Romeo and Juliet

Recently I happened to attend the play “Romeo and Juliet” Romanova at the St. Petersburg Theater. Lensoveta, and I want to say that for the first time in 19 years, I saw literally the entire auditorium applauding standing up. 

There were no shouts of “well done”, tons of flowers, just the audience stood up and applauded, mesmerized. The actors seemed to be shocked by the finale themselves, Juliet looked doll-like and tearful, and the actors' bows seemed random. I believe that after a performance, you should experience one of three aftereffects: a sense of uplift, inspiration, or deep and melancholic reflection. One of three. Well, this time I didn’t feel anything.

To begin with, as I got closer to the world of theater and cinema, in parallel with the academy’s educational process, reading specialized fiction, studying at a film school, and my personal involvement, I became increasingly analytical. So, I’ll provide “notes on this performance.”

First of all, as a viewer who had specific expectations of the performance, I was confused. The beginning was quite ordinary, theatrical; there were even notes of old‑fashioned poetic quality that I love so much in theatres, but then came very modern and indecent jokes that continued throughout the entire production, interspersed with rhymed poetic language—as if the director was reminding us, “guys, we’re still putting on a serious show.” And it was completely unclear what I, as a viewer, should do and what to immerse myself in. In my opinion, the attempt to combine modernity and cheap humor with such absurd drama and the desire to keep the style within the bounds of classicism is unsuccessful.

The next question was prompted by the text itself. It’s good when the original text is retained in the script, and the performance turns out to be historical — just a condensed staging of the work itself. The format of a profound reinterpretation is also not bad for the theatre: the director has their own idea and uses the author’s text only as material to convey a new concept. It is precisely here that creative stage techniques usually come into play — this format often includes a distinctive speech style, a unique presentation of the author’s text, and, if necessary, the addition of specific elements to the script. In this case, the text in the play was “chewed up” to the point of insignificance—for example, someone was killed, and then the phrase “He’s dead!” invariably followed (and this happened after every scene, in all the lines…), and it was uttered in the most unpoetic way possible, in modern language, almost including the slang of the present day. This “salad” was especially funny when mixed with the beautiful expressions that had been preserved in the speech from Shakespeare. But there was no harmony between them.

Now, as a costume designer for film and television, I’ll touch on the topic of the costumes themselves. The play was staged in a red‑white‑and‑black colour scheme. Moreover, the lighting varied from greenish to warm orange shades, which, of course, disrupted the overall colour palette. Romeo, for a second, was wearing torn jeans and a torn sweater, while Juliet, throughout the entire performance, was in nothing but a nightgown, and the priest was wearing a full synthetic “oversized” outfit—the kind that rappers prefer. Moreover, he even had a black “gopnichna” cap, and a gold cross that looked like rappers’ chains. I don’t think this was a conscious reference to our era; rather, it was a mistake. I liked that, at first, it seemed to me that I grasped the author’s intent: Romeo and Juliet do not change their characters throughout the play, while the other characters periodically change their outfits. This seemed to me a good way to show their sincerity and purity in a dirty and changeable society. But later it turned out that Romeo changed his clothes more than once.

Frankly speaking, the entire performance was built around specific scenes, which is why the overall composition certainly failed to come together. There was no immersion in the place and time of the action; the course of events was simply conveyed, and not without an ironic twist. That is, if it’s a battle, then it’s a bloody shirt; if it’s the sun, then it’s a glaring yellow light, always with a touch of fog to create an inexplicable effect. I believe that a performance, like any work of art, should have a composition. Symbols must be woven through the plot; that is, it must contain pre‑established meaningful symbolism, which is skillfully conveyed through the means of artistic expression.

Also, when it comes to the costumes, I can’t say that such a radical colour scheme in this production is unacceptable. No, it can also “work” for the concept if it’s well‑designed. In this case, the only red character was Romeo’s close friend, and he “stood out” on stage. As the main character — that is, he had the most extensive lines, he played the most tragic role, and even in staged productions it was noticeable that in multi‑character compositions he, rather than Romeo, was at the semantic center. This seemed strange, especially considering that his role did not carry any particular semantic weight, and he was not the lyrical hero of the author’s intended meaning, which was not even revealed in the play.

Now let’s move on to the main thing — the meaning of the performance. After all, loud modern music, the awkward staging of the actors, a lot of empty space, dull symmetry, the absence of wings, and empty scenes — these are technical flaws. But the meaning is what everything is based on. And so. I’ll sum it all up like this: at the end of the performance, there was a rather dull monologue, something like a semantic conclusion, as always unrelated to the previous scenes in the performance, and the final phrase was: “There is no tale sadder in the world than the tale of Romeo and Juliet.” Even here, they made it clear that it’s sad, and now you need to “feel it.” Well, apart from the humor. It’s comparable to “work for the sake of work” or “walking for the sake of walking.” The fact that she is sad is understandable; what’s important is what makes her sad. Is it that they won’t meet even in another world? Is it that they simply lived in illusions? Is it that love that hasn’t been realized doesn’t deserve to be called genuine? What is this play about? What resonates in the heart at the end of the play, when the time comes…