Anxiety, treachery, and treason were hanging over Rome in the first century b. c., while the people were a flock of senseless, swayable mob and a dictator was rising to power. The ominous setting of the play Julius Caesar struck a conspicuous chord with a certain type of film: film noir.
The term “film noir” was originally created to describe crime, thriller, detective pictures made in 1940-1950s, film critiques had noted that this genre was defined by traits like high-contrast shots, but also by recurring themes such as the main character undergoing a series of moral crisis and social turmoil.
The resemblance of their nature embarked my reading of Julius Caesar from the angle of film noir. In the following context, I will examine more thoroughly as we dive into the strange case of Rome.
In the Darkness of Rome Julius Caesar had a quite sinister tone, and it came from no other than political instability. The play opened with the crowd waiting for Caesar’s triumphant return; despite the one had been defeated and scalped was Pompey, the former authority figure of Rome. The ever-changing directions of allegiance was shown in the first place.
The threat of dictatorship also sprung as the insolence inside Caesar grew; he constantly referred to himself in the third person, even before his death: Et tu, Brute? — Then fall, Caesar! [3,1,77]
And, his speech: Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause/ Will he be satisfied. [3,1,47-48]
However, the crowd received him as a mighty leader. Antony’s words rang in whoever has ears: “When Caesar says ‘Do this’, it is performed.” (1,2,10) Caesar had become godlike. Albeit he had thrice rejected the crown, the desire for kingship lingered; Caesar’s anticipation for heritage could even be viewed as the anticipation of an heir.
This initialed the Senate to hatch a plot against Caesar. The Senators met at night, just like all conspirators would do, also dressed in that same fashion: hats, and cloaks to cover their faces. Brutus inwardly denounced them: O conspiracy,/ Sham’st thou to show thy dang’rous brow by night,/ When evils are most free? [2,1,77-79]
But eventually joined them. Though Brutus believed their action was for the greater good, other participants had completely acting out of their own interests: Cassius was envious for Caesar, the others were only afraid their own positions would be threatened (and their fear flourished after two tribunes Marullus and Flavius were “put to silence” (1,2,283)).
To the Senators, the collision with Caesar was inevitable and would be a “who-shoot-first” situation; so they must commit the treason, despite they clearly acknowledged its vice: In favour’s like the work we have in hand,/ Most bloody-fiery, and most terrible. [1,3,129-130]
The easily agitated crowd, the wrestle over power, and all those frictions that had been brewing beneath Rome finally blew up; after Antony’s incitement, the political turmoil quickly expanded into mutiny, and further leading the country into civil war.
The playwright’s depiction of chaos could be seen as a response of his time. As Marjorie Garber had pointed out: “To Elizabethan England, as to the Rome of Julius Caesar, one of the most dreaded political consequences was the threat of civil war.” Other critics also had mentions this might convey Shakespeare’s political concern.
Film noir emerged in a special time period from 1941 to 1958, when post-war pressure and uncertainty were hovering over the society. In film noir, the atmosphere was dark and the themes were often overshadowed with paranoia.
The characters were likely to be dangerous criminals, underworld bosses, corrupted cops, and shady politicians: those who strived for power, and assumedly had the same will to annihilate anyone who dared to cross their ways. Those were people who would conduct what the Senators had done to Caesar in a different time.
Gangsters ruling over the city struck visual similarity to the mob roaming the streets of Rome; also, the national anxiety were heavily expressed in both contexts. The symbolisms of distress were shown by omens in Julius Caesar, depicted by a horrified Casca: But never till tonight, never till now,/ Did I go through a tempest dropping fire. [1,3,9-10]
And there were a slave with a burning hand, a lion, men that walking the street in fire, and birds that shrieked at noonday, too: surreal as they may seemed, these elements altogether made the scene more eerie, and could be viewed as the representations of restless suspicion.
In film noir, the streets were always dark and damp, mesmerizing smoke indicating moral ambiguity, storms or changeable weather were sometimes utilized to intensify the story. All of the examples above showed the playwright and the screenwriters use the threatening surroundings as a method to signify psychological status.
Brutus, the Wounded Protagonist Julius Caesar was a moral story. It was not "the bad learned the virtue through hard ways" kind of themes, but "let-the-good-guy-descended-into-the-hell-of-chaos-and-only-get-a-spark-of-redemption-in-the-end".
This narrative could be frequently used by film noir, and has too an ending a little more than “the good conquered the evil” due to its complex background setting.
Like other protagonists in film noir, might it be a detective with a strict code or a young man with kind heart: Brutus started off as an upright man, being known for his honor and nobility. Casca illustrated his good value best:
O, he sits high in all the people’s hearts;/ And that which would appear offence in us/ His countenance, like richest alchemy,/ Will change to virtue and to worthiness. [1,3,157-160]
He began to walk the downward spiral only after Cassius approached him, after their first meeting Cassius claimed “three parts of him is ours already” (1,3,4-5) Two proofs: Brutus's former attempt to walk out of the ceremony because he feared that people might choose Caesar to be their king. (Being a friend of Caesar, he was a Republican after all.)
Second, his low self-knowledge opened up a crack to let Cassius lure him. It was not until Cassius, a crooked mirror, deliberately polished his reflection, did him started to hold himself as a hero. And with the letters projected more false praises, came vanity.
In the late night meeting, Brutus idealism was shown when he proclaimed that there was no need to make oath, his refusal to kill Antony also validated this idea.
The conscious of Brutus became conflicted that he suffered the loss of sleep, his distress even effected his wife Portia, ultimately led to the cost of an innocent life — This resembles to the tragedy of film noir protagonists, as their efforts finally backfired — it was always those who were closest to him that endured the consequences.
His mind refused to take the name of treason, so he called and from now on believed the murder was “a benefit” (3,1,103) liberating Rome, for the sake of “what’s done cannot be undone”. However, the crowd cried out: Let him be Caesar. [3,2,49]
This could be one of the most devastating realizations of all time.
The civil war and Portia’s death had driven Brutus almost into desperation when he accused Cassius in the tent. Instead of listening to Cassius, his words poured out as menace, even contained the same self-righteousness as Caesar’s: He had become the very man he killed.
Yet down to the bottom of his heart he was still the gentle and the kind-hearted that cared enough not to wake tired child up. His suicide preserved his honor and compensated Caesar’s death; eventually, he was redeemed by the epitaph given by Antony:
*This was the noblest Roman of them all./ All the conspirators save only he/ Did that they did in envy of great Caesar. He only, in a general honest thought/ And common good to all, made one of them.* [5,5,69-73]
Also by a grand burial, “according to his virtue” (5,5,77).
This would be the best outcome for the main characters of film noir; their faith was once shattered, now came restoration. They were rewarded not for what they did, but for their constant, internal struggles to get back to the light. The strategy of this storytelling could result from Hollywood policies at that time.
The foundation of narrative could be considered to be building around morality in the first place as well. The latter concept was supported by the emphasis on struggles, weaknesses, and how the story ended with punishing unlawful deeds and glorifying goodness.
Cassius, in the Image of the “Homme Fatal” Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius,/ That you would have me seek into myself/ For that which is not in me? [1,2,3-5]
Cassius was the harmful influence that dragged Brutus down, but he was not necessarily an antagonist. He started off by using Brutus as a tool, however ended up becoming a true friend of him. In film noir, his character could be read as a “homme fatal”, the male counterpart of the more famous “femme fatale”.
Femme fatale, if was not always the central part of the plot, was the essence of this genre. She was the rival of the protagonist, stayed strong and competent by playing foul. Her lack of decency holds contrast to the other’s resisting efforts to darkness. She was the Virgil leading the other into the underworld, and sometimes portrayed as irresistible.
When it came to “homme fatal”, there were a few things needed to clear up: first, he was commonly referred as a womanizer, but not all of them used sexual appeal as a tactic. Second, a femme fatale or an homme fatal only used violence if necessary. (Violence in film noir often had a direct link to the antagonist.)
Lastly, “homme fatal” were rare even in 1950s. Due to the rareness, the word was commonly miswritten as “homme fatale” while it should be written as “homme fatal” - Since “fatale” in its original language (French) was feminine.
The central of the homme fatal was power-relation. They wielded their (seemed) vulnerability as a weapon, taking their rivals when those fell with false pride.
Cassius did fawn on Brutus, despite he denied it; he praised Brutus’s name being as fair as Caesar’s, and his act was rightfully put by his own words: a seduction.
Well, Brutus, thou art noble, yet I see/ Thy honourable mettle may be wrought/ From that it is disposed. Therefore it is meet/ That noble minds keep ever with their likes;/ For who so firm that cannot be seduced? [1,2,25-29]
To explore his character deeper, we might suspect the soliloquy did convey a tone of cynical honesty.
He was realistic compared to Brutus’s idealism, had a love for gold, and would utilized people to get what he wanted; deep down he was driven by dissatisfaction. These were all classic homme fatal/femme fatale traits (ex. Phyllis from Double Indemnity).
His awareness was also keen with cynicism (which could serve even as foreshadowings): No, Caesar hath it not; but you, and I, /And honest Casca, we have the falling sickness. [1,2,3-4]
The turning point was when he started to care about Brutus, hence the first step to the redemption. The farewell between the two seemed sincere, and he was mourned after his death.
Though the ending can be interpreted as the typical outcome of a femme fatale/homme fatal: death by his evil deeds (in this case, even by the same knife), I did think the playwright granted him a better end, as Brutus delivered the epitaph: It is impossible that ever Rome/ Should breed thy fellow. [5,3,100-101]
Conclusion Shakespeare's plays had been hold in high regard for centuries, film noir, in contrast, was born in the 21th century with a record of being viewed as low-brow entertainment. However, while Julius Caesar was a play of striking contrasts and intense structure, that pounded with a crescendo; film noir, then, was the requiem of the struggles.
Their glamour both called out to people that were fascinated by them. Also, like I mentioned above, their shared similarity opened up new interpretations and connection. Although I won't assume anything other than coincidence, it's a self-indulgence to image if Julius Caesar would one day be shot in the style of film noir.
以黑色電影的鏡頭再思《凱撒大帝》
莎士比亞 凱撒大帝
Julius Caesar had a quite sinister tone, and it came from no other than political instability. The play opened with the crowd waiting for Caesar’s triumphant return; despite the one had been defeated and scalped was Pompey, the former authority figure of Rome. The ever-changing directions of allegiance was shown in the first place.
Et tu, Brute? — Then fall, Caesar! [3,1,77]
And, his speech:
Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause/ Will he be satisfied. [3,1,47-48]
O conspiracy,/ Sham’st thou to show thy dang’rous brow by night,/ When evils are most free? [2,1,77-79]
In favour’s like the work we have in hand,/ Most bloody-fiery, and most terrible. [1,3,129-130]
But never till tonight, never till now,/ Did I go through a tempest dropping fire. [1,3,9-10]
Julius Caesar was a moral story. It was not "the bad learned the virtue through hard ways" kind of themes, but "let-the-good-guy-descended-into-the-hell-of-chaos-and-only-get-a-spark-of-redemption-in-the-end".
Let him be Caesar. [3,2,49]
The civil war and Portia’s death had driven Brutus almost into desperation when he accused Cassius in the tent. Instead of listening to Cassius, his words poured out as menace, even contained the same self-righteousness as Caesar’s: He had become the very man he killed.
He only, in a general honest thought/ And common good to all, made one of them.* [5,5,69-73]
Also by a grand burial, “according to his virtue” (5,5,77).
Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius,/ That you would have me seek into myself/ For that which is not in me? [1,2,3-5]
Second, a femme fatale or an homme fatal only used violence if necessary. (Violence in film noir often had a direct link to the antagonist.)
Cassius did fawn on Brutus, despite he denied it; he praised Brutus’s name being as fair as Caesar’s, and his act was rightfully put by his own words: a seduction.
He was realistic compared to Brutus’s idealism, had a love for gold, and would utilized people to get what he wanted; deep down he was driven by dissatisfaction. These were all classic homme fatal/femme fatale traits (ex. Phyllis from Double Indemnity).
No, Caesar hath it not; but you, and I, /And honest Casca, we have the falling sickness. [1,2,3-4]
It is impossible that ever Rome/ Should breed thy fellow. [5,3,100-101]
Shakespeare's plays had been hold in high regard for centuries, film noir, in contrast, was born in the 21th century with a record of being viewed as low-brow entertainment. However, while Julius Caesar was a play of striking contrasts and intense structure, that pounded with a crescendo; film noir, then, was the requiem of the struggles.
（肝火的部分）（應該還是很多錯…作者我致歉！）另外，很想看那樣的改編！不過如果以上述觀點思考，其實凱撒大帝有拍出來的改編電影都會是黑色電影（？）總之想看強大翻拍
，如果像巴茲勒曼那麼嗨就更好了