|
|
Post by Jan on Mar 31, 2017 13:20:43 GMT
Enjoyed that production but have to say dont recall any odd accents. Yes, the memory starts to go as you get older. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Mar 31, 2017 16:47:49 GMT
Enjoyed that production but have to say dont recall any odd accents. Yes, the memory starts to go as you get older. Ha! You would know" |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Apr 3, 2017 18:14:14 GMT
gosh, this looks straight and literal.....
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Apr 19, 2017 7:28:15 GMT
To see the worst of theatre....opening scene of this Caesar
Local extras recruited to swell citizens simulating sex against a statue looking embarrassed. A cobbler of disastrous performance ability and the Hammerstein acting imaginable.Where is the once magnificent RSC.
Later the set looks like cardboard cutouts of rocks from local school art department .......
This ,frankly,is not good enough or in the league of front line UK theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 14:08:05 GMT
against a statue looking embarrassed Q> Why was the statue embarrassed? A> Because its stone wasn't dressed. At an earlier RSC Julius Caesar press night: SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR: Friends, Romans, countrymen, Lend me your ears. CROWD MEMBER (the very young Penelope Keith): 'Ere, 'ave an ear! This was quoted in press reviews at the time. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 29, 2017 22:34:44 GMT
Points from above: a black actor is in it and this trad production proves you don't have to shove contemporary 'issues' down the throats of the punters to make us think. Senators stabbing one of their own in a bloodbath and then 'Roman citizen' thugs beating a poet to death in the street, not to mention self justifications and the emergence of a tyrant..come on chaps.
Lots of tension, good characterisation. Brutus fidgety, not sure if meant to be or if AW just is like that. He didn't convince me until the second half as it were when the scene in the tent, the big row with Cassius, really did take off and was much better than I've seen it in other productions. Nice big set, nice colours, nice blood. I think there is one of us on the board who doesn't do blood so whoever you are, this isn't for you. Antony interesting. Is he just a kingmaker, like Warwick in R3 ( right play?) and not able to take it on himself? I'd never thought of that before. Luverly Octavius as I have mentioned in Ant and Cleo thread, though well covered here.
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by kate on Jul 19, 2017 14:38:04 GMT
Review of RSC Julius Caesar
The first surprise about this production was that it was set in and around ancient Rome. I've seen a few productions of Julius Caesar before and in my experience the play has often chosen to treat themes of power, politics and control as universal to any time and place.
The second surprise was the interaction with Brutus and Cassius. This was played the opposite way to normal. Brutus seemed to have made up his mind about Caesar from the start. Brutus’ silence in that first conversation with Cassius seemed not to be disapproval and doubt, but listening for how much Cassius was willing to say. This meant that Cassius’ words couldn’t be an attempt to manipulate Brutus; the scene came across as Cassius honestly stating his opinion.
The performance continued in this way. With remarkably little charges to the script the stereotypes for Cassius and Brutus were turned around. I was impressed with the way the acting and direction did this. Cassius wasn’t a cardboard cut out villain; he was a twitchy character with righteous anger. Brutus wasn’t a noble character; he was a weak one who had a habit of touching what seemed to a necklace with a family emblem whenever he spoke of honour.
The two scenes I got this impression the most were when Brutus seemed nothing more than thoughtless and unhinged while saying ‘…And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood…Let’s all cry ‘‘Peace , freedom, and liberty!’’ and how he then granted Mark Antony his permission to speak. (Act 3, Scene 1) Then in Act 4, Scene 2, while Cassius and Brutus are arguing in the tent Cassius seemed angry that his ideas of right and wrong had been broken, while Brutus was trying to set himself up as the next emperor.
My normal impression of the first half of Julius Caesar is mainly of Brutus pacing up and down the stage. In this production I felt there was never any moral dilemma about killing Caesar. Brutus' character is the best equipped with lines able to be taken as a decision being made on stage. The lack of a dilemma was particularly noticeable from Brutus.
I felt that the whole play was weaker for this. The lack of any dilemma from the characters’ point of view made the first half seem a little flat and procedural for me in the audience.
Another thing which gave the performance less force was that it was played for laughs. While this approach did manage to bring out more individual characters from the conspirators, especially Casca, it gave the play a less thoughtful tone. For example, Casca's pause before stating that he is a Roman (Act 1, Scene 3) made the line funny because it was a failed attempt to remain anonymous. I liked this because it showed that Casca had just thought about whether he wanted to have his identity known, rather than just repeating that he belongs to a roman ideology. However, introducing laughter to the line 'how many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over' (Act 3, Scene 1) simply undermined one of the central themes of the play, murder.
On the whole, I’m glad I saw this Julius Caesar, but I think the interpretation of Cassius and Brutus lost the performance almost as much as it gained.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 19, 2017 16:18:52 GMT
Hi Kate, thanks for this. I thought the laughter to which you refer was ironic. It is a remarkable line, that Shakespeare foresaw the act of assassination being 'acted' in the future and also being repeated by other people in other regimes for real. The laughter comes from knowing how true this is.
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Jul 19, 2017 17:46:18 GMT
The audience laughter on the line delivered as comedic when dipping their hands in Caesar's blood - yes, it certainly was thought-provoking for me too.
I felt uneasy about laughing at this moment of a political murder - the action doesn't in itself sound that funny. And it wasn't a catharsis laughter because the tension hadn't been thoroughly built up to this point - I agree there was a tone of 'when not if' about Brutus' decision making.
So the laughter seemed mainly to emerge from the actor's delivery, self-consciously stepping aside of the acting role in that moment. But this wasn't exactly a Brechtian performance, so why the self-conscious referencing?
However, the line did make me think about how it might have been delivered in 1599, when political aspiration could be ended at the edge of a sword. Then the line becomes much more dangerous (and still not funny) - I imagined these words delivered to a crowd at the Globe (old style, spoken direct to audience), where it could become a real suggestion - perhaps swords were a lot more public in 1599 - that 'any leader might be thrown from power by assassination, eh?' But, still not funny.
Like Kate, I had mixed reactions to the interpretation. Some well-played, well-paced scenes; an intriguing Cassius; a Brutus I wished had more about him, and the battle scenes feeling better weighted, rather than just shoved on the end after the death. Hmm. Thanks, Kate!
|
|
18 posts
|
Post by lucky700 on Jul 27, 2017 23:40:26 GMT
Saw today. Just not a terribly interesting or well paced production. Alex Waldmann was working really hard and all the actors were great but I just felt there was nothing to support them or hold them up. It was a play. I never felt a sense of involvement. Perhaps it was the direction because production design was brilliant.
There were a lot of interesting performances but I felt no space to ask yourself questions about the nature of power and who was doing what/when/why. Brutus was interesting and I felt he did want what was best for the people but was far too trusting and not a political operator. Cassius I felt was a kingmaker as was Marc Anthony. Brutus and Octavious similar in being naive and lack of political understanding. Although Octavious far more despot like.
One thing I did not understand. Brutus told Cassius that Portia had died and then someone came and told him she had died. I don't know whether that was a mistake or whether it was an attempt to manipulate Cassius or why it happened. Also. Countrymen, Romans was given to Brutus. Is that not traditionally Marc A line. I did feel both speeches were very good here. The first showed a great lack of showmanship and political understanding and the second a master shot in manipulation. Interestingly, I felt that the tent scene with C and B showed Brutus was learning to politically manoeuvre too late.
I kinda wanted to just leave the whole time and felt much the same during The Tempest. A miss for me. Seems to be quite a few at the moment and I certainly don't blame the actors but when you find yourself more interested in how they did the stage tricks something is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2017 7:39:41 GMT
This is heritage Shakespeare. It is how they used to produce Shakespeare in the first half of the 20th century before Peter Hall founded the RSC and changed forever (we thought) the way Shakespeare is produced in UK. One thing Hall did, starting with the Wars of the Roses, was to draw parallels – explicit and implicit – between Shakespeare’s history plays and present day politics. There is none of that here, it is just a historical pageant with little relevance to today, and actually with little relevance to Ancient Rome either.
There was a very good exhibition of the painter Alma-Tadema (1836-1912) at Leighton House earlier this year. He was a wildly popular Victorian painter who specialised in scenes of Ancient Rome. The Roman architecture in his paintings was accurate (and he was held to be the best painter of marble there has ever been) but if you look at his works now you can see the Romans themselves are just upper-middle-class Victorians in fancy dress. Despite this his works had an extraordinary influence and even today they define how we all visually think of Ancient Rome. In his day he did several stage designs (one for Coriolanus was in the exhibition) and several film production designers have explicitly drawn from his paintings – Ben Hur (1959), Carry On Cleo (1964), Gladiator (2000) being just a few.
This production design is very much in the same tradition – a fantasy Ancient Rome pandering to our preconceptions. The set is one of the RSC’s static monolithic efforts – RSC set design standards have really plummeted since (and because) they moved to a thrust stage in the main house. All the senators and Caesar wear identical (spotlessly clean) togas, sandals and (as appropriate) plastic armour. All the Various Citizens wear generic smocks. I think we are secure in saying that we don’t know what Ancient Rome looked like but it didn’t look like this. From mid-career Peter Hall took against this type of historically “accurate” design – his point would have been that dressing all the conspirators identically in togas gives us no information at all about their characters or relative status – his specific example was that if a character drank out of a goblet that told us nothing, but if he drank out of a cut glass whisky glass then that told us something about him, it was a cultural reference we recognised and helped to fill in his character. Here the director eliminates that possibility so all he is left with is the acting.
In general, and in keeping with the early 20th century vibe, the acting is static, loud and declamatory with expansive arm gestures and speeches being acted out almost in mime. The lack of movement is almost operatic. The opposite of realism and so quite distancing. I quite like Alex Waldmann but here he is miscast as Brutus – he is too lightweight and too keen to get a laugh. Other performances are quite good with the exception Andrew Woodall who delivers an extraordinarily camp turn as Caesar (on the whole Robert Stephens was right about the role – Caesar was the greatest soldier Rome had seen and should appear as such – for example he should be physically hard to kill).
The director Angus Jackson has delivered two disappointing and unimaginative productions in this season, and was also the season director. If they are grooming him to take over from Doran then he has flunked his audition badly unless (and here is the worry) Doran dictated how these plays should be directed (as we know he did for the Loves Labours/Much Ado pairing). Not sure where the RSC is going to be honest – productions like this look backwards rather than forwards.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 21, 2017 16:29:09 GMT
Lucky700 - they tell us that Portia has died twice, yes, the first time is one man to another and the reaction, the second is to show us that Brutus is v brave and not letting his emotion affect his job. He is supposed to be all reason. He reasoned himself into killing a friend after all. Shakespeare underlining this point and perhaps showing us that Brutus is a good guy but lacking self knowledge. Cassius a bad guy with flaws we can understand. I think this Brutus /Cassius scene is really interesting but rarely done well.
Dr Jan, I can’t say I disagree with that assessment. For me they missed the chance to 'update' the whole shebang when they were too coy over the bath scene right at the start. The good burghers of Warwickshire can cope with a bit of nudity, don’t you think? And I’ve never seen JC fight back but the mention of all the blood and the blood on the killers would point to that.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 21, 2017 22:16:54 GMT
Hi Kate, thanks for this. I thought the laughter to which you refer was ironic. It is a remarkable line, that Shakespeare foresaw the act of assassination being 'acted' in the future and also being repeated by other people in other regimes for real. The laughter comes from knowing how true this is. Am very late to the party reading this thread and reminds me however much I think I 'get' a play most of it sails over my head and then someone on here explains just a small line that reveals something more than I realised. So thanks, it may take some time for you to explain the whole cannon but i'm liking what I get. Oh and Dr Brock i'll expect my Caesars to fight back now, you're right, that would make sense. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 21, 2017 23:22:36 GMT
Someone needs to free Alex Waldman from acting. It's very obvious from his performance in this that he doesn't enjoy it anymore. What a waste of 3hrs.
|
|
18 posts
|
Post by lucky700 on Dec 22, 2017 0:26:47 GMT
Someone needs to free Alex Waldman from acting. It's very obvious from his performance in this that he doesn't enjoy it anymore. What a waste of 3hrs. I am going to say perhaps it is just this job. He didn't look engaged when I saw it months ago though he seemed to be trying hard. Maybe just the right fit, not the right job for him, or who knows. |
|
77 posts
|
Post by tributary on Dec 22, 2017 0:55:12 GMT
I endorse the good doctor Brock on this as heritage Shakespeare. It was a pathetic show.
It’s a crying shame how completely decrepit the RSC has become. I remember when, with Hall at the NT and Nunn at the RSC, it genuinely felt like the two major companies in this country were world-leaders. Hytner had a bit of that ‘wow’ factor early on at the NT, but now, it really feels like we’ve dropped to the back of the pack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 4:04:01 GMT
I endorse the good doctor Brock on this as heritage Shakespeare. It was a pathetic show. It’s a crying shame how completely decrepit the RSC has become. I remember when, with Hall at the NT and Nunn at the RSC, it genuinely felt like the two major companies in this country were world-leaders. Hytner had a bit of that ‘wow’ factor early on at the NT, but now, it really feels like we’ve dropped to the back of the pack. But there's still world-leading UK Shakespeare - Robert Icke's Hamlet and Emma Rice's A Midsummer Night's Dream are two recent examples. In the 60s, the RSC and NT were the young innovators and now they're the solid oldtimers. You just have to look in the right places. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 22, 2017 8:50:25 GMT
I endorse the good doctor Brock on this as heritage Shakespeare. It was a pathetic show. It’s a crying shame how completely decrepit the RSC has become. I remember when, with Hall at the NT and Nunn at the RSC, it genuinely felt like the two major companies in this country were world-leaders. Hytner had a bit of that ‘wow’ factor early on at the NT, but now, it really feels like we’ve dropped to the back of the pack. But there's still world-leading UK Shakespeare - Robert Icke's Hamlet and Emma Rice's A Midsummer Night's Dream are two recent examples. In the 60s, the RSC and NT were the young innovators and now they're the solid oldtimers. You just have to look in the right places. Yes you are right. The better actors aren’t at the RSC any more either - Hicks was a sensation as R-III this year but at the Arcola. McKellen was atChichester. On Caesar fighting back, Robert Stephens specified that had to happen before he took the part in the RSC production. Hicks played it for them too - that’s the sort of actor you need for it. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Dec 22, 2017 13:34:17 GMT
this is depressing,but i have to agree.
perhaps our majors have become too obsessed with agendas and politics to unleash work of real excitement.
the trend for amateur and community participation may be fitting for a culture where anyone can do anything but it,nontheless,does reduce the uniqueness of seeing a world leading theatre in action.It will continue and with the current directors a shared type of experience.What I am saying is-lets try to preserve excellence as well as participation.
The crowd scenes in both Caesar and Andronicus are lamentable and ,quite frankly,not reflective of the RSC stated aspirations.Yet the casting across the company is not strong right now and one senses that many do not want to enrich their career paths by coming to Stratford.
I agree about Icke's Hamlet and hope that other companies take bold steps in casting and directors.Think its odd that the front line directors do not go to Stratford.....Icke,Mitchell,quite like to see a Sally Cookson etc.....anyway one can only imagine but I dont think much will change now.I do find myself moving away from theatre as the agendas are too much for the profession and not really about the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 13:47:32 GMT
Katie Mitchell was a regular director for the RSC for many years, a couple of decades ago. While there, she chose to direct only in the two studio theatres, The Other Place (both the tin hut original and its first, pre-Courtyard, replacement) in Stratford and The Pit at the Barbican. At that time, she hadn't begun to explore video technology in theatre but was responding to Gardzienice in Poland. Happy days!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 22, 2017 17:18:06 GMT
Another issue with Katie Mitchell at the RSC is that she declined to direct anything by Shakespeare other than a single small-scale Henry VI Part 2. Of course Howard Davies was there for decades with a similarly sparse Shakespeare record but ultimately they can’t afford to support directors who won’t direct Shakespeare (a few) and won’t direct in the Stratford main house (a larger group). They could do what the NT does and hijack star directors who have made their name elsewhere (Icke, Van Hove) but you get the impression Doran would be insecure about having high-status directors there - why hasn’t he invited any of the past ADs to return with a Shakespeare, or Rupert Goold ? Or Julie Tamor ? Or Deborah Warner ? You could all add names of top directors to the list I’m sure.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 23, 2017 2:01:51 GMT
I'm hoping the all female directors led season next year sorts out the mess the company is in at the moment, with regard to innovation and new energy.
You don't necessarily need "star" directors. Rather a fresh passion and a looking forward, rather than back.
I can't wait for next year actually.
Just a shame audiences will be watching this Rome season thinking this is the great RSC and it's not.
|
|
1,054 posts
|
Post by David J on Dec 23, 2017 8:33:24 GMT
I've just seen the RSC's Twelfth Night and sadly its just as average as the Roman season. It only got chuckles from the audience except during Adrian Edmondson's yellow stocking scene.
It only gets into my top 10 Shakespeare productions this year because Adrian Edmondson out of the blue gives an award-winning performance in the final scene. Anyway, it was a choice between that and Julius Caesar.
Anyway, that is Christopher Luscombe's production. Where was the fun and lightheartedness that was in Loves Labours Lost and Much Ado About Nothing?
I could say the same for Angus Jackson. Only last year his Don Quixote was a silly and fun production to watch. My favourite play of 2016. His King Lear with Frank Langella barely had a weak link in the cast. And yet here he is "in charge" of this uninspiring Roman season.
Iqbal Kahn's Indian Much Ado About Nothing and Othello weren't perfect but I loved the attention he gave to these exotic settings. Antony and Cleopatra was the obvious play for him to direct and yet he was stuck with the same set used in this season. I barely felt like I was in Ancient Egypt.
And that set was such a hindrance at times in Blanche McIntyre's Titus Andronicus with actors having to clamber onto it to exit there. I haven't seen any outstanding productions from her but she's done better than this.
All these directors have shown creativity and vision in previous productions and it's almost as if this has been sucked out of them this year. I'd like to think the Roman season was just a one-off set back, but Christopher Luscombe's Twelfth Night doesn't inspire confidence for next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 23, 2017 9:21:23 GMT
I'm hoping the all female directors led season next year sorts out the mess the company is in at the moment, with regard to innovation and new energy. You don't necessarily need "star" directors. Rather a fresh passion and a looking forward, rather than back. I can't wait for next year actually. Just a shame audiences will be watching this Rome season thinking this is the great RSC and it's not. What I meant by star directors really was directors who could stand up to Doran and force through their own ideas. That Roman season was Doran’s concept, the directors didn’t choose to use a single set or sword and sandals costumes, they had to go along with it - to be consistent with Doran’s Cicero plays I suspect which had to be set in Rome. |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Dec 23, 2017 11:32:34 GMT
Another issue with Katie Mitchell at the RSC is that she declined to direct anything by Shakespeare other than a single small-scale Henry VI Part 2. Of course Howard Davies was there for decades with a similarly sparse Shakespeare record but ultimately they can’t afford to support directors who won’t direct Shakespeare (a few) and won’t direct in the Stratford main house (a larger group). They could do what the NT does and hijack star directors who have made their name elsewhere (Icke, Van Hove) but you get the impression Doran would be insecure about having high-status directors there - why hasn’t he invited any of the past ADs to return with a Shakespeare, or Rupert Goold ? Or Julie Tamor ? Or Deborah Warner ? You could all add names of top directors to the list I’m sure. Of course, we don't know whether he hasn't invited them, or not. They may have been invited and turned the RSC down because they had better offers elsewhere? They are in demand and can presumably pick and choose. |
|
