Dear Sir,—As Ian Rich has provocatively put an interrogation mark after his headline on the Hollywood version of Julius Caesar one is tempted to take up arms, even if unaware of the finer points of the camera's art. I disagree with your critic mainly over the character of Anthony as played by Marlon Brando His presentation of the oration in the forum scene was decidedly inferior to that show an actor whose name I cannot remember in a film strip on the death of Caesar owned by the Education Department. Here we see an actor stressing the craftiness of Anthony in putting across a speech magnificently designed by the dramatist to say one thing and mean another. The somewhat "childlike" simplicity of Marlon Brando contrasts with his astutely double dealing part. He [unclear: spoils] Shakespeare's balance of the "conscientious" characters. Caesar and Brutus, matched [unclear: tragically] against each other, with their crafty self seeking associates. Mark Anthony and Cassius.

Another point of difference. The actors. I agree, do not appreciate the poetry—but—"the little poetry the melodrama possesses". Tut! tut! Though the play is not studded with lyrics I plead that poetry is there. In contrast to early work the dramatist has incorporated his poetic genius in the genius of the play wright and we must not expect the obvious lyrical outbursts we get in earlier plays, such as "Romeo and Juliet".

"Julius Caesar" is now a [unclear: melodrama?] Here is a definition of a melodrama given by the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "Sensational, dramatic piece with violent appeals to emotions and happy ending" or the more strict definition as melodrama was when popular in the nineteenth century: "play with songs interspersed and with orchestral music accompanying the action."

As for introducing the camera's art to Shakespeare's, there may be a place for this, but I would like to see Just one straight film of an acted version in the Stratford Memorial Theatre.