Julius Caesar reviews
Julius Caesar reviews
Julius Caesar reviews#0
Posted: 4/3/05 at 7:21pm
Talkin' Broadway is up
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/
re: Julius Caesar reviews#1
Posted: 4/3/05 at 7:32pm
Geez. He begins making it seem like he's about to rave about Washington, then he completely blasts him.
"Nothing else Washington does, however, lives up to his first imposing impression. When he's forced to rely on a different set of acting and vocal muscles than he's accustomed to using, he becomes every bit the bland, invisible presence that experienced theatregoers have come to fear of Hollywood stars onstage, and that only the rare one (Hugh Jackman, anyone?) is able to defy. Despite playing a great role (Marcus Brutus) in a classic drama, Washington might as well be walking and talking his way through a February Sweeps episode of an NBC hourlong drama."
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
re: Julius Caesar reviews#2
Posted: 4/3/05 at 7:38pmThat's pretty much how all of Matthew Murray's reviews seem to run.
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Julius Caesar reviews#3
Posted: 4/3/05 at 7:54pm
AP REVIEW. Funny how they say "Not up 'til 9", yet its up at 7:50.
"Washington, the reason this revival was mounted in the first place, has a magnetic, forceful screen persona suggesting strength and warmth at the same time. Yet on stage, at least in this aggressive, modern-dress production directed by Daniel Sullivan, the actor comes across as subdued. His voice, while strong, lacks variety, producing a monotone at odds with the other, more vocally acrobatic actors on stage."
"Sullivan stages it dramatically, with the actors spilling into the theater's aisles and standing in the boxes above the stage. Eamonn Walker's Antony is a striking, brooding presence who can command an audience. "
AP Review of "Julius Caesar"
re: Julius Caesar reviews#4
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:00pm
Broadway.com:
http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=509561
Pretty positive.
re: Julius Caesar reviews#5
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:11pmI would say VERY positive!
re: Julius Caesar reviews#6
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:15pm
I guess you could say that, lol. 
I did not know Patrick Page was in it. I saw him in The Lion King on tour. Good to see he is out of that show...
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
re: Julius Caesar reviews#7
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:23pmI had no intention of seeing it but seeing Washington in what looked like a bathrobe sealed it for me. Old Willy S is turning over in his grave
re: Julius Caesar reviews#8
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:24pmWhat? What are you talking about? Everythign should always be done traditionally? That's boring as hell.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
re: Julius Caesar reviews#9
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:25pm
To each his own. If modern dress does it for you great. Besides that, this play,while a classic , has been done to death ( pardon the pun).
If you liked it great
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/20/04
re: Julius Caesar reviews#10
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:26pmIf it's been done to death, maybe that's why they're trying something new with it.
re: Julius Caesar reviews#11
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:30pmIt's not that modern dress "does it" for me, but I'm kind of glad to not see them doing it with sandals and robes. THAT has been done to death, and this is far more interesting. I'm open to anything different, and I certainly wouldn't decide not to go see a show because of the costuming decision.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
re: Julius Caesar reviews#12
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:32pm
OK but a play about Romans in modern dress does not do it for me. My wife & I almost walked out of a NYC Opera a few years back when Lady McBeth came out in combat boots & an evening gown
If you like it great. This will not be everyones cup of TV. The run may be sold out as it is a limited run & many people would come out to hear Washington read the phone book
Stand-by Joined: 2/19/05
re: Julius Caesar reviews#13
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:37pmJulius Caesar isn't performed all that often. It's read in most high schools, but not performed to death, as far as Shakespeare goes.
re: Julius Caesar reviews#14
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:38pmYes, many would come out to see Washington do ANYTHING, but I just can't believe that someone would be so closed minded as to dismiss things so quickly. Some of the most extraordinary theatre I have ever seen has been the classics set in modern times. If the performances are solid (which JC seems to be,) I don't understand, again, how someone can be so closed minded about something so great.
Joined: 12/31/69
re: Julius Caesar reviews#15
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:42pm
Variety Review is in:
"But if Daniel Sullivan's bloody, testosterone-fueled production falls short of thrilling reinvention, it succeeds in rendering the fall of the Roman ruler and subsequent civil war a gripping, highly accessible drama for mainstream Broadway auds."
"While the overall take in Sullivan's production feels somewhat obvious and elementary, its shifts in tone doing little to define the play's murky psychology, the staging is brisk, propulsive, tense and entertaining."
"This may not be the most conclusive "Julius Caesar" ever mounted, but it certainly carries a bang."
Variety Review
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#16
Posted: 4/3/05 at 8:54pm
J. Caesar is a damned if they do/damned if they don't play.
If you trundle out the togas and marble steps, it looks like FORUM, minus the laughs, and if you do it within a contemporary military-industrialist context, you get all that "oooh, power corupts!"irony. (Plug in the exploited power you want to highlight Nixon or, uh, a current occupant...) Either way, you are already wrestling with two flavors of cliches, the audience way ahead of you with both.
There have been so many modern dress versions, it almost takes balls NOT to. But I suppose Washington's casting sealed the concept -- and the interview wherein he mentioned Collin Powell and Condi Rice as possible new millenium Brutus prototypes suggests parallels they felt compelled to explore. Fair enough.
Still, it didn't sound terribly groundbreaking beforehand, and I haven't read anything so far that suggests otherwise, posts or reviews. In a season where everyone is debating "what's the event?" this one seems low on buzz. Maybe the full throttle range of reviews will give it more profile. Not that they need it.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#17
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:03pm
The great thing about Shakespeare's writing is that its timeless. While a few things might be tweeked to make sense, most of his plays could be brought to the present.
Now some may be done badly (I don't want to see anyone in a evening gown and combat boots) that is an error on the creative staff's doing, not the concept in general.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#18
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:05pmAn error? So that would mean there's a right and wrong answer to Shakespeare, and it can only be done a certain way? I don't understand some people....
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#19
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:06pmyou know. sometimes i don't want to see complete reinvention. so i'm happy to hear that while it draws new comparisons and is modern dress, which is fine. it stays a classic shakespeare play. the play is well written and has universal themes (like most shakespeare's). it's not very usual to see complete reinvention doing bill s... i mean. what groundbreaking things are you going to do in midsummer, r+j, hamlet. last season's henry iv and king lear. groundbreaking can be done. but with shakespeare it's not a common occurence and i think that they've been able to show their comparisons with bush, condi, colin, iraq. i think that is impressive. and more power to them.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#20
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:22pm
Munk, what I meant was that in *trying* to reinvent Shakespeare and make it more modern, director (or another member of the creative team) may make some choices that work fabulously and others that just don't work at all.
Of course there is no specific right or wrong. Personaly, I am excited to see new takes on old plays. Simply stating that in trying to do so it might not work to well.
Maybe "error" was the wrong word.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#21
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:23pm
OK but a play about Romans in modern dress does not do it for me.
Not even Julie Taymor's brilliant reimagining of TITUS ANDRONICUS, which married decaying antiquity with modernism in a fantastical, netherworldly fascist Rome? That's a vision of a theatrical Rome I'd like to visit again.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#22
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:24pmBut you really can't "reinvent" Shakespeare...it is what it is. This revival played with the setting to make it modern, but they don't look at it as being revelatory, groundbreaking, or one of a kind - they know it's been done before...
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#23
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:27pmI wasn't talking about this specific production. It sounded like the revival MacBeth Mr Roxy saw tried to do so. I was simply saying that while sometimes it can be done well, in the wrong hands it could be done horribly.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#24
Posted: 4/3/05 at 9:33pmJust, for the record, I completely get what TGIF was getting at.
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
Videos
