I thought the previous restoration did this? Or are you talking about the 6 hour cut? Don't think they have the film for that.
Bits a pieces of the extra footage have turned up but that's about it. Some extra clips(most just a couple seconds) are featured on the DVD and it's documentary.
Directly on topic: don't know. Haven't heard anything since the (very good) documentary on the DVD set. My impression is that too much footage was discarded and therefore the folks who cut it at the time made a choice that's going to have to stand for all time. Perhaps someone can answer (or clarify) this: from what I gather it was originally conceived as two feature films released separately, similar to what has been done since with Lord of the Rings and some others; if so, did it ever exist in that form in any manner, even a work print or scripted outline? To ruminate on the film's topic. The best version of Cleopatra hasn't been made, in my humble. Cleopatra and her time is a case of historical truth being more richly dramatic than the fiction and propaganda. For all the "Cleopatra" materials of all kinds over the centuries, it seems to me that comparatively little has been made of its potential. Most if not all efforts in pretty much all media to date are generally more interesting in how they reflect their authors (or the perceptions the authors have of their audience) than anything to do with real people in history. Anyone else read Michael Grant's book about it? Quite dry but well researched and tries to be factual/objective, something of a severe antithesis of much else approaching the subject. Anyway. This particular film seems to me to be the best film version managed yet. Still greater length probably would have intensified one of its problems, as it feels more than long enough as is. But it is also possible that it would have been more rewarding and effective intact. We may never know.
I use to wonder why Liz Taylor never did a commentary track for any of her old movies. Apparently she has a horrible memory. She's probably also very selective about what she does claim to remember.
Cleopatra Apparently in process of getting green-lit is a big budget version of Cleopatra in 3D starring Angelina Jolie. The plan is to release it in 2013. It's based on a new bio of the Egyptian ruler that by coincidence I happen to be reading right now. It's a good book, imho, but I'm a bit shocked that this is going to happen. Somehow it seems like a bad idea. But what do you think? And what do you think about the various versions of this story that have been filmed over the years? I don't think any of them have been really successful as drama. The story is just too complicated to put into one film. I can't even keep track of how many times Hollywood has tried to make this, but let me try a little. There was a silent version, that I've never seen and may be lost, filmed around 1918?? There was a version done by Cecil B. DeMille in the early 30s, which I think starred Claudette Colbert. It was only so-so at best. Then there was the colossal 1963 version with Liz Taylor. It is a better film than its reputation suggests, but at nearly 4 hours it's rather overwhelming. Apparently the director wanted to make two 3-hour movies, but the film was taken out of his hands as 20th century fox faced disaster. My favorite version, actually, is the one that they did in the HBO show Rome. Who was Cleopatra for that one? Anyway, anyone have any thoughts on this probable disaster 2.5 years before we'll see it?
That is my favorite portrayal as well. The actress was a British woman named Lyndsey Marshal. If you look at her pictures at IMDB, you'd never think to cast her as Cleopatra, but it worked great imo. I guess I'll be somewhat curious about this coming movie, though I don't think much of Angelina Jolie at all.
Yes, Lyndsey Marshal was great in that. And who played Anthony? He was good too...The series was good because it allowed the larger canvas to play out. Like for you, Jolie just does nothing for me. I don't hate her or anything. Just flatline. Nothing. Seems like they'd be better off searching for an unknown. What about the right director. I think that would be important. His track record is uneven, but I'd say Ridley Scott might be right for the job, but I bet he's too expensive for them. They want someone they can hire fairly cheap, but I think that would be a mistake to just put a run of the mill action director at the helm....
And don't forget the Twilight Zone episode where Ann Blyth plays as Pamela Morris/Constance Taylor/Cleopatra in “Queen of the Nile”! That's my favorite after HBO's Rome... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMwj8EQ3Ngg S P O I L E R S from wikipedia: Columnist Jordan Herrick, a noted cynic, prepares to interview famed actress Pamela Morris. She is known for her vitality and beauty, and many want to know her secret to staying young and beautiful. Herrick is welcomed to Morris's sprawling manor by a very aged woman named Viola. He naturally assumes that this is Morris's mother, and greets her as such; he is shocked when Viola later confides that she is in fact Pamela's daughter. Herrick takes this as a sign of senility, and greets the beautiful Pamela when she comes down the stairs. The two flirt and have drinks, Herrick obviously smitten with the gorgeous actress. The two talk, Pamela all the while hinting at some great secret that she possesses. Herrick's curiosity and attraction finally win out, and he demands to know the secret. Pamela complies and demonstrates a small scarab beetle that she hides in a plant. She explains that the beetle, prized in ancient Egypt, is able to drain the life from others, that the owner might apply it to him or herself. Herrick scoffs at this ridiculous story, but suddenly wonders why Pamela would choose to tell him such bizarre information.....
As alluded to by Benjamin above, I think that when Fox execs told Joseph L. Mankiewicz to cut it down from the 6-hour cut he originally had, and then again from the 4-hour cut, he suggested that he could release it as two separate films, one focusing on Cleopatra and Caesar, one on Cleopatra and Antony. This was rejected off the bat, I think, because they wanted Taylor and Burton to be on top billing, rather than deferring that to a second film. So, I don't think these versions were ever actually prepared.
Good news! And Eva Green is in that too, which is another plus....Hope it's on netflix instant watch.
"2 Nights With Cleopatra" with Sophia Loren. That film was just awful. The "Cleopatra" with Vivien Leigh was pretty bad too, IMO. Liz's arrival in Rome scene was awesome!
The tabloids are now reporting that Liz is in very ill health... but she's been writing an autobiography for the past few years. Reportedly, she's made arrangements to have the book published after her death. I bet that'll be a page-turner... and I don't doubt it'll have some interesting stories about Cleopatra. Note that Angelina Jolie has mentioned several times in recent interviews that she's interested in playing the role in a remake.
Yes, it was pretty impressive. And I only saw it on a small tv several years ago. I wonder how it looked on the big screen in 70mm. Maybe I'll get a taste if it ever comes to blu-ray.
Some very early Cleopatra's: Ruth St. Denis (1910) Theda Bara (1916) - large picture, so I'm just including the link. http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Bara, Theda/Annex/Annex - Bara, Theda (Cleopatra)_01.jpg
The Liz Taylor version was on the other day. I enjoyed watching the parts I caught. What a classy cast. Cleopatra's entrance into Rome can't be beat.
