Julius Caesar and William Shakespeare,
two huge names that made a difference in the world. What do they have in
common? Well, William Shakespeare wrote a play about the Tragedy of Julius Caesar.
Believed to be have written in 1599 the play is based on the true events of the
assassination of Julius Caesar and then the Battle of Philippi that was the
defeat of the conspirators. This play is one of three that are based on actual
events in Roman times; the other two being Coriolanus
and Antony and Cleopatra. There have been many renditions of this play, including recently an all female cast.
 |
| John Wilkes Booth(left) as Mark Antony |
Though it has been
debated who the main lead of the play is Julius Caesar or Brutus. Is it the man
who has the title of the play, Julius Caesar? The character that has the most
lines, Brutus? Or maybe the actor that commands the most presences and captivates
you? As for the performance that I saw,
it would have been who delivered their lines the best and whom was the most
captivating. Unfortunately I was not that impressed with
this production of Julius Caesar. Now I will say that this play isn’t my
favorite of Shakespeare and I have never truly cared about the story of Julius
but that is due to school shoving it down our throats when I was younger. I went to see this production because I was
interested on how the director chose to show the world his work along with
Shakespeare. Also who can truly say no to £5 standing ‘seats’ to
watch Shakespeare?! I couldn’t. I love Shakespeare immensely and would probably
go see any of his plays being performed, though there are some that I would buy
quicker than others.
Having
seen a Shakespeare play at the Globe before I had confidence that this
performance would be amazing. Well, it was amazing, just amazingly
disappointing. My expectations were so high that afterwards I was left wanting.
I wanted more! I wanted to be thrilled and amazed and astounded. Wanted to be
on the side of Mark Antony who has defeated the conspirators, wanted to feel
sorry that the beloved and epic man Julius Caesar had been stabbed 33 times.
But I was left disappointed. I never thought I would say that about a
Shakespeare performance. Now it wasn’t the fact it was a tragedy that left me
feeling this way, because who in their right mind would be happy at the end of
a tragedy? Well, I was when I saw Macbeth in 2010. That performance made me
want to see it over and over again. Macbeth is a tragedy and I was a happy
little giddy girl when I left that performance. Now was it the fact that I was
in the yard, and a groundling? Nope, had done that before since I believe that
is the best way to experience the performance.
So what was the big difference in
these two performances? Main difference was the directors, Lucy Bailey
vs Dominic Dromgoole, and their actors of choice. I cannot say much on the
vision of the play for each director since it was two difference plays but also
that I do believe that both of their visions were successful. Both were set in
the English Elizabethan time period. Macbeth a little more Scottish since that
is where the play is based, while Julius Caesar was performed as if we were
watching it 1600 Elizabethan England. I had no problem with them wearing hats, doublets,
tights and breeches. Especially if you read closely Casca mentions “he plucked
me ope his doublet and offered them his throat to cut” (I.ii.262) and while
sharing about Julius refusing the crown three times from Mark Antony, “chapped
hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking
breath because Cesar refused the crown” (I.ii.2.245-48).
I can comment and
analyze is the actors and the delivery of their lines and presences on stage. This
aspect was completely different from one another. As soon as Macbeth started
you were enthralled, never taking your eyes off the stage, except for when the
dead bloody soldiers came up through the black cloth that came into the yard
from the stage grounds. When they would appear through the torn holes of the
icy hell and then return through the walkways, you watched in either horror or
amazement but once they were gone, your eyes were drawn right back to the stage
to whomever was on it. They didn’t need to be saying a word, no lines spoken at
all, just standing there and you’d just want to watch what they were going to
do next.
This was not the case with Julius Caesar. Not every actor commanded
the stage the same, and not due to the character they were playing. When Julius
Caesar walked out himself, the only reason why you knew it was him was either
because you figured it’d be the old dude walking out or due to the reaction of
the other actors (though some of their reactions weren’t that convincing), the
actor playing Julius Caesar did not command the stage.
Julius Caesar not command
the stage, I would have never thought I’d think that. A Roman Emperor that
conquered so much and is so well known, not command attention when he walked
into a room, that I’d speculate would make the real Julius Caesar roll in his
grave. Besides the fact that he did not command attention when he walked out,
he was extremely hard to hear. He could not project his voice. My first wonder
was is due to the little bit of extra stage that they had created, though not
that big it did take them more into the yard and not under the roof of the
stage. But no, as time went on and he moved around to different sections of the
stage he was still very hard to hear. He seemed to be the only one with this
problem constantly.
Cassius and Brutus when they would talk the projection
about 90% of the time was perfect. Though the times that I believe that it was
hard to hear both was when it was supposed to be more secret or asides. So if
that was the case, I may be more forgiving and understanding as to why I was
not able to hear each word they said. The spectacular projection of both Portia
and Mark Antony was amazing. When they spoke you heard them, you felt them and
they commanded presence. What made the fact that not being able to hear someone
or being able to have the command of presence so frustrating is that in Elizabethan
times(and I wish more often today) you did not got to the theatre or
Shakespeare to see the play, you went to hear the play. Everything was about
the words being spoke, the beautiful prose, the bawdy comments, the spectacular
words being said by the actors and flowing into your ears. This was not being
done in the performance and that is what killed it most of all.
Though I was not enjoying
the performance like I had hope, I stayed for the entire show. Wanting and
hoping that something spectacular would happen. The second part was better than
the first. I felt bad for the actor because you could tell that many people had
left during intermission. All of a sudden there was more room in the yard to
stand, gaps through-out the whole area could be seen. I knew that if I could tell
the difference that the view from the stage must be heart breaking. As someone
who has performed on stage, the audience’s reaction to your performance is what
tells you how successful you are. With the beginning of the second part with
less people, had showed the actors that their performance was lacking. Something
needed to change, and I am not sure if that is what made the second half better
or if it was what Shakespeare had written that made it better.
The preparing for the
Battle of Philippi and then the action of the battle made the second act have
more life. But most of that action came from, people running on and off the
stage, mostly through the yard audience, and then the fools dressed in armor
and making loud grunting and military calls while marching and trusting around
the stage, that looked more Roman, shields and either a spear or sword. Mark
Antony and Brutus were the strongest of the actors in the second half. Both
commanding the stage and projecting. Cassius was better as well, though with
all the action that was happening sometimes would get lost within it all. When
the show was done the audience clapped their appreciation but then the most energetic
part of the show happened, their haka like dance that included all the
performers happens. Loud music and energy came from the stage.
As I left I wasn’t truly
happy with the performance which, as said before, was a new experience. Leaving
Macbeth four years earlier happy and thrilled, this feeling of despair and unsatisfactory
was unpleasing. It was a new experience but what made it more disappointing is
that with having seen both in movie and play form Shakespeare plays, I had been
never before that night been disappointed by a Shakespeare play. The positive
side of it all, it has not discouraged me from seeing another performance at
the Globe or a Shakespeare play. I will go again! I will see another play!
Nothing will ever stop me from hearing or seeing a live performance of Shakespeare.
Reviews
Macbeth 2010: Londonist and The Guardian
Julius Caesar: Globe- theartsdesk and then the all women cast: The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment