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

Thread (12 posts)

Threaded Flat

Gordon the OptomThu, 26 Aug 2010, 08:26 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.

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?

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.

Gordon the optom

crgwllmsFri, 27 Aug 2010, 04:07 am

"I will omit no opportunity..."

Thanks, trusty Gordon, for coming along, and then swiftly offering your opinion. We certainly appreciate your recommendations! In fact, your timely observations helped me decide on a new way to solve the problem we had. More on this below. . As you list all the cast bar one, I'd like to add that Josh Walker plays both Tybalt and the Friar (in my opinion quite excellently)....and perhaps he'd be slightly miffed at your assertion that the cast appear to be the age of their characters! (But then, the marvelous Ian Toyne as Mercutio might be rather flattered by the same statement!) . A small point of my own...'metaphor' is not really the right word for the Apothecary scene you describe. A metaphor is when you describe something by way of something quite different, using one pertinent similarity as the connecting link. (To say "All the world's a stage" is a metaphor, because the world is not literally a stage, apart from the particular context of people seeming to 'play many parts' brought to life by the rest of the quotation.) To dress the apothecary as a street drug dealer is actually the OPPOSITE of a metaphor! It is a LITERAL translation of the text. Shakespeare's apothecary, as written, is an illegal dealer of potions that Romeo finds dressed in poverty in a back alley. All we need to do is give Shirley a hood and you get exactly the character that Shakespeare wrote. I'm glad you found it effective, but I don't think I can lay claim to creating anything so clever as a metaphor! (Although, on reflection, the 'matrix style' choreography is a theatrical metaphor for actual combat. So I do use one after all!) . And somewhere else where I do use a theatrical metaphor is that I admit right from the start (as does Shakespeare in a good many plays) that the events onstage are not real, but a story told by actors. That's the purpose of his prologue... and it's also how I get away with using 3 actors to represent a 'gang', or the cast of only 8 to represent a crowded ballroom with at least 9 featured characters present. Which brings us to the problem you described: I have slain Paris (yes, we're doing that scene!) and I run out of actors to play all the characters in the final scene. So I simply get the actor to stand up and play the new character. I really felt most people in the audience wouldn't have a problem with this. I thought the convention of actors simply taking on whatever role was necessary was well established in the very first scene, where I had Nathan Hitchens in the space of two minutes play Montague, Samson, Montague again and then Paris without leaving the stage or making any significant costume change. The audience are all suspending their disbelief anyway, so even if the final moment was distracting, it is extremely easy for them to realise what is intended and then get right back where we left off in the story. I didn't mind that some members of the audience found it odd and covered it by laughing. If they got it out of their system (which they quickly did) it meant they were better prepared for when I did exactly the same thing moments later and had Romeo and Juliet stand to become their own statues. I rather sacrificed the moment of the Paris actor standing up to prevent a similar reaction when the Romeo and Juliet actors moved. Turns out I was wrong. Even if 75% of the audience were prepared to accept the theatrical convention, I discovered they weren't really prepared to accept the distraction caused by the reaction of the other 25%..! And especially with younger audiences, it was likely that they would laugh, or some clown would whisper "He's a zombie", etc. Reading your comments above, and in discussion with the cast, I realised it wasn't fair on the good work they do, nor on the audience's investment in the scene, to allow the tension to be broken by such a distraction. . We tried rolling him under the back curtain in the semi-darkness...it was potentially just as distracting. We tried Romeo covering him with the curtain as part of the scene...it was just awkward, and besides, not every venue we are to perform in will have a curtain with this ability - not every venue will even have the ability to have a black out! (The show was designed to work fine without any lighting effects...but I must interrupt here to echo your compliments to Aaron Stirk on his lighting design. It really lifts the play). We even tried a metaphor! I had the idea of trying that when Paris dies, the actor removes the item of clothing that has been signifying 'Paris' all along, and leaves it in a heap 'dead' onstage. The actor then simply walks away (like a ghost, if you want to make that association), and can reappear as another character later. It was potentially too wanky, the kind of avante-garde I'd been generally trying to avoid..! In the end, we simply borrowed from Shakespeare himself, and reblocked the death scene so Paris can die and exit behind the curtain. Polonius in Hamlet dies the same way. It worked fine, and so the problem is solved. The danger of the crowd reacting to R&J standing up at the end is reduced a fair bit by bringing in a much stronger light (like 'a light from heaven') as Montague mentions the 'statues of pure gold'...this draws our attention to them before they move, rather than letting the movement draw focus, and by pre-empting it seems now to make sense that they can 'rise from the dead'. It would be great to hear of any other opinions or problems with the show. I'm willing to entertain any suggestions...if it's an improvement, you might well find we can incorporate it! Thanks, Gordon. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\--------- PS 'the LATE William Shakespeare'..? That's a quaint way to describe him. Is there any other WS? And given that "late" is short for "lately deceased", your sense of the time passed is rather more general than most! "Indeed it is so very late, that we may call it early by and by"...

class act theatreFri, 27 Aug 2010, 07:44 am

Glad to see the review back

Glad to see the review back - that was weird....

Walter PlingeFri, 27 Aug 2010, 02:44 pm

Interesting review of this

Interesting review of this in today's West Australian

crgwllmsFri, 27 Aug 2010, 03:15 pm

Controversial.

Yes...interesting. Does anyone agree? http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/-/arts/7834441/theatre-review-romeo-and-juliet/ Even if you haven't seen our production, I imagine there'd be some opinions about what is asserted about the play in the second half of the review. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Freddie BadgeryFri, 27 Aug 2010, 03:42 pm

Stuck in Melbourne

Sorry Craig, I won't be seeing the show because I've been in Melbourne all this week and will be until Saturday night(Currently writing this in the State Library of Victoria). Though I can't comment on your production because I haven't seen it, I can certainly comment on the fact that this Joanna Gentilli person (never heard of her before) seems to spend a lot of the time telling us what Shakespeare 'should' be. As a result the review lost me within the first few sentences. From what you've written above about your R&J I've gathered that your production is set in the here-and-now-no-place-no-time, so why does the reviewer start spouting on about what life was like in the 16th century? Moreover the Nurse can be viewed as a kind, matriarchal figure, or a caricature of such figures, or BOTH. The thing about Shakespeare is that it is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. The review itself, in my opinion, is not much more than intellectual posturing with some bad sportsmanship thrown in. freddie the rocking jedi badger

crgwllmsSat, 28 Aug 2010, 01:39 pm

"Any man that can write may answer a letter"

Thanks for that observation, Freddie. I'm welcoming to all valid criticism...some feedback has already helped me tweak to make it a better play...and any problems that can't be solved, I'm willing to learn from and try to apply in the future. Tonight's the last chance to catch a public performance in Subiaco, but we're only 40% through the actual tour, heading down south then doing Perth metro schools. So I'd still welcome opinions from anyone about what they like or dislike. Personal opinions are all valid. But I'm not going to let unsubstantiated argument slip by without "a challenge, on my life" to quote Mercutio. "Any man that can write may answer a letter". So here is the letter I submitted to the arts editor of the West Australian: From: crgwllms@bigpond.com To: stephen.bevis@wanews.com.au Subject: Joanna Gentilli review of Romeo & Juliet Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:42:38 +0800 "Shakespeare a tough task for young cast" Today, p 12, Friday Aug 27, 2010 http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/-/arts/7834441/theatre-review-romeo-and-juliet/ Hello Stephen. Joanna Gentilli's review today of Class Act's production of 'Romeo & Juliet' caused a bit of consternation! As director and script editor, I don't want to enter into the argument of whether my production of the play is any good or not. I totally accept that the reviewer found it 'a mixed bag' with 'varying degrees of success.' The first half of the review consists of opinions, good or bad, that are all valid. But around the time Gentilli starts wondering why the characters attending a costume ball are wearing costumes not reflected in other parts of the play, I start to wonder if she actually knows anything about Shakespeare's most famous play? Rather than irrelevantly researching the Renaissance (there is no justification for considering the play or characters anything earlier than Elizabethan), she would have done well to have learnt more about the "facts" she then tries to put forward. The second half of the review seems highly unsupportable. >> "Shakespeare is not just about the actor and the story. It is also about the power of language. The playwright's clever punning on the word "prick", for example, has several layers of meaning and the comedy is in the words. The actors lunge for their crotches and turn word power into slapstick." Now, I would argue the other way: that Shakespeare is not just about the power of language, but it is more about the actor and the story! That's the whole point of it being a performed play and not say, a collection of his sonnets. Perhaps this is the point of view of a wordsmith versus a thespian, but I think it's an important distinction. The words are only there for someone to act them out. So Gentilli's explanation of punning on the word "prick" all sounds highly intellectual, but can she actually provide an example where Shakespeare did not intend a bawdy, ribald, thoroughly explicit meaning, which would have been acted out for slapstick comic purposes? It is fairly well documented that this was exactly Shakespeare's intention! She may have thought the physical comedy didn't work for her, which is fine, but she's wrong to try to assert that it shouldn't have been there. It most certainly was written for exactly that purpose. >> "...certain characters in a well-known play have a certain resonance. The nurse is traditionally Juliet's collaborator, a sensible older woman who loves her young mistress unconditionally and is a foil to bullying parents. This makes her final denial of Juliet all the more heartbreaking. It is difficult to empathise with Angelique Malcolm's shrill cavorting nurse who utters cries of "fwah" and indulges in pelvic thrusting." This, too, is rather unsubstantiated. I don't know where Gentilli gets her 'traditional' explanation from? Traditionally, the part was played to the hilt by a man in drag! The nurse is largely the comic relief: the entire first half of her script is virtually nothing but bawdy and blatant puns and sexual references; and in fact, I cut about a third of her original dialogue, all of which was to do with bodily functions and buffoonery! It would indeed be a very dreary play without this comedy, and the beauty of the character is that she is simultaneously a clown character AND a sympathetic foil...a role which I happen to think Angelique is portraying very capably. I feel it was very unfair therefore, for Joanna Gentilli to finish her review insinuating that Angelique Malcolm's performance was substandard, when it would be clear to most in my industry that Gentilli's own grasp of the text is itself rather substandard. I would have much preferred her to lay all her criticism on me, for my directorial decisions. Then it would have remained a matter of opinion (which I would have happily shrugged off, secure in my better-informed viewpoint), rather than the personal attack on Angelique it became. And then, I don't know if she realises how condescending her final statement is: >> "That said, the audience, mainly high school students, loved it." After expressing her own dissatisfaction, it is rather snobbish to insert "mainly highschool students" as if the only reason the audience loved it was because they were some form of lowest-common-denominator, and that their obvious enjoyment may undermine the opinion the reviewer has established - that she clearly thinks it ought not to have been enjoyed. After more than 20 years of creating drama specifically for students, I know better than to condescend to them. Every decision made in my directing process was to enable high school students (clearly our target audience) to absolutely understand and enjoy the text as performed onstage, without 'dumbing it down'. And even Miss Gentilli seems to agree I achieved this. Responses from schools have been uniformly positive. That it is a low budget production with a lot of relative newcomers is viable fodder to find flaws, and nor do I claim to have made perfect directorial decisions. But it also seems obvious that 'Shakespeare was a tough task for a young journalist'...! Cheers, Craig Williams ~<8>-/====\---------

Walter PlingeSat, 28 Aug 2010, 02:08 pm

It's probably worth CCing

It's probably worth CCing that to managing editor Brett McCarthy as well, so it doesn't just end up in an email trash folder. His email is brett.mccarthy@wanews.com.au

cernunnonThu, 2 Sept 2010, 07:25 pm

Yet another expert that can't read Shakespeare

I'm appalled by the review in The West. I agree with crgwllms that the reviewer failed to substantiate her claims about assumed resonance of characters. There are only two standards for this, IMHO: convention, and the text.

There are no conventions around the Nurse being a gentlewoman. She is a member of staff, not a member of the family. There are, however, conventions of this archetype serving as a bawd- they are found as far back as the Late Classical period (see Ovid's Dipsas in particular). One bad Hollywood film doth not a convention make.

The text, then? Clearly, Nurse is a common, trashy, foul-mouthed drunkard. She is a confidant of Juliet, yes- in the same way that Mercutio is to Romeo. Nurse plays at gentility only in her scene with Mercutio and the other men- better interpretations of this scene find her coy, even coquettish in her scolding of the roguish boys. I thought Angelique captured a classic bawdy Nurse with great poise, and it's easily the best thing I've seen her perform.

The rest of the review was sub-standard too, but I think anyone reading this forum doesn't need why explained to them.

The show was pretty good, and well up to standard for it's intended audience. Lighting and sound were great and set the tone of each scene well. The costuming was clear, simple, and helped tell the story (which is all it needs to do). I was particularly impressed by Ian Toyne's performance, in both the role of Mercutio and Capulet. The "older" Mercutio really worked, and added a dimension to this play that I hadn't considered.

A few misgivings: the translation of the dagger from Juliet's bed to the tomb was just too much closer to magic than stagecraft, and it was unnecessary- Romeo could easily have carried a dagger. It felt clunky that Romeo called for a mattock and wrench, then received a bright blue crowbar. The resulting impalement of Paris was just a bit weird as a result. I don't understand why such a deviation from the props mentioned in the text was made. I also feel that Romeo needed a lot more energy, and that I couldn't empathise with him at all- Daniel, take one piece of advice- don't ever look at the floor, there is always a better choice.

I think this is a great Class Act show, and wish the company all the best for their ongoing tour.

Walter PlingeThu, 2 Sept 2010, 10:08 pm

review

A little while ago someone wrote on this website bemoaning the lack of coverage of community theatre by the West and other media. I think the above exchange perhaps sheds some light as to why this occurs. After reading the review several times, its not that bad but I have to say I feel the reply is overblown and unnecessary. It will probably do nothing to further enhance the relationship or interest by the MSM in community theatre. Sorry, but just an alternative view.

class act theatreSun, 5 Sept 2010, 05:17 pm

Hi Nixon This R&J is a

Hi Nixon This R&J is a professional production albeit on a very small budget - i.e. the actors are being paid for their work. I am not sure we are covered by the "community theatre" banner. All our productions are either co-ops or paid, I think that is why we get coverage in the West and are judged against professional companies.

crgwllmsSun, 5 Sept 2010, 06:54 pm

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

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>-/====\---------

← Back to Theatre Reviews