.
Enviado por 17TheUSA76 em 28/06/2011
[edit]Historical accuracy
In general, the broad elements of the film's plot follow the ancient historical sources remarkably closely. Historical deviations in the film's details, however, include the following:
- The film features Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, first as an admiral under Julius Caesar, then later under Octavian. Agrippa (Andrew Keir) appears to be the same age as Caesar and much older than Octavian. Historically, Agrippa was about the same age as Octavian (as were, for the record, Keir and McDowall).
- The claim that Caesar wanted to be made Emperor is false, as the title of imperator was one adopted by Augustus much later, in an attempt to give his unique magisterial position in Rome some measure of respectability in keeping with the Mos maiorum.
- Cicero never attended the Senate during the period of Caesar's dictatorship.
- The position of Dictator was not symbolic, nor did he need to have his actions ratified by the Senate, as claimed in the movie.
- Caesar picking up his child Caesarion in front of other Romans would not have been sufficient to have the boy become a Roman citizen, and consequently Caesar's heir. For that, both parents must have been Roman citizens themselves. In any event, Caesar never acknowledged him as his son.
- The scenes of Cleopatra's magnificent entry into Rome are enacted in front of (and through) a detailed and life-size replica of the Arch of Constantine, built in 315 AD—more than three and a half centuries after the event.
- Moreover, the arch was never in the Forum.[citation needed]
- Further, her arrival and procession would not have entered the Roman Forum itself, as portrayed in the movie, since during the Republic, all foreign rulers were prohibited from crossing the Pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, into Rome proper.
- Several scenes include philodendrons, plants of South America that were unknown in the Roman world.
- Much of the interior decor of Cleopatra's palace in Alexandria is anachronistic. Some of the furniture items are exact copies of those found in the tomb of queen Hetepheres I (ca. 2600 BC). Statues seen on Cleopatra's barge are copies of one found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (ca. 1330 BC)
Reception and impact
When the end of principal photography was finally in sight, it became clear that in order for Cleopatra merely to break even it would have to be one of the two or three most successful films made up to that time. Cleopatra went on to a $48 million take in North America, making it the highest-grossing film of the year. Fox's share of the receipts ($26 million) returned just over half of the film's total cost. Worldwide box-office receipts and television sales eventually recouped most of the film's cost. As a result of the continual pouring of money into the long-delayed production, the studio was forced to undertake drastic retrenchments. Meanwhile, Fox's fortunes were restored with the release of The Sound of Music in 1965, which became one of the most popular films in cinema history.
A contributing factor to the film's problems was the hype, both internal and public, that surrounded Cleopatra. Billing it as the next great cinematic masterpiece, Fox continued to invest more and more money into the project, confident that audiences would adore it. Yet as production continued to falter, the top studio executives took much more direct and personal control of the project, complicating it even further. Films that were to be funded from the profits of Cleopatra were delayed or canceled, tying the fate of the studio to this one film. The extensive marketing campaign reflected how optimistic—or desperate—Fox was about the movie as they printed posters with new release dates every few months as production ground on.
When the film was finally released, the problems that had plagued production were finally fully evident. Historians criticized the inaccurate depictions of Octavian as a weak-stomached yet power-mad teenager and disliked the rewrite of how and why Julius Caesar was killed. Stage actors cited the disjointed script and directing styles as the root of the film's problems. (Mankiewicz had been able to write less than half the shooting script when filming commenced, so he ended up writing much of the script on the fly as filming went on.) Critics found the acting to be over the top in many scenes, scoffing that it took a special class of filmmaker to get such great actors to act so badly. As talented as the actors may have been, the extreme length and breadth of Cleopatramade it difficult for audiences to grasp the general plot and theme; the two halves tended to focus more on Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, respectively, than on Cleopatra herself.
Part of the fallout of chaotic production was a shifting away from the traditional "studio system" prevalent in Hollywood up to that time. While studios would continue to finance major films, financial burdens would increasingly be shifted onto independent production companies as a way to buffer the "parent" studio from a loss. It was reported, and widely believed, that the financial situation at Fox was so dire in the wake of Cleopatra that the studio executives were forced to sell most of the studio's large backlot in Los Angeles to developers. In fact, discussions of the sale had begun years earlier, before the movie was filmed, and was only completed after the movie was released. The backlot today forms the core of Century City.
The film earned Elizabeth Taylor a Guinness World Record title, "Most costume changes in a film"; Taylor made 65 costume changes. This record stood until 1996's Evita with Madonna's 85 changes of wardrobe.
The film was banned in Egypt[citation needed] and numerous other Arab states due to Taylor's public endorsement of Zionism,[citation needed] including financial support for the State of Israel, with whom Egypt was at war.
Contemporary critics are decidedly still divided about the film; Rotten Tomatoes reports 38% (8 "Fresh", 13 "Rotten") of critics reviewed it positively. A reviewer for Time said, "As drama and as cinema, Cleopatra is riddled with flaws. It lacks style both in image and in action." American film critic Emanuel Levy said, "Much maligned for various reasons, [...] Cleopatra may be the most expensive movie ever made, but certainly not the worst, just a verbose, muddled affair that is not even entertaining as a star vehicle for Taylor and Burton.
Positive reactions came from such publications as Variety magazine, who wrote, "Cleopatra is not only a supercolossal eye-filler (the unprecedented budget shows in the physical opulence throughout), but it is also a remarkably literate cinematic recreation of an historic epoch." Billy Mowbray of British digital channel Film4's website remarked that the film is "A giant of a movie that is sometimes lumbering, but ever watchable thanks to its uninhibited ambition, size and glamour."
-
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário