Review: In ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,’ the Political Thrill Is Gone

The tragedy of the reviewer of 'The Tragedy of Julius Caesar' is that the critic is caught up in being clever and snarky without the depth to delve beyond or understand what the director does. Superficiality never leans toward a cogent and sentient review. It only bends its sway to humor, which if one rides over the reviewer's snark falls as dead as a blasted turnip. Ignore, put away, discount this reviewer's self-importance and "wit" and see 'The Tragedy of Julius Caesar' for yourself. Cogitate on the following: the staging, the stylization of the battle scenes, the contrast between Caesar's bloodletting and the bloodless battle scenes (evoking war as an eternal inevitability in acts of power domination and governance), the contrast between Portia and Calphurnia in their techniques to persuade their husbands, the director's use of the mob as a character the leaders play upon, the sound and lighting enhancing the staging, the director's thematic approach revealed in the modernization of the costumes and sets without being obvious. I saw the Public Theatre's satiric version of Julius Caesar. This 'Tragedy' went much deeper...but only if one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear how. Sadly, this NYT review is wanting substance and maturity. T'is a pity... Meanwhile, 'The Tragedy of Julius Caesar' is a must see...you will understand why whether now or forever, the dynamics of power and control necessitate shaping the will of influencers of the people.

I just saw this production and liked it very much. Some people might not care for choreographed festival and battle scenes, but I thought this Caesar was much much better than the review suggested.

What a strange review. This production of Caesar is exhilarating, vibrant, thought-provoking, and quiet in all the right measures. To make it cling to just Trump's daily disasters would be to miss the point. This play is speaking to questions of politics, yes, but on a universal scale that is capably modern and grander. Go see that play and you will have an evening that was worth every minute. And the cast here: pure excellence!

It seems that nowadays unless theater is explicitly dealing with Trump, race or gender politics the Times is bored. I loved this production and what made it speak so clearly to our political moment in time was the fact that it DID NOT make fussy attempts to "speak to us today." The play stands for what has it has stood for since it was written and it was up to the audience to draw parallels between what happened in Rome generations ago and what is going on in the world today. The production's adherence to the text and language, the performances and delivering emotional truth was admiral and made for a compelling, engaging night of theater.

I loved every minute of this exhilarating production. From the opening moment, it makes Shakespeare relevant and accessible. Every character is both nuanced and defined, and the actors bring an intensity and passion to their roles in a way that draws the viewer completely into the action. Brutus -- strong and mushy, noble and naive -- is superbly flashed out by Brandon Dirden. Antony -- powerful and conniving, charismatic, at times tender -- is magnetic; a great performance by Jordan Barbour. Cassius -- the most human one of them all and most aware of his own failings -- is precisely rendered by Matthew Amendt. The play is pulsing with a raw physicality which makes it thrilling to watch. The choreography and set design, far from being contrived, add a layer of meaning and excitement. This production brings urgency to Shakespeare's drama and makes one marvel at its timelessness. I read the review two days before watching the performance, and thought I may have made a mistake in purchasing tickets. My experience was so unlike that of the reviewer that I wonder if we even saw the same play. I totally agree with the commentator who thought the reviewer may have had the flu. How do you miss so much in a play? I do hope others will judge for themselves -- forget the review and go see this memorable production.

When I was a child, my parent turned on the TV. They were watching a rehearsal of "Julius Caesar"--actors wearing street clothes, the director breaking in now and then with comments. I was puzzled. So I put the question to my parents. Was Julius Caesar a GOOD man? Was he a BAD man? Was it GOOD for Rome that he be assassinated? Was it BAD for Rome? Ah children! We want crisp, no-nonsense answers, don't we. Black and white. No grays. No ambiguities. And you know--I don't think the Romans ever made up their minds about Julius Caesar. Maybe they said about him what they said about his adopted son and heir, Octavius (later Augustus)-- --it would have been better for Rome had he never lived-- --or that he had never died. But my goodness! One quality about Caesar Shakespeare immediately--almost intuitively--grasped. That ineradicable sense: this is who--no no! this is WHAT I am. "I rather tell thee what is to be feared Than what I fear--for always I am Caesar. . . . . ." Precisely! The man who, bidding some fisherman carry him out to sea in a small boat--and the man demurs: "There's a storm brewing!"-- --tells him: fear not! You carry the fortune of Caesar. Incredible! What a man! Dogged--hampered at every turn by a pig-headed, reactionary Senate. Till--virtually against his will--he took up arms against the Republic. It died in the ensuing Civil War. It never revived. Modern day parallels? Don't ask.

How about a production of Julius Caesar set in Ancient Rome, that looks like it takes place in Ancient Rome? There's a novel idea!

"Assuming best motives, Brutus and the other conspirators kill Caesar to preserve the Roman Republic. But the Republic dies anyway, and representative government stays dead. For centuries. “Julius Caesar” is a reminder, unneeded, of what a very fragile thing a democracy can be. Et tu, Will?" The Roman Republic, run by a hereditary Senate of patrician landowners and oligarchs was definitely not a "representative government." As far as democracy is concerned, the demos was represented by Caesar whose policies in favor of improving the lives of the plebians and downtrodden noncitizens threatened the 1% who controlled the Republic. Caesar was an enlightened ruler, whose support by the 99%, as shown by the mass outpouring of grief at his murder, and the true representative of the Roman people.

The reviewer must have had the flu. This is the finest production of Julius Caesar I've seen--and I've seen many, including the RSC production in Stratford some years ago. The director's vision is startling--and contrary to what this reviewer says, the raw, political realities and moral ambiguities are grippingly alive in this production. One could feel the electric engagement of the audience the night I went as we were all swept into the drama. The second act was inspired; never have I seen warfare brought to such visceral life onstage, and through a kind of cohesive, group physical exhaustion. Each character was made to feel real and alive, their motivations carefully defined, their individuality uncannily crystallized and the texture and meaning of their respective relationships powerfully articulated. Go and see this production. You will end up feeling you know Julius Caesar in a profoundly new way--perhaps knowing it meaningfully, in fact, for the first time.