by Prof. James Shapiro, Columbia University (Published in the New York Times, June 13, 2017)
https://nyti.ms/2sjVz8Z
When Shakespeare wrote “Julius Caesar,” he did so at a time when England was deeply anxious about its political future. There had been threats against the monarch’s life, and since nobody knew who would succeed the childless queen, civil war was a real possibility. In taking on Caesar, Shakespeare decided to confront the most divisive and provocative political question of the day: Under what circumstances is it justified to depose a tyrant?
As long as politicians resemble Caesar and as long as their opponents seek to justify their overthrow, “Julius Caesar” will continue to matter. It’s too bad Delta Air Lines and Bank of America don’t see it that way.
In the wake of fierce criticism of the current Manhattan production of the play, which opened Monday night at Central Park’s Delacorte Theater as part of the Public Theater’s free Shakespeare in the Park festival, they withdrew their financial support. Why? Because the production features a distinctly Trumpian Caesar, down to his golden bathtub.
In doing so, they have proved more sensitive than even Queen Elizabeth I. “I am Richard II, know ye not that?” she famously remarked around 1601. Yet the queen pointedly refused to pull her support for Shakespeare’s company, which continued to perform at court, or even for that play, though “Richard II” had been staged on the eve of an uprising against her near the end of her reign.
America has been producing bold and timely interpretations of “Julius Caesar” since before its founding. A production in Philadelphia in 1770 was the first in a long line that celebrated the conspirators as heroes, foregrounding the “noble struggles for Liberty by that renowned patriot Marcus Brutus.” When Edwin Booth, the greatest American actor of the 19th century, staged it in New York in 1871, he too saw it as a play about “a noble past which shamed a decadent present.” Orson Welles’s landmark production at New York’s Mercury Theater in 1937 — subtitled “The Death of a Dictator” — pushed this anti-Caesar case even further, helping draw the nation’s attention to the looming threat of fascism, most memorably in a long cut scene in which Cinna the Poet, an innocent man out for a walk, is beaten to death by security forces.
More recently, a 2012 production at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis modeled its Caesar on Barack Obama. Now, Donald Trump takes his turn as the tyrant.
But to assume — as critics attacking the play seem to have done, I suspect without having seen more than a photograph — that the Central Park production is simply anti-Caesar ignores the nuance of director Oskar Eustis’s vision. Anyone who sits through the final scene will see the consequences of deposing the tyrant: The brutality of the victors, Antony and Octavius, is far worse than that of Caesar. This production, for which I served as a consultant, makes it clear that their conspiracy, however well intended, will destroy the possibility of democracy in the West for 2,000 years.
If anyone would have understood the current controversy, it would be Shakespeare himself. In his time, there was always someone taking offense, wanting a name changed or a line cut, demanding that the players be rounded up and thrown in prison. We now call the comic star of “Henry the Fourth” Falstaff rather than Oldcastle because an influential power broker complained about it, and Shakespeare’s company’s “Tragedy of Gowrie,” about a failed assassination attempt on the life of King James was censored and closed after two sold-out performances.
I write this on a day in which President Vladimir Putin of Russia ordered the arrest of protesters, many of them just teenagers, who dare to articulate their political opposition to him — a scene that is eerily anticipated at the opening of “Julius Caesar” in Central Park. It is the mark of a tolerant society that we don’t try to shut down the expression of words or viewpoints that some might find disagreeable, least of all Shakespeare’s, whose works we all share.
We rely on newspapers to learn what is happening in the world. But we turn to productions of Shakespeare to make sense of it. It’s why people flocked to the Globe in 1599 — and why I hope they will rush to the Delacorte.
Professor James Shapiro’s analysis of the response to the recent Delacorte production of Julius Caesar is really fascinating. I especially admire his conclusion regarding the importance of protest and the ability to express discontent. It reminds me of a quote by John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Martin Luther King Jr referred to this quote in his own speech Beyond Vietnam. I thoroughly agree with Shapiro’s assessment in this regard, because without the peaceful means of expression that we do have, such as theater, then what is left? Censorship, violence, and tyranny. Using Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to work through the political status of our country is a valid approach. I also understand why many were upset by the implications of using a Trump figure. However, I agree with Shapiro that these people unfortunately do not understand what this play is actually about. It is not meant to incite the murder of a person in power, but to warn against the consequences of doing so. In this way, Julius Caesar actually works in favor of not an overbearing government or radical revolutionists, but in favor of the voice of the people.
I am happy to have Shapiro’s perspective about what was intended by the characterization of Caesar in the production. To hear from someone who worked on the production saying that the intention was to highlight the damage brought by the assassination and the death of Democracy in the West helps me to understand why the backlash against the play was unfounded. However, Shapiro avoids discussing the way the production team and the show feel about Donald. I reject the possibility of a play which deliberately portrayed its titular character as a Donald figure has no opinion on the person himself. Is the play pro-Donald because of its demonetization of the assassination effort? The play appears to have a lot to say about the resistance against Donald, but not much to say about him. To me, it appears oblivious and, ironically, uncontroversial to avoid making that comment.
This was a very interesting read, and Shapiro brought to light a lot of issues that we, as modern day people, didn’t know about. He mentions how Shakespeare could relate to the way in which people are offended nowadays, and I thought to myself, “but how? Things are so different nowadays than they were back then.” And then I continued reading his next sentence and I was shocked. Why would you close a play if it sold out twice? A movie came out a few years ago called “The Interview” and if I recall correctly, it never made it into theaters because so many were offended by it. Should we really censor every little thing because people are offended? I think many are failing to see the point of Julius Caesar, and that’s why they were offended by the play in the park, because they’re misinterpreting the meaning. It’s not about the death of a dictator, it’s a warning to not do so.
The blurb about Putin really bothered me. I understand it’s another country, but I guess it bothered me because I thought about the very apparent opposition of our leader. Would arrests be made here if the same thing happened? I can almost bet my life on it, because our leader isn’t fond of anyone who doesn’t like him, or doesn’t believe in the same things he does.
I think one thing I have really come to appreciate Shakespeare for is his refusal to shy away from controversial subjects. Anything that may seem taboo—politics, racism, suicide, cross-dressing, homosexual relationships, the murder of children, etc.—has been done in his plays. Shakespeare always managed to explore polarizing subjects in his work, but without taking a clear-cut side—instead allowing readers to come to conclusions on their own. This also goes for his play, “Julius Caesar.”
As Shapiro noted, Shakespeare produced “Julius Caesar” at a vulnerable in Great Britain and essentially begged the question, “Under what circumstances is it justified to depose a tyrant?” (Shapiro). Even so, Queen Elizabeth continued to support Shakespeare’s company. But now, in 2017, a Manhattan production of the play that features Caesar as a Trump-like character has lost a lot of its financial support. Why could the Queen continue to endorse the play then, but certain companies are too afraid to now?
I think we could chalk it up to the sensitivity of society today and we could say society tries harder not to offend anyone, but I am not sure I believe that is true. I think today, society is too afraid to address controversial topics out of fear of negative backlash—a selfish fear. And so with this Trumpian production of Caesar, we have artists who are boldly using a classic play to navigate through themes of conspiracy and democracy today. I find this admirable. As for the companies who pulled their support, I find them cowardly. I think the Delacorte Theater production is onto something. As a society, we should back any form of expressive, non-violent art that looks to address today’s current issues.
I really appreciated this blog with its historical critical lens. What enticed me the most was the mention of Elizabeth’s reaction to Julius Caesar, in comparison to the more sensitive Trump supporters in our modern times. Also, Elizabeth’s reaction reopened my eyes to how daring Shakespeare’s plays were during the times. Regarding the continuation of implementing modern politicians and presidents into the characters of Julius Caesar, I wonder how critics would take if, say, Brutus’s character was played by a woman, such as Hillary Clinton. Oh, the controversy! However, I think it would be incredibly interesting, if not provoking violence or civil war.
This article captures Shakespeare’s continued influence hundreds of years later. We always hear how history is cyclical, or “doomed” to repeat itself. Yet, as Professor Shapiro says, Queen Elizabeth did not withdraw her support of Richard II, even as it played during uprisings against her. So when corporations like Bank of America and Delta Airlines take away their financial support of Shakespeare in the Park, it’s a political statement that speaks volumes. Not only are they withholding funds to a production that provides free access to Shakespeare for people who may not otherwise get a chance to see it, they’re making their political biases known and thus dividing their own customer base. It’s very disturbing that the arts continue to be de-funded and taken away throughout the country but I have to hope that, as history is cyclical, it can be redeemed.