Romeo and Julius

The Shakespeare Theater at Sidney Harman Hall production of Romeo and Juliet was quite impressive. Its attention to historical detail was interesting. There were deviations in the production meant to captivate the modern audience’s attention but arguably they did not stray too far. I believe the ultimate goal of this production was to break down certain socio-gender based barriers.

The most impressive facet of the Romeo and Juliet play was the decision to employ an all-male cast. During Shakespeare’s lifetime it was unlawful to have females on stage, therefore young men were cast as women. At the time something like that would seem commonplace while nowadays we might find the cross-dressing a bit disconcerting. Interestingly, it seemed that the audience got over it fairly quickly. One was only reminded of the all male cast when the actors kissed, but I doubt anyone was bothered. It was mentioned that early in the production the actors had trouble emoting their love for each other, perhaps because they had trouble getting over the social implications, but this was not the case during the final performance.

While the all male cast was historically accurate, the clothing used was surely not. A lot of modern looking clothes were worn to make certain characters feel “cooler.” Most notably leather pants and jackets were worn, in exchange for tights and tunics by Romeo’s friends. Even so the costume designer made an effort to design the clothes to have an Elizabethan feel to them or at least what the audience might assume is Elizabethan. The royal men’s and women’s clothing on the other hand was more accurate, interestingly enough. Its hard to speculate why the director and costume designer made this choice but it did not harm the performance.

While its doubtful that the audience was actively aware of the all male cast during the production it feels as if there were arterial motivations. The play was cast with an all male cast to have a historical element to it. The question then looms; why didn’t they make the whole play historically accurate? One could answer that maybe they felt it would not reach audiences in the same way, but if so then why bother to have an all male cast to begin with? The answer seems to point to a gender issue.

The socio-gender implications could be two-fold. One could be a critique of the historical perspective of women in theater by presenting a play with their absence. The other could be a critique of the squeamishness of Americans towards homosexuality.

As previously mentioned women were forbidden from stage during the Elizabethan era. Today the idea of women being forbidden from stage, or anything, seems old-fashioned and chauvinistic. This idea seems a bit far fetched since there was no real instances during the play that harped on this issue.

The idea that perhaps the production was a commentary on homosexuality in America seems to hold more water. The players, while impersonating females, were still recognizably male. What is more poignant is the play itself. Why choose to cast Romeo and Juliet all men, why not King Lear or Hamlet? The play of Romeo and Juliet is about forbidden love. In the United State gay marriage is unlawful in most states including California, one of the most liberal states. What better way to subversively bring up the issue then to cast an all male play of Romeo and Juliet. Initially, the viewer is very aware of the gender of the cast. As the play progresses we begin to forget, only reminded subconsciously during more intimate scenes, even so it ceases to bother the observer who is intent on enjoying the play. Once the traditional barriers are broken down it no longer seems like an issue. What the play was suggesting is that if we put our traditional beliefs aside, homosexuality no longer seems threatening or unsettling. Homosexual love, just like in Romeo and Juliet, is taboo. While many debate their reasoning, the laws are clear and nothing should prevent gay marriage, just like from the audiences view point nothing should prevent Romeo and Juliet from openly loving each other.

While on the surface the play just seems like a traditional version. The choice to use an all male cast but not to use traditional costume or even a traditional stage leads one to believe that it has another motive to make people talk about certain issues. The motive seems like a call to equal rights.