THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR –The One Requested By Queen Elizabeth!

At least that’s how the legend goes –Queen Elizabeth I was, apparently, a great fan of Falstaff and famously expressed a desire to see him in love, prompting Shakespeare to write this delightfully frothy, cheeky comedy before completing Henry IV Part Two (which again will feature Falstaff and several other characters who appear in The Merry Wives of Windsor)

Thus, it would seem Shakespeare is pandering directly to his audience, many of whom would doubtless have shared Queen Elizabeth’s wish, and what a great way to do it: Without interfering with the narrative of the historical plays in any way, he keeps it ”hot on the stove” by showing another side of its comic characters, and placing them in a suspiciously more Elizabethan world than the period of the Henry IV plays –without that really making much difference. This is Shakespeare’s first ”spin-off” play! And it’s light, bright and sharp, and wholly rewarding as a theatrical experience.

It’s also great fun to read aloud, with the opportunity to try out many different voices –for here Shakespeare has given us some really golden comic characters to sink our teeth into. And though Falstaff, as expected, dominates and is the crux and butt of the comedy, the supporting characters are no less interesting and amusing, and almost all of them could have a play unto themselves. They are each of them busily occupied with their own little strifes and concerns and pettiness in the best soap opera manner, yet brought together through various intertwining plots –at the heart of which lies the obligatory love story; in this case the wooing of the clearly very attractive and desirable Miss Page by numerous parties, both worthy and unworthy. Much of the intrigue and plot of the play is somehow connected to this endeavour.

The ”merry wives” of the title are older characters, one being Miss Page’s mother, and a great deal of the play’s comedy concerns the tricks they play on Falstaff (who is unashamedly after their money) and their own jealous husbands. But everyone seems to be playing tricks on each other in this play, or trying to get ”one-up” on a rival, and so there is much petty domestic squabbling and intrigue –which makes this play seem somehow more modern that a number other Shakespeare comedies; the people we meet are not kings and queens or even princes, but middle-class folk going about the business of living their lives, and this is reflected in that virtually the whole play is written in prose rather than verse. Thus it seems instantly more down-to-earth and accessible than some of the more refined courtly dramas of Shakespeare. Here he seems to be playing in a lighter key, allowing himself a cheeky freedom and gaiety he will not really return to in any of the plays to come. Indeed, this is perhaps the lightest and frothiest of all Shakespeare’s plays (and I don’t mean that as a criticism in any way) Though there will be more comedies to come, they will always have a touch of darkness about them (even Much Ado About Nothing has some pretty dark moments) or, increasingly, introduce elements of melancholy. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, there is none of that –but there is farce, satire, sexual innuendo, slapstick, hanky panky, scathing wit, cunning plans, arguments of words, music and folklore shenanigans –AND, I believe, Shakespeare’s only instance of a character in drag! (Falstaff has to dress as the wonderfully named ”wise woman of Brainford” in order to escape detection by a suspicious jealous husband when visiting one of the ”merry wives”)

I thoroughly enjoyed revisiting The Merry Wives of Windsor and delighted in discovering new gems in its colourful kaleidoscope of comic treasures. Many of the puns and clever twists of language are easier to appreciate when reading rather than seeing a performance when one is naturally drawn along more by all the visual information of plot, character and action. But it is primarily a play to delight in and be carried along by rather than to dwell too much on, or seek deeper meaning in, other than an appreciation of what you are presented with –skillful construction, high comedy, memorable characters, and lots and lots of fun. And I’m sure Elizabeth I must have been delighted too!

Favourite Line:

Falstaff
I cannot cog, and say thou art this and that, like a many of these lisping, hawthorn-buds that come like women in men’s apparel, and smell like Bucklersburry in simple time; I cannot; but I love thee, none but thee; and thou deserv’st it.
(Act III, Sc.3)

Character I would most like to play: Falstaff (But Ford, Doctor Caius and Sir Hugh Evans are all delightfully appealing parts too.)

HENRY IV PART 1 –The One That Introduces Falstaff

Henry IV Part One holds a special place in my Shakespeare heart as it is not only one of my absolute favourite amongst his plays, but one which I have had the good fortune to see numerous marvellous productions of, including the terrific Royal Shakespeare Company version of the early 1990s, in which Robert Stephens as Falstaff gave the finest performance I have ever seen by anyone on any stage, anywhere. And without comparing myself in any way to that aforementioned great actor, I myself have played numerous scenes from this play over the years, as Falstaff, Prince Hal and Henry the Fourth himself, and thoroughly enjoyed every moment doing so. There have also been some brilliant televised versions, most recently as part of The Hollow Crown series, and I recommend this to anyone curious about the play.

Thus, revisiting the text is both a joyful experience and a slightly dangerous one. Joyful because of memories evoked from previous encounters with the play on stage or on screen; dangerous because such memories can easily influence the impartiality of one’s reading. A colourful character like Falstaff may be seen in numerous ways, but as one reads his lines it is so very, very tempting to conjour up performances of the past. I should state, right away, that I am a huge Falstaff fan, and consider him the finest comic character ever created, so this entry will probably be more slanted to him than to any of the play’s other characters, but that is not to say they are any less interesting in their own right. Falstaff, after all, is essentially nothing more than a sidekick, the amusing supporting role, who (as is so often the case) creates such a mark that his character towers above all others in people’s minds, and leaves us wanting more, much more –fortunately, Shakespeare quickly ”got” this, and the character will appear in two more plays, including the direct sequel to this one. Here he represents one extreme –we are drawn to him much as Prince Hal is, and though we may be frequently appalled by his behaviour, we are fascinated by his audacity and sheer mastery of life and living to the full.

However, the play is titled Henry the Fourth (in nature and character the king is Falstaff’s direct opposite), and the serious action of the play concerns Henry's uneasy reign and his attempts to quell rebellion from disgruntled former allies who have now turned against him. There is a tenseness about Henry that prevails throughout, and he is both burdened with feelings of guilt about his own accession to the throne (by overthrowing Richard II), and exasperated by the seeming inadequacy of his heir, the young Prince Hal, whose happy-go-lucky, carefree lifestyle of drinking and partying with miscreants like Falstaff, is anything but what the King expects or needs from his successor. The king regards his son as a failure, a loser, and admires far more in this respect the other Henry of the play –Hotspur, the son of his main enemy who seems to embody all the traits and character that the king’s own son lacks. And really, the central conflict of the play is this personal one between father and son, rather than the grander conflict of warring factions. Thus, the play is essentially very personal and immediate, and gripping too because we are right in there seeing the king trying to hold things together in both his kingdom and his family. The ironic conceit, of course is that everyone encountering the play knows (or should know) that Prince Hal will come up to scratch and later become the most illustrious and heroic of all English Kings, Henry V, and Shakespeare drops a few hints about this here and there, and part of the brilliance of Henry IV Part One is the way Hal is suspended between the influence of Falstaff and his crowd on one side and the King and court and his duty on the other. Though both are important to him he cannot play to both masters, and it is through learning from both and choosing between them that we see him becoming the great king to be.

Aside from all this Henry IV Part One is a glorious patchwork of England at this time. The many memorable scenes in the tavern seem ageless –though nominally set in the early1400s they would be instantly recognizable to Elizabethan audiences who first saw the play, and are just as much so today –every pub has its braggarts, its gullible hangers-on, its storytellers and its pranksters. And there are plenty of memorable set-pieces, both in this tavern setting and elsewhere throughout the play. My personal favourite is Falstaff’s boasting of how he fought off an attack by two... four... seven... nine... ruffians, his lies and exaggerations growing from line to line. And anyone looking for colourful insults to add to their repertoire need look no further than the marvellously salty exchanges of name-calling between Prince Hal and Falstaff. Shakespeare must surely have enjoyed creating them as much as we delight in hearing them! (see the exchange under Favourite line(s) below for an example)

Finally, I must mention briefly two of the female characters that inhabit this otherwise very male play. Lady Percy (the wife of Hotspur) is a relatively small but memorable part, with a great speech and scene with her husband in Act II, and one almost wishes she featured more in the play. And Mistress Quickly, hostess of the Boar’s Head, makes the first of her several appearances in Shakespeare’s works. She, like the other ”regulars” of the tavern can very easily be overplayed or presented as mere bawdy caricatures, but I think there is a lot more to her than this, and intelligent productions cotton on to that without negating her comic role. She is a bit like a mother hen to all these miscreants, someone they so often take for granted, but without whom they (and the play itself) would be all the poorer.

Favourite Line(s):

Prince Hal (of Falstaff)
..this sanguine coward, this bed-presser, this horse-back-breaker, this huge hill of flesh–
Falstaff (to Prince Hal)
’Sblood, you starveling, you eel-skin, you dried neat’s-tongue, you bull’s pizzle, you stock-fish – O for breath to utter what is like thee! – you tailor’s yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck!
(Act II, Sc.4)

Character I would most like to play: Falstaff (again) or Hotspur

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE –The One With the Pound of Flesh!

The Comical History of the Merchant of Venice, or Otherwise Called the Jew of Venice (as it is titled in the First Folio) is undoubtedly one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays (and among of my own personal favourites), but both it and the character of Shylock have a certain notoriety because of the unavoidable question of anti-semitism. Shylock is not a particularly big part (he’s only in a few scenes), but it’s a great part, such that it dominates the play in much the way Falstaff will in Henry IV soon after. He is undoubtedly the villain of the piece, but I don’t find the presentation of him to be narrower or unfairer than that of any other of Shakespeare’s creations. Certainly the play deals with the issue of anti-semitism, but it is seen primarily in the way Shylock is treated by many of the other characters rather than his own character –I think Shylock is a fascinating character, and to call him a caricature or stereotype is to negate the subtext of so much of his words and actions. Essentially, I think he is a very sad person, but that does not mean we have to be sympathetic to him or condone his actions.

The play is ostensibly described as a comedy, but this is an ill-fitting coat; much of the action of the play is far from comic, and the play falls more into a category best described as ”a mixed bag” –part tragedy, part comedy, part romance, but, unlike many other such unclassifiable plays, one that somehow almost always seems to work on stage. I think this is primarily because there is at its heart a really good story, or rather several stories, linked through good characters and terrific set pieces, like the choosing of the caskets and Act IV’s famous court scene. This is the first time I have actually read the whole play. Previously, I have only read extracts or worked on speeches from it, but I knew the play well nonetheless, having seen several wonderful productions, both on stage and screen. Each of these had their outstanding moments, but the best overall stage production I’ve seen was that produced at Birmingham Rep in 1997, directed by Bill Alexander. Trevor Nunn’s tired production at the Royal National Theatre in 2000 was by far the worst, but even in that the power of the story shone through. I also recall a very odd Danish production directed by Staffan Holm at Copenhagen’s Royal Theatre back in 1993 which concluded by having an enormous golden ball roll across the stage, Indiana Jones-style, while the song Mad About the Boy blared over the loudspeakers (I really must do a blog entry on bizarre and whacky innovations in Shakespeare productions!)

Favourite Line:

Lorenzo:
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treason, stratagems and spoils.
(Act 5, Sc.1)

Character I would most like to play: Shylock (but Portia would be fun too)

KING JOHN –The One First to be Filmed!

King John (aka The Life and Death of King John) is an odd play in the Shakespeare canon. For one thing it is a history play that stands apart from all the others, not fitting neatly into the chronological sequence of the other English histories. King John’s reign was from 1199 to 1216, thus the play takes place long before the great cycle of plays starting with Richard II. Secondly, its tone is very different to many of the other histories –perhaps because Shakespeare (it is believed) based his play on the framework of an earlier anonymous play: The Troublesome Reign of John, King of England, and –with some notable exceptions– pretty much followed that play’s scene-by-scene construction; much more so than with other plays he ”adapted”. Some people believe that Shakespeare himself wrote the earlier play too and that King John as published in the First Folio is actually Shakespeare’s later, modified, version.

It is certainly very rarely performed these days, though as of May 2016 there happens to be a production directed by Trevor Nunn running in London. I have not had the opportunity to see this, or indeed ever seen a production of it. Yet in Victorian times it was one of Shakespeare’s most popular and frequently performed plays –perhaps because of the Victorians' fondness for declamatory acting (which this play lends itself to extremely well.) Its popularity at that time is probably one of the reasons it was the first Shakespeare play ever to be filmed –albeit as a short, silent adaptation– way back in 1899. I believe this may be viewed on YouTube!

In addition to most people probably never having seen the play performed, I would boldly state that very few will have read it, or know much about it, despite King John in so many ways being key to British history. Everyone knows something about him though –if only through his connection with the signing of Magna Carta (which is, perhaps surprisingly, not part of the play), or his reputation as a sneaky, slimy go-getter through his role in the story of his brother Richard the Lionheart and the Robin Hood legend. (For some reason I still always see John in my mind’s eye as the conniving, crowned big cat in the Disney cartoon!)

King John in Shakespeare’s play comes across as a hard but much more rounded character than portrayed elsewhere, but it is difficult to really ”get hold” of him as a man –certainly compared to the other great Shakespeare kings of British history who are much more open to us in revealing their inner workings. Much of the play’s language is heavier too, which makes our enjoyment of it more of a challenge than usual. Like Richard II, it is written in verse, but is frequently more obscure and less stylised than that play. The New Penguin version edited by R.L. Smallwood has the best notes and most useful commentary of the editions I have come across.

Interestingly for the histories, Shakespeare puts a character at the centre of the story who never actually existed historically: Philip (Faulconbridge) –revealed in the play as Richard the Lionheart’s bastard son. Shakespeare makes a lot of this character and gives him some wonderful lines and scenes. Just about all the other characters are historically accurate (in that they actually lived, at least), but as always, there is much compressing of time and events, and a certain amount of dramatic licence in the way scenes unfold. A great deal of the play consists of bickering –it’s a real family power struggle at heart, and though frequently vicious there is also a certain amount of humour in the constant taunting and accusing of the various parties. It lends itself somewhat to satire in this respect, but the latter part of the play has some extremely dark moments, and for me the play really comes alive in the last two acts.

Leaving the biggest impression (on me, at least) is the story of Arthur, John’s young nephew who, being the son of Prince Geoffrey (John’s older brother), is the rightful heir to the crown. He is ultimately gotten out of the way and the scene in which he pleads with Hubert of Angiers, his would-be executioner, in Act IV is one of the most poignant in all Shakespeare (it’s also a wonderful piece to do as an extract or as an exercise for two actors). In fact, the whole play is filled with potentially exciting confrontations for actors to get their teeth into, which (if they are good) may make up for the fact that the arc of the drama itself doesn’t match the greatness of style and execution of Shakepeare’s more exalted and popular history plays.

Favourite Line:

Philip the Bastard:
Mad world! Mad kings! Mad composition!
(Act 2, Sc.1)

Character I would most like to play: Hubert of Angiers

SHAKES-SCREEN: A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999)

I remember being pleasantly enchanted by this rather winsome film version of Shakespeare’s romantic comedy/fantasy when it first appeared, and it certainly looked beautiful on the big screen with its gorgeous, warm cinematography, composition and production design. It created a pleasant, warm feeling in the audience, delivering a comforting experience, and drawing a few chuckles here and there; smiles rather than belly laughs. For here the comedy is fairly genteel, and often also quite melancholic –there is always another dimension to each moment of laughter -a story beyond, especially with the tradesmen who put their heart into performing, despite their lack of any real talent. Their preparations for and ultimate performance of ”Pyramus and Thisbe” is where much of the comedy of the play lies, but in this film the traditional comic moments are toned down a great deal. I admire the restrained performances of both individuals and the amateur group as an ensemble, because it is so easy to go over the top with their part in the story. Here we smile affectionately rather than laugh mockingly, and our smiles are warm and sympathetic, as they sometimes are when someone in the family performs at a wedding or similar despite a lack of talent. Kevin Kline as Bottom naturally takes much of the limelight, and gives his character a whole deeper life than is normally seen, as does the very underrated Roger Rees as Peter Quince –he gives an immensely dignified and rather beautiful performance here, full of subtle details that I only really appreciated upon viewing the film again.

I found many of the magical scenes with the fairies to be quite mesmerizing, and the careful use of special effects was just right in creating moments of fantasy and wonder without overwhelming the picture. Much of the beauty of the play lies in the lines spoken by Oberon and Titania and Puck, and Rupert Everett, Michelle Pfeiffer and Stanley Tucci give great respect to the language and poetry of Shakespeare, without falling to the traps of prettifying it or making it bombastic –it’s poetry, yet living dramatical interaction too. By and large, I think most of the cast do quite well with the text, making it alive and personal, and I certainly am not one of those who despair at American voices uttering Shakespeare; quite the contrary. Here, there is a nice mix of American and British voices, and it is to the film’s credit.

If I were pushed to criticize the film it would be for its lack of ”edge” or danger –passion, if you like. This applies both to the two pairs of young lovers, and the fairy characters and their escapades. Everything is a little too mellow and tame, so that we are lulled more than provoked. A little more spice or audacity would have perked things up considerably, and the story certainly gives room for and even suggests this.
But the director has his own vision of the play and is at least consequent in his presentation of that, and it’s perfectly acceptable. The interesting thing is that the play may be tackled in many different ways, and the ”world” that is presented here in all its lush, green, dream-like beauty is no less valid than other more provocative versions of Shakespeare’s magical comedy.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999)
Director: Michael Hoffman
With: Rupert Everett, Michelle Pfeiffer, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Calista Flockhart, Roger Rees, David Strathairn

RICHARD II –The One With the Hollow Crown Speech

Though chronologically compatible with the following plays about Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and Richard III, Richard II stands apart from all the other historical plays because of its heightened style –something that seems to reflect the state or nature of the king himself; or, at least how he sees it: his kingship is prouder and more regal and divine than those that follow him, and initially on much stronger footing. That he is not necessarily a good king does not come into it –he is king by divine right, and the play is both a presentation of this concept as understood by Richard, and the story of his undoing. We do not see or even learn of all Richard’s reign, just the final phase, where the conflict centres around the Henry Bolingbroke’s struggle to recover his land and title after being banished, and ultimately his taking of the crown from Richard and the latter’s downfall. Essentially it is a play about these two people, whose personalities and world concepts are so very different. So, unlike the earlier sprawling tales of battle after battle and allegiances and intrigues that form the Henry VI plays, this is a much more personal piece of work, almost chamber-like in its intensity –and yet it nonetheless does take in a broader story and certain key historical moments.

It’s a fabulously well-written piece of work too. Though not my personal favourite of the history plays, I must concur that stylistically it is the finest Shakespeare wrote. I like bits of it immensely. The verse is terrific in that much of the time you are not really conscious of it being verse at all –it is seldom decorous for the sake of it, yet each line is crafted with great skill and deftness, allowing each character to come alive and shine through language that somehow seems more modern than a lot of other Shakespeare –modern in the sense that it is immediately accessible and understandable. Notes and commentary may help elucidate many minor points, but I found most of the play just leapt off the paper and came alive in my mouth as I read it –aloud of course (for this is the only way to read Shakespeare!)

Admittedly, I know the play quite well and I have performed large chunks of this it in various contexts; Richard’s personal tale in particular, which I integrated (much truncated, alas) into my one-man performance about Shakespeare’s kings. But a lot of it will be familiar even to people approaching it for the first time: much of the text is part of public consciousness, having been borrowed and used in countless political speeches and slogans, titles of books etc. It is an immensely quotable play –even for Shakespeare!

Richard is an intriguing character, and often quite a difficult one to phathom out. He starts off very arrogant and grand, and is gradually reduced to baseness, but he does goes on and on and on about his plight without ever once reflecting why he has ended up this way, and it is perhaps this quality that makes me somewhat impatient with him, Basically, he is that tiresome creature the spoilt brat whose sense of entitlement knows no bounds, nor really knows of any other way to be. We want to feel sympathy with him –occasionally perhaps we do– but he is also placed firmly at a distance from us, even in his private moments; he is never just a man, he always must be king; and here lies the tragic dimension to his character. Bolingbroke, by contrast, is much more pragmatic and straightforward; a bloke we may sympathize with for fighting for his rights, but not someone we necessarily like all that much. Whereas Richard knows or believes that the crown is something that is his by divine right, Henry has to take on the uncertain, heavy burden of kingship. And with the extra burden of guilt in having deposed his predecessor. His story will, of course, continue through the two parts of Henry IV, so for him this play is really ”Act I”, whereas for Richard the whole of Richard II is really "Act V" of his life and reign.

Apart from changing the identity of Richard’s killer, I have been very impressed with the version of the play presented in the ongoing television production The Hollow Crown –which presents and respects the language so gloriously well that even without a picture it would be more than worthwhile to experience. Some years ago there was also a television movie version that famously starred Fiona Shaw as King Richard, adding an exciting new dimension to that character. I remember that film made a great impression on me at the time. There is also an impressive BBC version with Derek Jacobi playing Richard. On stage, David Tennant probably has given the most memorable performance of the role in recent years, though about 20 years ago the pairing of Alex Jennings as Richard and Anton Lesser as Bolingbroke in a Royal Shakespeare Company’s production stands out for me as the best overall production of the play I have seen. However, I was sadly not around to see John Gielgud in the title role. Like Richard, one can’t have everything.


Favourite Line:

King Richard:
Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.
(Act 3, Sc.2)

Character I would most like to play: Bolingbroke

ROMEO AND JULIET –The One With the Balcony Scene!

Romeo and Juliet is, alongside Hamlet, probably the most well-known of all Shakespeare’s plays, and for many the most rewarding and touching and eternal of the lot. Even people who supposedly know nothing about Shakespeare know this one, or bits of it, and it has been performed and adapted and re-invented in so many ways that one would think the world would somehow tire of it. But it never does. It seems to be everlasting, and eternally and profoundly popular. Perhaps not so surprising, really –it is, after all, the greatest love story of them all.

Personally though I never cared much for the play before; I found it soppy and soggy and over-elaborately decorated when I first read it (as a callow youth, too worldly for my own good!), and several equally soppy, soggy productions and versions I saw seemed to confirm this grand view of mine. It was not the Shakespeare I was attracted to when I first started to discover him, and I felt little sense of identity with anyone in the play –indeed, most of the characters I found immensely annoying. It failed to grasp me or excite me, and knowing very little about life or love or anything really at the time, I was blandly indifferent to its romance and tragedy.

And now –older and wiser– I return to it and find everything is different. It is a play that blows me away with its urgency, its poetry, its beautiful construction, its vividness and life force, and I think all in all it is one of the most sublime and riveting of all Shakespeare’s creations. I was actually quite startled by just how much I now enjoyed it and reveled in it compared with my first encounter with the text. It is a perfect companion to A Midsummer Night’s Dream (which precedes it in the chronology I am following) and seems to spring from the same well of lightness and ease of writing as that play. Here, of course, the theme is ultimately more tragic, but there is a similar urgency and beauty of writing that seems to burst from the page as you read it. And the play needs to be read (or performed) with a similar kind of urgency, even though you frequently want to stop and examine a passage or a line more closely. I think that was how I read it before and why it didn’t work for me then: I was seeing all the technique of the writing but taking in nothing of the prosody of the text as a whole. It really has to be read aloud.

As for the story, I was struck by just how much scheming there is going on. Nothing is done straightforwardly. Everyone is ”arranging” or meddling in some way, even when they are trying to help, and this ultimately brings on the tragic conclusion to the tale. The wholesome, pure romance at the play’s heart is confronted with one barrier or obstruction after the other; the young couple of the title are pushed, manipulated and drawn from each other by the people around them, and yet their love for each other is so heartbreakingly earnest and determined and yet fragile. It is a play of youth, and understandably often resonates immensely with young people experiencing similar plights, agonies and frustrations to those expressed by the characters in the play. And Shakespeare seems very much on the side of the young characters here; he is fair to the adults, but the play does not really belong to them and nor do our sympathies. The nurse is, of course, comical and harmless and rather loveable, but Friar Laurence comes across as fascinatingly dubious, and there is a whole story in him that remains untold. As there also is in Mercutio –who has some of the play’s most memorable moments and stands out as one of the strongest ”friend” characters in all of Shakespeare.

I also felt much more accomodating to Romeo’s development as a character on reading the play anew. Previously, I had found him something of a shallow and fickle character in that he so quickly forgets his previous ”love” upon seeing Juliet for the first time. Now, I see that as an acknowledgment of him realizing that what may have seemed like love before was in fact merely infatuation, and that the meeting with Juliet is on a completely different level. Juliet, though initially ”greener” emerges as the more mature of the two, but there is such a touching sweetness to the urgency and yearning of their budding relationship that one really does feel that these two were meant for each other, and would have stayed with each other for always, had not they ended up such tragic victims of events. Yet because of their tragedy, harmony and peace is restored –a sharp lesson is learned by all; and rightly so.

There have been countless fine productions and film or television versions of the play, but those that have seemed always to work best (for me) are those which embrace the essential youthfulness of the story. The theme, being so universal, is immensely adaptable to many different settings, times and environments, but versions that cast against the youthfulness at the play's heart, are far more difficult to accept, no matter how talented the performers may be.


Favourite Line:

Romeo:
”Love goes toward love as schoolboys from their books,
But love from love, toward school with heavy looks.”
(Act 2, Sc.1)

Character I would most like to play: Friar Laurence