Professor David Peimer
The Image of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony in Film and Theatre
Professor David Peimer - The Image of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony in Film and Theatre
- So we’re going to dive into what, for me, are two of the most amazing plays, not ever written, but two of the most amazing plays by Mr. Shakespeare. And particular, the one remarkable production, which Janet Suzman, who I’m sure many people know, either know personally, some may know, or know of her, which she did in the ‘70s, was absolutely brilliant portrayal of Cleopatra. And we managed to find a couple of clips, excuse me, couple of clips from her portrayal of Cleopatra, which was, in my and many others’ opinion, you know, pretty defining performance of this remarkable role, of this remarkable character, that Janet did fantastic performance. That’s a picture of Janet, you know, in Cleopatra for “Antony and Cleopatra.” And on the right hand side is just, is obviously a statue from ancient times of some of these Romans. And I wanted to give this ordinary statue. So we think of our present and 2,000 years ago, more or less these times, ‘cause we are going to play with bridging the two today. I guess the main thing that fascinated me with this topic, 'cause we are looking at ancient Middle East in different periods, is how have the great writers, in particular Shakespeare, of course, interpreted these icons of history. And what if they, what do they still say to us today? Why do they fascinate us today still, these iconic figures who have come down as characters in these remarkable plays, the best, obviously, Shakespeare’s plays, through some brilliant performances by Janet Suzman, Richard Burton, and also, and a brief, one speech I want to show, by Brando, who played Mark Antony as well as Richard Burton did. But looking at these performances to delve deeper into it, to also ask what can we see today about, in particular with Caesar, and Mark Antony, and Cleopatra, about leadership, dictatorship, democracy.
What can we say about tyranny? And what can we say about the shenanigans going on that Shakespeare teases out so remarkably? And, of course, how they might echo today in our own times. And I think it’s not by chance that he would’ve, Shakespeare would’ve chosen, I mean, he got a lot of his stories from Plutarch, as we all know, the greatest historian. So the stories were ready made, but the stories were written as the heroes and history sort of swimming in the same part of the sea together, in a way. If we read the ancients, it’s history and individuals interweaving all the time. Of course, these historians are writing at times of pretty much dictatorship, the emperors, in Rome. Once Augustus takes over and establishes, effectively, the empire, which his great uncle Julius Caesar had set up. So they would have to flatter the leaders and the emperors, they would have to flatter and involve them quite clearly. But at the same, so they interweave individual hero, the hero together with the history in a way which is quite rare today, where it might be seen as more critical or analytical in a way, but it brings it so alive is what it does. And I think why Shakespeare could take these stories, ready made, given stories, so alive with these characters, and put in characters that I think came from his own times, and speak to our times as well. Human nature qualities, which I really want to get at, about leadership, politics, passion and politics, especially in “Antony and Cleopatra,” and in “Caesar,” the nature of leadership and possible tyranny.
So I’m going to start with “Antony and Cleopatra,” and then go into “Julius Caesar” after that. One of the, and you know, having read this play when I was, or so many years ago, and reading it many, many times again, it is such a powerful evocation of passion and politics, the passion of politics and the politics of passion. Sounds cliche, but it’s true. It’s so deep inside this particular play of Shakespeare’s. The language is remarkable. The story just constantly surprises, even though it may have been done many times, you know, and studied, and done many times all over the world. These iconic figures stand out from history as obviously great lovers, great passion, great infatuation, great faults. All too human, the massive faults they make and what they sacrifice for their passion, for their politics, their power, the mistakes, it’s so human in that way that I think Shakespeare really humanises these heroic figures instead of just romanticising, or just idolising, or idealising, and presenting pretty much two stereotypes. They are so complex and so varied. In the great phrase I’m sure we all know, Enobarbus, one of Mark Antony’s generals says, you know, that Cleopatra was of infinite variety. And I think that’s a phrase for Cleopatra, certainly, and Janet Suzman’s interpretation is remarkable in that way, but it’s also infinite variety of the themes and of these other characters, Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, I think, which is why we can endlessly look at these plays again and again, and delve into the depth of their richness.
So, “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war,” Mark Antony says it towards the end of his, you know, his, “Friends, Romans,” he says it over the body of Julius Caesar, and the slain Caesar. He knows civil war will come. He knows havoc will come. Not only is he and Augustus Caesar going to fight Brutus and Cassius because they’ve committed the assassination, but was Caesar going to be a benevolent dictator? Was he really going to be a dictator, wasn’t he, Julius Caesar? What’s happened, Brutus and Cassius, do they really just want to reestablish semi-democratic republic, primarily led by the aristocrats and the Senate of Rome? Or were they more interested in their own ambition and power? Shakespeare doesn’t really answer it, he leaves it for us, the ambition driving individuals, which we know of only too well and how it speaks today. But when the clash comes, and it’s a clash of values, it’s a clash of beliefs, that it’s not necessarily going to be a military dictatorship, or it might be benevolent, better than what was, versus republic, is that being used by these leaders or not? Either way, it’s going to lead to civil war. “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war,” one of the great phrases, which has echoed through the ages. “Oh judgement , thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.” What happens when a society is so caught up, it’s possible civil war, it’s possible invasions from the outside, and of course there’s panic, and there’s, you know, of course there’s huge anxiety, to put it mildly, and splits and fractures and fault lines occur in a society which could go either way? Where Shakespeare’s brilliance is to explore these fault lines and see, and to go to the human nature quality underneath it. It’s judgement that has fled.
Men have lost their reason. So it’s a comment, obviously for the characters, but it’s a comment about what happens in times of mass fear, mass hysteria, and the splits get too big, society can’t hold the fault lines, civil war may result. One of the great lines from Brutus, from the original of “Julius Caesar,” “There’s a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to a fortune.” We know this phrase so well, it’s come down, this is where it originates from. “Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.” Brutus is so aware, you know, if we don’t ride the tide in the affairs, well, what will happen? But if we do ride, what might also happen? But what is life without doing it? Take the chance. Shakespeare is constantly throwing out, I think, these ambivalences, these contradictions. And I think that what I love about it is that, instead of seeing these ancient Roman figures, or Cleopatra, the ancient Roman, the ancient Egyptian queen, as sort of monolithic or stereotypical, sort of either or, they’re very complex human beings. I suppose what I love the most. Was Cleopatra, moving on with “Antony and Cleopatra,” was she gypsy, a strumpet? She’s a woman of infinite variety, she’s a queen. And of course she’s, you know, she has to hold onto her power. Basically Egypt is a province of Rome, as we know, and the empire. And how can she navigate these real superpowers of their times, the leaders and the superpowers, so that she can keep the power of Egypt, so it doesn’t become a small little back water province and just treated like dirt? But she can keep it important and keep it, try and bring it up to a level that Rome will have to respect Egypt. Not only will the leaders of Rome have to respect her, but the culture and the country has to respect the other one. Okay, if we go onto to the next slide, please. So this is a bit from “Antony and Cleopatra,” with Janet, the brilliant Janet Suzman performing.
Nay, but this dotage of our generals o'erflows the measure. Those his goodly eyes that o'er the files and musters of the war have glowed like plated Mars, now bend, now turn the office and devotion of their view upon a tawny front. His captain’s heart, which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst the buckles on his breast, reneges all temper and has become the bellows and the fan to cool a gypsy’s lust. Take but good note, and you shall see in him the triple pillar of the world transformed into a strumpet’s fool. Behold and see.
If it be love indeed, tell me how much.
There’s beggary in the love that can be reckoned.
I’ll set a bourn how far to be beloved.
Then thou must needs find out new heaven, new Earth.
News, my good lord, from Rome.
Grates me, the sum.
Nay, hear them, Antony. Fulvia perchance is angry. Or who knows if the scarce-bearded Caesar have not sent his powerful mandate to you, “Do this, or this, take in that kingdom, enfranchise that. Perform it or else we damn thee.”
[Antony] How, my love?
Perchance? Nay, and most like. You must not stay here longer. Your dismission is come from Caesar. Therefore, hear them, Antony. Where’s Fulvia’s process? Oh, Caesar’s. Both! Call in the messenger. As I am Egypt’s queen, thou blushest, Antony. And that blood of thine is Caesar’s homager, else so thy cheek pays shame when shrill-tongued Fulvia scolds. The messengers!
Let Rome in Tiber melt. and the wide arch of the ranged empire fall. Here is my space. Kingdoms are clay. Our dungy earth alike feeds beast as man. The nobleness of life is to do thus. When such a mutual pair, and such a twain can do it, in which I bind, on pain of punishment, the world to weet, we stand up peerless.
Excellent falsehood. Why did he marry Fulvia, and not love her?
No, for the love of love and her soft hours. Let’s not confound the time with conference harsh. There’s not a minute of our lives should stretch without some pleasure. Now, what sport tonight?
Hear the ambassadors.
Oh fie, wrangling queen, whom every thing becomes, to chide, to laugh, to weep, how every passion fully strives to make itself in thee, fair and admired. No messenger but thine. And all alone tonight, we’ll wander through the streets and note the qualities of people. Come, my queen, last night you did desire it. Oh. Speak not to us!
Is Caesar with Antonius prized so slight? He now approves a common liar who thus speaks of him at Rome.
Bring in the banquet quickly. Wine enough, Cleopatra’s health to drink.
Where’s the soothsayer that you praised so to the queen?
Soothsayer?
Your will.
Is this the man? Is it you, sir, that know things?
In nature’s infinite book of secrets, a little I can read.
Good, now some excellent fortune. Let me be married to three kings in a forenoon, and widow them all. Find me to marry with Octavius Caesar. And companion me with my mistress.
You shall outlive the lady whom you serve.
Oh, excellent. I love long life better than figs.
You have seen and proved a fairer former fortune than that which is to approach.
Pray thee, how many boys and wenches must I have?
If every of your wishes had a womb, fertile every wish, a million. Out, fool.
You think none but your sheets are privy to your wishes.
The queen!
Saw you my Lord?
No, lady.
Was he not here?
No, madam.
He was disposed to mirth, but on the sudden, a Roman thought hath struck him. Enobarbus.
Madam.
Seek him and bring him in.
My Lord approaches.
We will not look upon him. Go with us!
So this is just an opening to give us a sense of a little bit of the play of Shakespeare’s where, I mean, the obvious setup is the passion of politics and the politics of passion, not just as a little cliche, but the truth. Cleopatra has to be aware of her, she’s a province under Rome, but cannot be too insignificant, got to make it a bigger province, and yet it’s under Roman rule. And how it’s set up that she, the world of Egypt is sensuality, sexuality, fun and pleasure, enjoyment, basically, of life. Rome, under Augustus Caesar, set up as August really, as the more rational, the colder, the more cerebral image of Rome, and got to rule the empire, and got to be, you know, can’t be involved in these sort of frivolous activities of love and passion and heat. And Cleopatra constantly aware of the two, aware of the big politics, if we like in contemporary language, of superpower politics, and also aware of an emerging real passion and love for Antony. Antony’s great speech, “Let Roman in Tiber melt,” okay, in that one phrase, everything he’s fought for, everything he is part of, he’s part of the leading triumvirate leading Rome, running Rome, ruling it, “Let Roman in Tiber melt,” forget it all, I want where my passion, my love, my life, everything goes.
Not just flesh versus intellect and that, but actually a life choice, you know, to live a life of one or live a life of the other. Are the two compatible or do politics always overwhelm? And is passion always doomed under, if you like, under the sword of Damocles of politics? And so we have this clash, endlessly, between the politics of life, in this case, you know, the superpower, Rome, the province, Egypt, she’s got to run it as well. Is it doomed, the ability to play out one’s own passions and love and desire? Is it compatible, isn’t it? Ancient themes, and I think themes that speak to us so powerfully today. Antony is prepared to give up everything. “Let Roman in Tiber melt.” I mean, can we imagine a leader today saying, “Let London in the Thames melt,” or, “Let Paris in the River Seine.” I mean, we can’t imagine, if we imagine just for a moment in our own times, a really powerful political leader actually saying that and what that would mean. So for me, when we do relate it to our own context, it takes on a whole new meaning from sort of, I suppose more academic study of it only. She is a woman of infinite variety, which on the one hand can think, okay, well that’s far too much, nobody can be, but there’s passion, there’s politics, there’s. The biggest thing about Cleopatra and certainly in Janet Suzman’s interpretation, is the intelligence that, for me, just shines through. And the intelligence and the awareness of all the different political forces at play.
And the stakes are huge because she’s up against one of the triumvirate, the leaders, Antony, and in particular Augustus Caesar, the leaders of the empire, you know, but trying to keep Egypt right up there, not just treat it as a little vassal state, and her passion for Antony. So she’s totally aware of all the politics, but trying to find if there’s a space for passion or not. This is set, of course, in the great superpower challenge of the times. But if we relate it even to our own times, our own lives of passion and politics, and can be working in our own business, or working for this one or that one as a boss, and others, how do we play out the two, and how do we compromise or not? And in the end, of course, these two don’t compromise, and hence, the great tragedy results, in Shakespeare’s interpretation. But I think what he’s profoundly trying to set up, and using this as an ancient example, writing about one and a half thousand years before his time, for Shakespeare, is to set it up and say what was happening in England of 1500, 500 years ago, happening in our times. It doesn’t stop. And it can be, you know, even just a person who’s a manager or director of a business and others, and you know, we can relate it on all different levels, not only in the level of kingship and great leadership, if you like. And I think that’s part of the power, the way, one of the reasons this play has lasted so powerfully in the way that it has.
Because even if one is just a manager of a store down the road, yeah, we can imagine all these things playing out. What’s really so powerful is that how she’s constantly trying to use her intelligence to outwit, to outplay, to outthink Octavius Caesar, how to do it with, even with Antony and so on. And now he is, can we imagine a person who, you know, in our times it would be, can we imagine a real leader of one of the great empires of our times, whether it’s America or wherever, saying, “Look, I’m not going to live in Washington, I’m not going to do all of that. I’m going somewhere else. Thank you, Janice, but I’m going wherever. I’m going to live out my passion and my love,” and what that could lead to also, if we relate it to our own own times? And the constrictions that place on our own passions, in a way. But then of course, if passion is taken too far, Shakespeare would say, “Well, oh, maybe we need to bring it back.” It’s always that call for moderation, but the play exploring both. Of course she uses her sexuality as a political weapon. She uses her intelligence as a political weapon. She uses everything she can for the survival of her country of Egypt. It’ll be a vassal state of Rome, but will it be a tiny little insignificant vassal state, which primarily supplies most of the grain back for Rome itself and the rest of the empire, or can it be upped in the stakes? Can it be part of the EU of its time, or part of NATO, or something, you know, under the power of the great Roman power, of course, ultimately. So small province, big power. She’s aware of how to trap, constantly to play the politics and the passion. And for me, it’s one of the great plays of all time. It doesn’t come to any easy answer, but it throws out these dilemmas for us. Interestingly, in the interview with Greg Doran, who was a wonderful director and became one of the leading directors for the RAC, spoke about “Antony and Cleopatra,” this is not Janet’s time, but how they play themselves, because they’re on public display all the time, so they’ve got to be aware of how they perform in public, and how, in their private lives, they really feel.
And we have that in our times where, you know, the leaders are always performing for the camera, for the internet, so aware. You know, I remember some of the leaders, I mean Donald Trump, I remember coming to England, and his main thing was driving through saying, “Okay, so where’s the camera?” As the driver was going to Buckingham Palace, “Is the camera up there? Is the camera there, there, there?” Need to know exactly where the camera is all the time on the drive to Buckingham Palace. And then at the palace, “Where is the camera?” and so on. So in our own times of such mass social media and media, it’s the same old conflict between the private and the public portrayal of the persona, which I think Shakespeare really captures as well. It’s same old-same old, but done in such dramatic way. Antony’s aware of their fame, their celebrity, “Let Rome in Tiber melt,” et cetera, you know. But how are they going to try and hold that together? Are they doomed inevitably from the beginning? It can’t be. 'Cause in our times, could we imagine Egypt might represent, in terms of the real centre of power, of the superpower of its time, you know, the centre of Rome, and the Roman citizens and their values, compared to values of sensuality, sexuality, love, lust, you know, all of that, compared to the values, the cerebral values of leadership, power, status, virtue, all the values of Rome. The clash is set up, played out between the two. I think the parallels with our modern celebrities, our modern leaders, we can see how similar it could be in our own times. If we imagine our leaders going off with somebody from, you know, a third world country completely, from the west to somewhere else, vice. All of this resonates for us today. And I think Antony and Cleopatra are aware of it. Shakespeare’s aware of it in the play.
From the play, “When such a mutual pair the world to weet, we stand up peerless,” in other words, they know that they’re up against the world and global perceptions of them, which are public image, in our language today, it would be that, and their private lives. And what would be a proper relationship and what isn’t? What would be acceptable and what isn’t? It goes back to a great phrase by the German playwright Buchner, who wrote in a letter, and he died very young, but he wrote the great plays about the French Revolution, Danton and Robespierre as the leaders of the French Revolution, and Danton being seduced by wine, women, and song, Robespierre being the cold, ruthless, cerebral leader of the French Revolution. In Buchner’s play, setting up those contrasts as well. And in a letter that Buchner wrote, he said, “Are we individuals, even if we are leaders? Are we mere foam on the wave of history? Or are we the wave of history itself?” And this, for me, goes to the profound depth of Shakespeare’s insights. And we can go back 2,000 years to Rome or our times today. Are we mere foam on the wave of history? Or do we help determine the wave of history itself, our great heroic figures? It’s an endless debate, no easy answer, and I’m not going to try and answer it now. Shakespeare simply, I think, sets up that conflict between the two.
We may try and steer the wave of history, but discover that we are mere foam on the wave of history, or we can surf it, or we swim in it, or we can stop it or not. And I think that image of Buchner’s, the great German playwright who began modernism in European theatre. In the early 19th century, it’s Buchner who begins it, you know, about 30, 40 years after the French Revolution, when he got disillusioned by it. It’s our role as, in the end, what these plays are about is what is our role as individuals in history, great individuals who determine the path of history, the Mandelas, the others. Are we all inevitably foam on the wave of history, even if we are the great icons? And that’s the end endless debate that Shakespeare sets up. Is Churchill foam on the wave of history, or was Churchill able to guide, surf it and guide the wave, or are historical forces too deep and too powerful? And that, for me, is the deeper meaning in the plays, especially in “Antony and Cleopatra.” “Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch of the ranged empire fall. Here is my space. Kingdoms are clay. Our dungy earth alike feeds beast as man.” We are all in the end, you know, driven by individual passions and desires. Cleopatra is the one with the intelligence. And that’s what I want to really bring in with Janet Suzman’s interpretation. For me, it’s the intelligence that is so fantastic. That no, no, no, kingdoms are not just clay. It’s very important. Rome can’t melt. She never says, “Let Egypt in the River Nile melt.” She’s much more aware. You know, one has to balance politics and passion, ultimately, one of the great themes of the play. If Rome dissolved in the River Tiber, Antony might be partly unmoved. His world is defined by Cleopatra, by her presence, and by his rediscovered passion and love. What is empire to him? Clay.
What’s noble in ruling over, “dungy earth,” as he calls it? Where’s the nobility? Is it in passion? Is it in the love with Cleopatra? Is it naive infatuation or isn’t it? I’m purposely throwing out questions because I believe that so much of what Shakespeare’s trying to get at here. Then of course Antony says, “I will to Egypt. And though I make this marriage for my peace, in the East, my pleasure lies.” One of the great lines of all time to come down from Shakespeare, “I will to Egypt. In the east, my pleasure lies.” I will go there because my pleasure, which is not only wine, woman, and song, but my full heart can be released and expressed. I do not have to live such a cerebral life. And of course, Shakespeare in the end, like always, trying to call for moderation, or understanding at least, between pleasure, and passion, and intellect, and being driven by thought. Cleopatra, I think, bridges both. Enobarbus has great lines, you know. Or Antony says, “These strong Egyptian fetters I must break, or else lose myself in dotage.” He knows he can lose himself completely. And then, of course, comes Enobarbus’s great line, describing the first sight of Cleopatra, “The barge she sat in like a burnished throne, burned on the water, beaten gold, purple the sails, and so perfumed that the winds were lovesick with them.” Amazing poetry. “Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety.” And isn’t that a dream that so many would hope for, to throw off the shackles of conditioning and conformity to live out the infinite variety?
But then how realistic is it ever, in any society? Of course not. And it has to be shackled, whether it’s by Roman thought or anything else. One can’t, it’s doomed. But we feel, even though they’re doomed, they’re living a passion which most would dream of. Rome’s a place of time and history of Realpolitik, of business, of war. Cleopatra says of Antony, “He was disposed in mirth, but on the sudden, a Roman thought hath struck him.” So she’s aware of all these contrasts. She’s the one who’s so aware of politics and passion, of ruling, you know, and what it takes to be a ruler under the superpower, and what you’re trying to achieve. What is a Roman thought? It’s about a Roman government with Roman values, virtues, vices, compared to the third world, which would’ve been seen as Egypt at the time. Octavius, interestingly, is set up as not really having a personal life, no real vices, won’t drink wine to let out emotions. As Octavia says in the play, “Our graver business frowns at this levity.” Where can we have the room for pleasure, for play, for fun and excitement, you know, that Cleopatra enchants everybody with? And how much do we lose as humans? No wine, no women, no song, there’s the world of Rome set up under Octavius. All is business, policy, and it requires for him to be leader of the world, of the time, you know, to be ruthless in politics and war. So it’s, we have all this set up in these contrasts, as we know, and Shakespeare, I think, tries to find how to weave a drama of conflict, the passion of politics and the politics of passion, between the two. Ultimately, Cleopatra understands it all, even if she makes mistakes in terms of decisions.
Finally, at the end of the play, Octavius tries to cold-bloodedly deceive Cleopatra into surrendering. Yeah, he’ll take her back to Rome, you know, or he’ll let her live, but he doesn’t say and she knows it. Yes, he’ll take her back, but he’ll take her back in chains, or in a cart, and he’ll parade her like a captured animal back through the streets of Rome, his conquest, and that she can’t handle. Antony dies, but once she sees Antony dying at the end of the play, she knows what Octavius will do, and he will show off, as a captured animal almost, you know, and proud. So it’s not only that she will be captured, but how she will be shown back in the centre of the superpower of Rome. And that finally leads to her own suicide, and of course, the tragedy in the play. So we have the image of Rome of fairly efficient, very efficient, first world, ruthless, which we understand it’s necessary. You know, if you’re going to rule a massive empire, you have to be like that. His own sister, Octavia, of a wholly cold and still conversation. So Antony could be, stay with her or go with the other one. So everything the queen is and everything she’s aware of is so contrasted and so rich and colourful, and the sensuality, pleasure, fertility, and passion, compared to, of course, all the other. Yeah, she captivates Antony, she could capture Caesar, Octavius Caesar, but doesn’t.
She’s the paradox, of course, the contradiction. And Antony is caught, literally, under her spell. There’s no question. When Antony decides to fight Caesar on the sea rather than land, it’s following Cleopatra’s advice and suggestion. But Antony knows his army can fight much better on land, but he follows it on sea, and of course they get wiped out. Under the power. What’s great is, for me, is how Shakespeare’s world is historical, but it’s not just because he’s concerned with the truthful facts and what actually happened. But history in the play is not just a material for plot. Heroes in the history existed in Plutarch and the other Roman writers of the times. But in Shakespeare, history itself is the drama, and that is the brilliance of what Shakespeare brings, and I think deepens our understanding of our own times. And I don’t, there are obvious allusions to things going on in our own times, but history itself is the drama. And that, for me, is such a profound insight. If you think about, and it comes from Jan Kott, one of the great theorists of the times, see of course, and Jan Kott goes on, “'Antony and Cleopatra’ is a tragedy of the smallness of the world. Antony loses, Cleopatra loses. The young Caesar is prudent and triumphs. History itself is cruel. Not only ‘cause tyrants are cruel, but the waves of history, as they move, is cruel.” So I think, for me, in the end, it’s about the history is the drama, and how to make that is quite an extraordinary achievement of this writer. And for us to understand, again, going back to Buchner’s phrase, “Are we mere wave on the foam of history, all of us?” There’s is an evitable push and drive. Or are we able to surf the wave of history and help dictate and determine it? I think that is the deepest conflict that Shakespeare sets up. And in our own times as well, we can see the relevances. History itself is the drama and how to make that into a play. Okay, if we can show the next slide please.
He words me, girls.
Towards the end of play.
He words me that I should not be noble to myself. But, hark thee, Charmain.
Finish, good lady. The bright day is done and we are for the dark.
Go put it to the haste.
Madam, I will.
Dolabella.
Madam. Caesar, through Syria, intends his journey, and within three days, you, with your children, will he send before. Make your best use of this.
Dolabella, I shall remain your debtor.
Adieu, good madam.
Now, Iras, what thinks thou? Thou, an Egyptian puppet, shalt be shown in Rome, as well as I, mechanic slaves with greasy aprons, rules, and hammers shall uplift us to the view.
Gods forbid.
Nay, it is most certain, Iras. Saucy lictors will catch at us like strumpets, and scald rhymers ballad us out a tune. The quick comedians, extemporally, will stage us and present our Alexandrian revels. Antony shall be brought, drunken, forth, and I shall see some squeaking Cleopatra buoy my greatness in the posture of a whore.
Oh, the good god.
Now, Charmain. Show me my women like a queen. Go fetch my best attires. I’m again for Cydnus to meet Mark Antony. Sirrah Iras, go. Now, noble Charmain, we’ll dispatch indeed. And when thou hast done this chair, I’ll give thee leave to play 'til doomsday. Bring our crown and all.
Here is a rural fellow that will not be denied your highness presence. He brings you figs.
Let him come in.
What poor an instrument may do a noble deed. He brings me liberty. My resolution’s placed, and I have nothing of woman in me. Now, from head to foot, I am marble constant. Now the fleeting moon, no planet is of mine.
This is the man.
Avoid and leave him. Hast thou the pretty worm of Nilus there, that kills and pains not?
Truly I have him, but I wouldn’t be the party that should desire you to touch him, for his biting is immortal. They that do die of it do seldom or never recover.
Rememberest thou any that have died on it?
Oh, very many, men and women too. I heard of one of them no longer than yesterday, very honest woman, but something given to lie as a woman shouldn’t do, but in the way of honesty, how she died of the biting of it, what pain she felt, truly. But he that will believe all that they say will never be saved. But this is most falliable, the worm’s an odd worm.
Well, get thee hence, farewell.
I wish you all joy of the worm.
Farewell.
Give it nothing, I pray you, tisn’t worth the feeding.
Will it eat me?
Oh, you must think me so simple that I know the devil himself will not eat a woman. I know a woman’s a dish for the gods, if the devil dress her not. But truly, these same whoreson devils do the gods great harm in their women, for in every 10 that they make, the devils mar five.
Well, get thee gone, farewell.
Thanks, if we can hold this here.
I wish you joy in the world.
This picture. Okay, if we can just freeze there for a moment, thank you. So here she chooses, of course, suicide, that she will do it 'cause she realises what’s going to happen. She’ll be led through the streets of Rome, you know, like a captured animal in a cage. It’s all over. Antony has already died. So what’s really going on, in essence, is that Cleopatra realises the bigger picture is lost, and she will be portrayed as a little, as a captured beast almost, and that cannot be done. Not only is she the queen of Egypt, but who she is internally. So it’s a passion for Antony, but also that she will not be portrayed as the destroyed leader of Egypt, and as worse than that, just as a little performing prize for Octavia back in the streets of Rome. So we have the passion of politics and the politics of passion really played out in this play. I don’t think, you know, and of course, we side in the end, we feel that their passion is gone, but it’s also the role of compromise, the role of what we would, you know, moderation or not. All those debates are thrown up so brilliantly in the play by Shakespeare. One of his greatest, I really think, 'cause not easy to answer any of it, 'cause we understand the Realpolitik versus idealistic politics as well. So just to go on, I want to go on a little bit about “Julius Caesar,” 'cause this is about “Antony and Cleopatra” and Caesar. And moving on to that play, which has got so much in it of what I’ve mentioned, play about Caesar himself, and about leadership, and what he is establishing as a dictatorship in his country. Caesar, this Julius Caesar before Augustus, the great nephew who establishes the real military dictatorship.
And Caesar, of course, we all know the ides of March, and he is stabbed before he can set up a full dictatorship, if he was going to set up the full dictatorship. And I think Shakespeare’s really exploring. What is leadership? What is it to be a tyrant? What is it to be benevolent dictator? What is it to be a malignant dictator? What is it to be actually a ruler, in the times of Shakespeare, not only ancient Rome? 'Cause of course he’s living under the kings and queens and all the others of these times, and I think using ancient Rome as a metaphor. And we can see it in our own times, you know, the autocrat versus the democrat, tendencies of both in one or the other. And we see in our own language, our own times, it’s not so much more sophisticated, it’s the same themes emerging: history, tyranny, leadership, benevolent or malignant dictatorship or not, and what do we do. So going on to “Antony and Cleopatra,” going on to “Julius Caesar,” we see there, in essence, how Cassius turns the other people’s minds, Brutus and the others, et cetera, towards, okay, Caesar’s going to set up a dictatorship, and he’s going to, everybody will be under his rule, under his thumb. What do we do? Don’t we see it in our own times so powerfully, that once a leader is given power, gains it, it’s maybe not such a huge hop, skip, and jump to becoming a dictator, and to becoming malevolent, or filled with revenge, or filled with desire to at least forge their own path completely and ignore democratic institutions of any kind. Fragility of democracy, I guess, would be, you know, the reference.
And I’m not just talking about, you know, one or two possible leaders in America or anything, I’m talking about globally, as we feel the shift, more and more, towards possible creeping dictatorship wherever. It’s the eternal conflict that is set up in many countries around the world. And to me, this is the relevance of the play still today of “Julius Caesar,” and what is set up here. As Plutarch said, Plutarch the great historian, writing about the life of Sulla, who was one of the great leaders of Rome way before Caesar, and Plutarch wrote, “Sulla now busied himself with slaughter.” And that phrase has gone down in history, “Busied himself with slaughter.” Obviously it means literal slaughter, but also slaughter of ideas, slaughter of democracy, slaughter of freedom of thought. All these things go by the wayside, one by one, as a dictatorship might emerge. So we have in the play the setup, obviously, you know, the more democratic approach, the more dictatorship approach, you know, but more importantly how they can encroach on each other. It’s never just a simplistic binary one or the other, how we need to be so aware, I think. If we can go on to the next one, please. The next clip. Okay, this is going back to Cleopatra. But is he a good man? Define good.
“And make death proud to take us,” one of the beautiful lines of Cleopatra’s. She, in the end show, she’s not scared of death, “Make death proud to take us.” Quite an extraordinary line. In the end of the whole play, Octavius comes and says, “She shall be buried by her Antony. No grave on the earth will clip it, a pair so famous. Odds is gone and there is nothing left remarkable beneath the visiting moon.” What’s lost when we give up passion, and love, and sensuality, and all these things that are shown to be part of Egypt and not the coldness of Rome? “My salad days, when I was green in judgement ,” some of these phrase, I’m sure many people know. Okay, if we can go onto the next slide, please. “Fool, don’t you see that I could have poisoned you 100 times had I been able to live without you?” Cleopatra to Antony. You know, I could’ve done it easily. Get a snake, get an asp, poison, you know, you would’ve been over. And at Mark Antony’s tomb, “Nothing could part us in life, and in death we change places. You, the Roman, lying in Egyptian soil, I, helpless woman that I am, being buried.” and you know, I would’ve been buried there, et cetera. So we can go on with all of this here. And the choices they have to make, not only is these great political leaders, but where their choices can lead to of what they have to sacrifice to be, for real compromise, which maybe is essential in adulthood or not. Okay, if we can go on to the next slide, please.
Finances, you make my head hurt when you talk of money. Now, change the subject.
All right.
This is Richard Burton.
News from Rome, Octavian has forced Lepidus out of his command and into exile.
Wish I hadn’t. Wish I had not drunk so much today.
So do I.
Do I trouble you, Rufio?
Yes, you do.
I wage you never found Caesar befuddled by wine. Nothing, no one ever befuddled Caesar.
Antony, the campaign against Parthia will not be an easy one.
How many legions have we left?
It’s hard to tell, none of 'em up to strength, so many desertions.
Desertions?
They haven’t been paid in months!
You remember when we started into Greece? I lived with them, ate with them, I was one of them. They seem distant to me now, as if they were a memory.
We must find the gold to pay them.
So if we can hold it here.
To feed them, supplies.
Thank you. If we can hold it here, okay. So here Antony realises all of it comes back, his mind’s come back. He’s been lost in passion, sensuality, and so on. What has he really lost? He’s lost his legions, he’s lost his power back in Rome. He’s no longer in charge. What has he lost? What has he given up for the passion of love. How far will he go? And it’s too late. You know, the legions have gone, they’ve deserted, they’ve gone back to Octavian. Yeah, just wanted to show this briefly as a little bit of a human moment in the character, when he realises how far have I gone, what have I done. Any political leader, how far, my god. Was it all worth it, wasn’t it? The doubts, you know, 'cause we don’t really see these anymore shown on the news, shown on TV, it’s all so doctored and groomed, in terms of how it’s presented. Shakespeare takes us deep inside, when the loss dawns, what Antony’s given up. Okay, if we can show the next one, please.
Friends, Romans, countrymen.
So this is Brando.
Lend me your ears.
Brando.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones, so let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, for Brutus is an honourable man, so are they all, all honourable men, come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me. But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that, on the Lupercal, I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause. What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him? O judgement , thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason. Bear with me, my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause 'til it come back to me.
Me thinks there is much reason in his saying.
If thou consider rightly of the matter, Caesar has had great wrong.
Has he, masters? I fear there will a worst come in his place.
Mark ye his words. He would not take the crown, therefore it is certain he was not ambitious.
[Plebeian] If it be found so, some will dear abide it.
[Plebeian] There’s not a nobler man in Rome than Antony.
Now mark him. He begins again to speak
Poor soul, his eyes are red as fire with weeping.
But yesterday the word of Caesar might have stood against the world. Now lies he there, and none so poor to do him reverence. Oh masters, if I were disposed to stir your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage, I should do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong, who you all know are honourable men. I will not do them wrong. I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honourable men. But here’s a parchment with the seal of Caesar. I found it in his closet, 'tis his will let but the commons hear this testament, which, pardon me, I do not mean to read. And they would go and kiss dead Caesar’s wounds and dip their napkins in his sacred blood, yeah, beg a hair of him for memory, and dying, mention it within their wills, bequeathing it as the rich legacy unto their issue.
We’ll hear the will, read it, Mark Antony.
We will hear Caesar’s will.
Patience, gentle friends, I must not read it. It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you. You are not wood, you are not stones, but men. And being men, hearing the will of Caesar, it will inflame you, it will make you mad. It is good you know not that you are his heirs. For if you should, oh what would come of it?
Read the will! We’ll hear it, Antony!
[Plebeian] You shall read us the will, Caesar’s will!
Will you be patient? Will you stay a while? I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it.
If we can hold it here.
I fear I wrong the honourable men who.
You can just freeze it there for a moment, thank you. I wanted to show this, not only 'cause it’s Brando acting, but it’s one of the most remarkable political speeches, of course, as we all know, written. And he’s, Brando’s trying to come in with the whole way of saying it. But what is it really trying to do? It’s on the one hand, okay, he’s been killed. Brutus is honourable. They tried their best for the sake of keeping a republic, keeping a democracy going. But in the will, Caesar leaves so much of his fortune to the ordinary citizens of Rome. And the whole thing turns when they hear that truth from what Caesar has left in his will. But it’s the way of using rhetorics, which is so underestimated in our times. But as we all know, rhetoric was taught in so many places going back, you know, hundreds, thousands of years, the ability to speak, to turn, to twist the minds of people and the individuals. Caesar was bad, Caesar was wrong. Caesar did all these terrible things, but. And everybody says, you know, and of course they were done by honourable men. But look what he really left. Look, what he really did. Was he such a malevolent dictator? Might he have been benevolent? He might have wanted to set up dictatorship, but he was a benevolent one, as opposed to those who killed. So, you know, what Shakespeare, I think, is doing, not only setting up the art of rhetoric here, but trying to say these things are so much more complex than just goodies and baddies, the cowboy, the Indian, you know, that kind of dichotomy. That it’s, all of these things are more complex and nuanced. And of course, Antony, as Caesar’s best soldier general, is trying to whip up the people again.
But I think the power is, ultimately, of Shakespeare. What constitutes leadership? What constitutes tyranny? What constitutes those who will suffer, those who will lead? What compromises have to be made? When are the mistakes way too big and go way too far, or way too idiotic and entirely self-serving, or not? All these questions, I think, are set up in the “Julius Caesar” play, and I don’t think they’re answered easily at all. I don’t think they’re answered easily in “Antony and Cleopatra,” passion and politics. Here, it’s benevolent-malevolent dictatorship. What are the nuances of all of it played out? And I don’t have to be it, it’s so obvious, you know, possible references to our times, and the 20th century and our times as well, as we’re going to the 21st century. I just think these plays are still so relevant. Obviously the language of Shakespeare, but the ideas behind them. And that history itself is the drama. And again, going back to the original idea. Do we ride the wave of history? We have no choice as individuals. Is it fate, destiny? Or are we able to surf the wave of history, or channel the wave of history, as individuals making choices, this way or that? Ultimately, that’s the challenge, I think, that Shakespeare sets up for all of us, and there’s absolutely no easy answer. And it will take a long time to debate these things profoundly. Okay, so let me hold it here, and we can go into some questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Denise, Janet Suzman, marvellous, brilliant actress, absolutely. And those quotes, yeah, without a doubt. Thank you, Denise.
Okay, and there’s another. There’s you’ve given a reference, thanks. Miriam, Elizabeth Taylor. Yeah, I mean, she tries to get the royalty of it, and the beauty, exactly. But I think what Janet Suzman does is capture the intelligence of Cleopatra, and the infinite variety, the wide-ranging understanding of Cleopatra. I think Janet Suzman captures it superbly. So she gets the politics, the passion, the wide-ranging geopolitical deals between the province of Egypt and the superpower of Rome being made, more than Elizabeth Taylor, to be really honest. I think Janet just does it superbly, because there’s so many of these levels. She never forgets she’s the queen of a province under the superpower of Rome, and she’s also having this incredibly passionately powerful love affair with Antony.
You know, and how do you weigh up that? If we imagine in our own times, you know, first world, third world, racial, religious conflicts, et cetera, which might be set up in a similar way.
Q: Paula, how did Wallis Simpson use the powers of Edward, who gave up all for love?
A: That’s a recent example. Yeah, I think the only difference is that, you know, he is going to be the king, he’s the king briefly, but doesn’t have anything like the power that the triumvirates, you know, of all that these others would’ve had, obviously, Antony and Caesar, Octavius Caesar, and all the others. I think that’s a huge difference, in terms of Wallis Simpson and Edward, 'cause the real power still belongs to Parliament and the cabinet political leadership. Rita, Cleopatra with Janet can be viewed there, yeah. If anybody wants to treat themselves, watch Janet Suzman in a fantastic performance of Cleopatra, and other performances, but this one in particular.
Q: Dennis, any comments on the depiction of characters in Bernard Shaw?
A: That’s a fascinating point. Bernard Shaw’s “Caesar and Cleopatra,” very different. Just I’m not going to try and duck here, but short of time, I think that would make it a whole interesting different discussion. I try to focus more on the Shakespeare and the, what’s extraordinary for me is that he gets so much of complexity inside that one story. I really think it’s one of his really, really great plays. Not easy to balance politics, passion, both, a superpower, province of the superpower, first world, third world in our contemporary terms, as well with all his language.
Ron, hi. Hope you’re well, Ron. Interesting to see a young Martin Landau play opposite Richard Burton, yep, in Cleopatra. A few years after he played the heavy working of James Mason, Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest,” decades before his outstanding performance of Woody Allen’s “Crimes and Misdemeanours.”
Yeah, absolutely. Mitzi, I’m not trying, why create Israel with Hamas? God, not at all. Mitzi, never. Sure, no. Hamas is one of the most evil terrorist organisations ever came across, no question in my mind. And Israel, a completely different world. You know, I’m looking at Shakespeare here, and you know, what’s going on in Shakespeare’s play. Okay. There, there.
Rita, thank you. Thank you for your kind comment. Sharon, thank you, kind comments and whole lot there afterwards. Thank you very much.
Okay. I want to leave you, and I know. As a young kid, I actually thought Elizabeth Taylor was Cleopatra. I know, I think a lot of people did. If you want to treat yourselves and watch Janice Suzman’s portrayal, for me, it’s absolutely brilliant. Over the last 50, 60 years, 70 years, that portrayal is an absolute masterpiece, in terms of understanding everything about passion, politics, geopolitics, province, superpower, all of these things inside the richness of Mr. Shakespeare’s language. To me it’s far greater than some of these other performances that you know we all know of. Okay, so I’m going to hold it here, and I know that this is left with the sense of so much complexity, but I think Shakespeare’s maturity really comes through in “Antony and Cleopatra.” And I think it’s a play that one can discuss endlessly and look at endlessly, 'cause it’s not simple, Rome versus Egypt, cerebral world versus sensual world, you know, all the stuff we’re taught, maybe in high school. I remember being taught like that. I don’t think it’s that at all. I think it’s about are we foam on the wave of history, or are we able to surf the wave of history.
Are we able to direct the wave of history, or are we mere foam on the wave of history, even if we are the great political leaders of our times? That, to me, is much deeper inside what Shakespeare’s doing in “Antony and Cleopatra” and “Julius Caesar,” the other play. Okay, so going to hold it there. And thank you very much. Oh, there’s a couple more questions here. Thank you, Denise. And then this last one here. Okay, well whole lot more there. But just thank you so much for your kindness and your honest, lovely thoughts there. I’m not going to go into all of them. Okay, thank you very much, and thanks Georgia. And take care, everybody, and hope you have a great rest of the week, cheers.