05. Julius Caesar (1962)

EVERY three or so years, we summon the Bard of Avon to honour the St. Nicholas stage; and on the 15th, 16th and 17th of March, 1962, the Dramatic Society presented Julius Caesar.

To some this may have seemed a very orthodox choice, but it is not by mere chance, or through any lack of originality, that Shakespeare's tragedy of Ancient Rome finds its way so regularly onto school stages. For of the Tragedies it is the best-suited to such production (and the Histories and Comedies have been represented here in previous years by Henry the Fourth and the extracts from A Midsummer Night's Dream): the subject of the play and the broad outline of the story, at least, are familiar to every schoolboy: the action of the play is straightforward and readily apprehensible, no part is inordinately long or impossibly demanding for a boy-actor, yet there are several which are very testing and rewarding: there is scope for numerous minor parts, and the opportunity to deploy a crowd; and the play has some excellent scenes and outstanding examples of Shakespeare's writing at its best. Here, then, for actors and school audience alike is a fine - one might say, essential - introduction to tragedy in general, and to Shakespeare's tragedy in particular. And the fact, that this play is read almost inevitably at some time in the classroom, makes the enterprise of producing it on the school stage the more worthwhile.

Let it not, however, be thought that such an enterprise is free of problems and difficulties. The precise aim of this play has been the subject of some discussion; and, however the producer decides such points, the emphases of the production have to be nicely balanced accordingly. Then the dramatic structure is not without some serious weakness which calls for skilful handling. And — to mention but one more consideration - the fact, that the play may be for many the first "live" introduction to the work of Shakespeare, brings its own responsibility.

In all these respects, this production succeeded well. It contrived to bring out the play's strong points rather than its weaknesses partly by means of some judicious editing and compression (in the latter half, especially), which left the finer scenes predominant. Characterizations within the play were mostly well harmonized, with the result that the action and interpretation were consistent and convincing. Duncan Rooke's Julius Caesar was well done; he realized for us both the proud self-assurance which aroused the enmity of men like Cassius, and some also of the strength and attractiveness of character which endeared Caesar to the common people and legionaries - no easy task. We would accept this Caesar as a very human being, without feeling that subsequent deification would be incongruous; too often stage Caesars suffer from premature divinity.

If Brutus, by comparison, seemed a somewhat pale figure, the fault was Shakespeare's as much as Victor Bryant's. The part is in many respects difficult and unsatisfying for the chief qualities of Brutus - patent honesty, integrity and good faith - can seem almost negative on the stage and are more keenly appreciated in their absence. Bryant displayed all these qualities — and at times with some positive forcefulness - but did not wholly accomplish the unenviable task of making Brutus appear truly "the noblest Roman of them all". But the fault was by no means all his, for one can only say (with apologies) that Brutus is not such stuff as tragic heroes are made on.

Malcolm Wilson's Antony was perhaps a little ambiguous in the characterization. The familiar guise of the political opportunist. seizing the chance to stir up popular frenzy by his irony and rhetoric, was somehow shrouded with an air of genuine concern, of sincere deliberation. If this was an intentional portrayal of Antony's skilful duplicity, it was well done — too well done, perhaps for the unscrupulous nature did not show through quite enough, and some of the pointed contrast with other characters was lost.

Deryck Cumming made an altogether excellent Cassius and gave the most rounded and mature performance of all. He had made the several facets of Cassius character truly his own - the long-brooded envy, the insidious venom, the underlying cringing cowardice - besides, incidentally, presenting a most "lean and hungry look". And, among a cast which was very good in this respect, he was outstanding in the easy, sensitive delivery of his lines.

Space will not allow mention here of all the many parts; the general standard of acting was high, and enjoyment was both given and obviously felt. The crowd, ably led by John Thompson, was vigorous and vociferous: there were times when one would have liked to see more of them when greater opportunities might perhaps have been given them for movement, éven beyond the proscenium arch. But this is a very slight (and maybe only private) criticism of a production which was very smooth and effective; the notoriously difficult assassination scene was particularly well managed. The set, pleasing to the eye, simple and adaptable, contributed greatly to that smoothness and effect. Nor should we forget the tireless skill which many a mater familias brought to the turning of a toga, we are most grateful to them as indeed we are to all who helped in every way with the production of this play.

For there is no doubt that this was an undertaking which for actors and audiences alike, brought alive -- and very attractively alive -- the Shakespeare met so often in the classroom and by this success in itself the choice and the hard work of the producers was most fully justified.

H.W.W.