Julius Caesar

Ok, so I thought I would venture out into the murder capitol of the US (that's Washington DC, in case you were unsure) to see the Shakespeare Theatre Company's Julius Caesar, which they are currently presenting along with Antony and Cleopatra. "What the hell" I thought to myself "it'll be a treat for all the hard work and then if it's good" my thought continued "you can go and see the other one on Saturday". So I got all dressed up, which means I wore a skirt with my thongs instead of jeans, and trundled off to the Sidney Harmon Hall in Downtown DC. The theatre is lovely, the set was incredibly striking, the costumes were gorgeous. I think you can see where I'm going with this . . . the play was, awful. Well, maybe not awful, that's a strong way of putting it, bland would be better, also uninspired, insipid, melodramatic and full of hactors. No, that's not a typo. You know the type, they don't act, the ACT!!!!!!!!!!! My first complaint and I'll admit that it's petty, given that I was seeing it in an American theatre, was the accents. Shakespeare with an American accent just sounds wrong. It's not just that there were American accents, I could have handled it after a while, but there was no consistency of accent. Every time an actor opened their mouth, I was trying to figure out where they came from. There also seemed to be no consistency in acting styles, some were (as I've said) melodramatic while others seemed to be aiming for a more naturalistic approach. I actually have no objections with Shakespeare being performed either way, but you gotta pick one style and stick with it. So, what was wrong with the performance? For starters, the actor who played Cassius spoke so fast and his accent was so thick I missed the majority of what he said and I think some of it was meant to be important. He was one who was trying for a more natural approach and would often dip his voice, so not only could you not understand what he was saying, you couldn't hear it either. Brutus was weak, the only way I can think to put it. Weak character and weak acting. He gave the sort of performance that makes you cringe when you watch it. The sort where the actor suddenly realises that they are anguished and puts his hand to his forehead, or that he is overwhelmed and so he kneels on the ground. This is meant to be a good man, a man who is driven to betray his friend and that preys on him. The tragic figure in this play should be Brutus, we should care about his plight. We didn't. The actress playing the role of Portia may actually be good, I couldn't tell through all the angst. She started at a 10 and gave herself nowhere to go, but that fault surely must lie with the director. I often got the sense that, at times, she didn't quite understand what she was saying, but if she said it emphatically enough, the audience would get it. Calpurnia looked like she'd stepped off the set of the tv show Rome and had borrowed her dress from someone else, as it was clearly too long. She kept tripping on it as she went up and down the very steep stairs on the set. She is given very little to do, other than look at Caesar. Yes, I realise this is a fault with the script, but a good director would be able to use the characters effectively. She looked pretty and it was amusing to see if she would tumble down the stairs, but that was about it. The actor who played Caesar did not come across as strong, or mighty, or good, or brave or any of the things Caesar is meant to be. Not for one second could I believe that this man was capable of taking control of Rome and being made its King. We, as the audience, are not given the opportunity to like this character and so consequently we don't care about his death. His senseless striking of one of his serving girls (done poorly I might add) kind of made me wish the senate scene would hurry up so that he would just die already. And while we're on the subject, his death should make an impact, it should be shocking and yet compelling at the same time. It's the sense of inevitability, we know it's coming, we know it really happened, so the director needs to do something to make it bold. He needs to do something other than one man half-heartedly stabbing Caesar, then another man half-heartedly stabbing Caesar, then another, then another and so on. It should be a frenzy, there should be some sort of noise from the actors, you don't silently stab someone repeatedly. Meanwhile we have Caesar turning his back to the audience so that he can take out his blood pack so that when the next man stabs him, there can be a spurt of blood. Oh, and also, using a sword and stabbing someone between their arm and their body doesn't work on stage, it just doesn't. The scene should feel like a car crash, terrible but you just can't look away. Well, it did feel like that, but for all the wrong reasons. It was all I could do to stop myself from laughing as they carried on merrily stabbing Caesar. What did I like about the production? Well, as I said, the set was stunning. It used the height of the venue well, it had bits that moved, stairs that became sidewalks and a platform that rose. The costumes were suitably Roman, nothing new or unique about them. Some of the smaller roles were played quite well, the young guy who played Lucius was very good. On the whole though, the thing was disappointing. Very disappointing. I certainly shan't be wasting my money on Antony and Cleopatra. I might go and see Mamma Mia, which is playing at the National, instead. I think I'm done now :) Melissa Merchant