2017 Shakespeare in the Park- Page 2

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 9:41am

This was a real bummer for me. I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Marvel and Corey Stoll and I've always been intrigued by the moral complexity of Caesar as a play. This production wastes all of that and then some by bending itself into Oskar Eustis's morally detestable "concept." This is not Shakespeare's JULIUS CAESAR. It's Eustis's DONALD TRUMP. Yep. Down to the stupid combover and the Slovenian wife and the gilt bathtub. He even grabs a p*ssy and mocks a reporter. It doesn't get more eye-roll-inducing than that. Oh no wait! It does! But I don't want to spoil any of that for you sad souls who want to subject yourselves to this kind of Liberal back-patting propaganda. And I AM Liberal!

The biggest reason this production fails so spectacularly is that CAESAR is, arguably, not about him at all. It's Brutus's story. But the concept leaves no room for any ambiguity in anyone's actions. Caesar is terrible and must be overthrown, without question. But then he dies, and the concept completely falls apart. Suddenly the play becomes not about Trump, but about police brutality? By about halfway through the show, you entirely forget Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Anthony are there because everything they're saying is bent so out of shape to fit the concept, it's as if they're doing another play entirely.

I had to go to the bathroom about 15 minutes before the end and could have gone back to my seat, but decided it wasn't worth it. I had seen everything I needed to see: a play directed with such an irresponsible, heavy-handed agenda, it could have been staged by a pretentious undergrad. Even the physical staging is hideous, with construction site walls and giant half-arches and everything directed almost exclusively to the center of the audience.

I'm fine with making Shakespeare topical. He was a remarkably prescient playwright and there's so much in his texts to dig into that applies to our present. But it's an insult to our collective intelligence to not let us make those connections ourselves. We don't need to see Caesar literally as Trump to know that men with dictatorial tendencies have an air of the Donald. Plus, there's something about seeing your sitting President murdered on stage that doesn't sit right, no matter how you feel about him.

Updated On: 5/24/17 at 09:41 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 10:18am

Note that I can only speak of the production as it was at the final dress (which was, unusually for a park production, an almost full audience- for reasons I will detail later) so my specific critiques may not be applicable if things have been changed.

This production should just be retitled Donald Trump. Or rather, Oskar Eustis Presents: Donald Trump. For Julius Caesar is explicitly rendered as Trump: in looks, in speech, in physicality. He grabs a ****, he mocks a disabled person, he sneers at the press, his wife is an Eastern European fashion plate- there is even a reference to murdering people on 5th Ave. It is a base caricature of Trump. And by making this choice, it throws the entire play off-balance.

It turns the first third of the play into something approaching a comedy, as its ridicule of Trump is so overt and constant. Things get laughs of recognition- no more so than when Calpurnia speaks with Melania's accent. The specter of Trump consumes everything. But then he is bloodily assassinated- and even if you detest Trump, as I do, seeing the depiction of a bloody assassination of a sitting president feels exploitive.

And depicting Caesar in such a base way robs the assassination of ambiguity. Who can believe that Brutus alone is high-minded amongst the conspirators when their target is so irredeemable and inept?

This issue extends to Mark Anthony, who in this production turns the death of Caesar into a martial law power grab and, it is implied, forges Caesar's will to win over the citizens.

Indeed, following the famous funeral speeches, the production quickly loses its footing. As the play moves along toward battles, the parallels between Shakespeare and the present become fuzzier and even nonsensical. Mark Anthony and Octavius apparently command the police, while Brutus apparently leads unarmed citizen protestors- the battle scenes go about as well as one can imagine between the two groups. It is very unclear why these two sides are battling- and who the sides are, exactly. It becomes so undefined and unspecific that the production just becomes incoherent.

The explicit rendering of Caesar as Trump also confuses the role of many of the other characters. Whereas Caesar and Calpurnia are unambiguously Trump and Melania, everyone else's place in the world of the play is unclear. Are Brutus and Cassius just senators, or members of the cabinet? More confusingly, who is Mark Anthony? In her first scenes, Elizabeth Marvel wears an American flag jump suit like an Olympic athlete and warms up the crowd. But then later, she is professionally dressed and speaks with a specific Southern twang and seems to be in charge of, well, everything. What role does this character play in the Caesar administration, exactly? By demanding the audience to identity Caesar as Trump, Eustis implicitly asks the audience to make more real-world connections to the other characters- connections that aren't there.

 The production itself is huge and busy- a sequence sees many, many members of the surprisingly large ensemble in the audience (hence the need for an audience at the final dress). The set is several scaffolding towers, multipurpose barricade/walls, and two large turning structures that resemble quartered gears or the interior view of the Capitol dome. Shockingly, Eustis stages much of the action directed to the center sections of the Delacorte; I was sitting in the off-center area and there were several scenes and moments I could not see.

The performances are all good- but the production doesn't highlight them. It consumes them. This is about Eustis' vision. But the vision is heavy-handed to the point of smothering. The concept strangles everything- and since the concept itself only really works for the pre-assassination scenes, you're left with a play that is strangled into lifelessness. Eustis presses his vision onto the play and commits a grievous directorial sin: not letting the play speak for itself.

If the goal is to do a provocative play that mocks Trump and shows his death, then goal met. But if the goal was to do a successful production of Julius Caesar, then it is a total failure.

 

Updated On: 5/24/17 at 10:18 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 11:24am

Thanks for the early reports. I love Caesar, and now have no desire or need to see it.

[NYactor85]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 11:32am

The performances are solid, the edit is perfect length,  the set is really cool (kind of looked like the DC Metro at certain times). The Trump stuff, if massaged, may be ok at best. But it needs a good massage.

 

Although Calpurnia's monologue works as Melania, shockingly well

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 12:10pm

"Although Calpurnia's monologue works as Melania, shockingly well"

It does. But I think that's more a testament to (the sadly underused) Tina Benko's performance beneath that caricature. Her first appearance is one line long and is no more than a sight gag.

Nearly all of the performances are very strong and I'd love to see them in a production, even a differently directed Oskar Eustis production, worthy of their talents. Gregg Henry is the only one who comes away looking poorly. Maybe he was directed to display nothing but crassness and a limp imitation of Trump, but he does nothing to rise above that.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 12:48pm

Wow it sounds a bit heavy-handed.  They should let the work speak for itself.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 12:49pm

tobiasragg said: "Does the artistic leadership at the Public not believe that the educated liberal upper/middle class audiences that Shakespeare in the Park draws would not be able to make their own comparisons to our current sh*tstorm world?"

My thoughts exactly! Putting up a production of Julius Caesar in mid-2017 inherently sets up some pretty overt allusions. This production sounds like it isn't a one which alludes, but one which force-feeds, and that sounds terrible to me.

[richsmo]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 1:27pm

So sad.

And stupid. The Public received $100,000 from the NEA last year for Shakespeare in the Park. I'd honestly rather watch doggie hamlet.

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 1:38pm

richsmo said: "So sad.

And stupid. The Public received $100,000 from the NEA last year for Shakespeare in the Park. I'd honestly rather watch doggie hamlet."

Do you think this one production means they don't deserve it or will get denied the money? Sometimes Shakespeare in the Park is a miss- it happens. 

[richsmo]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 2:45pm

I agree that it can be a miss, and that's fine. Tempest two years ago was a huge disappointing miss, whereas I loved the recent Coriolanus and last year's Shrew. Even with the little stand-up routine in the middle.

I don't want to hijack the thread to talk about the NEA, funding for the arts, etc. My point was that if you are going to play by government rules and apply for non-trivial amounts of money, then why produce a bloody political cartoon? The Delacorte is the new SNL sound stage? There was so much potential here; Shakespeare's characters are complex, with multiple, often competing motivations -- that is exactly what we need Shakespeare for now, as much as ever. Why put all the effort into portraying the assassination of a sitting president? (Did you know that it's illegal to suggest or encourage such an act? Why even walk that tightrope?)

I don't understand the response of the artistic community to Trump's presidency. If there's one thing we need, it's for the artistic community to reach out to Trump and his administration. Pence comes to Hamilton and he gets a lecture?? The NEA gives you $100,000 and you contort Shakespeare into your sick fantasy of the president getting assassinated?? What's wrong with you people? We need our leaders to be emotionally deep, receptive, sensitive people. To do that, we need to invite them into our theaters and art houses. We need to show them that we contribute to the moral fabric and emotional life of society, that the theater is a home for collaboration and that it offers a vision of the future where diverse people can find common ground.

[KillingTime]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 2:54pm

I've yet to see this production, but I plan on doing so later this week. Many friends, along with the reviews on here, have shared their opinions and I just feel as if the whole thing feels supremely lazy.

Ultimately, it's a safe choice. I feel as though Eustis felt that people would eat it up. Let's be honest, crapping on 45 is the in thing at the moment, especially in the younger, social media educated generation. Perhaps Eustis thought people wouldn't speak out against the production because it's what they want to see, or perhaps they don't want to say a mockery of Trump (which we have established this is) is bad. 

Theatre and politics should go hand in hand. We currently have the exciting, topical "Building the Wall" playing at New World Stages, which I have tickets for this weekend. I just feel as if a line was crossed here and it doesn't seem to be paying off here. BUT, I do think the public, especially the younger generation, who has the opportunity to see some of Broadway's best thanks to the wonderful Public, will love it and eat it up. I'm excited to see this production and will be sure to report on any changes made when I have the opportunity to catch it! 

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 4:22pm

I suppose I always thought that theater was supposed to raise questions and make people think through both sides of an issue. If slinging mud at Trump is your thing, you don't have to go to Shakespeare to see it. Sad because the play is actually subtle in so many ways when it is not turned into a one-sided joke. And yes- a political assassination is exactly the kind of tasteless theatrical spectacle that encourages people to take money away from public support for the arts. Eustis has played right into the hands of those who say it is a waste of taxpayer money. Hubris -

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 6:10pm

Well, I'm disappointed to hear this probably won't be the best introduction to Julius Caesar but I'm still interested in seeing Tina Benko as a Melania stand in. How are Eisa Davis and Nikki M. James? 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/24/17 at 7:51pm

Eisa Davis unfortunately is in a role that barely registers, likely because of the cuts, though I'm not overly familiar with the text. Nikki James is very good, but she's really only in one scene. Thankfully, it's one that stands out because it has a great monologue and isn't mired by any conceptual crap.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 11:34am

"whereas I loved the recent Coriolanus"

 

Do you mean Cymbeline? SITP hasn't had a Coriolanus recently.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 11:39am

They are probably referencing Red Bull's recent production of Coriolanus, which opened just prior to the election:

"With the cast members wearing contemporary clothes — conservative suits or slouchy casual wear, depending on their class — the time, clearly, is now; the place, America. This is hardly an unusual approach for Shakespearean productions in any season, but “Coriolanus,” a late tragedy, exposes the dangerous rifts in the newly republican, deeply divided and highly stratified Roman society that ultimately led it to the brink of violent collapse."

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 11:43am

I know about that prod, but they were responding to the post that SITP can be a miss.

[richsmo]

Posted: 5/25/17 at 11:58am

Thanks for the correction - yes, I was referring to Cymbeline. But Red Bull's Coriolanus was fun also -- saw it on election night actually, so that was a memorable evening all around.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/28/17 at 8:48am

I saw this last night. I was going to make a big long post about my feelings, but Kad's review of the show sums up most of my feelings very nicely. 

I actually don't have a moral issue with this concept, personally. I like the idea of making this play about modern politics. The big problem is consistency, and as Kad out of, the lack of balance. The one that bothered me the most was the protestors. Clearly they are referencing the liberal, anti-trump movement, yet in Julius Caesar they are protesting Caesar's (Trump's) assassination. I was also very underwhelmed by Elizabeth Marvel as Antony. John Douglas Thompson is an excellent actor, but struck me as miscast here. I was sad to see Corey Stoll was out of the show, but Robert Gilbert was very good as Brutus. 

In addition to the misguided execution of the concept, I found the production itself kind of dull, this some exceptional moments. But then, this is the 3rd production of Julius Caesar I've seen in the last 6 months, so maybe I'm just sick of it. 

Weirdly, what impressed me the most was the sound design. They used sound very effectively to give us a sense of where we were, and what was happening. It had a grounding effect that the physical staging lacked. 

Updated On: 5/28/17 at 08:48 AM

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 5/30/17 at 12:02am

I attended tonight's performance and found it thought provoking and fascinating. Stroll's Brutus and Marvel's Antony were marvelous. While, yes, the Trumpian tones were clearly at the foreground of this production, I found it very interesting to experience as an audience member. I didn't see the senate murders as liberals but rather members of his own party at times. (Possible allusion to the future of the US?) Yes, comments like "5th Avenue" and Trump's handshake were enjoyable and forced, but delightful. I found this production to have balls - and we see a pair, too.

Of the last four shows I've seen in the past few weeks, three have been intermissionless. I like this. The continuation of the performance tonight had quite the positive impact. Cast members disguised as audience members, a bleeding-heart liberal New York cityscape outside the theatre, a modern era Washington scene, members of House of Cards, Homeland, and Scandal up on stage - you can't help but wonder about how often we, as audience members and Americans, witness political events from afar. And tonight I felt like I was a part of the action. Especially when the guns turned on the audience in the final 10 minutes. In my 150+ performances attended throughout New York City in the last decade, I've never had an experience like the guns turned on me. An image I'll clearly remember.

Is this production perfect? No. Its flaws are clear but forgivable. The performances are stellar. I praise Marvel again. The concept is strong. Caesar is a political tragedy with the impact to make the audience think and consider. This production does just that.

[Andre4]

Posted: 5/31/17 at 10:28pm

This is my first time trying to get a ticket to this for Saturday night. I am planning to do the TodayTix lottery but I am unsure whether to go to the in-person lottery at the Public theater or the line at the Delacorte at noon. Any advice? I assume that Saturday night will be a full house! 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/31/17 at 10:33pm

Andre4 said: "This is my first time trying to get a ticket to this for Saturday night. I am planning to do the TodayTix lottery but I am unsure whether to go to the in-person lottery at the Public theater or the line at the Delacorte at noon. Any advice? I assume that Saturday night will be a full house! "

For what it's worth, I went to the in-person Public lotto this past Saturday, and most of the people there got in. I'd estimate there were about 70 people there, and they probably gave away something like 50 tickets. It's pretty good odds. Much better odds than the TodayTix lotto. Plus if you lose you can always then go to the standby line and still have a decent chance of getting in. 

 

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 6/2/17 at 1:46pm

richsmo said: "I'd honestly rather watch doggie hamlet."

Hey, that actually sounds pretty cool. Cast a Great Dane in the lead role?

 

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 6/2/17 at 1:52pm

I saw it last night and thought it was just okay. The sound design is indeed excellent. The Trump stuff is shoehorned in, and it probably lessens the impact of the play. I also thought Corey was a bit bland as Brutus.

One thing that did surprise me was the audience reaction to one of the scenes:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Caesar's full-nude scene when he steps out of a bathtub got a big "oooooh" and lots of murmurs from a big chunk of the audience. Were there really that many people there who had never seen a nude scene onstage before?

 

[Kad]

Posted: 6/2/17 at 2:17pm

I think the reaction had more to do with who it was.