It’s hard to imagine Romeo and Juliet without Capulets and Montagues, without a feud, without the devastation of lovers kept apart by circumstances of birth. However, in the innovative, original production arranged and written by Claudia Grigg-Edo and directed by Matilda Wnek, this is exactly the case. We find ourselves in 2014; a world where Shakespeare meets drugs, sex, video games, smart phones, and a desperate group of lost souls. Unlike Baz Luhrmann’s famous adaptation for the screen in 1996, it’s not so much an adaptation of Shakespeare’s, arguably, most famous work, as it is a complete transformation.

In this rendition, Romeo and Juliet meet in the midst of a drug dealing community, where promiscuity and questionable virtues reign, and not only is their world completely altered from that we know, but so is the character of their relationship. For in this interpretation, Romeo is a female character, which is one of the strongest attributes of the production. We are faced with a romantic relationship between two women. Without the quarrel of families to create the forbidden love, the audience is instead faced with the taboo of what to many today is still seen as an entirely different kind of forbidden love: that between two people of the same sex. The figure of Rosaline remains a lingering temptation to distract Romeo throughout, and it is not a duel with Tybalt that leaves Mercutio dead, but a bad batch of drugs, acquired at the fault of Romeo. Romeo’s dubious drug dealing and chain of bad decisions leaves her wanted by many, and separated from her Juliet. It becomes a story of the challenges of love in a world of modern culture. 

Although the costumes, plot, style, and themes of fidelity, virtue and the challenges of modernity all embody the age we live in, the production maintains the original language of Shakespeare, simply rearranged to accommodate the new plot. Posing a brilliant contrast between the elements of the production, it emphasises the universality and modern relevance of Shakespeare’s words, no matter how distorted and reshuffled – that the sabotage and difficulties that love must face are, while ever changing, also ever present.

However, in order to better construct the new plot, modern phrases were dropped in here and there, everything from “What’s that supposed to mean?” to “Oh my God!” and “FUCK!” – a decision which ultimately undermined the attempt to preserve original lines of verse. The inconsistency of the style of language took away from the strength of rearrangement and transformation of the production; it seems misplaced and, quite frankly, like an easy way out. 

Relatedly, the plot recreation did at times also cause confusion amongst the audience. Romeo’s part and importance in drug transactions was left ambiguous, as well as the exact causes of Mercutio’s death. The audience was left craving explanations of certain details, for example the relationship between Juliet and Paris was never concretely established, nor was the relationship between the character they have dubbed the “Buyer” and Romeo. Small tweaks of clarity in certain places would have strengthened the interpretation greatly.

There was a wide variety in the strength of the actors, and this range did at times cause drops in pace and intensity. Nevertheless, there were definite stars among them. Cast as the female Romeo, Rosa Robson’s performance was down right incredible, portraying lust, love, defeat, guilt, and devastation with an elegance and, yes, swagger I have yet to experience anywhere else on the Cambridge theatre scene. With the change of the plot, the focus on the love between Romeo and Juliet took a slight back step to the focus on the flaws and faults of Romeo: her infidelity and her whimsical, impulsive nature, which bring about her tragic fate, were portrayed beautifully. Also worth mention was Marco Young’s strong, fierce and passionate rendering of Benvolio. 

In short, this was a fascinating, intriguing production and a brilliant transformation of the text we all know so well, illuminating themes and stories behind it that one would never have imagined. The execution, however, lacked consistency, coherence and clarity. The plot, however inventive and representative of modern trials of love, was not strong enough. With more development in this area and consistency of verse language, the play would have been an impressive adaptation of Shakespeare like never seen before.