plisetskys's review against another edition
3.0
“when a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.”
i enjoyed this! would love to re-read this later and see if i can get into it a little bit more , but i liked it this time around!
i enjoyed this! would love to re-read this later and see if i can get into it a little bit more , but i liked it this time around!
lukijana_aija's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
eb00kie's review
3.0
Well-crafted, especially in characters and aspects of historic criticism, and sardonic, yet very long-winded in the beginning and middle, especially for someone who didn't, as of writing this, go through the [b:Shakespearian source of influence|104837|Antony and Cleopatra|William Shakespeare|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347795799s/104837.jpg|717119] - as it is, I expect it translates very well on stage and I can't wait to see it.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
George Bernard Shaw was such a vile, bitter man. It's fascinating to me how he chose to utilise his (undeniable) talent.
This play is unfortunately one of Shaw's best. The imagery is simply superb: Caesar in the desert at night speaking to the statue of the sphinx, the young Cleopatra nestled between its stone paws. Although I don't necessarily like the portrayal of either Julius Caesar or Cleopatra VII, I love the play itself.
This play is unfortunately one of Shaw's best. The imagery is simply superb: Caesar in the desert at night speaking to the statue of the sphinx, the young Cleopatra nestled between its stone paws. Although I don't necessarily like the portrayal of either Julius Caesar or Cleopatra VII, I love the play itself.
kahale's review against another edition
2.0
This play by Shaw shows the relationship between JC and the Queen. The language is a little stilted. It was interesting that the beginning narrator was the god Ra.
jannathfazli's review
adventurous
funny
informative
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
hayleyashal's review against another edition
5.0
The film really stuck close to the text, which I loved, the reimaginings of Cleopatra and Caesar were humorous and fun, I loved it!
ioanaisreading's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this! It's funny, clever, and it kept me interested, which says something for a play. I plan on reading more from GB Shaw.
vegancleopatra's review
This play is atrocious and I'm surprised more people do not feel vitriolic towards it.
First of all, I greatly disliked that the author chose to use real historical people to bitterly gripe about England. A story/play about real people from 2,000 years prior is just not the place to be moaning and groaning about current (for him) jolly ol' England. I realize that this was supposed to be some sort of badly done satire, but it just does not work for me.
Second of all (but first in my heart), Shaw's Cleopatra is an utter joke. I've read plenty of HF and NF works on Cleopatra and I don't think I have seen anyone represent Cleopatra so badly. Shaw's Cleopatra is idiotic, immature, whiny, gullible and the list goes on. I was appalled.
I also could not help but picture, due to the voice of the narrator, Caesar as Ebenezer Scrooge. Needless to say, griping about "current" England, a nitwit Cleopatra and a Scrooge Caesar makes for a really freaking awful attempt at anything resembling enjoyable literature for this reader.
First of all, I greatly disliked that the author chose to use real historical people to bitterly gripe about England. A story/play about real people from 2,000 years prior is just not the place to be moaning and groaning about current (for him) jolly ol' England. I realize that this was supposed to be some sort of badly done satire, but it just does not work for me.
Second of all (but first in my heart), Shaw's Cleopatra is an utter joke. I've read plenty of HF and NF works on Cleopatra and I don't think I have seen anyone represent Cleopatra so badly. Shaw's Cleopatra is idiotic, immature, whiny, gullible and the list goes on. I was appalled.
I also could not help but picture, due to the voice of the narrator, Caesar as Ebenezer Scrooge. Needless to say, griping about "current" England, a nitwit Cleopatra and a Scrooge Caesar makes for a really freaking awful attempt at anything resembling enjoyable literature for this reader.
dilby's review
Wow. What a delightful first experience with Shaw. Hilarious and moving and puzzling, and, to my delight, it feels incomplete without seeing it in performance (lucky me, I get to see it at the American Shakespeare Center in a few days).
Approaching this play in conversation with Shakespeare's Roman plays in mind, then, I was perhaps extra keyed in to a concern that Shaw himself raises in the play's notes: "whether our world has not been wrong in its moral theory for the last 2,500 years or so" when it comes to the construction of enormous figures at the center of the Western identity. Shaw was referring to his deliberately (sort of) counterintuitive depiction of Caesar as a rather laid-back, frequently hilarious domineer, certainly a tactical genius but decidedly not in the vein of Caesar's own self-styling in De Bello Gallico and De Bello Civili. When you see a bust of Caesar in a stuffy Yale University library, it is probably not meant to be Shaw's Caesar.
So it feels, to me, more in the vein of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra than Julius Caesar. To me, JC's characters are stand-ins for certain political/philosophical principles, manifested in both the ideas they articulate and in the rhetorical structures they use to do so. A&C, on the other hand, abounds in contradictions, self-doubt, fickleness--and I think in that later play, Shakespeare discovered that by making his characters contain multitudes, in some ways making them more like ordinary people (who are nevertheless participants in extraordinary events), he actually lent them greater tragic/dramatic stature. I tend to find Cleopatra's "His legs bestrid the ocean [etc.]" more impactful and believable than Cassius' "Like a Colossus, and we petty men / Walk under his huge legs."
Anyway, I think that is partly what Shaw is up to here, and he keys us in to that fact with the prologue, so I may simply be playing into his hands by writing all of this. I am delighted to come away from this play with questions that I feel cannot bed answered by the text alone: Are we to sincerely believe that Caesar’s sheer force of personality “made a woman of [Cleopatra],” or is this simply what Caesar himself would like to believe? Is Shaw's Caesar really a once-in-a-civilization genius, or does he simply have extremely good luck? Only performance will tell.
Approaching this play in conversation with Shakespeare's Roman plays in mind, then, I was perhaps extra keyed in to a concern that Shaw himself raises in the play's notes: "whether our world has not been wrong in its moral theory for the last 2,500 years or so" when it comes to the construction of enormous figures at the center of the Western identity. Shaw was referring to his deliberately (sort of) counterintuitive depiction of Caesar as a rather laid-back, frequently hilarious domineer, certainly a tactical genius but decidedly not in the vein of Caesar's own self-styling in De Bello Gallico and De Bello Civili. When you see a bust of Caesar in a stuffy Yale University library, it is probably not meant to be Shaw's Caesar.
So it feels, to me, more in the vein of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra than Julius Caesar. To me, JC's characters are stand-ins for certain political/philosophical principles, manifested in both the ideas they articulate and in the rhetorical structures they use to do so. A&C, on the other hand, abounds in contradictions, self-doubt, fickleness--and I think in that later play, Shakespeare discovered that by making his characters contain multitudes, in some ways making them more like ordinary people (who are nevertheless participants in extraordinary events), he actually lent them greater tragic/dramatic stature. I tend to find Cleopatra's "His legs bestrid the ocean [etc.]" more impactful and believable than Cassius' "Like a Colossus, and we petty men / Walk under his huge legs."
Anyway, I think that is partly what Shaw is up to here, and he keys us in to that fact with the prologue, so I may simply be playing into his hands by writing all of this. I am delighted to come away from this play with questions that I feel cannot bed answered by the text alone: Are we to sincerely believe that Caesar’s sheer force of personality “made a woman of [Cleopatra],” or is this simply what Caesar himself would like to believe? Is Shaw's Caesar really a once-in-a-civilization genius, or does he simply have extremely good luck? Only performance will tell.
More...