Julius Caesar discussion

Julius Caesar is rarely performed and the critics pretty much ignore it, but I just finished reading it and I think it is a beautiful tragedy. . . why does everyone say it's boring and overly political? Does anyone besides me even like it?

I do. :)

For some reason there are a lot of people who will label anything boring. Absolutely anything. You just have to discount that.

Julius Caesar is a very great work. Shakespeare put a lot of genius writing into it, whether it be metaphors ("let slip the dogs of war" ... "there is a tide in the affairs of men") or the art of persuasion. And he developed the characters superbly, especially of course the conflicted Brutus.

Shakespeare had a special talent for seeing the world from different perspectives, and that is on full display here. The art of persuasion is at its greatest rhetorical level here, first with Cassius ("The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars..."), then to some degree with Caesar ("Cowards die many times...") and then with the contrasting speeches when Brutus and Antony take their turns speaking to the crowd after the assassination.

Most writers can manage only one view with any convincing emotional force. Shakespeare could manage about as many as he wanted.

It is interesting to notice that while Antony is presented in Julius Caesar as something of a manipulative politician, Shakespeare then decided to portray him as a hot-tempered lover who could not govern his own passions in Antony and Cleopatra.

The experience of a piece of writing is made of two parts: the writing and the reading. The act of creation is only started with the writer, and consummated with the reader reading, rendering a collection of symbols on a page into something alive, real.

When people call something boring, it is often a reflection of themselves. They didn't have what it took to bring to the text, therefore the text is blamed. Difficult, or challenging, is not the same as boring.

That is not to say there aren't boring books, as anyone who's read a sociology textbook could attest.

I've always thought Julius Caesar was one of Shakespeare's most accessible plays. I wonder if the reason it's considered boring is because Julius Caesar doesn't command the same place in history that he used to. At one time there was Alexander and Caesar, and all rulers/kings compared themselves to them. Today, Caesar doesn't dominate history or politics. People reading/seeing the play now don't understand the aura he once had.

Like it? Fuck, I love it!

it's great - love it! what's to dislike? powerful characters, a well told story with its theme of betrayal so beautifully put across.

BoBandy wrote: "When people call something boring, it is often a reflection of themselves. They didn't have what it took to bring to the text, therefore the text is blamed. Difficult, or challenging, is not the same as boring."

Well put.

I like Julius Caesar; it's a wonderfully constructed literary achievement. That said, it might be so frequently overlooked simply because it doesn't tower quite so high as Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear.

Felix J. wrote: "BoBandy wrote: "When people call something boring, it is often a reflection of themselves. They didn't have what it took to bring to the text, therefore the text is blamed. Difficult, or challengin..."
Julius Caesar>Macbeth>>>>Hamlet>Romeo and Juliet.

Brooke wrote: "Julius Caesar>Macbeth>>>>Hamlet>Romeo and Juliet."

That’s an interesting hierarchy. I certainly won’t argue about the place given to Romeo and Juliet. I am curious to see where you would place King Lear on that list, as it is my favorite.

Also, I agree with Akovski. Seeing the circumstances from different character perspectives, and the blurring of lines between protagonist versus antagonist, makes Julius Caesar a fascinating play. However, this also may be one of the reasons that we don't see Julius Caesar performed as often as other plays; it requires a great deal of audience participation. A play like Macbeth, on the other hand, doesn't need to be understood to be enjoyed, as there are enough insanity murder/suicides to keep the attention of most anyone.

Because it is slightly boring.

Felix J. wrote: "Brooke wrote: "Julius Caesar>Macbeth>>>>Hamlet>Romeo and Juliet."

That’s an interesting hierarchy. I certainly won’t argue about the place given to Romeo and Juliet. I am curious to see where you ..."
I haven't read King Lear.
I forgot to include Othello, I'll do it now...
Julius Caesar>Macbeth>>>Othello>Hamlet>Romeo and Juliet.

BoBandy wrote: "The experience of a piece of writing is made of two parts: the writing and the reading. The act of creation is only started with the writer, and consummated with the reader reading, rendering a col..."

". . .often a reflection of themselves. . ." Very true, BoBandy. Or even worse: they'll label something boring just because they don't understand it.

I bet if Baz Luhrman filmed an adaption with a crop of young, good looking actors, Julius Caesar would experience a significant bump. Familiarity has a lot to do with accessibility of these plays. I can't imagine many folks even knew of Coriolanus until Ralph Fiennes took it to the screen with "Leonidas".

[On a side note, it's hilarious reading the Coriolanus reviews by fanboys on IMDB expressing their outrage at being hoodwinked by a trailer into watching a Shakespeare play ;)].

The Chicago Shakespeare Theater did a wonderful production last year and, in a great theater city, it was one of the best received productions of 2013.

When you ask, why don't people like it? I respond, it's Greek to me.

lol