Getting to see a show was a wonderful gift of an experience. While I know that is isn’t the exact space that Shakespeare would’ve practiced in, being only yards away and seeing the shows he created in a space that was as true to the original as possible was good enough for me. While the shows themselves may take some slight artistic liberties when it comes to the way the shows would’ve been performed, it personally did not take away from the experience I was having, and if anything made me feel more connected to the hundreds of years of legacy baked into these plays.
We saw Romeo and Juliet and it was set in the 1870s (ish) in the U.S. western frontier. Obviously, there isn’t anyway this would’ve been a time or setting that Shakespeare would’ve seen. But I also think that many understand that we have to see these shows evolve past their original time and placement, so I don’t think that was controversial at all. I did wonder why this time and place. I absolutely loved this production and thought it would really well, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why, other than it was something different. This may be something I need to do more research on in order to find the parallels to today or to then that attracted the creative team to this. Honesty, I am going to abandon all my theater training for two seconds and say that if they chose this simply because it worked and was interesting, that’s enough for me. I know we are supposed to choose things for deeper reasons as theater artists, but I think sometimes fun or interesting can be enough.
To start off with the things that were amazing, and I absolutely adored, it was awesome to get to be right next to the balcony and bed when they were rolled into the stalls. Although it was very hard to stand for three hours, it was absolutely worth it for the view and to be so close to the rolling set pieces. Juliet’s performance during the balcony scene was worth the price of the ticket alone.
The most noticeable difference was the use of guns instead of swords and knives. That change makes it clear that Romeo is responsible, at least in quite a large way, for what happens to the derailment of the life he and Juliet should’ve had. That life would’ve by no means been an easy one, but it would’ve been because of the one choice they were both, together, completely ok with being the struggle of their lives. In the play, Romeo is definitely the one who causes the negative situation on top of that, when he uses a gun it feels much more intentional and aware than a boy who gets thrown into a situation and haphazardly kills on the path to get out. That’s not to say that I think that Romeo is completely aware of the impact of his actions and goes into any of these situations wanting blood shed, but he pulls that trigger many times each. But to give him some credit, he does try to calm both situations down beforehand. I think that they acknowledge that Juliet is totally and completely innocent in this by having her die by running into Romeo’s arms. I don’t think they are trying to pin the blame on him, but show that to be with him she was willing to run into harm and death.
As I mentioned, I absolutely loved this show and gave it 4 ½ out of five stars. I would absolutely recommend this rendition of this play to anyone who wants a good laugh with an equal amount of pain and heart. The most difficult part of deciding to come should be whether you want to sit or stand!
Theatre in London U of A 