Production Reviews
1966
This review almost makes the reader feel bad for Barber. The critic spares no time digging into this opera, which Barber called his best work, saying that it was the “great disaster” of his career. He claims that the setting was “gaudy and overfrightened” with a poor composition of music to follow. The critic called the music “searing and overripe” which ruins the air of the show. The arguing melodies between Egypt and Rome have their meanings muddled and, while performed expertly by Miss Honigsburg, came off as “unsympathetic.” There are some notes from the critic that the opera did steer away from vulgar topics and retained a refined atmosphere, but that is not enough to make up for the sheer amount of disappointment the audience had from watching this opera.
1972
This 1972 Charles Heston-directed version of Antony and Cleopatra received an utterly scathing review where all the production flaws were put on display. The critiques range from the props used to the actors themselves. The critic analyzes how Charles’ role as director and actor hurt the movie overall through his attempts to juggle roles. Additionally, the casting is poor due to the lack of “sexiness” that actress Hildegard Neil brought to Cleopatra. The story was not faithful to the original play with multiple character deaths being different and the unnecessary amount of extra combat, which was put in to pad the run time after removing an entire act. Overall, this critic advises viewers to not waste their time watching this movie.
1981
This performance of Antony and Cleopatra appears to have underwhelmed the critic, who claimed that it was a disappointing production compared to the previous year’s Cymbeline. The actions were dull and distant until the very end, whereas at the Battle of Actium, the naval combat was poorly done with model boats that were similar to a “celestial game of shuffle board.” They use the same background of basic pillars for every setting in the play. On top of the lackluster action, the drama was seriously lacking. The actors at times were awkward and seemed to be surprised about being on stage. Finally, the critic was upset that Cleopatra was not played by an attractive woman, claiming that “her maids… are more attractive than she is.” The poor casting along with the abysmal action scenes took the wind out of this play's sails.
2002
This production was undertaken by a company that utilized only women and transgender actors. Their use of stellar costumes and design assisted with the suspension of disbelief while still adding to the atmosphere. Additionally, the music was both dynamic and immersive, assisting in drawing the audience into the performance. The only problem with the play was in the cut. They cut so much of the playout that its runtime was halved. This led to characters entering and leaving with no introduction, leaving the audience both confused and distracted. To assist with the speed of the play, there was no background or scenery. While supplemented by the costumes and music, this detracted from the audience’s immersion. Overall, the critic provided high praise for the play, despite the blaring issues present.
2009
Out of every review on this page, this was by far the most generous. The critic raves about the amazing performances that are strung together, telling the story of Rome. The play was intended to provide societal commentary on life in the information era by having a modern viewing area. In this area, large screens were used to display news from around the world from the war in Afghanistan to reality television in the US. This intention was to distract the audience, providing commentary on the inability of people to focus on one thing in an era of distractions. The actors at times were on their phones in some scenes, once again driving this point home. This was not done at random though. Scenes of war on the screens were used in conjunction with on-stage combat. The scene performed and displayed were intended to place the play in a modern context that the audience not only could understand but empathize with. The performance overall was done very well, walking a line between reality and fantasy. The only negative thing the critic had to say was that the translations provided to the non-Dutch audience detracted from Shakespeare’s work. This is to be expected though, as translating any work from one language to another is bound to leave nuances lost in translation.
2010
The critic provides high praise for this bold adaptation of Antony and Cleopatra, where concepts of female oppression, sexuality, and abuse are explored. The Empire of Rome takes the form of a bureaucratic corporation while the Egyptians are a hedonistic and cultured court. The start difference emphasizes the cold and warm split between the two cultures. A more accurate representation of Marc Antony’s and Cleopatra’s relationship is shown, riddles with abuse and assault. The pharaoh is portrayed as actually vulnerable, rather than a heartless and cold ruler. She is a victim in every sense of the word and instead of giving in to her oppressors, she instead chooses death. The critic notes how this is an especially impactful message in South Africa due to the systematic oppression of women. This was a bold and daring play that was exactly what needed to be shown.
2010
The 2010 Hartford Production of Antony and Cleopatra was a highly lauded and well-received performance that utilized the lack of unity to create a cohesive story. The more modern setting created a foil between an industrial and militant Rome headed by the triumvirate, who wore “Nazi” style trenchcoats, while the Egyptians were depicted as a cultural hub wearing robes, music, and art that blended different styles and cultures together. This juxtaposed the two cultures and emphasized the cultural differences. On top of it, the androgynous performance of Cleopatra with the schizophrenic Marc Antony, combined with the diverse cast led to a fully inclusive play that broke stereotypes and gender roles while analyzing the geopolitical landscape. The acting was superb as well, but the dichotomy of Rome and Egpy combined with the cast and their breaking tradition is what really set this play apart from other productions.
2014
The 2014 production of Antony and Cleopatra at the Globe Theater was a rousing success that brought many different aspects to the tragedy that, while the audience did not expect, were wildly applauded. The most notable of which is the sheer amount of actually good comedy from the clown that brings the poison to Cleopatra to Marc Antony’s failed attempt at suicide, all of which the critic notes drew a large amount of laughter from the crowd. The actors’ performances were not lacking either. Clive Wood and Eve Best, playing Antony and Cleopatra respectively, were a dynamic due that had on-stage chemistry and truly brought the character to life. They were sexy and handsome but conveyed the depth of each character, truly putting a Roman general and Egyptian Pharaoh in the 21st century.
2015
This performance took place in an outdoor theater, where they were able to expertly utilize natural lighting for visual effects. The setting was created in such a way so that as the sunset, a golden light highlighted the triangle structure in the background to create a pyramid. The positioning and stage presence was also stellar with the Romans occupying more of the stage as the play progressed. The Romans were portrayed as militant and cold while the Egyptians were cultured and rich. Just like the stage, the Egyptian setting became increasingly cold and harsh as Rome’s influence spread. The critic highlights Jeffery King’s performance as Enobarbus. Whenever he was on stage, he drew the eyes of the audience. Above all else, this performance utilized a fair amount of comedy that kept the audience entertained. The only issue the critic had with this performance was a difficulty in hearing the actors at some points, which was due to the performance location and lack of certain technology.
2018
The critic provides a balanced review that identifies the well-executed parts of the play but also acknowledges the not so well executed parts. He provides his context as a viewer during a global pandemic, which admittedly leads to some of the critics he has with the show. For example, the pop culture references present served as a distraction for online viewers, as the references themselves were just one click away. This drew viewers out of the play and threatened to lose them to the very things they were referencing. Additionally, the stage and props came off as clunky. It was a good attempt to try and add Egyptian influence in the Rome scenes and vice versa, but the vibrant Egyptian colors did not mesh well with the sterile Roman background. The choice to have the play start with the end was also a questionable decision. The critic notes that many of these issues would not have been noticeable in person, but with the ability to pause at will, they became blatantly clear. It is noted that this play was a great play, and was at the top of the critic's list for Shakespeare works, but the entire performance served as a reminder of pre-pandemic life.