Romeo & Juliet - Duke of York's Theatre

If anyone wants/can watch the show on the 31st of July (19:30), I wouldn’t mind selling you my ticket for face value. Upper Circle A20 (restricted view)

Won’t be in London long enough to watch all the shows that I want, and would be grateful for an extra empty slot

Agree with this. Adored Sunset Blvd, the Effect and Seagull, but Romeo and Juliet felt like all of Jamie Lloyds greatest directorial hits into one. It ran too long and quite dull rather than sexy and tense. Thought the fight scenes were a copout. Wanted to see some Spidey in swashbuckling action.

As someone who fangirled a lot in my youth, it's almost impossible to explain, but there's excitement in seeing your fave in person. Especially if you've never done it before. I stood outside that exact same theatre for hours, almost 20 years ago, just to be at the front of the crowd to get a signature on my programme from Orlando Bloom. It was as crazy then as it is for Tom Holland today. In the years since, I have gotten older and much more blasé about seeing actors I really love in person, but I still remember the fun of doing the stage door, going to Q&As and events, etc!

I’ve just sent you a PM about this

I thought Freema was great

Just got back from this afternoon's matinee, and I had mixed feelings about it. Then again, I have mixed feelings about Romeo and Juliet in general; I think it contains some of Shakespeare's best lines, but also some of his sloppiest plotting and least vivid characterization. At its best, the Jamie Lloyd house style works to produce a kind of visual poetry that compliments the material; I was especially struck by a speech that Tom Holland's Romeo delivers to the magnified video projection of Juliet, virtually (but not actually) laying beside him.

But some of Lloyd's stylistic quirks just don't work. He drains some key scenes of action, with actors simply standing in a row facing the audience. And in the second half, both Romeo and Juliet seem so glum throughout, it's hard to recall the brief romantic moments in the first half when they actually felt alive. So their death felt less like a tragedy and more like a relief. I also think neither actor seemed remotely like a teenager, which is the only way the play makes sense to me as a tragic story--if it's about two impetuous adolescents who feel things too deeply and act too rashly. While Francesca Amewudah-Rivers and Tom Holland each gave strong performances at times, they didn't convey that hormonal adolescent quality at all.

As this production goes on and on I'm hearing this more and more; word of mouth has definitely not been kind to this.

I think the early SO must have been almost in confusion, like was that good and I didn't get it or am I hallucinating?? I also think there's less Holland fans seeing it and now we're transitioning into a more general audience so reviews are going to cool down regardless.

Saw this for the second time last week. The first time I thought it was ok. But I am not that interested in shakespeare. This time I came better prepared having dived into the story and history of the play. I can definitely understand the choices of the director. The whole performance was much tighter and Tom Holland was excellent.
This is a good production. People should take in account that this is shakespeare with the original text and the focus is on the text. So it was never supposed to be an easy evening.

This coming from a shakespeare fan.

Whatever gets a person hooked to not just shakespeare but to an author, medium or whatever in life will differ from person to person.

Shakespeare of course has the perceived language barrier to get over. I myself was beguiled by the language from an early age when an acting troupe did a bitesized macbeth at school. I got home and got the complete works down from the shelf.

But I wasn't converted yet because of not understanding every word. I saw an amateur production of macbeth, midsummer nights dream. Watched some films. But I had the notion that I can not understand everything that's going on.

But i wasn't hooked until I saw Michael Boyds Henry VI trilogy in 2006 during tye complete works festival. Yes I went into the deep end rather than seeing something like Patrick Stewart in The Tempest. But me and my mum thought this is rarely put on so why not. Admittedly I went in, and later Shakespeare productions with a dorling kindersley book that gave a great synopsis, scene for scene. Had it open in my lap to keep track with what's going on (which with the Henry VI trilogy is kinda advisable)

The production had me hooked. Great acting, direction, style, fighting, choreography, visuals. So much in those productions that had me transfixed with plays that are not Shakespeares best. And then the same company did the entire 8 play history cycle and we came back to Stratford each time and by next year I had seen all eight. And then we were coming back to Stratford for more shakespeare

The point is a shakespeare production can be anything. It can be traditional, straight, modern, stylistic whatever. But when it comes down to it, and this does not apply to shakespeare but any renowned pieces of theatre, it is the role of the director and by extension the cast and everyone involved to bring the text to life and make it clear to the audience.

And you're not going to convert everybody. I like Chekhov as well but I've tried The Seagull several times now and I just think it's not for me. Don't get what's so great about it.

Yes there's a certain degree of interpretation going on. Yes one can change the setting and put a radical spin on it. Rupert Goulds Merchant of Las Vegas comes tonmind. But it starts with understanding the text and putting it and your ideas clearly to the audience and the potential new Shakespeare fans.

I’m not sure if I can post this here, so please delete if not allowed. I have just returned 2 tickets to the box office for Thu eve, stalls row F. Be quick you may be lucky

I didn’t pay that as I got it when the tix first went on sale. Dynamic pricing during last week of the production