Romeo and Juliet

Thu, 26 Aug 2010, 08:26 am

‘Romeo and Juliet’ by the late William Shakespeare, is directed for Class Act Theatre Inc. by Craig Williams. This extremely popular, classic romantic play is showing at the Subiaco Arts Centre, Hamersley Road, Subiaco for this week only, until 28^th August. The two and a half hour performances start nightly at 7.30pm, with several weekday matinees at 10.00 am.

This show travels on to Busselton for the week 31^st August to 3^rd September and Dunsborough for a show on the 4^th.

I am sure that everyone must know the story, but in order to link a few actors names to the parts:-

There is a short prologue explaining the gist of the story.

It is Verona in Northern Italy, in the present day. The servants to the Capulets and Montague families are taunting each other. Romeo arrives and the group is joined by Benvolio (Matt Longman), Romeo’s best friend, and Tybalt, a relative of Juliet. Romeo (Daniel Garrett) is eager to see his childhood love, Rosaline, but when his feelings are not returned, his best friend Benvolio suggests that Romeo considers other girls.

They hear that over bearing Lord Capulet (Ian Toyne) is to hold a party to encourage his daughter Juliet (Cassandra Vagliviello) and Paris (Nathan Hitchins) to wed. Lady Capulet (Shirley Van Sanden) suggests marriage whilst talking to Paris, but Juliet is not too keen. However, when Romeo and friends turn up at the gathering uninvited, Romeo disguised in a mask (an eye patch?), immediately falls in love with Juliet. Mercutio (Ian Toyne) endeavours to cheer up a pining Romeo, when both Romeo and Juliet learn that their families are arch enemies.

Undeterred, and driven by love, Romeo climbs over Capulet's garden wall to see Juliet. Whilst hiding in amongst the fruit trees, Romeo hears Juliet’s outpouring of love for him. He climbs onto her balcony and proposes.

Friar Laurence agrees to marry the two, hoping to bring to an end the long running Montague - Capulet feud. Juliet's messenger, the Nurse (Angelique Malcolm), arranges the wedding for later that week.

In a scuffle, Mercutio is killed by Tybalt, so in revenge Romeo kills Tybalt. The Prince of Verona banishes Romeo from the city.

When Juliet learns of Romeo killing Tybalt and his banishment, can there ever be reconciliation between the families? What will become of the star-crossed lovers’ bond?

This commanding company has three well-known, magnificent veterans blended with exciting new, young talent. This troupe clearly and skilfully demonstrates to the new theatregoers, with all the thrills, why Shakespeare’s plays have had such a fascination for so many hundreds of years.

Most recent Shakespearean productions have been criticised, by the purists, for being contemporary versions. Does being a Shakespearean purist mean that you think his works should only be delivered in the old fashioned, staid manner, with back of hand to forehead that we older audience members remember with a shudder? Surely being a purist means connecting with the audience of the day – just as Shakespeare himself did. This superb conception, by director by Craig Williams, has been true to the original style of delivery, but presented in today’s teenage manner. Unusually, he has chosen a cast where generally each of the characters is around the true age of that being portrayed. He has given us some wonderful metaphors, such as the apothecary being a street, drug pushing hoodie.

Often the fight sequences can let this play down badly, here Craig has adopted the ‘Matrix’ slow motion effect with great success and yet no loss of excitement.

A small point, because the actor playing Paris is also playing Lord Montague, at the end of the play it becomes necessary for a resurrection and a reincarnation to take place. As Paris stood up and assumed Montagues part there was some audience confusion and hilarity. When Paris dies, he falls behind the tomb and very near the back drapes, couldn’t he in the dimly lit scene that follows, roll under the back cloth, have a small costume change and re-enter?

The lighting design by Aaron Stirk was simple but effective with the very basic set. The power of the acting ensured that surroundings were clearly imagined. Some good sound effects and music from Craig Williams.

A vibrant and admirable production. How often does one hear a teenager even semi-enthusiastic? A slight sneer or a shrug usually means they like it. Well this young audience exploded with enthusiasm and appreciation at the final curtain. Strongly recommended, especially to any school kid taking TEE English this year.

Gordon the optom

No harm done - "Just opposite to what thou justly seem'st"

Sun, 5 Sept 2010, 06:54 pm

crgwllms

I appreciate your concern, Nixon, but I don't apologise for trying to improve the standard of arts criticism in this town. It has nothing to do with whether the event being reviewed is amateur or professional. The reviewer was being paid to do a professional job, and I feel well qualified to have pointed out that this was not fulfilled. It does no one any good - theatre companies, audience, readers, or the paper itself - to allow poor standards to become accepted without challenge. That you think the review was "not that bad" reflects mainly on your standards for comparison. It may not have been so bad compared to the average review...but this doesn't mean much when you consider the average review is fairly poor quality! (You'll note that I never equate 'good' or 'bad' to be whether they wrote a positive or negative review. I always mean whether the review was written and argued well and fairly...an unfortunately rare occurrence.) [By example: I've been trying over the last couple of performances, to understand what Joanna Gentilli meant by her last damning sentence "It is difficult to empathise with Angelique Malcolm's shrill cavorting nurse who utters cries of "fwah" and indulges in pelvic thrusting". As stage manager I watch every single moment of the show and I honestly can't with certainty pinpoint what her "fwah" reference is to. But the image this leaves the reader is a vivid and harsh one. It recently occurred to me it may well have been the moment the nurse says "Nay, he's a flower, in faith - a very flower". It sounds a bit like 'fwah', and I definitely have Angelique emphasising the lewdness with a pelvic thrust. This is because the word 'flower' in this context (as any modern day cryptic crossword enthusiast will attest) is also punning on "flow-er", meaning 'something that flows'. The nurse is basically insinuating that she reckons Paris would ejaculate like a river! It may have been difficult for the reviewer to empathise because she totally missed the point - yet she seems to be criticising us for trying to get that point across - i.e. with a pelvic thrust. I was trying my hardest to get non-initiated viewers to understand what Shakespeare was actually saying, but copped a negative end to the review simply because the truth of the text wasn't to the reviewer's liking or understanding.] . As I have found time and again here on this site and in numerous similar exchanges with the media: giving harsh criticism doesn't, as you fear, create enemies...so long as that criticism can be thoroughly justified. I take pains to be informed when I criticise, and in the vast majority of instances I have retained or even increased my respect from those I criticise. I take these pains without being paid. I certainly expect someone being paid for their efforts to take similar trouble. Stephen Bevis, Arts Editor of The West and recipient of the above letter you take issue with, gave me a simple and decent reply, acknowledging my concerns, and agreeing to take them on board. This is a positive outcome for all. Standing up for my cast who I felt were unfairly portrayed was important for cast morale and for the show to continue to improve. The reviewers have also taken a step toward future improvement. So Nixon, I don't think you need to fear any 'Review-Gate' backlash. . Cernunnon, thanks for your comments and review. As to your point about the crow-bar; the item in the text that Romeo asks for is a "wrenching iron", which I am fairly sure means what we today call a 'crow bar' or 'pry bar'...for prying open Juliet's tomb. That it is a bright blue one is probably what jars...it was the only one I own, when I was finding props, and I liked the way it stands out readily against black curtains. As I was avoiding having the actors carry weapons the whole show unless absolutely necessary, and he has it in his hand when confronted, it seemed to me quite plausible to use it as a weapon against Paris. (The text says 'they fight' and 'Paris dies', but doesn't necessarily indicate they fight with particular weapons.) But you're not the first to find it a little odd, so this may well be the next change I make thanks to comments made here. If I can find an older looking, more metallic crow bar for the last week of performances, I'll replace it. Good responses from the 7 shows down south, public and school-based. Thanks! Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Thread (12 posts)

Threaded Flat

Romeo and Juliet— Gordon the Optom26 Aug 2010

"I will omit no opportunity..."— crgwllms27 Aug 2010
Glad to see the review back— class act theatre27 Aug 2010
Interesting review of this— Walter Plinge27 Aug 2010
- Controversial.— crgwllms27 Aug 2010
  - Stuck in Melbourne— Freddie Badgery27 Aug 2010
    - "Any man that can write may answer a letter"— crgwllms28 Aug 2010
      - ···
        It's probably worth CCing— Walter Plinge28 Aug 2010
Yet another expert that can't read Shakespeare— cernunnon2 Sept 2010
review— Walter Plinge2 Sept 2010
- Hi Nixon This R&J is a— class act theatre5 Sept 2010
- No harm done - "Just opposite to what thou justly seem'st"— crgwllms5 Sept 2010

← Back to Theatre Reviews