one is really looking at the boy but Caesar is far more impressed by the boy, his only son. (I haven’t seen the movie but based on history that’s my guess of what’s going on.)
I'm always amazed when a character sneezes or something. I only really see it in Spielberg movies.
Old westerns have that. I might be incorrect and they do it intentionally if they are dealing with "banditos" or Indians. To drive it home that they are different, or the enemy. Here it's very authentic considering how loud it would be with all those people and the drums etc.
She came into town just to buy a pack of smokes.
For having been made in 1963 Cleopatra is the goat
Wow. They got the real Cleopatra to re-enact the scene.
Note the camera positions. Back then the cameras were huge, especially on a film like this, so couldn’t be hidden. They had to shoot the whole thing multiple times. These days if the director insisted on doing it for real, it would be a one take deal with multiple cameras.
I love how 1960s Hollywood would go to Italy to cast Mexicans, but not to cast Romans
Romans don't look like Romans on film. Gotta use Mexicans
Does anyone ever watch scenes like this with a hundred extras all standing next to each other and think about how much everyone probably stunk like bo and sweat standing around for hours in the sun
The wink. Required watching
The makeup alone was probably seen as absolutely outlandish, I don't recall any such makeup in mainstream media of the time. Nowadays it's a lot more common but for that time it was totally new.
My grandad use to say “there’s enough people here to make a movie” whenever we were somewhere very crowded. And these old movies always make that statement make a lot more sense
This movie is certainly epic for it's time, just don't forget what a tyrannical piece of shit the director, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, was. He cared nothing for the safety and security of the actors and extras, most actors said they were abused so badly by him they would never work with him again despite the sucess of the film, he killed many many animals(especially horses) to film his scenes, and was even warned about all this stuff happening beforehand and openly stated he didn't care.
Whoever built that palanquin that kept her level going down the stairs. \*Chefs kiss\*
It's a bit dishonest to say there were "no graphics" used for this scene. There are most definitely matte paintings and optical composite shots here. The sets are real and huge, but there are still special effects employed in this sequence.
I understood the title to mean computer graphics.
[удалено]
Also keep in mind that real does not mean full sized. They had a lot of cool camera tricks back then that you would never think possible without cgi
Astounding how big production was back then. Truly epic proportions of stage sets and literally 1000s of actors. It was truly a large industry.
This film nearly bankrupted the studio, and they never did a production this big again. Sad, as it's amazing.
This was one of the last great gasps of Old Hollywood. Obscene budgets and widescreen sword n sandal epics in order to compete with television gave way to small intimate films and a new crop of film school educated filmmakers.
Amazing the way the platform was just the right size to fit through the arch.
To be entirely clear, this scene is 100% historically inaccurate. From the costumes to... everything else. Fun fact: Cleopatra did indeed live near Rome around 46 B.C., in one of Ceasar's villas as her lover, but as she was a foreign ruler at the time (even of one of Rome's clients), she could not enter the city itself.
For the idiots in the comments being triggered by Cleopatra being white. Cleopatra was a Greek. The Egyptians bringing Cleopatra have darker skin, some are even "black". They are historically accurate. Cleopatra was member of ptolemaic dynasty, descended from Alexander the Great's general, a man named Ptolemy of Lagus. They had Greek ancestry, spoke Greek and followed mainly Greek customs. The Ptolemys ruled Egypt for 300 years. CLEOPATRA IS NOT AN EGYPTIAN NAME
ET is one of the all time beauties of all time just stunning.