The set was modern and very classy; it was the outside of a parliamentary building. Instead of having a set change for each scene, they kept the same sets but had different features so that it was obvious whose house it was or if it was inside or outside. After the interval, the set was changed so it was inside the leaders tents during the battle. Before the interval, Julius Caesar had been murdered and the blood had stained the floor. The second set was made out of broken glass, which reflected the bloodstained floor. I thought this was very symbolic because the blood represented Julius Caesar"s ghost and presence; the broken glass was like the crushed empire. The second set was much more dramatic and easily captured by the audience's eye. Whereas, I felt, set one was rather dull and too stereotypical. .
If the director had set the play during the Roman era, it would have been obvious of the class distinction by their dress, such as expensive robes for the upper class. Instead, this version was more modern, the important characters were in business-like suits, and their wives were dressed smartly. The rioters were dressed to look like thugs, which did set the right atmosphere. The only costume, which I disagreed with, was the Oracle's. In Shakespeare's play, the Oracle is a close, wise friend of Julius Caesars, not some beggar. The Oracle was Julius Caesar only link to the Gods and to his future. The way the director dressed him; I felt was inappropriate for the character and portrayed him wrongly. Maybe Mark Thomson felt that having dressed as a beggar would send out the message that beggars can be influential and someone that society frowns upon can hold a great deal of wisdom.
I felt, the director wanted the actors to be unaware of the audience, so instead of them never having their backs to us, there were some moments when certain characters would turn their bodies around.