December 08, 2008

Romeo and Juliet @ The Courtyard Theatre

Writing about web page

I'm not going to beat around the bush with this review. The RSC's new production of Romeo and Juliet is one of the worst productions of Shakespeare I've ever had the misfortune to sit through.

As hard as I tried to find some positive aspects to the production, I honestly couldn't find anything to redeem it. A Godfather-influenced aesthetic (trumpet/accordion soundtrack, suits and flick-knives, dynastical feuds) was a nice idea, if obvious, but added little to the production. A beautiful stage set for the final crypt scene (played in near darkness, lit with torch light against dry ice) was atmospheric, but was the first bit of visual interest in a 3-and-a-quarter hour production. I can't even claim that the production was mercifully short - it was slow, long and dreary.

The most negative aspects came in the performances. To be fair, the vast majority of the cast were new to the RSC and many were relatively early in their professional careers. This will always be the downfall of Romeo and Juliet- casting actors who are simply not strong enough for the demanding material. Anneika Rose was particularly awful as Juliet: frankly, I felt sorry for her. From the boring (she spent a ridiculous amount of time acting while sitting on a bed, including the balcony scene) to the appalling (even a little amount of distress at seeing your husband dead?!), her scenes simply never worked. David Dawson as Romeo was a little better, but the balcony scene, staged with just a bed centrestage and therefore putting all focus on the performances, was slow, long and entirely without feeling. This was Shakespeare just spoken (and spoken not well), not performed.

The comic scenes were almost entirely without humour, despite the efforts of Owain Arthur's Peter. The play's length was in part occasioned by the retaining of even minor moments such as Peter's conversation with the musicians - here, with no discernable purpose or merit. I had more time for Gyuri Sarossy's Mercutio who, while not doing anything hugely interesting or memorable with the role, at least brought some welcome energy to the production, sorely lacking elsewhere.

Even the fight scenes were poorly realised. Director Neil Bartlett used some self-consciously dramatic devices which not only had no impact, but worked against the action by interrupting it and reducing the pace to a crawl. The play opened with the cast assembling and looking pointedly around at the audience (are we meant to identify or feel responsible for this mafia-like world of rich kids, nobles and cantankerous patriarchs? A device better reserved for a socially-deprived setting), before beginning the fight. Bartlett used a stop-start approach which saw the action repeatedly frozen while bits of dialogue were performed, before the physical action was restarted. Any sense of momentum was repeatedly arrested, making this introductory scene far too long and dull to be of any interest. Another device used frequently during the first half of the play saw members of the cast click their fingers at the ceiling to change lights and begin new scenes, which demonstrated little other than that Bartlett had seen The Glass Menagerie. Happily, most of these devices were forgotten during the course of the play, which was welcome and also flagged up the irrelevance of their earlier inclusion.

Even among smaller parts, the acting was repeatedly disappointing. Ben Ashton's Paris, upon being confronted with his 'dead' bride-to-be, exhibited..... mild irritation. Eva Magyar's Lady Capulet went for full histrionics, while Julie Legrand's Nurse, best described as a cross between Dot Cotton and Lily Savage, grated rather than amused. Mark Holgate at least conjured up a visage of Italianate menace as Tybalt, but the less said about James G. Bellorini's bumbling Friar John and Craig Ritchie's wooden Apothecary the better. Even James Clyde, the actor with the wonderful voice who was the towering highlight of Bartlett's Twelfth Night, overacted wildly as Friar Laurence, as if he was Mercutio doing the Queen Mab speech.

I'm aware that this is an ungenerous and rather forceful review, and I feel slightly bad as I write it. I'm sure that many of those involved had worked hard, even if that work didn't translate to my audience experience on the night. At the same time, though, I feel it's crucially important that the RSC not produce work of this sub-amateur standard. Northern Broadsides and Shakespeare's Globe have both produced Romeos this year that, while far from perfect, at least brought energy and freshness to one of the most recognisable plays on the English stage. This production added nothing to the play for those of us familiar with it, and did little to recommend itself to first-timers. We were sat among a group of schoolkids who spent most of the production texting, chatting among themselves and generally ignoring the play, and I couldn't blame them one bit; if this play had been my introduction to Shakespeare as a teenager, I can't imagine I would have bothered again. If the RSC wants to reach out and change the face of Shakespeare eduction, it needs to have good productions at the heart of its strategy, or the good work of its outreach will be undone.

- 5 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Naomi

    I totally agree with your review! I am a new convert to Shakespeare and I have become completely addicted to watching the plays since seeing Richard III at the RSC last year. I am the first to confess that am not the least bit academic about Shakespeare, I just love the sound of the words and watching the plays unfold. If I went back 400 years I would probably be a groundling eating a rat on a stick! I was so looking forward to R&J I was counting the days to see it and had already booked to see it twice. I was so disappointed with the production but then thought maybe I was just uneducated and had missed the point but having read your blog I am relived it wasn’t just me! Thanks for the blogs I love reading them.

    02 Jan 2009, 17:25

  2. flower

    I read your review before seeing R&J yesterday and now think your review very uncharitable. David Dawson’s Romeo was sensitive and memorable- especially the balcony scene and Juliet was not the coy girl as she is so often played, but full of passion and indeed was seen to take to lead in the initial sonnet scene.
    I enjoyed the menace of the first scene and the freeze techniques and thought that the last act where Juliet’s bed is turned into her grave most effective. Does she not say that her bed is as like to become her grave?
    Some performances were not good. I was disappointed with the nurse although she improved as the play progressed and I did not think the Montague parents or the Capulet mother very good.
    Nevertheless it was a performance that will stay with me both for its interpretation and Dawson’s Romeo.

    18 Jan 2009, 15:50

  3. Duncan

    Having also seen this production on 17 January, I must support flower in saying that it was not as bad as your review suggests. It was far from perfect: I was annoyed by predictable ‘Goodfellas’ setting and the tricksy lighting. But the performances were quite good, at least as I found them last night. It is quite possible that you saw some genuinely stumbling performances back in December and the cast have since been knocked into shape by the experience of performing at this level.
    The one thing that stayed with me was the use of the iron railing to mark off the tomb. The final image of them dead and trapped behind those bars was particularly effective.

    18 Jan 2009, 18:49

  4. Flower: I don’t do charity, I give my honest reactions!

    But to both Flower and Duncan: reports I’ve heard more recently suggest that the production has indeed improved. Good for them – however, this isn’t a review of the entire run, it’s a review of the performance I saw. Which was rubbish, so I stand by it! However, I have been considerably more gentle in my review for a forthcoming journal.

    19 Jan 2009, 09:21

  5. Norma Postin

    I agree with the review-this production is very dull. I saw it last Sat and thought how the acting was v disappointing. I too sat among a group of secondary school kids and one lad behind me actually walked out during the first act. I do hope that seeing this production will not put those kids seeing another Shakesspeare play, but have the horrible feeiing they could have been after seeing such a dire performance.

    27 Jan 2009, 11:46

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Search this blog


Peter Kirwan is Teaching Associate in Shakespeare and Early Modern Drama at the University of Nottingham and a reviewer of Shakespearean theatre for several academic journals.

The Bardathon is his experimental review blog, covering productions of (or based on) all early modern plays. The aim is to combine immediate reactions with the detail and analysis of the academic review.

Theatre criticism always needs more voices. Please comment with your own views and contributions!

December 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Nov |  Today  | Jan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31            

Blog archive


Most recent comments

  • I think you may be over analysing. Wasn't it just meant to be a bit of a history lesson? I remember … by Sue on this entry
  • Very interesting and commendable, it'll be great to see some more of the plays given this attention.… by on this entry
  • The lack of venture in the filming is probably due to NBC Universal being onboard. They provided the… by Duncan on this entry
  • I have been watching the Hollow Crown and i have enjoyed it very much, the acting i think has been v… by Carole Heath on this entry
  • I know what you mean Steve, and it's a reading I appreciate theoretically, but I felt that Part 1 re… by on this entry


Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder