Et tu?

I'm sure some of you expected a reaction to recent theatre news.  I do, after all, have degrees related to it.  First off, let me point out that I am meh on modernizations of the classics, but I have seen a few good ones.  I have also seen some bad "classical" interpretations.  In all cases, I can usually appreciate what a production is trying to do and I am always curious as to why X choices were made (that's the academic geek in me).  So, I try to take a production as it comes because there are sooooo many variations that can be created.

I understand the reaction to the newest NY interpretation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.  The production is anything but subtle from what I've read.  And we could argue a lot over it from multiple angles.  Do I think they shouldn't have done it?  No, experimentation is a big part of theatre.  Do I think that they shouldn't receive any backlash?  No.  After all, that too is a part of theatre.  How the company accepts that (i.e.responds) is completely their call.

See, here's the thing. . .theatre is momentary.  What the production essentially is poofs when the curtain closes.  It's like a birth, a wedding, a funeral.  For example, you may have other children, but you will never give birth to that exact child again.  Even within a production run, there can be small variations that make a showing unique.  And, even if a future production is somehow able to recapture key moments from a "famous" run we saw, how we see the new one will be colored by the life experiences that have happened between the productions (which is likely to be years).  That is both the joy and sorrow of theatre.  The joy of being in the moment of experience, but the sorrow after of knowing you will never have that moment again.

One of the hardest things for theatres to do is to "freshen" up a well known play (or musical).  Especially Shakespeare and the Greeks.  Oh, people may be more than happy to see a classical interpretation, but what exactly does that mean?  After all, even in the play's infancy, it most likely saw it's own variations of theatrical interpretation.  So, people might as well look around at their current world and see how they can make it live in the moment.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  Political, social, psychological interpretations. . .history is littered with them.

So, yes, there is a great deal of precedent for The Public Theater's production.  I figured someone would know.  Turns out that a Shakespearean scholar I've chatted with is an expert on the play's modern history.  He was interviewed by CNN about it so I waited until the article was published before writing this post.  The article does what I had hoped. . .summed up the why would the company do this and how it's been done before:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/12/media/julius-caesar-public-theater-shakespeare/index.html?platform=hootsuite

I am in no way saying that the visceral responses that have happened are wrong.  They are totally legit.  See Aristotle's Poetics if you doubt me.  But I did have skepticism about the repeated claim that, "The left would totally have freaked out if this had been Obama!"  "This would never have happened over the past eight years!"  I wondered, because something in my memory prickled that it had been done.  Or maybe I just assumed that because of even older productions.  And once I started searching, I found at least one production that did (I say "at least," because I have to wonder if there aren't smaller ones that normally wouldn't get any press outside of their local areas):

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/shakesblog/obamas-ides-of-march/

That's the review that other articles cite on the issue.  Here are some others that I found in the order they popped up and their interpretation of events:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Delta-Sponsored-2012-Guthrie-Theater-Season-Which-Featured-Obama-Inspired-Julius-Caesar-20170612

http://www.startribune.com/trump-themed-julius-caesar-is-talk-of-theater-world-unlike-2012-obama-version-in-twin-cities/427990033/

https://psmag.com/education/shakespeare-101-for-trumpkins  (note: I could do without the name calling here, but it makes some interesting references -- i.e. had examples -- that I didn't know)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uproar-over-trumped-up-julius-caesar-ignores-the-plays-actual-meaning_us_593e935fe4b0c5a35ca1334b

I find it interesting that the second and last ones both began with the words "Uproar Over."  Well, it is indeed that.  It does seem that the current production is way more bludgeoning than the 2012 one.  That's certainly not a choice I would make.  I prefer innuendo and sly winks.

In my search, I also found various general articles that linked Obama and (the real) Julius Caesar. This was one of the more interesting ones I found from a purely political analysis p.o.v.:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-stiehm/2014/11/04/betrayal-and-bloodshed-of-julius-caesar-echoes-obamas-plight

And so on.  There were such articles about Bush too.  If I had continued delving, I bet I could find more on other presidents.

At any rate, without actually seeing the show, I can't give a theatrical critique about it.  But I can say that I'm not surprised it exists.  I do think the timing is off.  Then again, when would be a good time?  Well, certainly not two weeks after the Kathy Griffin debacle (which I have a different opinion of).  But they had no way of knowing that their production would coincide with that.  So, go see the production or not.  It really comes down to being your choice.  That's the beauty of art -- we don't have to view it, agree with it (or each other on it), or even like it.