plays – Page 4 – The View From Sari's World

ROMEO AND JULIET by Shakespeare, , Writer - William Shakespeare, Director - Rob Ashford and Kenneth Branagh, Set and Costume Designer - Christopher Oram, Lighting - Howard Hudson, The Garrick Theatre, London, 2016, Credit: Johan Persson — ROMEO AND JULIET by Shakespeare, , Writer – William Shakespeare, Director – Rob Ashford and Kenneth Branagh, Set and Costume Designer – Christopher Oram, Lighting – Howard Hudson, The Garrick Theatre, London, 2016, Credit: Johan Persson

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,
And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

These are the opening lines of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The Chorus pulls no punches in his brief summary of what the audience is about to see. The Chorus could hardly be clearer, thought I suppose we could break it down to one sentence. Two noble families discover that their ongoing feud brings about in the death of each houses’ child and in this tragedy finally find peace.

You could argue that the Chorus is offering the first “trigger warning” as he mentions the word death twice, notes the lover’s “end” and let’s us know they will “take their life”. The play is supposed to be a double warning about passion; old feuds make for new deaths and if not checked, lead to dangerous and rash decisions. In other words, passion, whether it is fueled by rage or by lust, can lead to bitter consequences.

You’d think these lines would be sufficient for the audience’s understanding of Shakespeare’s intent, but you’d be wrong. Time and time again directors ignore the playwright’s overall double theme of passion, so much so that Romeo and Juliet is now thought of as the western canon’s greatest love story. The biggest problem with this idea (besides offering the greatest love story as a double suicide) is in its execution; if this play is the west’s greatest love story, why then do so many productions fall short of offering a great love story? Why are audiences and reviewers always so critical of what they have just witnessed? I argue it is because we view the play much as Plato viewed forms; while the abstract is always pure and perfect, any attempt to recreate it into base matter will always result in some pollution and never fully measure up to our ideal play. Romeo and Juliet may be thought of as the perfect love story, but in reality it is far from the perfect love story. The audience’s expectation is never fully met, yet some how this play continues to draw both crowds and directors who are convinced that ‘This time it will be great!”

Take for example Kenneth Branagh’s latest adaptation, produced for the Garrick London stage. The play should have been a hit as it offers Branagh as co-director and two young actors, Lily James and Richard Madden who wowed audiences in Cinderella. Yet critics find little to love in about this play. The Guardian says, “The plot is slapdash; the coincidences preposterous; the main characters not interestingly conflicted, just doomed”. The Telegraph thought James saved the play (they must have seen it on a different night than I) but finds Madden “ordinary” and saw no value in Derek Jacob version of an older Mercutio: “He’s generations older than his pal Romeo, this refined gent who minces into view, in mock attitude of an old groover, silver-topped cane (sheathing a sword) a-twirl. He might have stepped out of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, and there’s little sense of a life cruelly cut short when he hobbles off, bleeding to death”.

Both reviews found the play lackluster, and though both could point to some specifics, each noted that there was something amiss but couldn’t quite pin down exactly what it lacked. For me there is little doubt what it lacked. It lacked focus and the passion the play is supposed to represent.

The beautiful verses Shakespeare wrote fall flat when uttered by James and Madden. The Guardian notes, “Their speaking is earthbound”, and I have to agree; in fact most of the actors fall short of delivering anything that resembles passion. As my friend noted, Juliet’s father spoke his lines as if he was reading from cue cards, or at least yelling from cue cards.

In order for this play to work as any kind of love story the two characters must show the passion they have for each other along with the emotional instability brought on by a lost love. Shakespeare uses the word “death” 48 times in the play but balances these lines with some of his best flowery speech about love. Both Romeo and Juliet foreshadow their deaths several times but gush over each other with equal measure. But James stumbles and mumbles Juliet’s famous lover’s vow, “My bounty is as boundless as the sea. My love as deep. The more I give to thee,. The more I have, for both are infinite” yet emphasizes her fear of living without Romeo crying out, “Come, cords, come, nurse; I’ll to my wedding-bed; and death, not Romeo, take my maidenhead!” The constant stress on death was so over the top that my friend turned to me and quipped, “Hey you think Romeo is going to die? This constant stress on death made the play less of a love story and more like an inevitable head on collision.

And here in lies the problem with this play. While the audience is being primed for the inevitable end so are the characters. It seems like the two know they are doomed from the start so any declaration of love rings hollow especially given the two actor’s lackluster performances.

This version of the play is a perfect illustration of my argument against this being a love story. The coincidences that result in the double deaths are absurd and when emphasized make for a strange and silly story (what is Paris doing in Juliet’s tomb in the middle of the night?). Shakespeare tells us right up front that this is warning to those who continue to fight and the consequences of hate. Yet for some reason we’ve convinced ourselves that this is a love story; one that is told rather badly time and time again. No wonder audiences and critics are always let down.

But if you really feel the need to see this version, it runs through August 3^rd.

If you live in the U.K. I bet you are well aware that the award winning series “The Hollow Crown” part 2 The War of the Roses” is being telecast right about now. If you are not aware this may help explain why all of the young girls are giggling and staying home; Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Ricard III.

This production is a series of some of Shakespeare’s English history plays. In chronological order of setting, these are: Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II, Henry V, Henry VI Parts I, II and III, Richard III. But if we look at the order of when they were written we see that Shakespeare may not have had a series in mind.

Henry VI part II 1590

Henry VI part III 1590

Henry VI part I 1591

Richard III 1592

Richard II 1595

Henry IV part I 1597

Henry IV part II 1597

Henry V 1598

Looking at the order above, we may wonder just what it was Shakespeare had in mind. But if we keep in mind that his primary focus was the stage, not history, we can guess that for Shakespeare the story was thing. Knowing that Henry VI part II was written first it seems to me (and this is just an educated guess) that Shakespeare wrote the plays in response to current events or in order that he found the subject matter fascinating, maybe a little of both.

Thankfully for modern audiences the plays are presented in chronological order. I say thankfully because at times they can be hard to follow, especially the Henry VI plays. I cannot imagine trying to piece the narrative together if I had to watch them in order that they were written. But to be completely honest for many Americans Shakespeare’s history plays are hard to follow no matter the order. Here’s the rub; as much as we may adore Shakespeare’s work, his history is not our history. We don’t study English history unless we seek it out in college or become armchair historians. Many of the characters and events depicted in the history plays are all we have to go on. For many these plays represent our first window view into medieval England. But the window is cloudy and at times we are unsure of what we are seeing.

I was an armchair historian before I went back to school. I fell in love with the medieval Europe and as an undergrad studied the period in which the Catholic Church became the center of politics. Even so, I had questions the first time I saw Richard II. Why was he so hated? Why was it so easy for Henry Bolingbroke to take the crown? Who were all the players in the Henry VI series and more importantly, was Shakespeare true to history?

Now with renewed interest in the Hollow Crown series, I decided it was time to do some reading.

Touchstone Press 1990 — Touchstone Press
1999

I’ve had John Julius Norwich’s book “Shakespeare’s Kings” on my bookshelf for about a year. I picked it up last week in the hopes that it would answer some of my questions and further my education on medieval kings. I wish I had read it earlier.

Norwich’s book could easily be a guide to the Hollow Crown series. Norwich begins his book not with Richard II but with Edward III, a play that some earlier scholars argued that Shakespeare helped write. Today’s scholars are slowly coming to the same conclusion, though I remain unconvinced. The prose seems sloppy and lacking in depth. Yet the inclusion of Edward assists Norwich as he attempts to paint on a broad canvass. Edward is the jumping off point to Richard’s reign as King and helps explain why it is Richard was such a disappointment.

Norwich is a fine narrator. His retelling of history is engaging and informative. As a historian he does not fall into the easy trap of extrapolating facts to fit his idea of history or seeks to understand it in modern context. I was sucked into the each King’s story and never once questioned Norwich’s conclusions (he has none) or questioned his motive. This is a clean narrative and a history book that is exactly what it claims to be; a historical look at some of Shakespeare’s kings. It is rare to find such a book now days.

Norwich lays out the historical events that shape each play, one by one. Each King is then subjected to Norwich’s summary of the play in question. He breaks them down act-by-act, pointing out inaccuracies and complete fabrication. Like he does with his narrative, Norwich does not judge Shakespeare or act as his chief apologist. Instead, Norwich reminds us that Shakespeare’s focus was on story telling, not lecturing his audience on historical facts. Along the way Norwich explains what source material Shakespeare probably used (I say probably because there was so little to choose from) and how the material shaped his view of Henry V and Richard III.

Reading Norwich’s account of Henry VI’s reign and how it led to the war of the Roses I began to understand why Shakespeare decided to pen three plays on this hapless King. But even so, I was a little disappointed on the liberties Shakespeare takes with historical fact. But then again, I had to remind myself that the more educated of his audience would have had a good understanding of history and would forgive him in order to be entertained. The less educated probably wouldn’t have cared.

Norwich begins with Edward III and ends with Richard III, which encompasses the years 1337 to 1485. This is a lot to take in, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the book requires a second reading or acts as a reference guide to specific plays. It certainly will remain in arms reach for me as I eagerly await the American premier of The War of the Roses.

Tag: plays

Branagh’s Romeo & Juliet, my review

Shakespeare’s Kings or how to understand the war of roses over a hollow crown

Share this:

Share this: