I am now so fed up with this growing trend of no sets, no props and sometimes not even any real costumes. It is starting to dominate theatre, it fesls, but what angers me the most is thdse producers insisting they are being avant garde. No, they are being cheap. Very obvious at this point given how much theatre was struggling even before the cost of living crisis. I wish they'd just own it, I could at least respect the honesty then.
@@emhu2594the whole experience of theatre isn’t subtle though. Theatre should be extravagant, dramatic and exciting. The acting can be subtle in some places obviously, but theatre is known and loved for how over the top it is. If people want to see whispering and micro expressions on a bare stage, they should just watch a film.
YES! not to say it hasn't been done successfully, but i think people lose sight of what makes it work? the successes aren't good simply by virtue of that kind of staging. it's everything else, too!!! can we PLEASE be purposeful about these kinds of choices for the love of all things good 😭
In my opinion Romeo and Juliet needs to feel light hearted and bright in the first act so when Mercutio and Tybalt die it feels like a punch in the gut and a massive escalation.
this!!! in my opinion It's supposed to read as a comedy in the first act but Mercutio's death then changes everything. Looking deary from the beginning take all that away. I'm interested to see what Sam Gold does with Kit Connor and Rachel Zegler's R& J because the promo video looks basically the opposite of this and is very light hearted and cutesy.
This is what Baz Lurhman did with his film adaptation. The start is so bright and fun, the score is so catchy, so when A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES happens, it’s chilling.
Yes! This exactly. Our local Old Globe theater (San Diego) got it right in this way. Both Juliet and Romeo were so lighthearted in the beginning, the contrast of events in act 2 was exactly that, a gut punch Creative choices, it was acted in sand (like at a beach) which made them pulling out swords from the sand really dramatic for the fight. And a woman playing a seriously feisty Tybalt was so well cast & well acted. I would’ve been surprised if they hadn’t fought To me it shows creative staging can work but I think they really need to lean into the emotions of Shakespeare’s characters & hit those plot points
I am GOBSMACKED at the actor bios. At least give Francesca a couple of paragraphs, that just makes her look less experienced than Tom Holland. I know the majority of the audience is there for him, but to give him a poorly written novel compared to her bullet point list is unnecessary (especially considering the abuse she got when she was initially cast)
@@emhu2594 i'm not going to pretend that i'm a MASSIVE theatre connoisseur but i am a theatre kid and from my general experience, tom holland's bio is extremely over-the-top. i've never seen a single programme bio like that before, even with experienced actors such as sir ian mckellen. i don't think OP meant that their CVs are comparable, just that there should be more consistency with the format of bios (which i agree with).
@@emhu2594 It's crazy to have bios like that. In playbills, every actor featured has approximately the same amount of info for each of them. Everybody gets one paragraph and that's it.
I don’t understand why Jamie Lloyd didn’t choose to do Hamlet instead of Romeo and Juliet - I think the cameras and bare costumes etc would work perfectly with the themes of spectacle and surveillance that Hamlet builds itself on
I dont think i can ever get behind minimalism, i love a PRODUCTION, a big SHOW! Props, costumes, lighting everything! I would still see this for the actors but im over the bare sets
If I go to the theatre I was props, sets, I want to be immerse into the world. That’s why I go to the theatre. To be transported. So the minimalist aesthetic is not for me. But I respect the people who like it. It’s just not for me.
"Juliet seemingly revives from the dead like a pokemon" "she kills herself for the vibes" "when your husband of 48 hours is dead, what else is there to live for?" Yep, this was the R&J review I've been most looking forward to
I hope this isn't controversial but if I'm expected to pay £250 I want more than just a bare stage and a screen. I mean where is all that money going, especially when it sells out just on a name and not the work that is put into it.
@@truedisastcer4069 Ah okay. I assume they weren't too far off originally. Even £150 is pushing it for me. If they included something I wouldn't mind as much.
The sounds like skit someone would put on to make fun of modern theater that was taking itself too seriously; with the lack of props, whispering all the lines and just staring at the audience blankly instead of showing emotion.
The difference between Tom and Francesca's bios in the program seems very, very gross for a play with 2 leads. Very gross. I enjoyed your review, as always!
From what I understand from some Shakespearean people, it’s probably because they’re trying to justify the stunt casting of Tom Holland in comparison to Francesca who’s an actual Shakespearean actor.
The plain stage is ALWAYS boring - it’s not edgy, or heightening performances. This is the west end, I want a little bit of spectacle. I went to see The Seagull at the Harold Pinter and oh my Lord, they were banking so hard on Emilia Clarke as Nina, and they also did the bare bones staging. For that play it didn’t work because it’s a bit weird anyway and some set would have elevated it. For this, I am an English Lit student and am well versed in Shakespeare, however the majority of the audience is not. You need to give them a little something to work with, and if it’s not going to be dialogue with volume, it can at least be props and set.
The simple fact that a creative in the theatrical space decided to make all the actors WHISPER for 2 1/2 hours, 8 shows a week when it’s been well documented just how bad whispering is for the voice- just goes to show that Jamie Lloyd put their own ego ahead of the health and safety of actors.
Wow that’s insanity for a vocal performer! I would have to refuse. Maybe Lloyd thought since they were actors and not singers it didn’t matter as much? But I can’t imagine an acclaimed theater director being ignorant on a topic like that….
Yeah with Shakespeare you need proper visuals, especially if you are a newbie to his works. You mentioned earlier Mickey about the ballet adaptation of R and J. I have had the priveliege of watching live broadcasts of The Royal Ballet's production and it is fantastic! But no matter what ballet company does R and J, the credit goes to Prokofiev's highly cinematic score. It tells the story perfectly.
Omg yes! I have watched the ballet several times over with several different choreographers(my personal favorite version is John Cranko’s). The score is fabulous, like you said. When the production is danced and acted really well, you witness the drama, passion, and interpersonal relationships you should see in R and J. So a visit to the Royal Opera House will probably give you a better R and J experience than you can get from this play.
I saw this afternoon. I totally agree with all your criticisms. My biggest gripe was, as I was sitting in the galley on the left, the death scene is staged on the left side in front of the stage and I couldn't see it. If only the director had watched so they had moved it slightly to the right everybody could had seen it. I didn't actually believe that they were in love.
just cause minimalism is trendy in theatre atm does not make it a good choice for every play. romeo and juliet without props is just .... idek what that is
@@gavinrobers8392 I have seen a production of macbeth with james mcavoy which was i guess 'minimalist' (kind of. the set stayed mostly the same, simple in rusted greys and brown like rundown soviet dystopia) and used it effectively (the stark red of fake blood against the greys and browns was arresting. every time they killed someone their hands were smeared with blood. when macbeth was finally killed it rained blood from the ceiling!!). but doing it for the sake of being artsy is just so boring and has the energy of a bad poetry slam. like, what is the purpose? does using minimalism support the text? is it an effective choice? but this slick minimalism trend is ironically much like many modern marvel films. all style and no substance.
@@MickeyJoTheatrelook just because everyone forgot how to do proper sound mixing in modern movies doesn’t mean you also need to mimic that in your PLAY to make it seem more modern
I remember one instance of it in SB to great impact. Thank goodness they didn't use that style all the time as that would have destroyed that production.
@@MickeyJoTheatre At the very beginning of the review when you explained that setup, I thought “that’s going to come across very silly and pretentious if it doesn’t work.” It feels like Jamie Lloyd had no new idea for this production, and just used what had been successful before.
As someone who is a Shakespeare performer and studies it both academically and theatrically, the main thing in acting Shakespeare is ITS ALL RELEASE. Characters are constantly expressing their emotions to the highest level they can. It’s why the “O” is so common in his plays. The “o” means to the actors to make a sound that expresses all your emotions, not to say an actual “oh”. Shakespeare’s characters go on stage and release everything in them. Because of this, I feel, Shakespeare often doesn’t work super well on camera. On camera acting tends to be way more subtle and about what characters are thinking. That is the opposite of Shakespeare. It’s all unrealistic emotion turned up to 100 (affectionately). Trying to make Shakespeare “realistic” or anything similar to what films tend to do is directly in conflict with the text, what Shakespeare is doing, and how plays work from the time. Shakespeare is a lot closer to a musical acting in my opinion than film acting. ALSO(this may be a hot take or get me cancelled by stans but I don’t care) JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS A FAMOUS ACTOR DOESNT MEAN THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT SHAKESPEARE. It’s a different type of acting because it’s a different type of theater. It’s a specialized form of theater. Now it’s pretty easy to get classes and stuff (especially if you are a nepo baby movie star like Tom Holland) but JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A GOOD ACTOR DOESNT MEAN YOU CAN LEAD A SHAKESPEARE PLAY. Tom Holland is a perfect example for this. He’s fantastic in a lot of his work, but just because he’s a great actor on film doesn’t mean he can lead a massive Shakespeare play and play this iconic role. As far as I know (please correct me if not), Tom Holland has never been in a Shakespeare play. So why should he lead this show? I am a Rachel Zelger STAN and I am nervous for her and Kit Conner’s version for the same reasons. There are plenty of talented actors who are well-versed in Shakespeare who could lead this show and get an opportunity like this. So this sounds like failed stunt casting to me. Sad because I really like Tom Holland and wanted to see this (even though I’m American 😕) but it sounds like they’ve committed some Shakespeare sins that drive me up the wall. RIP MY BOY MERCUTIO THEY DIDNT KNOW THE GEM OF A CHARACTER YOU ARE 😭😭😭
31:21 you need the separation because otherwise it’s in conflict with the overly passionate language. They’d be naked already if they are too close in that scene.
Also Romeo and Juliet is set up perfectly like a Roman comedy at the beginning. If you don’t play that in beginning you are playing the ending, which is like a classic theater sin. It also makes the ending less devastating because, when it leans into the comedy, you forget the ending. Which is the biggest compliment a production of Romeo and Juliet can get.
yes!!! I loooooove Shakespeare as an actor because it's so much release. the cursing with hatres, the begging with love, it's all so raw and visceral. it gives actors soo much material to work with and I love it, especially if you're acting with a generous partner. there's so many directions you can go with it because there's so much there for you to play with. taking that rawness away from Shakespeare is robbing it of everything I love. as an example, there's is such beauty in Helena begging Demetrius to treat her like a dog in Midsummer Night. It's raw and makes many people (including many actors in classes) uncomfortable because it's so... out there and embarrassingly honest in her desires, and that's the beauty of Shakespeare imo.
Hello! Just wanted to give a little bit of what I've learned of Romeo & Juliet doing the play with a touring Shakespeare Festival for a couple years. Romeo & Juliet doesn't necessarily have to be about a "love surpassing all ages". For instance, when Romeo speaks of Rosaline, and then switches hard-core over to being crazy into Juliet, it isn't necessarily because Juliet is so much higher above Rosaline. It may just be because Romeo is in love with love. He's an angsty, poetic, young romantic...and maybe also kind of just a horny teenager. Over the years, we've sort of adopted this idea that Romeo & Juliet is the greatest love story of all time for some reason and that they are the perfect couple, but the structure of the story doesn't necessary support that... It's written to show two young, angsty people who fall head over heals really quickly and make really dumb, brash decisions in their infatuation, finally resulting in suicide. And maybe their love does grow throughout the story, but that doesn't mean it is unmatched or even that they're a good couple. Romeo & Juliet has a lot of humor in it. In fact, when it was first performed for Elizabethian audiences, the people were so shocked and disappointed at the ending being so sad (because everyone was laughing all the way through) that Shakespeare had to add a whole monologue at the beginning of the show to literally warn the audiences, "This is a play that's going to be really funny for a while, but it'll end sad, just fyi...." There is so much crude humor in the show, and some of the characters are such larger-than-life characters...There's even a lot of humor that has been lost through the ages. For instance, the name "Tybalt" was a famous, silly cat character in Elizabethian times. So, the fact that one of the most hot-tempered characters in the show was named "Tybalt" is frankly a joke in itself. Imagine today someone like Austin Butler playing some bad-boy swordsman named "Mickey Mouse". Point being...Romeo and Juliet is full of caricatures. And Romeo & Juliet's love in itself...sudden, unreasonable, between two teenagers that really have no clue what they're doing...could as well be a caricature in itself. Peace!
I feel really passionate about Romeo and Juliet. It’s my favorite Shakespeare play, and one of the ones I studied extensively for my undergrad thesis. To me it sounds like this production misses the point. I think the compelling part of R&J is passion and intense emotions. Romeo is one of my favorite literary characters because he is a crybaby! Romeo frames himself as the emotional one repeatedly. People like to assume he is significantly older than Juliet because it makes them sound different and edgy I guess but there’s no evidence he isn’t also an immature teen. That’s not to say Juliet isn’t also overdramatic and emotional. I think it’s important, personally, that they are both so young and melodramatic. You’re meant to feel like you just went through so much and for what? What was it all for? Because that’s exactly what the piece is trying to say. I haven’t seen this production, of course, but it sounds like it missed the point to me. I have tickets to see the Broadway production with Kit Connor and Rachel Zegler at the end of this year, and I’m very interested to see what they do with it.
It seems like Jamie Lloyd was far more concerned about putting on a new Jamie Lloyd production, with a nod to people wanting to see Tom Holland live onstage, rather than... like... telling the story. It could have been any play as long as he could put the star in the title role. It cheapens previous productions when you see elements being used so inappropriately - was the use of cameras ACTUALLY a commentary on Hollywood and celebrity for Sunset Boulevard? Or was that accidental genius, a coincidence that wasn't thought through the way it seemed, since it's being used in the same way with none of that context?
Please do a video on the reviews. Seems like quite a few reviewers are over the Jamie Lloyd effect and it really makes me wonder how well Sunset will review in NY
JL effect enhanced Sunset to another level. Here it just doesn't work. Less that they are done with the style, more it just needs to be used for a reason.
This makes me think that, off the success of the highly acclaimed Sunset Boulevard, complete with a star casting, Jamie Lloyd went to recreate that magic in Romeo & Juliet. Rather than taking the time to work out an original production with actors who perform the roles amazingly, they tried to simply apply Sunset Boulevard to R&J as a cookie cutter.
Absolutely, i think the clear example of this is the effect. Ofc it came before but it clearly shows that even recently jamie lloyd doesnt just do sunset boulevard style shows, its adjacent but its still different in such a way that it feels correct and unique, and it all👏made👏sense👏
I think the thing that makes me so mad is that more concrete staging and setting can MAKE Shakespeare more accessible. In Boston pre-pandemic, I saw a production of R&J that was so dynamic and youthful and earnest that I was genuinely devastated when I got to intermission and remembered what was about to happen next. I feel like good theater to me maybe can feel like theater that is ready or willing to meet anyone who wants to come through the doors.
I saw the play today. As a non native English speaking person, I had THE HARDEST time trying to understand what they were saying. Most because it’s a “sophisticated English”. And since they are no set or props to help me understand what’s going on on the stage, I can honestly say I definitely didn’t understand anything from the plot. It was a very underwhelming experience.
One of the few performances I considered leaving halfway through. If you do not know the plot beats (i.e more than just the very basics), you will be lost for good portions of it. If you have tickets, I suggest reading a synopsis or something before going since, as this video suggests, the performance takes a lot of this for granted.
This seems like a sad, missed opportunity. Because of Tom Holland, you can suddenly introduce Shakespeare to a whole demographic who maybe have never seen it done well and were put off by the language. Who don't like or get it. This was the chance to change all that and the production was too busy being avent garde to remember what the primary function of a play is.
Haven't seen this production, but when you said that it was written in the program that the purpose was to strip away anything that would distract from the text (by which, I presume the director meant strip away sets, costumes, and action and just focus on the words), I got so angry. I am a former middle school English teacher, and I taught Romeo and Juliet to my students. One of the struggles that we English teachers have is that Shakespeare was intended to be preformed, not read. There aren't really many stage directions, just mostly actors' lines, and for young people studying the play today, who are so far removed from the social norms and vernacular of Shakespeare's time, it's hard to understand the story from just the words. I'd say most of today's audiences need talented actors and production teams to create and tell the story through not only the words they say, but their costumes, sets, and you know, actual acting. Why not just have actors sit in a circle and read the words, readers theater-style, if they're not going to, you know, put on a play?
I mean, without the charm of the funny moments, the tension in that specific play falls flat. And Romeo and Juliet has such great funny moments even in the text. How can you butcher the most iconic scenes too?
I literally left the theatre on Wednesday saying everything your video covers. I usually LOVE everything Jamie Lloyd does, but this was a big no in my opinion. The actors speaking mostly in a dreamlike state just sucked all of the energy out of the play. Also the lack of interaction between characters was puzzling when they were just stood face forward to the audience speaking into microphones. It was more like a first read through of the play. Another really irritating thing (probably to put the audience on edge) was the really loud disorientating music and sound effects they were pumping out of the speakers before the show started and during the interval. I'm sure there were some positives somewhere but hard to find.
I’ve just seen the show. Sat third row. And I agree with most your review. 3 star production to me. Having a droning soundtrack, the cast mumble and microphones somewhat echo, made the whole opening scene so hard to understand. A single cough from anyone in the audience made the entire thing inaudible. However, after the opening scene the cast spoke louder - I do wonder if they were told to speak louder now, as the whispering was noted in many reviews and I didn’t find it awful after the first scene. But like you say, the first scene impacts so much of the show. I know understand the show better because of your breakdown. I didn’t catch who he loved (I was confused and thought he already met Juliet when he talked of love but obviously soon realised he hadn’t), and didn’t feel much fear of the war between families. So being someone who didn’t know the story (aside the ending) I struggled to follow this. FYI I didn’t go for Tom Holland, I went for Jamie Lloyd because of Sunset. But do expect most where there for him, and likely also struggled to follow the story a bit.
"Forbidden Broadway" better do a whisper-off between Jessica Chastain and Tom Holland. Imagine each one shouting "What???" after every line of dialogue
From what I understand from some Shakespearean people, the smaller bio for Francesca is probably because they’re trying to justify the stunt casting of Tom Holland in comparison to Francesca who’s an actual Shakespearean actor. However it does come off as targeted nevertheless.
Isn’t the point of going to the theatre to be in the same room as the performer? And acting for stage is very different to acting for camera - a stage actor has to convey emotion to the very back of the house, without being over the top for the front row. Is it time to move away from these gimmicks now!? Can I suggest if someone wants to make a film, they don’t do it on a stage.
Such a point about the assumption that the audience already knows what's going on because it's Shakespeare and well known so they cut corners on the actual story telling. Went to see Player Kings earlier in the month and there was genuine shock among a fair section of the audience when a particular character was killed even though it's a fairly well known death if you know your Shakespeare and/or history. It sounds like this production of Romeo & Juliet is for those who have seen or read the play enough times to automatically know what's going on and fancy seeing it done in this particular style or, as you say, just there to see Tom Holland perform on stage.
That last part is particularly strange to me. If you cast Tom Holland in your play, surely you must know the kind of audience he will attract. Which, if you ask me, is not necessarily the kind of crowd to know Romeo & Juliet by heart.
I don't like it when productions are still stripped back with minimal props and set. Not only does it not allow me to immerse myself in the performance, it makes me think of school and amateur shows where there is no choice but to strip things back in order to cut costs. Everyone knows Romeo and Juliet so it probably doesn't matter as much, but Shakespeare can be difficult with how different the language is today. You need visual storytelling involved so that the audience can interpret what they're seeing. And whispering? Please don't.
My brother saw a production like this of Hamlet at our regional Shakespeare theatre and hated it so much none of us have gone back. I can’t imagine playing London prices for this
I'm at the start of the video and haven't seen your comments yet, but came out tonight and I felt the staging was just a little odd, moments like the multiple kisses where the characters are moving and interacting more like an actual play, and then multiple scenes with all the actors facing straight to the audience with almost no movement for what felt like way too long... Also the multiple blackouts used almost in a way that felt like jumpscares, in Sunset Boulevard it really worked and was perfect. In this both that and the outside scenes felt like cheap knockoffs
As somebody who primarily engages with theatre as text or an audience member, I really appreciated how deep you went into the relationship between the staging and blocking choices of the production and how they sometimes contradict or otherwise even undermine the story. Minimalist contemporary interpretations certainly have their place, but it sounds like this one rings hollow.
This I will confess was my concern from the moment they released the cast announcement trailer they did. There was such a focus on the violence and not on the love and this show cannot work without both.
If you really wanted to do screens and cameras in a Shakespeare play why not just do hamlet. A lot of people have tried to play up the surveillance aspect in hamlet so why not take that to the next level, at least it would be saying soemthing
Two key points: Romeo and Juliet is not a love story, it is about VIOLENCE. To miss that really suggests Jamie Lloyd has totally misinterpreted the text. If I had paid £200 for a ticket and they spent the entire time whispering I would have to heckle (and that is very bad etiquette but like, it may be justified here!)
I also often find myself justifying high ticket prices because I know it takes a lot to put on a show. But with no sets and no props and evidently no sound WHERE IS THIS MONEY GOING?!
The red flags were already on the wall when I saw the pictures and that dull as fuck lighting and minimalist staging. There is so much life and energy in Romeo and Juliet as a play. Why you would just make the entire world so bleak and dark is beyond my comprehension. Yes it is a tragedy but there is also comedy, color and joy in the moments of the play prior to Mercutio dying. With a rich world of colorful and memorable characters. I could already tell from the pictures that the director completely missed the point of the play. But to hear he did from someone who saw it is still disappointing all the same.
I'm SO GRATEFUL for this review. I've been feeling like Jamie Lloyd has found an aesthetic and is now using it as a broad-stroke "trick." I loved it in Betrayal...but then I found diminished returns in the stage version (not the filmed version) of Cyrano...couldn't bring myself to see the Checkhov. And I'm gonna give this a miss.
I hope none of my fav actors ever star in a Jamie Lloyd production! I don’t want shell out that much money for no set no props no costumes and whispers but I know I will have to if he ever casts Peter Capaldi 😭
Honestly from what I've heard about this production, the direction at a highschool version of this play was better than this high budget one. It was a modern take where Romeo's family was a gang full of abused people living in poverty and Juliet's family were rich gang lords. Juliet's father was physically abusive towards her and her mother, Romeo shot her cousin in a very dramatic slow motion fashion while the stage revolved showing the horror on his face as he dropped the gun and ran to Juliet. Romeo OD and Juliet slit her wrists. Let me tell you every audience member was sobbing
I really hope you get to see the new Broadway version with Rachel Zegler and Kit Connor because it looks totally opposite to this portrayal and I’m really interested to see how it turns out
The big problem with this production to me is that it does not seem to believe that people care about the text of the play or the story so they need to spice it up with people with whispers, and other nonsense.
i feel like romeo and juliet shoudn’t be hard to do, yet everytime i’ve seen it, it’s been a trainwreck. the worst offender for me was at the globe in 2017 - diet bdsm nightmare where juliet took twenty minutes to die, twice. then again, i haven’t seen this.
@@MickeyJoTheatre oh good god, I cannot wait if you do manage to. I saw the snazzy promo video they put out on Instagram and I was like this could either be sooooo good, or sooooo bad. I hope MickeyJo gets to review it haha
@@emhu2594 I didn't get that impression from this review at all. You're acting like Mickey spent 49 mins saying "Shakespeare sucks! ONE STAR". Disliking this particular version of R&J doesn't mean hating 'classical arts'. Besides, if anything is *actually* going to put people off Shakespeare, it's watching a bad performance of his work lol.
@@emhu2594 you do realise that reviews and much like anything in this world can be ‘bought’ right? Yes as in they can make someone write a favourable review. It’s not unheard of and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s why you think these 4 star reviews are genuine. Some of them might actually be, someone of them….id actually check where exactly they’re coming from. I’m more inclined to take independent non commissioned people like MickeyJo’s review more seriously than a time out magazine review - which coincidentally DID give the performance a 4 star review. But what is the time out magazine if not a magazine wanting to encourage nightlife and all these awesome about london and whatever else. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything reviewed in there be that good, movie, theatre etc that’s not at least 3* minimum. You get my point. Reviews can and have always be bought. Don’t trust the internet darling.
thanks for reviewing it so quickly, I was really curious about it! I was shcked by the rating when I read the title but it really seems like it wasn't a good time lol
As an English literature student who has been studying Shakespeare, first in modernised language then in the old English, since year 7, I’m doing a lit degree next year, and I still find it incredibly difficult to understand at times in text form. I cannot imagine how much harder it would be if it was being performed by actors who were not enunciating on purpose and were also whispering. Those actor bios were also terrible.
If the screen only goes up halfway, why not use that for the balcony scene? Like, roll out a platform the height of the screen and make the screen the balcony. Be clever with the cameras or even use pre-recorded footage of them side by side so you still get that parallel that they want. If you don't want the height difference, put one of them on either side of the screen so there's still a physical separation. You can angle the actors in a way to not just make the audience look at their backs. Then raise the screen so they can kiss.
To me Romeo and Juliet is about the emotions of the story. If a Director doesn't seem to get that I don't think this same Director gets Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet at all.
I absolutely get that this is not for everyone. I fully expected it to be not for me but I went to see it Monday and surprisingly i loved it. It completely immersed me in a way that I can't really explain
Mickey, I have a theory that Jaimie Lloyd’s preparation time for this coincided with his preparation time for Sunset and it probably resulted in him making most of his boldest choices for Sunset and then recycling the same ideas for Romeo and Juliet knowing that that show would make money no matter what he did with it. It would be sad if that was the case but from your description, the preparation for this show feels incredibly rushed and not thought out, resting on spill over popularity from Sunset and the star power of Tom Holland. I would love to see a Jamie Lloyd Romeo and Juliet that he put some actual thought into.
Shakespearean plays are truly meant to be seen, not read. If you want to just focus on Shakespeare's text, then do a reading of his sonnets. And whispering doesn't do anything for the emotion when it's the whole show.
I disagree. they are also meant to be read, it's very enjoyable. but a performance of his plays should not be presented like a staged read-through?! The choices made for this production are so confusing to me, none of them serve the material or making the material appealing or accessible to their audience.
I feel like it’s actually a bit redundant to strip down Shakespeare, particularly Romeo and Juliet. So many of us read this play in a high school classroom under florescent lights. Our experience with it is literally just the text. I always get so much more out of the play when I can see it in context! While watching this review I remembered Rosaline, a cute romcom movie take on the story I would recommend.
Just went tonight - this review 99% aligned work how I felt... So much so that I'm going to send it to everyone who asks what I thought. But I diverged on the Queen Mab speech - it really resonated for me and helped explain why Mercutio is such an inconsistent person . I've spent a lot of time with people recovering from trauma and PTSD, and for me this delivery really strongly reflected some of the haunted rants I've heard from people living in a world that is half-comprised of nightmares. Similarly with the nurse, in the second half it suddenly felt like the humor from the first half was part of a post-trauma defense mechanism to me. Though both made the whole play darker. One thing you didn't mention which was another Jamie lloyd-ism was the removal of microphones to signify the death of Romeo & Juliet. Again something that I think worked in Cyrano because in Cyrano words are everything, words are life and existence. But here.... I was just asking wherefore?
I went to see Romeo & Juliet on Saturday, and your review is spot on. I sat in the upper circle and really struggled to see the actors when they were sitting at the lip of the stage, which happens a lot during the play! Sadly, Toms acting didn't translate to where I was sitting. Only during the camera sequences did I really get to see how great he was.
Acting on stage and acting for cameras are very different and I don’t think having cameras onstage helped them project their performance to the back row like you’re meant to 😅
we found it quite disappointing....almost zero scenery, the 'hoodie' look so tired.....mediocre casting;/acting...it all seemed terribly contrived....cannot recommend......the nurse was good tho.
For the people saying you can't do plays/Shakespeare's plays/certain plays with no props: yes, you can. It doesn't mean everyone will like it and of course it doesn't mean every minimalist production will be well-done. But the beauty of theatre is that you can have a single human being narrating a story on an empty stage and still find yourself completely immersed in their story. The Donmar's Coriolanus was absolutely glorious, Jodie Comer's Prima Facie felt like watching a thriller movie, and I've seen plenty of fringe plays (including Shakespeare) that were brilliant even with the most minimalist set. Just because one specific production doesn't work it doesn't mean the entire genre doesn't and people who've never seen one shouldn't be discouraged to try and watch one or to try and watch a different one if they hated Romeo & Juliet. I take people have their own taste, but saying that "you can't do Romeo & Juliet without props" is factually incorrect.
I’m a big Jamie Lloyd fan but this production was a total miss for me! The style didn’t service the story at all and it was creatively dull. No drive, no emotion, no action. Shame as it had so much promise.
How the hell did Jamie Lloyd go from making an absolute banger with the Sunset BLVD revival, to this? It made sense with what I've seen from Sunset to give more of the vibe of being behind the actual scenes of making a movie with the black and white contrasting greatly with the added red that comes in later...but it just doesn't work as well for this.
Ofc I haven't seen this play, but the impression I get from this review is that the actors did what the could but the direction itself was misguided for this story.
if i wanted to focus on shakespeare's text… id read it. shakespeare's text is good, really good, but he didnt write books. he wrote plays. (also my preferred romeo interpretation is lovesick puppy like in &juliet - personal preference!)
I am now so fed up with this growing trend of no sets, no props and sometimes not even any real costumes. It is starting to dominate theatre, it fesls, but what angers me the most is thdse producers insisting they are being avant garde. No, they are being cheap. Very obvious at this point given how much theatre was struggling even before the cost of living crisis. I wish they'd just own it, I could at least respect the honesty then.
Like at what point is it just going to become a radio play?
@@emhu2594Camera? This isn't a film.
here here!
@@emhu2594the whole experience of theatre isn’t subtle though. Theatre should be extravagant, dramatic and exciting. The acting can be subtle in some places obviously, but theatre is known and loved for how over the top it is. If people want to see whispering and micro expressions on a bare stage, they should just watch a film.
YES! not to say it hasn't been done successfully, but i think people lose sight of what makes it work? the successes aren't good simply by virtue of that kind of staging. it's everything else, too!!! can we PLEASE be purposeful about these kinds of choices for the love of all things good 😭
In my opinion Romeo and Juliet needs to feel light hearted and bright in the first act so when Mercutio and Tybalt die it feels like a punch in the gut and a massive escalation.
this!!! in my opinion It's supposed to read as a comedy in the first act but Mercutio's death then changes everything. Looking deary from the beginning take all that away.
I'm interested to see what Sam Gold does with Kit Connor and Rachel Zegler's R& J because the promo video looks basically the opposite of this and is very light hearted and cutesy.
@@ban1o it also has music from Jack Antonoff so let's not get too excited
Just like West Side Story
This is what Baz Lurhman did with his film adaptation. The start is so bright and fun, the score is so catchy, so when A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES happens, it’s chilling.
Yes! This exactly. Our local Old Globe theater (San Diego) got it right in this way. Both Juliet and Romeo were so lighthearted in the beginning, the contrast of events in act 2 was exactly that, a gut punch
Creative choices, it was acted in sand (like at a beach) which made them pulling out swords from the sand really dramatic for the fight. And a woman playing a seriously feisty Tybalt was so well cast & well acted. I would’ve been surprised if they hadn’t fought
To me it shows creative staging can work but I think they really need to lean into the emotions of Shakespeare’s characters & hit those plot points
I am GOBSMACKED at the actor bios. At least give Francesca a couple of paragraphs, that just makes her look less experienced than Tom Holland. I know the majority of the audience is there for him, but to give him a poorly written novel compared to her bullet point list is unnecessary (especially considering the abuse she got when she was initially cast)
@@emhu2594 i'm not going to pretend that i'm a MASSIVE theatre connoisseur but i am a theatre kid and from my general experience, tom holland's bio is extremely over-the-top. i've never seen a single programme bio like that before, even with experienced actors such as sir ian mckellen. i don't think OP meant that their CVs are comparable, just that there should be more consistency with the format of bios (which i agree with).
She is literally less experienced than Tom Holland.
Yes, the bios are definitely a bad look.
@@Renxo761she is much more experienced in theatre than him and that’s what the big point here is
@@emhu2594 It's crazy to have bios like that. In playbills, every actor featured has approximately the same amount of info for each of them. Everybody gets one paragraph and that's it.
"Like an ABBA tribute band performing at a funeral" - Incredible imagery.
I’m totally adding that to the plan for my funeral
@@phoenixfritzinger9185but are you warning your friends and family. Or will it be a surprise? 😂
I don’t understand why Jamie Lloyd didn’t choose to do Hamlet instead of Romeo and Juliet - I think the cameras and bare costumes etc would work perfectly with the themes of spectacle and surveillance that Hamlet builds itself on
Because everyone’s doing that with Hamlet. My college production did that with Hamlet. It’s good but, everyone’s doing it.
Mnd guess it is more of a juxtaposition to do something „avant Garde“(…) with a romance teen love story that made its way to pop culture
I dont think i can ever get behind minimalism, i love a PRODUCTION, a big SHOW! Props, costumes, lighting everything! I would still see this for the actors but im over the bare sets
Ironic that something so minimalistic is all flash and no substance
& without Tom it'd be a total flop.
If I go to the theatre I was props, sets, I want to be immerse into the world.
That’s why I go to the theatre. To be transported. So the minimalist aesthetic is not for me. But I respect the people who like it. It’s just not for me.
"Juliet seemingly revives from the dead like a pokemon" "she kills herself for the vibes" "when your husband of 48 hours is dead, what else is there to live for?"
Yep, this was the R&J review I've been most looking forward to
I snorted so loudly when he said those things 🤣😭
😭😭😭
As a former Mercutio I find your review confusing. I always thought the play ended after mercutio dies.
"He dies????" - Mercutio, Ben Affleck, 'Shakespeare in Love' 😂. That movie deserved Best Picture, and I'll die on that hill.
that's fair, I read his queen mab monologue as a child and instantly thought he was the coolest dude ever.
@@KaiOpakahahaha I'm with you 100% 😂
as a former Benvolio, I did too!
Underrated comment here 😂
I hope this isn't controversial but if I'm expected to pay £250 I want more than just a bare stage and a screen. I mean where is all that money going, especially when it sells out just on a name and not the work that is put into it.
Agree 100%
I guess paying tom holland idk...
that wasn’t the original price of the tickets, they kept selling out, that is the price of some that are still available
@@truedisastcer4069 Ah okay. I assume they weren't too far off originally. Even £150 is pushing it for me. If they included something I wouldn't mind as much.
@@emhu2594 That's good. But I usually need stalls because of accessibility reasons.
The sounds like skit someone would put on to make fun of modern theater that was taking itself too seriously; with the lack of props, whispering all the lines and just staring at the audience blankly instead of showing emotion.
Omg that is grim...
just closing their eyes to show they're dead is INSANE almost comical
@@biancaprimo4168wait is that really what they did😂😂🤣🤣🤣
The difference between Tom and Francesca's bios in the program seems very, very gross for a play with 2 leads. Very gross. I enjoyed your review, as always!
especially given the horrendous levels of abuse she has gotten online ever since her casting was announced
@@rosepetal34 The abuse has been absolutely atrocious...
@@rosepetal34I was originally hoping for a MickeyJo review roundup, but things are SO UGLY I think it would depress him.
They cast Romeo weeks before casting Juliet. They really treated her as an afterthought.
From what I understand from some Shakespearean people, it’s probably because they’re trying to justify the stunt casting of Tom Holland in comparison to Francesca who’s an actual Shakespearean actor.
"Tom Holland in Peppa Pig's big day out"
I know that was meant to be farcical.
But I still want to see it, now.
it seems like it would be more fun than this take on romeo and juliet lol
Yeah… when he said it in the video I thought: oh 😮 Peppa Pig … ❤ what an extremely nice idea 😀😀
Wait . ..no fighting? That's just plain sloppy. CLARITY is vital to ALL performance, particularly Shakespeare
When you said vaping I absolutely lost it, like I had to pause the video
As a graduate in stage design and theater arts, there are ways to do a "naked" stage. When the public notes its poverty... it ain't it
The plain stage is ALWAYS boring - it’s not edgy, or heightening performances. This is the west end, I want a little bit of spectacle. I went to see The Seagull at the Harold Pinter and oh my Lord, they were banking so hard on Emilia Clarke as Nina, and they also did the bare bones staging. For that play it didn’t work because it’s a bit weird anyway and some set would have elevated it. For this, I am an English Lit student and am well versed in Shakespeare, however the majority of the audience is not. You need to give them a little something to work with, and if it’s not going to be dialogue with volume, it can at least be props and set.
It was revolutionary in the 1970s, by now its only boring and old fashioned
The simple fact that a creative in the theatrical space decided to make all the actors WHISPER for 2 1/2 hours, 8 shows a week when it’s been well documented just how bad whispering is for the voice- just goes to show that Jamie Lloyd put their own ego ahead of the health and safety of actors.
Thank you for bringing this up, I didn't know that, but Jamie certainly should!
Wow! Didn’t know that! Jaime Lloyd should care for the actors safety
@@emhu2594 Lookit: I understand you loved this production. The fact that the critic didn’t is not any kind of judgment on you.
Wow that’s insanity for a vocal performer! I would have to refuse. Maybe Lloyd thought since they were actors and not singers it didn’t matter as much?
But I can’t imagine an acclaimed theater director being ignorant on a topic like that….
Yeah with Shakespeare you need proper visuals, especially if you are a newbie to his works. You mentioned earlier Mickey about the ballet adaptation of R and J. I have had the priveliege of watching live broadcasts of The Royal Ballet's production and it is fantastic! But no matter what ballet company does R and J, the credit goes to Prokofiev's highly cinematic score. It tells the story perfectly.
Omg yes! I have watched the ballet several times over with several different choreographers(my personal favorite version is John Cranko’s). The score is fabulous, like you said. When the production is danced and acted really well, you witness the drama, passion, and interpersonal relationships you should see in R and J. So a visit to the Royal Opera House will probably give you a better R and J experience than you can get from this play.
I saw this afternoon. I totally agree with all your criticisms. My biggest gripe was, as I was sitting in the galley on the left, the death scene is staged on the left side in front of the stage and I couldn't see it. If only the director had watched so they had moved it slightly to the right everybody could had seen it. I didn't actually believe that they were in love.
No props sound completely outrageous to me.
just cause minimalism is trendy in theatre atm does not make it a good choice for every play. romeo and juliet without props is just .... idek what that is
@@wildorangesughhh I hate minimalism in theatre I want maximalism I want color props effects magic lifts I don’t want depth and boringggnesss
@@gavinrobers8392 I have seen a production of macbeth with james mcavoy which was i guess 'minimalist' (kind of. the set stayed mostly the same, simple in rusted greys and brown like rundown soviet dystopia) and used it effectively (the stark red of fake blood against the greys and browns was arresting. every time they killed someone their hands were smeared with blood. when macbeth was finally killed it rained blood from the ceiling!!). but doing it for the sake of being artsy is just so boring and has the energy of a bad poetry slam.
like, what is the purpose? does using minimalism support the text? is it an effective choice?
but this slick minimalism trend is ironically much like many modern marvel films. all style and no substance.
Okay, but what props are actually vital to Romeo and Juliet other than the poison vial? Be real.
@@thehoodpinch7364 like, weapons??
Oh my god, the whispering gimmick. If I was in the audience I probably would get so annoyed so fast.
It gets old QUICK.
@@MickeyJoTheatrelook just because everyone forgot how to do proper sound mixing in modern movies doesn’t mean you also need to mimic that in your PLAY to make it seem more modern
I'm autistic and I think i'd honestly have to leave cause it would be too uncomfortable to listen to.
I remember one instance of it in SB to great impact. Thank goodness they didn't use that style all the time as that would have destroyed that production.
@@MickeyJoTheatre At the very beginning of the review when you explained that setup, I thought “that’s going to come across very silly and pretentious if it doesn’t work.”
It feels like Jamie Lloyd had no new idea for this production, and just used what had been successful before.
“Almost All Questions start with wherefore?” I LOVE THAT!
A romeo and juliet that lacks passion is a romeo and juliet I DO NOT want to see
As someone who is a Shakespeare performer and studies it both academically and theatrically, the main thing in acting Shakespeare is ITS ALL RELEASE. Characters are constantly expressing their emotions to the highest level they can. It’s why the “O” is so common in his plays. The “o” means to the actors to make a sound that expresses all your emotions, not to say an actual “oh”. Shakespeare’s characters go on stage and release everything in them. Because of this, I feel, Shakespeare often doesn’t work super well on camera. On camera acting tends to be way more subtle and about what characters are thinking. That is the opposite of Shakespeare. It’s all unrealistic emotion turned up to 100 (affectionately). Trying to make Shakespeare “realistic” or anything similar to what films tend to do is directly in conflict with the text, what Shakespeare is doing, and how plays work from the time. Shakespeare is a lot closer to a musical acting in my opinion than film acting.
ALSO(this may be a hot take or get me cancelled by stans but I don’t care) JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS A FAMOUS ACTOR DOESNT MEAN THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT SHAKESPEARE. It’s a different type of acting because it’s a different type of theater. It’s a specialized form of theater. Now it’s pretty easy to get classes and stuff (especially if you are a nepo baby movie star like Tom Holland) but JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A GOOD ACTOR DOESNT MEAN YOU CAN LEAD A SHAKESPEARE PLAY. Tom Holland is a perfect example for this. He’s fantastic in a lot of his work, but just because he’s a great actor on film doesn’t mean he can lead a massive Shakespeare play and play this iconic role. As far as I know (please correct me if not), Tom Holland has never been in a Shakespeare play. So why should he lead this show? I am a Rachel Zelger STAN and I am nervous for her and Kit Conner’s version for the same reasons. There are plenty of talented actors who are well-versed in Shakespeare who could lead this show and get an opportunity like this. So this sounds like failed stunt casting to me. Sad because I really like Tom Holland and wanted to see this (even though I’m American 😕) but it sounds like they’ve committed some Shakespeare sins that drive me up the wall.
RIP MY BOY MERCUTIO THEY DIDNT KNOW THE GEM OF A CHARACTER YOU ARE 😭😭😭
sorry this is so long, Shakespeare is a passion of mine (clearly) and just wanted to share my thoughts!
31:21 you need the separation because otherwise it’s in conflict with the overly passionate language. They’d be naked already if they are too close in that scene.
Also Romeo and Juliet is set up perfectly like a Roman comedy at the beginning. If you don’t play that in beginning you are playing the ending, which is like a classic theater sin. It also makes the ending less devastating because, when it leans into the comedy, you forget the ending. Which is the biggest compliment a production of Romeo and Juliet can get.
School the children 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
yes!!! I loooooove Shakespeare as an actor because it's so much release.
the cursing with hatres, the begging with love, it's all so raw and visceral. it gives actors soo much material to work with and I love it, especially if you're acting with a generous partner. there's so many directions you can go with it because there's so much there for you to play with. taking that rawness away from Shakespeare is robbing it of everything I love.
as an example, there's is such beauty in Helena begging Demetrius to treat her like a dog in Midsummer Night. It's raw and makes many people (including many actors in classes) uncomfortable because it's so... out there and embarrassingly honest in her desires, and that's the beauty of Shakespeare imo.
Hello! Just wanted to give a little bit of what I've learned of Romeo & Juliet doing the play with a touring Shakespeare Festival for a couple years. Romeo & Juliet doesn't necessarily have to be about a "love surpassing all ages". For instance, when Romeo speaks of Rosaline, and then switches hard-core over to being crazy into Juliet, it isn't necessarily because Juliet is so much higher above Rosaline. It may just be because Romeo is in love with love. He's an angsty, poetic, young romantic...and maybe also kind of just a horny teenager. Over the years, we've sort of adopted this idea that Romeo & Juliet is the greatest love story of all time for some reason and that they are the perfect couple, but the structure of the story doesn't necessary support that... It's written to show two young, angsty people who fall head over heals really quickly and make really dumb, brash decisions in their infatuation, finally resulting in suicide. And maybe their love does grow throughout the story, but that doesn't mean it is unmatched or even that they're a good couple.
Romeo & Juliet has a lot of humor in it. In fact, when it was first performed for Elizabethian audiences, the people were so shocked and disappointed at the ending being so sad (because everyone was laughing all the way through) that Shakespeare had to add a whole monologue at the beginning of the show to literally warn the audiences, "This is a play that's going to be really funny for a while, but it'll end sad, just fyi...." There is so much crude humor in the show, and some of the characters are such larger-than-life characters...There's even a lot of humor that has been lost through the ages. For instance, the name "Tybalt" was a famous, silly cat character in Elizabethian times. So, the fact that one of the most hot-tempered characters in the show was named "Tybalt" is frankly a joke in itself. Imagine today someone like Austin Butler playing some bad-boy swordsman named "Mickey Mouse". Point being...Romeo and Juliet is full of caricatures. And Romeo & Juliet's love in itself...sudden, unreasonable, between two teenagers that really have no clue what they're doing...could as well be a caricature in itself.
Peace!
I feel really passionate about Romeo and Juliet. It’s my favorite Shakespeare play, and one of the ones I studied extensively for my undergrad thesis. To me it sounds like this production misses the point. I think the compelling part of R&J is passion and intense emotions. Romeo is one of my favorite literary characters because he is a crybaby! Romeo frames himself as the emotional one repeatedly. People like to assume he is significantly older than Juliet because it makes them sound different and edgy I guess but there’s no evidence he isn’t also an immature teen. That’s not to say Juliet isn’t also overdramatic and emotional. I think it’s important, personally, that they are both so young and melodramatic. You’re meant to feel like you just went through so much and for what? What was it all for? Because that’s exactly what the piece is trying to say. I haven’t seen this production, of course, but it sounds like it missed the point to me. I have tickets to see the Broadway production with Kit Connor and Rachel Zegler at the end of this year, and I’m very interested to see what they do with it.
32:02
Wait, Freema Agyeman is in this? MARTHA JONES IS IN THIS?! Screw Spider-Man, THAT would be the reason I see this.
Whispering is such a weird choice 💀 same with no colour, basic costumes, no props, and overuse of cameras
It seems like Jamie Lloyd was far more concerned about putting on a new Jamie Lloyd production, with a nod to people wanting to see Tom Holland live onstage, rather than... like... telling the story. It could have been any play as long as he could put the star in the title role.
It cheapens previous productions when you see elements being used so inappropriately - was the use of cameras ACTUALLY a commentary on Hollywood and celebrity for Sunset Boulevard? Or was that accidental genius, a coincidence that wasn't thought through the way it seemed, since it's being used in the same way with none of that context?
Please do a video on the reviews. Seems like quite a few reviewers are over the Jamie Lloyd effect and it really makes me wonder how well Sunset will review in NY
JL effect enhanced Sunset to another level. Here it just doesn't work. Less that they are done with the style, more it just needs to be used for a reason.
WHISPERING!? I have a vivid image what that looks like and its very funny I'd never be able to take it seriously 😭😭
This makes me think that, off the success of the highly acclaimed Sunset Boulevard, complete with a star casting, Jamie Lloyd went to recreate that magic in Romeo & Juliet. Rather than taking the time to work out an original production with actors who perform the roles amazingly, they tried to simply apply Sunset Boulevard to R&J as a cookie cutter.
Absolutely, i think the clear example of this is the effect. Ofc it came before but it clearly shows that even recently jamie lloyd doesnt just do sunset boulevard style shows, its adjacent but its still different in such a way that it feels correct and unique, and it all👏made👏sense👏
I think the thing that makes me so mad is that more concrete staging and setting can MAKE Shakespeare more accessible. In Boston pre-pandemic, I saw a production of R&J that was so dynamic and youthful and earnest that I was genuinely devastated when I got to intermission and remembered what was about to happen next. I feel like good theater to me maybe can feel like theater that is ready or willing to meet anyone who wants to come through the doors.
The thought of being whispered at for 2+ hrs would genuinely be torture for me. I HAAAAAAAATE whispering
now I want that kind of summary for all of Shakespeare's famous plays like Hamlet and Macbeth 😂
I saw the play today. As a non native English speaking person, I had THE HARDEST time trying to understand what they were saying. Most because it’s a “sophisticated English”. And since they are no set or props to help me understand what’s going on on the stage, I can honestly say I definitely didn’t understand anything from the plot. It was a very underwhelming experience.
You’re literally describing everything I despised from Jamie Lloyd’s A Doll’s House. That coldness and distance, and whispered everything. Hated it.
A Doll's House too? He's such an one-trick pony 🙄
One of the few performances I considered leaving halfway through. If you do not know the plot beats (i.e more than just the very basics), you will be lost for good portions of it. If you have tickets, I suggest reading a synopsis or something before going since, as this video suggests, the performance takes a lot of this for granted.
Wow you thought about leaving lol that’s a lot. I actually sold me tickets because I realised the show wasn’t for me and I got me money back. 🤷🏻♀️🤢
This seems like a sad, missed opportunity. Because of Tom Holland, you can suddenly introduce Shakespeare to a whole demographic who maybe have never seen it done well and were put off by the language. Who don't like or get it. This was the chance to change all that and the production was too busy being avent garde to remember what the primary function of a play is.
Haven't seen this production, but when you said that it was written in the program that the purpose was to strip away anything that would distract from the text (by which, I presume the director meant strip away sets, costumes, and action and just focus on the words), I got so angry.
I am a former middle school English teacher, and I taught Romeo and Juliet to my students. One of the struggles that we English teachers have is that Shakespeare was intended to be preformed, not read. There aren't really many stage directions, just mostly actors' lines, and for young people studying the play today, who are so far removed from the social norms and vernacular of Shakespeare's time, it's hard to understand the story from just the words. I'd say most of today's audiences need talented actors and production teams to create and tell the story through not only the words they say, but their costumes, sets, and you know, actual acting.
Why not just have actors sit in a circle and read the words, readers theater-style, if they're not going to, you know, put on a play?
Yeah, it sounds like Jamie Lloyd has just fundamentally misunderstood Romeo & Juliet
Sounds like he’s gone cuckoo completely tbh 😂
Helplessly hoping for a review roundup!
I mean, without the charm of the funny moments, the tension in that specific play falls flat. And Romeo and Juliet has such great funny moments even in the text. How can you butcher the most iconic scenes too?
I literally left the theatre on Wednesday saying everything your video covers. I usually LOVE everything Jamie Lloyd does, but this was a big no in my opinion. The actors speaking mostly in a dreamlike state just sucked all of the energy out of the play. Also the lack of interaction between characters was puzzling when they were just stood face forward to the audience speaking into microphones. It was more like a first read through of the play. Another really irritating thing (probably to put the audience on edge) was the really loud disorientating music and sound effects they were pumping out of the speakers before the show started and during the interval. I'm sure there were some positives somewhere but hard to find.
speaking into a microphone facing the audience makes it seems like either a poetry slam or performance art, not a play.
I’ve just seen the show. Sat third row. And I agree with most your review. 3 star production to me.
Having a droning soundtrack, the cast mumble and microphones somewhat echo, made the whole opening scene so hard to understand. A single cough from anyone in the audience made the entire thing inaudible. However, after the opening scene the cast spoke louder - I do wonder if they were told to speak louder now, as the whispering was noted in many reviews and I didn’t find it awful after the first scene. But like you say, the first scene impacts so much of the show. I know understand the show better because of your breakdown. I didn’t catch who he loved (I was confused and thought he already met Juliet when he talked of love but obviously soon realised he hadn’t), and didn’t feel much fear of the war between families. So being someone who didn’t know the story (aside the ending) I struggled to follow this.
FYI I didn’t go for Tom Holland, I went for Jamie Lloyd because of Sunset. But do expect most where there for him, and likely also struggled to follow the story a bit.
I did like when Tom cried and, intentional or not, his tear connected to blood and created a thick bloody tear that slowly rolled down his face.
"Forbidden Broadway" better do a whisper-off between Jessica Chastain and Tom Holland. Imagine each one shouting "What???" after every line of dialogue
From what I understand from some Shakespearean people, the smaller bio for Francesca is probably because they’re trying to justify the stunt casting of Tom Holland in comparison to Francesca who’s an actual Shakespearean actor. However it does come off as targeted nevertheless.
@@emhu2594 No. She wasn’t. She’s also been getting far more praise than Holland. Maybe stop being racist
@@emhu2594 I’m beginning to doubt that you know what great acting looks like.
@@emhu2594 you… literally are. Jfc trolls need to leave the internet
Isn’t the point of going to the theatre to be in the same room as the performer? And acting for stage is very different to acting for camera - a stage actor has to convey emotion to the very back of the house, without being over the top for the front row. Is it time to move away from these gimmicks now!?
Can I suggest if someone wants to make a film, they don’t do it on a stage.
Oh dear, I have enough trouble understanding Shakespeare as it is without them whispering or the diction being poor...
Such a point about the assumption that the audience already knows what's going on because it's Shakespeare and well known so they cut corners on the actual story telling. Went to see Player Kings earlier in the month and there was genuine shock among a fair section of the audience when a particular character was killed even though it's a fairly well known death if you know your Shakespeare and/or history. It sounds like this production of Romeo & Juliet is for those who have seen or read the play enough times to automatically know what's going on and fancy seeing it done in this particular style or, as you say, just there to see Tom Holland perform on stage.
That last part is particularly strange to me. If you cast Tom Holland in your play, surely you must know the kind of audience he will attract. Which, if you ask me, is not necessarily the kind of crowd to know Romeo & Juliet by heart.
I don't like it when productions are still stripped back with minimal props and set. Not only does it not allow me to immerse myself in the performance, it makes me think of school and amateur shows where there is no choice but to strip things back in order to cut costs. Everyone knows Romeo and Juliet so it probably doesn't matter as much, but Shakespeare can be difficult with how different the language is today. You need visual storytelling involved so that the audience can interpret what they're seeing. And whispering? Please don't.
An ASMR version of Romeo and Juliet?
Juliet holds up the knife to the audience and clinks her nails softly on the blade before plunging it into her heart.
My brother saw a production like this of Hamlet at our regional Shakespeare theatre and hated it so much none of us have gone back. I can’t imagine playing London prices for this
I'm at the start of the video and haven't seen your comments yet, but came out tonight and I felt the staging was just a little odd, moments like the multiple kisses where the characters are moving and interacting more like an actual play, and then multiple scenes with all the actors facing straight to the audience with almost no movement for what felt like way too long...
Also the multiple blackouts used almost in a way that felt like jumpscares, in Sunset Boulevard it really worked and was perfect. In this both that and the outside scenes felt like cheap knockoffs
As somebody who primarily engages with theatre as text or an audience member, I really appreciated how deep you went into the relationship between the staging and blocking choices of the production and how they sometimes contradict or otherwise even undermine the story. Minimalist contemporary interpretations certainly have their place, but it sounds like this one rings hollow.
This I will confess was my concern from the moment they released the cast announcement trailer they did. There was such a focus on the violence and not on the love and this show cannot work without both.
“An ABBA tribute band performing at a funeral” made me snort laugh
If you really wanted to do screens and cameras in a Shakespeare play why not just do hamlet. A lot of people have tried to play up the surveillance aspect in hamlet so why not take that to the next level, at least it would be saying soemthing
Apropos of absolutely nothing, Juliet is actually only 13 in the text.
Also, "like a Pokemon" is the best description of that plot moment ever.
Two key points:
Romeo and Juliet is not a love story, it is about VIOLENCE. To miss that really suggests Jamie Lloyd has totally misinterpreted the text.
If I had paid £200 for a ticket and they spent the entire time whispering I would have to heckle (and that is very bad etiquette but like, it may be justified here!)
I also often find myself justifying high ticket prices because I know it takes a lot to put on a show. But with no sets and no props and evidently no sound WHERE IS THIS MONEY GOING?!
I think Jamie Loyd picked the wrong Shakespeare play to direct as I think he’d do better directing Macbeth
The red flags were already on the wall when I saw the pictures and that dull as fuck lighting and minimalist staging.
There is so much life and energy in Romeo and Juliet as a play. Why you would just make the entire world so bleak and dark is beyond my comprehension. Yes it is a tragedy but there is also comedy, color and joy in the moments of the play prior to Mercutio dying. With a rich world of colorful and memorable characters. I could already tell from the pictures that the director completely missed the point of the play.
But to hear he did from someone who saw it is still disappointing all the same.
I'm SO GRATEFUL for this review. I've been feeling like Jamie Lloyd has found an aesthetic and is now using it as a broad-stroke "trick." I loved it in Betrayal...but then I found diminished returns in the stage version (not the filmed version) of Cyrano...couldn't bring myself to see the Checkhov. And I'm gonna give this a miss.
I hope none of my fav actors ever star in a Jamie Lloyd production! I don’t want shell out that much money for no set no props no costumes and whispers but I know I will have to if he ever casts Peter Capaldi 😭
Honestly from what I've heard about this production, the direction at a highschool version of this play was better than this high budget one. It was a modern take where Romeo's family was a gang full of abused people living in poverty and Juliet's family were rich gang lords. Juliet's father was physically abusive towards her and her mother, Romeo shot her cousin in a very dramatic slow motion fashion while the stage revolved showing the horror on his face as he dropped the gun and ran to Juliet. Romeo OD and Juliet slit her wrists. Let me tell you every audience member was sobbing
Now that sounds like a version I would love to see 😅
I really hope you get to see the new Broadway version with Rachel Zegler and Kit Connor because it looks totally opposite to this portrayal and I’m really interested to see how it turns out
I love your plot summary 🤣
I recently saw Romeo and Juliet as a ballet for my birthday and that had more life in it than this does
Thanks for the speedy upload and the timecodes...
The big problem with this production to me is that it does not seem to believe that people care about the text of the play or the story so they need to spice it up with people with whispers, and other nonsense.
i feel like romeo and juliet shoudn’t be hard to do, yet everytime i’ve seen it, it’s been a trainwreck. the worst offender for me was at the globe in 2017 - diet bdsm nightmare where juliet took twenty minutes to die, twice. then again, i haven’t seen this.
Will you be going to review Kit Connor and Rachel Zelglers R&J on Broadway when it debuts I believe this year?
I will be trying to!
@@MickeyJoTheatre oh good god, I cannot wait if you do manage to. I saw the snazzy promo video they put out on Instagram and I was like this could either be sooooo good, or sooooo bad. I hope MickeyJo gets to review it haha
@@emhu2594 I didn't get that impression from this review at all. You're acting like Mickey spent 49 mins saying "Shakespeare sucks! ONE STAR". Disliking this particular version of R&J doesn't mean hating 'classical arts'. Besides, if anything is *actually* going to put people off Shakespeare, it's watching a bad performance of his work lol.
@@emhu2594 I watched The Motive and the Cue review but I don't get what you mean. He doesn't mention disliking Shakespeare
@@emhu2594 you do realise that reviews and much like anything in this world can be ‘bought’ right? Yes as in they can make someone write a favourable review. It’s not unheard of and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s why you think these 4 star reviews are genuine. Some of them might actually be, someone of them….id actually check where exactly they’re coming from. I’m more inclined to take independent non commissioned people like MickeyJo’s review more seriously than a time out magazine review - which coincidentally DID give the performance a 4 star review. But what is the time out magazine if not a magazine wanting to encourage nightlife and all these awesome about london and whatever else. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything reviewed in there be that good, movie, theatre etc that’s not at least 3* minimum.
You get my point. Reviews can and have always be bought. Don’t trust the internet darling.
thanks for reviewing it so quickly, I was really curious about it! I was shcked by the rating when I read the title but it really seems like it wasn't a good time lol
"Rosaline looks like the wrong side of a horse compared to this 14 year old I've never spoken to" 😂😂😂
Juliet was 13. She hadn’t yet reached her 14th summer. So she wasn’t yet 14.
I go to the theatre to see people on a stage, not pictures on a screen.
As an English literature student who has been studying Shakespeare, first in modernised language then in the old English, since year 7, I’m doing a lit degree next year, and I still find it incredibly difficult to understand at times in text form. I cannot imagine how much harder it would be if it was being performed by actors who were not enunciating on purpose and were also whispering. Those actor bios were also terrible.
If the screen only goes up halfway, why not use that for the balcony scene? Like, roll out a platform the height of the screen and make the screen the balcony. Be clever with the cameras or even use pre-recorded footage of them side by side so you still get that parallel that they want.
If you don't want the height difference, put one of them on either side of the screen so there's still a physical separation. You can angle the actors in a way to not just make the audience look at their backs. Then raise the screen so they can kiss.
To me Romeo and Juliet is about the emotions of the story. If a Director doesn't seem to get that I don't think this same Director gets Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet at all.
i'm sorry but i'm actually pissed off with the bio in the playbill.
Boy I’m glad I didn’t get a ticket now 🙃
I absolutely get that this is not for everyone. I fully expected it to be not for me but I went to see it Monday and surprisingly i loved it. It completely immersed me in a way that I can't really explain
Mickey, I have a theory that Jaimie Lloyd’s preparation time for this coincided with his preparation time for Sunset and it probably resulted in him making most of his boldest choices for Sunset and then recycling the same ideas for Romeo and Juliet knowing that that show would make money no matter what he did with it. It would be sad if that was the case but from your description, the preparation for this show feels incredibly rushed and not thought out, resting on spill over popularity from Sunset and the star power of Tom Holland. I would love to see a Jamie Lloyd Romeo and Juliet that he put some actual thought into.
Shakespearean plays are truly meant to be seen, not read. If you want to just focus on Shakespeare's text, then do a reading of his sonnets. And whispering doesn't do anything for the emotion when it's the whole show.
I disagree. they are also meant to be read, it's very enjoyable. but a performance of his plays should not be presented like a staged read-through?! The choices made for this production are so confusing to me, none of them serve the material or making the material appealing or accessible to their audience.
Would this be better off as an audio drama ? Audiobook ? 😅
"If it had more of a pulse..." is most telling line in you review.
Your video confirmed my suspicions after I saw production photos. I had a feeling this would be the case.
I feel like it’s actually a bit redundant to strip down Shakespeare, particularly Romeo and Juliet. So many of us read this play in a high school classroom under florescent lights. Our experience with it is literally just the text. I always get so much more out of the play when I can see it in context!
While watching this review I remembered Rosaline, a cute romcom movie take on the story I would recommend.
Just went tonight - this review 99% aligned work how I felt... So much so that I'm going to send it to everyone who asks what I thought.
But I diverged on the Queen Mab speech - it really resonated for me and helped explain why Mercutio is such an inconsistent person . I've spent a lot of time with people recovering from trauma and PTSD, and for me this delivery really strongly reflected some of the haunted rants I've heard from people living in a world that is half-comprised of nightmares. Similarly with the nurse, in the second half it suddenly felt like the humor from the first half was part of a post-trauma defense mechanism to me. Though both made the whole play darker.
One thing you didn't mention which was another Jamie lloyd-ism was the removal of microphones to signify the death of Romeo & Juliet. Again something that I think worked in Cyrano because in Cyrano words are everything, words are life and existence. But here.... I was just asking wherefore?
I went to see Romeo & Juliet on Saturday, and your review is spot on. I sat in the upper circle and really struggled to see the actors when they were sitting at the lip of the stage, which happens a lot during the play! Sadly, Toms acting didn't translate to where I was sitting. Only during the camera sequences did I really get to see how great he was.
Acting on stage and acting for cameras are very different and I don’t think having cameras onstage helped them project their performance to the back row like you’re meant to 😅
@@emhu2594 i agree 100%
we found it quite disappointing....almost zero scenery, the 'hoodie' look so tired.....mediocre casting;/acting...it all seemed terribly contrived....cannot recommend......the nurse was good tho.
That was a good part in the play.
Smart, articulate, thought out review. Thanks, well done.
I think I just received a sincere spoiler alert for Romeo and Juliet 😂
For the people saying you can't do plays/Shakespeare's plays/certain plays with no props: yes, you can. It doesn't mean everyone will like it and of course it doesn't mean every minimalist production will be well-done. But the beauty of theatre is that you can have a single human being narrating a story on an empty stage and still find yourself completely immersed in their story. The Donmar's Coriolanus was absolutely glorious, Jodie Comer's Prima Facie felt like watching a thriller movie, and I've seen plenty of fringe plays (including Shakespeare) that were brilliant even with the most minimalist set. Just because one specific production doesn't work it doesn't mean the entire genre doesn't and people who've never seen one shouldn't be discouraged to try and watch one or to try and watch a different one if they hated Romeo & Juliet. I take people have their own taste, but saying that "you can't do Romeo & Juliet without props" is factually incorrect.
I’m a big Jamie Lloyd fan but this production was a total miss for me! The style didn’t service the story at all and it was creatively dull. No drive, no emotion, no action. Shame as it had so much promise.
How the hell did Jamie Lloyd go from making an absolute banger with the Sunset BLVD revival, to this? It made sense with what I've seen from Sunset to give more of the vibe of being behind the actual scenes of making a movie with the black and white contrasting greatly with the added red that comes in later...but it just doesn't work as well for this.
Ofc I haven't seen this play, but the impression I get from this review is that the actors did what the could but the direction itself was misguided for this story.
if i wanted to focus on shakespeare's text… id read it. shakespeare's text is good, really good, but he didnt write books. he wrote plays. (also my preferred romeo interpretation is lovesick puppy like in &juliet - personal preference!)