Romeo and Juliet: The Telenovella

BYU Arts' latest installment of the "Theater for Young Audiences" series is Romeo Y Julieta, a shortened, Spanglish version of Shakespeare's classic tragedy  Romeo and Juliet. This hour long rendition of the infamous love story took the original source material and, with some clever tweaking, turned it into a rom-com that goes terribly wrong. The main tweak of the production was the idea of having all of the Capulet family be of Hispanic descent. This caused quite a bit of funny moments of miscommunication between the two families, especially between Romeo and Julieta (Spanish for Juliet)

As mentioned before, this is a production geared towards younger audiences, specifically those in elementary or middle school. The actors implimented many techniques that may be distracting to older viewers, but would keep the attention of those not so mature. The play was also shortened a bit to help keep the attention of the younger ones in the audience (and for people like me who may not have the best attention span for Shakespeare).

The set was very minimalistic. Strategically placed flags were the only means of knowing the setting of each scene, the actors kept their own props in boxes on stage, and no one ever left the stage (costume changes were done in front of the audience). This provided the actors all the attention they needed and made it very easy to not be distracted. The actors did a well enough job, and their Spanish was very good. Even the non-native Spanish speakers were good for this gringo's standards. The actors also provided the show's music and they were very well directed.

Overall, I enjoyed the show. My only complaint about it is the show's length. I am aware that it was meant to be short, for the cjildren's sake. Butt with the unique rendering of the story, I feel that deserved a bit more time to percolate. What felt like a really cool way to tell Romeo and Juliet felt more like a gimmic because it didn't get much stage time. I also didn't get much time to really get attached to any character, and with so many people dying, I felt bad for not mourning for them more.

Them:
Oh no! Mercutio died! How sad!

Me:
Not really. I literally met him 10 minutes ago. I didn't really even get to know him.

All together, however, I enjoyed the show and it is another great addition to the "Theater for Young Audiences" series.

Beauty in simplicity

It is a story that has been told time and time again in far too many ways to realistically list, just about everyone, Shakespeare fan or not, knows the tale of Romeo and Juliet. This week I was able to see a version of this story unlike any I had seen before. Designed for younger audiences Romeo y Julieta  is a very simplistic and bilingual retelling of Shakespeare's famous love story, which was to be honest not my favorite version by any means. There were times when I was simply confused due to my inability to understand Spanish which in my opinion distracted greatly from the play and if I hadn't already known the story I probably would have been pretty lost. However I did enjoy how wonderfully simple the play was, there was a definite lack of sets choosing instead to use flags with different images to indicate the setting of the scene, whether in a church in the room of Julieta, or in a cemetery I was able to focus solely on the characters and the dialogue between them. The decidedly otherwise black backdrop was a perfect and eerily appropriate way to keep the audience focused purely on the development of the story which as we all know ends rather tragically. 

I did however find a few elements to be more of a hindrance than a help to the play. There was for example quite a lot of music, played or sung by the actors themselves, that was honestly pretty distracting to the main dialogue or major developments in the story. For example when Julieta is debating whether or not to take the sleeping potion given to her, I felt it would have been much more powerful to have her simply sit there and speak to the audience, allowing us to sit in silence and debate the possibilities along with her rather than having the rest of the actors make "oo" sounds while crawling toward her. For me it kind of took away from the seriousness of the situation at hand. It seemed to contrast greatly with the other decisions to scale down on so much of the production such as the length of the play, the lack of sets, and the small amount of actors and where this subtractions somehow added so much to the value of the words spoken and actions made by the characters, this addition of music stole that value away from the viewers. In short there is much beauty that can come from taking something complex and making it so simple that a even a child can understand it, assuming of course that child speaks Spanish. 

Romeo and Who?

On February 7 I attended the play Romeo y Julieta put on by the BYU Young Company. After hearing the name of the play, I was interested in how the play would be portrayed. I thought that speaking in Spanish and English helped to further define the feud between the Montague's and the Capulet's. One thing I noticed that I did not particularly like about the play was the added music and sound effects.

I found it interesting that the performers decided to take a Shakespeare play and transform it into a Spanish-English mix. At first I was not sure I was going to like this, mostly because I do not understand that much Spanish, but throughout the hour-long play I actually liked it. It helped to define the line between who was a Montague and who was a Capulet. The Capulet's are the ones who spoke the most Spanish and the Montague's spoke mostly English. Since the play is targeted towards young children, I thought this might be confusing, however, this bilingual dialogue helps the story make more sense.

At many points during the play, the actors would create background music by stomping, pounding, whistling, and singing. I can see that they were trying to create a certain mood for what was happening during the play, but I found it quite distracting. At times it was hard to even hear what the actor was saying because of the background noise. I think it would have been more appropriate to use them less rather than more to create more of a dramatic effect.

The Taming of the Shrew Did Not Tame Me

I had my first encounter with The Taming of the Shrew this week. I had high hopes as I began to watch the 1967 version, as I have a great appreciation for William Shakespeare. I also realized early on that What I Hate About You is a loose adaptation of this play, containing the same basic story-line, which made me even more excited about the film. However, by the end of the movie I was left severely disappointed.

While The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare is a comedy, it comes across as extremely misogynistic, especially when not done correctly. In the 1967 film adaptation, Petruchio (portrayed by Richard Burton), is portrayed as a witless drunkard, which not only creates a strong dislike for his character, but for the play overall. While I realize that the text in and of itself is aimed at making fun of strong headed women, the actor's character choices detract from what could be a delightful comedy.

In the play, Petruchio seeks to wed Katherine in order to have access to her immense wealth. Throughout the play, he uses various methods and tactics to "tame" his wife and make her fulfill her roles as a woman. Instead of portraying a strong and cunning character attempting to change his wife, Burton comes off as cold-hearted and out of his mind. While the text remains largely true to the original, Burton's crazed laughter as he tortures Katherine through food and sleep deprivation (among other methods), make him appear as a unthinking maniac, intent on hurting his wife. He is often waltzing about the set as though he were drunk and enjoys making a spectacle of himself. Burton's acting creates an extremely off balanced effect in which Shakespeare's classic banter and wittiness that we so love is lost, and the audience is coerced into watching a man physically and verbally abuse his spouse, simply for the pleasure of it. The character falls flat and is unrelatable.

Donde estas Romeo?

I recently had the privilege of attending BYU Young Company's "Romeo and Julieta" on Wednesday February 7th. You may have been just as intrigued as I was considering the title had changed languages. In this specific hour-long production designed for young audiences, the piece was portrayed in both the English and Spanish language. While hesitant at the prospect of a bilingual Shakespeare (especially made for children), I thoroughly enjoyed the production. The bilingual nature of the show contributed to the timeless family feud. However, the additional music sometimes distracted from the main focus.

The directional bilingual decision was interesting considering the targeted audience is children. Yet I felt that the bilingual appeal not only adds to the story, but makes it more applicable. At one point in this Shakespeare rendition, one of the party members, referring to Romeo, explains he knows that Romeo is a Montague because of his voice. This line has never made sense to me as a play set in Italy, yet with the bilingual and multi-cultural layer added, this line, as well as the plot itself, becomes more clear. With that, the plot becomes more applicable. Living in an age when culture clash and discrimination is still present in daily living, the tragedy becomes more real to the audience members.

One thing I did notice about the show was the musical additions. The actors, at several points during the production, made music via whistling, pounding, stomping, "oo"ing, and singing. While musical additions often added to the mood, there were several points that it distracted from it. A monologue given by Romeo, for example, expressing his love for a "dead" Julieta is often more powerful when silence accompanies and the audience does not have to dig through layers of sound to find it. Considering the fact that the cast stayed on stage for the entire production, it was important to utilize them, however, it was distracting when used at the incorrect moments.

Hills Like White Elephants

As I was reading "Hills Like White Elephants", the first thing that I noticed was the use of dialogue. The entire story is mostly comprised of dialogue between the two characters. I loved the use of dialogue because it made the characters come to life. It felt as though I was there while they were having the conversation.

Hemingway really uses symbolism in setting, dialogue, and even the title of this story. When the characters talk about the hills looking like white elephants, you get the sense that there is something they want to talk about specifically, but neither come out and just say it. The "elephant" is brought up (in the beginning of the story) and as the conversation goes on, the "elephant in the room" seems to be dodged around in their conversation.

Even though the length of Hemingway's story is not very long, you can still feel the conflict and tension between the two characters.

The Hills Have Eyes

The events in "Hills Like White Elephants" rang familiar to my ears. My wife and I are expecting our first child, and although my wife and I never had a conversation like the man and woman did in the story, the anxiety of expecting a child, or even being in a serious relationship, is all too real. Any argument a couple has can be tense, but throw in a baby and things get complicated. Hemingway is successful in creating that anxiety through a unique, dialogue-based story and complex characters.




It’s not often that a short story contains a lot of dialogue, but “Hills” is made up almost entirely of it. This creates not only a more realistic and dynamic story, but one that is more personal. It’s almost as if Hemingway had this conversation himself at some point of his life. The conversation garners sympathy for the couple, but with those readers with more conservative views, it also causes a bit of contempt as well. This juxtaposition of sympathy and contempt, causes some readers, like myself, to feel conflicted and unsure in how we feel about the situation.




It would help if the characters were more sure in their life decisions, but they are just as conflicted as the readers are. The woman wants to prove her love for the man, but also knows that he isn’t too keen on the baby. He doesn’t want her to do anything she doesn't want to do, but he just wants them to be alone together. Whether you believe that their objectives and tactics are ethical or not, it is upsetting to read because no matter what decision is reached someone will get what they want and the other won't be as lucky.




Win/lose situations are abound in this story, which makes it interesting, but ultimately upsetting. It does however make me more aware about how I can sometimes orchestrate situations like that in my real-life relationships and that I need to be more empathetic to those around me, because all negotiations should be win/win if we can help it.

White elephants

When reading the peace "Hills like white elephants" the first thing that I looked at was the dialogue in the piece, this really was the main mode of story telling. I think it was a great choice to tell the story in the format of two people simply having a conversation, I felt that I knew what was happening on the surface because of the heavy amount of small talk but at the same time the tone of the characters gave you the feeling that there was a lot going on under the surface. The way that they spoke to one another was intriguing I wanted to read further to figure out what it was exactly going on between them that they were so reluctant to speak freely about it was an excellent hook for me. I felt like the title worked really well here as well, the phrase hills like white elephants is almost a symbol for the things unsaid between the characters the elephant in the room if you will. I think as well that the way the characters talk to each other is a large part of the story, you  can tell that the man really cares about the woman and wants whats best for her even if it means having to talk about a subject which she obviously does not wish to discuss. At the same time you can tell that she cares for him although she does tell him not to talk about her operation you can tell that she wants to be with him and ultimately does value the things that he has to say to her. Although the story doesn't resolve in the sense that we would like it to, we don't ever find out if she does get the operation, I think that we did get to see two people come closer together and resolve some issues that they perhaps have not talked about with each other for quite sometime and this is in its on sense a conclusion to their story. 

An Elephant Never Forgets

In the short story Hills Like White Elephants, Ernest Hemingway uses intense symbolism within the setting, as well as vague dialogue, in order to engage the reader and clarify the meaning behind the story.

The story takes place at a station in Spain, where a man and a woman are waiting for the next train. They drink as they wait. To one side of the woman sits dry and white hills to which she compares to "white elephants", an innocent enough statement. On the other side lays a green and fertile land, with mountains and a river running through the middle of it. The woman has a choice to make. This setting alludes to the fact that there are two choices before the girl: to go forward into the barren hills to which she compares to the wrinkly skin of "white elephants" or to travel down the fertile and green route. The American man in the story is pressuring the girl into a decision, perhaps an abortion, and the setting is all too fitting, portraying a bleak or a fruitful future for the two depending on the girl's decision. By the end of the story, one might infer that the woman does choose to go along with the abortion (and hop on the train into the white hills) as the couple drinks a few alcoholic drinks -- something one should not do while pregnant.

Hemingway also uses dialogue in a very significant way. Instead of describing the characters directly by using metaphors or other descriptive language, he allows the audience to come to their own conclusions through the characters actions and dialogue. While the couple converses, their words are very vague and not very meaningful in the grand scheme of things. The woman keeps hushing the man, as though she is ashamed to openly discuss the topic. They never directly dwell on the fact that the girl is contemplating to end her pregnancy. It causes the audience to feel as though the "operation" isn't just a trivial matter. It is serious and not openly discussed in public. Unlike the large, white elephant hills, the dialogue's importance is minimized.

Elephant in the Room

In Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" he utilizes setting, conflict, and dialogue to allow us to understand and feel despite the short length of his story. Hemingway creates the setting for us by explaining the scenery of Spain. He explains the bar, the bead that separate the public from the bar tender, the train station outside the bar and of course, the hills like white elephants. The setting allows us to sense that the characters are traveling and in an unknown land. The conflict is what makes the piece intriguing because we understand, through the other elements of story telling, that there is a conflict between the two characters. It is evident by the strained conversation. The conflict is not explicitly expressed but we understand that the American man wants the girl (who we assume is his girlfriend or female partner of some form) to get an operation. There is person to person conflict between the two of them as well as a person to self conflict as the female is debating the consequences of said operation. This is where the dialogue is key. There is little described as far as feelings and thoughts go in Hemingway's piece. The dialogue is the main action for this scene between boyfriend and girlfriend. The fact that he chose dialogue for this specific piece is interesting because the couple never truly resolves their conflict. It alludes to the fact that there is an elephant in the room and neither wants to fully address nor resolve it. Which, in essence, is what happens. Despite the fact that the elephant is brought up, they never resolve it. The girlfriend consents to have the operation (an abortion) but only through word. We understand that she has only consented on basis of making her boyfriend happy. This only exacerbates the "elephant in the room" tie.