629 posts
|
Post by christya on May 16, 2024 15:53:24 GMT
Oh bloody hell. I'm rethinking that 'hotel next door' thing now! Though I am pleased he's up there, for his own sake!
|
|
|
|
Post by onmyway on May 16, 2024 19:22:43 GMT
For people who have seen it, how violent is it? The website gives age guidance as 15+ but resale ticket sites say 12+ - am assuming the official website is the correct age rating but debating whether to take my daughter next week or just go with a friend. Am wondering how bad it can be with no set 😂 It's really not violent at all but it depends how old your daughter is. There's a lot of fake blood but not a huge amount of physical violence. It's more just a tense atmosphere throughout with bright lights, loud noises and of course dark themes. No problem for 12+ in my opinion. Thank you so much, I really appreciate your thoughts. That sounds fine and I will take her. Also, we are as far back from stage as possible so I don't think she will be able to see well enough to be traumatised! |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 17, 2024 19:45:12 GMT
Lots of new tickets available for 90 right now! Selling quick! But they certainly make the end of row D ones behind them look overpriced at £275. Is the view really £185 better one row back?! In that very row D seat at the interval now and I'd give that a strong no! |
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 17, 2024 21:57:10 GMT
Just back from Romeo and Juliet and while I enjoyed it, I do think it's Jamie Lloyd's weakest production. First the positives, the cast is great, Tom Holland as Romeo on paper is odd casting, he works well and the way he portrays him shift from Act 1 to Act 2 and he becomes more scared and vulnerable to the point where his reaction to Juliet's 'death' makes sense. Francesca Amewudah-Rivers is good as Juliet and she's a bit more confident as a character but she showed vulnerability during the scene where her father tells her she's marrying Paris on Thursday and her monologue after she takes the potion. The standouts are Freema Agyeman as the Nurse who manages to be funny and tragic throughout as well as Michael Balogan as Friar. The set design is minimal and while I like the use of video, the show really clicks when it just the actors together with none of the gimmicks holding them back. The scene with Romeo and Juliet meeting is electric. My negatives are that aside from the start of Act 2, the use of microphones doesn't work and it felt bolted on and some of the scenes on video are kind of unnecessary, you could easily do the rooftop scene on the stage likewise the ballroom scene. It did feel like Jamie Lloyd's greatest hits in terms of gimmicks and at the end of Act 2: Both Tom and Francesca take off their face mikes to signify the characters leaving the narrative just like in Sunset Boulevard It's a good show but I think if Jamie Lloyd had shown a little restraint, it could have been a great show. I hope his next show after this and Sunset Boulevard on Broadway drops the cameras and the microphones and just focuses on the actors. |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 17, 2024 22:28:29 GMT
Yeah, so really really disappointed by that.
Start with the good news, anyone who grabbed one of those much cheaper end of row D seats, they are fine. I missed very very little from the restricted view, the vast majority is very centre stage and the screen moves a lot so it never remains restricted for very long.
Perhaps slight spoilers following
The entire evening feels flat and forced. I can only put all the blame on Jamie Lloyd's choices. There is so little zip, so little connection in here. I like his 'minimalism' or whatever people want to call his style but it feels like that has been deliberately drilled into the performances and it's gone way too far. I'm pretty sure Tom Holland has done what he's been directed to do but he's really poor, the contrast with his actual charisma in the curtain call is pretty staggering. Francesca Amewudah-Rivers is way better but her Juliet is allowed to have a bit of spark, a bit of personality and it gives her so much more to do. Tomiwa Edun's Capulet is great, a menacing presence first holding back Tybalt and then later for the marriage to Paris. Freema Agyeman and Michael Balogun are their usual fine selves.
The staging is Sunset's staging copy and pasted across. The one bit that does work is the party being in the foyer but it works because it's funny. The microphones don't add anything and Holland's frequent whispering, well I was pretty grateful for the few scenes where he talks normally. The lack of any other props doesn't always work, the big fight just goes to black and then lots of blood packs, it's not bad but it does feel very passive. The ending is crying out for a vial and a knife, it becomes just a static monologue with R&J sitting next to each other at the front of the stage, mics off to show them dying. The final scene of friar holding them works better just with the tiniest bit of staging.
Lazy is all I'm left with to be honest. Sales driven by a big name, a really limited run and post Sunset acclaim. Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe it just wasn't for me. I am a JL fan, his Betrayal at the Pinter is one of my favourite nights at the theatre but here... nope.
I am really curious as to what the reviews will make of this. People were on their feet but it wasn't instant from what I could see and felt as big west end nights often can, performative.
|
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 17, 2024 22:29:04 GMT
BurlyBeaR could we have a poll please Mr Bear? Ta!
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by angalagna on May 17, 2024 22:43:00 GMT
Thanks for the review, Dave. I felt almost the same as you.
|
|
84 posts
|
Post by theatremadhatter on May 17, 2024 23:30:26 GMT
Just back from seeing this and funnily felt the opposite from the previous post. I was just thinking to myself how I felt it one of Jamie Lloyd's strongest productions. Taking what was brilliant about Sunset and distilling it into a very well known play but presenting it with newfound clarity and detail. The cast are phenomenally good, as is Lloyds take. I loved that he kept it a swift 50min (give or take) for each act, keeping true to the intent set out in the prologue 'is now the two hours traffic of our stage'. Nothing outstayed it's welcome. The focus really is on the words. It brought two things to mind, it manages to grip you visually (lighting/video) while delivering the power of a really good audiobook, where often when you lean in and focus on the words and story and let your mind fill in the rest it can resonate and connect to you far more than when everything is so visually prescriptive. The sound is excellent (as was Sunset) and I could hear even the whispers. This means the actors aren't pushing the performance they are simply inhabiting it. We are after all audiences (audio) not spectators. Here I'm not thinking about their costumes, the bad choice of scenery, the props, daggers, poison vials, balconies etc. I'm just focused on the text front and centre, storytelling and some brilliant acting from the whole company. I also was reminded of the quote "The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity." (Alberto Giacometti). Lloyd really does present this as his art and in his reimagining / stripping back he intensifies the text giving the audience ultimate access with close microphones so we hear every breath and now extreme video close ups so we see every thought. It's funny that people seem to call this typical Jamie Lloyd but correct me if I'm wrong - Sunset was his first use of video and LED walls? This really hasn't been his style in the past. Nor have the B&W costumes / red lettering. In fact all the video in this is in colour whereas Sunset was B&W. So there is some evolution there. We've had a few shows in succession with live video elements and what I left thinking about was what it is that works so well with his use of technology in a way others don't do so well (such as opening night). I think it's as others have said- it isn't a gimmick at all, he has a reason and a place for it all. It's also all live when so many other shows you can tell have pre-recorded footage. I loathed Opening Night because there really was (most of the time) no point for it. It didn't enhance the story or increase access as it was so poorly delivered at times the actors weren't even in sync with the on stage action. Lloyd and his video team seem to overcome this in a way others can't. Where even huge distances like being on the roof don't even affect its or walking around the Royal Albert Hall. It's really a big achievement and why it works so well. Likewise I don't think I've ever seen a screen like that before, which looks like a giant iron gate set piece but then is suddenly a high definition screen and then again invisible revealing people behind it. I thought that was so clever, it took me a while to figure out it was a screen and not a projected image. For me it increases access to the detail of the performances from more seats in the house than the usual premium seats in the stalls who have the advantage of a great view. I don't think that can be a bad thing. But it's also why you don't have to go for those £250 seats really. I also like that you can still choose just to watch the stage action if you want, the screen wasn't an obstruction, which maintained the connection to the performances. I wondered if those choices are also to do with that his video designer is Nathan Amzi who is also an actor so understands the performance aspect from another perspective. Also why i have heard Tom Francis walking down the Strand worked so well. The video design isn't simply a technical element, it's in itself performative. {Spoiler OFFSTAGE FILMING - click to view}When Romeo is banished he is literally removed from the stage (and it's only a brief moment) but really does give the sense of 'somewhere else'. Likewise with the entrances to stage and the party in the bar, I thought it really added to the feeling we were all existing in the same space. Also as a fan I loved getting a glimpse backstage and in areas of a theatre we rarely see. I thought both Tom and Francesca were really strong, I especially liked Francescas ownership of the role and control of the character, they both go on a huge emotional journey. Tomiwa Edun as Capulet was also another stand out for me, he's charming and funny one moment but then a moment later also terrifying and cold. {Spoiler ROMANCE - click to view}She definitely takes the reins in initiating the first kiss and in moving the relationship forward which I always like to see a Juliet with some chutzpa. She's certainly in control. Lloyd also places huge importance on the Friar. He delivers the opening and closing speeches like a laser to the audience and really has more influence and control than I've felt previously over the play. Lloyd has a lot of the important plot decisions like the poison delivered to camera / audience. It really landed for me as Capulet says Our city is much bound to him.
I also found the final moment really powerful, more so than I have in other productions. {Spoiler ENDING - click to view}Rather than rolling around dying both actors simply remove their mics in the same way as Sunset when a character was no longer part of the storyline. Here it felt so much more powerful though as it really did signify to me their loss of a voice in the world. They went from 2 hours of beautiful language to no longer being able to speak or be heard. Then the sensory deprived blackout and soundscape then disorients you leaving you with the Friar with the two bodies in his arms delivering his final message / warning to us. I found it very profound and cleverly executed. So yes I loved it, but I can also see that this won't be for everyone. It's very stylised but then in my opinion all good art is polarising right? It definitely sparks discussion and thought which great theatre should! |
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 18, 2024 4:20:07 GMT
Poll added.
|
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on May 18, 2024 8:08:46 GMT
Selling quick! But they certainly make the end of row D ones behind them look overpriced at £275. Is the view really £185 better one row back?! In that very row D seat at the interval now and I'd give that a strong no! Arrgghh! Sorry to hear that. I really hope you didn’t pay that much for it if so 😟 |
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on May 18, 2024 8:14:01 GMT
A fast scroll through the more in depth reviews posted, as I’m not there until end of June and don’t want to know too much, but it already sounds like it’s as divisive as other JL productions!
Looking out for any comments though from anyone else who managed to get a front row £25 seat as interested to know how good / bad the view is from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by kallyloo on May 18, 2024 8:50:31 GMT
Well I’m row B and will be going May 27th, so if that’s good enough I’ll let you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afriley on May 18, 2024 9:22:57 GMT
A fast scroll through the more in depth reviews posted, as I’m not there until end of June and don’t want to know too much, but it already sounds like it’s as divisive as other JL productions! Looking out for any comments though from anyone else who managed to get a front row £25 seat as interested to know how good / bad the view is from there. Should be totally fine. I was second row. Depending on the seat might have the cast sat in the stage right in front of you and there’s very stern security to prevent any inappropriate behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on May 18, 2024 10:09:38 GMT
A fast scroll through the more in depth reviews posted, as I’m not there until end of June and don’t want to know too much, but it already sounds like it’s as divisive as other JL productions! Looking out for any comments though from anyone else who managed to get a front row £25 seat as interested to know how good / bad the view is from there. Should be totally fine. I was second row. Depending on the seat might have the cast sat in the stage right in front of you and there’s very stern security to prevent any inappropriate behaviour. Thank you. Glad to hear there’s security - from what we’ve seen from the clips outside the theatre I can imagine someone reaching up to touch Tom otherwise! |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on May 18, 2024 17:37:10 GMT
3.5 stars from me - I was sat in row B four rows from the stage. This is a good production but not for purists. Great camera work, direction, some excellent performances. The whispering, popping of mics etc started to grate in the second half. The rooftop scene felt a little pointless and the bright daylight jarred with the general darkness of the staging. A few surprises that added to a sense of suspense, but as somebody brought up on RSC Shakespeare, the biggest sacrifice in this production is the text and how it is delivered. Rhythm/metre/cadence all lost to the deliberate 'street' vibe adopted by the director. Some lines simply lost to mumbles or whispers. The actors who know their stagecraft truly shine in this production - the rest is just superfluous distraction. Substance has been sacrificed for style, and feels a somewhat tired and jagged outcome. Jamie Lloyd needs to refresh his house style to avoid becoming a clichéd hackneyed 'one-trick pony'. (Coming from somebody who LOVED Sunset Boulevard.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dr on May 18, 2024 19:20:08 GMT
I also loved Sunset Boulevard, as well as every other Lloyd production I'd seen previously. This bordered on awful, but thankfully had some good things to it.
Francesca Amewudah-Rivers is amongst these, a brilliant, energetic Juliet, whose stage presence exceeds her scene partner (more on which to come) with ease. There is a strong ensemble all-round, as noted previously - Freema Agyemen and Michael Bologun have inflated roles, and shine through in these. I'm a sucker also for Soutra Gilmour's set design - thoroughly industrial, slick, with a detailed and elegant transformation of the Duke of York's stage. And Lloyd is excellent at creating striking images, assisted by some great, evocative lighting design by Jon Clark.
But then we come to the question that I left thinking: why Romeo and Juliet? With Lloyd (and any director, I suppose), the key factor to success is real intent with the production. With Sunset Boulevard, the camerawork was a meta and interesting way to interrogate its themes. With The Effect, his minimalism complemented the atmosphere and setting. Same with Cyrano, and even The Seagull. But with this... he didn't seem to have anything to *say* about Romeo and Juliet. No fresh perspective. No specific reason to apply his key methodologies. The camerawork - although beautifully executed - feels shoehorned.
And that isn't the only thing that feels shoehorned. I don't want to be cruel, or indeed seem contrarian to popular opinion, but I found Tom Holland to be genuinely dreadful. There was no conceivable Romeo, and his intentions switched by the second. One particularly awful speech at the top of the second act saw him whispering in one second, then shouting at full volume in another. He seemed to be attempting the relaxed, boyish Romeo played by Toheeb Jimoh at the Almeida last year, but his performance felt stilted, unnatural and devoid of purpose. A true shame, as it only amplified the apparent weaknesses in Lloyd's overall vision.
So, overall, it's 2.5 stars for me. I hugely enjoy Jamie Lloyd's sensibilities, and this shone through in the design and ensemble performances. But a lack of any purpose, and a truly weak "lead" (Romeo being outshone by Juliet, the Nurse, Friar and Mercutio should say enough) caused it to be so much weaker than any JLC production I have seen before it.
I'd really love Jamie Lloyd to return to something more unorthodox like "The Effect" or "Sunset Boulevard" next, rather than a tried-and-tested canonical work. He's an important voice in London theatre at the moment - he just has to be bothered to choose a text where he can use it.
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 18, 2024 22:31:37 GMT
I'd really love Jamie Lloyd to return to something more unorthodox like "The Effect" or "Sunset Boulevard" next, rather than a tried-and-tested canonical work. He's an important voice in London theatre at the moment - he just has to be bothered to choose a text where he can use it. I've previously suggested that Jamie Lloyd should direct The Iceman Cometh but I wonder if might revisit The Duchess of Malfi or even do another John Webster like The White Devil. |
|
5,801 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on May 19, 2024 9:07:24 GMT
This left me totally cold.
Tom Holland was okay, Freema the best, but after the thrilling staging he deployed in Sunset- this just feels like a rehash of Jamie Lloyds usual tricks. Nothing new and no fresh insight into this play.
Thankfully it was relatively short.
2 stars.
1 for the lighting and 1 for the bored looking security guard sat right by the stage.
Baffled by the comment about Francesca being energetic- I found her to be barely awake. Fine, but unmemorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on May 19, 2024 11:03:36 GMT
These ratings are quite interesting! I'm looking forward to seeing it.
I'd like to sit down with Jamie Lloyd with a pint and ask him if it was Holland's idea to do this.
|
|
1,470 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 19, 2024 12:12:26 GMT
... One particularly awful speech at the top of the second act saw him whispering in one second, then shouting at full volume in another. ... Whenever an actor does that, we -- as Corrie watchers -- joke that they must have attended the Dev Alahan School of Acting. |
|
1,470 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 19, 2024 12:21:22 GMT
... So yes I loved it, but I can also see that this won't be for everyone. It's very stylised but then in my opinion all good art is polarising right? It definitely sparks discussion and thought which great theatre should! I don't think polarisation is a prerequisite for art to be good, but I did appreciate your detailed review, as I can tell from that I would have been on the opposite side of the divide with much rolling of eyes. I'm so glad I resisted the FOMO urge to book. |
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 19, 2024 14:25:18 GMT
If R&J ends up getting panned then Jamie Lloyd might need to avoid the Duke of York's from now on....
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 19, 2024 17:08:41 GMT
Saw this last night and LOVED it! For me, Jamie Lloyd has created a "Romeo and Juliet" that feels completely fresh. The focus is not love, but crime. The stylistics are such that this feels like the most monumental "true crime" show of all time. Spoilers follow. . . My brother watches wall to wall true crime, which I avoid, preferring art. He loves how things happen, the passions, the motives, the actions, the unintended consequences, the counting down of days from the conception of a crime, to its commission, to its wrapping up by the authorites, etc. Since "Romeo and Juliet" is known as the greatest love story of all time, I've unthinkingly just thought of it that way, viewed the strengths of any production based on how much innocent youthful fire is sparked in the actors by Shakespeare's poetry, how much tearful nostalgia for youth I feel. All the violence and tragedy I have treated as necessary story elements to concentate the impact of that youthful fire, to make it feel more rare, more precious, more fleetingly beautiful. Zefirelli's 1968 movie, with Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting always moves me for these reasons: they are just so sweet. Even Baz Luhrman's ultra-violent gang movie just used the gang violence as spicy dressing while DiCaprio and Danes were cuter together than kittens. There is NOTHING sweet about this production! Nothing cute! Nothing! A nasty, incessant, clanking, pulsing, panic-inducing musical scoring makes cutesiness utterly impossible. Instead, Lloyd gives us the ominous blood red counting down of days so common in true crime, as a mere matter of days will be all it takes for our characters to destroy themselves, with Lloyd starting with a blood red "Sunday" up on the big screen. Michael Balogun, as the Friar, is also our "true crime" reporter, getting extra narration duties, from start to finish, giving an immensely urgent and passionate portrayal of a man who just wants common sense to prevail. In that, he's like my brother, a disbelieving witness to the car crash inevitability of true crime, shocked at the world, trying to understand it. Lloyd narrows the cast of characters, with Romeo and Juliet getting only one parent each, because the squabbles between the Capulets among themselves and the squabbles between the Montagues among themselves are not relevant to the procedural progress of the criming. That's a Montague vs Capulet thing. This production is not at all interested in love for love's sake, but "love" as a motive for crime, with the intra-family enmity as the cue that makes it inevitable. Juliet the motive, Tybalt the cue. In one of Lloyd's most expressive mise en scenes, Tom Holland's Romeo is seen behind and inside a giant screen projection of Francesca Amewudah-Rivers' Juliet, the catalyst of his tragedy literally swallowing him up. The scene on the roof is masterful, with the neon of the London Eye tourist attraction demonstrating that Romeo's Mantua is no different from our London, and like in the classic 1948 crime movie, "The Naked City," as Romeo pauses to drag on his cigarette, with the vista of our city behind him, his fate momentarily paused, we realise here in London too "there are eight million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them." My favourite performance is Michael Balogun's reasonable man getting dragged into a multiple pile car crash that just can't be stopped by reason. Its why my brother watches those true crime shows, to find out why reason fails again and again and again. Balogun is emotive where everyone else are half automaton, controlled by the inevitability of fate. But Lloyd shows us that his reason will not be enough. And by harnessing Shakespeare's poetry, dreamlike, half-muttered, whispered, thundered, shouted, Lloyd reveals Shakespeare as a proto-true-crime producer of the most monumental poetic proportions. Lloyd cuts out the crap. There are no comic moments here. When Joshua-Alexander Williams' Mercutio, who hauntingly predicts his own fate in his ghostlike Queen Mab speech, meets that fate, there's nothing about scratches, funny moments, misdirection, just an elemental scream of "A plague on both your houses!" Anyway, yes, this is a very stylised production. The exaggerated whispering of the early scenes is there to heighten the feeling of portentous inevitable death, and deny us any personalised humour or fun, even when the characters objectively are having fun. That's because Balogun's reporter already gave us the headline "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life, Whose misadventured piteous overthrows Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife," and for Lloyd, true-crime reports aren't a joke. They are a warning to us all. Other than Balogun, who I just loved, I thought Amewudah-Rivers was a thoughtful, self-possessed Juliet, Tom Holland was brilliantly agonised as the train of tragedy he was riding sped up uncontrollably, Freema Agyeman was brilliantly blunt, and Nima Taleghani's Benvolio was terrifically impotent as a desperate bystander to the criming. For me, 4 and a half stars of seeing a story I thought I knew, but didn't. I withheld half a star in resentment for not getting any cutesy nostalgic teary-eyed youthful fun, which I love lol. This is a "Romeo and Juliet" my true-crime-afficionado brother might like even more than I do.  PS: I sat in Stalls F2 (for once being a member of ATG+ paid off), which turned out to be a good seat, and appeared to be slightly less restricted, in it's side view, compared to all the other £80 side seats (marked yellow on Theatremonkey's map). Unlike "Opening Night," I see no opportunity for a repeat visit, on account of dynamic pricing upwards. In my view, I like productions that allow early bookers to get a deal, instead of shafted, which is how booking early often feels lol. |
|
|
|
Post by clarefh on May 19, 2024 17:25:25 GMT
Steve - I always enjoy your reviews! Have you ever seen Macmillan’s Romeo and Juliet ballet at the Royal Ballet? If not you should give it a go for another take on the story
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 19, 2024 17:31:03 GMT
Lloyd narrows the cast of characters, with Romeo and Juliet getting only one parent each That's common in low-budget productions of this play and it is charitable to suggest Jamie Lloyd has done it purely for artistic reasons. The Friar is a rather interesting character in this play and your description of him makes me want to see this production (I didn't previously). Interpretations I've seen of the character range from benign through naive to actively malign. |
|
