languages, cultures, ideologies, and eras,
Julius Caesar
continues to filter commentary on our actions and, more important, on what motivates them.
AT THE RSC
Not in Our Stars, but in Ourselves …
Julius Caesar
dramatises issues of enduring relevance—government, dictatorship versus democracy, political assassination, civil war—but not as abstract concepts. Shakespeare presents political action in terms of the human personalities engaged in it. 53
George Bernard Shaw called
Julius Caesar
“the most splendidly written political melodrama we possess.” In the twentieth century, whatColeridge “thought of as the impartiality and evenhandedness of Shakespeare’s politics” 54 has been replaced by examinations of the effectiveness of the political assassination of recognizable tyrants. From Hitler and Mussolini to Ceauşescu, the face of twentieth-century fascism has never been far from the thoughts of modern directors. Understandable parallels are there to be drawn. As Fran Thompson, designer of David Thacker’s 1993 production at The Other Place, pointed out:
Written by a comparatively young man at a time of enormous political upheaval, it is a visionary piece of writing preempting the English Civil War by almost forty years. Shakespeare’s choice of the story of the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC and the subsequent civil war was a vivid metaphor for the struggle to sustain democracy and protect the Republic against a potential dictatorship. 55
Critics remain largely open to modern dressings for the play, aware of its contemporary relevance, but react badly when a definite place or recognizable tyrant is marked in a production. Referring back to Shakespeare’s text, they invariably point out that to equate Caesar with Hitler or Ceauşescu is to remove the essential ambiguity of the conspirators’, and especially Brutus’, decision. The more highly praised productions are those whose settings have been “in no particular time … more of a dream [or should we say, nightmare] of fascism.” 56
Brutus’ status as the moral hero of the play has been put into question; Cassius is rarely played now as a Machiavellian villain and Antony’s motivations have also been severely questioned. Using the scope which Shakespeare’s text allows:
More common now is the approach that equalizes the political forces in the play, emphasizing the many sidedness of each of the major participants. This has … to do with an understanding of how Shakespeare’s text actually works. Criticism of the play over the past few decades has increasingly revealed the gaps and inconsistencies in these men, the lack of symmetrybetween private feeling and public posture, the very human muddle that affects their politics. And the theatre has adopted a similar view. 57
Productions have rarely been able to cope with these modern complexities: “To reveal itself fully, the play requires an uncut text, fluid stagecraft, and actors of heroic power. And these three factors, sadly enough, have never conjoined.” 58 They may have never conjoined, but the RSC has undoubtedly produced some interesting and exciting productions of
Julius Caesar
which throw light on the political thought and taste of the eras in which they were produced.
By the 1960s, postwar political optimism had been replaced by a growing wave of cynicism. John Blatchley’s 1963 production was “resolutely un-heroic … the moral status of all three main characters … was diminished as politics was presented as the cynical and self-seeking pursuit of power.” 59
Setting the predominant mode of design for the play in the productions that followed, the costumes
pay their tribute to Rome in the toga form of the top dress, but the boots and uniform beneath carry a more universal note. They serve to remind us that tyranny and conspiracy are timeless, as also in their drabs and duns they will remind us that war when it comes is conducted in dirt and dust. 60
Blatchley
Julius Caesar
continues to filter commentary on our actions and, more important, on what motivates them.
AT THE RSC
Not in Our Stars, but in Ourselves …
Julius Caesar
dramatises issues of enduring relevance—government, dictatorship versus democracy, political assassination, civil war—but not as abstract concepts. Shakespeare presents political action in terms of the human personalities engaged in it. 53
George Bernard Shaw called
Julius Caesar
“the most splendidly written political melodrama we possess.” In the twentieth century, whatColeridge “thought of as the impartiality and evenhandedness of Shakespeare’s politics” 54 has been replaced by examinations of the effectiveness of the political assassination of recognizable tyrants. From Hitler and Mussolini to Ceauşescu, the face of twentieth-century fascism has never been far from the thoughts of modern directors. Understandable parallels are there to be drawn. As Fran Thompson, designer of David Thacker’s 1993 production at The Other Place, pointed out:
Written by a comparatively young man at a time of enormous political upheaval, it is a visionary piece of writing preempting the English Civil War by almost forty years. Shakespeare’s choice of the story of the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC and the subsequent civil war was a vivid metaphor for the struggle to sustain democracy and protect the Republic against a potential dictatorship. 55
Critics remain largely open to modern dressings for the play, aware of its contemporary relevance, but react badly when a definite place or recognizable tyrant is marked in a production. Referring back to Shakespeare’s text, they invariably point out that to equate Caesar with Hitler or Ceauşescu is to remove the essential ambiguity of the conspirators’, and especially Brutus’, decision. The more highly praised productions are those whose settings have been “in no particular time … more of a dream [or should we say, nightmare] of fascism.” 56
Brutus’ status as the moral hero of the play has been put into question; Cassius is rarely played now as a Machiavellian villain and Antony’s motivations have also been severely questioned. Using the scope which Shakespeare’s text allows:
More common now is the approach that equalizes the political forces in the play, emphasizing the many sidedness of each of the major participants. This has … to do with an understanding of how Shakespeare’s text actually works. Criticism of the play over the past few decades has increasingly revealed the gaps and inconsistencies in these men, the lack of symmetrybetween private feeling and public posture, the very human muddle that affects their politics. And the theatre has adopted a similar view. 57
Productions have rarely been able to cope with these modern complexities: “To reveal itself fully, the play requires an uncut text, fluid stagecraft, and actors of heroic power. And these three factors, sadly enough, have never conjoined.” 58 They may have never conjoined, but the RSC has undoubtedly produced some interesting and exciting productions of
Julius Caesar
which throw light on the political thought and taste of the eras in which they were produced.
By the 1960s, postwar political optimism had been replaced by a growing wave of cynicism. John Blatchley’s 1963 production was “resolutely un-heroic … the moral status of all three main characters … was diminished as politics was presented as the cynical and self-seeking pursuit of power.” 59
Setting the predominant mode of design for the play in the productions that followed, the costumes
pay their tribute to Rome in the toga form of the top dress, but the boots and uniform beneath carry a more universal note. They serve to remind us that tyranny and conspiracy are timeless, as also in their drabs and duns they will remind us that war when it comes is conducted in dirt and dust. 60
Blatchley
Similar Books
