Romeo and Juliet (July 12th, 2016)

Romeo & Juliet

July 12th, 2016

James and Madden

This may shock those who know me and my deep love of all things Romeo and Juliet, but I've never actually seen the play Romeo and Juliet live. It's been my favourite Shakespeare play since fourth grade (we had these cute little kids versions of R&J and a Midsummer Night's Dream in my classroom), and I played Romeo briefly in my 7th grade class' reading of the play (it was an all girls' school, and I'm very dramatic. I was an incredible Romeo). Since then, I've watched all the movies, seen two versions of the ballet, but never actually managed to see the live play itself. So there was a lot of anticipation for this moment; about 11 years' worth specifically. With something like that, it's very easy to be disappointed. Luckily, it was an absolutely wonderful performance. I can't really summarise why I loved it in just a sentence, so all I can say is go see it if you can. It's incredible.

Seat/Venue Review: R&J was presented at the Garrick Theatre; I sat in C4 in the Stalls, and it was a ticket bought on the day form £65. Unobstructed view, great view of the entire stage, close enough to see the details of the acting, but far enough away to get the 'full picture'. Good legroom, comfortable enough seats - no complaints at all. The only thing I wasn't fond of was the grand total of 3 bathrooms stalls in the stalls. The line wrapped around the entire theatre.

Onto the show! There are so many things I loved about it, and very few that I disliked. Since they're so few, it's easier to begin with what I wasn't fond of.

Tom Hanson played Romeo at this performance (filling in for Richard Madden, who is injured), and while I thought he was an excellent actor, I didn't like his interpretation of Romeo. While certainly teenager-ish (as Romeo is meant to be), I found he lacked the compassion and charm that I feel is so necessary to make Romeo 'loveable'. Logically, Romeo's quite an annoying persona (as he is written, anyway), so it's up to the actor to make the audience care. If the audience doesn't care and want what's best, the ending is far less heartrending than it could be. As it were Hanson's Romeo reminded me far too much of every single male at university; too much self-centred teenager, not enough charming gentleman. So while Hanson did commit to his character choices fully, and successfully established a clear relationship with Juliet, I just didn't find the character likeable enough. There's something else missing that I just couldn't put my finger on; he didn't exactly look like a 'Romeo' either (that sounds mean, but it's kind of important…). Romeo to me is Matthew Golding, or Guillaume Cote. So maybe it was the 'look' that was missing, maybe it was something else. Not sure, but something didn't quite work.

Jacobi, Madden, and Colgrave Hirst (The Guardian)

The other things I disliked were Mercutio (Derek Jacobi) as an old man and the interpretation of Tybalt (Ansu Kabia). I didn't understand the purpose of this at all (other than to throw an extra famous name in the mix). Yes, Jacobi was charming, and entertaining, and I really enjoyed his performance; I just could not figure out how or why this decision was made. It didn't make sense, and added nothing to the show (if anything it detracted, I spent time wondering who the man was, and why are Romeo and Benvolio friends with him?). I spent more time being confused than being able to fully absorb Jacobi's performance. As for Tybalt, he was all anger, all the time. There was only that single dimension to the character, and though it did the job, the character could've been more multidimensional.

The majority of the show, however, I loved. It was quirky and different, yet it stayed incredibly true to the original dialogue. There are so many aspects of the show that I'd like to comment on, but I can't possibly fit them all in. So safe to assume if I didn't mention something or someone, I did like it/them, I just forgot to write about it.

James (Juliet) and Madden (Romeo)
(The Guardian)

I'm always a bit wary of celebrities being cast in West End musicals and plays, usually with the concern that they're only being cast to bring in sales rather than for talent. I'm very happy to report that that is absolutely not the case with Lily James. From the moment she stepped on stage, she just was Juliet. I liked that she didn't try to play it childishly; much is made of Juliet's young age, and the fact of the matter is that James does not look 13. So she didn't try to play 13. She wasn't necessarily a mature Juliet, she was just her (does that make any sense?). What stood out the most was James' acting; she began the show as a cheerful, innocent young lady, and by the end had 'grown up' and devolved into a somewhat manic-depressive adult. Her communication of this complete devolution was spectacular to witness, and really held the show together (I thought it was an exaggeration when other people said this about her - it's entirely true). It's so important that the character not change too quickly or too slowly, and James found the perfect balance to create a very convincing portrayal. Watching her range of emotions really helps the audience to feel what Juliet was feeling, from joy, to love, to despair, to complete heartbreak. Despite knowing the ending that was coming, it was a very sad thing to witness Juliet's distress and desperation, especially in the scene where she drinks the sleeping potion and in the final scene. Her complete and utter despair was palpable; in that moment, James made you feel what Juliet was feeling. It was hard to watch, but in the best possible way. I also liked that she injected some humour into the whole thing; James breathed new life into the classic balcony scene with her somewhat drunken rendition of everyone's favourite, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" It was very refreshing (and entertaining). To top it all off, James is a wonderful triple threat. She sang a brief number in the first act's ballroom scene, and her voice is lovely and rich (very Sally Bowles in Cabaret-esque). She can also dance wonderfully (and has some very nice cartwheels). James really was the total package; that perfect combination of raw talent mixed with incredible training that creates magic onstage. Watching her wasn't watching Lily James the movie star; it was watching Juliet. The only things I thought were weird were that cartwheel sequence (James was not a childish Juliet. It was a silly choice on the part of the director) and that she spent an awful lot of time clutching her stomach, which seemed like a bizarre acting choice, and as she was doing it at curtain call too, I suspect she may not have been feeling well. But it didn't detract from her performance, just a little thing that I noticed that seemed a bit off. Altogether, James was completely wonderful. She was everything I could want a Juliet to be, yet not overly predictable. She was glorious.

While James was entrancing, she was certainly not the only performer to make an impact. I particularly enjoyed the performances of Zoe Rainey (Lady Montague), Meera Syal (Nurse), Michael Prouse (Lord Capulet), and Kathryn Wilder (Peter). Rainey stood out with her incredible stage presence, sweet disposition, and incredible emotional execution. Her sobbing at the many deaths occurring was heartbreaking. Syal was humorous and engaging, yet also grasped the more sensitive and serious aspects of the Nurse's character (such as her changing relationship with Juliet and relationship with Juliet's parents). I really enjoyed how she mocked Romeo and refused to take him seriously, and subtly threatened him when it became clear his and Juliet's fates were intertwined. Prouse was imposing and absolutely radiated a sense of power and control. It was quite scary to watch this generally calm character completely lose it at Juliet's refusal to marry Paris. He threw Juliet all over the place (you could see bruises on James' arms, so this is clearly a nightly thing) with complete reckless abandon that was really terrifying. It was a very passionate performance. Wilder as Peter was funny and quirky, always hanging around, speaking in a very thick (London?) accent. Though she did not have many lines, Wilder made her presence felt constantly, and was always engaged and interested in the action occurring around her.

I seriously adored the technical aspects of this show. The costumes were nearly flawless; each was perfectly suited to the time period and the character. I loved that Juliet was always dressed in flowy white garments; it added to the appearance of her as an 'innocent' and made her an almost ghostly, surreal figure. It was a great effect. Compared to the rest of the cast, she stuck out as this bright light that was just a little bit different than the rest of the world. The only thing I didn't like about the costumes was I felt that more of a distinction could've been made between Capulets and Montagues in the colours or styles of costumes. But otherwise, I thought everything was beautifully conceived, and fit the time period perfectly. The dresses were gorgeously made and looked great onstage and moved so well during the dance scenes. The set design, too, was very clever. I loved the look of the 'stone', and they did a wonderful job of moving the 'stone' columns and adding small set details (tables and chairs, a balcony that rose from the floor, etc.). With just a few movements, and very little actual set change, they were able to completely transform the space. It was so innovative and effective, and is easily my favourite set designs in a production, ever. I think the lighting also played a big part in the effectiveness of the set (it easily changes the mood of the set), but I don't really feel qualified to comment on the intricacies of that as lighting is, I find, the hardest specialty to understand. The only other little detail I wanted to mention was the the 'curtains' used in Juliet's fake death. I loved how, when Juliet drank the potion, they were pulled all around her, and when she fell, it created her 'bed', as well as a ghostly, eerie shroud. It was a wonderful effect. So, all in all, the visual aspects of the production were essentially flawless.

A very unique feature of this production of Romeo and Juliet was the 'musical' aspect of the play. Instead of being a straight read-through of the play, dialogue became song, scene changes became dance parties; it really felt like being in a musical. I feel that plays can often become far too serious and 'scripted', and this felt like a fresh, unique, and engaging new approach that was tremendously well executed. I think that it kept the audience really 'in the moment' because although nearly everyone knows the story, no one knew exactly what was coming next. Anything could happen. And in the spirit of 'anything can happen', I also wanted to comment quickly about the 'realism' of the play. 'Glass' bottles smashed on the ground, blood flying everywhere (at one point, a blood pack got left on the stage. It was pretty funny), chairs and tables being thrown around - it was glorious.

James and Madden (The Guardian)

I really loved how classically Shakespeare this production was; that sounds very odd, but so many 'modernised' versions of Shakespeare lose that special something that makes Shakespeare's works so unique and charming. Branagh's production, though set in 1950's/60's Verona, maintained that classical, 'dated' (in a good way) feel that I so love about Shakespeare. Branagh made this production accessible to a modern audience through clearly spoken dialogue and clever uses of music and technology, yet maintained the integrity of the words and story which Shakespeare originally wrote. Moreover (and this is going to sound weird), but I've been so sick of classic shows (like Doctor Faustus) gratuitously over-sexualizing their performances. Even Phantom is going that way - the bodices are getting lower and tighter (hello costume mishaps!) A lot of classic pieces of theatre have become games of "how many boobs can we put in this scene?" It's exhausting, and unnecessary. So I applaud this production for its complete lack of nudity, sexual content, etc. The show is successful because of the incredible performances, direction, set, and costuming - not because it sells body parts.

Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company's Romeo and Juliet was one of the most stunning pieces of live theatre I've ever seen. I absolutely plan on returning if I can get my hands on a ticket, and I highly recommend it to anyone. Whether you like Shakespeare or not, I believe this production has something for everyone.