The dancers were wonderful and the choreography stunning, as were the visuals. But was it Romeo and Juliet? Or just putting name to some passionate choreography? Had I not read the name on the program - it could have been anything. R&J is supposed to be based on a Shakespeare play. There was NO essence of Shakespeare anywhere in this production. A shame to steal the name yet not honor the bard. Also, the groundwork laid by the former artistic directors of PNB contributed greatly to where the company is today. It's doing all of those who worked hard for 27 years building a world class ballet a huge disservice to think that it started with the new regime.

#1, you obviously don't know the Shakespeare play all that well, because this R&J ballet does an amazing job of taking his words and transposing them into choreography. From Romeo's original infatuation with Rosaline, to the interplay between Juliet and her nurse, and onward, I felt it was a beautiful and faithful interpretation of the story, while still taking some artistic liberties to make it a unique creation.

Actually, I thought there was a lot of Shakespeare in it...starting with all the hands/palms references. Some of the characters are spot-on Shakespeare. The nurse is fussy and silly and bawdy. Mercutio is his own “saucy merchant” self, “full of ropery.” The “fiery” Tybalt is the “King of Cats.”

What if you thought of Boal as building on what the wonderful former artistic directors created, rather than destroying it? (If you look, you'll see that pre-Boal there were some hot contemporary works at PNB too: In the middle...Within/Without...Scripted in the Body...Artifact II...Jardi Tancat...)