Pontius Pilate An Enigma Tailor Made for Hollywood

Hollywood Romans #8 - Pontius Pilate AHM #11

Pontius Pilate

An Enigma Tailor Made for Hollywood

 

 

“There is nothing duller on the screen than being accurate but not dramatic.” 

-- Darryl F. Zanuck

 

 

This, of course, is the struggle that all films deal with and indeed this struggle, between cinematic drama and historical accuracy, is the dynamic that energizes most discussions of the Hollywood Romans.  Although everyone carps about this or that ‘mistake’ in costumes or characters, time or place, there are occasions when the drama is so compelling and the acting so good that we ignore, or at least tolerate, the historical gaffs and simply enjoy the show.  The plays of Shakespeare are a prime example, and even more to the point, the BBC series I, Claudius.  Occasionally, drama does trump accuracy.

 

Even for a period as well documented as the fall of the Republic and rise of the Principate (100BCE to 100CE) there remain large gaps in the record and in our knowledge.  Not surprisingly, these gaps invite conjecture, supposition, and occasionally wholesale fabrication – the stock in trade of Hollywood.  

 

So it comes as no surprise that it is in this 200 year time period where we find the majority of the Hollywood Romans.  What does surprise is just which ancient Roman dominates this period cinematically.  One might naturally think it is Julius Caesar (and with him Mark Antony and Cleopatra) but that is not the case.  Even if you take all of the Caesars together, you will still not equal this Hollywood Roman.  Indeed, Pontius Pilate has appeared in well over 200 feature films, documentaries and TV shows, more than any other ancient figure with the exception of Jesus Christ himself.    

 

Pontius Pilate?

Ask someone about Scipio Africanus and you might get a faint glimmer of recognition.   Try Hannibal and they will often respond, “Elephants right?  Wasn’t he that mad doctor that ate people, or was it elephants…?”   However, ask them about Pontius Pilate and they will not only tell you he was the governor of Judea, they will happily recite his dialog from the trial of Jesus. (Very often the lyrics from the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar: “What is truth?  Is truth unchanging laws? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?”)

 

Ironically, outside of the small circle of his immediate family and associates, Pilate was unknown to his contemporaries, but now he is the most famous Roman of them all.

Of course, it helps being closely linked to the man worshiped by millions.  This is an unrivaled PR advantage that Hollywood loves, but Pilate has another important fact in his favor – that there are in fact very few facts about Pilate.  

 

We do have some ancient sources that mention Pilate.  There are, of course, the books of the New Testament and those outside the canonical texts as well as the works of historians Philo and Josephus.  Beyond that though, there really is not much, and this scarcity allows, indeed encourages, Hollywood to fill in the gaps, which it has done with gusto.

 

In the recent documentary, Pilate – The Man Who Killed Christ, scholars Ann Wroe and Helen Bond make the case for Pilate as the tough soldier who acted with purpose rather than the jaded politician acting out of expediency or worse, the dithering bureaucrat easily manipulated by the mob. This is one of the better documentaries, but while they see an obvious agenda in the Gospel’s portrait of Pilate, Wroe & Bond seem to accept the viewpoint of Josephus while ignoring the distinct possibility that his portrait of Pilate was also serving an agenda other than historical objectivity. (Namely pleasing his Roman patrons, in particular the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus.)  

 

Pilate – The Man Who Killed Christ, 2004

Interestingly, Hollywood seems to be in agreement with Wroe and Bond as more often than not Pilate is dressed in armor, even when it was more likely the historic Pilate would not have been so attired.  That said, wearing armor or not, Pilate might be the decisive commander acting with purpose or a weak willed ditherer easily manipulated by those around him.  While Wroe and Bond believe the actual Pilate was the former, just where the Hollywood Pilate falls on the decisiveness scale depends in large part on the agenda of the film’s director.  

 

Now, in the majority of his cinematic appearances, Pilate is at best a minor character, a supporting player or just a featured extra.  Even so, the list of actors who have played Pilate reads like a who’s who of the Screen Actors Guild.  

 

The Last Days of Pompeii, 1935

 

Basil Rathbone (1935)

Andre Morell (1947)

Leif Erickson (1951)

Richard Boone (1953)

Frank Thring (1959)

Hurd Hatfield (1961)

Telly Savalas (1965)

Wolfgang Preiss (1966)

Donald Pleasence (1976)

Rod Steiger (1977)

Michael Palin (1979)

Anthony Zerbe (1985)

Harvey Keitel (1986)

David Bowie (1988)

Michael Lonsdale (1990)

Gary Oldman (1999)

Ian Holm (2000)

Tim Matheson (2004)

Hristo Shopov (2004 & 2006)

Peter Firth (2016)

 

Now, I must admit that I have not seen all 200+ portrayals of Pontius Pilate, however of the many I have watched, here are some that I find the most interesting.

Ben-Hur, 1959

Frank Thring (Ben Hur 1959)  

Although not the earliest portrayal of Pilate, Thring’s performance is by far the best known and in fact set the standard in the same way that Charles Laughton’s performance did for Captain Bligh.  

Thring plays Pilate as the jaded politician who did not want the assignment in Judea but will do his best in the hope that, baring any mistakes, he can soon return to Rome richer than he left.  What is interesting here is that, save for one short scene, we see Pilate outside of his dealings with Jesus.  

We first meet Pilate in Rome, at a party hosted by his good friend Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) where he laments his new assignment as Prefect of Judea.  Given his haughty demeanor we might mistake him for a Senator, though in fact Pilate was a member of the Equestrian Order.  He next appears at the circus in Judea, were he officiates at the race, and then the following evening when he delivers both a message (to Ben Hur from Arrius) and what he considers sound advice: Return home to Rome.  Thring’s Pilate may be jaded, but he understands the power he has and it not reluctant to use it.  

 

 

Pontius Pilate, 1962

 

Jean Marais (Pontius Pilate 1962)

A French – Italian coproduction, and one of the only feature films with Pilate as the central character, this is Peplum Pilate and a wonder to behold.  

 

The film opens with Pilate standing trial in Rome before Caligula and the Senate.  It seems that Caligula is not happy with Pilate for crucifying Jesus under a sign saying ‘King of the Jews.’  We then flash back to Judea where, on his very first day, Pilate is not only attacked by Barabbas and his merry men, but he also angers the High Priests by ordering the construction of a much needed aqueduct at their expense. Clearly this is a land were there is never a dull moment.  

Jesus Of Nazareth, 1977

 

Rod Steiger (Jesus of Nazareth 1977)

A powerhouse actor (On The Water Front, In The Heat Of The Night) Steiger plays Pilate as the no nonsense soldier, but not a martinet.  This Pilate is also a thinker.  As with many other portrayals, Steiger’s Pilate would rather not execute Jesus, and yet interestingly, when his soldiers implore him not to release Barabbas, clearly an enemy of Rome, Pilate looks at Jesus and muses, “I wonder, who is the real enemy.” 

 

 

A.D. The Bible Continues, 2015

 

Vincent Regan (A.D. The Bible Continues 2015)

Peter Firth (Risen 2016)

 

Here we see the two sides of Pilate, with Regan playing him as the military strongman, though a conflicted one, while Firth is the jaded politician, not afraid of applying force when necessary, but who would rather use persuasion and manipulation to keep the restive population in line.  

Given the questioning and self-doubting Regan’s might be seen as the more traditional portrayal.  Risen, on the other hand, picks up the story at the crucifixion so if Firth’s Pilate has doubts about sentencing Jesus to death, we do not see it. 

Risen, 2016

What we do see is a Pilate concerned about keeping the peace pending the imminent arrival of the Emperor Tiberius in Judea. (!)  Of course, this is pure Hollywood Roman as Tiberius was, by this time, already on Capri with no intention of leaving.  This plot device is also used in A.D. The Bible Continues, with the twist that Tiberius brings Gaius Caligula along with him.   So much for even a pretense of historical accuracy.

 

Risen is, in fact, the third version of this story.  The first was The Inquiry (1987) with Harvey Keitel as Pilate, followed by The Final Inquiry (2006) with Hristo Shopov.  Interestingly, this was Shopov’s second turn as Pilate having played him in Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ (2004.) Like Regan, Shopov’s Pilate is rarely out of his armor, in either film. 

The Passion Of The Christ, 2004

The Last Temptation of Christ, 1988

 

David Bowie (The Last Temptation Of Christ, 1988)

This is certainly the most enigmatic Pilate in the most enigmatic film about Jesus.  While most films make a point of emphasizing their Biblical sources, director Martin Scorsese does just the opposite, starting his film with a title card stating the film is based upon the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis. Scorsese is interested in Jesus the man, and in the process of this examination of humanity we also get the most human Pilate as played by David Bowie.  

It is difficult to exactly characterize this Pilate.  Although he might be a soldier, Bowie plays him in a very relaxed manner, questioning Jesus (William Defoe) not in a formal setting, but in the stables while admiring horses.  In his dress too, Pilate is relaxed, wearing Greek attire that is, quite possibly, the most accurate costume.  Although Bowie’s screen time is very brief, his Pilate is, nonetheless, one of the most intriguing.  

 

Generally speaking, costumes in all these are pure Hollywood Roman, though occasionally films will make an effort, more or less, but usually less.  

Whither To Next Pilate? 

 

Several years ago a new Cleopatra film, based upon the biography by Stacy Schiff and staring Angelina Jolie, was announced with great fanfare. Many wondered if Brad Pitt might be cast as Mark Antony, thus mirroring the famous Taylor-Burton paring in the 1963 Cleopatra.  That rumor was quickly squashed when it was announced that Pitt would, in fact, be playing Pontus Pilate in a new film also in development.

As is quite normal for Hollywood, both projects got lost in Development Hell, and while the Cleopatra film remains there, the Pilate film is now in pre-preproduction, but as a relatively low budget affair and sans Brad Pitt.  However…

 

In a 2016 interview Pitt let is be known that he is still interested in playing Pilate, IF the right script and director could be found.  Now Brad Pitt does have considerable ‘star power’ in Hollywood, however, given the rather poor performance of the recent Ben Hur, a big budget Hollywood Roman film is going to be a tough sell, even for a star like Pitt.  Of course, this is Hollywood, and absolutely anything is possible.  After all, who doesn’t want to see a new film about a man who has a friend named Biggus Dickus?

 

Life Of Brian, 1979

Further Reading:

 

Ann Wroe, Pontius Pilate, ©1999

Helen K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, ©1999

Mark C. Carnes, Past Imperfect History According To The Movies, ©1995

Graham Sumner, Pontius Pilate’s Bodyguard, in Ancient Warfare Magazine Vol.1 #1

Juliette Harrison, Five Interesting Portrayals of Pontius Pilate, ©2015 on-line at her blog: Pop Classics http://popclassicsjg.blogspot.ca

 

My thanks to Graham Sumner for his insightful comments and generous assistance.

  

This article first appeared in Ancient History Magazine, Issue #11 Aug-Sep 2017

(C) 2017 David L Reinke

December 16th The Battle of the Bulge

Today is the 65^th Anniversary of The Battle of the Bulge.

On this day, 65 years ago, Germany launched their final offensive in an attempt to change the course of the war on the Western Front. The Germans had marshaled the best of their remaining forces and on December 16^th began a massive attack that caught the Allies completely by surprise.

In the first 48 hours German Army and Waffen-SS formations made impressive thrusts into and through the American lines. The 106^th and 28^th Infantry Divisions were both destroyed (the 106^th losing 7,000 men taken prisoner) though they would both be rebuilt and fight again. In addition the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 30^th, 78^th, 80^th and 99^th Infantry Divisions were all badly damaged. Their paratrooper brothers in the 82^nd and 101^st Airborne Divisions also suffered heavy losses, and while their casualties were less than the infantry, the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th, 10^th and 11^th Armored divisions sustained heavy losses as well. (733 tanks and tank destroyers were lost.)

However, key American units held their ground and over the next few weeks the Ardennes Offensive developed into the largest battle ever fought by the US Army.

Although most of the heavy fighting took place in December, the front was not restored to its original position until the end of January. By then the Americans had suffered over 81,000 casualties including 19,000 killed and over 23,000 taken prisoner.

Losses for the Germans were equally grim, but unlike the Allies, the tanks and soldiers lost could not be replaced. Exact numbers for German losses are unknown and depend upon which units are included. Numbers range from 81,000 to 100,000 (if Luftwaffe air and ground units are included). Among the losses were nearly 14,000 killed, 39,000 wounded and over 30,000 missing. Again, the actual numbers may be far higher. The 6^th SS Panzer Army alone reported over 37,000 casualties.

On a tactical level the Germans won several engagements, delayed the planned Allied offensive by some six weeks, and proved beyond any doubt that the German Army and Waffen-SS still had teeth. However, on a strategic level, the Ardennes Offensive was a decisive defeat and an unmitigated disaster for the Germans.

The Germans brought out their best units for the Ardennes Offensive, and although they made impressive initial gains they were also exposed to Allied firepower. The Americans took full advantage of the opportunity. The Germans could not make good their losses and these powerful Army and Waffen-SS tank units would be sorely missed on the Eastern Front. Indeed, there has been much speculation that had the Germans remained on the strategic defensive the war might have gone on into 1946. That of course is impossible to know, but one can only imagine the additional losses the Allies, particularly the Soviets, would have suffered attacking these powerful German formations in prepared defensive positions.

As Winston Churchill noted in the House of Commons on January 18^th: “This is undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever famous American victory.”

Hollywood Loves A Famous Battle

Generally speaking Hollywood and History do not get along well even though many famous and much lauded Hollywood films are based upon well known historical events. Not surprisingly the Battle of the Bulge is no exceptions. That being said, most films about the battle have been only fair at best

Robert Shaw as Colonel Hessler (supposedly based upon

Waffen-SS Colonel Peiper) in the 1965 film The Battle of the Bulge

Perhaps the absolutely worst film is also the only film to deal with the entire battle. Released on December 16^th 1965 by Warner Brothers the Battle Of The Bulge gets very little of the history correct with the notable exception of the uniforms, which are impeccable. Indeed the film plays so fast and lose with history that after watching the film in Munich, the former commander of the 5^th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel commented:

The content of this film is completely fictional and has hardly anything to do with the events of those days… It also presents a distortion of the facts and actual conditions under which the battle took place … The film is an insult not only to the American soldier who fought in the Ardennes, but also a scandal for all soldiers including those on the other side. (Battle of the Bulge by Danny S Parker, c1991, p313)

Unfortunately the fiction that is this film has infiltrated the public conscious and become accepted as “fact.”

One of the events portrayed in the film, in a highly fictionalized form, is the Malmedy Massacre. Despite much scholarly research into this incident the IMDB internet bio of Charles Durning, a survivor of that event, describes the Malmedy Massacre as it is presented in the Warner Brothers film, not as it actually happened.

All in all, with the exception of the uniforms, this film is to be avoided.

Better are the handful of films that deal not with the battle as a whole but with small groups caught up in the events of that December. As with all films some are better than others and that judgment has more to do with personal taste that historic objectivity.

Some of the better, or at least more noteworthy films:

Battleground 1950 MGM

Band of Brothers Episode Six: Bastogne 2001 HBO

A Midnight Clear 1992 A&M Films

The Execution of Private Slovik 1974 Universal

Silent Night 2002 Fast Carrier Pictures

Slaughterhouse Five 1972 Universal

Saints and Soldiers 2003 Go Films

“What they should have done…”

With the possible exceptions of Gettysburg and Waterloo, no battle has as many games devoted to it than the Battle of The Bulge. Even though research shows that the Germans had no real chance of winning this battle the Ardennes Offensive has proven to be very popular with gamers and a new take on the battle appears almost every year.

One of the very first was Avalon Hill’s The Battle Of The Bulge. Released in 1965, what this game lacked in historical accuracy it more than made up for in playability. Indeed it was a hallmark of the Avalon Hill Company to favor playability over accuracy, just as it was the tendency of their rival, SPI, to favor historical accuracy to the point of rendering some of their games frustratingly unplayable.

Both Avalon Hill and SPI cranked out several games on this battle and these now out of print classics are much sought after by both players and collectors alike. Two in particular, Avalon Hill’s Bitter Woods and SPI’s "monster" game Wacht Am Rhein, have enjoyed a new life as updated and expanded games produced by L2 Designs and Decision Games respectively. So popular was the update of Wacht Am Rhein that it too is now out of print with copies on E-Bay fetching as much as $400.

Video games have also dealt with this battle to varying degrees of success. Most are now out of print and those that are available tend to be “First Person Shooters” that happen to have the Battle of the Bulge as one of their many scenarios. The exception to this is HPS Simulations who continue to publish an excellent operational level game Bulge ’44.

A Few noteworthy games on the Battle of the Bulge:

Battle of the Bulge 1965, Avalon Hill

Bastogne 1969, SPI

Ardennes Offensive 1974, SPI

Hitler’s Last Gamble 1975, 3W (Designed by Danny S Parker an authority on this battle)

Bastogne 1976, SPI

Wacht Am Rhein 1976, SPI

Dark December 1979, Operational Studies Group

Battle of the Bulge (2nd Ed) 1981, Avalon Hill

Battle of the Bulge 1985, Epoch

Wave of Terror 1987, XTR Corp

Ardennes 1994, The Gamers

The Last Blitzkrieg 1994, 3W

Bastogne or Bust 1994 Terran Games Inc

Bitter Woods 1998, Avalon Hill

Tigers in the Mist 2000, GMT

Bitter Woods 2003, L2 Designs (revised AH game)

Ardennes 44 2003, GMT

Iron Tide 2003, Pacific Rim Publishing

Wacht Am Rhein 2005, Decision Games (revised SPI game)

Axis & Allies Battle of the Bulge 2006. Avalon Hill/Wizards of he Coast

The Significance of the Battle Today

Outside of those interested in Military Science or the history of World War Two, the Battle of the Bulge, despite its historic importance, would seem to hold little relevance to our present day. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Malmedy Massacre, and in particular the trial that it spawned, have a direct bearing on our present circumstances.

Although closely studied, the actual events of that day at the Baugnez crossroads south of Malmedy remain somewhat cloudy. There are several competing versions of what happened and the absolute truth will probably never be known with certainty.

What can be said is that Battery B of the 285^th Field Artillery Observation Battalion ran into the leading elements of Kampfgruppe Peiper, the armored spearhead of the 1^st SS panzer Division. After a brief firefight the surviving GI’s were taken prisoner and moved into an open field next to the crossroads. Several soldiers were detailed to watch the prisoners while the rest of the battle group, urged on by their commander Joachim Peiper, pushed on down the road in the hopes of capturing an American general reported to be in the next town.

Waffen-SS Colonel Joachim Peiper

A few minutes later one of the SS tankers, later identified as Private Georg Fleps, fired two shots from his pistol into the group of prisoners, killing an officer. Another US officer yelled for his men to stand fast, but then more shots rang out and there was a mad dash for the woods. Few made it to safety. Any GI’s left in the field who showed any signs of life were shot by SS panzergrenadiers moving among them. For the next few hours panzergrenadiers on passing tanks and halftracks took potshots at the bodies lying in the field. Surprisingly, despite all of this, several GI’s did survive, making it safely to American lines.

Bodies of American GI’s killed at the Baugnez Crossroads

News of the massacre was quickly disseminated throughout the American command and did more to stiffen American resistance and resolve than anything else.

After the war a trial was held at Dachau in which 74 members of the Waffen-SS were tried, convicted and sentenced, in many cases to death. However, because the prosecution had used “enhanced interrogation” on the prisoners, and the tribunal had knowingly admitted the evidence so obtained, the convections were instantly called into question. After several reviews of the trial, including one by the US Senate, several of the convictions were over turned and all death sentences were commuted to life in prison. These sentences were themselves reduced upon subsequent review. The last defendant to be released, Joachim Peiper himself, was set free in 1956.

Even though it is clear that a war crime was committed against American GI’s by members of the Waffen-SS, because of the use of evidence obtained by “enhanced interrogation” those defendants, many of whom were guilty, walked free. It seems clear that the use of “enhanced interrogation” serves no useful purpose. It is not only counter productive but undermines the very foundations upon which our judicial freedoms and rights are built. Our failure to follow our own laws serves only to allow those who have wronged us to walk free. What was true in 1946 is still true today.

 Hollywood Romans #6 Mark Antony   AHM #19

 

Mark Antony – The Third Wheel

 

 

“Antony’s rise owed little to conspicuous talent and far more to good connections, luck and the ardent desire for power, position and wealth.  He showed some skill as a politician and administrator, but had only limited ability as a soldier.  Cleopatra was more intelligent, and certainly better educated than Antony.  Neither Antony nor Cleopatra lived a quiet life. They will continue to fascinate, their story being retold and reinvented by each new generation.  Nothing any historian could say will ever stop this process, nor should it.”  -- Adrian Goldsworthy, Antony And Cleopatra, ©2010

 

Having looked at Hollywood’s treatment of Julius Caesar and of Cleopatra, it is only fitting that we now consider the third wheel of this legendary triumvirate, Mark Antony.  Indeed, it is nearly impossible to make a film about one that does not involve the other two, even if only as an off stage presence, so closely bound are these three.  

As with Caesar and Cleopatra, the part of Antony has been played by an array of notable actors, with performances ranging from the merely adequate to the truly amazing.  That none of these performances has truly captured the historic Antony is not surprising.  Even though oceans of ink have been spent writing about this period in History the gaps in our knowledge remain substantial.  While frustrating to historians and scholars, playwrights and filmmakers welcome this opportunity to ‘fill in the gaps’ with their imagination.  Sometimes the fiction is well founded, but even when it is not, that fiction shapes the popular image we have of the people and events depicted.  

 

So it is then that Mark Antony would likely not recognize his Hollywood Roman persona, however, like Cleopatra, Antony would probably still be pleased with at least some of the portrayals.  

 

Of the many on screen portrayals of Mark Antony, there are three worth seeking out:

Marlon Brando in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1953)
Richard Burton in Cleopatra (1963)

James Purefoy in HBO’s Rome (2011)

 

 

A Streetcar Named Antony

 

Of the three performances in question, Brando has the least amount of screen time.  His Antony does appear in several scenes, but is seldom the center of attention, almost a minor character.  That is with one exception, and what an exception it is. 

 

The key to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is the triumvirate of Brutus-Cassius-Antony.  The balance among these three characters is both critical and delicate – the play rises or falls on this, and the acting triumvirate at the center of the 1953 film, Mason-Gielguid-Brando is perfect.  In this regard director Joseph Mankiewicz and producer John Houseman have cast well.

 

As Brutus, James Mason displays the brooding intelligence of a man clearly swimming in political waters far deeper than he is qualified for, either by training or temperament.  Likewise Gielgud, as Cassius, is appropriately manipulative.  Cassius has his own agenda and is happy to use Brutus to reach that end.

 

All of this is to the good and serves the production well, but it is in the casting of Marlon Brando as Mark Antony that Mankiewicz and Houseman show true genius.  Originally the director had sought Paul Schofield (A Man For All Seasons, Quiz Show) for the role of Antony, but changed his mind when Brando’s screen test came in better than expected.  Brando was an actor of immense talent and is not only comfortable with the language but more than holds his own with the classically trained actors in the cast who have far more experience with the Bard.  Brando’s timing and dramatic sense are impeccable.  What’s more, Brando infuses Antony with a pugnacious air that seems completely appropriate to Antony both dramatically and historically, or at least, as we have come to understand the historical Antony.

 

Now History tells us that Antony delivered a speech which turned the crowd in the Forum from celebrating the just end of a tyrant to mourning the untimely death of a father, yet it is unlikely that Antony’s speech was as well written as Shakespeare’s nor, perhaps as well delivered as Brando’s. 

 

Much has been written about Brando as the premier American Actor of his generation, but most viewers, who are familiar only with his later films, may wonder what all the hoopla is about.  Watching his performance as Antony leaves no doubt as to his talent.  It is a performance for the ages.  

 

 

 

 

Slouching Towards Alexandria

 

To call the 1963 Cleopatra a ‘troubled production’ would be an understatement worthy of Hollywood. Indeed, it is a miracle that any film at all emerged from this maelstrom of production chaos caused, in no small part by the titanic personalities.

 

Originally intended as a modestly budgeted remake of the 1917 Theda Bara hit, it was anything but modest and extravagant hardly describes the excesses both on and off the set.  After an aborted first attempt (which resulted in $7 million spent for 10 minutes of unusable footage) 20^th Century Fox began again, moving production from London to Rome under a new director approved by Elizabeth Taylor.  So it was that Joseph L Mankiewicz found himself once again in Ancient Rome with familiar characters.  

Unlike his previous encounter with Caesar and Antony, Mankiewicz was now working from his own screenplay with the intention of telling the story of Cleopatra in two 3-hour films: Caesar And Cleopatra followed by Antony And Cleopatra.  This time Antony would have plenty of on screen time for in-depth character development. 

 

Elizabeth Taylor stayed on as Cleopatra, but Mankiewicz recast most of the other parts.  For the role of Mark Antony, Mankiewicz wanted Marlon Brando, but he was unavailable so Mankiewicz set his sights on Richard Burton.  The Studio objected, claiming Burton was an outstanding stage actor but not a bankable film star.  Mankiewicz insisted and Fox finally relented, paying $50,000 to buyout Burton’s Broadway contract where he was performing in Camelot.  

Once Taylor and Burton were on set together, it quickly became impossible to tell if their performance was acting of the first order or simply life imitating art.  It may have been both, but in the end life overcame art.  As Mankiewicz told producer Walter Wagner,  “I have been sitting on a volcano all alone for too long... Liz and Burton are not just playing Antony and Cleopatra.”

 

In yet another case of ‘life imitating art’ the critic Barry Norman observed, “…Burton’s acting prowess was stunted by his relationship with the Hollywood darling through no fault of her own.” 

 

At one point, as the production sank deeper into chaos and debt, Fox considered cutting their loses by ending the film with Caesar’s assassination.  This would, of course, essentially eliminate Antony from the story, relegating him once again to the position of a minor character. When Studio executives approached Burton with their plan, he replied with succinct menace: “I’ll sue you until you’re puce.” 

Fox did not end the story early and Burton did not sue, however Fox chairman Zanuck insisted on the release of a single film, and so the cutting began, deep and severe. 

According to scholar Jon Solomon the more historically accurate Antony was left on the cutting room floor.  As Mankiewicz noted, “The person who suffered most in the cutting of the film was Dick Burton.”  What remained was no longer the hero who suffers a tragic fall, but rather as Solomon observed,  “This cinematic Antony starts at the bottom and falls sideways.”  And yet…

Keeping in mind the Antony illuminated by Goldsworthy’s 2010 biography, 

Burton’s heavily edited performance may in fact be closer to the history than it has heretofore been given credit.   Occasionally, the Hollywood Romans get it right, even when they seem to be working hard not to.

 

 

The Ram Has Touched The Wall

 

James Purefoy, who played Antony in the HBO/BBC series Rome, had one major advantage over Brando and Burton – time.  Because Rome was an episodic series focused on the events leading to the end of the Republic and the rise of the Principate, the writers had the time for character development that a feature film, even an epic one, often lacks.  This is a boon for both writers and actors alike as they work to bring their characters fully to life.  Even though both Cleopatra and Rome essentially cover the same time period, we see much more of Antony in the latter, interacting with a wider variety of characters and situations beyond those involving Caesar or Cleopatra.

 

Additionally, even in this age of giant HD monitors in every home, television cannot rely on visual spectacle to carry the day in the same way a feature film can and often does.  No matter how big their budget, Rome could never stage scenes like Cleopatra’s entry into Rome, or the naval battle at Actium.  Television’s stock in trade is character driven stories propelled by intimate, dialog heavy, scenes.  In this Rome excels.   

 

That is not to say there is no spectacle in Rome -- there is, but of a more intimate sort.

 

In her insightful article, Spectacle of Sex: Bodies on Display in Rome, Stacie Raucci notes that we never see Antony in actual battle (he does lead a cavalry charge at the battle of Philippi but all the action takes place off camera) however we do see a lot of Antony’s body in shots that,  “establish him as the primary sex symbol of the series.  Even when fully clothed, his body more than those of all the other elite male characters is clearly signaled as a spectacle.”  

 

Purefoy himself saw Antony as a tragic character.  As he told journalist Hannah Pool,  "He's flawed but he's human. I think the audience can tell that there's hot blood running through those veins.  The more I read about [Mark Antony], the more I looked into him in history, he's just unbelievably tragic.  Those scenes, especially him and Cleopatra at the end, there's clearly something very tragic about it.”

 

Indeed, in Purefoy’s Antony we see the pugnaciousness (Brando) and the hubris (Burton) as well as the sexuality.  In this latter aspect, time is, once again, on Purefoy’s side as his Antony is given ample opportunities to display his sexual prowess. When asked about the scenes involving not only sex, but also full frontal male nudity (a rarity even on cable TV) Purefoy averred that ‘there is no point playing someone like Antony and doing it half-heartedly.’  

 

Interestingly, Rome avoids competing with Shakespeare by not having Antony deliver his funeral oration on screen.  We hear about it, after the fact, from other characters.  What we are given instead is a wonderful scene of Antony, at the home of Servillia, confronting and out maneuvering the assassins.  This is Antony at his best – coldly ruthless but with his signature charm that disarms and paralyzes his opponents even as they realize they are being politically eviscerated.  This is one of Antony’s best scenes in the entire series.

 

 

Et tu Hollywood…

 

The Hollywood Romans are not finished with Antony.  So enduring are Caesar, Cleopatra and Antony that, as Goldsworthy noted, each generation will retell their stories anew, reinventing them to suit the dramatic needs of the time.  Now some will demur, lamenting the loss of the historical Antony, but in fact that Antony was lost the moment Octavian declared victory at Actium.  The reimagining of Antony, and of Cleopatra, to suite the needs of the “new” present began then, and has never stopped.  They quickly slid from history into legend; eventually becoming the pop culture icons we know them as today. 

 

 

Of the three performances on display here, each has elements that recommend it to the viewer.  The characterizations all share certain elements, while each emphasizes different aspects that we have come to associate with Antony.  No doubt viewers will have their favorite, though Purefoy’s performance will be tough to beat.  Even so, given the shear number of projects currently in development, we will be seeing a lot more of these characters. Perhaps that definitive Antony is out there still, waiting for his cue.  

The author wishes to thank Graham Sumner and Jennifer DeCosta for their insights and assistance.

 

Further Reading:

Antony And Cleopatra by Adrian Goldsworthy, ©2010

Rome – History Makes Television edited by Monica S Cyrino ©2008

The Ancient World In The Cinema by Jon Solomon, ©2001

When Liz Met Dick by David Kamp ©2011 Vanity Fair 

When In Rome by Hannah Pool ©2007 The Guardian

 

 

A few of the actors who played Mark Antony

 

Maurice Costello   1908

Thurston Hall        1917

Henry Wilcoxon    1934

Luis Sandrini         1947

Raymond Burr       1953

Toto                       1963

Sid James              1964

Richard Johnson   1974

Osami Nabe          1970

Billy Zane             1999

Charlton Heston    1950, 1970, 1972

This article first appeared in Ancient History Magazine #19 Jan 2019 Hollywood Romans

 (c)2019 David L Reinke