Arizona Theatre Company’s production of “Romeo and Juliet” accomplished what any modern-day Shakespeare production strives to achieve above all else.
Relevance.
Yes, it’s easy to repeat those lines from your high school English teacher about Shakespeare, so often said they’ve almost become cliché: that his works are immortal, that his genius transcends time. You might go to a Shakespeare play and say nervously to your friends how absolutely modern and understandable it was, when you didn’t actually have the slightest clue what was going on.
But ATC’s production did something different. It made you forget the language of Romeo and Juliet isn’t today’s common vernacular. It made you forget the play was written to take place in renaissance Europe, not during the 1960s era of “La Dolce Vita” in Verona. It even made you forget, sometimes, that Romeo and Juliet were going to die.
Paul David Story, who played Romeo, was nothing short of captivating. His deft use of language and slightly awkward, adolescent gait transformed him from the stuffy, distant medieval of our high school English days into a jovial, spirited youngster of the 1960s.
Leslie Law, who played the Nurse and the Prince of Verona, described the setting of the production as “1960s Verona hippie” in her pre-show introduction. The creative team stayed true to that vision — sometimes almost too true. Highlights were beautiful, intricate costumes and hairstyles from the time period. The movie poster for “La Dolce Vita,” which was projected onto the set, was going a little too far for me.
Certain aspects of the set worked impeccably well. It consisted mainly of three giant panels, on which images were projected, some moving and others stationary. The projections allowed for seamless transitions, from the brick buildings lining a Verona street, to a starry night over a red brick wall and wrought-iron gate, to a glamorous party at the Capulet mansion, to the underground tomb where the story came to a tragic end.
Other projections proved to be a bit distracting. Inside the Capulet house, the projections consisted of medieval tapestries interposed with movie covers that evoked 1960s Italy. While this was an interesting concept, it seemed slightly forced. At other times, floor-to-ceiling moving images of the star-crossed lovers kissing and embracing were projected onto the set, for a somewhat ethereal effect.
Juliet was played by Chelsea Kurtz. Kurtz’s interpretation I found particularly interesting, because her youthful energy — which sometimes translated to hysteric fangirling — made Juliet sincere and believable. Juliet is supposed to be no more than 13 or 14, after all, and Kurtz did an excellent job of showing that. Her Juliet was funny, relatable, and convincing. Kurtz wasn’t 100 percent girly teenybopper either; her reaction to Tybalt’s death gave her character dimension and maturity.
The chemistry between Kurtz and Story was a highlight of the production. Yes, the lovers-at-first-sight are absolutely silly, but they were charming and sincere, too.
Richard Baird, who played Mercutio and Friar Laurence, was another standout performer. As Mercutio, his dexterity maneuvering the Shakespearean dialogue ensured the bard’s bawdy humor was carried out to its full effect. Baird’s character was haunting and intriguing enough that I wanted to see an entire play starring Mercutio. His death comes all too soon, unfortunately.
Luckily, Baird got to stick around for the rest of the play, since he also played Friar Laurence. The Friar’s comic timing was perfect, and I couldn’t help but laugh at the scene in which he is introduced — he talks about the “natural grace in herbs,” wearing round, John Lennon-esque glasses and a rainbow headband, then lights up a joint.
You can’t go wrong with a little ‘60s drug humor. I don’t think they overdid it.
Lighting and sound design lent a sense of completeness to the production. Notable lighting elements included the glass lamps hanging from the ceiling at the Capulet party, accompanied by projected sparklers; the candlelight around Juliet’s tomb; and the subtle red tinge the stage lights emitted at the mention of death or impending doom.
Live music, played onstage by costumed musicians who were also in character, was perhaps the most memorable aspect of the production. Instrumentals evoked an image of mid-20th-century Verona and helped contribute continuous energy to dialogue-heavy scenes that might have dragged on otherwise. One of the most theatrically effective moments of the play occurred when the slain Tybalt rose from the ground, covered in blood, and began tapping out a solemn percussion on a stage left drum as Juliet began her monologue.
Excellent fake blood effects made up for fight choreography that was slightly unconvincing. I was able to suspend my disbelief for some tentatively performed fight scenes long enough to be awed by the perfectly timed blood splatter projected on a background panel as a character was slain. I’m sure the ensemble will become more comfortable with the intricate fight choreography as the show’s run continues.
To tell the truth, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed ATC’s production of “Romeo and Juliet.” I’ll always have respect for Shakespeare, but it takes a specially adapted production to seize my attention and hold it hostage for five acts of Victorian-era English.
Bravo to director Kirsten Brandt and the rest of her creative team for doing exactly that.
“Romeo and Juliet” will be at the Herberger Theater Center through April 12. Tickets can be purchased online at http://www.herbergertheater.org.
Contact the author at Faith.Anne.Miller@asu.edu. Contact the columnist at mbilker@asu.edu
