What to do, what to do...

For my final performance, I am interested in the beginning part of the play, the prologue. I chose it because after watching the Reduced Shakespeare Company version I realized that was my favorite part of the play, even though I didn't know why. I think I like the way it is introduced, and how frank it is. There are two families, they're similar, and they don't even know why that hate each other. A pair of lovers, one from one family and one from the other, take their lives and bury their parents life. And that's it. The whole play. Summed up into one sentence. Also, I am not one for sappy, romantic things so I like the beginning, because right after the prologue there is the "Do you bite your thumb at me sir?" "No sir, but I do bite my thumb sir". I like how this follows the prologue because it seems very dramatic and interesting for me. I am not exactly sure why, but I enjoy the prologue, and after watching Shakespeare in Love (when the person who stutters finally doesn't stutter and makes it through) I knew I wanted to do this scene.

For this scene, to give it a little twist, I would set it in a modern day America. Where two families are running for the presidency, Democrats and Republicans. These would be the Capulets and Montagues. Children of the men running for the presidency would be Romeo and Juliet, however possibly with more modern names. That would be the overall set for the play. For the specific part, it does not really seem like a scene, so it wouldn't exactly be staged. I know there are many reporters who broadcast what is happening during campaign and election. So, I have decided to have a reporter live on the scene, rather than at the studio which would be too similar to the Baz Luhrman version. The setting, rather than being in "Verona" would be in Washington, D.C., where the White House is. I think this makes sense in the political way. The modern day Capulets would have already had Lord Capulet as president once, so Juliet could be living in the White House, where they could hold the party and have the balcony scene, etc. To make it more Shakespearean, I would obviously use the original script, but also break character sometime. The costume would be formal, maybe a dress skirt and shirt, with a microphone to show that it is a reporter. To have a Shakespearean ambience, the lighting would stay relatively the same throughout the entire scene, to represent how they didn't have stage lights at that time, and performances were mostly during the day. So: Modern day dressy reporter with microphone and relatively simple light, using Shakespearean language to introduce the conflict between the two campaigning families, and what happens in this exclusive news report.

In this scene, there is only one part, that of the chorus. I would therefore cast myself, as I chose this scene because I thought the role would suit me. However, seeing as I think the prologue and the beginning bit of Act 1 Scene 1 go together, I will also pick some of the characters from there. For the main representative of the Capulets, I would pick Amara(Tybalt) and Farhan(Samson). For the main representatives of the Montagues, I would pick Farah(Benvolio) and Guglielmo(Abram). I chose these people because I think Farah and Amara could perform a fight scene very well, especially given the actresses. I chose Farhan and Gugli to be with them because I know that they are friends of the girls and could be good supporters. Also, I think they can stage fight well so that would be even better. As the Prince, I would pick Kheilah because she is a good mediator and I think she can be very peaceful.

Reduced Shakespeare Company R&J

In our Drama class, we watched videos of the Reduced Shakespeare Company (part one and two found here and here, or you can watch above) performing the shortened version of Romeo and Juliet. I quite enjoyed watching this, as I personally found it hilarious.

There are many "Shakespearean" elements in this performance, for example, the fact that it is being performed on stage. Also, another thing is that it is only played by male actors, and in Shakespearean time, female actresses were not allowed to perform. The actors sometimes broke character and took out to the audience very often, and they used mostly old english, as if very quickly reciting from the script. The costumes seem like those which would have been used before, with the exemption of the shoes. A note can be made to the simple lighting, with sometimes having the spotlight, this can be related to Shakespearean times because they could not manipulate the light back then.

Balcony Scene with Narrator

Although there are "Shakespearean" aspects, this reduced play is also very modern, in the way it is performed. The performance as a whole is around 13 minutes long, and this play is traditionally much longer. Normally, there would be an entire cast to play different characters, and probably no two characters would be played by the same actor. The performance also is much more funny than originally, as there are only two, extremely dramatic, actors and one narrator, who make up the entire thing. For me, it was most funny when the actors would break character, and talk to each other, as if in modern times. I think if this were performed in Shakespearean times, it would not be approved of because not everything is shown in detail, only the important bits and also, the comedic bits probably would not take up. One of my favorite parts is when Romeo and Juliet are supposed to kiss, and the after playing Romeo doesn't mind, but the actor playing Juliet rejected him and backed away, and said something along the lines of "No, ew dude, I'm not kissing you" and then went to the next part. Another bit of comedy that I like is when "Juliet" has the scene on the balcony, and Romeo was all "What are you doing??? o.O" and Juliet said "The Balcony scene" and the balcony was literally Juliet's skirt over the head of the narrator. After that, when Romeo promised his love, they included an audience member, and I do not think some of the things they said about her would have been accepted in Shakespearean times, whereas the audience merely laughed in this performance.

Overall, I do not think this performance would not have been successful in Shakespearean times because it has been adapted to fit our modern world, in my opinion. The comedy, is designed for people in the 21st century to understand, and I think that people would not approve of this type of performance in the Shakespearean times. I think if this were performed a long time ago, some audience members may have taken offense, and it would have had to go much slower, as I think this type of theatre is mooch more modern. Although it wouldn't go down well in Shakespearean times, this play is hilarious in the present and I would love watching any of their plays performed live. :D

Narrator, Romeo and Juliet, for the final words :P

Shakespeare VS Baz Luhrmann- Who did it best?

In my opinion, without any disrespect to Mr. Baz, I think this version of Romeo and Juliet is horrible. From the movie, I can clearly find one Shakespearean element, the language used, which was probably very similar to the script. I didn't like the artistic concept he chose for the piece, and I don't think it suits the story. I think the characters and actors chosen to play them were appropriate, however, I think the modernization of everything except the language really didn't go, as that is an essential part of something that relies so heavily on the spoken words. I don't think they focused enough on the more important parts, like the part where Tibalt is killed by Romeo and when Romeo and Juliet suicide. The movie was long but not too interesting for me, and when we started watching the original in

I think it was a good idea to have Verona in a modern city, which seemed (to me) similar to a less flashy Los Vegas. I really liked the setting, and think the casting was really good, however, Juliet looked more like a 16 year old than a 13 year old, which really annoyed me, as one of the things about this play that stood out to me was their age difference. I liked the setting and thought it went well with Romeo and Juliet, because it clearly showed the division between the two families. It was evident that one side of town seemed to belong to the Montagues and the other side the Capulets. I think the director made some poor choices, such as when he made it loo like Romeo purposefully killed Tybalt. In the original script, it is more like an accident when Romeo kills him, but here, Romeo looked at him and shot multiple times. This made me personally feel that Romeo deserved to be banished, as he had killed someone and the Prince had warned that whoever disturbs the peace would be killed. Even if Tybalt had killed his friend, he should't have reciprocated. Choosing to have guns rather than swords also didn't work for me because with swords there is more of a fight, whereas with tunes, it is just a shot and the person is dead. The final thing that I really disliked about the movie was the filming itself. It seemed very sudden and jerky, especially in the fight scenes. Overall, I do not think this was a good movie and I didn't like it very much at all.

I don't think that Shakespeare would have agreed with this version of his play, as it is very different and doesn't go. If Baz really wanted to "revolutionize" the play, I think he could have made the effort to change the language, which is the main thing that I strongly dislike about the movie. I think Shakespeare would have criticized this version of Romeo and Juliet because it strays from the original a lot, even if it keeps the language and the overall main scenes.  There was not enough effort put into very important scenes, like the part where Romeo and Juliet commit suicide, and I don't think Shakespeare would have appreciated that. Baz Luhrman did not do Shakespeare justice in my opinion and I think he could have done much better. I strongly dislike this version and prefer the original because it sticks to what was written and does the play justice.