Starting in 1978, the BBC made TV versions of all 37 of William Shakespeare’s plays. These weren’t flashy productions, much of the cast weren’t exactly big name actors, and the ones that were became so later. I’ve seen and used a few for educational purposes. They’re good, quiet affairs that focus on solid acting and the plays themselves to do what they need to do.
And the streaming service Britbox, which I have been using largely to watch old Doctor Who, just dropped all 37 of them into their streaming catalog. Me being a big Shakespeare guy with his own blog, well, I’ll be watching ’em in the order they originally aired. And they started in December of 1978 with Romeo and Juliet.
Notable cast members: The biggest name at the time was probably Sir John Gielgud, noted Shakespearean, here serving as the Prologue who acts as the narrator and says during his opening speech the title couple are both doomed. But then as Juliet’s hot-headed cousin Tybalt is a young (and somewhat dorky-looking) Alan Rickman. And, for a Doctor Who fan like myself, there’s Jacqueline Hill, one of the original Doctor’s original companions, as Lady Capulet.
Trivia: This one got a little controversial with the casting, in that Juliet actress Rebecca Saire was only 14 at the time of taping while Romeo actor Patrick Ryecart was clearly, well, older than 14. Wikipedia tells me he’s about 11 years her senior. Now, Saire is clearly not an adult while Ryecart is, but the overall production keeps things as chaste as possible, relying on the Bard’s words to carry the emotion more than, say, a more overtly romantic or sexual overture. So, yes, the two kiss and share a bed, but that’s about it unlike, say, Franco Zeffirelli’s cinematic adaptation. That said, Saire apparently referred to the production as “asexual” in interviews at the time, causing the network to cancel many of her other promotional interviews.
The play: Since these are basically straight adaptations of the plays, I’m not sure how much I’ll be saying about the productions so much as I will the play themselves. It gives me an excuse to write about the works of my favorite author, so that suits me fine. Besides, in the case of Romeo and Juliet, I have a few things to say about the play itself, and here goes.
It’s not a great play.
It’s not a bad one. I’d even say it’s a good one, and a good one to introduce younger readers to, but it isn’t among the Bard’s best. He was still developing a style of his own, and his best work was still ahead of him. Had Shakespeare died at the same age Christopher Marlowe did, then maybe Romeo and Juliet would have been his best work, but he didn’t and it isn’t. I know a lot of people seem to hold it up as one of the best works Shakespeare did, but I’m not sure I’d even put it in my top ten if I ranked the works. It’s not on the same level as Hamlet, Macbeth, The Tempest, King Lear, Othello, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, or Twelfth Night. It’s a fine play, but not a perfect or great one.
And it likewise isn’t a story of a great love for the ages. It’s a story of teenage love and all the volatility that implies. I would imagine that the reason so many people think it is is because they read it when they are roughly the same age as the title characters. Yes, when you’re a teenager, of course you will kill yourself if you can’t be with your beloved. As an adult, you realize that it sucks, but it’s not worth dying over. And you probably shouldn’t get married within a day of knowing someone, but Shakespeare does that sort of thing all the time. Quite frankly, though, Friar Lawrence should have known better.
Then again, he does have weird poisons just lying around his cell, so maybe we should be taking a look at him. He’s a Catholic monk appearing in a play written for a Protestant English audience. He may be an incompetent meddler depending on your reading. True, he comes across as wise here, but that’s just this production.
But as I mentioned, Juliet was played by an actual teenager. As such, her temper-tantrums actually work. By contrast, the twenty-something Romeo just comes across as an immature boob. This play does have a subtext running through it about the impetuousness of youth, and even if the elders don’t really calm down, at least they don’t start brawls in the street so much as rush out to try and stop them. There’s not much difference between Tybalt’s temper and Romeo’s ability to fall in love at the drop of a hat. Plus, I did like the work of actor Anthony Andrews as Mercutio. He seems suitably deranged.
But still, this one is very much fine production, nothing flashy, and the play itself has always been a good way to introduce the Bard to younger readers.
Grade: For the record, I expect these grades will be more for the plays than the individual productions. Shakespeare may be my favorite author, but that doesn’t mean he gets a blank check from me. Not all of his plays were great. But as for this one, let’s say a B.
Next: I don’t know when I’ll get to the next one, but when I do, the next play to air was a play where we may wish to sit upon the ground, telling sad stories about the deaths of kings and contemplate a hollow crown with Richard II.
0 Comments