Movie Review – Julius Caesar (1953)

Julius Caesar (1953)
Written by William Shakespeare, adapted by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Once upon a time, I was a student at university who didn’t know exactly what to major in. I had chosen mass communications, but after taking some of the English prerequisite classes for all students at my liberal arts college I found I really loved those teachers and the subject matter. Upon becoming an English major, I had some new required classes. Two of those were Shakespeare: Comedies and Shakespeare: Tragedies. I wasn’t a stranger to the work of the Bard. I was homeschooled but still assigned Romeo and Juliet to read. An afterschool Literature Club that our local homeschool group formed had us read Julius Caesar and even performed excerpts from it at the homeschool group talent show. I got to deliver Mark Antony’s “Friends, romans, countrymen” speech which I am sure if I reviewed the crumbling VHS tape I’d pick on several areas of improvement.

It was at university that I dived much deeper into Shakespeare work. I would say The Tempest is probably my favorite of all his plays, but I completely get the hype surrounding Hamlet. That play is the best thing Shakespeare ever wrote and continues to resonate with such universal themes. I have had many existential nights where Hamlet’s words come back to me. But we begin our month-long look at some of Shakespeare’s film adaptations with the 1953 production of Julius Caesar. 

It is a film existing at an interesting point in cinema. We’re post-World War II when The Actor’s Workshop is producing a new kind of talent. Here James Mason and John Gieguld represent the classic, formal style while Marlon Brando is the new blood making a name for himself. Joseph L. Mankiewicz was three years out from his incredible All About Eve with two films you’ve probably never heard of between that one and this. 

After the surprise success of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V, MGM was interested in making a Shakespeare picture and brough John Houseman on as producer. Houseman refrained from an all British cast because it was an American film and encouraged the casting of US actors. However, he thought the movie should be shot in color while Mankiewicz disagreed. He wanted it filmed in black and white so that the audience would make a connection between these images and what they saw in newsreels “because we wanted people to relate to the newsreels, to the Fascist movements in Europe, which were still relevant.” The film was shot in Hollywood sound stages and as far as Shakespeare movies go, this feels very small scale. The text was kept fairly intact except for a few scenes. In terms of production design and style, it feels very faithful to the play.

Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern), a general in the Roman Republic, has returned from successfully defeating his rival Pompey. He holds a victory parade, which is briefly interrupted by a blind soothsayer who tells the hero to “beware the ides of March.” Caesar ignores this, but Cassius (John Gielgud), a Roman senator, does not like the growing voices of the people calling for Caesar to be named emperor of Rome. He begins a conspiracy with Brutus (James Mason), a friend of Caesar’s, to do whatever is necessary to keep power from becoming concentrated in one man’s hands. Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), Caesar’s closest ally, offers him the crown in front of a crowd which he rejects, for now.

The conspirators meet the day before 15 March and make a plan. They plan to approach him with a false petition and when they surround him they will draw their blades and stab him until he is dead. Caesar’s wife Calpurnia (Greer Garson) has a vision of his death and begs him to stay home. He ignores her. At the Senate, the next day, he is killed with Brutus delivering the final blow. Brutus is sent to explain to the crowd that what they did was in the best interest of Rome while Mark Antony delivers a stirring rebuttal that causes the crowd to riot. Brutus appeals to rationality while Mark Antony speaks from his emotions. Eventually, a civil conflict breaks out where Octavius, Caesar’s nephew joins with Mark Antony against Brutus and Cassius’s faction. Eventually, the conspirators are backed into a corner and must make drastic decisions.

Mason’s portrayal of Brutus was what stuck with me the most from this viewing of the film. His internal conflict both before and after the assassination is very compelling. In the text, even Mark Antony acknowledges that what Brutus did he did because he believed it was the best choice for Rome, he was not acting in self-interest. He plays off of Gieguld’s Cassius quite well with the latter being much less earnest in his agenda. Cassius is interested in power himself and simply doesn’t like the idea of Caesar being the one to get his hands on it. 

I do think the faithfulness to the original text paired with a classical production design makes the picture feel disconnected from contemporary audiences. It exudes all the things you hear people criticize Shakespeare for, mainly the challenge in accessing the text. I’ve never thought Julius Caesar was one of the playwright’s best works anyway. In chronological order of writing, Julius Caesar comes just after Henry V and As You Like It, both of which I like better than this one. I can see what Mankiewicz was going for with the connection to fascism, but I don’t think it holds up. The second half of this play has always been where I get bored with it.

I knew this wouldn’t be my favorite of the films we’re going to watch when I planned this series, but I thought it was a great starting point. It is classic Shakespeare in every aspect. It plays on themes of power and violence, with characters choosing to end their lives on their own terms as that’s ultimately the only thing they really had any control over. Many of the themes present in this text are going to be repeated across the movies we watch and I think you’ll see how other filmmakers managed to stay true to the words while creating films that contemporary audiences would likely connect with better.