Romeo & Juliet
Tags: tragedy, romantic

Plot synopsis:
The play, set in Verona, Italy, begins with a street brawl between Montague and Capulet servants who, like their masters, are sworn enemies. Prince Escalus of Verona intervenes and declares that further breach of the peace will be punishable by death. Later, Count Paris talks to Capulet about marrying his daughter Juliet, but Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites him to attend a planned Capulet ball. Lady Capulet and Juliet's nurse try to persuade Juliet to accept Paris's courtship.
Meanwhile, Benvolio talks with his cousin Romeo, Montague's son, about Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from unrequited infatuation for a girl named Rosaline, one of Capulet's nieces. Persuaded by Benvolio and Mercutio, Romeo attends the ball at the Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. However, Romeo instead meets and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt, is enraged at Romeo for sneaking into the ball but is only stopped from killing Romeo by Juliet's father, who does not wish to shed blood in his house. After the ball, in what is now called the "balcony scene", Romeo sneaks into the Capulet orchard and overhears Juliet at her window vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to be married. With the help of Friar Laurence, who hopes to reconcile the two families through their children's union, they are secretly married the next day.
Tybalt, meanwhile, still incensed that Romeo had sneaked into the Capulet ball, challenges him to a duel. Romeo, now considering Tybalt his kinsman, refuses to fight. Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission", and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays Tybalt.
Montague argues that Romeo has justly executed Tybalt for the murder of Mercutio. The Prince, now having lost a kinsman in the warring families' feud, exiles Romeo from Verona, under penalty of death if he ever returns. Romeo secretly spends the night in Juliet's chamber, where they consummate their marriage. Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses to become Paris's "joyful bride". When she then pleads for the marriage to be delayed, her mother rejects her.
Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a potion that will put her into a deathlike coma for "two and forty hours". The Friar promises to send a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan so that he can rejoin her when she awakens. On the night before the wedding, she takes the drug and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the family crypt.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and, instead, Romeo learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar. Heartbroken, Romeo buys poison from an apothecary and goes to the Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet privately. Believing Romeo to be a vandal, Paris confronts him and, in the ensuing battle, Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs herself with his dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the tomb to find all three dead. Friar Laurence recounts the story of the two "star-cross'd lovers". The families are reconciled by their children's deaths and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo."

Review: He seemed much older than Juliet, too, which would be interesting if it were part of the play but it isn't.Much more affecting were Juliet herself, the Nurse, and old Capulet.
I couldn't help comparing Mercutio and Friar Laurence unfavorably with their Zeffirelli counterparts.It was nice to get more of the dialogue than some other film versions preserve, but on the other hand some of the cuts took away familiar lines and such cuts are always jarring..
Alan Rickman is good, but others are too.
I liked it better than what was then the latest movie version, because the movie cut out too many lines.
I'll admit that Alan Rickman made an excellent Tybalt, but that's not the only memorable performance in that production.
The big surprise for me was Celia Johnson as Juliet's nurse.
(It was years later, after her death, I believe, that I saw her in her most famous role in the David Lean movie "Brief Encounter".)  It's been over twenty years since I've seen that TV production and I don't think I'll ever forget it..
Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse.
Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear.
Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous.
Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.And that's it.
Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way.
If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible.
However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers.
I have noted with some surprise the extremely negative criticism of many viewers who have commented on this version of Shakespeare's' famous play, particularly with regard to Patrick Ryecart's portrayal of Romeo.
I can see how his performance could be considered wooden but in my opinion he has managed, with some success, to bring about a much more naturalistic depiction of the character.Certainly, there are times when he should have perhaps brought out more emotion in his performance (such as the ballroom scene) but, for the most part, his understated portrayal works.
His Romeo is a complex character whose extreme emotional state is always writhing beneath the surface and bubbles up beautifully when the occasion demands it.
Whether it be expressions of rage or love, Ryecart manages to get it right what is perhaps the most faithful film version of this classic tragedy.Rebecca Saire, who for once has been well cast in a BBC production in terms of her character's age, performed well as Juliet.
Sweet yet sensitive, and deeply in love : a classic portrayal in a classical reading of Shakespeare.In terms of the other memorable cast members, Alan Rickman did a good (but not a great job) as Tybalt, and I think that certain other reviewers have overpraised his performance due simply to his later celebrity.
There is more to the character than his being simply broody (something which seems to be Rickman's essential reading of every role he plays).
Anthony Andrews was as crazy and eccentric as I imagine Mercutio being; and if there ever was a faithful portrayal of an Elizabethan father, Michael Hordern pulled it off with gusto.
Celia Johnson was great as a well-meaning and loving yet overly fussy Nurse.I enjoyed this production as a faithful version of the text without the overly dramatic nature of later film versions (particularly Luhrmann's).
I feel that the director has come as close as possible to a reading that Shakespeare would recognise.
A Fine Version of Shakespeare's Tragedy!.
Everybody knows the story of William Shakespeare's tragic love affair, Romeo and Juliet.
Rebecca Saire and Patrick Ryecart are perfectly cast as Juliet and Romeo.
Alan Rickman was great as Tybalt.
Sir Michael Hordern has a small role as Lord Capulet.
This is fine and faithful version able to be shown to high school students studying this play as part of the curriculum.
Another good performance of the greatest play ever written.
Rebecca Saire and Patrick Ryecart and quite interesting as the leads.
Saire gives a very good interpretation of Juliet and owns her scenes.
The play is not the romantic tragedy it is reputed to be.Perhaps the production values could have been better if it had not been filmed in the style of a 1970s BBC program.
Very good background music in the credits and the musicians in the party scene are playing authentic instruments.This performance is from the first two seasons of BBC Shakespeare and is shows the original purpose which seemed to be to sell the package to school libraries from class discussion.
Later they did more original interpretations of the plays and some of the actors in this are in the later plays; Ryecart, Michael Hordern, and Vernon Dobtcheff are the ones I saw..
Saw this Movie in College about 10 Years ago now in a Shakespeare class and Absolutely loved the movie and have been looking for this movie.
It's an Old Movie and yes the special effects are not great but is very true to Shakespeare and what you see would be more like what it would have actually been like when Shakespeare wrote the Play.
A movie true to Shakespeare true nature not a Hollywood version.
So in essentially you have almost gone back in time and watch it as if Shakespeare himself was directing it.
But your not going to get great special effects so if that what you looking for look more but if your looking for something that has stayed with the Nature and the spirit of Shakespeare this is your movie..
While not as atrocious as others have described it, this TV version of Romeo and Juliet leaves much to be desired.
No, what's lacking are riveting performances, primarily from the lovers themselves.Patrick Ryecart may be the most passionless Romeo I have ever seen.
He is the definition of bland, almost sleepwalking through his scenes, only coming alive during the part where he kills Tybalt in a fit of rage.
Rebbecca Saire does better as Juliet, but not by much.
Though she is the closest in age to her character than any other screen/TV actress I've ever seen (Saire was 14 at the time of filming, only a year older than Juliet is in the play), her portrayal of the character is too subdued and lacking in sexuality.Luckily, most of the supporting cast is passable, if not great.
There are only two standouts in the line-up: Anthony Andrews is an entertaining Mercutio and a young Alan Rickman makes for a wonderfully loathsome Tybalt.Honestly, this is probably my least favorite R&J screen adaptation thus far.
Though it does cut some of the text, it's prettier to look at and features more poignant, passionate performances than this lifeless TV movie..
I am bias as I am Shakespeares biggest fan and not a big critic on the various performances because I find every adaptation I see I enjoy because of the variety.
Which I think Shakespeare himself would also enjoy the wide different attempts at his works.
I enjoyed seeing Alan Rickman in hid first TV role.
If you are a true Shakespeare fan leave your eyes open and your opinions wide as I truly believe the great man himself would do exactly that 400 years on.I like all the BBC Shakespeare collection.Well done the Beeb !.
I watched this in high school and thought it was okay, not great, a little over-acted, but okay.
I am reviewing this because I just found out that Alan Rickman plays Tybalt in this.
In my opinion Alan plays the role with gusto and power.
Not over-acting like the other characters.
Some of the excisions in III.i (along with the staging of the sword fights in that scene) have the effect of presenting Tybalt as a less bellicose character than the full text suggests.The best performances are those of Michael Hordern (Capulet), Celia Johnson (Nurse), Anthony Andrews (Mercutio), Alan Rickman (Tybalt), and Joseph O'Conor (Friar Laurence).
None of those performances is impeccable, but each of them is at a high level.Rebecca Saire (Juliet) is not up to the demands of her role in some of the crucial scenes in the first half of the play, but she improves considerably after a mediocre rendering of the "Gallop apace" soliloquy.
Patrick Ryecart (Romeo) is excellent in the bedroom scene, but his performance otherwise ranges from poor in the early parts of the play to mediocre in the later parts.
Moreover, whereas Saire's physical appearance is just right for Juliet, Ryecart's physical appearance is unlikely to set aflutter the heart of any fourteen-year-old girl.The sword fights are staged more impressively than in any of the other BBC Shakespeare productions, and the sets are generally well crafted.
This production on the whole is pretty good, but it could have been excellent if the eponymous characters had been better portrayed..
Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront!
Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her.
It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film.
For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play.
-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling.
The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all.
He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given.
Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play.
I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet.
'Romeo and Juliet' is one of William Shakespeare's, one of the greatest and most important playwrights that ever lived, most famous plays and also one of my favourites of his and overall.
It is such a lovely, powerful story, that is the quintessential depiction of passionate love descending into tragedy perhaps, chock-full of iconic lines and speeches and characters hard to forget.The available versions of 'Romeo and Juliet' are variable, the best being the Zeffirelli and Leslie Howard versions.
Consider this 1978 BBC version, one of the BBC Shakespeare adaptations from the late 70s and early 80s (an interesting series of adaptations/performances but with both hits and misses), one of the weaker available versions of 'Romeo and Juliet' and one of the lesser adaptations of the series.
That is not saying that this 'Romeo and Juliet' is terrible, far from it.
It's most of the supporting cast that are the main reason to see it, so good in most cases that it brings the production up more than one star.
Michael Hordern plays Capulet with dignity and gusto, for me he was the best of the bunch, and Celia Johnson is a sympathetic and un-fussy nurse.
The most interesting piece of casting though is Alan Rickman pre-'Die Hard' (a landmark performance in a genre benchmark), who makes for a suitably loathsome Tybalt.
John Gielgud is interesting in a small role and Joseph O'Connor performs, if not completely lives, Friar Lawrence very well.
Even with the omissions, it is a faithful interpretation, is coherent and flows, the supporting actors clearly having a feel for Shakespeare and with evidence of experience.Visually, it is not exceptional and somewhat simple, have actually seen worse, but the simplicity works and doesn't look drab or ugly.
The staging has parts that are better than others, the ballroom, fight and tomb scenes fare best, even if the fight scenes are slightly balletic in places.However, a major problem is the performances of the two leads, a problem so major that it brings the production down significantly.
Apart from his rage and upset in the culmination of the big tragic fight scene, which was intensely moving, Patrick Ryecart is rather wooden and was in need of more expression and nuance as Romeo.
Rebecca Saire does have the advantage of being the most age appropriate Juliet of all the available versions and shows more emotion than Rycart (she does well in the tomb scene), but her inexperience shows in her mostly bland, wide-eyed and too subdued performance.Ryecart and Saire's chemistry doesn't properly ignite and the balcony scene completely lacks passion and comes over as very static.
Count me in as another person who found that Anthony Andrews doesn't work as Mercutio, he certainly seems to be having fun with the character but he really does overact in especially in the facial expressions that it gets tiring.On the whole, not a bad production but really could have been better.
Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here.
Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet.
Bloodshed soon erupts...The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play.
The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo.
Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.The supporting roles don't fare much better.
Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut.
Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera.
Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt.
He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here.
The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera.
Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity.
His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.See one of the other versions of this story instead..
The dreadful and dreaded drama had to come sooner or later and it is the twentieth play of that series we watch.
From the very start the star Juliet meets with the meteor Romeo in pure love, a tempestuous love at first sight that needs no explanation and accepts no excuse or no opposition.
They are young indeed since Juliet's age is lengthily discussed with plenty of humor from the nurse and some rather nostalgic pleasure from the mother.
Juliet is not yet fourteen and as the mother says some ladies of note in Verona at her age are already mothers of a child.But Shakespeare does not condescend to make that love story in any way lurid.
Juliet does not even want to bring the moon into their story because that moon is inconstant, and that is a key to Shakespeare's style and power.This moon and her three phases (in Shakespearean times it had only three phases), waxing, full and waning, is the most wicked character you can imagine.
The Capulet and their daughter Juliet are three and one will have to die.
And the play had started with the three social brawls and the three street battles caused by each of the two families.That couple is doomed because there will always be someone in-between the two lovers, good or bad, who will bring doom.
Tybalt wants to prevent the relation between Romeo and Juliet.
Three is trouble, three is drama because a third element, character or whatever, always jumps between the two lovers directly or indirectly, like the death of Tybalt between Juliet cousin to Tybalt and husband to Romeo but who is also cousin to Juliet and step-cousin to Romeo.But this play has another dimension that is a lot less known or considered.
This play is a tremendous pamphlet for the freedom of women in love, but also in life.
It is a feminist play before all ages and probably the best homage Shakespeare could deliver to his Queen and supporter Elizabeth I without being indecent or superfluously flattering.
That's the political dimension of this play, and it is also the best testimony England was advanced on all other countries at the end of the 16th century, at least 100 years ahead, and such dramas will only be put to the stage in France at the end of the 17th century, and in Germany with people like Goethe and Schiller one more century later, and the Italians will touch the problem essentially through religious Vespers, operas or other rites to Mary, Mary Magdalena and others starting at the end of the 1'th century in painting and in the 16th century with Monteverdi.This play has become a source of inspiration for many other artists in all arts and it is still played with the greatest success we can imagine, and this production by the BBC is quite in line with this fame and power, though maybe slightly too slow, but they preferred that to shortening some sections as many have done in the cinema particularly.FDr Jacques COULARDEAU