Talk:Cleopatra (1963 film)

Trivia

Please find sources for this trivia and integrate into the article. Thanks. Chaz ^Beckett 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The World Premiere was held at the Rivoli Theatre (Broadway & 49th in NYC). The entrance to the theatre was on Broadway. The rear wall of the theatre faced 7th Avenue and there was a huge billboard affixed to same which initially depicted Taylor and Burton only. Rex Harrison was not included. He made his displeasure well known. Shortly afterwards, a small "thumbnail" rendering of Harrison appeared in the lower left of the billboard. Harrison was still not satisfied. Finally, Harrison was painted in to match the dimensions of Taylor and Burton.
• Keith Baxter originally was signed to play Marc Anthony. Taylor's bout with pneumonia soon after filming began shut down the set, and by the time she fully recovered Baxter had to meet other acting obligations, forcing the producer to hire Burton as his replacement.
• The costume worn by Taylor during the famous "entry into Rome" procession was made of real gold at a cost of about $1 million. It was so heavy that she could only wear it for short periods of time.
• In 1958 Joan Collins was cast in the title role, but after several delays she became unavailable. Collins had previously starred in a similar role in Land of the Pharaohs (1955). After Collins' departure, Audrey Hepburn was considered as a replacement by producer Walter Wanger. Wanger then offered the role to Elizabeth Taylor. He called her on the set of her latest film, Suddenly Last Summer (1959) and related the offer through Taylor's then husband Eddie Fisher, who had answered the phone. As a joke, Taylor replied "Sure, tell him I'll do it for a million dollars." This then unheard-of sum was accepted and in October 1959 Taylor became the first Hollywood star to receive $1 million for a single picture.
• Dorothy Dandridge was considered for the role in the early stages of the production by director Rouben Mamoulian, which would have made her the first African-American woman to portray the historical figure.
• A group of female extras who played Cleopatra's various servants and slave girls went on strike to demand protection from amorous Italian extras and their bottom-pinching fingers. The studio eventually hired a special guard to protect the extras.
• Susan Hayward and Marilyn Monroe were considered as replacements after Joan Collins dropped out of the film.
• Marlon Brando, Peter O'Toole, and Laurence Harvey were considered for the role of Marc Antony.
• Adjusting for inflation, this is the second most expensive film ever made, topped only by 1968's War and Peace.
• The 1964 comedy film Carry On Cleo, which spoofed the film, was made on the sets left by the production. This explains the unusually lavish backdrop for an ostensibly low- to mid-budget comedy film.
• Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's character Borat sometimes refers to the film as "new", and Elizabeth Taylor as a "new, sexy, young starlet" whom he would like to meet.
• Actor Roddy McDowall was denied a likely Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor when an error in submission by the studio classified the role of Octavian as Leading rather than Supporting. By the time the error was discovered, it was too late to make a change. A letter of public apology to Mr. McDowall was subsequently printed in movie trade publications. In keeping with his characteristic professionalism, Mr. McDowall never voiced public criticism for the oversight.
• The Asterix adventure Asterix and Cleopatra parodies the film in two distinct ways. The cartoon Cleopatra bears a definite resemblance to Elizabeth Taylor's version (together with the identifiable nose), and the front cover of the cartoon parodies the film's iconic poster.

Inaccuracies etc.

Viewed objectively some years after it was released, I don't think it was a particularly good film, but not as bad as its reputation might suggest. Actually, I thought it stuck to the facts of the period fairly closely, certainly better than e.g. Braveheart or Cromwell (film). What did it get wrong with the assassination of Caesar? And is it inaccurate to describe Octavian as a power-mad but weak-stomached teenager? His character, like a lot of other historical figures, is surely open to interpretation. PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much like Chinese Democracy. Good, but not great, set ridiculous records in production costs, and didn't live up to hype due to negative publicity. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not an inaccuracy that Agrippa attended the senate. Membership in the senate followed service as a magistrate. Since Agrippa had been Tribune of the Plebs, he had become a senator. Membership in the Equestrian order had nothing to do with whether someone could become a senator or not. Almost all senators were both, since anybody who had a fortune of more than 200,000 sesterces became automatically a member of the Equestrian order and a political career required far more money.154.122.75.6 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is also not an inaccuracy that Caesarion had the chance to become Caesar's heir. Why else would Octavian had killed him, if he had nothing to fear from him? The movie is historically correct here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.75.6 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Budget

The article states that the budget for Cleopatra was outdone by the budget for the third Pirates of the Caribbean film. But then it gives $307 million as the Cleopatra budget (corrected for inflation of course) and $300 million for the Pirates budget. 300 is less than 307, not more. 76.119.204.89 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, 300 < 307, I'll change that if there are no objections. The figures in the List of most expensive films page seems to back this up as well. Caduon (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction - so, actually, I just plugged the numbers into an inflation calculator and it seems to show that the estimated cost of the Pirates movie was in fact larger than Cleopatra. I say estimated because it seems according to the List page, that the real, exact figure for that movie is not known. Caduon (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy

If this movie does in fact cleave substantially to the historical record, it would be nice to have a reliable source stating as much. those who know the history may not realize that some of us don't. The article has a section on historical inaccuracies, which means that a casual reader will assume its mostly inaccurate. the inaccuracies listed seem, to me, trivial, compared to the probably truthful content.(mercurywoodrose, after watching it). ps did anyone ever comment on liz taylor's, uh, body, at the time. seems a fairly racy film for the time.75.61.136.242 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The closing scene where Cleopatra's servant defiantly praises her to Octavian and then falls dead is straight from Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. I think the article should have discussed how much or how little the film was dependent on Shakespeare's play. 73.137.170.88 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many historical inaccuracies and omissions, though that's only to be expected in historical fiction, and doesn't make it a bad movie in any way. Caesarion was 17 when he, Antony, and Cleopatra died (in the film he looks about 12), and Caesarion died after Antony and Cleopatra did, though not long after (Antony died on August 1, 30 BC, Cleopatra on August 12, and Caesarion on August 23). Also, Cleopatra had three children by Antony when she died: 9- or 10-year-old twins (Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene II) and a 6-year-old son (Ptolemy Philadelphus); and Antony had a son (Marcus Antonius Antyllus) who was the same age as Caesarion and died the same day. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The movie claims for itself only one source: The Life and Times of Cleopatra Queen of Egypt: A study in the origin of the Roman empire by Arthur Weigall, first published in 1924. Altho Weigall's book is a very serviceable biography and history, it clearly is not the source for a good deal of the movie's storyline. I suspect that the producers made use of a number of other books, some of them still under copyright and entitled to royalties, but pretended to have depended exclusively on Weigall's book because it was either in public domain (at that time the copyright law would have required a renewal circa 1953, which appears not to have happened) or because its royalties were cheap. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

End of the genre

I removed the following unsourced statement from the article:

The arduous process and enormous cost of completing Cleopatra resulted in the end of the sword and sandal epic.

It's a vague, blanket statement, and is demonstrably untrue; Italian "sword and sandal" movies continued until 1965 (like the Sons of Hercules movies, or The Revenge of Spartacus). Maybe it's meant that it caused Hollywood to give up on the genre (as opposed to the entire world) but it would take some serious sources to prove that that's an absolute fact. Spaghetti Westerns came in, mythology went out. At any rate, it's unsourced and incorrect, so I've taken it out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleopatra's entry into Rome

Rather than start an edit war, it's best to discuss this matter here. Whilst Cleopatra did come to Rome, the scene as described in the film is incorrect as Cleopatra could not, and in fact did not cross the Pomerium into what the ancient Romans actually thought of as Rome proper, where all offical state business could be conducted. The scene is meant to indicate that Cleopatra entered the heart of the city and was received in the Forum, which is not correct. Her official procession travelled from the port of Ostia to the outskirts of Rome, where it halted. She stayed at one of Caesar's villa's in the Transtiberim, on the outskirts of Rome. She did not cross the boundary into Rome proper, and she did not stay at Caesar's house in Rome, as his official residence was the Domus Publica, and she could not be permitted to stay there. Therefore I am proposing to reinstate the point about Cleopatra's entry into Rome as being historically inaccurate. Oatley2112 (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

==Historical accuracy== On the whole the film followed the history of the period fairly closely, and took fewer liberties with historical accuracy than several other epics. However, there are a few minor inaccuracies: Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator and his head scholar are spared by Caesar – in reality, Ptolemy died during the Battle of Alexandria, drowning as he tried to cross the Nile. Ptolemy XIV and Arsinoe IV are 'missing' – This is especially apparent with the former, who in reality was named as co-ruler with Cleopatra between 47 and 44 BC. 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 Keir and Roddy McDowall). Following the assassination of Caesar, Agrippa is depicted in two scenes as seated in the Curia wearing a senatorial toga. In reality, Agrippa was a hereditary member of the Equestrian order and therefore prohibited under Republican law from either non-invitational attendance in the Curia, or the wearing of patrician insignia. Likewise, prior to Caesar's death and his succession, Octavian is seen seated in the Curia, when he himself would only appear if he was invited. The claim that Caesar wanted to be made Emperor is false. Though Caesar was hailed by the title of imperator during his lifetime, the Roman sense of the term was far different from that denoted by the word "Emperor," being used to describe a great military commander rather than a supreme monarch. Cicero never attended the Senate during the period of Caesar's dictatorship, nor was he actively involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar. 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 would have had to be Roman citizens themselves, and 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 AD 315 – more than three and a half centuries after the event. The arch was never in the Forum. 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. When Rome declares war on Ptolemaic Egypt, Octavian (Roddy McDowall) is portrayed exiting the Curia and spearing Cleopatra's ambassador Sosigenes of Alexandria (Hume Cronyn). There is no historical basis for this depiction, or even Sosigenes being a prime functionary for Cleopatra's regime (he was an astronomer). Much of the interior decor of Cleopatra's palace in Alexandria is anachronistic. Some items of furniture are exact copies of those found in the tomb of queen Hetepheres I (c. 2600 BC). Statues seen on Cleopatra's barge are copies of one found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (c. 1330 BC). Caesarion is depicted as being around the age of 10 when he leaves Egypt for his own safety. In reality, Caesarion was at least in his early teens after Cleopatra's death, and he also didn't leave Egypt, instead taking Cleopatra's place as King of Egypt. Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene II and Ptolemy Philadelphus are all 'missing', and no mention is made to the Donations of Alexandria.

Loss?

So, after seeing a couple of film articles stating that they made a loss, it seems that my brain must be broken.

Both films had budgets that were less than their box office.

This article claims:

Budget: 31.1

Box office: 57.8

Can someone explain how that is a loss?

The article also states: "earning box-office of $57.7 million in the United States (equivalent to $461 million in 2017), yet lost money due to its production and marketing costs of $44 million (equivalent to $352 million in 2017)"

That is CLEARLY NOT a loss?

Q: Timmy buys a bike for 44 and sells it for 58, how much profit did Timmy make?

A: 14 units of monetary value

Nope, still can't see how it was a loss ... Chaosdruid (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The studio doesn't get all the revenue from the box office (the theaters get a cut too), and the budget doesn't respresent all the expenditure on the film. Once you factor in marketing and distribution the total expenditure on Cleopatra was $44 million (with the budget accounting for $31 million of that). Fox's share of the box-office as of 1966 amounted to $38 million (see the figures in note 3 in the reference section). This amounted to a net loss of $6 million, a significant sum back in the 1960s. You are right to complain though because the article does not make it clear how the film lost money and this needs to be explained in greated detail. For the record the film ultimately made its money back through TV sales, so in the longterm it did not actually lose money (another fact completely missing from the article). I have sources for this so I will find some time over the weekend and dig them out. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of 1963?

What about From Russia with Love (film)? This film was released in 1963. The box office according to the article was $79 million. Maybe a statement like "Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film produced in the US of 1963" would be correct. --Kallichore (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you are making the mistake of comparing the worldwide gross figure for From Russia with Love to the worldwide theatrical rental figure for Cleopatra. This is a incorrect comparison. From Russia with Love on its release earned $12 million in worldwide theatrical rental (the share of the gross the distributor gets). Over subsequent reissues it ended up earning $29 million in rental from a $79 million gross. Now, Cleopatra earned $40 million worldwide rental upon its release, easily beating the initial and lifetime rentals for From Russia with Love. It is complicated to work out the gross from the rental alone, but it returned a $26 million rental in the United States from a US gross of $58 million. Using the same ratio for the worldwide rental the worldwide gross would come out at $90 million (this a is a lower-bound figure because foreign rental rates were often lower than US ones). So it basically works out like this: Cleopatra earned at least $90 million worldwide while From Russia with Love earned about $33 million, which went up to $79 million with reissues in later years. You can read more about the rental metric at theatrical rental. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: So the central question is: what was the worldwide box office of Cleopatra? I noted the following: For From Russia with Love (film) the numbers from the-numbers.com and worldwideboxoffice.com agree, $79 million. The numbers for Cleopatra (1963) disagree: $71 million and $120 million (your estimate of at least $90 million is a third number).

But I think what really confused me was the wikilink. I propose to change the wikilink: "Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of 1963, earning box-office of $57.7 million in the United States and Canada, and one of the highest-grossing films of the decade at a worldwide level." In this article, there are two entries for 1963, so the reader can see that the question is kind of difficult. --Kallichore (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The Numbers figure is categorically not correct. Cleopatra grossed $18.2 million in foreign theatrical rental according to official figures, and it is impossible for the gross to be lower than the rental figure. Using the same fee ratio as the domestic gross that would be $40 million minimum gross overseas. However, rental fees were generally lower for foreign distribution (typically 30–35%) so that would suggest a foreign gross of $50–60 million (so a gross similar to the domestic gross). On that basis the $62 million figure WorldwideBoxOffice gives looks very plausible. There is no way it grossed less than $90 million at global level, and the $120 million figure at WorldwideBoxoffice is certainly in the right ball park. I agree with your rationale for changing the link and I have no objections to your proposed alteration. In fact, I did most of the work on the highest-grossing films table and took the decision to include both Cleo and FRWL in the table precisely because of the inherent difficult in comparing the performance of the two films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Moongate

Should this not be Munda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A414:4A01:316D:3EA1:F8F9:BE70 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"40-degree weather" at Pinewood

There is a reference to "40-degree weather" at Pinewood (England). Is this Fahrenheit or Celsius/Centigrade? FrankSier (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The book doesn't indicate if it was Fahrenheit or Celsius, but I assume it's the former. 40 degree Celsius is hot. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

40 Celsius in Pinewood in September 1960 seems very, very unlikely - see United Kingdom weather records. It must be Fahrenheit. The point is that it was cold when the nude scene was shot. Masato.harada (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)