LetThemEatCake
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LetThemEatCake
-
-
Here you go. As much as it pains me to post this, someone already did a "short version" of Forbidden Planet.
this reminds me, I used to watch this show in the 80's about space but it was in spanish, it was very ominous, I seem to recall something about being trapped in a black hole, does it ring any bell?
-
More examples on the magic of editing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFFGphgtI0A
I don't think the restoration was good because the film looks totally magenta.
-
This is one of my favorite sequences from the film:
the dialogue is super, the lighting is magnificent, those shots were the floor is blue, one pillar is green, another is lit gold, I've never seen anything like that in my life, the acting by both is super and the sparks between them is unlike any other pairing in film. Can't believe it's all buried under muck basically and that the only thing people comment about upon watching this film is Rex Harrison's hammy and soporific performance and Roddy McDowall's shrieking Octavian. Way to miss the point of everything.
-
Thank you MovieMadness for that!
And for the OP, you just need a DRM free copy of whatever you want to edit in your in your computer first, before you can use any editing tool to edit it!
Whether you use decryption software to strip and transfer a DVD (or Blu-Ray) to your system, or record it from off air, or use screen capture software while streaming, whatever works best, or is most convenient for you. However, the quality of various software programs that allow you to do the above can vary, and generally, the better ones (i.e. DVDFab, Bandicam, etc.) are not free for the full meal deals.
Same goes for any file you download. First it needs to be a "trusted" site, and anything that you download for such a purpose needs to be DRM free, AND free of any viruses, Malware, or PUPs, etc. Many are not, so be very careful!
After you have your copy there is a plethora of editing software programs out there, some are quite sophisticated for editing and converting both audio and video files from one format to another (i.e. AVI, MP2,3 & 4 files, etc.). And yes, Microsoft's Movie Maker is a good, and simple, cut and paste tool that can get the job done. It used to be included as part of their OS package, but may no longer. I think it is still free for download though, so that may be all you want to use or need.
Mankiewicz, and Cleopatra aside, when I was a kid I used to have a subscription to those Reader's Digest Condensed Books. They were all abridged versions, authorized by the authors, so were quite good. But when I read a particularly good story, that I really liked, I began wondering what it was that I was missing. So I would go out and buy the unabridged version and read it and discover (more often than not), that I liked reading the unabridged version even more than the Reader's Digest version. Eventually I moved on to reading all unabridged books and I've never regretted it.
Same thing I think applies to movies. There are the theatrical releases, which may or may not be "abridged" or censored, depending on the date (i.e. pre or post Hays code), and locale that they are seen. And sometimes one can gain access to a version that is not so edited or censored.
Today my preference is that whenever such an unaltered, or restored version is available I want to see it. Even if I really enjoyed the theatrical release, or sometimes, even if I didn't. I'm a curious sort and would rather see for myself which version I like best. Sometimes I find that an extended cut is not quite as good as the theatrical edit, in which case I would be more inclined to agree with whomever made that final cut. But more often than not, I find the extended director's cut to be much fuller, and allow me to better understand and enjoy the movie.
There are numerous examples which can be cited.
You brought up Oliver Stone's Alexander and mentioned the three versions in extent. The theatrical release, which for me (and many other viewers) was full of in-congruent holes and sometimes a little difficult to follow. Then there was an extended release which appeared to have every scrap of film Stone shot included... Some, including Stone thought that was a little much. And then there was the Director's Cut, which, in this case, was actually a shorter version, but edited in a way that, according to Stone, flowed much better than the other two. Why that last version didn't end up being the theatrical release is a story in itself, but point being is I saw all three of those versions so that I could make up my own mind about the film. And having seen the extended and director's cut, I actually found myself enjoying Alexander much more than if all I'd ever seen was just that one theatrical release.
Jamesjazzguitar mentioned Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons, which is another classic case of studio meddling with a director's final product that almost destroyed a film.
Very simply put, there are producers, there are scriptwriters and there are directors. And most often they do not know each others business, and so when they do "collaborate" the producer/s and script writer/s must trust the director that they are working with to produce a product that they can all be happy with and also makes money.
There are producers who discover a work and have an idea that it would make a great film if only they could get the right script for it and the best director to make it happen. But I think that the best examples of cinema are when the writer is also the director, and the free-est hand a director can have is when he or she can afford to produce their own movie.
Barring that is when a director (such as in the old studio system) had enough clout that they could get the studio to agree to give them the final say in a picture. Barring the above, there is often too many hands in the pie, and when you watch a movie you may have no idea whose movie it is... the producers, the directors, the screenwriter/s,.... All or none of the above...
When a film turns out to be a critical or box office success, they all want to claim credit. When a movie is a failure, it's always someone else's fault.
As John F. Kennedy put it (paraphrasing the ancient words of Tacitus), "Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan."
Bottom line is, the reason I, and many of us here, watch TCM, and come to these boards, is because (despite our other differences), we share a common desire to watch our movies in the most complete, uncut (and commercial free) form that is available.
That simple idea is what really bonds most of us at this website.
That concept seems to be contrary to your way of thinking.
Thank you for the advice, I am currently downloading the 50th anniversary blu ray, which I may say, was not a good restoration, it is magenta all throughout, I'm downloading that and I'll try to edit it on windows media player, thank you again.
As far as your points, I'm not contrary to that way of thinking, I also read abridged versions of books and later on I sought out the complete versions and nothing less would do because as I grew up to love art I realized that the artist's vision is sacred and it has to be respected, there is no point whatsoever in seeking out something abridged.
Now I disagree with the rest of your post, and I'll tell you why: film, contrary to all artforms out there, is a true collaborative effort. It's impossible for a person to do it on their own. That is the reason why I don't consider myself a fan of auteur directors, I love their films but I'm not going to be a fan of them because whose to say who really was who made their films great? I love Alien and Blade Runner as much as the next person but let me tell you, Prometheus is one of the worst film in history and Exodus is not far behind. The rest of Scott's filmography isn't the greatest either. What I'm trying to say is that, a great film often happens not because of the director, but despite him.
Now you wouldn't want several versions of a famous painting, a novel, a partiture or a poem. That would go against the artist's sacred vision and his work, even if somebody else financed it, the work is still his. In a film the director is the lead of course, but so much is involved and all the other artists have their opinions too, I'm sure they'd do the film differently but there has to be a final decision and sometimes it's the directors and sometimes it's the studio or producers. That doesn't mean the directors got screwed, it's just the way it is. It's like perfectionism, or artists of several disciplines that are perfectionists, at some point you have to say this is it and let it go. What Oliver Stone did makes it seem like he's not a talented filmmaker, makes it seem like he doesn't know what he's doing. Also, as an audience we don't get to decide what version to see. We can't demand many versions of a painting and choose the one we like. I feel it goes against the artistic work, but director's cut exist and they are sold and that is fine but I feel it has done a disservice to the art of film.
Case in point: Batman Vs. Superman. This movie is terrible mainly because it didn't make sense. Then I read some reviews about the extended edition and they mainly said that with the extended scenes the movie now makes sense. Well, in my mind if the theatrical cut doesn't make sense then it is badly done. Then I started to notice bad editing in many more films and I have come to the realization that studios are purposefully editing down the films in order to save it up for the dvd. I find that execrable. The theatrical release can't come second, it's impossible, it's a total disrespect to the art of film and I think this is the result of the expectation that has been created because of the director cuts and extended editions, I don't think it benefits films. It's like an adaptation of a book, or a historic character, if the film doesn't make sense in the theatrical release then they did it wrong.
As far as Cleopatra goes, it's a very specific case, I really can't compare it to any other case, and I really don't know why there is a minority that asks for the 6 hour cut, I believe they are other Elizabeth Taylor fans like myself, and I too would like to see all the Elizabeth Taylor footage but I love film as much as I love Elizabeth Taylor and I'd rather have a good Cleopatra than a 6-hour Cleopatra. I've also already read the original script and believe me it is not a good script. Other than this very small group of Liz fans, I don't see anyone else that would be interested in all 6 hours of Cleopatra, some people may object to any cuts on the principle of preserving the director's vision at all cost but I don't agree with that specially when it's shoddy work. I mean this film is shoddy. The opening credits sequence with those horrible faded fresco images and fonts actually depict scenes that didn't make the final cut. Couldn't they have fixed this before release?? This is shoddy work. But it doesn't have to be a shoddy film, it can be fixed... if it's edited down.
And they also basically dismissed the theatrical cut. The theatrical version of Cleopatra was 3 hours long. This version has since disappeared. Now I don't think I would have liked this version because from what I read it eliminates one good Taylor scene, but this should have been the dvd release and then they could have done a special edition with the 4 hour director's cut.
I don't know, maybe I am totally wrong on this but when almost everyone complains about its running time, maybe they are right? I think Cleopatra is the longest Hollywood release, it's insane.
-
Then perhaps your personal experience doesn't reflect the rest of society.
I don't live in a rock, the movies aren't discussed because they didn't turn out to be classics but fads of the moment.
-
People talk about those movies all of the time, and they are regularly listed among the best films of the previous decade. So you are "literally" wrong.
I haven't heard anyone discuss them for years in real life or the media and the subsequent sequels haven't been anywhere near as successful.
-
Why is that weird?? There was an OBSESSION with that trilogy, even if one didn't want to see it, one would be dragged to see it whether by family, friends or your date or whatever. Of course I saw it and everybody else did so to. Your question is silly. It's like saying oh I didn't see Titanic. Everyone saw it. The important thing is that literally nobody speaks about that trilogy now because the movies were garbage.
That is true, she was going to be play Cleopatra but she set it aside so she could do her Unbroken movie and then she went back to it but everyone had already moved on the Steve Jobs movie.
-
Why is that weird?? There was an OBSESSION with that trilogy, even if one didn't want to see it, one would be dragged to see it whether by family, friends or your date or whatever. Of course I saw it and everybody else did so to. Your question is silly. It's like saying oh I didn't see Titanic. Everyone saw it. The important thing is that literally nobody speaks about that trilogy now because the movies were garbage.
That is true, she was going to be play Cleopatra but she set it aside so she could do her Unbroken movie and then she went back to it but everyone had already moved on the Steve Jobs movie.
-
How strange that you claim you "detest" THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies yet you saw all of them and even fell asleep during the first one (and the second and the third).
Why is that weird?? There was an OBSESSION with that trilogy, even if one didn't want to see it, one would be dragged to see it whether by family, friends or your date or whatever. Of course I saw it and everybody else did so to. Your question is silly. It's like saying oh I didn't see Titanic. Everyone saw it. The important thing is that literally nobody speaks about that trilogy now because the movies were garbage.
-
Yes there is a simple way to make an edit, you have to record the movie to your computer and use the Movie Maker software to edit out what you don't like, then save it and burn it to DVD.
BTW anyone who has seen the Lord Of The Rings trilogy in both the standard length and extended length would probably agree that the extended length version is a much better movie series. Just like I imagine the 6 hour version of Cleopatra is way better than the mess they released to theaters.
Would it be ok if I downloaded the film from those putlocker sites, I believe that's an mpeg, and then open it up on that program??
I haven't seen those versions, just the ones in theaters, personally I detest The Lord Of The Rings, I was falling asleep during all of them at the theaters, but I believe that's a different case, the studio knew it was going to be a trilogy, it was shot back to back, etc. Mankiewicz went crazy and didn't tell anybody.
-
Do you have an opinion about Orson Welles and The Magnificent Ambersons?
I haven't seen that one but I just read that the studio took the film away from him and heavily edited it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not on the side of movie studios, we know those people are scum for the most part, but other than the director's cut of Blade Runner, I haven't seen many good director cuts. the Alien and The Exorcist director's cut are not better than the theatrical version. Oliver Stone had the unheard of privilege of being able to release 3 versions of "Alexander" and the theatrical version was also better. I even saw the Alien 3 Assembly Cut, and the much maligned Alien 3 was much better.
-
I'm starting to tire of kicking this dead horse.... but since you are still asking, I'd suggest, for simplicity sake, that you acquire a DVD copy of the movie. If you have a DVR and access to TCM you can even do that for "free" the next time TCM airs the "restored" 4 hr premier version of the movie. If not, you may be forced to purchase a copy.
With the right software and minimal technical savvy, the DVD can be transferred to a hard drive. From that you can begin your editing process. You say you have read the "original script," so get a pdf of it that you can edit (or print a hard copy) and start the "paper editing" process first. Use that script as a guide to find those parts that were left in the 4 hr version at hand that you don't think are necessary. Then, use video editing software to make the cuts on your video transfer of the movie. Keep an unadulterated master so that if you make a mistake, or don't like what you've edited, you'll be able to start that part over again.
Now, you may only be limited in your work, depending on your PC's capabilities (i.e. processor speed, video graphics card, RAM, and hard drive space, etc.) and the level of editing that you want to achieve. Some home computer Operating Systems (windows/Mac) provide a simple but adequate Video Editor in their programs package. There are also several available for online purchase.
I suggest googling Video Editors, and read up on what each can do, determine which can meet your needs, and begin experimenting!
This will be a good learning experience for you.
Once you've completed your very personalized edited version of Cleopatra, you can then either watch it in it's entirety on your PC or from a larger TV monitor using a freeware Media Player (i.e. VLC). If you so choose you can even make a DVD back-up copy of "your" work for archiving.
Now here is the catchy part. If Cleopatra (1963) is not yet in the public domain, by altering it without Studio permission, you will have violated the copyright infringement. Many of us still make a back-up copy (which used to be legal and encouraged) of commercial videos that we've purchased, to save the ware and tear on the original, and thereby protect our investment. Some of us have played around making various edits here and there for our own home viewing amusement. So long as we don't do any of this for public showings, or for profit, nobody seems to get "hurt" by these practices (however that is a "can of worms" that I really don't want to open in this thread).
So if you plan to "share" your edited version for public consumption and scrutiny, on say, YouTube (Facebook, or whatever), you will likely have to do this incognito, or go through the process of acquiring studio permission to do it legally.
You may want to do that anyway, so you can submit your vision of the "perfect" edit of your favorite movie for their consideration.
"I think that editing a film down would cost almost nothing, they would recoup so much more with the dvd sales of a new cut."
Hey, if you do submit it to the studio as gratis, it will have cost them nothing!
However I still seriously doubt that they think there is a market for a newer "stripped down" version of their old Cleopatra that would make a run of DVDs worthwhile. But who knows, somebody there may agree with you, since those studio heads back in '63 were more in line with your way of thinking, perhaps a few of them are left????
As for myself, though I would probably be interested in seeing the end product of all your work, I wouldn't "purchase" such an edited copy (commercial or otherwise).
However, on the other hand, if FOX were to release a new, expanded version of Cleopatra (ala the "Original Director's Cut") with material that I have never before seen, then I, for one, would be very interested in that.
Well, you can read the original shooting script and the scenes that were actually shot in the link I posted you would realize the level of insanity of Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I'm not a filmmaker, I'm not a writer but I have seen countless films for almost all my life and I think a cardinal rule is edit, edit, edit. You put into a film what's essential and what matters. Mankiewicz' vision of Cleopatra is page after page after page of what doesn't matter. The owner of the page I posted in previous posts, is a stupid person that I've known online, and of course he's going to find a way to justify it, but no director in their right mind would shoot so much material.
Furthermore, the 4 hour cut is a bad cut because there is the trace of subplots and jokes that didn't make the full cut in its entirety. In other words, in Cleopatra you have the punchline of a joke but not the lead up dialogue or scenes to said joke or subplot. I don't know about you but if I can't get a full joke or a subplot in a film because of time restraints, I would edited the joke or the subplot out ENTIRELY. Mankiewicz didn't do that. Hence a 4 hour running time.
Is there a simpler way to make an edit? I remember in university there was a program you could edit videos on and it was fairly simple to just cut and replace scenes. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, since you are done with the subject, I'm not here to pester anyone.
-
Universal is letting movies turn to dust. Yea, total dust where they will be lost forever.
This stinks but the reason is that they don't feel there is any economic gain (profit), to be had from preserving these films.
Disney doesn't make Song of the South available because of PC reasons. That is also an economic decision; more to lose from upsetting those upset about the film's content than is gained from releasing the film and selling DVDs.
My point here being that in the case of Cleopatra the studio doesn't see the same profit potential that you do. Hey, they may be wrong but since they own the product they get to decide.
Well there is zero interest in Cleopatra. Zero. Something that I don't understand, this reverence for the 4 hour cut. I really don't.
Which movies is Universal letting go to dust?
-
If the producers didn't do the necessary due diligent and 'check in' on the process that is their fault. With all the money the studio was spending they could have flow someone out to the movie site to supervise the progress and report back to them. I find it hard to believe the producers didn't have some idea what Mank was up to, but again, if they did that is on them.
As for my perfect world comment; If there were 3 films released as I stated (studio cut, and director cut \ vision which was two films), viewers would have multiple versions and thus options. That is what you're asking for, right? An additional version. Well some people may favor the director's vision (yea, even Manks).
They did do that, that is why Walter Wanger got fired in the middle of production because everything was out of control. Mankiewicz got fired too for the same reason. Why do you keep blaming the studio though? I don't get it. They asked for something and Mankiewicz went insane.
-
Recoup so much more from who? I doubt the public is interested in yet another version of Cleopatra when other versions exist and it's shown on tv for free........
Who is interested in Cleopatra though? I am a fan of the movie and I've had several occasions of people recoiling in dread of Cleopatra, because of its running time. The showings of the restored print in major cities flopped all over the world, in one report only 17 people saw it in a theater of 200 people, surely because of the running time. Where I live I've never seen the blu ray of Cleopatra, which means that in its main market it sold poorly, again surely because of the running time. I haven't seen Cleopatra on the tv for decades now because of its running time. The movie was on netflix some time ago, after I checked on imdb and there was zero activity. Mommie Dearest was shown on netflix for the first time and after I checked the boards and other places and there was a flurry of activity, which means that young people saw the movie for the first time, I doubt the same people bothered with Cleopatra.
In other words, there's nothing the studio or the general public can actually do with Cleopatra because of its running time. You preserve an original cut of a film when it's actually good. Cleopatra is not, so I really don't understand the insistence of preserving Mankiewicz' insanity.
-
The studio producers still shoulder a percentage of the blame for the final outcome. They knew fairly early on what Mank was up to. They could have fired him and replaced him with another director.
In the perfect world the studio would have released 3 films; one highly edited 180 minute or so film and two 160 or so minute films. As Stephan pointed out, the cost of editing to produce multiple versions is minimal when compared to the cost the studio had already sunk into the project.
Anyhow, this appears to be water under the bridge in 2016 since as Stephan also notes it is unrealistic to expect a studio to spend additional dollars with little to no chance of recouping that expense.
But that's the thing, they did not know. Mankiewicz never delivered a finished script. Nobody knew what he was doing until they got the 6 hour monstrosity and realized it wouldn't make sense with less running time because Mankiewicz was that shady. Why is it their fault? Why would we need two films in a perfect world? I fail to understand that.
I think that editing a film down would cost almost nothing, they would recoup so much more with the dvd sales of a new cut.
-
Well, director vs studio confrontations over control of film is nothing new. Chaplin experienced it, Welles experienced it... probably most directors who wanted creative control have gone through it to a greater or lesser degree.
Drugs (legal or otherwise) aside, Mankiwicz's vision of the film collided with that of the studio heads, so what... This kind of argument can be made for many... Even Selznick's baby was almost aborted because of it (speed, coffee and cigarettes, etc.)
http://vivandlarry.com/vivien/articles/drugs-chaos-and-gone-with-the-wind/
The studio released a cut down version of Cleopatra and it failed to recoup costs. Perhaps, (and we'll never know) if they had gone along with Mankiewicz and released it as two (3hr each) films (with one a sequel to the first) it may have been a financial success... The money was already spent, the film was already shot and edited as two movies, they could have (and maybe should have) trusted the director and given that way a try first... I know that today there are many of us that would like to see it in it's entirety (good or bad), as the director (not the studio) had intended.
Realistically, we're talking about a movie that was either misdirected or butchered by the studio (depending on your point of view) 53 years ago. No studio is going to want to invest more money to release a further cut down version of what they released commercially back then. And even if they did, they wouldn't be able to satisfy all viewers with whatever new cuts they decided to make...
However, it does appear, that there is some effort going on at FOX to recover those cut pieces and reassemble them back into the two original movies that Joseph L. had originally shown to the studio. And, at this late date, release them on DVD or Blu-Ray as an original director's cut. They've already milked their previous version of Cleopatra dry, so it makes pretty good (albeit belated) economic sense to join the Director's Cut home video band wagon, and see if they can't get this cow to start producing a little more revenue again.
It sounds like you just aren't happy with the studio's cut down version... still too long, what-have-you... Anyway, you must have seen it at some time, to have such a strong opinion.
So it looks like you'll just have to do it yourself. You be the director, and make and edit the movie to satisfy you. Share it on YouTube and see if others enjoy what you have done.
You'll just have to make the cut's and edits off an existing copy yourself. Just pretend that you are the studio chief back in 1963, and have been handed this 4 hour monstrosity on a DVD, and in order to save the studio you must make an additional edit from this that is short enough, and still makes enough sense, that the public will go for it!
No biggie, if you've got the PC, software and time. And you apparently have at least two of those requirements at hand.
And how do I do it?? I am torrenting the blu ray edition, it's a two part file, how do I edit it??
Also, I disagree with your comments, it's one thing to have a creative disagreement, and a very different thing to just do two movies when the studio asked for one. Everyone signed up for one movie, not two movies. Also I have read the original Cleopatra script and the footage that he shot was beyond unnecessary. It's the equivalent of shooting the characters brushing their teeth. It's terrible and rightfully belong on the cutting room floor.
-
As far as actual books go, here is a list of 52 Books about Cleopatra from Goodreads (some are even scholarly).
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7223.Books_about_Cleopatra
The 1963 Cleopatra that you are obsessing about isn't the only movie version out there (I'm sure you know)...
Cleopatra (1963 film) 248 minutes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_%281963_film%29
There have been many interpretations and versions of the story (many rewrites), period.
Here is a list of movies on Cleopatra from 1908 to present, with one new one on the way...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_Antony_and_Cleopatra
So take your pick!
Too bad you dislike mini series' as I thought this one rather good!
HBO mini series ROME included Cleopatra and her relationships with both Ceasar and Antony, and....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_%28TV_series%29
This is also a mini series, but it may be more up your alley, as the run time is much less than the 1963 movie...
Cleopatra (miniseries) 177 min
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_%28miniseries%29
You seem to be fixated on Liz Taylor, and while she is hot, I've always enjoyed seeing Claudette Colbert as Cleopatra, and it's only 100 min.
Cleopatra (1934 film) 100 min
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_%281934_film%29
And here is something to look forward to, for any Cleopatra aficionado...
New Cleopatra in the works...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/angelina-jolie-cleopatra-movie/
Thank you but I wasn't referring to the real Cleopatra but about the movie. Nothing the general public knows about the movie is actually true. For instance, I just read a moment ago, and I've read it many times before, that Cleopatra was intended to be a two part movie. Well that is not true. The studio never wanted a two part movie. They wanted "Cleopatra" and nothing more. Joseph L. Mankiewicz never delivered a finished script for approval, so he was improvising as he went along, not only that but he was heavily addicted to speed shots at the time and doing drugs 24/7 while doing this movie. It was his drug addiction and general lunacy and sexism that made him come up with this insane idea of a two part movie and that's what he delivered to the studio and the studio was like what the hell is this? And they forced him to make it just one film because that's what they asked. In other words, Cleopatra is not a butchered masterpiece. The only person that butchered Cleopatra was Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that is why I believe strongly in a new cut because there is a good movie in this, it just needs somebody else to do it but I am apparently 100% alone in this, as evidenced by my interaction with some **** HOLE from 20th Century Fox:
https://twitter.com/xletthemeatcake/status/776167310516183040
I guess this film will further be forgotten, which is a pity. It's just a pity how it all turned out really.
-
Does anyone know who I can tweet about a shortver version of Cleopatra? I've already commented on the 20th century fox facebook, I could google for executives and so on but if some of you know it would be great help.
-
Something about a man in a toga..........
lol but why? It's just sexism really. That was Mankiewicz's problem, if you read the restored script you realize just how much MUNDANE THINGS he shot, it's ridiculous, that's why the movie cost 400 million dollars, not because of Liz Taylor, but because of his insanity, it needs to be said more.
The story of this movie needs to be rewritten, period. Nothing the general public knows about it is true.
-
Yes. I couldnt remember which part he played, but someone answered for me. I dont think there was much usable footage due to the weather and Liz's illness. Who played Antony? I've forgotten.
That is true. Why are people focusing on the men though?
-
Here's a shorter version of Cleopatra:
[...]
omg what is this?? I thought Theda Bara's was the only silent Cleopatra. Either way there is only one true Cleopatra and that is Elizabeth Taylor.
-
Wait what what? Peter Finch was initially in CLEOPATRA and actually filmed scenes!
I DID NOT KNOW THIS! i am very ignorant about the making of the film.
WAS he Caesar or Antony?
He was Caesar, there was very little shot but you can see all the Mamoulian footage on the documentary Cleopatra: The film that changed Hollywood.
-
1. I love you.
2. The really INTRIGUING thing about CLEOPATRA to me is why Mankiewicz was brought in in the first place...I believe he was stepping in as director for someone who had quit either or been fired or just lost their minds from dealing with the six-ring-circus for 100 days, but i digress.... but i wonder if he was brought in as a way to "punish" Liz or make her finish the picture. I have read various accounts that both Hepburn and Taylor did not care for the way Mankiewicz bullied a fragile Montgomery Clift on the set of the equally turgid, but thankfully shorter and more bizarre SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER- which she made under his direction threeish years earlier.
I had a great reply but the computer crashed. Anyway, Mankiewicz was brought it at Liz Taylor's request.
Is a shorter version of Cleopatra possible?
in General Discussions
Posted
Indeed, the best part of the film is the chemistry between Burton and Liz Taylor, yet 99% of the reviews I've seen fawn over Rex Harrison. Sexism much? I can't even explain it, his performance is the worst.