Julius Caesar -- RSC Film 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.