Listened to an audiobook on Cleopatra
and re-watched Claudette Colbert in the 1934 Cecil B. DeMille
“Cleopatra” movie. Most of the historical inaccuracies in it can
be chalked up to dramatic license. Cleopatra ruled for 18 dramatic
and event-filled years and the movie is only 100 minutes long, so there's
a lot of compression involved. The only really startling,
anachronistic, “Whuuh?” moment came for me when Colbert tries to
convince Julius Caesar that Egypt was the stepping stone to India.
For Cleopatra to get to Rome, the
audiobook tells us, her sea convoy traveled up the coasts of Israel, Turkey,
Greece and Italy, stopping every night so the crew could sleep in buildings or tents on
shore. It took a couple of weeks to make the journey of perhaps 500
miles. Now, getting from Egypt to India is well over 2000 miles. As
the Suez Canal wasn't built until 1869, that added over 100 miles of
land that ships had to be carried over. The point the book makes is
that Egypt was a prize all on its own and Cleopatra was a royal
personage well worth knowing as she was a highly attractive person
(everybody who comes into contact with her strives to give her the
benefit of the doubt and to make excuses for her and to stay with her
as long as possible) who had a great deal in common with both of the
Romans that she took up with.
The book doubts that Cleopatra had
herself bitten by a snake, but agrees that she was researching
various poisons to see how quickly and painlessly they worked. The
only point where the book and the movie disagree is that the book
concluded that she felt the end was near and she didn't want to be
paraded around Rome as a captive. The movie concludes that she had
agreed to dispose of Mark Antony with one of the poisons she had been researching. The book shows us that Cleopatra
was a real sexual outlaw who did quite a bit of sleeping around, but
whose goal was always a stronger and better Egypt. There's only one
scene in the movie where she clearly has sex, but I guess that in
1934, that was enough to classify her as pretty wanton.
I was interested to see the parallels
between this story and the story presented in “The Other BoleynGirl”
with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen. In both stories,
families try to make alliances through sex, through males being
attracted to females. In both cases it works okay, for short periods
anyway, but long-term alliances are best made for pragmatic reasons
that don't need to be supplemented by sexual attractions.
Cleopatra played an important role in a
tumultuous time and impressed pretty much all of the people she came
into contact with. My regret concerning the movie is that she's
presented as very passive and not nearly as assertive and nowhere
near the goddess that she actually presented herself as in real life.
No comments:
Post a Comment