MovieChat Forums > Julius Caesar (1953) Discussion > Who should have played Caesar?

Who should have played Caesar?


I think most viewers find Brando, Mason, and Gielgud wonderful in their roles, but to many Louis Calhern is just not in the same league as Caesar. If you are one who finds Calhern lacking, who do you think should have played Caesar?

My choice is Orson Welles. He was young, 38 in 1953, but off an appearance on the I LOVE LUCY show around this time, still reasonably slim. I think with makeup he could have looked the right age and his persona would have been perfect for the charismatic and domineering Caesar. Welles would have elevated this role to the same level as Brando, Gielgud, and Mason.

reply

[deleted]



Definition of troll on IMDb - anyone who expresses a view different to mine.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree that Olivier would have been exciting, and I believe a better choice than Welles. But didn't Calhern fit the role as Shakespeare intended the character of Caesar?

Going back to Shakespeare I got the impression that Caesar is portrayed as rather pompous and conceited. He is clearly not the main character even though the play bears his name, as he's murdered half-way through. Brutus is a very reluctant murderer (he is included by the others because of his ancestor who killed the last king of Rome and thus helped found the Republic), and the rest of the conspirators' lust for power; Cassius proves to be corrupt. Mark Anthony at first comes across as a faithful follower of Caesar who will not accept that his murderers go free, but later on within the triumvirate he slanders Lepidus as soon as he leaves the room, and Lepidus in his turn is willing to have his own brother murdered, wheras Octavian participates in putting names on the conscription lists. The list of atrocities goes on and on.

In the end Brutus is portrayed as the only character who has a shred of decency in him. So my impression is that Shakespeare wanted to show us how ugly politics is, and to that end Louis Calhern did "pompous and conceited" very well indeed, if somewhat stilted...

/ elisabet

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. Others might have done as well but Calhern is alright.

reply

What an amazing thread. IMHO Calhern was perfect as actually a minor character in the movie, like JFK was a minor character in the movie 'JFK.' Being Shakespeare, MGM got Shakespearian actors, Movie actors and crossovers. Pity it's B&W. I also enjoyed the 1970 Version but the print quality was awful.

reply

I think Calhern's a very good Caesar, who understands the character plays well off and with others, in the way that the great "character actors" always do. Calhern was a wonderful, underrated actor. If you get a chance, watch how he supports Cary Grant in _Notorious_; and how he chills the screen in such films as _Asphalt Jungle_.

reply

Oh, I thought Louis Calhern was right on the money.

Peace.

reply

I think Louis Calhern was exceptional, and along with Gielgud, the best-cast actor in the film. James Mason is often superb, and is consistent in his portrayal, but whether by his choice or the director's influence, is too diffident in the early scenes--especially in the face of the fiery portrayal of Cassius by Gielgud. It makes Brutus seem too much like Cassius' pawn, which sems wrong--especially when he so much dominates Cassius after the assassination.

reply