Oh, Boy! ‘Cleopatra’ Remake to be ‘Dirty’


As she really was…

Cleopatra, last of the Ptolemy family to rule Egypt, lover of Julius Caesar, then Marc Antony, who moved Shakespeare to write, “Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety,” is going to be the subject of a brand-new remake of the 1963 epic starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

And the producers have promised to make the new Cleopatra “dirty, bloody, and [with] lots of sex.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2018/01/02/dirty-bloody-lots-sex-denis-villeneuves-cleopatra-will-rip-hollywoods/)

You wonder where your audience went…

Gee, a dirty movie full of sex and violence! Whatever will they think of next? You just gotta had it to them “creatives” in Hollywood–always five steps ahead of the curve.

Cleopatra was a fascinating figure in history, a woman who inherited a virtually impossible political situation and yet aimed high, so very high, gambling to win: a character in which shrewdness and folly dwelt together: whose legend moved Plutarch to write that a woman doesn’t really show her best stuff until she’s over 50. I would love to see a movie or a series that took her seriously, and conscientiously tried to tell her story: because it’s a great story.

But trust Hollywood to soil anything it touches.

4 comments on “Oh, Boy! ‘Cleopatra’ Remake to be ‘Dirty’

  1. Oh goody, more sex on the screen. Just what everybody needs. 🙂

    The original, from 1963 had plenty of sex in it. Elizabeth Taylor was a sensation in the mid sixties because of that movie and neither she, nor Richard Burton could so much as scratch their nose without media comment.

    A while back, I was thinking about a singer in the world of Country music. She’s exceptionally talented and has created some very fine music. She is quite pretty, in a natural and refreshing way, and the covers of her albums tend to depict her very modestly. That’s one of the things I appreciate most about her. I can enjoy her music, admire her natural beauty, but not have to think past that point. I don’t want her to “reveal” more to me as a listener, her private life is nothing I care to delve into.

    The flip side is Madonna, who seems intent on exposing herself to the greatest degree possible. I don’t want to see that much of her, but she wants to push the envelope and get lots of free publicity in the process. I don’t need to know the intimate details of strangers. More to the point, I don’t WANT to know about these things.

  2. You spoke the truth when you said Hollywood soils everything it touches. Do they really believe that the American public is only interested in filth?
    I never watch movies made later than the 50’s if I can avoid them. Once in a while, I can hear from another room, the dialogue from a movie that is on
    TV, and I think, “great scott, if the letter F were removed from the English language, Hollywood would have no dialogue for their smut”. Pathetic trash, who can stand it.?

  3. It is hard to think of a remake done by Hollywood that is as good as the original. When the true version of a story or life would make for excellent movie material, the “creatives” have to mar it with PC depravity. It reminds me of the Ty Cobb movie that made him out to be a monster, and it isn’t true. I also disliked the way John Goodman portrayed Babe Ruth.

Leave a Reply