Review: Kit Connor Rachel Zegler Romeo and Juliet

Rachel Zegler and Kit Connor as Romeo and Juliet

For Christmas this year, the geeklets all got together and sent us to Broadway to see Romeo and Juliet, starring Rachel Zegler and Kit Connor! Of course, being the wrong generation, we don’t have any context for who these two young actors are, but it’s Shakespeare on Broadway; that’s all that matters to me. I might be the only one who feels that way, but I don’t care!

A quick word about the theatre (Circe in the Square), because it’s important context here. The most important thing they wanted us to know is no cameras, at all. Don’t even take your phone out. If we catch you, you’ll be kicked out. They said this multiple times. They walked around carrying big signs that said it. When the lights went down, they shone flashlights on people who didn’t listen (or didn’t care), but I didn’t see anybody kicked out.

I say this to excuse the lack of pictures. The few I added here, because a blog post demands at least one picture, are grabbed from the official website. You can check it out (linked above), for more “official” photos. I’m sure they put this policy in place because if they didn’t, it’d be nothing but people trying to record the young stars. It is a shame because it makes it seem like they’re hiding something. Do you know another reason for not letting people record? It’s when you don’t think you have a quality product and don’t want the word to spread.

On With The Show

The theatre is “in the round,” so we’ve got a plain black disk of a stage dead center and seats all around. There are exits/entrances at opposite ends, with elevated platforms. There’s some sort of “stuffed animal” theme going on, with a shopping carriage full of them on stage, and a giant one (as in, more than human sized) taking up one of the elevated platforms. I’m guessing this is supposed to remind us that these characters are children. But they don’t otherwise play much of a role, they’re just there.

Then comes a fascinating move I’ve never seen before, and probably cost a lot of the budget. Picture a flat black disk, like I said. Now imagine it’s a piece of paper, folded down the middle. And one of the pieces starts rising up like you’re folding the paper in half. WTF is going on here? From where we sat it reminded me suddenly of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, talking through the wall. But as it comes all the way down we see that underneath is something I can’t quite explain. It’s all multicolored, perhaps like a garden? Wildflowers? It also looks a bit like a whole bunch of stuffed animals. But I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that — pieces of the floor go flying every now and then (sometimes thrown) and it appears to just be multi-colored foam.

This was a practical choice because this is where all the fight scenes happen. Whenever somebody’s getting thrown around the stage, they’ve got a soft landing. Other than that, I couldn’t entirely place what “scene” it did or did not represent.

The big centerpiece was Juliet’s bed / balcony. The first time it comes down from the ceiling on big heavy columns, complete with a ladder for her to exit. That’s kind of cool. Later it comes down on metal cables and I wonder why the difference, but then I see — the cables bring it all the way to the floor, where they are unclipped (or reclipped, when it needs to go back up). (In one scene, much of the cast quietly assembles under the bed, presumably as a safety measure. I do admit to wondering what would have happened if a cable or clip failed.)

Give The People What They Want

Ok, let’s talk about the performance. This crowd was clearly there to see the stars. The young woman behind us had already seen the show but was now seeing it again, because she did not get Rachel Zegler’s autograph at stagedoor. Sadly, a predicted winter storm came in during the show, and stage door was canceled for this performance. Maybe she’ll get to go again while it’s still up.

But seriously. When they hand Zegler a microphone, the crowd goes crazy. Is this a musical? There were hints that this was a musical. It’s a musical in the sense of “People want to hear Rachel Zegler sing,” which she does a few times. There’s more music in the form of a few group dance numbers. But nobody’s singing any dialogue.

Was That Always A Laugh Line?

This was a funny production. We laughed, a lot. The comic timing and delivery of the stars was spot on. They could get the audience laughing in the silences as well as the spoken dialogue.

But … maybe a little *too* much? The balcony scene, for example, was a laugh riot. People laughed at “She speaks!” and “But she says nothing” and “Speak again bright angel.” Hmm. They laughed when Mercutio died. They laughed when Nurse found Juliet’s body. I understand that laughter is the easiest way to interact with the audience, but i definitely think that sometimes they forgot to stop playing it for comedy.

Meanwhile the lines that Shakespeare did write as laugh lines? Like when Juliet says, “How can you say you’re out of breath when you still have enough breath to say you’re out of breath?” Got *nothing*.

A Rumble Ain’t A Rumble Without Mercutio In It

There are no swords in the play. Also, no guns. The violence for me was kind of like West Side Story meets Outsiders? Whenever Capulets and Montagues met, there was a fight. Many bodies going at it, wrestling, tossing each other around, throwing punches. Several times characters are bloodied. I’m fine with this, this works. You get the feeling that nobody’s thinking about this anymore, nobody (except Benvolio of course) is thinking, wait, why are we fighting? It’s become animalistic. No problems with that.

But people have to die in this play, and that’s where it gets confusing. Were Mercutio and Tybalt stabbed, or only beaten to death? We need a weapon because Mercutio needs to be mortally wounded in one quick instant. So there is a blade brandished at one point, to establish that it’s in play. Maybe it was the blocking, maybe it’s where I was sitting, but I never saw the mortal blow. I saw Mercutio show the audience that there was a knife, then there’s a tussle, then everybody’s screaming and parting and there’s blood and a dying Mercutio. The Tybalt fight was even worse from my angle because we clearly got to watch Romeo pummeling Tybalt into a bloody mess and you really did think that he was going to simply beat him to death.

Double, Double …. Double, Double

Ok, now let’s talk about the questionable decisions. This production was doubled like nothing I’d ever seen before.

Mercutio / Friar Lawrence / Prince – In a practical sense this one can work, it was just weird. For one, there’s not actually a Prince character. The actress handling this triple role acted more like a narrator, holding a hand mic we could all see, and turning the prince’s parts into almost Chorus-like parts with lines line, “And the Prince decreed….” This includes the wrap up at the end. But for Friar Lawrence and Mercutio, the major difference she went with was voices. Lawrence was more high-pitched and a little nerdy. Mercutio, sadly, was “stoner bro.” While worked to illicit laughs from the audience, it reduced Mercutio to *only* laughs from the audience. “Bro, I am hurt.” *laugh* “Tis a scratch.” *laugh* You don’t get the full gravity of what just happened if you didn’t see Mercutio as a fully formed character.

Paris / Peter – This one doesn’t impact the story much, it’s just confusing for the audience if they’re not familiar with the scene. There’s this guy that sometimes pops up (it’s not like either of those characters gets much stage time) and, especially as Peter, doesn’t get much introduction. So in one scene he’s asking for Juliet’s hand, and in another he’s following around Nurse as her servant. This is the stuff I think about. Who in the audience is trying to follow the story, and losing track at times like this?

Lord / Lady Capulet – One male actor played both of Juliet’s parents, and it took me a little while to understand what they were doing. At first, I thought they were doing single-parent and just giving one actor all the lines, fine. But then there’s costume / attitude / accent change and I think, two gay dads? That’d be a fun new twist. But no, the text is still mother mother mother, and we still have the “I was your age when I got married” scene and all that. So we’re still to imagine Juliet’s two parents (Romeo’s parents, by the way, are both cut completely), just portrayed by the same actor doing a different voice. Bit hard to follow, and Lord Capulet definitely gets the better end of the deal.

Tybalt / Nurse – Ok, here’s the big head scratcher. You’re going to use the same actor to represent both the arguable villain of the story (and certainly the center of all the violence), with the crazy horny old lady with no filter? Half the time I’ve seen Nurse she’s dressed in long flowing robes and looking vaguely like a nun (ironically, you’d think, given some of her comments).

Here’s our Nurse:

Slash Tybalt:

The actress did an admirable job with the role, don’t get me wrong. I question the choice to double, not the performance. When Tybalt (who is 5’11”, by the way, from her bio) enters, you get a clear feeling of, “Oh shit, Tybalt’s here, things are going to get violent.” But then with a quick costume change (often into what I believe was a sort of corset and skirt) she’s supposed to be this woman who takes care of Juliet that’s supposed to at least be old enough to be her mother but instead comes across more like the old “gay best friend” trope. Not to mention the obvious confusion where we watch Tybalt die, violently, only to then see Nurse enter, still bloody, screaming that Tybalt is dead.

Yes But How’s The Shakespeare

Not every production strives to be great Shakespeare. We speak of the difference between “Shakespeare productions” and “productions that use Shakespeare as a scaffolding from which to tell the story they want to tell.” This one’s the latter, and that’s fine. It knows its audience. They want to hear and see their young stars, and they want to laugh. They got that.

But I wanted to see some Shakespeare, too. How was it?

Well, it was chopped into pieces, as I already mentioned. No Prince. There are no Romeo’s parents, so there are no scenes with Romeo’s parents. Perhaps the most significant cut was in the whole end sequence, where guess what? Paris lives! Paris was almost an afterthought in this one, they probably would have cut him completely if he wasn’t necessary to move the plot along. There’s no scene where Nurse betrays Juliet and says to marry Paris. There is no Romeo / Paris confrontation at the end. He’s really more like a concept, here. He exists just so Lord Capulet can tell Juliet what to do.

It’s Not Delivery, It’s Digiorno

Speaking of which, let’s talk about delivery. Maybe it was the accent, but Kit Connor was the only one that felt like he was in a Shakespeare production, to me. When he was talking, I was thinking, “I’m watching Shakespeare.” When everybody else was talking I was thinking, “I’m watching people try to speak Shakespeare’s lines.”

Many of them seem to have gone to the school of shouting and pausing. If you’re angry, shout. If you’re saying something deep, pause. It gets the point across, but so does a sledgehammer. The most obvious example was the loudest line of the night….guesses, anybody? You’ll never guess it … Lord Capulet’s “But fettle your fine joints ‘gainst THURSDAY NEXT!!! … to go with Paris” I mean, he screamed those two words for some reason. But later, when talking about the play with my kids, my wife said, “Her father was really horrible to her in that scene.” He certainly got his point across.

Another weird and really out of place one came from our Romeo when he saidscreamed, “Is it even so? Then I DEFY YOU … … … stars.” I remain lost about that decision. It’s a famous line, go ahead and blast it to the back wall. But why’d stars get the short end of the stick? I don’t understand the thinking there.

I Die, Horatio

One more and then I’ll wrap it up. Oh, the ending. Ms. Zegler’s got great comic timing, no question about that. Thankfully, there’s no (intentional) going for the laugh in the final scene. But she’s got to go back to the drawing board on her death scenes. I’ve seen Nick Bottom do a better death scene. I’ve seen Bugs Bunny do a better death scene. She’s alone in the tomb with Romeo’s body. We get none of Friar Laurence running back and forth telling her to flee, it’s just cut down to “Romeo enters, Romeo dies, Juliet wakes, Juliet dies.” She finds the dagger, holds it aloft and announces, “O HAPPY DAGGER!” again so loud that I leaned over to my wife and asked, “Who is she talking to??” and runs herself through.

She then takes what felt like 20 or 30 seconds to die, grunting and groaning and staggering back and forth. Where it got ridiculous for me, though, was that they’d clearly been directed to end with some sort of tableau of her body draped across Romeo’s. Well she’s a tiny little thing and maybe she was in the wrong spot or maybe they just didn’t rehearse it enough. But with her last gasp after all that gasping and wheezing she literally leaps up and hurls herself backwards across Romeo’s body. She doesn’t collapse, she launches herself. You know that thing where you get home from school and you run into your room and you dive into it, landing backwards on a pile of stuffed animals? Basically that. Only she landed on a dead Romeo.

Wrapping It Up

Listen, I’ll never fault people for attempting Shakespeare, especially young actors with a long career ahead of them, Look at how many Shakespeare movies Claire Danes made. Actors work with what they’re given. If you told me that either of the two stars wanted to try their hand at more Shakespeare, I’d check it out. Especially if she doesn’t sing.

Review: Ghostlight

Ghostlight

Let me get this out of the way first – we need more movies like Ghostlight. It’s neither “movie version of Shakespeare” nor “modern adaptation.” It’s a regular movie, with a plot of its own, that happens to use Shakespeare as a backdrop to tell its story. I will always watch movies like this.

Ghostlight

I only heard about this movie about a week or two ago, so I’m excited that I got to see it so quickly. All I knew was that it’s a family drama, where the actors who play the family are in fact a real-life family, and that a production of Romeo and Juliet is central to the plot. I’m in.

Something’s wrong with this family. Dan, the father, walks through his construction worker job like a ghost. His daughter, Daisy, has run out of chances at school and now teeters on the edge of expulsion. And Sharon, the mom, tries valiantly to keep the family together when it’s obviously falling apart. Something’s happened to these people. There’s talk of a lawsuit that none of them are sure they are ready for. They scream at each other for seemingly random reasons at the drop of a hat.

Through a series of fortunate(?) events, Dan finds himself unwillingly volunteered to help out the community theatre group that’s been practicing in the abandoned movie theatre across from the street he’s been jackhammering. They’re doing Romeo and Juliet and need a Lord Capulet, though as the story progresses and we learn the characters, roles ultimately shift.

From there, you probably know how it goes. This is a story about the healing, bonding, and cathartic power of not just Shakespeare but theatre in general. There are many scenes of silly rehearsals as Dan loosens up around his new adopted family. Most of them behave as if they’ve never done Shakespeare, admitting freely that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Dan even asks his daughter if she knows the play (the daughter, on cue, recites the prologue that she had to memorize for AP English) and how it ends. If this had been a movie about learning to express your emotions through art, Shakespeare would have been replaced with oils or pastels. He’s just the medium.

It’s being praised in places as one of the year’s best movies, but I won’t go that far. It’s disjointed in its plot, with some loose ends that don’t get resolved. In a movie where the best acting is done when characters are screaming at each other, the scenes where they’re trying to be funny come up short. Some important details are held back, but as soon as a little bit is revealed you can begin to put the whole story together.

The Shakespeare’s not great. Too often the script is cut, so if like me you’re there whispering along with the lines you’ll be frustrated at all the random cuts. If you do see it, I thought that literally the best moment of Shakespeare was when the mom asks the dad to recite some for her. It was hesitant and awkward and beautiful because of how honest it was. He whispered after, “I won’t do it like that on stage,” and I said aloud, “No, do it exactly like that.”

Ultimately, it’s where the story does not play into expectations that it’s at its best precisely because of how honest and real it is, and that’s where it gets the praise. This is a small group of over 50-year-olds doing a play about teenage suicide. The audience, right along with the other characters in the movie, has to get past the shallow physical aspect to the essence of what theatre is all about. Peter Brook had a famous quote like, “When a man walks across a bare stage, and another man watches him, that is all that’s needed for theatre.” This is what I thought as our construction worker first walked into the theatre. I thought, “Whatever he does and however he does it, that’s the story I want to watch.”

Parts are frustrating. I’ve never been an actor, never done the silly rehearsing exercises (“red ball! RED BALL!”), but even I threw my hands up in the air when the director invited a new member into the group and said, “Pick any role you want.” I only later realized that one of the existing members was doing something of a Nick Bottom, trying to claim every role for himself, who got continually frustrated as they were taken from him. But come on, these people presumably auditioned (it says so in the dialogue). You don’t insult them by telling a newcomer they can have whatever role they want.

See this one if you can. It’s no triumph of Shakespearean acting, but that’s the whole point. It’s not about the quality of the performance, it’s about the humanity that anybody can bring to the task whether they’re actually any good at it by some objective standard.

Shakespeare For Kids – Free on Kindle (for a Limited Time!)

Disclaimer – I was sent a press release, I have not personally read these books. My kids are a little old for the intended audience now, anyway. But they’re legit free, at least for an introductory period, so it’s an opportunity to grab them if you’re looking for some material for the 6 – 12 age group.

Welcome to “Shakespeare for Kids” – a delightful book series that brings the magic of William Shakespeare’s timeless stories to life for a younger audience! Our series opens up the world of classic literature, making it accessible, engaging, and heaps of fun for children to explore.

Shakespaere For Kids Hamlet

Perfect for young readers aged 6-12, as well as for parents and teachers who wish to introduce the Bard’s masterpieces in an approachable manner, “Shakespeare for Kids” ensures that learning about literature is both educational and entertaining.

Shakespeare For Kids Romeo and Juliet

Let your children’s adventure with the greatest playwright of all time begin today! Pick up a “Shakespeare for Kids” book and let the curtain rise on their exciting journey through the timeless world of William Shakespeare.

FREE on Kindle for a limited time!

Guest Post : Zounds, A Rat!

Dana Gower has been a follower of ShakespeareGeek for years, mostly via Facebook, and often sends me interesting links and curiosities. He runs his own page ShaksperFauxFest. Ask him his thoughts on Sonnet 136 if you get the chance. When he sent me his thoughts on an interesting Mercutio/Marlowe connection I offered him the opportunity for a guest post!

Did William Shakespeare publicly accuse Queen Elizabeth and her advisers of ordering the murder of Christopher Marlowe?

On May 30, 1593, Marlowe died after being stabbed at a Deptford inn. The London theaters were closed at the time due to the plague, but shortly after they reopened, Shakespeare presented a new play. Not everyone may agree, but it appears fairly certain that “Romeo and Juliet” was presented in 1594 (not 1597), and that the character of Mercutio was included in order to allow Shakespeare to mention Marlowe’s death.

Christopher "Kit" Marlowe
Mercutio? Is that you?

There are a number of hints throughout the play tying Marlowe to Mercutio, but there is one stunning phrase that makes Shakespeare’s intent clear. It tends to be overlooked by, and can be confusing to, modern audiences, but it would have been clear to many of Shakerspeare’s own. Early in the play, Tybalt, the character who will kill Mercutio, has been called “more than the prince of cats” and the “king of cats.” The reference is to a series of animal tales, still popular in Shakespeare’s time, that included a cat variously named Tybalt, Tybert, or Tibert. Shakespeare clearly has named Tybalt as the cat. As he dies, Mercutio calls out, “Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat, to scratch a man to death.” That phrase is a reference to a piece of doggerel from the time of King Richard III, which would have been well-known to Shakespeare, writer of the English history plays, and to many in his audience:

“The Rat, the Cat, and Lovell, our Dog
Rule over England under the Hog.”

The Hog, of course, was Richard, whose personal badge was the white boar. The Rat, the Cat, and Lovell, the Dog, represent Richard’s closest advisers. The Rat is Sir Richard Ratcliffe. The Cat is William Catesby. A descendent of Catesby’s, Robert Catesby, would one day become a leader in the Gunpowder Plot against King James the First and members of Parliament. Francis Lovell, First Viscount Lovell, was a longtime supporter and close friend of Richard’s. His heraldic device was the white wolf, but the poem probably was referring to him as Richard’s lapdog. These men were the closest of Richard’s inner circle.

If you move these positions up to Shakespeare’s own time, you have Queen Elizabeth and her own inner circle of advisers, with Queen Elizabeth taking the part of the Mouse. I don’t know which of her advisers were meant to take the place of the Dog, the Cat, and the Rat, but it really doesn’t matter. By having Mercutio label Tybalt, his killer, as the Cat, Shakespeare clearly is laying Marlowe’s death squarely at their feet.
Shakespeare’s response to Marlowe’s death, an act of incredible courage, had no immediate effect. Marlowe, of course, was still dead. None of the men said to have been with him at the time were ever held to account, and no one else dared, as far as I can tell, to publicly tie his death to the queen. Still, Shakespeare had made his point: “We are watching.”

I’ve borrowed most of this from a very short book I just self-published on Amazon, “Remembering Mercutio: Some thoughts on Michael Hastings’ death.” This is the only part about Shakespeare, but I couldn’t resist the opportunity to mention, “Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat…” The connection between Marlowe and Mercutio is well-known, but I think the meaning of that line has been forgotten. I’d love to hear what everybody thinks.

So, Should We Talk About Romeo and Juliet?

I’m sure you know the news I’m talking about. The following is just stream of consciousness on the subject.

Can I see some ID, please?

There’s not a Gen-X AP English kid out there that didn’t see this film. It was always a good day when the teacher said you were going to watch a movie, but how often did they tell you ahead of time that this movie contained nudity?

In the 1980s, that’s what we had to work with – the 1968 Zeffirelli version of the movie, starring Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting (and Michael York as a badass Tybalt, let’s not forget him!) Let’s not forget it won some Oscars. It was a good movie. It just so happened to have a brief bit of nudity, and the naked people happened to be 16 years old. (How was that even possible? Well, it was filmed in Italy, for one. In the 1960s. Rules were different?)

Fast forward to the 90s and suddenly everybody got to watch the 1996 Romeo+Juliet with Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, and everything changed. The 1968 went back into the archives, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall it being all that big of a deal. We knew it existed. Some of us had seen it. So?

Here we are, fifty-something years later. The director, Franco Zeffirelli, died a few years ago. Guess what? Here come the stories. We didn’t want to do the nude scene. He lied to us. Could we please have fifty million dollars?

Oh, and did we mention that in 2021 she’s on record saying that she was broke? So, let’s see, built her whole career on the fame that this movie brought, now she needs money, and the guy she’s accusing is gone. Jackpot.

“Repackaging what is essentially pornography,” the article says. Have these people heard of the internet? Do we really think anybody’s wading through Shakespeare for a half-second glimpse of something that you could probably see at will by visiting a nude beach in Italy? Granted, it’s been a long, long time since I saw the scene in question (and given today’s world I’m not going to go looking for it) but in the time it would take you to fast-forward to it you could have googled stuff a thousand times worse.

By today’s standards, literally everything about this story would be unacceptable. No question. Hussey, like many child stars, has had a pretty terrible life coming out of this (mental health issues, abusive relationships, etc…) Pin that on the entire system, absolutely. There’s multiple generations of child actors that are right there with you. But to reach back fifty years, after decades of promoting both the accused (she worked with him again) and the movie (she’s spoken well of the production in the past), now you want money? I don’t think so. I hope this goes nowhere. This story, not anything about the original movie, gives Shakespeare a bad name.

Oh – for those that aren’t familiar with the term Streisand Effect, it refers to people who try to hide things on the Internet, or say “Nobody can see this!” Most of the people that hear that never saw it in the first place, never even knew about it, but now that you said that, they go hunt it down. Named for Barbara Streisand, who tried to suppress the California Coastal Records project from including pictures that showed her house, resulting in way more people seeing the pictures than ever would have if she’d said nothing.

I’m not saying that there are people out there who hear about a movie that includes a brief glimpse of a topless 16yr old and think, “Man, I gotta see that,” but, come on, this is the internet. Of course there are.