Julius Caesar -- RSC Film Review Roger Waters Concert -- Performance Review Churchill -- Movie review

Julius Caesar

Royal Shakespearean Company Performance

Film Release, Clay Theater, San Francisco

June 13, 2017

This play is not really about Julius Caesar.  It is about his assassins, particularly Brutus and Cassius.  Julius Caesar's role is actually subordinate, although he is a strong presence and the whole impetus for the play and its dynamics revolve around him.  But don't expect to see an exploration of the character of Caesar.  Caesar is dead and out of it about half way through (Act III, Scene 1).  Nothing in this play is very clear.  I don't think Shakespeare understood this event.  Cassius sums it up in Act I, Scene 2.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonourable graves.  Men at some time are masters of their fates.  The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Caesar is magnified into this larger than life force, a godlike figure walking among petty men who envy and fear him.  It's naive.  It totally ignores the political ferment of ancient Rome, the turmoil and deterioration in the society that created the need for dominant military leaders.  Killing Caesar did not stop the march toward imperial rule.  The forces in the society that would eventuate in this outcome were already well in motion.  Caesar had already been given the title 'Dictator for Life' by the Senate.  Of course, Caesar was ambitious.  They were all ambitious.  Ambition is not enough reason to kill a leader.  Ambition is a prerequisite to be a leader.  There were entrenched factions in the politics of Rome that had economic components as well.  Shakespeare doesn't explore these aspects of the matter.  Shakespeare's conception of the assassination comes down to warding off a single individual's drive toward becoming a monarch by a group with conflicting, but noble motives.  However, Rome was already a plutocracy that depended on vast numbers of slaves and tribute from conquered peoples in the ceaseless and ever expanding military campaigns.  It is commonly estimated in the first century BC that the slave population in Italy was 30-40 percent.  Rome was already a de facto military dictatorship, the only question was who would command it and reap the spoils.  In Shakespeare's eyes the assassins knew Caesar, admired him, even loved him.  He sees them haunted by guilt, conflicted within themselves, driven to suicide.  I don't buy all of this.  The characters and motivations of the assassins as Shakespeare presents them, don't make sense.  Shakespeare presents them as weak men full of self doubt and petty envy.  But historical accounts allege 60 senators participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar.  It was a very decisive verdict by the ruling elite. 

One cannot see this play as a historical depiction of Julius Caesar or of his assassins.  Julius Caesar's assassination was pivotal event in a long civil war within Roman society over who would govern and how the growing wealth being amassed from numerous foreign military conquests would be distributed.  To understand this play properly I think one must look at contemporary politics in Shakespeare's England and also at Shakespeare himself.

Much of present day interest in this play is stimulated by the rise of Donald Trump and his supposed pretensions to dictatorship.  But the only thing Donald Trump and Julius Caesar have in common is pathological ambition, and even in that Caesar was much more astute and prudent than Trump.  Keep in mind, Caesar was given the title of 'Dictator for Life' by a vote of the Roman Senate.  Not even the most foolhardy Republicans would vote that upon Trump.  Caesar had friends.  He had a broad constituency.  He was respected and admired even by his enemies.  He was an accomplished soldier and general.  He had notable achievements and was a natural leader of men.  His soldiers loved and respected him and were intensely loyal to him.  He never had to ask for their loyalty.  He commanded their loyalty by the force of his personality and his capable leadership in battle that inspired their faith in him and their will to fight to the death for him.  Trump has nobody like that.  Major biographers say that Trump has no friends.  Caesar had a vision for Roman society that involved redistributing land to the common people and to his war veterans.  But Trump has no vision for society beyond his own aggrandizement, mean spirited exclusions, and further enriching the already fabulously wealthy.  He is a charlatan who has seduced a wide swath of disenfranchised people in American society, promising them things that they desperately long for, but which he cannot deliver and has no intention of fulfilling.  Caesar said at one point, "I am as constant as the northern Star." (Act III, Scene 1).  When did Trump ever profess any constancy?  If he did, he would be laughed to scorn.  He is erratic, fickle, impulsive and lacking in foresight.  He often seems to fail to grasp the consequences of his own words and actions.  A closer comparison to the situation of Julius Caesar would be John F. Kennedy.  Kennedy was the leader of a faction that wanted to fundamentally change the direction of American politics, particularly in foreign policy, as well as in domestic priorities that rankled the established elite.  Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy.  And he is no Julius Caesar either. 

This RSC production was perfectly capable.  I thought Martin Hutson stood out as Cassius.  James Corrigan did a good job with Mark Anthony.  Hannah Morrish was a little weak as Portia.  I felt that she recited the role, but she did not feel it.  The character seemed to lack intensity.  The rest were fine, but not overly impressive.  It is a good solid presentation of Julius Caesar, but I think comparisons and parallels to contemporary political events are based on a lack of understanding, both of the Shakespeare play and the people and events depicted in it. 

Roger Waters Concert

Oracle Arena, Oakland, California

June 10, 2017

This was a very high quality, polished band in top form.  It was more than a music concert, it was a visual effects display of dazzling technical prowess.  The visual effects became more spectacular in the second half of the concert and took on the character of a running commentary on contemporary social and political events.  The music became a backdrop to the visual show. 

The visual display was impressive, but my feeling about it is:  let the music speak for itself.  If you want to put Donald Trump's head on a pig, that's fine.  We can all support that, but turning "Money," into a commentary on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin takes the song out of its original context and grafts a meaning and a slant onto it that is foreign to its original impetus.  I wouldn't say that it didn't work, I just think that at a music venue the audience should be given the leeway to make its own connections between the music and current events. 

Now Pink Floyd has always made use of a visual component in its art.  The Wall (1982), for example, was a powerful visual depiction of psychosis that is unequalled and which perfectly complemented the musical album of the same title.  The visual representation was an integral extension of the music's meaning and intent.  In this case the visual commentary on the hideous Donald Trump, the pathetic conditions of abject poverty around the world, the miseries and trauma of the war in Syria, etc., are not elaborations of the original musical intent, but are rather anachronistic impositions on the music. 

In other words, they are trying to do two things at once that are of a very different nature.  If you want to ridicule and despise Donald Trump, or bemoan the living conditions of the wretched poor, or the hapless plight of war refugees, those are worthy topics for public presentation, but to combine them with a revue of music, most of which was composed and recorded in the 1970s, creates a cognitive clash that I am forced to question.  It's like you are using the music, which is the primary draw, to promote this secondary agenda that the audience may or may not have signed up for.  I don't think there were many people in the audience who were unsympathetic to the messages conveyed by the visual displays, but they were of a different character than the messages embodied in the music.  They might have been consistent with the intent of the music, but they did not enhance the music.  My opinion is:  Let the audience make those connections themselves if they are so disposed. 

The music was sensational.  They did many of the Pink Floyd classics as well a number of later or maybe recent works that I had less familiarity with.  "The Dark Side of the Moon" was a highlight, as well as "Another Brick in the Wall", "Comfortably Numb", "Wish You Were Here," "Us and Them," and many others.  I didn't keep track.  The production quality and the sound were nearly equal to the commercial studio recordings.  They have the art of public performance down. 

There were two back-up singers, two blond girls, who were particularly good and I wanted to mention them, but unfortunately I didn't get their names.  I know the last name of one of them is 'Wolf.'  Roger Waters introduced them at the end.  I should have written them down, but I thought it would be easy to find them.  However they are different from the band members listed on the website.  I normally won't mention something in a review if I can't verify the information or be sure of names and facts, but the these two girls were so good that I wanted to make a note of them anyway.  If I find out their names I will revise this. 

This was a great concert and a spectacular display of visual pyrotechnics.  Theater owners, the Ballet, and the Opera should take note.    

Churchill

Directed by Jonathan Teplitzky

This is my kind of film, although I do not think it will have wide appeal.  There were only a handful of people in the theater, but it was a Tuesday night.  And, incidentally, it was June 6, the anniversary of D-Day in Europe.  It is a fictional portrayal of Winston Churchill on the eve of the D-Day invasion of Normandy by the allies in World War 2.  I can't really comment on how fictional it is, but it is clearly a dramatization that feels somewhat contrived and kind of schmaltzed up.  The character of Churchill (played by Brian Cox) is on screen probably 95 percent of the time.  It is all about him.  His wife, Clementine (played by Miranda Richardson), plays a supporting role, but neither she, nor her relationship to her husband, Winston, is developed in any great depth.

Churchill comes off as an inwardly tormented man.  Tormented by guilt and traumatic memories of his previous experiences of war.  Haunted by the memories of these previous disasters as well as the onerous sense of responsibility that he carries for the many deaths and their lasting legacy, he takes a hard position against the looming prospect of another such disaster in Normandy.  The invasion, however, is not under his control, but rather by a coterie of generals headed by Dwight Eisenhower.  Churchill and Eisenhower clash over the plan and execution of the invasion, but Churchill is overruled and finally forced unwillingly to retreat to his political role as cheerleader and morale booster to the British people.  The real conduct of the war is left in the hands of the military men. 

The film makes Churchill a bit of a buffoon, a Donald Trump light, a bumbling old man who is out of touch with modern realities, whose opposition to the Operation Overlord plan expresses sentimentality and excessive. caution by a man who doesn't really get what is necessary and who is thus making a nuisance of himself.  We are left impressed with the wisdom and capability of military leadership, something that has stayed in our culture for at least seventy years.  Civilian control of the military is devalued, and political leaders are reduced to the supporting role of boosting public morale and mobilizing support for the decisions and plans of the military, who are really running things.  The film is subtly pro-fascist. 

What I liked about it is that it focuses strictly on characters and human interaction.  There is not a lot of action or spectacle.  The action in this film is the conflicts and confrontations between people over matters of substance.  The emotional and psychological impact of war, the burdens of leadership, and the internal agonies that come with the uncertainties and dangers of momentous decisions.  The marriage between Churchill and Clementine does not seem to be going well, although it is not clear exactly why.  They come to the verge of separating, but I didn't really understand it.  Although Clementine does play a significant role in the film, her role in the life of Churchill is not well portrayed.  The dynamics of their relationship remain murky. 

One character I did like was the typist, Helen Garrett (played by Ella Purnell).  She is a very attractive, captivating young woman, whose strength of presence on screen is disproportionate to the role she is in.  I wonder if she was a real person or a made up phantasm for the film?  In any case, she was a good idea, and the appeal of Ella Purnell helps the film a lot. 

The film made excessive use of musical backgrounds in an attempt to cloy and manipulate the audience. It was as if the words, interactions, and situations did not speak loud enough.  The music tended to function like canned laughter on television comedy shows.  The filmmakers seemed to want to hit you over the head with sentimentality and drag you along emotionally as if they expected you not to grasp the proper mood or experience the proper response to the actions and circumstances.  The film is not too long at one hour and thirty-eight minutes, but there is a certain amount of fluff that could have been sliced away to make the film even shorter.  This is not a great film, but it is pretty good.  It is thoughtful, and gives some sense of the character and burdens of Winston Churchill at a crucial historical moment.