Suckeo and Juliet

Ok, I hate to be all Negative Nelly about my beloved alma mater, BYU. So I'm only going to do it occasionally. But last night I attended Romeo and Juliet in the wonderful HFAC (or HFAG, if you're Katie and hate creativity). I was expecting it to be good, because basically any production I've ever seen in the wonderful HFAC is good. However, I had forgotten about Hamlet.

You see, a few years ago, when the Christoph and I were dating, we went to see Hamlet on campus. Hamlet is so wonderful! I love Hamlet! But you know what else I like? When it follows the same order as the play. Yeah, BYU did Hamlet with the scenes in mixed up order. It was ridiculous. The last scene was very first. But it wasn't backwards, just all jumbled up. I remember Chris and I leaving and shaking our heads and thinking the same thing, "Why would you mess with Hamlet? Or ANY Shakespeare play? People have been coming to see these for hundreds of years. Don't you think you could just do it the normal way?" I realize what they were trying to do. I'm not stupid and un-artsy. I realize they were trying to get us to see the story in a different way, and be cutting edge, and maybe have the audience get a different message from Hamlet by not seeing it the way it's been seen before. But here's the thing. It was dumb.

And here's the other thing. Don't go see Romeo and Juliet. It's playing right now, and I really, strongly de-recommend it. For starters, it was a solid 3 hours. Which is pretty long for any play, especially one that specifically says at the beginning that it will be "the two hours traffic of our stage." So I'm all like, uh, Narrator, you lied to me.

Also, it was modernized. Which I don't have a problem with, because

you know.

But this was modernized to Victorian England. And you're probably thinking, "Erin, you love Victorian England. You did your senior thesis on Rossetti. You thought Young Victoria was the best movie. You love being modest. You love boots that button up the sides, and Victorian houses, and cameo brooches and high collars." I know, this is all true. But you know what I don't like? A narrator who uses an etiquette book from that period and quotes from it within the framework of the story of Romeo and Juliet. It was so weird. Like, when the Capulets are having their ball, at the beginning of it the narrator gets up and is talking about how people in the best society are actually quite kind, and all the things you're supposed to do when you're of that society. And when Juliet "dies," he stands to the side and talks about how one of the most important things for society people is how they handle death, and how long they are supposed to be in mourning for whom, and blah blah blah. It was weird. And added nothing to the play. I am sure their intent, as with Hamlet, was to make us think of it in a different way. But guess what? Simply by modernizing the set and the costumes, we get it, this story can be universal and touching in any time period.

Another weird thing was the choreography. Yeah, choreography. IN ROMEO AND JULIET. And not the ballet version. There was WAY too much dancing, most of it unnecessary and weird. Lots of sweeping arm motions from everyone on stage when Juliet died. And when Romeo was banished, but before he actually WENT to Mantua, he ran around and twirled around people on stage. It was supposed to be like he was seeing people on the streets and had to hide because he's supposed to be banished. But it was dumb.

Another weird thing that didn't even make sense was the papers. In like every scene someone would walk in with a piece of paper in their hand, and then give it to someone else, and then someone else would try and get it, and then eventually it would get crumpled and thrown on the floor. Or they would hand it to someone, like they were supposed to read it, and the person would react. But they never explained what that was all about, and I certainly didn't pick it up on my own. But here's the thing--I'm not dumb. I get symbolism and all sorts of artistic means of conveying a message. I've seen a lot of plays. I understand Shakespeare. And I didn't get what that was all about. I also didn't read the program. But I don't think you should have to do that to understand a play.

And finally, my last complaint. Romeo. My gosh, he was poorly cast. He wasn't a bad actor, he was just SO not Romeo. He wasn't masculine at all. And I'm not saying you have to be super masculine to be Romeo, because

you know.


But this guy wasn't un-masculine in the same way. I actually think that Leonardo DiCaprio's sort of androgynous beauty makes him perfect for Romeo. Because he is beautiful, even if he's not very manly, and it makes him seem more sensitive. Also he's a good actor. But this guy was more like . . .

or

I told my mom I kept waiting for him to say "Jiminy jillikers!" or "Aw, gee!" His hair was combed like a nerdy kid, he was really short, and it was hard to take him seriously as Romeo because of it. He honestly wasn't a bad actor, but he was so bad for the part. SO bad. I think Juliet was taller than him. If not taller, they were dead even.

As for the good things about it--the set was cool. Juliet was great, she was exactly what I think a Juliet should look like. She was really cute and funny and like a giggly girl, which I thought was a refreshing way for Juliet to be. She wasn't overly dramatic. The priest was great too, I think he was the best one. The costumes were pretty. And yeah.

And of course, if anyone reading this blog was involved with it in any way, or someone you know is . . . It was fun! Good job! Really interesting the way it was not like a normal version of Romeo and Juliet! I totally gave it a standing ovation.