It’s really about Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. In passing, I mentioned that it seemed to be an important play these days.
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
So Delta pulled the corporate sponsorship from a Shakespeare in the park, because of the potential timbre and flavor? Julius Caesar?
There’s the apocryphal tale told about a revived performance of Richard II in order to help incite a possible overthrow. It does tell the tale — in part — the play itself, Richard II, it does spin a yarn about the overthrow of one King, an uprising, and new regime.
Part of that play’s history of performance includes a February 1601 production paid for by certain nobles intent on overthrowing the Queen.
The connection is tenuous — at best — but I am a great believer in the free market economy. If one airline deems it unwise to advertise — via sponsorship — with a single set of one series, in this example a poignant and pointed version of a play about the fall of a tragic character, that’s the joy of the market. It is also my choice not to fly Delta. To be transparent, I haven’t flown Delta in 20 or more years, but now I can choose not to, in support of the Shakespeare in the park.
Bit convoluted, and in my experience, if one company pulls sponsorship for a piece of art that might seem a bit controversial? Several strong benefactors will step in to match the loss. But that could be me.
Update: According to the British press, The Guardian…