“Shakespeare’s punch-by-punch, carefully sculpted, argument between an angry man and a better composed, also male, adversary” Do you mean this petty squabble?
CASSIUS When Caesar lived, he durst not thus have moved me.
BRUTUS Peace, peace! you durst not so have tempted him.
CASSIUS I durst not!
BRUTUS No.
CASSIUS What, durst not tempt him!
BRUTUS For your life you durst not!
The words are exactly the same. Why is it suddenly ‘over-emotional’ when performed by women? Why is it ‘shrill’? Would you consider all the female parts ‘shrill’ in Shakespeare’s day when performed by teenage boys?

Same here: “There’s a frequent mismatch between the masculine rhetoric and the female physical gestures and mannerisms.” What makes these words masculine? Because men have said them? Ariel is textually a man, can women no longer play him? Are his words masculine inherently? Are you about to complain that women playing women in Shakespeare don’t have the proper mannerisms of teenage boys?

“However, when Cassius and Brutus have their big row Charlotte Bate wails “You love me not,” in a very feminine way, she’s interpreting the line as a complaint by a woman abandoned by a lover” Why is it bad that she wails ‘in a very feminine way’? She is a woman. And I disagree – she’s not abandoned by a lover, she’s abandoned by a friend (I’ve never seen a Caesar with *less* tension between Cassius and Brutus). Why are the emotions and expressions of a masculine Cassius so much more tolerable than Bate’s?

“Mixed into that are some unsatisfactory loose ends, such as Brutus being in a same sex marriage. Interesting, nothing wrong with that, but where does it go in this production?” Why does it need to go anywhere? A ‘straight’ Brutus serves no more narrative purpose than a queer one. We don’t question why Portia is included at all, why a male Brutus is married to a woman: why should we wonder about a female Brutus and a female Portia? And with Cassius and Casca, while the tail end is dropped (why not have him die like the NTL Caesar?), the flirtation adds bite to Cassius’ monologue in the storm, rage to her first stab at Caesar, and a subtle addition to the theme of her affection-seeking that carries through this particular production. Well, that’s just an opinion.

Every other review of this production is full of subtle (and not-so-subtle) prejudice and I’m so sad reviews like this one have masked over any real criticism of the production. Time moves on. Julius Caesar is unscathed. Your (and my) beloved text has withstood 400 years of interpretation. I’m not quote-unquote cancelling this review. You’re still allowed to not like it. God knows I didn’t love it. But perhaps you should interrogate why, exactly, you can’t let a woman take up space in Shakespeare.

Hello Ed – thank you very much for the feedback. It’s good to know that others share your views. All the best, Bill.

Well, Bill, you and I are in complete agreement. Thank you for your comments. We both identified the strengths of this performance, and I said the same as you have indicated about the feminisation of the Brutus/Cassius roles. You say you are not a critic. Perhaps you should rethink that!

Marc Antony’s speech – Act III, Scene II – was a joy to behold! Samuel Oatley delivered it convincingly, with authority, and, of course, the writing is brilliant! Because that speech is so brilliantly written, it was not possible for the Director to ruin it in the same way that she ruined so much of the rest of the play.

But for my wife – who enjoyed the play – I would have left at the interval, and would have missed the best bit. It restored the role of Antony, briefly, to its rightful interpretation. I knew my perceptions were in trouble at the very beginning, when Marc Antony made his entrance as an open shirted, beer swilling yobbo. Things went further downhill, when I realised that Cassius and Brutus were being played by women. Cassius’ shrill, hysterical ravings were a reality away from the conniving, manipulative, masculine rivalry that, to me, seems necessary for verisimilitude. And, is it me? Or is anyone else totally fed up with the continual ‘Larry the Lamb’ tremulous voices that some actors (or directors?) seem to think is essential in order to convey emotion in Shakespearean productions? To my knowledge, Richard Burton didn’t ‘baa!’ when playing Shakespeare? The words ‘overacted’ and ‘ham’ are the ones that spring to mind in context with what I unfortunately witnessed yesterday.

I am not a theatre critic. I’m not an expert. I have never written my comments on any sort of dramatic production, and probably never will again. However, I thought yesterday’s performance was so wrong that, when presented with the opportunity, I felt obliged to write down what I think. I go to the theatre to be entertained. If there is a better reason for going, please explain it to me. I was not entertained by this interpretation of Julius Caesar. Quite simply, it was the worst theatrical production I have ever seen.

Absolutely agree with the comment above. Weak acting on the whole and the great Marc Antony oration one of the dullest addresses outside Slough! Good to watch how much some school-boys in the pit enjoyed being involved in the action though!