Julius Caesar reviews- Page 3
Julius Caesar reviews
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#50
Posted: 4/4/05 at 5:49am
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
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#51
Posted: 4/4/05 at 6:10am
There seems to be a touch of contemptuous, barely disguised, "who do you think you are, Mr Big Hollywood star" schadenfreude in some of these reviews (especially the theatremania/talkingbroadway ones), which was probably to be expected. I think Denzel's performance is getting overanalysed and nitpicked in a way that wouldn't happen for a less stellar player (but that's just my opinion).
Still, compared to how they did their best to murder Pacino's performance as Richard III, Washington is getting a remarkably decent reception so far. He's gonna get some mixed reviews, a few predictable "how dare this movie star attempt Shakespeare" reviews, and some rave reviews (basically, a wide spectrum of reviews, with no seeming consensus). Certainly can't fault Washingtion for accepting a big challenge, especially knowing how contemptuous many Broadway critics are about movie stars tackling Shakespeare, but I think he'd carry less Hollywood baggage with him if he'd done this production in the West End. Alternative Shakespeare productions are very much in vogue right now in London (ie, there's a pretty excellent production of Macbeth as an African, voodoo practicing Warlord that was on recently), and the schadenfreude element for movie stars tackling difficult stage roles is far lower. I'm pretty sure that's why Kevin Spacey set up camp in the London theatre scene, instead of trying to conquer Broadway.
Updated On: 4/4/05 at 06:10 AM
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#52
Posted: 4/4/05 at 7:07am
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
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#53
Posted: 4/4/05 at 7:30amYeah. Er. Would love to see Denzel in action but I could never manage to sit through JC without wanting to sob from boredom.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#54
Posted: 4/4/05 at 7:30amYeah. Er. Would love to see Denzel in action but I could never manage to sit through JC without wanting to sob from boredom.
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#55
Posted: 4/4/05 at 8:32amI disagree, scrumpyjack. The tone of a lot of the reviews seemed to me like they were trying to find things to like about Washington's performance, but ended up disappointed. I really don't think that anti-movie star schadenfreude comes in when so many of the reviews respectfully note his stage experience before saying he doesn't work out in this production.
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#56
Posted: 4/4/05 at 8:53am
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
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#57
Posted: 4/4/05 at 8:54am
More hype leads to higher expectations, and greater disappointment when said expectations aren't met. But that didn't seem to hurt Hugh Jackman.
Updated On: 4/4/05 at 08:54 AM
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#58
Posted: 4/4/05 at 9:11am
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
Joined: 12/31/69
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#59
Posted: 4/4/05 at 9:59am
Anyway, another Rave for Denzel, from USA Today.
Summary Of Review: The reviewer says Denzel brings more physical charisma to Brutus than probably any other interpretation of the role. Delivers a vigourous and entirely credible performance. Gives equal praise to Hecht, Sadler and Willis. Not convinced by Colm Feore, and pretty much pans Eammon Walker. Thinks Daniel Sullivans staging of the play is muscular but flawed. Gives it 2 and a half out of 4 stars.
Link:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/theatre/reviews/2005-04-03-denzel-washington-brutus_x.htm
Updated On: 4/4/05 at 09:59 AM
Understudy Joined: 3/31/05
can it become an event, still, even though it's SRO#60
Posted: 4/4/05 at 3:36pm
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.
Videos
