How did you approach the text? Through what lens did you view the characters, who did you focus on the most, and which elements did you pay particular attention to?

Julius Caesar is a grand drama with many characters, but a large number of them serve a specific function — they're there to fulfil a task rather than being fully developed characters, except the central figures: Julius Caesar himself, the conspirator Cassius, the more well-known Brutus, and the indispensable Mark Antony.

As for the other characters, in collaboration with the director, we made several adaptations — we combined certain characters into one, removed others, and I even wrote in some new material. Among the conspirators, we focused on Cassius, Brutus, Casca, Decius Brutus, and Cinna. Our general aim was to shape well-rounded characters with clear motivations, not only in terms of Caesar's assassination, but more broadly.

We didn't focus solely on the rebels — we also chose to give greater prominence to the female roles than Shakespeare originally did.

We are engaging with both ancient Rome and the modern world simultaneously. Within the story itself, a major shift occurs as the characters transition into the contemporary era, creating a direct link between the past and the present.

How would you connect the plot of Caesar to the world today?

The entire tragedy is highly relevant even today. Shakespeare was writing as a critique of the ruling powers of his own time, and now those themes have become universal — the power struggle, questions of honour and ideals.

How vital are ideals, and to what extent should they be placed above personal interest?

Although it may seem that democracy exists today, the reality is that a tiny group of people controls the world. That's why it's so easy to connect Caesar to authoritarian rule, as exemplified in numerous instances. Tyranny is very much alive — and unfortunately, we witness it every day.

You've expanded the presence of female characters in the production, even introducing new ones not found in the original text. How did you go about developing these roles, and what inspired their creation, especially considering how simply they were written in Shakespeare's version?

The only two female characters in the tragedy are Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, and Portia, Brutus's wife. Their scenes are important — Portia senses that something is troubling Brutus just by looking at him. At the same time, Calpurnia pleads with Caesar not to go to the Senate on that fateful day because she's had a dream foretelling his death. In our production, we took their roles a step further by continuing to follow them through the plot, even though in the original, they appear only up until Caesar's assassination.

We also introduced two entirely new female characters not present in the original — Livia and Cornelia, attendants to Portia and Calpurnia. After the assassination, they become equal members of the opposing armies — one aligning with Antony, the other with Brutus and Cassius. We aimed to extract the core of Shakespeare's original female characters and deepen their context.

In addition to Livia and Cornelia, we also introduced a very significant new character — Caesar's Creature, played by Petra Kovačić Botić, who plays a crucial role in our interpretation of the tragedy.

What is the relationship between Cassius and Brutus? Is Cassius someone who manipulates Brutus, or do they speak from the same position — a shared desire to achieve their goal?

In Shakespeare's work, there are no black-and-white characters. At the very beginning, Cassius is much more resolute than Brutus. He sees the potential direction Caesar's rule could take — toward dictatorship — and acts preemptively, hoping to stop something that could escalate further in the future.

Cassius is an experienced and determined soldier who knows he won't be able to rally the other senators without Brutus by his side, since Brutus is highly respected in the Senate, and his support carries significant weight. Brutus's relationship with Caesar prevents him from immediately committing to such a radical course of action.

After the assassination, tension arises between Brutus and Cassius — they begin to resent each other, and we witness how they handle military leadership, finances, and various crises differently. This leads to conflict and raises the question of how aligned their ideals truly were — or weren't.

As Mark Antony says in his final monologue about Brutus: "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."

Mark Antony delivered a funeral speech that threatened the senators, and Brutus himself allowed him to do so. How did Brutus make such a mistake when Antony was already known as a powerful orator, and his close relationship with Caesar was no secret?

While the conspirators were still only planning the assassination, the question arose: what about Antony? Cassius was the one who insisted that Antony should also be eliminated, but Brutus argued against making their deed too bloody. He said, "We are the sacrificers, but not the slaughterers."

The senators—especially Brutus—did not want to act like tyrants; that was precisely what they were fighting against. Because of this, they felt they had to give Antony a chance, hoping to maintain the republic's system, which was designed to protect all parties.

Did you struggle with how to portray Antony to the audience, and how important is his character?

Antony's funeral speech for Caesar is one of the most famous monologues in dramatic literature, and its delivery is incredibly important. However, we didn't have too many doubts because the situation is quite clear—and the fact that the brilliant Goran Marković plays the role certainly helps.

Antony's speech ultimately leads to conflict and the final victory at the Battle of Philippi. Beyond leading a powerful army and wielding strong rhetoric that won the people's favour after Caesar's death—leading to the formation of the Second Triumvirate—Mark Antony is also known for his love of lavish parties and being highly desired by women.

In the play, we also aimed to portray this side—the celebrations that Antony, and even Caesar himself, enjoyed.

Was there a part of the text where the dramaturgy was challenging, where you weren't sure how to present it on stage?

The director had a very clear vision from the start about the direction of the story, so we worked together to refine the finer details of how to build the scenes. There weren't any major dilemmas—everything flowed naturally. From the very beginning, the director and I quickly found ourselves on the same page, and I immediately recognised the direction and method to shape the story.

How deeply did you need to delve into the historical context of the plot? Did you use other sources to gain a broader understanding of the bigger picture?

It's very complex—many relationships and historical contexts influence the entire course, as well as their prior situations. Every project requires preparation, but this one even more so, since it's a canonical work based on historical facts. It's essential to approach it carefully, because here in Split, where the drama takes place, there is a strong connection to Roman heritage. I'm very excited that the play will be performed at the Silver Gate, making the Roman architecture itself an equal character alongside all the historical figures appearing within the Palace.