Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.

The Plot. When she discovers that a slave named Pharon professes his love for her, Cleopatra makes a bargain with him: she will give him ten days of "love," at the end of which he is to commit suicide. He agrees, although the queen's handmaiden Iras, in love with the slave, isn't happy with the arrangement. Later when Cleopatra is seducing Marc Antony, her relationship with Pharon is used against her, but with little effect. She allies herself with Antony against Octavius, participates in a brief war, then meets her end rather than be subjected to Roman rule.Wow. This movie is BAD. It is amateurishly filmed -- even for 1913. Also the focus is really odd. I don't think it was just the print. i think it was intentional. The entire mo0vie looks like it was filmed at the Château marmont, only it wasn't built yet.I had never heard of Helen Gardner before seeing this film. How she got her own production company is beyond me.

Despite some added fictional characters, this is still essentially the legendary and historical Cleopatra and Antony story. It is only cinematic in making use of quick scene changes, otherwise it is very much a photographed play, more choreographed than directed. Acting is highly mannered and stylized in a way that will likely send modern viewers into gales of laughter sometimes. Compare this film to D.W.Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION only three years to see what a revolution occurred in cinematic technique. Fortunately Griffith's style prevailed, while Gardner's film remains a quaint curiosity.Among the many curiosities, viewers will note that "Cleopatra" and all her attendant ladies are definitely of the matronly and well-fed type. Maybe in 1912 this was what the menfolk liked!

Producer-star Helen Gardner has doubtless seen the Italian "Quo Vadis", and this "Cleopatra" runs an amazing 90 minutes for a 1912 feature (with 106 title cards!) "Cleopatra" is a case of trial and discovery in this exploratory era of American features. The first hour is filmed in the static "Film d'Art" style, save for one brief insert added probably very late in the production, and the modern viewer begins to wish that the camera were moved even just a bit closer to the stagebound action, despite the elaborate, if somewhat primitive, stage dressing. In the last third of "Cleopatra" more shots and setups are used, by far, than in the first two thirds. We also find the camera is moving closer to the actors and less of a concern is shown towards exposing the sets, costumes, and extras, resulting in an entirely more satisfying and intimate cinematic experience, though some of this section of the film is choppy in the GEH print aired on TCM. My feeling is that "Cleopatra" is a textbook example of how feature-length filmmaking helped open up possibilities towards a more sophisticated style of onscreen direction, cutting and camera setups. Gardner & co. are literally discovering as they go, and it seems much of "Cleopatra" was filmed in story sequence. By shooting using gradually smaller parts of the set, and closer to the actors, Gardner created a film that had considerably more dramatic power in the end result than was generally required by 1912 standards, and on this alone the film remains a genuine step-forward for the fledgling American feature industry.