S01.E02: The Course of True Love Never Did Run Smooth

[slade3]

On 6/8/2017 at 11:39 AM, truthaboutluv said:

My understanding is there was a lot of negative reviews and feedback before it even aired and ABC actually pushed it back from when they originally intended to air it.

Then they pulled back on much of the promotion so the consensus is they're just looking to get it over with. But who knows, maybe some good word of mouth will build enough buzz that might give it life. Because I have been seeing much of the same reactions here on other sites. Basically that many people are surprised at how much they are enjoying it. 

 

On 6/8/2017 at 5:20 PM, peachmangosteen said:

Yea that seems to be what happened, which is sorta weird to me. I don't think the show is that bad. It definitely is more of a summer show though so I think them pushing it back for negative reasons actually ended up helping it.

I agree this is what happened and it sucks. The show isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be thanks to the media the show received before it aired.

I still think dedicating the first 30 minutes of the pilot to Romeo and Juliet was a mistake because early viewers began to associate the actual play too closely with the show, not allowing the show to be its own creation. I've also noticed some people on social media don't realize it's an adaptation.

I like Benvolio and Rosaline together and look forward to seeing where this goes. I really hope it isn't canceled, but the curse of everyone jumping on the "This show is terrible" bandwagon is making me nervous. Right now it seems cooler to hate this than admit it isn't as bad as they said it was.

[slade3]

On 6/8/2017 at 9:12 PM, Last Time Lord said:

I think the pilot suffered from the Ludicrous Speed retelling of Romeo & Juliet, and because of that, the show's characters got shortchanged, and are just now starting to get the necessary development that they should have gotten, previously.

I didn't realize there was a 2nd page to the thread when I posted my comment, otherwise I would have quoted you. Yes! I agree the pilot suffered from the focus on Romeo & Juliet. If they had only received 5 minutes at the beginning, Still Star Crossed would have been viewed and reviewed as its own show, not a Romeo & Juliet retelling, or whatever it's being called.

 

On 6/9/2017 at 10:32 AM, doram said:

Well they kinda said that with the emphasis on how the color-blind casting was 'distracting' or 'gimmicky', 'irritating', or just plain 'weird'. I remember reading a comment on a TVLine article that went: "it took a while to get used to black people talking like these characters, but once I did I enjoyed the show." Translation: "I would LOVE this show if it was acted by a whiter cast." 

One TVLine commenter mentioned she didn't like Escalus, Rosaline or Livia and I thought "Oh, you don't like the Black characters..."

I agree that much of the dislike for this show has to do with the "blind casting". People make me sad.

18 hours ago, ihavenoidea said:

Are they skipping a week for basketball?  If so, bummer.  

I just asked about this in the media thread. According to TVGuide.com, they are re-airing the pilot. I'm curious why.

[jhlipton]

5 hours ago, slade3 said:

I still think dedicating the first 30 minutes of the pilot to Romeo and Juliet was a mistake because early viewers began to associate the actual play too closely with the show, not allowing the show to be its own creation. I've also noticed some people on social media don't realize it's an adaptation.

My wife knows only the bare bones of the play: warring houses, marriage, death, death -- she thought the the amount of R & J was just about right. 

As I mentioned in "In Fair Verona, Where We Lay Our Scene", there was no way they were going to make the people who live and breathe Shakespeare and the people who barely know his first name is William both happy.  Too much for some, too little for the other. I personally think it was a decent balance -- introducing the major players without spending too much time on them.
 

[ihavenoidea]

Quote

I just asked about this in the media thread. According to TVGuide.com, they are re-airing the pilot. I'm curious why.

Because Game 5 of the NBA Finals was scheduled for 9pm Monday on ABC.  If the Warriors had won the last game there would have been no need for a game 5, but they lost so we go another game.  It was stupid to schedule any of the games on a night with a brand new show imo, but they obviously don't care about this show.  Two episodes in and they skip an episode.  Such a shame.

Edited June 12, 2017 by ihavenoidea

[Irlandesa]

39 minutes ago, ihavenoidea said:

 It was stupid to schedule any of the games on a night with a brand new show imo, but they obviously don't care about this show.  Two episodes in and they skip an episode.  Such a shame.

I don't think it's about caring or not caring about the show.  The Bachelorette debuted after the finale of Dancing With The Stars. The next week, Still Star-Crossed debuted after The Bachelorette and I think that was a decent  pairing.  I just think it's an unfortunate timing fluke.

[Kuther2000]

On 6/9/2017 at 7:50 PM, Last Time Lord said:

I won't lie. Seeing Romeo and then Lord Montague did give me a moment of "Huh. "

Got over it pretty damn quickly, though. It wasn't even my first time seeing that, though. In 8th grade, when we went on a school field trip to see Hamlet, Hamlet was played a white actor, and Claudius was played by a black actor. 

I still applaud the show for hiring who they thought was the best for the roles, skin color be damned. 

The actor who played Romeo could pass for mixed if he isn't actually mixed. He plays mixed in the Crackle series, Snatched with a white father. He could easily be the son of Grant Bowler, Lord Montague's actor with a darker skinned wife. It makes me think of Grant in the show Ugly Betty. He had a relationship with Wilhelmina Slater, the character of Vanessa Williams. 

I'm guessing Lord Montague's wife is dead maybe we will get a little flashback of her.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Kuther2000
spelling error

[BaileyMae]

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:50 PM, Last Time Lord said:

I won't lie. Seeing Romeo and then Lord Montague did give me a moment of "Huh. "

Got over it pretty damn quickly, though. It wasn't even my first time seeing that, though. In 8th grade, when we went on a school field trip to see Hamlet, Hamlet was played a white actor, and Claudius was played by a black actor. 

I still applaud the show for hiring who they thought was the best for the roles, skin color be damned. 

Interesting that the first thing that caught your eye was Romeo being Black and Lord Montague being White when we have not seen Romeo's mother. Same with Rosalind and Olivia. I think the easiest visual would be Barak Obama and his White mother. If you can see how that exists then you can see Romeo and his father as not some kind of politically correct garbage but a father and his son.

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, BaileyMae said:

Interesting that the first thing that caught your eye was Romeo being Black and Lord Montague being White when we have not seen Romeo's mother. Same with Rosalind and Olivia. I think the easiest visual would be Barak Obama and his White mother. If you can see how that exists then you can see Romeo and his father as not some kind of politically correct garbage but a father and his son.

On the other hand, Escalus and Isabella look like they should have different mothers at least. 

[legaleagle53]

12 hours ago, Kuther2000 said:

The actor who played Romeo could pass for mixed if he isn't actually mixed. He plays mixed in the Crackle series, Snatched with a white father. He could easily be the son of Grant Bowler, Lord Montague's actor with a darker skinned wife. It makes me think of Grant in the show Ugly Betty. He had a relationship with Wilhelmina Slater, the character of Vanessa Williams. 

I'm guessing Lord Montague's wife is dead maybe we will get a little flashback of her.

Lady Montague shouldn't be dead, just somewhere in the background.  Even in the play, hers was a very small part compared to those of Juliet, the Nurse, and Lady Capulet (in that order).

[Kuther2000]

9 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Lady Montague shouldn't be dead, just somewhere in the background.  Even in the play, hers was a very small part compared to those of Juliet, the Nurse, and Lady Capulet (in that order).

Didn't Lady Montague die in the play after Romeo was exiled?

[Constant Viewer]

1 hour ago, Kuther2000 said:

Didn't Lady Montague die in the play after Romeo was exiled?

I'm pretty sure she does die, which always made me sad for Lord Montague to lose his son and wife. From her few lines in the play she seemed fairly mild (being glad Romeo was not in the fray, urging her husband not to fight at the beginning). Lady Capulet on the other hand always seems a little unbalanced.

[Last Time Lord]

3 hours ago, Kuther2000 said:

Didn't Lady Montague die in the play after Romeo was exiled?

Which I believe was given a one line explanation at the very end. 

The show had Paris un-die. Hopefully they'll do the same for Lady Montague. 

[legaleagle53]

3 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I'm pretty sure she does die, which always made me sad for Lord Montague to lose his son and wife. From her few lines in the play she seemed fairly mild (being glad Romeo was not in the fray, urging her husband not to fight at the beginning). Lady Capulet on the other hand always seems a little unbalanced.

That's because Lady Capulet has a touch of Lady MacBeth in her.

Edited June 14, 2017 by legaleagle53

[BaileyMae]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:11 AM, jhlipton said:

On the other hand, Escalus and Isabella look like they should have different mothers at least. 

And they very well could.

[BaileyMae]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:36 PM, doram said:

I think there's a difference between seeing something unexpected on US TV where the showrunners take pains to literally paint characters into color-coded boxes unless they are making a Point (and botch it up accordingly because tokenism) and not being aware that mixed families exist. For example, I won't find this type of casting remarkable on UK TV because that isn't unusual there. But if I saw this in a non-Shondaland show on US TV it would catch my attention. 

Mixed families should be *expected any where in the world unless someone has been living under a rock. And it speaks volumes that it took her to move out of the "dark light ages" There was a time in American TV history that only Whites were represented, period. Unless there was a stereotypical role for a POC, and even then some would be played by a white playing in "black face". It took TV and movie execs a long time to represent minorities with in the same way they did Whites (kinda). For those who are shocked... it's time to wake up, For the rest of us , the thought is "its about time."

Edited June 15, 2017 by BaileyMae
corrected grammatic error

[jhlipton]

3 hours ago, BaileyMae said:

Mixed families should be unexpected any where in the world unless someone has been living under a rock. And it speaks volumes that it took her to move out of the "dark light ages"

1 hour ago, doram said:

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. From the tone of your post, I think you meant 'expected' right, not unexpected? And who is 'her'?

I think BaileyMae meant "expected" and "her" refers to Shonda.

[Kirsty]

Quote

Escalus was better this week, but the actor is the worst of the bunch and he doesn't have enough charisma to make up for it.

Right? He's the weakest actor. Juliet's mother is second worst, unfortunately, but she has an awesome villainous step-mother role. Escalus is just terrible all round. That shit he pulled with Rosalind where he's like "Yes, I'm trading you to some rando. Yes, I'm basically pimping you out. But can't we forget about that and sit here together because it makes me feel good?" I hope Rosalind has learned her lesson about Prince Shit-Weasel after this episode.

I'm surprised the show isn't trying to make me like him? I thought the show would want a decent love triangle with Rosalind torn between him and Benvolio.
 

Quote

 

Who chopped up Romeo's body? Someone trying to inflame the war between the Capulets and Montagues, but who.

I'm calling it now. It was Isabella.

 

You're a genius. That makes perfect sense but I didn't see it.

Murder in a cathedral is so gothic!

[Joimiaroxeu]

I've read my share of Shakespeare's plays and seen enough productions of them to appreciate the language. However, in this case I wish they'd written the dialogue in regular modern English instead the mishmosh of old and contemporary English they're using. Between the trying to understand what the characters are saying, trying to parse the family relationships, getting confused by Spanish architecture supposedly representing Italian, and wondering about the occasionally anachronistic costumes, I'm finding this show a bit of a challenge. It's reminding me of the recent failed series, Emerald City, and not in a good way. Trying to hang in to support Shondaland but it's tough.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Is this really a thing for most of the audience?

Probably not but it is for me and I was speaking only of my experience with the show.

Quote

Pretty much the same way I'm sure the original audience for Shakespeare's plays wondered why Romans wore doublets or Julius Caesar was talking about mechanical clocks before they were invented... 

Again, just speaking to my own experience, not for Shakespeare's original audiences.

Quote

It's turning into something like a Rorschach test, too. 

Note that I didn't mention the color-blind casting being a problem for me. Because it isn't. The family relationship confusion is similar to what I experienced when I first started watching Game of Thrones--not having read the books. I think a drama this big, playing on broadcast TV, and accounting for people who haven't read the source material, might find ways in the dialogue to make the relationships more obvious. By the second episode I was still wondering who some of the characters were. IMO it could be made a lot easier if they wanted to help ensure the show's success.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Not approaching Stark level or Baratheon level of complexity.

And yet it does, IMO, approach a level of vagueness seemingly based on the assumption that viewers are familiar enough with the play to hear characters' names and immediately start constructing the family trees. I'm thinking I shouldn't need Cliff Notes to watch a TV show.

At this point I'm mainly still watching for Grant Bowler (Lord Montague), who I thought had one of the best entry lines in the history of TV when his character Cooter arrived on True Blood.

[Enero]

51 minutes ago, doram said:

 

GoT does have an impressive cast, all spread across different locations. The Stark family alone had 7 members in the Pilot and there were at least 5 major families in season 1 & 3 "main" locations (North, Landing & Essos). 

SCC, on the other hand, has Team Capulet ("Giles", his mad wife, the "heroine" and her sister), Team Montague (Benvolio and his slimy Uncle) and the Royal siblings of 2. Not approaching Stark level or Baratheon level of complexity.

 

Agreed. Though it took me a few minutes to figure out who was related to whom, I thought SSC was pretty straight forward with this. By the end of the first episode I was pretty much clear on who was related and who wasn't. 

How many times did Giles refer to Rosalind and Livia as his nieces? Several. Romeo greeted Lord Montague with "father" and Lord Montague greeted Benvolio as "nephew" in their first scene. 

The only ones I was a little confused about was Escalus and his sister. At first I thought they were husband and wife until later in the episode. 

 Sadly, I think it was difficult for some to make the connection between the characters due to the diversity presented. I know I have a couple of friends who were completely confused by who was related and the source of that confusion was the families not looking the way they expected them to look. One even admitted that Giles having black nieces and Romeo having a white father was "distracting." Hence they did not fully grasp the dialogue which provided a clearer picture of the relationships between the characters. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Enero

[ursula]

10 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

And yet it does, IMO, approach a level of vagueness seemingly based on the assumption that viewers are familiar enough with the play to hear characters' names and immediately start constructing the family trees. I'm thinking I shouldn't need Cliff Notes to watch a TV show.

 

I know it's already been pointed out that the show spent half of the Pilot re-acting the Romeo and Juliet play and a lot of people complained that this was a waste of time because Romeo and Juliet is "common knowledge" but I think it bears repeating. There's no indication that the writers assumed any degree of familiarity with the play from viewers. If anything, as @doram pointed out, they simplified parts of the play to make it easier to follow.

 

10 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

At this point I'm mainly still watching for Grant Bowler (Lord Montague), who I thought had one of the best entry lines in the history of TV when his character Cooter arrived on True Blood.

Oddly enough, of all the cast, distinguishing between the two elderly white men both playing the heads of the rival houses should prove the greatest challenge, yet somehow it doesn't. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by ursula

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Oddly enough, of all the cast, distinguishing between the two elderly white men both playing the heads of the rival houses should prove the greatest challenge, yet somehow it doesn't.

I only recognized the actor because I was familiar with his work from other shows. He is the only actor on this show that by chance I happened to be able to identify by name. I had to go to IMDb to make sure I had his character's name right. His race had nothing to do with it.

Not sure I understand the determination to make criticism of this show about race or to impugn negative reactions as latent racism. As mentioned upthread, diverse casting is a standard for Shondaland productions and I've been a fan of a couple of other shows in their offerings. AFAIC, SSC is stands apart for other reasons. It's still early in the season but right now I think it might've worked better as a limited mini-series with a tighter focus.

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, doram said:

I re-watched this episode and something struck me - was Benvolio pretending to know about masonry when he was bonding with the architect? I just assumed it was part of the ruse to get information. 

 

I don't know anything about Shakespeare or the book this show is based on, but I think I read on tumblr that Benvolio is a sculptor so I guess he would kinda know about masonry. But I don't know if they're keeping that fact in the show. Or all of this might be me misremembering what I read lol.

[rozen]

When Benvolio looked askance at Rosaline and said, "Are you plotting, Capulet?" the actors had 1000x chemistry than Rosaline and Escalus have had in any of their scenes. They should def be end-game.

[jhlipton]

5 hours ago, doram said:

What I don't know is if it was true, or just something like intercepting the "child thief" that he pretended to be as part of the con. 

Possibly part of the con, but I want it to be true.

[rur]

On 6/8/2017 at 0:41 PM, xtwheeler said:

If I'm not mistaken, in the play the Friar reveals their marriage while summarizing the entire plot. Since he has a different motivation here (being paid off) I think it is safe to assume this detail is up in the air.

You're not mistaken. 

Although I've enjoyed the other ways the writers have explained or embellished the story, this area of the plot has been bothering me. In the play the Friar reveals their marriage and their plans to be together after Juliet's "death".  Romeo wrote a suicide note (read by the prince) that confirms everything the Friar said. Everybody in town should know exactly what happened. That was kind of the point of the whole story. That's why the feud ended and the statue of Juliet was created.  But it's easy to believe that the enmity didn't end there and that the feud continued. 

I can understand Mrs. Capulet being obsessed by her daughter's death, but the contrivance of her not knowing anything about how and why it happened isn't sitting well with me. There are many reasons that the writers could have come up with for her wanting to take revenge on somebody/anybody without (IMO) going against the canon. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by rur

[Enero]

46 minutes ago, doram said:

This way ups the drama between Rosaline and Lady C who'll no doubt accuse Rosaline of either taking Juliet into suicide or administering the poison herself.

Doesn't she already suspect Rosalind of being responsible, at the very least of talking Juliet into taking the poison?

I believe in the last episode she was tearing Rosalind's room apart looking for evidence that she was in fact involved with the poisoning. 

[rur]

28 minutes ago, doram said:

Yes exactly. That was the point I was trying to make to @rur that the changes to the play/book were done to create and increase Lady C's antagonism to Rosaline. Because in the original, Rosaline wasn't as involved with Juliet's engagement and fake-suicide as she is on the show. In both the play and novel, that role was filled by Juliet's nurse. By making Rosaline complicit and keeping the truth about Romeo and Juliet's wedding a secret, they're building up to a situation where the truth will come out in a way that sheds a horrible light on Rosaline, and possibly even Benvolio.

I was aware of the motivations of the writers. Nonetheless, I stand by my original statement: that I think there were ways to complicate the story (in ways appropriate for a television series instead of a 2-3 hour play) without deviating 180 degrees from the original. I understand that YMMV. 

[Black Knight]

6 hours ago, rur said:

I was aware of the motivations of the writers. Nonetheless, I stand by my original statement: that I think there were ways to complicate the story (in ways appropriate for a television series instead of a 2-3 hour play) without deviating 180 degrees from the original. I understand that YMMV. 

There's by necessity a significant 180 degree deviation in that the two families are still warring. And they need to be warring, or there's really no sequel to be had from the play. In the play, it's the revelation of Romeo and Juliet's marriage that causes the families to declare peace, so I think that's really the motivation of the writers here (not the other motivations speculated upthread about Lady C etc.); since the marriage wasn't made known, there's been no peace agreement. YMMV, as you said, but to me this is one deviation that absolutely had to be done. "Harlot" doesn't get written on Juliet's statue by some irate Montague if the truth were known, because she was Romeo's lady wife and as such it would have been an insult to him as well.

It certainly has ramifications for Lady C, Rosaline, and Benvolio that will doubtless play out, but I don't think that was the impetus behind the decision at all.

[ursula]

I think Benvolio was being sincere when he was talking about being a sculptor. I think the idea is that he would have been more comfortable as a working class citizen than part of the nobility. I see the theme of labour, and dignity of labour, being something to unite him and Rosaline together. 

[slade3]

On 6/11/2017 at 8:38 PM, jhlipton said:

My wife knows only the bare bones of the play: warring houses, marriage, death, death -- she thought the the amount of R & J was just about right. 

As I mentioned in "In Fair Verona, Where We Lay Our Scene", there was no way they were going to make the people who live and breathe Shakespeare and the people who barely know his first name is William both happy.  Too much for some, too little for the other. I personally think it was a decent balance -- introducing the major players without spending too much time on them.
 

Interesting. I read Romeo & Juliet in 9th grade, little over 30 years ago, and my husband read it in 11th grade. We both felt there was too much of their story. I agree the nature of the story makes it difficult to please Shakespeare scholars and Shakespeare novices, but I still personally think the media would have been less harsh on the show if there had been less focus on Romeo & Juliet before they died.

[slade3]

4 minutes ago, doram said:

Well, the media made a lot of unfair assumptions about this show, arguably long before it was aired.

Unfortunately, the media did the same to a movie called Belle a few years ago. It was a terrific movie, but The Guardian wrote a piece about it - before the writer had even seen the film - that, if I remember correctly, indicated the slave storyline was factually incorrect. I know a few people who decided not to see the movie because of that article until I told them the article mischaracterized the movie. I had wondered if this was happening to Still Star Crossed before it aired. So I should clarify that certain critics were going to hate this show no matter what once Romeo & Juliet were introduced because some people feel you just shouldn't toy with classics. The fact that the iconic couple is interracial here probably didn't help matters. In any case, for whatever reason, I feel the show got a raw deal. It has its flaws, but it isn't as horrible as some have made it out be. I've seen many comments about how much fun people are having with it.

[slade3]

4 minutes ago, doram said:

But Shakespeare in Love, which was basically a parody, won 7 Oscars. 

The marketing behind it was amazing. So amazing, it beat out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. At the time, I thought that was shocking. (I'd have to watch both again to see if I still feel that way.)

And though I really like Still Star Crossed a lot, I don't think it can be compared to Shakespeare in Love. People were in love with that movie before it was released because of the cast and Miramax. Whenever ShondaLand comes out with a new show, the critics are on it. Critics went after Shonda/How to Get Away With Murder without even realizing it wasn't Shonda's show. One journalist even said it was another Angry Black Woman show and she had to point out that it was actually a White man's show being produced by her company.  (Still Star Crossed is Heather Mitchell's show - long time producer on Scandal.)

17 minutes ago, doram said:

Gosh, that is horrifying. That is a beautiful movie, romanticized history yes, but the spirit of it was beautiful. 

I remember reading the article after seeing the movie and feeling so frustrated that I couldn't reverse the damage I was sure it did. I also listened to a podcast by two British film critics (Kermode and Mayo) who did address the issue. I think they had criticized Belle before seeing it for that reason, and then saw it and returned to interview the director and Tom Wilkinson.

Sorry for the Off-Topic conversation.

[jhlipton]

11 hours ago, slade3 said:

I still personally think the media would have been less harsh on the show if there had been less focus on Romeo & Juliet before they died.

Many in the media feel they have too be "snootier than thou".  Both Wheden's and Branagh's versions of As You Like It got good reviews for sticking to the play; even Shakespeare in Love got a few "not really Shakespeare" reviews as I recall.

11 hours ago, doram said:

But Shakespeare in Love, which was basically a parody, won 7 Oscars. 

☕☕☕

Indeed.

[Driad]

The "don't mess with Shakespeare" people should remember that Shax got his plots from older plays and stories, and he certainly did not quote them word for word.

[jhlipton]

14 minutes ago, Driad said:

The "don't mess with Shakespeare" people should remember that Shax got his plots from older plays and stories, and he certainly did not quote them word for word.

Shhhhhh.

[Driad]

Quote

Shhhhhh.

OK.  Then I won't mention Isaac Asimov's story The Immortal Bard.

[legaleagle53]

26 minutes ago, Driad said:

The "don't mess with Shakespeare" people should remember that Shax got his plots from older plays and stories, and he certainly did not quote them word for word.

Not to mention the way he bastardized real history for his "histories."  If he were writing in 2017, the media and the viewers would tear him apart for his constant mischaracterization of actual historical figures.

[jhlipton]

13 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Not to mention the way he bastardized real history for his "histories."  If he were writing in 2017, the media and the viewers would tear him apart for his constant mischaracterization of actual historical figures.

You mean Richard III wasn't a hideous monster who killed two young boys, and drowned his brother in a vat of cheap Madeira???  GASP!!!!!

[ursula]

On 6/21/2017 at 0:15 PM, jhlipton said:

You mean Richard III wasn't a hideous monster who killed two young boys, and drowned his brother in a vat of cheap Madeira???  GASP!!!!!

Oh boy. A friend of mine and I nearly came to blows over this. Sadly, that's the version of Richard III that most people take as historical fact. Which goes to show that stories are never just stories. 

[jhlipton]

Replied in By Any Other Name: More Shakespeare Retellings