As promised, here is the email I sent to the library and the response I got in return:
Original Question
Oct 11 2025, 05:36PM via Email
First Folio 65 Question
Hello,
My friend and I visited the Folger Shakespeare Library last week and I have been wondering about First Folio 65 ever since and I could not find additional information on the website.
The lights indicated it was one of the bargain ones but I was very curious about why it was so thick compared to the others. If they're all a first printing, shouldn't they all be roughly the same size? Did the owner add pictures or something else to it? There was another folio that was also quite thick but I don't remember the number and I'd have the same question about that one.
Are the contents are digitized somewhere? I'd love to see it.
I was also wondering about the binding. It looks very modern. Do we know anything about why it was bound like that or is that something that was done after it came to the library?
Thank you,
Mariam
The response (links included):
Oct 15 2025, 12:25PM
Dear Mariam,
Thank you for writing, and for visiting our exhibitions! These are great questions. Folio 65 is actually an assemblage of unbound leaves from multiple copies, interleaved with facsimile pages, so what you see on display is actually a clamshell box that looks like a modern binding. Within that box are thinner folders that contain loose sheets.
The smaller folders and the clamshell box definitely add bulk, making it look much thicker than the others. Our conservation team supplied these folders and box after this copy came to the library as part of its conservation treatment.
Aren't librarians wonderful? I had been hoping I was going to find out that it was full of beautiful illustrations or something like that. But this is pretty cool too. What kept catching my eye was that the part of the box we could see which I assumed was actually binding looked untouched as if the book had never been cracked open. A spine that thick would show some sign of having been opened, I would assume. But now, I understand. It's a boxful of loose papers.
There was a little game in front of the display that allowed you to pick a folio and learn some details about it and then get to select which one you'd buy if you could. (Or something like that.) Folio 65 was not in the game but I kept picking the cheaper ones as more interesting and then the poll stats would show that everyone else wanted the more expensive stuff.
I guess I don't have expensive taste, because the one I went down a rabbit hole for is a just a handful of papers, ha! But it's fun.
The audiobook was good. I got the gist of the story although all the intrigue around the handkerchief had me very confused, for good reason. You're telling me, Othello didn't even really hear what Cassio said about the handkerchief? Lord save me from jumping, no, leaping, actually vaulting to assumptions, ya Rab, ya Allaaaaaah. Yeah ok, I'm dramatic, but am I as dramatic as a man who who had a dream his wife was cheating?
Anyway, the reader for Othello in the audiobook had these really impressive groans that had me actually laughing out loud in the lab. I think I wasn't supposed to laugh.
The Great Courses talked a bit about why Iago did what he did. Theories range from homoerotic jealous rage to unhinged to evil. Another was on why Othello did what he did. Theories ranged from Shakespeare was a racist to Othello was just stupid to Iago trapped him good. The lecturer ascribed to the last one.
I don't know...while we're on the topic of assumptions, I think people are reading wayyyy too much into it. I heard all the explanations along with the evidence and thought, "yeah, no I don't think it's that complicated."
On to the movie. First of all, I enjoyed that the font was Arabic calligraphy reminiscent. That dot in the middle of the O, especially.
So my thoughts on Othello: I was hoping to really sink my teeth into the identity and history of this guy. I wanted to find the clues to what his background and experience was, why a likely Moroccan that was likely Muslim ended up fighting for the Venetians against the Ottoman Empire as an apparently Christian convert.
One of my favorite random Islamic facts is that Jack Sparrow of the Pirates of Caribbean fame was actually based off a real pirate that turned Muslim because the English (King James I actually, for whom Shakespeare was writing) wouldn't pardon him for attacking Venetian ships. Jack Sparrow and his crew went off to Tunis and turned Yusuf Reis and the Muslim pirate bros where the Ottomans let him plunder the English, the Spanish, really whoever he wanted, as a sort of defense system and a cut of the loot.
This all happened in 1606 and onwards and Othello was written in 1603 so I was SURE it was going to be the inverse story or at least something interesting because this was happening back then.
Actually there's not much. I even read the Asimov for this one just to see if he had something more to say and Asimov argued quite convincingly that Shakespeare just needed someone with exotic sexual appeal and hot temper that could be easily explained by genetics. Ok yeah, Edward Said's Orientalism talks about how this was the stereotype for Muslim men before it took shape into the current one.
So just, hunky, violent man of color, check.
In the movie, he's all head bowed, eyes lowered, but with a little smirky cockiness that indicates he knows they need him for their wars.
By the way, he's played by a black actor and Asimov seems to think him being referred to as "thick lips" confirms that he's black. I'm pointing this out because I think Asimov is putting some American racial history on the story. I think I will be maybe guilty of the same in a little. But as I understand it, in that time in England, Shakespeare would not differentiate between races of people who were not white.
Iago. Here's where I may be reading my perspective into the story, whether as a Muslim or as an American. I think, very simply racist. He gives a lot of reasons for why he's doing what he's doing but ultimately, the thing he repeats again and again is, he hates the Moor.
He's weirdly obsessed with the idea of this non-white man sleeping with a white woman. There was a LOT of sex in this book. I don't get any indication that he's interested in Desdemona or Othello for himself. First of all, I don't get the sense he actually really cares about people, not even owning them. But also, he's particularly just incensed that these specific two are getting it on.
"Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe."
To me it smacks of Jim Crow South. White men were not lynching black men because they were interested in a specific white woman--it was any white woman.
I really think in the end, Iago's problem with Othello was not just that he promoted someone over him, but that a black man got to lower him in position, that a black man got to be general, but then, worst of all, he got a white woman, MAYBE multiple white women, and MAYBE if he squinted the right way, MAYBE even HIS white woman. (For those who don't know, Iago claims there are rumors that Othello has slept with his wife and he acknowledges he has no idea if it's true but that he's just going to act like it is.)
Also like the Great Courses says, his villainy actually doesn't make a lot of sense and I really think because racism doesn't make sense, it expresses in ways that don't make sense. There is then the question of why his racism is so different from the general racism of his time, and I just think there are shades of racism. There are people who are uncomfortable if a black person gets close and then there's the KKK.
I mean I'm fine with believing he's a creepy, psychotic weirdo, who yes, is sniffing the aforementioned handkerchief while staring into the camera.
I think this play took me to the conclusion I was getting to in Much Ado About Nothing where I was appalled that Don Pedro and Claudio could make accusations, no matter how well-intentioned and get away with it. I don't care that Don Jon was the villain there or that Iago was the villain in this play. Don Pedro, Claudio and here, Othello did not do their due diligence.
I gave all of that Islamic law around infidelity in the Much Ado post, but here I think we can broaden the demand for evidence for infidelity to demanding evidence for everything. Society, whether through law, culture, religion or some other standard protocol, must have a way to establish truth. Humans must be able to have a way to discern reality. It is what prevents a man from smothering his wife in bed at the distant glimpse of a handkerchief, what prevents a mother from letting her child go to a measles party instead of get a vaccine at the behest of a TikTok.
Without a standard protocol for truth verification, very, very quickly society begins to crumple, from the level of a marriage all the way to the national institutes. Othello was a GENERAL. Don Pedro was a PRINCE. They are lucky that a marriage and a couple of lives are all that was sacrificed. What if the Turks had found out that Othello doesn't fact check when it comes to his wife? Othello was not compromised, the whole country was.
We of the fake news era, take heed.
Other notes: I liked the interpretation in the movie that Cassio snuck Othello the dagger to prevent him from being arrested. Othello said he loved Cassio and I think Cassio loved Othello and I'm always a sucker for good friendships.
Asimov has this interpretation of Othello's last words that I thought was interesting. Othello starts the passage by saying he hopes they'll tell his story fairly but then starts to ramble about his past, seemingly to distract from the fact that he's about to kill himself:
And say besides that in Aleppo once,
Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk
Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,
I took by th’ throat the circumcised dog
And smote him thus. (stabs himself)
Asimov wonders if he's telling his own story where he, the once Muslim (Turk) beat Desdemona (Venetian) and defamed the Venetian state as a result. And so he himself took the circumcised dog (Muslim men are circumcised at birth so Othello would be circumcised) and stabbed him. Asimov speculates this because it's unlikely that Othello could have successfully done this in real life inside the Ottoman Empire.
Not sure, plausible, interesting, could be true, could be not.
Last note: Othello's seizures were so random, what the heck Shakespeare..literally no explanation.
I did not feel as miserable as Missy because I had been this angry in Much Ado. I did not laugh there because it turned out well in the end and the inevitability of Othello had me angry from the beginning.
I am giving the Fishburne a very unfair 3 stars because I could barely get through it.
Othello is one of the 4 great tragedies and, as the Teaching Company professor rightly pointed out, it is the only domestic tragedy.
It was well done, well cast, beautifully shot and costumed and so painful I had to watch it in small chunks while doing something with my hands.
Ugh
Iago is easy for me and I know he’s very not easy for lots of people. He is a cruel manipulative man who ruins the happiness of others. I like the theory of him as a holdover from an older medieval morality play type.
Branagh is great here. He is creepy and sociopathic and believable.
Desdémona is easy for me. She is a good and honest person who believes that everyone else must also be good and honest.
Othello is easy for me because he gets so in his own head that rational decision making is beyond him. I enjoyed seeing pre Matrix, young sexy Fishburne with interesting tattoos.
Rodrigo and Cassio are uninterested 2D stock parts. Ditto the Bianca subplot
Emelia is for me the most approachable and reliable character here. Shout out Anna Patrick. She sounded modern in both delivery and perspective.
My problem is not with the movie.
My problem is with the play. I will have this problem when we get to Titus as well.
I don’t want to watch people suffer like this.
The Nation State plays, Lear or Richard III, feel removed enough from me. Romeo and Juliet feels like a fairy tale to me. Othello feels like a claustrophobic, slow crushing under a heavy wheel. It feels like drowning.
I deeply value the Greek ideal of plays as cathartic. No part of me needs to express or experience domestic violence. It hurts me to be in that headspace.
I am so glad we are done with this one.
Othello - 3 stars for production and discomfort
Mom score 0 stars - no moms except in Othello memory of his dead mother as related to his handkerchief and Desdemonas mom also dead.
The main Shakespearean encounter for me this week was going to the Folger with Mariam
That’s saying a lot in a week when Taylor Swift came out with an Ophelia release.
I’m not a particular Swifty and though I appreciate her professionalism and the Shakespeare references, it turns out that her Ophelia video was only tertiary this week.
We went to our historical dance class on Thursday but worked on previous dances and I did sing again but of course, the songs will be the same until our concert.
The museum trip though, that was new and wonderful.
First things first, look at how wonderful and scholarly Mariam looks here. This is one of my favorite pictures I have taken all year.
The folios were our draw here. I read the Bryson and his chapter on the Folger Shakespeare Library reminded me that I had never been to this fantastic and nearby resource.
We saw so many first and second Folios!
Shakespeare did not write books, he did not publish books, and even though it was done in his day he didn’t even publish his poems.
Lots of his works were published contemporaneously but all of them were bootleg.
He was a playwright and he wrote scripts.
If, back in the day, you wanted to have your own version of a play (and you were rich) you got somebody who wrote quickly and had a good memory to go the the play and write it down for you. These writings were typically pretty error prone and sketchy.
They are know as quartos. “Quartos” because the cheapest way to get them printed up was folded into quarters, sort of like greeting cards all stacked together.
The things that we use as references are the Folios. A folio is folded in half and is pretty much how we do books now.
The first folio is the term for one of the most influential and important books in the English language.
After Shakespeare died some of his colleagues got together to publish a good version of his works. They were not random scribes, they were fellow actors and friends. They had been in the plays and read the scripts and they were sometimes using the foul papers (annotated drafts of the scripts) when they could for this project.
Sadly not all of his plays made it in but they gave us Shakespeare.
The Folger has 82 of the First Folios!
They also had a great replica to mess with. It was fabulous feeling the thickness of the pages and squinting down ant the ancient type. I flipped from play to play happy with nostalgia and anticipation for plays completed and plays to come.
It’s not a huge exhibition but I loved what I saw.
The walls were lined with illustrations from playbills, books, movies, and amateur projects. We saw kids projects from during Covid lockdown and a polished black reflector from a contemporary fine artist.
We both got to try some simplified block printing with a tray full of Shakespearean words.
Everywhere I turned something beautiful or whimsical caught my eye.
There are also many non Shakespearean books here.
This book gave me a giggle for the whole rest of the week. It’s called A Colorful Critique of Corruption. It was, as a coworker put it, proof of the longevity of PowerPoint.
It was meant to be a job application, and it worked. The author got the job.
I felt the curators sense of humor here.
I love that across the page showing rich gentleman entering the market place the solution to their encounters with corruption was simply “Stocks”.
Hahaha
The upstairs of the museum had a theater that we didn’t get to see because a play was going on and a research library that we didn’t get to see because it’s only open to us random folk on the weekends but we did get to see the great hall.
This was a long room with good snacks and drinks and big comfy chairs, done up in the Elizabethan style. It’s very pretty.
I was imagining moving the furniture aside and doing our dance in there.
I want to go back and see those things we missed.
I’ve let my family know that I would like to go back for my birthday this year and do their fancy tea and poke around the theater and the library.
On Wednesday, Missy and I went to the Folger Shakespeare Library. This library was made by a couple named the Folgers who over their lifetime collected 82 of the first printing of Shakespeare's collection. It is on Capitol Hill in DC, right next to the Library of Congress. Admission is free with optional donations and reserving a ticket ahead of time possibly didn't save us a ton of time because there was no line on a Wednesday morning.
But first, breakfast. Easily the best bagels in this part of Maryland and I had a jalapeno bagel with olive and pimento cream cheese and an Irish cream latte because I like my breakfasts to be preferably a lunch.
DC was predictably empty and surprisingly with a lot of road closures. It was a beautiful fall day and that drive is lovely on most days if you ignore the atrocious traffic patterns.
There was a statue of a word that Missy kept saying that didn't make sense in the context she was saying it so I couldn't understand it. It turns out that the word is "Bottom". Possibly I shall have more to say on that topic once we've done A Midsummer Night's Dream.
The walls are covered in prints from the library's collection and then there are a few different manuscripts, images, figurines, etc under glass. The coolest things were prop daggers from Hamlet stageplays and a manuscript from one of the Kenneth Branagh plays.
(Most of my images are from online because I, an aging millennial, no longer remember to take my own.)
The best part, of course, were the First Folios. These are the first printing of the complete collection of Shakespeare's plays in 1623. Some 200 copies were made in the first printing. The reason all of them look different is because people back then bought the loose leaf manuscript and then got it bound themselves.
The First Folio display was the most fascinating but there was not a way to get a lot of information. There was a lights display, that would light up the folios by groups and a caption would tell you that these were the most expensive, or owned by women, or the bargain ones.
It took two years to print because they set the type for each page by hand, something we were then allowed to try out ourselves. I got some words upside down and it did help me understand what an undertaking printing anything at that time was.
My friends know I get obsessed with weirdly small details in large pictures and I currently have made a huge mystery out Folio 65, about three times the size of the others. I keep wondering, what's in it??? I have emailed the reference department of the library to ask. If they respond, I shall update you all.
When we walked out of the hall, my chest actually felt full and almost painful, the way you feel after you've something wonderful and meaningful and fulfilling.
There was a hall with paintings from various scenes. The largest one was of the Romeo and Juliet death scene and I was vastly confused by the number of people in that painting. Missy said, "That's Paris," and I said, "who's Paris?" I barely remembered that guy existed even when I was watching/reading it.
I never hear the whole of any of the Shakespeare's plays and think oh yeah, I understood everything. But I was pleasantly surprised to realize that I could recognize any reference to any play I'd seen already. I'm not sure what about this very generic scene was instantly recognizable to me as King Lear but it was.
Two old ladies were sitting in front of the Romeo and Juliet painting and talking about how people are still the same as Shakespeare described them, how one of them had gone through the same thing but she'd been 18 and Juliet 13. 👀
We went the Great Hall and got some cider and iced tea and scones and tarts. People were quiet and respectful. Everyone was reading or writing.
We saw some of the gardens coming in and saw them again coming out. They were aromatic and when you walked out, you got a great gust of rosemary and other lovely things.
The reading room was closed to visitors. Only researchers can visit on weekdays. We peeked in from the windows and this is what it looks like according to the internet.
We called it a day and went home early, walking back just before the rain started.
This one has made me think like none of the others. I have more to say about the themes than I do about the story itself.
But first, the Folger audiobook was ok. I understood the parts I already knew, picked up a few things I didn't know, but after watching the movie, realized I'd still missed a lot. 3 stars for it.
The Great Courses had two main points. What is a tragedy? Actually, I'm still not sure. He was making the point that some of the histories could be tragedies but I never picked up his final conclusion. He also talked about the continual undercurrent of and sometimes overt violence of this play, which was a different way for me to look at it, because I hadn't thought of that before.
If you'd asked me before I watched the movie, I would have said this play was a romance, but I don't feel that is primarily what it is after having watched it.
I think what this story is about the terribleness of these children's worlds and their realization of that. You have a sense that their edges of consciousness is aware of the ugly. Kids don't run around with guns, have their moms getting slapped around, and watch their family members having shootouts regularly without having some sense of how messed up their world is. But it's their world and they learn to survive and then one day they find each other and it's maybe the most good thing in their lives. And they suspect no one will let them have this good thing. So they hide it until one day, the ugliness of the world isn't subtext anymore. And it feels like the ONLY good thing is each other. And once the only good thing in the world is gone, well anyone would quail at the thought of living in a world with no good.
"Here will I set up my everlasting rest, and shake the yoke of inauspicious stars from this world-wearied flesh."
Romeo is not just devastated that Juliet is dead. He's tired of this world. It's not just that Juliet is dead. It's that his friend is dead, he killed a man, he's been banished, the parents are irrational and poor adults. And Juliet is dead.
It is youth to feel that the present is eternal. And the reality is, it can be a long, long time.
Growing up in an often first generation immigrant community where star crossed lovers are still a thing, I saw this story first hand many, many times. And I think after I watched this movie, I finally understand why the stakes were so high for these young people that used to fight tooth and nail for one person. It wasn't that their worlds were as ugly as Romeo and Juliet's was. But it was the breaking down of youthful idealism and optimism that even the most cynical child holds and the fight to not let that go. These kind of stories always left devastation in their wake and I finally understand why.
This one was personal for me.
Small note: this is the second friar back to back in a Shakespeare play who came up with an amazingly ill-advised, roundabout scheme in order to unite lovers and if this happens again Missy and I are going to have to talk about what the heck friars were getting up to in Elizabethan times. MY experience is that clergy won't touch these situations with a ten foot pole.
As for the movie itself, phenomenal just for making me think. The nineties setting was nostalgic. There's a rug in Juliet's room that I think my childhood friend had growing up. Her parents probably still have it somewhere in their house.
All the angel and religious imagery was beautiful and also really atmospheric.
The modern setting was so seamlessly fitted into the play itself, that I actually watched this movie with the text next to me. I would be so amazed at how well it worked with the modern setting that I would have to check if it had been in the original. And yes, they followed the original pretty faithfully.
Of course, well done Shakespeare. But also well done, Baz Luhrmann.
By the way, Bollywood loves Romeo and Juliet because it's so easy to become starcrossed in that region. Some that I've seen are Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak and Ishaqzaade. The most famous one is Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela but I haven't seen that one.
Next is Othello. I hear this one is bleak. And it's rated R so I guess the lights will be on again. By now, you know I don't do well with blood and gore and Shakespeare loved himself some blood and gore. I am curious though, because Othello is a Moor and Moors are supposed to be Muslims, aren't they? This trailer doesn't give me any sense that the makers or even Shakespeare kept any part of his Muslim identity, just maybe the likely African, Arab, or Berber background. Is he supposed to be barbaric? I bet they make him barbaric.
I’m in a choir called The Choral Arts Society of Frederick. We are in the build up for our winter concert. This year we are doing holiday songs and one of those songs is Blow, Blow, thou Winter Wind.
Blow, Blow, thou Winter Wind is lyrically Shakespeare, from the comedy As You Like It, and the musical arrangement is by the composer Sarah Quartel.
Here is another choir doing the same arrangement we are working on.
I will say that I think our Tenors and Basses are better but it’s pretty close for the Altos and Sopranos.
It’s been stuck in my head since rehearsal Tuesday night.
In other supplemental Shakespeare encounters, we went to Shakespearean/medieval dance night again yesterday.
Again we had a ball. There were even more people and our move up hall move down hall started getting cramped.
We reviewed the Tangle (that conga line like one) and the Maltese Bransel (the violent stomps one) and started learning two new dances. Both were English country dances
Our first new dance was called Gathering Peascods. Here are people who actually know how to do it demonstrating.
Our version besides being way more awkward and disoriented was, once again, more violent.
Our instructor was calling out the moves in a sing song way. The chorus (which aligns with the dancers moving in and out of the center) went “and the men move in and clap, and the women move in and clap, and the men move in and they don’t clap and they all turn around”.
This is very helpful. Our addition was that when the men don’t clap they must have a “fuck you guys” moment. This initially manifested as the men flipping each other off but then quickly degenerated into the men trying to mash each others toes again.
There was one hilarious moment where we had to dance around two of them rolling about on the floor establishing dominance, or some such.
We achieved peak medieval/renaissance merrymaking.
So it’s a little late for Shakespeare to have seen the manual but, depending on how old the dances were when published, probably not too late for him to have tried them out.
The next dance we started to learn was called Jenny Plucked Pears and it too is from the Playford manual.
Here is the exact video we watched.
This one is good for a number of reasons, not least is the “thirstiest 60 year old woman in the world”. Watch the video. You will see what our instructor meant.
We all want to be her at 60.
Each of the dancing classes has started with a segment on etiquette and historical significance but mostly the focus has been on flirting. For instance palms are very intimate and should never touch your partner (thanks Romeo!).
This dance is apparently a great example of “meat market” dancing when everyone shows off and flirts with everyone else.
We certainly gave it a go and had one stumbling but flirty run through before our time was up.
I need to practice my spins… also telling my left from my right.
A grand time was had by all.
Here we are doing the Tangle. You can see how packed it was and how tangled.
A cherished memory from when I saw it in the theater in the 90s with my best friend Kathryn, was hearing a girl in the front yelling “Nooo!” during the end scene when Romeo drank the poison.
We were shocked, and unkindly giggly, that she’d had no idea what happened in the play. Which is to say that Romeo and Juliet is so known, so over saturated , that it’s easy to dismiss as cliche. But the early masterworks really are masterful .
We loved it, my best friend and I, we got the soundtrack and listened to it over and over. The movie hit all the right notes for us at the time. It was relatable because we were the same ages as the cast and we liked Shakespeare and MTV, and it was fun.
I was worried therefore that this viewing would suffer from that rose tinted glasses failure of nostalgia.
I loved the Whedon Much Ado around the same time and it lost so much on rewatching.
The Teaching Company lecture lauded the Baz Luhrmann editorial style of quick cuts and music video feel, as supremely appropriate to the fast pace and violence of the play.
I quite agree and, in fact, thought that the editing and music would be my favorite parts of this viewing.
I was wrong. I loved those things it’s true, but I loved best the casting and the acting.
Some examples here.
The Montagues.
The Capulets.
"O, speak again, bright angel! For thou art / As glorious to this night, being o'er my head, / As is a winged messenger of heaven"
Clare Danes was innocent and sweet but not cloying or stupid. Her love and her helplessness felt real and heartbreaking.
DiCaprio is floaty and daydreaming here, he is moody and romantic and rash in all the right ways. He’s probably the least interesting member of the cast for me but he is solid. I remember watching What’s Eating Gilbert Grape not long before this and liking him a lot already when I first went to the movie.
Benvolio "I do but keep the peace: put up thy sword, Or manage it to part these men with me,". Dash Mihok was my crush of this film when I was a baby Missy. His quiet nature and only-reasonable-person-in-the-room vibe appealed greatly to my sense of hope. Plus of course, like everyone in this movie he was good looking.
John Leguizamo as Tybalt kills me. His “Peace, I hate the word” and his desperate trapped machismo during the duel scene are truth and beauty and all the great things that acting can be.
Prince of cats indeed.
Harold Perrinau’s Mercutio the, if not actively crushing then at the bare minimum, camp consort of Romeo is a joy to behold.
His loyalty and devil may care delivery bring a life to this stodgy character that I have never seen matched in any version of this play.
I mean look at him!
Special shout out to the loving but flighty Nurse Miriam Margolyes and the meddlesome Priest of Pete Postlethwaite I found them both sterling.
The movie was popular but not well received in its release and I think the Vulture review gets it right when it claims that critics didn’t know what to do with a frenetic slightly psychedelic Shakespeare but that young audiences got it instantly.
I’m so happy to have been in that time and to have gotten it in that way.
I had a lot of sitting around time at work yesterday and finished the movie up while sitting in the lab.
I did not imagine finding myself brought to tears, in a labcoat, by a 30 year old movie that I had seen multiple times before, but there I was.
Romeo and Juliet: 5 stars
Mom score: 1 star for Lady Capulet and 4 stars for Lady Montague.
I hate that the good mom had to die of grief off stage to get this rating.
