idc i’m considering this as read i only had two acts left

Read it for a school assignment so yeah....

I read this for school

I feel I have got more out my readings this time. It is an interestingly rhetorical play (hence, possibly, the many quotes ones knows from it). The set pieces are magnificent and it is more a play of declamation than dialoguic interaction. This was the Rome of Shakespeare's imagination and is not unlike that of Coriolanus.
Thinking of it as either the tragedy of Brutus or a History of Rome gives one a better feel for the play too. Caesar is set up as a potentially tragic figure (with common enough human traits) only for his death not to be tragic. He dies because of the beliefs, thoughts, envy, etc of fellow Romans and Brutus, as a tragic figure, is indeed deeply flawed. Vacillating, not quite stable (the two versions of the news of Portia's death show Shakespeare regarding him as a man who could go either way).
Superstition also plays an interesting role I hadn't noticed before. Lauded, castigated, condemned, finally cited as the cause of Brutus' suicide. There is no sign of this in Antony and Octavian and though they have their differences it is clear Octavian is the dominating character whereas the lack of cohesion between Cassius and Brutus contributes to their failure.

Consistently in the category of "Should Have Read By Now", I enjoyed this more than anticipated (at least more than Romeo and Juliet and my distant memories of Hamlet). Now I just need to think of ways to make it as exciting for 15 year olds.

The year is 44 BC, and Julius Caesar is steady consolidating control over Rome. Senators who were once the proud and independent leaders of the Republic now compete to curry favor with one man who has reserved power for himself. One man's insatiable ego and desire to be loved by the people, his disregard for the law on the quest for self-aggrandizement, and the elevation of boot-licking into a competitive sport; it's a reality that's familiar those observers of modern Trumpian politics.

Of course, much of this is only implied in Shakespeare's play. The extent of Caesar's transformation of Roman politics over the preceding 2 decades is background knowledge that the audience is expected to be aware of coming in. But knowing that, we can see why there are several Romans who feel that Caesar is an acute danger to the Republic. Chief among these is Cassius, who's really pretending to be concerned for the Republic to disguise his personal desire for power.

Meanwhile we have Brutus who is well-intentioned and sincere. He comes from one of the noblest families in Rome and shares the name of his ancestor who, tradition says, killed the last Roman king and tyrant Tarquin. When Cassius is finally able to persuade him to his cause, it lends enormous credibility to the plot. I don't think I am spoiling the story for anyone when I say that the plot succeeds, Julius Caesar is killed, and we get the famous "et tu brute?" scene.

The highlight of this play, though, is what happens afterward. Marc Antony, Caesar's closest friend and right-hand-man, delivers a speech at Caesar's funeral. The speech is a brilliant piece of rhetoric and one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. Initially, Antony faces a hostile audience, and promises to speak of Caesar only as a friend: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." But he slowly reminds the audience of their love for Caesar, and all that he did for them. He opens with a sincere-sounding statement that "Brutus is an honorable man," but as he repeats it several times throughout the speech, it becomes increasingly sarcastic as Antony slowly and subtly questions the motives of Brutus and Cassius. By the end, he's stirred up the mob into rioting and attacking the houses of the conspirators. This speech is delivered perfectly by Marlon Brando in the 1953 film adaptation; his emotional delivery brings to life Shakespeare's brilliant dialogue and in my view is a great illustration of why Shakespeare is so highly regarded in the Anglophone world.

After that, we jump in time to the battle of Philippi between Antony/Octavian on the one hand, and Brutus and Cassius on the other. This part of the play focuses especially on the latter two, and they turn more and more unlikable. Brutus's morals appears pretty self-serving. At one point he is angry at Cassius for not sending him money (presumably confiscated by loot/pillage) because,

"I can raise no money by vile means. By heaven, I had rather coin my hart and drop my blood for drachmas than to wring from the hard hands of peasants..."

In other words, "You do my dirty and immoral work for me, I'm too noble to do it myself."
Cassius on the other hand behaves like a little child, complaining several times to Brutus that, "You love me not." Both characters seem to crack from the strain of warfare. Ultimately, Brutus ends up being our tragic hero: manipulated by Cassius into murdering his friend Caesar, he even sees a ghost of his dead mentor, in the vein of Macbeth.

In some respects this is one of Shakespeare's most interesting tragedies, but it has the dubious distinction of being arguably the most complicated; as far as I know it takes place over the longest timespan of any other tragedy, and I think it suffers for it. I was also a bit disappointed in the absence of any meaningful female part, though I suppose that might be difficult to avoid when depicting Rome; the intolerance of women serving public roles is definitely historically accurate.

It's a bit presumptuous of me to review any Shakespeare play, especially when my review is less than fully positive. But Julius Caesar is a mixed play, with some of the Bard's best scenes but also some structural problems.

Perhaps some of those issues are to blame, but it was difficult to find many film adaptations. I also think we can blame the unfortunate decline in Classical education in American schools for ultimately failing to provide people with the background understanding necessary for enjoying this play. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't seen a theatrical film in over half a century. I certainly did not learn about Rome in any detail while in school, and would not have been well-positioned to read/view it then.

In spite of that, the aforementioned 1953 film with Marlon Brando is pretty good. It does cut out large portions of the play in the interest of making it a reasonable length for theatrical release. And obviously, 1953 makes it an old film (in black-and-white). But it's probably the best out there.

I also found the more recent 2015 film, which was filmed at the Globe Theater in London, a reconstruction of Shakespeare's original. The setting is pretty cool, and it certainly stays faithful to the written play, making it good for reading along. But I found the audience rather distracting, and the lack of any meaningful sets makes it difficult to follow what exactly is going on. It certainly has value, but it doesn't really work for a first or second time viewing of the play.

There's also a 1970 film which I have not yet seen. Though reviews appear to be very negative, so I'll probably avoid watching it. I will certainly update this review if I do.

Here's the thing about Shakespeare: even if I don't like a play that much I can't rate it under 3 stars because it's so beautifully written and mostly because who am I to give Shakespeare a bad rating. He literally invented many of the English words we use.

Shakespeare takes advantage of fantastic source material and gives us a cast of memorable characters that drive the beginning acts of the play. The murderous plotting of the conspirators and the moral ambiguity of their decision makes the play one of Shakespeare's best. However, the fourth and fifth act do not match the excitement or intrigue of the first three.

One of the most powerful of his plays. Yes, the characters are set in black and white in true Shakespearean style and there is no room for hman error, but therein lies the beauty and power of this drama.