In recent years, the plays of William Shakespeare have been worked and reworked by theatre and movie companies.

In “Shakespeare in Love”, Gwyneth Paltrow played the love interest of the infamous writer and in 1996 Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes starred in a contemporary version of the timeless story of “Romeo and Juliet”.

Few, however, were more interesting than the interpretation offered by the Aquila Theatre Company, which performed for the Bermuda Festival on Wednesday evening.

Theirs is a minimalist and avant-garde “Romeo and Juliet”, with an entire set consisting of four white strips of fabric, which run from the ceiling to the floor and chairs lining the side of the stage. The costumes are similarly minimalist. Black and white are the only two colours used and a skirt indicates a female while a vest and sword identifies a male. The only other costume piece is the cap for the nurse and a robe for the apothecary, otherwise the changes in body language signal a change in character and a change in the scene.

But isn’t that what theatre is supposed to be? The actors in ancient Greece most certainly did not have the special effects and the make-up used now in the theatres and movies. And in Shakespeare’s time, the actors had to convince the audience that Juliet was in fact a female (women were not allowed to act and therefore young men had to play the female roles). And the Aquila Theatre brings the audience back to a time when the words were what mattered and while watching the play you rarely realise that you are missing the impressive sets usually associated with Elizabethan plays.

It is testimony to the actors that without elaborate costumes, an orchestra, or an intricate set they make the play of Romeo and Juliet speak for itself. In fact with the strength of the actors on the stage, the usual trappings of a Shakespeare play would have detracted from the story.

Further testament to the quality of actors is the theatre’s claim that each actor is able to play any character in Romeo and Juliet. As anyone who has taken an English Literature class can attest, memorising even one line of Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter is extremely taxing, yet the actors in the Aquila Theatre know every character in Romeo and Juliet.

Confirming the theatre’s statement, at the opening of the play the six actors have the audience choose the characters they will play, out of a bag. No time for stage fright for these actors, let alone any ego trips, because after choosing the characters the play begins. Not five minutes elapse between choosing their cast for the night, then the audience is watching them.

Perhaps the most impressive part of the play, but also its downfall, was the humour that the actors conveyed. Romeo and Juliet is traditionally described as a love story, but the Aquila Theatre made it a comedy.

Without the costumes, orchestra and set of most productions the play on words provided by Shakespeare and the body language provided by the actors brought out the humour

However, Romeo and Juliet is a love story. And the only time the lack of set did appear is during the most important scene — the balcony. After their first sighting and kiss, Juliet traditionally talks to herself on her balcony while Romeo eavesdrops on her most intimate thoughts before revealing himself. The following dialogue is one of the most intimate moments between Romeo and Juliet as they proclaim their love and one would think they would want to look at each other!

The Aquila Theatre has, instead, positioned Romeo and Juliet so that they are looking out to the audience as they speak the well-known dialogue rather than looking at each other. It is here that the minimalist set truly lets them down. Romeo can not look up at Juliet because there is no balcony on their set and yet it takes too much imagination on the part of the audience to create the scene.

Not only are the audience asked to stretch their imagination, but it also places the audience in the uncomfortable position of being the lover to whom the words are spoken.

What is the audience supposed to do? It is an intimate scene between two lovers and, though the Aquila Theatre succeeds otherwise, the love scene which holds the play together just falls apart.

Perhaps this is why during the most tragic scene of the entire play, when Juliet realises that Romeo has poisoned himself and she thrusts a sword into her chest, some of the audience laughed. One could say it is because young people witness too much violence on TV these days, but it is also because the love between these two is just not convincing; they spoke their most intimate feelings to the audience- not to each other.

What the Aquila Theatre lacks in drama they make up in humour and it was an enjoyable experience I could watch again — even if it has less to do with the acting than with choosing the path of the characters.

Each play has the potential of being completely different from the one before. One wonders if we had chosen someone else to be Romeo — would we have cried rather than laughed at his death?