Movie Review: Cleopatra (1999)

 

With the recent controversy over Netflix’s heavily ahistorical Docudrama Cleopatra unfolding, I decided to check out another live-action adaptation. The most famous onscreen version of Cleopatra is Elizabeth Taylor’s 1963 epic, a movie that was both a box office hit and flop thanks to its ludicrous budget. Whatever its flaws, the movie has a special place in popular culture. More recently there has been the aforementioned Netflix series produced by Jada Pinkett-Smith. Despite its claims to be a documentary, it’s even more inaccurate than most fictionalized dramatizations, from its clownish portrayals of major Roman figures to its blackcasting of the Macedonian Ptolemies (and Egyptians) to the claim that Cleopatra was the true brains behind the Julian Calendar.

Having already seen the 1963 epic with Elizabeth Taylor as the famous queen, I watched Hallmark’s two-part mini-series from 1999. I got it from the library on DVD, but it is readily available for viewing on YouTube. Its general story structure is heavily derived from the Elizabeth Taylor film. For example, movie is split into two parts with the first focused on Cleopatra and Julius Caesar and the second with her and Marc Antony. Like the 1963 epic it begins with Cleopatra exiled while her sister Arsinoe and her literal kid brother Ptolemy hold the throne of Egypt.

Despite the general plot similarities, there are many differences in how Cleopatra is portrayed. Like with other film adaptations Hallmark plays up her beauty by casting Chilean actress Leonor Varela. Many historians actually disagree with the idea that Cleopatra was particularly beautiful, as several ancient sources suggest that it was her wit and personality, not her looks, which ingratiated her with the male power players of her day. Still, having a beautiful queen is better for dramatic purposes. Despite Netflix and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s attempts to say otherwise, Cleopatra was Macedonian and thus white. Leonor Valera is a brown Latina, but does look like she fits into the Mediterranean environment unlike the pasty white Elizabeth Taylor and black Adele James (from the Netflix docudrama). What’s actually distracting is that she has her Latin American accent. The mini-series does not really make any firm attempt to delineate the different peoples with accents. For example, most of the Roman characters have the usual British accents, but Marc Antony is definitely American. Cleopatra’s advisers and handmaidens likewise sport American and British accents while she, again, sports a Latin accent.

Back to Cleopatra, her character is not as in control of things as usually portrayed. She has her moments of power, but also suffers some major political losses when contending with Rome. One criticism I have is that when things do not go her way she can get a little too visibly emotional when expressing her distaste to Julius Caesar or one of her advisers. Of course, this is a Hallmark production.

Cleopatra, like most great political leaders, would have been able to control her emotions and not show weakness. This Cleopatra also has a couple moments where she gets in on the action. One might complain that this veers into girl boss territory and it is correct that the real Cleopatra was no warrior. In Hallmark’s defense, however, she only fights when directly attacked and also this was not, like the Netflix series, purported to be a documentary.

The other two major characters are Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. Julius Caesar is played gloriously by Timothy Dalton, an actor I always love to see. One standout moment involves him dramatically rising out of a bath in slow motion. The relationship between Cleopatra and Caesar here is filled with much more tension than is usually seen in other adaptations. While they enjoy each other’s company to the point of having an affair, Julius Caesar clearly has the upper hand and tends to support Cleopatra’s power plays only as far as it stabilizes Egypt and ensures its protection payments to Rome.

Dalton’s performance is by far the best part of the mini-series. When his character gets assassinated at the halfway point the movie gets noticeably less engaging. At this point Cleopatra begins her proper relationship with Marc Antony, played by Billy Zane. I do have to commend the mini-series for introducing Antony relatively early on. In the 1963 film he took forever to show up and had almost no interaction with the title character until Caesar was dead. Here he escorts Cleopatra to Rome and defends her against an assassination plot. Thus when they ally with each other and become true lovers, it feels more natural. As with many other adaptations Cleopatra is shown to have a genuine romance with Antony, even though their relationship had as much political motivations as that of her and Caesar’s.

One final character of note is Octavian (Rupert Graves), later to become Augustus Caesar. This miniseries continues the odd trend of portraying Octavian as a haughty semi-villain. I think the issue is that filmmakers (and those directing Shakespeare’s plays based on the period) like to make Cleopatra the protagonist. After all, how many powerful queens became major players in the days of Rome? As a result Octavian, who challenges her and Antony, has to be put in the light of antagonist. It is ironic because in the days of the Roman Empire Octavian was portrayed as the hero who prevented the wicked foreigner Cleopatra from taking over the world through Marc Antony. It should also be noted that Cleopatra and Antony tend to get the role of underdogs. In reality they controlled the eastern, more prosperous half of the Roman Empire. It was the superior tactics of Octavian’s favored commander Marcus Agrippa which produced so many defeats for Cleopatra.

As far as production values go Hallmark’s mini-series is not too bad despite the constraints of television. CGI helps create the vistas of Alexandria and Rome while the interior sets are good. I did notice a couple costume gaffes with the Roman army. I believe the feathery helmets did not appear until centuries later. The battle scenes are not too bad despite their limitations. The highlight is Julius Caesar personally getting into the fray while fending off Arsinoe’s army at Alexandria. I doubt he was that personally involved in the actual combat but it’s cool to see thanks to Dalton’s performance. The Battle of Actium was a major naval clash, but with its limited budget the mini-series mostly focuses on the action aboard Antony and Cleopatra’s ships respectively. Trevor Jones’ musical score is also quite good.

Overall Hallmark’s Cleopatra is a solid three hours of entertainment. The second half is not as engaging as the first and the portrayal of the lead character is mixed. But it is much more faithful to history than the supposed documentary on Netflix and tries to treat its historical figures with a measure of respect.

Rating: 6/10

Colt's Revolving Civil War Rifle

 Samuel Colt’s revolver is one of the most revolutionary and well-known weapons. The revolver was a pistol that held a revolving cylinder with six chambers. Once a shot was fired, the cylinder would turn, lining up the next bullet with the barrel. This meant that a man could fire six shots without reloading. Colt had figured out how to mass produce them, and revolvers became a stable of the United States military. What is not well known is that Colt’s Patents Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company attempted to apply the same principles to a rifle: the Colt New Model Revolving Rifle. When people think of repeaters in the American Civil War, the Spencer Carbine and Henry Rifle (predecessor of the famed Winchester) usually come to mind. So why did a rifle based on one of the most famous pistols not gain the same recognition? As it turns out it was not as great as it looked on paper.

The 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle

Production

The Colt Fire-Arms Company produced two versions of the revolving rifle for the military. The first was the Model 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle. It was not the first revolver rifle in history (with Colt having produced a hunting revolver rifle over ten years earlier), but it was the first such weapon to be adopted by the U.S. Army. This version was more closely based on the pistol model, with a six-shot cylinder holding .44 caliber bullets. When the Civil War erupted, Colt modified the rifle so that its cylinder held five .56 caliber bullets. The transition of the revolver concept from handgun to rifle was not smooth. To reduce weight, Colt fluted the chambers. This means that the manufacturer created space that allowed for more flow of gas. This would create problems for the soldiers who wielded them. As with the revolvers, the rifles included a ramming lever beneath the barrel. Unlike the more well-known Colt Revolvers, the rifles could also hold bayonets. This feature was absent in several Civil War repeaters.[1]

The revolver was applied to carbines, some of which, evidenced by the photo of a Virginia cavalryman, found their way into Confederate service. In fact, the carbine model appears to have been more utilized, with Colt rifles appearing more in reports of cavalry actions.[2] Colt of course produced thousands of pistols for the Army. It did not just produce revolver weapons, but also helped fill demands for muskets when the war started. In 1861 there was a great need to quickly arm the infantry with this more conventional weapon. Colt helped out, producing 100,000 of these and 80,000 more in 1862.[3]

A soldier posing with his Colt Rifle (https://www.loc.gov/item/2010648931/)

The Revolving Rifle’s Drawbacks

With their use becoming more widespread, the Col Revolving Rifles, particularly the second five-shot model, revealed an explosive issue. Likely due to the fluting which enabled gas leakage, the cylinders could go off unexpectedly. If the cylinder erupted, it could damage the arm or hand of its wielder. Most susceptible was the left hand that held up the barrel. When the cylinder erupted, it would sometimes severely mangle the hand and often necessitated amputation. Lead shavings from the bullets could also fly backwards into the soldier’s arm or face. This could potentially end in a mangled face, if not death.[4]

Berdan’s Sharpshooters, a unique Civil War unit of accomplished shots, had acquired 1,000 of these rifles. Their commander Colonel Hiram Berdan, however, hoped that they would eventually instead receive the Sharps Carbine. His wish was soon justified. Shortly there were reports of all five or six bullets firing off at once. The cylinders also had a tendency to overheat after a little use, making them dangerous to reload. This was the first recorded case of the Army’s dissatisfaction with the weapon.[5] A later report would state that “although the Colt rifles are a very good arm in time of action, they are difficult to keep in order specially [sic] during rainy weather.”[6]

 

The Rifle in Action

Despite their apparent issues, the Colt Revolving Rifles still saw significant use in actions from late 1861 through 1862. The first recorded instance was late in 1861 at Mill Springs, Kentucky. Pickets of the 12^th Kentucky used the rifles in a brisk skirmish, with a 50% accuracy rate. On March 7, 1862 at least two Union units went into action with colt repeaters at Pea Ridge, Arkansas. In this action the Confederates managed to advance into the Union rear, forcing the Northerners to scramble their units piecemeal into action. The 1^st Missouri Cavalry protected a battery with Colt revolving carbines. On another part of the battlefield, in the dense thicket of Morgan’s Woods, the 37^th Illinois utilized Colt Repeating Rifles in a furious shootout. In this case the rifles proved to be an advantage, giving them a higher rate of firepower that slowed the Confederate advance and bought time for the surprised Federals to send in reinforcements.[7]

In April, on the other side of the Confederacy on the Virginia Peninsula, General George B. McClellan’s Army of the Potomac had stalled in front of Yorktown (under the mistaken impression that it faced a large, dug-in force). During the following siege warfare, Berdan’s Sharpshooters, still waiting for their Sharps Carbines, had to use their Colt Rifles. They played havoc on Confederate batteries, silencing them by killing and wounding their crew. This had more to do with the men’s incredible marksmanship than any inherent advantage of the weapon itself. An illustration in Harper's Weekly did not show the Sharpshooters using the rifles, suggesting that many of the marksmen used their own privately bought weapons instead.[8]

The Colt Revolving Rifle was still used by some infantry units as late as September 1863, this time at the Battle of Chickamauga, Georgia. The 21^st Ohio was one of many units that faced off repeated Confederate attacks on Snodgrass Hill. Each man had 95 rounds of ammunition. In the protracted fight they acquitted themselves well, but eventually ran out of ammunition, enabling the Confederates to overwhelm and capture a large portion of them.[9]

The Colt Rifle appeared to have more involvement in the actions of the Union Cavalry. On July 1, 1862 at Booneville, Mississippi, Phil Sheridan put 160 men with the rifles in a line to confront a Confederate cavalry charge while more of his men slipped around the enemy flank. The five-shot chambers enabled them to pour in significant fire before a hand-to-hand fight ensued. Here the men used the Colt Rifles as clubs. Their higher rate of fire did not always translate into victory. At Brice’s Crossroads on June 20, 1964, skirmishers fired at Nathan Bedford Forest’s Confederate cavalry from behind logs and trees. Though the rifle’s rate of fire helped them repulse two attacks, Forrest still managed to break their line.[10]

 

The Abandoned Repeater

Overall, the Colt Revolving Rifle provided welcome advantages in several battles with its higher rate of fire, but was plagued by several technical issues, a couple which could cause lifelong injury or death to its wielder. With more efficient and less dangerous repeaters coming out as the war progressed, the War Department now looked to get rid of the Colt Rifles. They sold them off at 42 cents apiece, a cheap price for a firearm even back then. To put the reduced price into perspective, some units in 1861 purchased them at prices up to 45$ apiece. This best exemplifies the interesting failure of the Colts Revolving Rifle and explains why it is not as readily known as the more famed Spencer Carbine or Henry Rifle.[11]

 

Sources

Canfield, Silas S. History of the 21^st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the War of the Rebellion. Toledo, Vrooman, 1893.

Davis, William C. Rebels & Yankees: Fighting Men of the Civil War. Salamander Books, 1999.

Hogg, Ivan V. Weapons of the Civil War. Brompton Books Corp., 1995.

Macaulay, John D. “Colt’s Model 1855 Revolving Rifle in the Civil War.” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/

Marcot, Roy M. U.S. Sharpshooters: Berdan’s Civil War Elite. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole, 2007.

Shea. William L. & Hess, Earl J. Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the West. University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

---

[1] John D. Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855 Revolving Rifle in the Civil War,” https://www.american-rifleman.org/content/colts-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/; Willlaim C. Davis, Rebels & Yankees: Fighting Men of the Civil War, (Salamander Books, 1999), 64-65; Ivan V. Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, (Brompton Books Corp., 1995), 36.

[2] Davis, Fighting Men, 64-65.

[3] Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, 34.

[4] Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, 36-37; Davis, Fighting Men, 64-65.

[5] Roy M. Marcot, US Sharpshooters: Berdan’s Civil War Elite, (Mechanicsburg: Stackpole, 2007), 48, 50.

[6] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/.

[7] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/; William L. Shea & Earl J. Hess, Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the West, (University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 121-122.

[8] Marcot, US Sharpshooters, 68.

[9] Silas S. Canfield, History of the 21^st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the War of the Rebellion, (Toledo, Vrooman, 1893), 141-145.

[10] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/.

[11] Davis, Fighting Men, 65; Marcot, US Sharpshooters, 50.