Romeo and Juliet
Tue, 10 July 2001, 10:41 amLeah Maher2 posts in thread
Romeo and Juliet
Tue, 10 July 2001, 10:41 amOK Amanda, you asked for it;
I didn't pay to see R&J so my veiws on it may be informed by the fact that no hard earned dollars had gone into my experience. I may therefore be being too lenient, however I figure now that my first read through of a play the director of R&J has cast me in has happened, he can't very well kick me out (....can he?) so I can tell the truth.
It all began very well. I liked the minimalist stage and the movable scaffolds. They were used well in some instances but I felt the very slight movements of position were simply more trouble than they were worth. And in some cases the way they were used prompted mirth more than pathos. Actually I must stop here and say I was in an audience full of teenagers who tend to laugh at most things ( I beleive it is "cool") so things I found a bit silly could simply have been motivated by mob mentality. Now I'm all for the young getting culture, it's an important part of their spiritual developement. However I am going to design and patent a special theatre audience teenager seat, much like the one used in A Clockwork Orange, to stop them moving in any way or making any sound. I was amazed at the cast's self control when various members of the audience dropped their drinks, slammed doors and wandered about during the performance. I'm blaming the teenagers for the slammed doors but I might be wrong and if I am something really needs to be done about the cast and crew making that much noise off stage.
OK, the acting was mostly very good with, unfortunately, a few very notable exceptions. Tai as Romeo was lovely. I felt in a very real way how all the girls in the audience (and probably some of the boys) just wanted to rush the stage to give him a big hug and tell him it was all going to be OK. There was also some rushing the stage tendancies for both Tybalt and Mercutio for several reasons not the least of which was how well they had come to grips with their characters, excpesially Tybalt.
I must say though, that the second half was long and felt it. The climax was good but somehow not as emotional as it could have been. I suppose the cast was going for shock ad bewilderment and that's what they acheived but I would have liked to see more greif. And the guy who played Balthazar was very under used, he was talented and understated and would have been a good foil to some of the other characters. That having been said I wouldn't have cast 'da boys' any other way.
Some laughes came from a few Capulet footsoldiers. BUT; it's fine to play to the gallaries when you arn't dispruting the focus of the action and when you are in a room full of the abovementioned teenagers. However, a "real" experienced theatre audience will resent you for it and you will fall flat. Best to know exactly where you stand in a scene.
Also one character tended to forget lines, which was a bit distracting.
The main point of seeing the show though, is for the interpretation. I won't make much comment on it because I don't want to ruin it for people except to say it worked for me for the most part. I didn't feel the seething resentment, the real pointless hatred required for it to TOTALLY work. Perhaps a few more risks (interms of public opinion and political correctness) should have been taken? But the idea is original and refreshing, informs the text in a real and tangible way and I enjoyed it immensly. It threw up a whole lot of new questions and made the action and the story more real.
OK that's it. I recommend it but bring a cusion, the Rechabites seats are hard and the play is long!
I didn't pay to see R&J so my veiws on it may be informed by the fact that no hard earned dollars had gone into my experience. I may therefore be being too lenient, however I figure now that my first read through of a play the director of R&J has cast me in has happened, he can't very well kick me out (....can he?) so I can tell the truth.
It all began very well. I liked the minimalist stage and the movable scaffolds. They were used well in some instances but I felt the very slight movements of position were simply more trouble than they were worth. And in some cases the way they were used prompted mirth more than pathos. Actually I must stop here and say I was in an audience full of teenagers who tend to laugh at most things ( I beleive it is "cool") so things I found a bit silly could simply have been motivated by mob mentality. Now I'm all for the young getting culture, it's an important part of their spiritual developement. However I am going to design and patent a special theatre audience teenager seat, much like the one used in A Clockwork Orange, to stop them moving in any way or making any sound. I was amazed at the cast's self control when various members of the audience dropped their drinks, slammed doors and wandered about during the performance. I'm blaming the teenagers for the slammed doors but I might be wrong and if I am something really needs to be done about the cast and crew making that much noise off stage.
OK, the acting was mostly very good with, unfortunately, a few very notable exceptions. Tai as Romeo was lovely. I felt in a very real way how all the girls in the audience (and probably some of the boys) just wanted to rush the stage to give him a big hug and tell him it was all going to be OK. There was also some rushing the stage tendancies for both Tybalt and Mercutio for several reasons not the least of which was how well they had come to grips with their characters, excpesially Tybalt.
I must say though, that the second half was long and felt it. The climax was good but somehow not as emotional as it could have been. I suppose the cast was going for shock ad bewilderment and that's what they acheived but I would have liked to see more greif. And the guy who played Balthazar was very under used, he was talented and understated and would have been a good foil to some of the other characters. That having been said I wouldn't have cast 'da boys' any other way.
Some laughes came from a few Capulet footsoldiers. BUT; it's fine to play to the gallaries when you arn't dispruting the focus of the action and when you are in a room full of the abovementioned teenagers. However, a "real" experienced theatre audience will resent you for it and you will fall flat. Best to know exactly where you stand in a scene.
Also one character tended to forget lines, which was a bit distracting.
The main point of seeing the show though, is for the interpretation. I won't make much comment on it because I don't want to ruin it for people except to say it worked for me for the most part. I didn't feel the seething resentment, the real pointless hatred required for it to TOTALLY work. Perhaps a few more risks (interms of public opinion and political correctness) should have been taken? But the idea is original and refreshing, informs the text in a real and tangible way and I enjoyed it immensly. It threw up a whole lot of new questions and made the action and the story more real.
OK that's it. I recommend it but bring a cusion, the Rechabites seats are hard and the play is long!
Leah MaherTue, 10 July 2001, 10:41 am
OK Amanda, you asked for it;
I didn't pay to see R&J so my veiws on it may be informed by the fact that no hard earned dollars had gone into my experience. I may therefore be being too lenient, however I figure now that my first read through of a play the director of R&J has cast me in has happened, he can't very well kick me out (....can he?) so I can tell the truth.
It all began very well. I liked the minimalist stage and the movable scaffolds. They were used well in some instances but I felt the very slight movements of position were simply more trouble than they were worth. And in some cases the way they were used prompted mirth more than pathos. Actually I must stop here and say I was in an audience full of teenagers who tend to laugh at most things ( I beleive it is "cool") so things I found a bit silly could simply have been motivated by mob mentality. Now I'm all for the young getting culture, it's an important part of their spiritual developement. However I am going to design and patent a special theatre audience teenager seat, much like the one used in A Clockwork Orange, to stop them moving in any way or making any sound. I was amazed at the cast's self control when various members of the audience dropped their drinks, slammed doors and wandered about during the performance. I'm blaming the teenagers for the slammed doors but I might be wrong and if I am something really needs to be done about the cast and crew making that much noise off stage.
OK, the acting was mostly very good with, unfortunately, a few very notable exceptions. Tai as Romeo was lovely. I felt in a very real way how all the girls in the audience (and probably some of the boys) just wanted to rush the stage to give him a big hug and tell him it was all going to be OK. There was also some rushing the stage tendancies for both Tybalt and Mercutio for several reasons not the least of which was how well they had come to grips with their characters, excpesially Tybalt.
I must say though, that the second half was long and felt it. The climax was good but somehow not as emotional as it could have been. I suppose the cast was going for shock ad bewilderment and that's what they acheived but I would have liked to see more greif. And the guy who played Balthazar was very under used, he was talented and understated and would have been a good foil to some of the other characters. That having been said I wouldn't have cast 'da boys' any other way.
Some laughes came from a few Capulet footsoldiers. BUT; it's fine to play to the gallaries when you arn't dispruting the focus of the action and when you are in a room full of the abovementioned teenagers. However, a "real" experienced theatre audience will resent you for it and you will fall flat. Best to know exactly where you stand in a scene.
Also one character tended to forget lines, which was a bit distracting.
The main point of seeing the show though, is for the interpretation. I won't make much comment on it because I don't want to ruin it for people except to say it worked for me for the most part. I didn't feel the seething resentment, the real pointless hatred required for it to TOTALLY work. Perhaps a few more risks (interms of public opinion and political correctness) should have been taken? But the idea is original and refreshing, informs the text in a real and tangible way and I enjoyed it immensly. It threw up a whole lot of new questions and made the action and the story more real.
OK that's it. I recommend it but bring a cusion, the Rechabites seats are hard and the play is long!
I didn't pay to see R&J so my veiws on it may be informed by the fact that no hard earned dollars had gone into my experience. I may therefore be being too lenient, however I figure now that my first read through of a play the director of R&J has cast me in has happened, he can't very well kick me out (....can he?) so I can tell the truth.
It all began very well. I liked the minimalist stage and the movable scaffolds. They were used well in some instances but I felt the very slight movements of position were simply more trouble than they were worth. And in some cases the way they were used prompted mirth more than pathos. Actually I must stop here and say I was in an audience full of teenagers who tend to laugh at most things ( I beleive it is "cool") so things I found a bit silly could simply have been motivated by mob mentality. Now I'm all for the young getting culture, it's an important part of their spiritual developement. However I am going to design and patent a special theatre audience teenager seat, much like the one used in A Clockwork Orange, to stop them moving in any way or making any sound. I was amazed at the cast's self control when various members of the audience dropped their drinks, slammed doors and wandered about during the performance. I'm blaming the teenagers for the slammed doors but I might be wrong and if I am something really needs to be done about the cast and crew making that much noise off stage.
OK, the acting was mostly very good with, unfortunately, a few very notable exceptions. Tai as Romeo was lovely. I felt in a very real way how all the girls in the audience (and probably some of the boys) just wanted to rush the stage to give him a big hug and tell him it was all going to be OK. There was also some rushing the stage tendancies for both Tybalt and Mercutio for several reasons not the least of which was how well they had come to grips with their characters, excpesially Tybalt.
I must say though, that the second half was long and felt it. The climax was good but somehow not as emotional as it could have been. I suppose the cast was going for shock ad bewilderment and that's what they acheived but I would have liked to see more greif. And the guy who played Balthazar was very under used, he was talented and understated and would have been a good foil to some of the other characters. That having been said I wouldn't have cast 'da boys' any other way.
Some laughes came from a few Capulet footsoldiers. BUT; it's fine to play to the gallaries when you arn't dispruting the focus of the action and when you are in a room full of the abovementioned teenagers. However, a "real" experienced theatre audience will resent you for it and you will fall flat. Best to know exactly where you stand in a scene.
Also one character tended to forget lines, which was a bit distracting.
The main point of seeing the show though, is for the interpretation. I won't make much comment on it because I don't want to ruin it for people except to say it worked for me for the most part. I didn't feel the seething resentment, the real pointless hatred required for it to TOTALLY work. Perhaps a few more risks (interms of public opinion and political correctness) should have been taken? But the idea is original and refreshing, informs the text in a real and tangible way and I enjoyed it immensly. It threw up a whole lot of new questions and made the action and the story more real.
OK that's it. I recommend it but bring a cusion, the Rechabites seats are hard and the play is long!
TobyWed, 11 July 2001, 01:18 pm
RE: Romeo and Juliet
I saw the same performance (well, some of it...) as Leah, and I agree with a lot of the points in her very good review. I could not get to the show until interval, due to a performance of 'Cryocycle' the same night at the Blue Room. By the way, 'Cryocycle' only has 3 more performances, this thurs 12th to sat 14th of July, so get along for the 9.30 studio show at the Blue Room, the very show that Jarrod Buttery reviewed so positively last week. Anyway - enough of plugging my show, and on to what I saw of Grant's.
I am slightly biased in this review as I am part of the other half of BLT/Shakespearience's 'Shakespeare Cycle' - 'Taming of the Shrew', and hence have been privy to a lot of the 'progress' tales as rehearsals unfolded. I like Grant's work, and was intrigued some months ago when first told of his idea to set his 'R and J' in a street gang type milieu, and was immediately struck with the parallels that might be drawn to 'West Side Story' and, to a lesser extent, Baz Luhrmann's version. As I said, I missed the first half, hence depriving myself of seeing mates of mine like Dorje Swallow and Tony Harwood play Tybalt and Benvolio, and I hear I missed a very strong Mercutio as well.
Something I was prepared for, having heard progress reports during rehearsal, was the relative inexperience of some cast members - setting the play in such a restrictive manner (ie feuding along racial lines rather than the traditional 'ancient grudge') meant that casting experienced actors became tricky for Grant, and in turn gave him the opportunity to blood some new people in these challenging roles. With that in mind, I greatly enjoyed many of the cast's performances, especially those who obviously were not as experienced, and were perhaps discovering this wonderful world of theatre that we have all been seduced by for the first time. There is a real joy in seeing someone work in the theatre for the first time and watch their enjoyment, their elation at managing some of Shakespeare's trickiest text, and getting a round of applause as a reward.
I am trying (in vain, I'm afraid) to avoid saying the same things that Leah said, but bear with me.
I quite liked the set, but was a little disappointed - by setting the play in a contemporary and familiar location (I won't spoil the clever place name updates), I was expecting possibly a little more than simply moveable scaffolding, but taking into account budget contstraints, along with time and manpower issues, they were effective, up to a point. At times the set changes seemed unwieldy and the *clanks* that accompanied the wheels being locked unfortunately broke the mood of some scenes, which the actors had to work hard to bring back.
Performances? As I said, a lot of inexperience showed, and Tai O'Reilly and *brief scramble to find the programme* Tracey George did well in light of their experience, but did not quite get over the line. Tracey seemed at times to be rattling off a shopping list, and it was only rarely that I got the impression that she was sure of what all of her text meant. Tai was a little better in this respect, but threw too many of his lines away and mumbled too frequently to bring a real sense of sympathy to his character. As Leah mentioned, Oliver Wenn as Balthazar stood out as one to watch for the future. I worked with him years ago when he was 17, and he has improved to such an exent (from an already high standard) that I found myself guiltily wondering from time to time why he was not playing Romeo. The cast were wonderfully lucky with Grant's securing of Geoff Kelso as Friar Lawrence - having an actor of such great stead and experience on hand must have helped many of the young players innumerably, and he gave a typically excellent showing in the difficult Friar's role. Amanda Chesterton, too, showed her experience, drawing attention (in a positive way) to herself through her assured delivery of the text and confidence with the iambic pentameter. A particular favourite of mine, however, was Cary Wong as Capulet - his boundless energy onstage coupled with his ability to turn Capulet from jocular into furious in mere seconds, gave the character fantastic personality, even if he might have spoken a little quickly at times.
The peripheral characters were fairly strong - I loved the dangerous looking 'street dealer' apothecary and while the Capulet servants did upstage a little too much, their energy was always enjoyable.
Go and see Grant Malcolm's 'Romeo and Juliet'. I enjoyed it greatly, and his interpretation of the text was nothing if it wasn't gutsy. A minor criticism is Grant's insistence on retaining so much of the text - it runs at almost three hours including interval, and many of the cast members seemed to struggle a little with some of the more obscure references. The racial casting (that sounds terrible! I mean, the strategic use of actors from different backgrounds to illustrate the story's feud) was striking, especially in the final scene as the families come together to mourn the deaths of the lovers, although I couldn't help but wonder whether the production would have been much different if it was cross-cast the other way, ie making the Montagues the Austro-Asian clan? I am picturing Crispian Chan and Amanda Chesterton in leads, but maybe that's just me.
Well done to the cast on an ambitious interpretation of the show. It's a hard one to pull off because people know it so well, and have always got preconceived ideas about interpretation (ie Juliet should look like Olivia Hussey; Mercutio should be a cross-dressing rasta...?) but I believe they did a fine job in a tough show. These guys deserve better audiences than they've been getting. Get along and get some culture, and follow it all up with a trip to 'Cryocycle' this week, and 'Taming of the Shrew' next week - all on the same BLOCK in Northbridge! Now that's culture!
Cheers and apologies for going on so long,
Toby
I am slightly biased in this review as I am part of the other half of BLT/Shakespearience's 'Shakespeare Cycle' - 'Taming of the Shrew', and hence have been privy to a lot of the 'progress' tales as rehearsals unfolded. I like Grant's work, and was intrigued some months ago when first told of his idea to set his 'R and J' in a street gang type milieu, and was immediately struck with the parallels that might be drawn to 'West Side Story' and, to a lesser extent, Baz Luhrmann's version. As I said, I missed the first half, hence depriving myself of seeing mates of mine like Dorje Swallow and Tony Harwood play Tybalt and Benvolio, and I hear I missed a very strong Mercutio as well.
Something I was prepared for, having heard progress reports during rehearsal, was the relative inexperience of some cast members - setting the play in such a restrictive manner (ie feuding along racial lines rather than the traditional 'ancient grudge') meant that casting experienced actors became tricky for Grant, and in turn gave him the opportunity to blood some new people in these challenging roles. With that in mind, I greatly enjoyed many of the cast's performances, especially those who obviously were not as experienced, and were perhaps discovering this wonderful world of theatre that we have all been seduced by for the first time. There is a real joy in seeing someone work in the theatre for the first time and watch their enjoyment, their elation at managing some of Shakespeare's trickiest text, and getting a round of applause as a reward.
I am trying (in vain, I'm afraid) to avoid saying the same things that Leah said, but bear with me.
I quite liked the set, but was a little disappointed - by setting the play in a contemporary and familiar location (I won't spoil the clever place name updates), I was expecting possibly a little more than simply moveable scaffolding, but taking into account budget contstraints, along with time and manpower issues, they were effective, up to a point. At times the set changes seemed unwieldy and the *clanks* that accompanied the wheels being locked unfortunately broke the mood of some scenes, which the actors had to work hard to bring back.
Performances? As I said, a lot of inexperience showed, and Tai O'Reilly and *brief scramble to find the programme* Tracey George did well in light of their experience, but did not quite get over the line. Tracey seemed at times to be rattling off a shopping list, and it was only rarely that I got the impression that she was sure of what all of her text meant. Tai was a little better in this respect, but threw too many of his lines away and mumbled too frequently to bring a real sense of sympathy to his character. As Leah mentioned, Oliver Wenn as Balthazar stood out as one to watch for the future. I worked with him years ago when he was 17, and he has improved to such an exent (from an already high standard) that I found myself guiltily wondering from time to time why he was not playing Romeo. The cast were wonderfully lucky with Grant's securing of Geoff Kelso as Friar Lawrence - having an actor of such great stead and experience on hand must have helped many of the young players innumerably, and he gave a typically excellent showing in the difficult Friar's role. Amanda Chesterton, too, showed her experience, drawing attention (in a positive way) to herself through her assured delivery of the text and confidence with the iambic pentameter. A particular favourite of mine, however, was Cary Wong as Capulet - his boundless energy onstage coupled with his ability to turn Capulet from jocular into furious in mere seconds, gave the character fantastic personality, even if he might have spoken a little quickly at times.
The peripheral characters were fairly strong - I loved the dangerous looking 'street dealer' apothecary and while the Capulet servants did upstage a little too much, their energy was always enjoyable.
Go and see Grant Malcolm's 'Romeo and Juliet'. I enjoyed it greatly, and his interpretation of the text was nothing if it wasn't gutsy. A minor criticism is Grant's insistence on retaining so much of the text - it runs at almost three hours including interval, and many of the cast members seemed to struggle a little with some of the more obscure references. The racial casting (that sounds terrible! I mean, the strategic use of actors from different backgrounds to illustrate the story's feud) was striking, especially in the final scene as the families come together to mourn the deaths of the lovers, although I couldn't help but wonder whether the production would have been much different if it was cross-cast the other way, ie making the Montagues the Austro-Asian clan? I am picturing Crispian Chan and Amanda Chesterton in leads, but maybe that's just me.
Well done to the cast on an ambitious interpretation of the show. It's a hard one to pull off because people know it so well, and have always got preconceived ideas about interpretation (ie Juliet should look like Olivia Hussey; Mercutio should be a cross-dressing rasta...?) but I believe they did a fine job in a tough show. These guys deserve better audiences than they've been getting. Get along and get some culture, and follow it all up with a trip to 'Cryocycle' this week, and 'Taming of the Shrew' next week - all on the same BLOCK in Northbridge! Now that's culture!
Cheers and apologies for going on so long,
Toby