A few comments on Shakespeare's
Julius Caesr, which I saw yesterday afternoon. Caesar was played (with panache) by
Geraint Wynne Davies; Brutus by
Ben Carlson; Antony by
Jonathan Goad;
Cassius by Tom Rooney.
Of those, I thought Rooney and Goad stood out. We saw Goad last year as Professor Harold Hill in
The Music Man, and he was great then, too.
maaseru commented, "He has the leading man look." Lots of power and presence. And though I never thought about the similarities before, there is a lot that Shakespeare's Marc Antony and Wilson's Harold Hill have in common: they have golden tongues and an admirable style, they make people love them, they're sympathetic heroes, and they lie eloquently for their cause. They use strategy - and prevarication - as a weapon and a tool, and are still, essentially, heroes.
Rooney as Cassius was lean and hungry enough, with a sort of focussed intesnity that made me make parallels in my mind between Cassius and Iago and Lady Macbeth. The last Cassius who stands out in my mind was Colm Feore, the first time I saw him - his performance was stunning, and put the performances of the other actors in the shade. Not so Rooney: he fit in perfectly and convincingly. I usually think of Brutus in
Caesar as a bit of a stubborn dupe: once convinced, too committed to back down, whether he really wants to kill Caesar or not.
I find Shakespeare's Caesar delightfully ambiguous, though it`s a treat to see one of my favourites looking at one of my favourite historical figures. Is Shakespeare`s Caesar a vainglorious triumpator setting himself up as a monarch? Or is he a benign statesman, destroyed by his countrymen's fear of tyranny? Shakespeare never clearly answers the question, so a lot of it it's in the direction. In this production, twentieth-century style images, and Caesar's luxurious costuming (which evoke the concept of an eastern potentate), maybe imply that he was setting himself up through personal ambition, and yet his love of his friends and the people seems sincere enough. Geraint Wynne Davies didn't answer the question for us: and I found his performance more show than substance. Which is, perhaps, just what Shakespeare would have wanted.
Still. I like a strong, sharp, cunning Caesar, good or bad, and that isn't what we get here. As in most performances of
Julius Caesar I've seen, Caesar is far eclipsed by the stronger characters of Brutus and Antony.
I was not terribly impessed by Ben Carlson as Hamlet, and not much impressed with his performance as Brutus here. It takes a lot to make me sympathetic to Brutus; as the text goes, his obsession with honour looks more like narcissism than Caesar's obsession with power. And yes, and yet, in act two, I became actually sympathetic to Brutus in this production, and his focus breaks down under the pressures of war - but not his courage.
I loved the reappearances of Caesar's ghost.
And I loved
Dion Johnstone as Octavius Caesar. My first thought - when he appeared in a rather severe 20th-century-style military uniform - was that he looked like a Vulcan. Seconds later he raised his right hand in a salute, plam out - no, he didn't spread his fingers in a Vulcan salute, but it was the next best thing.
Good costume: rag-bag costuming, as if they took and combined all the costumes of various eras in one show. And oddly, it (mostly) worked - I especially liked the replendent robe that Caesar wore at home with Calpurnia, black with golden dragon embroidered over it. Gorgeous. It seems that everyone in Caesar's family was black except himself - that was fun, too.
Good sets, oversized marble columns, with crumbled to ruin in the battle scenes like moments out of T.S. Eliot.