NT Film: Romeo and Juliet (April 2021)

I've hesitated about writing this review. I prefer to assess a play rather than a film, and this was advertised to us as a film recorded in a theatre. Absolutely, theatrical elements are thrown at the viewer throughout the production, many of which I will enjoy discussing in this blog. Yet, the effect of a film, no matter how theatrical or Shakespearean, will always be different to the effect of live theatre.

For a start, the immediacy is changed. When watching a play, the audience has a real sense of this is happening now, even when watching a live broadcast (although this effect is best when you are in the audience next to the stage). With films however, we get a sense of this is pre-recorded. A great film will make it feel more immediate, but we always go into a film with the knowledge that there will be different angles, different takes, even different days all edited together to make up the version that we as viewers are presented with.

I realise this all sounds very biased and pro-theatre, even anti-film. I enjoy films as much as the next person, of course, and there are some films that just cannot be achieved on stage in the same way. I would even go as far to say that there are some Shakespeare films that are bloody fantastic and work better than some theatrical productions I have seen. But Shakespeare on film is difficult. It was written 300 years before the first film came out, and 400 years before the types films that we are accustomed to today. Editing is necessary, and certain theatricalities just don't translate very easily.

That said, I was very excited when National Theatre announced a new Romeo and Juliet - especially starring Josh O'Connor (I've been loving The Crown on Netflix). Let me start by saying what I loved about the film. 

Photo taken from National Theatre's website: 
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/romeo-and-juliet-film

1. The intimate atmosphere. This is something that film does better than theatre. Thanks to close-ups, camera angles and narrow alleys created on set, the whole production felt close and almost private. You have a real sense of watching without the characters knowing - the polar opposite of what many of Shakespeare's characters go through. Romeo and Juliet's relationship was steamed up by this intimacy, but we also got up close and personal with the likes of Tybalt and Mercutio in the fight scenes, revealing the anger and pride on their faces and allowing us to watch as it turns to pain.

2. Tamsin Greig. I mean what's not to love. I'd recently seen her as Malvolia in Twelfth Night in which she was absolutely fantastic and presented Malvolio to me in a new light. I was sort of surprised when I saw that she was to play Lady Capulet - I hadn't considered the role to be very big - but as the play progressed I realised why. Many of Lord Capulet's lines were also given to her. In a genius move, the stereotypical family hierarchy of mean-father-controls-daughter was completely removed from the play, I think for the better. We know that mothers can be controlling too, and something about this change made her character feel fresh and modern. By having both parents' lines, Greig was tender and maternal when Juliet obeyed, yet cold and tyrannical when Juliet refuses to marry Paris. As a result Lord Capulet shrank into the background and became more of a passive figure, but the twist was intriguing for anyone already familiar with the play and allowed Greig to shine in this commanding role.

3. Juliet's bedroom speech. Wow. For me, this was Jessie Buckley's shining moment. An element of theatricality was brought into this monologue - for how else can a monologue be convincingly achieved - as Juliet's bed was moved away from the set and all other actors circled around her to watch. Her speech was delivered as what I can only describe as an anxiety attack, questioning every person involved and how this plan could go horribly wrong. Her pacing was perfect, lingering on each cause for anxiety just long enough for the viewer to consider it before moving onto the next tragic possibility.

However, there were some elements that just didn't work for me.

First of all, the drastic cuts. I've seen a review that calls it "Romeo and Juliet cut in half but twice as good" and I have to disagree. How can taking all the comedy out of the play possibly improve it?! For me, a key point of the play is to have the happy, comedic, everything-is-fine first half, then BAM Mercutio dies and its all doom-and-gloom tragedy from there. You're not supposed to feel impending doom right from the start, that's what Hamlet is for. 

Next, the love interest between Benvolio and Mercutio - don't jump to judging me because one thing I'm not is homophobic. I'm all for extra romances and gender swaps etc to speak to the LGBTQ+ community, and theatre is a fantastic way to celebrate this because ultimately theatre celebrates being human. BUT. In this particular production, it felt like a box ticking exercise. Both Mercutio and Benvolio had had their lines drastically chopped, and their characters suffered for it. You don't have time to get to know Mercutio before he dies (no, the Queen Mab speech alone is not enough), and Benvolio felt like more of a background character. Giving them a romantic subplot just did not make up for this, and in a film that is already restricted by time I feel they could have added something more effective instead. What, you ask? Try more of their lines.

Finally, and I hate to return to this, but putting Romeo and Juliet in a film doesn't always work. Yes, you get intimacy, but you also get access to how ridiculous the story actually is. Baz Luhmann gets away with it with his fantastically bizarre adaptation, and the Olivia Hussey version was exceptional. But when the actors (as brilliant as they may be) are not teenagers and it is played naturalistically, the whole story becomes difficult to digest. Combine that with the cuts to shorten the time they have to fall in love even further (Romeo only has two lines from when he sees Juliet to fall in love with her) and it becomes more and more implausible. Godwin attempted to fill these gaps with montages of Romeo and Juliet chasing each other around the stage, but it wasn't enough to justify how they fell so madly in love and why the consequences are as extreme as exile and death. In English theatre, sense rarely prevails, but it is asking much more of the viewer to follow Shakespearean reasoning in a modern film. 

NT Live At Home: Twelfth Night (2020)

I've been terrible at writing reviews lately thanks to lots of changes in my life, but I recently watched National Theatre's production of Twelfth Night starring Tamsin Greig. It was a phenomenal production for many reasons (hello, incredible set design), but rather than write a review gushing over how amazing it was (definitely 5 stars from me) I thought I'd focus on the element that interested me the most: Malvolia.

Tamsin Greig as Malvolia. Photo taken from:
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/twelfth-night-nt-live-2020/

Casting a female Malvolia, on the surface, feels like any other gender swap: interesting, modern, revealing. For me, Malvolia was all these things and more, and the consequences this might have for a modern audience are very exciting and multifaceted.

Traditionally, Malvolio's malcontentedness is wrapped up in class. He can be seen as an archetypal Malcontent, an outside character who is dissatisfied with the social structure and provides a commentary on the play and by extension on wider society. The irony is that he is an outsider as far as the other characters are concerned, but he is designed to be the most relatable and entertaining for the audience. Of course, Malvolia still does all of these things - the lines were not changed except for a few pronouns. But by changing the gender of the character, an extra layer was added and suddenly Malvolia represented so much more than class.

Gender speaks to today's society perhaps more than class. Looking at the Royals as a modern example, Kate Middleton was wholeheartedly accepted into the Royal family despite her being classed as a 'commoner' by the media at the time (though we all know she is far from common).

As an actor, Greig was fully aware of the implications of portraying a female Malvolia: "I was very nervous of making Malvolio a woman and therefore a lesbian, considering what happens to the character in the play, which is monstrous" (quote taken from her interview with the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/apr/20/tamsin-greig-malvolia-twelfth-night-national-theatre). But I think that is precisely why this gender swap is so important. What happens is monstrous, and this production made an effort to point this monstrosity out to the audience.

Having an older Malvolia - perhaps of the generation between typically homophobic and LGBT accepting - gives the character a complex subtext. Gay marriage only became legal in the UK in 2013, and it was as recent as 1967 that consensual homosexual acts were legalised. The need to hide her feelings is fitting for Greig's character, and perhaps relatable to members of the audience who went through (or may still be going through) a struggle with their sexual identity due to the cultural pressures they grew up with. 

On top of the Malvolio-Malvolia switch, Fabian becomes Fabia and Feste is also female. The attacks on Malvolia are therefore attacks done by other women, again highlighting an area of society that is often not talked about: women can be incredibly cruel. 

NT Live At Home: Frankenstein

National Theatre decided to give theatre-goers a real treat this week, as two versions of their 2011 Frankenstein production were available on YouTube. The play, written by Nick Dear, is creature-centric and was adapted directly from Mary Shelley's 1818 novel. Director Danny Boyle brought the play to life in two versions, as Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch alternated their roles of Victor and Creature.

Image retrieved from NT Live's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ntlive/

Both Miller and Cumberbatch brought something different to each role and revealed aspects about each character that the other had not. Cumberbatch's depiction of the Creature was animalistic, exaggerated and had an unnerving confidence that grew as the production continued. By contrast, Miller's Creature was more human, playing more on human toddler traits than animal. As a result, Miller's development from innocent and frustrated into vengeful and powerful was much more sneaky, as the empathy that Elizabeth feels when she meets him is shared by the audience.

Equally, each actor brought a different interpretation to Victor. Miller's Dr Frankenstein was angry, frustrated, irritated by his own actions and generally filled with unease. He was clearly tormented by his actions and his remorse seemed genuine. However, when watching Cumberbatch's Victor, moments of theatricality and even humour were brought out in a way that I had not noticed during Miller's performance as Victor. Cumberbatch presented a man who was proud, eccentric, arrogant, and absolutely invested in science. The prospect of doing God's work was, to him, a fantastic experiment that would fuel his ego at whatever cost. Yet, surprisingly, he was not unlikable as a character.

Watching these two performances together reveals how complex these two characters are, each filled with emotion, passion, and conflicting identities that clash when they collide. Both Victor and Creature are just wanting to find their respective place in the world, but both are overcome by internal and external forces that are beyond their control.

Naomi Harris as Elizabeth and Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature
(Image from NT Live's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ntlive/)

The supporting cast were excellent, and Naomi Harris' Elizabeth was the perfect balance of purity and sass, livening up a character who can easily become two-dimensional. She was trapped in a world where women must sit and obey their husbands and was willing to do so up to a point, as long as Victor would marry her and give her the relationship that she desired. But the man travelled so much that her restrictions as a woman were exposed, as she can do nothing but wait for his return for as long as he wishes her to. Science, he tells her, is no place for a woman, for she cannot access the level of education that is required. As her hopes are finally coming true, her wedding night with Victor will surely break audiences hearts everywhere. It is painful enough in the original text, but this production's added violence made her death all the more unnecessary and sorrowful.


It is impossible to write about this production without acknowledging the wonderful set. Light bulbs hung from the ceiling and flashed, replicating the 'spark' that gives the Creature life and providing atmospheric lighting throughout the show. The stage itself had an inner section which could spin around, flip, sink or rise according to what scene needed to be portrayed, allowing transitions to be smooth and seamless. For me, the creative team showcased their amazing talents when the creature watches the sunrise, with grass growing on the stage, rain falling from the sky, and birds flying next to the rising sun. In other scenes, we were transported to the Frankenstein household, the top of a mountain, and up to the northern isles of Scotland.

For cast, crew, and everyone involved, this production of Frankenstein was a triumph and is sure to go down in history. It deviates from the original story just enough to bring something new, but remains close enough to the original characters that it feels like an authentic adaptation of the original book. The humanity in the Creature, the moral questioning of Victor's actions, and the societal issues of the Victorian period were all brought to the forefront creatively and in a way that was visually stunning. Shelley would most definitely approve.

NT Live: All My Sons (14/05/19)

Jeremy Herrin's production of All My Sons promised to be thrilling and devastating, with stunning performances from Sally Field and Bill Pullman. Last night's broadcast from the Old Vic Theatre in London allowed for an intimate viewing of this grand production. My friend - who is not usually a theatre-goer - accompanied me to the show, and we agreed that the performance was excellent, as were all of its elements.

The Kellers; Bill Pullman (Joe Keller), Colin Morgan (Chris Keller), Sally Field (Kate Keller) and Jenna Coleman (Ann Deever). Photo by Johan Persson, taken from http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/ntlout33-all-my-sons

The production opened with a series of images projected onto the back of the stage, setting the scene and transporting the audience to a post-war America. The house (which would remain for the entirety of the perfomance) then glided forwards into place, and the lights came up to reveal a back garden setting. As the play was largely naturalistic, a realistic set had to be produced, and I swear you could actually live in that house, it looked so real.

I'm not usually an Arthur Miller fan, having been scarred by having to read Death of a Salesman at school, but I understand how important these plays are and why they have become modern classics. One of my favourite elements of the live broadcasts is the pre-show clip, this one being an interview with the director and creative team, in which Herrin identified just how relevant the messages in this play are today. Despite the play being set in the 1940's, the play didn't feel old fashioned or out of touch, but brought light to shocking comparisons that we can make between today's materialistic world and the aftermath of using the war for financial gain.

Despite boasting an impressive cast all around, the stand-out performances were without a doubt Sally Field (Kate) and Bill Pullman (Joe). The complexity of their marriage and what the loss of a son had done to them was made clear before Field had even entered the stage, and they bounced off each other with a perfect chemistry. During the light-hearted first act, their relationship was stereotypical and amusing, even comical at times, but the oppressive nature of their situation became clearer as the play progressed.

Unfortunately, however, I felt that Field and Pullman overshadowed the other actors. Having seen Colin Morgan (Chris) and Jenna Coleman (Annie) more recently in TV series, I expected more from them given that they were acting alongside such big names. While their performances were not bad, I didn't feel for their characters in the same way that I felt for Kate and Joe, and I think it was a lack of chemistry that let them down together. While they produced the right emotions in the right places, their performances lacked the subtleties that Field and Pullman incorporated into theirs, and so Chris and Annie's relationship felt like more of a convenience than actual love.

Overall as a production, it was fantastic - especially if you're an Arthur Miller fan already. The set was beautiful, and supporting actors provided the diversity and light comic relief that the play demands throughout. Would I go to see another Arthur Miller play? Probably. Will my friend go to another live broadcast? Definitely.

NT On Tour: War Horse (26/01/19)

As a theatre lover, I have been looking for an opportunity to see the stage adaptation of Michael Morpurgo's War Horse, and this weekend I finally got the chance to see it. The play follows the journey of Joey, a horse in the First World War and the struggles his owner, Albert, goes through to be reunited with his beloved friend. Within just 10 years, the award winning production has been around the world and broken West End records, and I am thrilled to say that it lives up to its credentials.

Photo taken from National Theatre website:
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/war-horse-on-tour#production-story

Beginning the performance, the audience is introduced to a foal, effortlessly carried around the stage by puppeteers. The foal gambolled about the stage, mimicking the actions of a real creature from its ears right down to its tail. Despite the puppeteers being entirely visible, the illusion was compellingly realistic as they manoeuvred the young Joey with skill and finesse. This illusion continued throughout the production with all puppets, and very soon I forgot almost entirely that there were any puppeteers on the stage at all - even when several bodies were needed to move the animals into more complex positions (such as in the image above).

The most surprising element for me was the distinctive lack of set. Scenery was kept extremely simple and minimalist, with only a door and a window to represent a house, for example. Somehow, this added to the production, as it allowed the actors and puppets to dominate the entire stage, making use of its depth and of every corner. Across the top of the performance space was a simple strip on which images were projected. It sounds simple, but it was an easy way of changing the scenery without an intrusive backdrop and without drawing attention away from the action, complementing the minimalist set while providing enough information to transport the audience from one scene to another.

Albert (Scott Miller) with Joey as a foal. Photo taken from War Horse On Stage:
 http://www.warhorseonstage.com/about/gallery/

The inventiveness of the production goes beyond the puppetry and set. Sound effects, lighting and a smoke machine created an eerie battlefield as the beloved Joey went to war, placing the audience on the front line with him. Not only is the emotion of the animal visible in his actions, but it is felt through the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes in atmosphere through music, song and sounds.

Now for the emotional part. Throughout the performance, the bond between the audience and Joey has been growing stronger, as more and more you hope that Joey will survive the war and be reunited with his precious Albert. By the time you reach the emotional climax of the play, you will be so enchanted by their bond and so moved by the story that these final events will capture even the hardest of hearts. If you do not already know the story, be prepared to cry. If you do know the story, be prepared to cry.

NT Live: King Lear (27/09/18)

The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Stage were among those who gave five stars to National Theatre's latest production of King Lear. Director Jonathan Munby was blessed with a fantastic cast, and he really brought out the best in them and in this remarkable play.

Ian McKellen as King Lear (photo from National Theatre's website: http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/ntlout29-king-lear)

Ian McKellen took the title role, commanding the stage wherever he walked. His descent into madness was illustrated beautifully in his mannerisms, voice and expressions, and there was a seeming authenticity in his relationships with other characters. He presented an inner strength which shone through even in Lear's weakest of moments, giving the King a true supremacy.

This play would have been fantastic even without McKellen - but he brought something special to the role. In the interviews before the show, McKellen and other cast members talked briefly about Lear's age. One word in particular came up a couple of times: dementia. It is a devastating illness that has the power to rip families and lives apart. Yet, it was not discovered until 1907 - that's 300 years after Shakepeare wrote King Lear.

James Corrigan is a name which I will remember for a long time after seeing his portrayal of Edmund. Before this performance, Edmund was not my favourite Shakespearean character. I have even found his subplot to be somewhat irritating, but Corrigan presented him to me in a new light. He brought humour and wit to the role, animating his performance with sly looks and subtle expressions. His confidence coupled with his charisma created a likeable character, despite his deception and wrong-doing.

Luke Thompson put on a striking performance as Edgar, beginning the play with a fumbling nervousness as Edmund plays his tricks. His transformation into "poor Tom" was physical and filled with emotion as he smeared clay and blood over his face and body. Thompson effortlessly varied his accent to adopt different personas for his interactions with the blinded Gloucester (Danny Webb), while embodying deep regret and sorrow to the audience for his father's situation.

A striking decision for this performance was to cast a female Kent. Sinead Cusack brought a maternal aspect to the role, perhaps simply due to her gender. I think, however, it was more than that: she showed true care for Lear and was willing to go to great lengths to protect him, even risking her own life to watch over him.

I want to say something about the fact that the production originated in Chichester Festival Theatre. The Minerva is a small theatre with only 300 seats, so this is an unexpected place to find a name as big as Ian McKellen take on a role as prominent as King Lear. In choosing the role, McKellen said that he wanted to create intimacy, and that he wanted the audience to be close enough to see his button when he begs "pray you, undo this button". Creating such intimacy exposes the actors in a new light, giving meaning to every movement, every breath, every blink. Viewing the performance via a live broadcast has a similar effect, particularly with the camera following characters' reactions.

It is not often that I find myself so moved by a play which I know I will be reviewing. I went into the cinema with my analytical head on, yet, by the interval I was already mesmerised by individuals and the production as a whole. I allowed myself to be totally immersed in the story, feeling the characters' emotions until the final scene of the play reduced me to tears. If I get the chance to watch this production again, I will definitely take it. Five stars well deserved.

NT Live: Julie (06/09/18)

Last week, I took my boyfriend to see the live broadcast of Julie: the National Theatre's adaptation of Strindberg's 1888 classic, Miss Julie. Starring Vanessa Kirby in the title role, I arrived at the cinema with high expectations for Polly Stenham's shiny new production.

Photo from National Theatre's website: https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/julie

In advance of this new adaptation, I read the original to see what key themes I needed to look out for. I'm so glad I did. Not because it was difficult to follow or understand or anything, but because the original play has something that the new play lacks.

The original is set in a Count's household in Sweden, and deals with issues of religion, status and sexuality. It explores what it means to be free and the constraints of society. I've seen a few productions of classics (such as Julius Caesar and Macbeth) and so am familiar with the difficulties that directors can face when attempting to bring traditional themes into a modern setting.

The play opened with flashing lights and pulsing music, as dancers stumbled around in an intoxicated performance: it was clearly a 21st century party. A screen came down to hide the party and we were downstairs in the kitchen; Christina (Thalissa Tiexeira) and Jean (Eric Kofi Abrefa) kicked off the dialogue with the opening scene.

The set was aesthetically pleasing - everything was symmetrical and white, and all dishwashers and rubbish bins were hidden within the kitchen counters. This gave the kitchen a modern yet clinical feel, representative of the society which we learn Julie feels trapped in.

As I expected, Vanessa Kirby was fantastic as Julie, bringing sexuality, childishness and insanity to the role all at once. She wore a long skirt which she was constantly fiddling with and pulled up past her knees whenever she sat down, and the straps of her bralette were rarely on her shoulders.

As Julie's character spiralled into insanity and self-loathing, certain elements were adapted. A staple moment for me was when she kills her bird: traditionally, Jean uses a knife to decapitate it on a chopping board, as if it were a piece of meat for cooking. In this new version, Julie takes the bird to the blender and quickly turns in on, leaving a bloody mess. Having Julie kill the bird herself in such a violent way changes the meaning of this moment. The scene is no longer linked to the execution of Saint John the Baptist, but becomes a moment of taking control in a messy, impulsive way.

As we walked home, we discussed the moral of the play and what message we were taking away from it. I'd like to say we discussed misogyny or racism or sexuality. Unfortunately, we talked about the dangers of drugs and excessive drinking and how people, especially those of a high profile, get themselves into that state. While this is not a bad moral for a play to have, it is not what the directors said they were going for in the pre-show interview.

NT Live: Macbeth (10/05/18)

About a month after seeing the RSC's fabulous production, I tuned into National Theatre's broadcast of Macbeth to see how they would adapt Shakespeare's Scottish tragedy.

As with the RSC, Rufus Norris (NT Director) cast the stage in smoke and eerie lighting, using echoing sound effects to create a spooky atmosphere. Rae Smith's set was nightmarish - the pre-show feature told the audience that it was to represent a modern civil war; we are to imagine the world if the national grid went down and banks stopped giving out money.

Although I got the idea of war and survival, I'm not sure why the King of Scotland would have been cause for concern in this setting. Their "armour" is literally taped onto them and all their clothes ripped, yet for some unknown reason hierarchy is still an issue in this setting. Of course, there is no explicit reason for this civil war to be taking place, but there does not seem to be much of a kingdom for Duncan or Macbeth to want to rule over.

Rory Kinnear was a tormented Macbeth, and his descent into madness was emotional and captivating. His chemistry with Anne-Marie Duff (Lady Macbeth) was intense. The first time the audience saw them together, they shared an intimate and passionate kiss. Their relationship is then put to the test as power and madness overcomes Macbeth.

Lady Macbeth must be one of the most difficult characters to portray to an audience of Shakespeare fans. Her character is powerful, emotional and tragic all at once and the first impression is vital. Duff's Lady Macbeth is one full of anguish and desperation, and her character complimented Kinnear's Macbeth well. She appeared genuinely thrilled and excited by the prospect of her husband becoming King. As the play progressed, subtleties in her characterisation, such as trembling hands and a too-loud laugh, demonstrated her downward spiral into insanity.

The three witches were fairly typical - played by women, each dressed in creepy and quirky attire. One seemed to lead the other two, commanding the stage where she walked. One was monotonous with echoes when she talked, another had a high-pitched shrieking voice. They broke spacial barriers as they moved around the entire stage - which, for the non-supernatural scenes, was usually sectioned off using set.

I was, however, disappointed with Banquo's ghost. I have previously seen him portrayed with gory effects, and the RSC covered him in an ash-like substance, yet this Banquo seemed to be missing something. I was anticipating his appearance and how his interaction with Macbeth would unfold, yet he just stumbled around the stage and Kinnear was left doing all the work.

Trevor Fox had an extended role of the Porter. His monologue after the murder of Duncan is quirky and comedic as it is, but his Geordie accent brought an unusual dimension to his role which suited the moment perfectly. He seemed to be a friend or neighbour or helper of the Macbeths, assisting them throughout the production and absorbing other minor parts.

Generally, the performance had me captivated from start to finish, although I have to question how much of this was more to do with the fact that it was Macbeth. 

NT Live: Julius Caesar (22/03/18)

This is the first National Theatre performance I have seen since Frankenstein, way back in 2012 (which was brilliant, by the way), so I had high hopes for this one. The director, Nicholas Hytner, made some interesting decisions, some of which haven't been too well received.

The most unusual decision for a Shakespeare production was the movable stage. I am used to seeing the set move about and a stage being transformed, but this one actually forced the audience to move as well. Before the dialogue began, a live band entertained the audience with loud rock music, and the stage was set up very much like a rock gig. The stage lost and gained parts as the production continued, changing shape and size, until by the end it was literally a warzone. Comfortable in my cinema seat, this made for effective scene changes, but I couldn't help feeling sorry for the poor groundlings (in Shakespeare's day, this was the standing audience) at the venue.

Next, some quirky character decisions were made. Julius Caesar (David Calder) was dressed in Trump-like attire, sporting a baseball cap with a tie and surrounded by tacky merchandise. This immediately set him up as a villainous dictator, and as a character that is not necessarily in power for the right reasons. He loved the attention, waving at the audience and soaking up the limelight. A walking stick and wheelchair on occasion gave the subtle hint that he was ill, although this felt pointless given his fate halfway through the play.

Hytner chose to cast Michelle Fairley as Cassius, making this usually predominantly male play have a female lead to balance the scales. Fairley gave a strong performance, although the world still felt patriarchal, so Cassius' motivation for wanting Caesar dead perhaps didn't translate as well as it could have. Cassius' long standing friendship with Brutus (Ben Whishaw) was clearly established in their first scene. They appeared as old friends who had been close at one stage, although a difference of opinion or values seemed to have come between them. Due to this history, Cassius was able to sway Brutus to her way of thinking relatively easily, restoring their old friendship.

David Morrissey's Mark Anthony was strong and loud. Although Brutus's speech over the dead Caesar was powerful, Mark Anthony's was even more so, throwing into question whether the conspirators have done the right thing by the nation.

The play, as always, ended with multiple deaths and suicides, leaving a sour taste. As a tragedy, it should have a tragic ending, although the final scenes seemed to drag and I was ultimately just waiting for everyone to die off.

I respect Hytner's efforts - Julius Caesar is a tremendous play to take on and it is an even bigger feat to update the characters into the 21st Century. That said, some things are perhaps better left as they are and a more traditional approach taken. A for effort, though.