Hope you enjoy.
Romeo
and Juliet
“For
never was a story of more woe of that of Juliet and her Romeo,”
(Shakespeare, 5, 3. 310-311). To not know the story in this day in
age, is impossible. To put on the play and make it original? Even
more impossible. And yet, that was exactly what the cast at the New
Diorama theatre did. Called the Faction, they have been around since
about 2008, when they performed Richard III. Now in 2015, they are
still alive and well. Now they are performing Romeo and Juliet.
As
someone with a strong dislike of the show, I am here for one reason
and one reason only: it is required. And yet, as the show goes on, I
find myself more and more deeply touched by it. By the end, I have
come to one solid conclusion that this company has made the show
great. They have something that is incredibly overdone and
romanticize and made it into something fresh and practical. Well. As
practical as Romeo and Juliet can be, anyways. And they have done
something incredible. They have converted me to the show.
When I
stepped into the theatre, at the beginning of the show, I was
surprised to see the cast already on stage, yet clearly, since they
were just mulling about, the play had not begun. I was even more
surprised to find that all of them would remain on stage for nearly
the entire play, a great tribute to their acting, since they all
stayed completely in character the entire time Watching them, I
thought I could guess which one was which – another tribute to
their acting, since, in many cases, I was right.
The
lights dimmed. I seem to recall sudden music. And then then
characters on stage began a full on choreographed battle that was
both hideous and beautiful all at once. It was both a dance and a
fight. Elegant yet deadly. The show had begun.
The most
striking thing about the play was its actresses. From the moment Lady
Montague, (Kate
Sawyer),
walked on stage, I was hooked.
There was something so inherently regal and noble about her, and yet
she seemed truly concerned for her son. But even more impressive was
her transformation – for Lady Montague, becomes the Nurse, through
a simple, back of the stage, costume change. Sawyer changes her
clipped British tones to full on Cockney, her shoulders-back to
shoulders slumped and her elegance changes to carelessness. And she
trades her high-heels for a sweatsuit and a bag of marshmallows. Yes,
that's right, marshmallows. Her transformation is unforgettable and
her emotional range is spot on. But best of all? Her priceless
interactions with Juliet.
Speaking
of the title character herself, Juliet,
played
by Clare
Latham, is
stunning. Imperfect, yes, as her lines often dropped to
the inaudible, and her american accent countered sharply with Romeo's
'cross Atlantic one, but believable as a suffering teenager?
Absolutely. One could argue that the play was worth seeing for her
alone, with her original version of Juliet. Unlike many versions I've
seen, she did not try to make Juliet a delicate flower, who bats her
eyelashes and kills herself for such a “great” love. Instead, she
makes the character strong, level-headed, and rebellious, in a way
that seemed to better fit the Juliet of Shakespeare's Writing. With
Latham at the lead, the audience comes to understand her instead as a
young woman who saw no other way to happiness than her own death.
They sympathize greatly and maybe even understand her decision. She
no longer looks so foolish. She looks as though she is a lion,
trapped, with no other way out. All this from Latham's acting, who
used both her speech and her silences well.
One of
the most powerful scenes in the show – though there are many –
involves an early on scene, the first with Lady Capulet and her
daughter in the same room. Juliet's silence, and Lady Capulet's
occasional interjections and the nurse's heavy ramblings, all present
in Shakespeare's original, are made even stronger by this talented
team of women. Their personalities strong, and counter to each other,
set up both comedy – and tragedy. Nurse's chattering is unnerving.
Juliet's silence, even more more so. But it is Lady Capulet who
steals that scene.
Lady
Capulet, played by Natasha Rickman, is kind, but Rickman makes clear
that Lady Capulet is very self absorbed and does not have the time or
energy to understand her daughter Juliet. Rickman gives an intriguing
performance, in both her interactions with Juliet, and with Capulet.
Her interactions with Capulet, however, take a rather distracting
turn as the Faction has hyped up the relationship to an abusive level
and most of this abuse takes place in the back of the stage with
other scenes going on. While an interesting side story, it has the
unfortunate side effect of sometimes distracting from the main play
at hand.
One
final note is the interestingly strong illusion of an age gap between
the three main women, even though there is only a five year gap
between Lady Capulet (the youngest, at twenty-six) and Lady Montague
(31). Juliet, so convincing as thirteen, is 27, something all the
audience would have sworn differently, as Latham captures the age
perfectly.
This
review would not be complete without mentioning the wonderful
lighting design by Chris Withers, which, rather experimental in
style, was most noticeable in the tomb scene, where all was black,
save for a beam of light, lantern-like around the tomb.
All in
all, a five out of five stars for a performance that was moving,
bold, and original. While keeping closely to the original, it made
the story new and meaningful. With a grace and flow difficult to
replicate, it told its story with its humor, feeling, suspense, and
great sympathy, allowing its female characters to have their story
told too.
-------
As for View From the Bridge? It was well done, 7/10 for me, but it didn't touch me as a story, so I won't talk a lot about it here. I simply had no resonance with it. It isn't a universal story. It's a story that only certain people can relate to, I thought. Which maybe makes me limited, I don't know. But comparatively to the Crucible? There just didn't seem to be the same amount of stakes. I couldn't sympathize. It was like there was a wall between me and the characters. It didn't help that the female characters seemed . . . flat-er. It's the story of a man and his desires for a young women . . . I couldn't understand or relate to it and said young woman? She doesn't have a lot of strength -- or intelligence. And the man's wife? She becomes a passive viewer, really, and her strength is limited to nagging. They both seemed so helpless. And I hated it for that.
SO. That is my views on the plays.
Until next time!
~ Emery
No comments:
Post a Comment