My main reason for seeing this 1970 version of 'Julius Caesar' was the cast. Did have my doubts about Jason Robards working as Brutus, but had no doubt that Charlton Heston and John Gielgud would be winners as Marc Antony and Caesar. The play itself is not one of the bard's best, but the supporting characters are so well rounded and many of the speeches are memorable (Marc Antony's big speech is one of the most famous of any Shakespeare play for good reason).
Of the film versions, this 1970 version is a contender for the weakest. It is far from awful, though its worst assets are pretty badly done, but there are things that come off effectively and are easy to appreciate. In my mind, the 1953 film, a near-masterpiece (apart from the Caesar), is infinitely superior in pretty much every sense. It is a shame, as 'Julius Caesar' (1970) did have a good deal of potential with an intriguing and talented cast and a very good play, but that potential doesn't fully materialise in the execution.
'Julius Caesar' (1970) does have good things. Most of the cast come off well, with Heston dominating as Marc Antony. A noble and authoritative performance with clear understanding of the text's meaning, most evident in the funeral oration speech. Gielgud is an eloquent and commanding Caesar, though will agree with those that say that he was better as Cassius in the 1953 film, not looking taxed in any way and his Shakespearean expertise is obvious. Another standout is Richard Johnson as an intense and deeply felt Cassius.
Robert Vaughan (a surprise for me, being someone who didn't associate him with Shakespeare usually) is effectively sneaky but in a beautifully understated way. It is amazing that Diana Rigg managed to be as moving as she was with Portia being very underwritten here. It is well photographed on the whole and has some nice set design. Some of the staging is effective, the action not being clumsy surprising and the assassination is hardly trivialised in feel. Shakespeare's text is delightful.
However, there are sadly a number of debits. Completely concur with the universal panning of Jason Robards' portrayal of Brutus, Robards is a disaster in the part and looks uncomfortably wooden and bemusingly spaced out throughout but especially in the early stages. Personally thought that most of the direction was pedestrian and too much of the character interaction static. The climax is seldom nailed and the film does nothing to change my mind, coming over as somewhat silly.
While Shakespeare's dialogue is wonderful, the effectiveness of it in delivery varies as it has had a lot more spark and pathos elsewhere. Despite moments where they look good, the production values tend to look on the cheap side and too claustrophobic. Despite Richard Chamberlain deserving some credit from trying to shed his typecast image at the time, he didn't come over as dangerous enough as Octavius and there was a sense that he was starting to become long in the tooth. There are truncations, and it does mean that the supporting character roles generally are too underwritten and come and go, the drama occasionally lacks cohesion too and the pace is dull.
Overall, has its good things but generally disappointing. 4/10
Of the film versions, this 1970 version is a contender for the weakest. It is far from awful, though its worst assets are pretty badly done, but there are things that come off effectively and are easy to appreciate. In my mind, the 1953 film, a near-masterpiece (apart from the Caesar), is infinitely superior in pretty much every sense. It is a shame, as 'Julius Caesar' (1970) did have a good deal of potential with an intriguing and talented cast and a very good play, but that potential doesn't fully materialise in the execution.
'Julius Caesar' (1970) does have good things. Most of the cast come off well, with Heston dominating as Marc Antony. A noble and authoritative performance with clear understanding of the text's meaning, most evident in the funeral oration speech. Gielgud is an eloquent and commanding Caesar, though will agree with those that say that he was better as Cassius in the 1953 film, not looking taxed in any way and his Shakespearean expertise is obvious. Another standout is Richard Johnson as an intense and deeply felt Cassius.
Robert Vaughan (a surprise for me, being someone who didn't associate him with Shakespeare usually) is effectively sneaky but in a beautifully understated way. It is amazing that Diana Rigg managed to be as moving as she was with Portia being very underwritten here. It is well photographed on the whole and has some nice set design. Some of the staging is effective, the action not being clumsy surprising and the assassination is hardly trivialised in feel. Shakespeare's text is delightful.
However, there are sadly a number of debits. Completely concur with the universal panning of Jason Robards' portrayal of Brutus, Robards is a disaster in the part and looks uncomfortably wooden and bemusingly spaced out throughout but especially in the early stages. Personally thought that most of the direction was pedestrian and too much of the character interaction static. The climax is seldom nailed and the film does nothing to change my mind, coming over as somewhat silly.
While Shakespeare's dialogue is wonderful, the effectiveness of it in delivery varies as it has had a lot more spark and pathos elsewhere. Despite moments where they look good, the production values tend to look on the cheap side and too claustrophobic. Despite Richard Chamberlain deserving some credit from trying to shed his typecast image at the time, he didn't come over as dangerous enough as Octavius and there was a sense that he was starting to become long in the tooth. There are truncations, and it does mean that the supporting character roles generally are too underwritten and come and go, the drama occasionally lacks cohesion too and the pace is dull.
Overall, has its good things but generally disappointing. 4/10