Julius Caesar

[brigdh]

Over the weekend, I went to see a production of Julius Caesar that kept the original text, but cast all women and set the action in a women's prison. The acting was amaaaazing, particularly the people playing Mark Antony, Cassius, and Caesar himself (herself?). It was really some of the best acting I've ever seen, particularly Antony's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech, which is as it should be. I mean, if your plot hinges on this being a grand act of oratory, it should be, well, a grand act of oratory.

That said, I'm not sure what the "women's prison" aspect was supposed to do. While I am all for all-female casts, the text really doesn't work in a prison, particularly multiple speeches about the importance of their freedom as Romans. Not to mention the entire last act, where people are carrying around guns and talking about armies and battles, and I just have no idea where the metaphor went at that point. Not that they ever used the metaphor much, since 90% of the time the costumes where the only clue that the setting was changed- no guards on stage, for instance, no bars, no restrictions on people's movements, none of the million things I would think would define a prison setting.

Honestly, I suspect they thought the stabbing scene would be cool if set in a prison (and granted, that bit was pretty much the one thing that translated well), and kind of forgot about the rest of the play. Maybe it's because I'm very fond of AUs that this bothered me so much; I just really wanted more explanation of what was going on with the world-building! You can't just throw elements at the wall randomly! You've got to work it all out logically.

Overall, though, I really did love it. Here's the link, in case the production comes near any of you.

Comments

[silverflight8.livejournal.com]

That does sound cool! Maybe they, uh, forgot about the prison thing. Or Rule of Cool, I guess. That can be invoked for anything.

Also I like the set! It looks terrible i.e. realistically exactly like old buildings.

Caesar *cough* I usually remember the æ ligature exists which helps.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I think Rule of Cool may well have been an influencing factor in the decision here, yeah.

The set was really cool! And they did a neat thing when leading the audience in where ushers dressed as prison guards yelled at you about turning off your cellphones.

Oops, thank you. I am a unbelievably bad speller, so I usually just rely on spellcheck to do everything for me, but this time it did not catch it.

[louiselux.livejournal.com]

I saw it earlier this year and really enjoyed it, particularly Cush Jumbo's Anthony. That speech was a revelation.

About the prison setting: to me it felt like a flimsy justification for having an all-woman cast, and I wonder if they should have just had an all women cast and not bothered justifying it. Any prison metaphor was basically lost on me!

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yes, so amazing.

That was the theory of the person I saw it with, but I agree with you; also, I think cross-gender casting or all female casts are common enough that no one really needs a flimsy excuse for it.

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

Almost every Shakespearean production I've ever seen changed the setting, but I'm still pretty leery of the habit. Not everything translates. (I have this whole rant on Romeo and Juliet and why changing the setting can alter a fundamental aspect of the play.) This Summer I saw a production of Macbeth that was set in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The entire cast was white. Also, they had to alter place names to make sense of the new setting, but what they didn't change mixed with what they did change made the whole thing kind of a mess.

But an all woman setting would be cool. One production of Julius Caesar made one of the characters a women, but then introduced a romance between her and male character. It made me annoyed that they couldn't make her a woman and keep it platonic. (And maybe wonder if they just didn't have the guts to gay for a gay romance.)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's interesting! I think most of the Shakespeare I've seen has been set in the original time and place, though I'm fond of changes. Like, I said, I love AUs! I just want the choice of setting to make sense, or to be saying something. That's odd, that they changed the place names- I've never seen a production do that. (For instance, this Julius Caesar didn't even change the "he" and "his" to "she" and "her")

This production cast the wives of Caesar and Brutus as women also (obviously, I guess), which was fine with me! But it did make some lines about a woman's nature vs a man's nature sort of odd. Although perhaps that was the point, now that I'm thinking about it: gender roles are dumb and arbitrary.

[silverflight8.livejournal.com]

Huh, about R&J, have you ever watched West Side Story (and if so, what did you think of the setting change?)

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

Heh, so you're pretty much getting my Romeo and Juliet rant.

With Romeo and Juliet, you often have people changing to setting to focus on different conflicts, based on, say, race or class. West Side Story is a perfect example of this.

But, for me, an integral part of Romeo and Juliet is the nature of the conflict between the Montagues and the Capulets. Why exactly do these families hate each other? It's not important. It's a bunch of rich white people who hate another bunch of rich white people. It's about pride, resentment, and spite.

To change that, to make it about real oppression, alters the message. The Sharks do their part in continuing the conflict, but their complaints are true: they are discriminated against.

To make Romeo and Juliet about actual oppression makes it easier to sympathize with one group over the other. It can make one group seem right. I wouldn't necessarily say that's bad or wrong, but it is a huge change.

(Also, I have often said that only Shakespeare could make the love story in Romeo and Juliet palatable, and think Tony and Maria's romantic dialogue offers evidence of that. But that's another subject.)

[silverflight8.livejournal.com]

Hm, that is fair. I think they were trying to legitimize the conflict, which is another way to make the tragedy worse (the original is star-crossed lovers dying for a pointless conflict, but does it really make it any better if they die because of racism?) It's a provoking question, I think.

I felt "Officer Krupke" was kind of a justifying sort of song from the Jets (i.e. 'all they see is cruddy JD's [juvenile delinquents]. So that's what we give them--something to believe in!'), kind of lashing out at a society that doesn't do much for them.

On the other hand I quite like AU, especially when the AU gives a new way of looking at the original story. So maybe it's a taste thing; I liked Luhrmann's adaptation too (though I didn't like Claire Danes in that at all).