Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 301-302: Sheens at War

Most of the war films I've encountered throughout the course of this blog have been flag-waving salutes to the boys and girls fighting the good fight. Although occasionally bleak in tone, these films have nonetheless praised those in command of the missions and have led us to believe that everything is being done for the greater good. However, starting in the late 1970s, some films started to tell a different tale altogether with movies such as The Deer Hunter and Coming Home showing what was really going on in Vietnam. Two more films were nominated during the 1980s ceremony and were linked by the fact that the earlier one starred a famous actor and the latter featured his now notorious son.

Nominated at the first Oscar ceremony of the decade, Apocalypse Now was the perfect example of a war movie which really saw how badly some missions were handled. Francis Ford Coppola's movie starred Martin Sheen as Captain Ben Willard, a special operations veteran who is tasked with a secret mission whilst serving in Vietnam. The already jaded Willard is instructed to track down Colonel Kurtz, a formerly respected officer who went rogue and later retreated to neutral Cambodia. Willard later joins a navy command with a ragtag group of men including a former surfer, a wannabe chef and the captain of the vessel who is constantly feeling undermined by Willard's presence. Along the way the crew encounters several colourful characters including the memorable Colonel Killgore, who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning. After plenty of time has surpassed, and with some of the crew members winding up dead along the way, Willard and the remaining men arrive at Kurtz's base. Here they find that Kurtz has already brainwashed the majority of the natives, as well as a free-loving war photographer and a former commanding officer who is now seen to be in an almost comatose state. Coppola does well building up to Kurtz's first reveal and his presence in the film is certainly a representation of how war can change a man. It's certainly very clear of how the film is going to end but Coppola and his actors make sure the final scenes really stay with you. It's unfortunate then that he didn't employ the same amount of discipline throughout the film as I did feel a large proportion of it was surplus to requirements.

These feelings were magnified due to the fact that the only version of Apocalypse Now available to me was the Redux cut. This version of the film included almost an hours' worth of extra footage which Coppola somehow deemed important enough to insert into this new cut of the film. I have to hold my hands up and say that this was my first experience of watching Apocalypse Now and therefore I wasn't aware of which scenes were exclusive to the Redux version. However, after watching, I read up on the subject and discovered that all the scenes I thought were unnecessary were the ones that Coppola was desperate to resurrect. Without the scenes, Apocalypse Now was definitely a stronger film with an involving narrative that is punctuated with some colourful characters. There are certain moments that  everybody associates with the film from Willard's opening hallucination to 'The Ride of the Valkyries ' scene and finally the first appearance of Kurtz. These scenes are made memorable due to a fantastic technical team including cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and the editing team who did an excellent job of cutting together the aforementioned hallucination as well as the descent of Kilgore's helicopters. Storaro's camera really captured the horrors of the Vietnam war as well as letting us see how different men reacted to it. In terms of its ascetic value and its musical choices, Apocalypse Now can't be faulted one iota.

That being said I did find the narrative aspect of the film to be a real struggle, primarily Willard's lead voice-over. Coppola overuses this storytelling device to the extent that it just feels like an actor reciting lines rather than a jaded officer reciting what happened during his latest mission. This feeling made the narrative feel incredibly lazy at times and I did feel somebody as adept as Coppola could've found a different way to tell the story. Marlon Brando was incredibly well-utilised as Kurtz, appearing in only a couple of the film's final scenes his enigmatic presence was perfect for that of the disillusioned officer. Robert Duvall brought a real sense of entertainment to the role of Killgore while Dennis Hopper perfectly embodied the hippie movement as the war photographer. But it was Martin Sheen who was tasked with leading the film and I felt he did an admirable job of playing the somewhat reliable Captain whose experiences during his latest mission scar him for life. Sheen benefits from looking like the All-American hero and his opening scenes in Saigon allow us to sympathise with before he heads off in search of Kurtz. Sheen is especially fantastic in the later scenes as we see him being tempted by Kurt'z words and whether what he did was actually the right thing. Ultimately Acopalypse Now has elements of being the perfect film however I did feel it's narrative structure let it down. That being said visually it looked fantastic and it's cast were generally spectacular especially Sheen who was a more than reliable anchor for the film's story.

Seven years later, Martin's son Charlie Sheen followed his father to Vietnam for Oliver Stone's film Platoon, which would go on to win the Best Picture prize at that year's ceremony. Charlie's character in the film is Chris Taylor, a young man who has decided to join the army and fight in Vietnam rather than continue his studies at college. From the very beginning of the film, Stone establishes the fact that Taylor's war will be a tough one as he struggles to carry his kit into camp and is taunted by the men who've been there a while. Chris does find somewhat of a mentor in Sgt. Elias who initially is the only man who is willing to help him when he first arrives in Vietnam. Meanwhile, similar to the way Willard does in Apocalypse Now, Chris has a similarly expositional voiceover but at least this time the narrative is told through letters to his grandmother. As his time in Vietnam continues Chris becomes one of the gang however he never wins round the somewhat ruthless Staff Sergeant Barnes. Barnes and Elias are constantly clashing with the former hating the fact that the latter has more power than him. Meanwhile Elias chastises Barnes for shooting an innocent Vietnamese woman which leads to an incredibly aggressive fight between the pair. Chris soon realises that every man has his own personal war and his experiences are haunted by those who have shaped his time in Vietnam. By the end of the film both Elias and Barnes have been killed, but neither by the men who they initially considered to be the enemy. The final scene, in which Chris surveys the dead bodies strewn across the Vietnamese landscape, perfectly demonstrates the message that the film is trying to give.

Platoon feels like an extremely personal account of Vietnam and is indeed based on Stone's own experience of serving in the war. Stone wrote the screenplay for the film and tried to get it made in Hollywood while writing the scripts for other films, including the Oscar-winning Midnight Express. Eventually he took the decision to direct Platoon himself which I feel was the right move as he would now be able to realise his vision exactly the way he wanted to. The film's cinematography, which was nominated but didn't win an Oscar, is incredibly documentary-like in tone and at times it's if some of it has been lifted out of the history books I used to read at school. Luckily, unlike some of the films I've watched recently, the narrative is as involving as the visual aspects of the picture. This is down to the character of Chris Taylor, a sympathetic everyman who the audience can easily identify with. Taylor's war hasn't been the one he expected and he soon has to adapt new coping mechanisms whilst at the same time maintaining his moral code. Whilst not as compelling as his father's performance in Apocalypse Now, Charlie Sheen at least makes us care about Chris. Sheen brings a type of innocence to the role and becomes almost the straight man to the gang of crazy characters that are part of Chris' platoon. Willem Dafoe definitely makes Elias the heart of the film and he's the character that I personally cared the most about, which made his death even the more shocking. Meanwhile Tom Berenger is perfect as the grizzled veteran who does whatever it takes to make people talk and doesn't really think the rules apply to him. Dafoe and Berenger's duelling performances are the standout aspect of Platoon for me and both men were honoured with Supporting Actor Nominations. Elsewhere familiar faces such as Johnny Depp and Forest Whitaker appear in supporting roles and all add a little bit to the make-up of the platoon.

The film ultimately went on to win four Oscars, with Stone being honoured for his direction but not for his strong and harrowing script. I personally think that Platoon is the best Best Picture winner of the 1980s I've watched thus far and with just one more winner to go that's a compliment indeed. Overall I feel that Platoon is a film that combines the visual splendour of some films with the narrative depth of others. It cares about its characters which in turn makes me want to care about them and I do feel that it's a better film than Apocalypse Now. That being said both of these Vietnam war films featuring the Sheens are excellent movies and somehow worked as the perfect double bill.

Next time we head to one of America's most famous gambling destinations for a romantic crime drama.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 217-218: A Double Bill I Couldn't Refuse

Oscar has an uneasy relationship with the film sequel. Though there have been nominations for other entries into a franchise only two films that follow on from a feature have won the Best Picture award. The first of these is Return of the King, the third film in the Lord of the Rings saga, which arguably isn't a sequel because of the fact it comes later in the franchise. In fact the only proper sequel to win the prize is The Godfather Part II, a sequel that some feel is better than the original. In this post I will test that theory by looking at both films which launched many careers while at the same time becoming some people's favourite films of all time.

The first Godfather film introduces us to the Corleone family by way of a family wedding where sister Connie is getting married to Carlo Rizzi. The celebration is also traditionally where Connie's father Vito, known as the godfather, can answer any requests that are asked of him. Vito's youngest son Michael returns from the war to see his family first time and introduces Kay to the clan. Here we meet hot-headed older brother Sonny, dim-witted middle brother Fredo and adopted son and family advisor Tom Hagen. The Godfather is arguably about Michael's evolution from mild-mannered ex-soldier to eventual head of the crime family. Indeed, after Vito is shot and almost attacked in hospital, Michael feels he needs to avenge his father in some way so hits back at the family that attempted to assassinate him. When the hit goes down, Michael is shipped to Sicily while Fredo is despatched to Las Vegas. While in Sicily, Michael falls in love and marries a local girl, eventually finding a shred of happiness before the family catches up with him and his wife is killed by way of a car bomb. Returning to America, a harder Michael becomes Vito's right hand man and is eventually made the family's Don following Sonny's murder. Michael marries Kay and the two have a son together but the marriage is doomed right from the get-go due to Michael's change in attitude. Indeed the first film sees several hits arranged by Michael while he himself attends the Christening of Connie's youngest child.

The second Godfather film also opens with a religious ceremony as Michael's son Anthony has his first communion while the celebrations see a much-changed Connie who has now abandoned her children in favour of a party-girl lifestyle. At the same time Michael is unsure who to trust as he plays both Jewish businessman Hyman Roth and family friend Frank Pentangeli. Both make assassination attempts on Michael's life and he later discovers that Fredo had an involvement in one of them. Michael is later arrested as part of ongoing look into the world of organised crime. Though at first Michael gives a statement damming the trial, he later worries after Pentangeli reappears to give evidence. Luckily, Michael and Tom find a way to bring Pentangeli's brother over to America meaning that Frank changes his statement. As the film reaches its final third Michael gradually finds himself alone as Kay leaves him and Fredo is killed on his orders. The film's end sees Michael sitting alone, having won the battle against Roth and Pentangeli, but lost those that he used to care about. Running parallel to Michael's story in The Godfather Part II is that of Vito's eventual rise to power from poor Sicilian immigrant to respected mob boss. Initially talked into partaking in petty crimes, Vito finds power after he kills off a respected crime lord. During his ascension, Vito is given the power to avenge his father's death and ultimately finds himself as the most feared and respected member of his community.

The parallel stories in The Godfather Part II are both equally engaging and really make the sequel a more impressive film from a storytelling point of view. Indeed, I found it rather brave that the majority of the scenes involving Vito's story are entirely spoken in Italian and I wonder if today's audience would cope with an American film that contained as many subtitled film. Personally I found the first Godfather film to have a better pace to it and a more simple story namely Michael's journey from someone who wasn't his father to someone who took his father's place. This gradual change in the character underlined how good a storyteller director Francis Ford Coppola is and I totally understood the motives of all of the characters. I personally can't say I was as engaged in Michael's story in the second film as it descended into more of a generic crime film. However, I found the set pieces more impressive and the film's final third was laced with plenty of tragedy namely Fredo's death which was beautifully played as was the scene in which Kay revealed that she'd had an abortion.

Both of the films benefit from having an incredibly strong ensemble cast and, as I previously mentioned, a lot of the cast became household names after starring in the films. The films won acting awards for Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro playing the older and younger incarnations of Vito Corleone. I was surprised that Al Pacino didn't also receive a Best Actor nomination for the first film and his place as supporting actor made him rightfully upset. Pacino, James Caan and Robert Duvall formed a great trio in the first film as the calm Michael, hot-heated Sonny and intelligent Tom. The second film benefited from the scenes featuring De Niro but also boasted scene stealing performances from Diane Keaton and John Cazale who both shone as Kay and Fredo. Apart from the performances, The Godfather is best known for Nina Rota's score which was disqualified from the Oscar category as it featured music previously recorded. Oddly the same score went onto win the Oscar for the sequel despite being eerily similar. The first two Godfather films are also heralded as brilliant today due to the intricate art direction and costume design the latter of which gave each character its separate identity.

Overall it's hard to say if The Godfather Part 2 bests The Godfather in terms of quality. The sequel definitely has the great prequel element however the modern day story is a bit more lacklustre. The first film is better paced but doesn't have as intriguing a plot as the evolution of Vito Corleone. Overall I would say both films were more than deserving of the Best Picture award but, if pushed, I would say that the original just outweighs the sequel but feel free to correct me.

A little bit of a change of pace in the next post as we turn our attention to a quirky romantic comedy.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 199 and 200: All at Sea

So here we are, back again with another post featuring two films bound together by a common theme. This time I'm taking it to incredibly tenuous levels by focusing on two movies that are both set on boats. One is a remake of a previous Oscar winner, the other is a periodic drama focusing on a number of characters aboard a German ocean liner.

And we'll start with the latter film, Ship of Fools, which is based on a novel but feels like it's been adapted from a play. The film focuses on a plethora of characters aboard a liner that has departed from Mexico and is on the way to Germany. Several to camera monologues are performed by a dwarf named Glocken, who is regularly ostracised on the ship and spends his dinner times eating with the Jewish passengers. The majority of the film is seen through the eyes of the ship's Doctor Schumann, who is about depart the vessel as he has found out he is dying from a heart condition. Schumann is drawn to one of the latest passengers - a drug-addicted countessa from Spain who is bound for a Mexican jail. Schumann and La Contessa fall in love but both realise that their courtship cannot last. Aging divorcee Mary Treadwell is attempting to glam herself up but she discovers she isn't as young as she used to be, something former baseball player Bill Denny is also learning. Meanwhile younger couple Jenny and David are having issues as he feels like she doesn't appreciate his art and doesn't have as many ideas and beliefs as him. Finally we meet Rieber, a bigoted businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party and perfectly represents the feeling of some Germans in 1933.

I personally found Ship of Fools to be a mixed bag of stories, some that I liked more than others. I felt the relationship between Schumman and the countessa was perfectly played by Oskar Werner and Simone Signoret. This sort of tragic love story was at the heart of the film and I would've preferred to have seen the film focus on just that. Vivien Leigh, in her final film role, is brilliant as Mary a former beauty who is losing her looks, and I really liked the scene in which she put on make-up in front of the mirror while talking to herself. But I found other stories to be less engaging especially the one focusing on Jose Ferrer's Rieber and his ostracising of several of his fellow passengers. One of the better performances from me came from Michael Dunn who, as Glocken, has to narrate the story straight to the audience. The film certainly looked impressive, with the flamenco scene in particular catching my eye, but there's only so much you can do with a film set almost completely on a boat. Given the cast, I would've thought that Ship of Fools could've been better but there was just far too much going on. While I'm not surprised that it received a ton of Oscar nominations, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I also found myself comparing it to previous Best Picture Winner Grand Hotel which this bore more than a striking resemblance to.

Talking of Best Picture winners from the 1930s, we have our first remake of one in the form of Mutiny on the Bounty. This version, director by Lewis Milestone, sees Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian return but this time both characters seem slightly different. The story is the same, namely that a crew of men set off to Tahiti but on the way their Captain starts to act in a tyrannical fashion. As Captain Bligh wants to keep the water rations low, he starts to deprive his men of their basic rations and raises the ire of Fletcher. But in this version of Mutiny on the Bounty, Fletcher is presented as more of a fop who is influence into mutiny by his fellow shipmates. One seaman in particular, Mills, gets in Fletcher's ear and provokes him into fighting against his captain. One other big change is that Fletcher ultimately regrets his decision and tries to return to England but his plans our sabotaged by other mutineers. This version of the story also introduced a narrator in the form of horticulturist William Brown whose job it was to identify the breadfruit plants when the crew got to Tahiti. However, I didn't believe Brown would've been part of the mutiny and felt the only reason for his betrayal was so that he could recall the story on camera.

I personally wasn't much of a fan of this version of Mutiny on the Bounty than I was of the Oscar-winning 1935 original. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of the performances lacked the passion that was present in the previous cast. A case in point is Trevor Howard, who played Bligh, as he is a lot less menacing and therefore comes across as less of a brute than Charles Laughton. Indeed, Bligh was fairly friendly at times and most of his dastardly acts were at least explainable to an extent. I get the feeling that Fletcher Christian's change of character was due to the fact that Marlon Brando played him. Brando, who allegedly held up the production, obviously wanted to play more of a hero so in this version Fletcher literally goes down in flames. I fact I found the most compelling member of the cast to be Richard Harris as idealistic Seaman Mills. At almost three hours, the film is way too long and I honestly didn't really get into it until the second act. The film really gets going during and after the mutiny with all the cast excelling in their various roles. There's no denying that this version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more visually spectacular than its original but other than that there's nothing new here. I especially wasn't a fan of Brando here, and I feel that he's lost something since I last saw him in On the Waterfront and Sayonara.

Next time we continue on the sea - this time with Steve McQueen.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 137-138: Mostly Marlon Part 2

And without further ado here is the second part of the Marlon Brando season.



After three years of striking out in the Best Actor category Brando finally came up trumps at the 1955 ceremony with the film that also won the Best Picture award that year - On the Waterfront. For this picture Brando reteamed with both Streetcar writer Elia Kazan and co-star Karl Malden to make a story based on real experiences that long shoremen had dealing with their mob-run environment. As the film starts Brando's Terry Malloy is instrumental in the death of long shoreman Joey Doyle who's death is interlinked with him testifying against gangster Johnny Friendly who runs the docks and trades illegally. Malloy's brother Charley works as Friendly's accountant and gets Terry to do some of the easier jobs through his guilt of making Terry throwing fights when he was a prize fighter. Events get complicated when Terry falls for Doyle's sister Evie who, along with Malden's priest Father Barry, tries to convince Terry to testify against Friendly. Worried that Terry is being swayed Friendly sends Charley out to set Terry straight where Terry delivers the still famous 'I Coulda Been a Contender' speech. Eventually Terry testifies and Friendly turns the rest of the dockworkers against him and has him beaten up but Friendly is then discredited with all the longshoremen turning their backs on him. There's so much to praise about On The Waterfront and thankfully for once a great film gets recognised by the Academy winning Best Picture, Actor, Director, Screenplay and Supporting Actress for Eva Marie Saint as Evie. Saint is great in the film so much so I think this was almost a Lead performance which would've seen the film scoop the much-touted 'Big Five'. If Streetcar was Brando's breakout then this was definitely his star-making turn playing a conflicting character wanting to do what's right but not wanting to test his loyalty against his brother and the men who have been giving him the job. There are also so many great filmic moments from the already mentioned speech, to the ending where a beaten Malloy makes his way to work despite being light on his feet and having blurred sight but my favourite scene is probably Terry telling Evie about his involvement in Joey's death which we don't hear as a big steamship comes past making their conversation inaudible. Of the supporting performances Karl Malden is probably my favourite as the priest, but Lee J Cobb also makes a convincing gangster and Rod Steiger as Charley also is strong in a couple of scenes all were nominated as Supporting Actors but to Edmond O'Brien in The Barefoot Contessa both a role and film that aren't best remembered. I also feel that the score is brilliant it stuck in my head afterwards and added to the atmospheric tone. The Oscar winning set direction and cinematography were both brilliantly handled with the shoot taking place over 36 days in Hoboken, New Jersey making all the shore scenes seem very real and the workers' silence over how badly their work is run and even some of Friendly's goons are played by real-life prize fighters. Just a brilliant film and a worthy Best Picture winner and definitely the film that made Marlon Brando.

The final Best Picture nominee that Brando starred in during the 1950s, and again he got a Best Actor nomination, was Sayonara which I feel was a bit of a departure from the roles he played in contemporary American dramas in this particular blog post. The film sees Brando play Air Force Major Ace Gruver who moves from Korea to Japan where one of his troop - Joe Kelly is about to marry a Japanese woman. A lot of people in the Air Force and the military in general aren't happy with Kelly's choice to marry a Japanese woman but despite his reluctance Gruver agrees to be Kelly's best man. Also in Japan, Gruver's superior General Webster has bought along his daughter Eileen, played by Patricia Owens, who for a long time Ace has been in a relationship with. However during the time in Japan neither feel the relationship is pretty solid with Eileen's feelings being a lot stronger than Ace's. As time goes on Gruver starts to accept Kelly's relationship with his wife Katsumi and himself becomes entranced by a Japanese dancer Hana-ogi. Things come to a head when Kelly is to be shipped back to America and his wife isn't allowed to come with him despite the fact she is pregnant. Ace is also to be sent back after his relationship with Hana-ogi is revealed but the day that Kelly is to be taken away he runs back to Katsumi and they both commit suicide deciding to be together in the next life. Ace then discovers that General Webster has made a law possible for men like Kelly to bring their Japanese wives back to America so he announces to the media that he is marrying Hana-ogi and people best get used to it. The biggest surprise in this film is probably seeing Brando in a kimono despite that this film is a little long-winded in its message of equality and that these soldiers are in love with these women rather than just wanting to be with the first woman they touch as Webster so eloquently puts it in once scene. Brando's Southern drawl adds an extra dimension to this character who is portrayed as being a natural leader but at the same time very simple in his views and he is one round by the differences that Japan and Japanese women have to offer. However the two standout performances come from Oscar winners Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki as Joe and Katsumi both giving spectacular performances as the doomed couple Buttons in particular is a revelation as he was much better known as a comedian than a dramatic actor but this film more than showed that he could do both. I have to say I felt the film needed to be about 20 minutes less and I didn't need to see as many of the Japanese sequences as I did and I felt James Garner was wasted in a worthless role as the military man showing Ace a different side of Japan. Overall though a film with a strong message and another great performance from Brando again displaying his range.

As I watched this quartet of films I really felt that Brando was improving as an actor as the decade went on from rough and ready in Streetcar he honed his skills for On the Waterfront before playing an almost naive character in Sayonara. Like with Elizabeth Taylor I'm looking forward to seeing more of Brando as we trek on through the decades but I guess its Sayonara for now

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 135-136: Mostly Marlon

So after my Elizabeth Taylor retrospective we have four films from Marlon Brando an actor who was considered to have changed the way actors were perceived on films. Once upon a time you had the classic 'film star' such as Fred Astaire, Mickey Rooney or Cary Grant but then Brando was a new breed of actor who really got into the character and developed the phrase method acting. Here is part one of two blogs looking at the four Brando films nominated for the Best Picture prize.

We finished the last instalment of the Oscar blog with a Tennessee Williams adaptation and we start our Marlon Brando retrospective with another Williams story - A Streetcar Named Desire. For those of you unaware with the story it sees the demure but emotionally fragile Blanche Dubouis journey to New Orleans to stay with her sister Stella and Stella's husband the brutish Stanley played by Brando. As time goes on Brando continues to resent Blanche's domination of Stella's time and her relationship with his friend Mitch so he starts to dig dirt on why she had to leave her old home. The final confrontation with ends in Stanley raping Blanche before she is carted off to a mental institution is very well done by director Elia Kazan by taking the camera around the expressions of all the characters and using the strong score to play the emotions of the two sisters with Stella finally seeing the light and leaving her husband with their new baby. As someone who read the play as part of my English literature A-Level I have to say that everybody involved did their best to recreate what this story should be. The set direction was rightfully given an Oscar for providing the claustrophobic atmosphere of both Stanley and Stella's apartment to the small area in which the characters inhabit. Vivien Leigh had previously played Blanche on the stage in London and bought both star power and incredible timing as a character who slowly loses her mind throughout the film. Kim Hunter is great as the tortured Stella while Karl Malden also stole the show in his couple of scenes as the hapless Mitch who wants to tame Blanche but realises that is impossible. Leigh, Malden and Hunter all won Oscars for their performances indeed the only person who didn't win an acting Oscar was Marlon Brando. However Brando won something else a new found fame for his great turn as Stanley he plays a man who was raised to behave a certain way and is almost tortured every time he hurts Stella and she leaves him briefly. He is brutish but at the same time doesn't go over-the-top and most importantly he becomes the character this isn't Marlon Brando as Stanley this is Stanley and you can really believe it. One more thing about the film is Alex North's great score who went against type composing short pieces of music to reflect the trauma of the characters but unfortunately he didn't win the Oscar but he did set a precedent in terms of film music as maybe Brando did with character development.

After his Oscar nomination for Streetcar, Brando was nominated for Viva Zapata at the next Oscar ceremony and then again at the Oscar ceremony held in 1954. However nobody quite expected that role to be in an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The film saw a lot of Shakespeare pros take the parts that they'd already taken on stage for example British theatrical legend John Gielgud played Cassius and James Mason who also had Shakespearian experience was Brutus here. Even producer John Houseman had Caesar experience having been involved in the classic Orson Welles Mercury Theatre production but by this time Welles and Houseman had fallen out and Welles wanted nothing to do with this production. However Brando's casting as Marc Anthony was met with scepticism to the point of Paul Scofield being on standby if Brando's screen test bombed however Brando was so good that Gielgud offered him the lead in the production of Hamlet he was directing, Brando turned this offer down. I'm really not going to retype the plot of Caesar as we all know the first half sees many of his followers conspire his demise and the second half sees Anthony's rise. While we're on Anthony Brando was brilliant even though he had very little to do in the first half of the film from the 'Friends, Romans, Countrymen' speech onwards he captures the imagination being able to deliver Shakespeare's lines with all the precision of a pro and the doubts that the 'mumbler' wouldn't be able to perform were cast aside here. I'm not sure if it was good enough to be Oscar nominated but maybe the Academy were so surprised by Brando's performance that he got the nod just for doing something different. Aside from Brando the ensemble cast are all terrific especially Mason's Brutus and Louis Calhern's Caesar. I also have to applaud the set design for giving us something grandiose and recreating ancient Rome brilliantly and also for handling the crowd scenes very well.