Julius Caesar reviews — Page 3

Rave for Denzel from Reuters/Hollywood Reporter:

Theatre Review: Julius Caesar

By Frank Schreck

"There are some movie stars who return to stage only to founder, their legit chops having been withered away by years in front of the camera. Happily, such is not the case with Denzel Washington, now making a triumphant Broadway appearence as Brutus in William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar".

The play, which surprisingly has not been produced on the Great White Way for more than half a century, offers a wealth of meaty roles, and Washington and his fellow excellent players make the most of them in Daniel Sullivan's sturdy, if not exactly revalatory staging of Julius Caesar.

Washington, who last trod the boards in a 1990 Central Park production of Richard III, delivers a performance of searing intensity and physicality as the most tormented of Caesars betrayers. Speaking the language with naturalistic ease, and projecting to the back of the house without apparent effort, he gives a robust performance, well tailored to the stage, while at the same time melding seamlessly into the ensemble. The effect is to make one regret that the actor, who is greeted with screams from adoring fans upon his entrance, had stayed away for so long"

Rest of the review at this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050404/review_nm/review_stage_caesar_dc_1

Updated On: 4/4/05 at 05:49 AM

Summary of review: Rave for Denzel from the New York Post (with reservations).Likes the ambition of the play, but thinks some of the performances let it down. Practically hates all the other performaces, except for Denzel, Feore and Willis. Praises Denzel, who he says, outacts Mark Anthony (Eammon Walker), "carries the burden" of the production, and is at times magnificent, but sometimes too modest.

New York Post

Julius Caesar review: 2 and a half stars



By Clive Barnes

Brutus, as Mark Anthony almost endlessly assures us, is a "an honorable man", and Denzel Washington plays him as a man of conflicted honor and slow smouldering moral purpose.

Washington plays him and wins, in this production at the Belasco theatre-but rather narrowly.

Daniel Sullivans confident staging of Shakespeares Julius Caesar, which virtually enshrines this deliberately bashful star performance, is in modern dress.

Read the full review at:

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/42163.htm


The reviews for this thing are really all over the place. I've seen a number of reviews that call Eammon Walker by far the worst thing in the play, yet the Washingtion Post singles Walker out as the best thing in it. Are these people all watching the same play?

Updated On: 4/4/05 at 07:07 AM

Yeah. Er. Would love to see Denzel in action but I could never manage to sit through JC without wanting to sob from boredom.

---

Plum: Critics tend to make note of a lot of Hollywood actors previous stage experience (Pacino, Kelsey Grammer, ect) and how they had "high hopes" for them on the basis of said stage past, before they proceed to try and eviscerate them. Acknowleding his theatrical past doesn't really convince me (and is actually a standard convention), because a lot of big Hollywood stars who got their asses handed to them for coming back to the stage, weren't stage novices.

I'm not saying schadenfreude is involved in all the unflattering reviews, but a few seemed too gratuitously happy to rip into Washington. Most seem to think he's pefrectly Ok in the role (acting in the service of the ensemble, and not overpowering the play), or pretty good. With the usual schadenfruede levels involved in this type of production/star vehicle, it could have been much, much worse.

But I can definitely see him getting across the board raves in London, considering he's getting a fair bit of measured praise in between the negativity. Therin lies the difference between New York and the West End. London critics don't temper their enthusiasm just because the main player is a movie actor. In fact, I think it's a plus in London to go from film to stage.

Updated On: 4/4/05 at 08:53 AM

Jackman starred in an extremely camp musical. Those sort of productions are almost seen as lightweight, and within the range of a "movie star" performer (as opposed to a "serious actor"). It sounds patronising, but if Jackman had attempted a serious dramatic play onstage, I don't think he'd have gotten very far (especially coming off the back of VAN HELSING. LOL!).

Serious drama is another beast entirely. If you're a big time Movie actor, and you dare to come down from Mt Olympus (aka, Hollywood Hills) to attempt Pinter, Hare or Shakespeare, you're very unlikely to be welcomed with open arms. All alleged deficiences in your work will be put down to your years of "movie acting".

Nicole Kidman went to London and got stupendous raves for her stage performance in David Hare's THE BLUE ROOM. If she'd have opened on Broadway first, she'd never have got that reception (dare I say it, she probably would have been severely panned, simply because of what she represents). When Kidman transferred to Broadway, the raves weren't quite as enthusiatic, but the broadway critics had to give her raves, because the London critics had spoken first. They'd probably she rather wasn't there at all.

It's a sad, vicious cycle. If I was a good, major movie actor, I wouldn't even bother doing a serious play on Broadway. It's almost always a waste of time. Schadenfreude in their bloodstream, and they can't get rid of it. London isn't some perfect mecca, but at least you know you're likely to get a fair shake.

Updated On: 4/4/05 at 09:11 AM

Scrumpyjack, have you seen the show yet? It seems a bit hasty to dismiss criticism as schadenfreude if you haven't any legitimate basis for grounding your own opinion of the performance.

Also, there shouldn't be any sense of "how dare Mr. Washington come down from his Hollywood Mt. Olympus to play Shakespeare" since he's already done Shakespeare. I think of Washington as a talented Shakespearean actor, but his performance as Brutus was not, in my opinion, on par with what I think he's capable of.