Take a photo of a barcode or cover
millennial_dandy 's review for:
Julius Caesar
by William Shakespeare
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
<i>Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause!</i>
Of all of Shakespeare's dramas, Julius Caesar feels like a good starter play. Compared with many of his others, the language in Julias Caesar isn't nearly as dense most of the time, and there are only 4 characters that are really important to keep track of, namely, the titular Julius Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, and Marc Antony. And as well, like Romeo and Juliet, the central conflict and moral quandary is easily communicated and understood: is it ok to assassinate your best friend because you're worried he might become tyrannical if crowned?
Of course, in true Shakespearean fashion, it is a tad more complicated than that when you add in other elements such as Cassius stirring much of the conspiracy up out of envy and the ambivalence of Ceasar's actual ambitions.
I recently saw a production of Julius Caesar where they leaned hard into the comedy and played it kind of like a Disney version of itself (but with the original lines) in which the direction was clearly to amplify through voice-work and gesture the over-the-top personalities already present in the text. For instance, the actor for Marc Antony was very clearly drawing on the character of Kronk from Emperor's New Groove for his characterization, the actor for Octavius Ceasar leaned into the idea that he was a waifish twink, and Caesar was played as affably supercilious. The only two roles that were really played straight were Brutus and Cassius, and it all worked well to convey the story in a way that felt fresher than if it had been done too seriously. And honestly, it made me realize how truly melodramatic Shakespeare really is, in the best possible way.
It made me realize that, while often lyrical and stunning in their writing, Shakespeare is first and foremost trying to entertain, and I wish that was focussed on more often when his plays are taught in high school. Because I can totally see teenagers happily getting exasperated with Brutus constantly making bad decisions, and siding with the villain, Cassius, because, let's face it, he was definitely the most clever person in the story even if he was, well, the villain.
Anyway, taking things too seriously is a gripe I have with the way many classics are treated. Don't get me wrong, as someone who is already on the 'I love deep-diving into literature' train I would never say we should be satisfied with shallow readings of great works of literature, but I think when we're trying to get non-readers, or at least, non-readers of classics to that same place, let these works be sites for play and for fun.
I read Julius Caesar seriously ahead of going to the play: did all my little annotations, read the 35 page introduction setting up the context and Shakespeare's source material and so on... but I had fun at the play because it made me realize what silly little gremlins all these characters really were in the most delightful way.
So, I guess what I'm saying is: go see Shakespeare performed; (some of) his works really do stand the test of time, but maybe read it first so you can get the most out of it.
And shout out specifically to the Kamloops theatre company: I lived, I loved, I laughed.
P.S. fun fact from the intro to the Oxford World Classics edition: Shakespeare didn't originate the line 'et tu, Brute?' It was apparently already well-known enough to the public that it was a line they would have been expecting.
Of all of Shakespeare's dramas, Julius Caesar feels like a good starter play. Compared with many of his others, the language in Julias Caesar isn't nearly as dense most of the time, and there are only 4 characters that are really important to keep track of, namely, the titular Julius Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, and Marc Antony. And as well, like Romeo and Juliet, the central conflict and moral quandary is easily communicated and understood: is it ok to assassinate your best friend because you're worried he might become tyrannical if crowned?
Of course, in true Shakespearean fashion, it is a tad more complicated than that when you add in other elements such as Cassius stirring much of the conspiracy up out of envy and the ambivalence of Ceasar's actual ambitions.
I recently saw a production of Julius Caesar where they leaned hard into the comedy and played it kind of like a Disney version of itself (but with the original lines) in which the direction was clearly to amplify through voice-work and gesture the over-the-top personalities already present in the text. For instance, the actor for Marc Antony was very clearly drawing on the character of Kronk from Emperor's New Groove for his characterization, the actor for Octavius Ceasar leaned into the idea that he was a waifish twink, and Caesar was played as affably supercilious. The only two roles that were really played straight were Brutus and Cassius, and it all worked well to convey the story in a way that felt fresher than if it had been done too seriously. And honestly, it made me realize how truly melodramatic Shakespeare really is, in the best possible way.
It made me realize that, while often lyrical and stunning in their writing, Shakespeare is first and foremost trying to entertain, and I wish that was focussed on more often when his plays are taught in high school. Because I can totally see teenagers happily getting exasperated with Brutus constantly making bad decisions, and siding with the villain, Cassius, because, let's face it, he was definitely the most clever person in the story even if he was, well, the villain.
Anyway, taking things too seriously is a gripe I have with the way many classics are treated. Don't get me wrong, as someone who is already on the 'I love deep-diving into literature' train I would never say we should be satisfied with shallow readings of great works of literature, but I think when we're trying to get non-readers, or at least, non-readers of classics to that same place, let these works be sites for play and for fun.
I read Julius Caesar seriously ahead of going to the play: did all my little annotations, read the 35 page introduction setting up the context and Shakespeare's source material and so on... but I had fun at the play because it made me realize what silly little gremlins all these characters really were in the most delightful way.
So, I guess what I'm saying is: go see Shakespeare performed; (some of) his works really do stand the test of time, but maybe read it first so you can get the most out of it.
And shout out specifically to the Kamloops theatre company: I lived, I loved, I laughed.
P.S. fun fact from the intro to the Oxford World Classics edition: Shakespeare didn't originate the line 'et tu, Brute?' It was apparently already well-known enough to the public that it was a line they would have been expecting.