|
Post by Ganymede on Apr 6, 2002 13:19:56 GMT -5
Okay, so it's come up in other discussions so I've decided to give it its own thread. What do you think about Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet? My opinion: Some of it was interesting and cool. I liked the cinematography of it. But I felt that it was trying too hard to be cool. And though I love cross-dressing, I did not love Mercutio, which really sucks for me because he was my favorite character in that play.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 6, 2002 16:05:25 GMT -5
I myself have mixed feelings on Luhrman's R&J, and yet it's sitting in my video collection, because I can't deny that portions of it were quite praise-worthy. For starters, I appreciate the goal of the film. It was the first (and, perhaps, the only succesful) attempt to bring Shakespeare to young audiences (hopefully before public school can ruin him for them). Of all the modern film adaptations of Shakespeare, Luhrman's was also the only one to be widely released in theatres. The film was everywhere. That, in and of itself, is worthy of note. However, yes, parts of it made me want to punch someone or cringe in terror! I completely second your thoughts on Mercutio. My favorite character in R&J frankly made no sense. He didn't seem to fit in the play, or even in the film at all. The cross dressing seemed entirely arbitrary, and I often got the sense that he had no idea what he was saying. Does he even know who Queen Mab is??? Benvolio made me want to defacate on the video cassette as well. I realize he isn't a particularly fascinating character, but the guy they had playing him was a twit. However, to be fair, I loved Tybalt. He was a very fresh read on the character. I also loved Claire Danes as Juliet. She delivered her lines well and bought a youthfulness to the character that is often lacking in productions. The Friar was great, and the nurse was fun too. Leo DiCaprio though... I thoroughly enjoyed Luhrman's daring revision of the crypt scene. He seemed to "up" the tragic element and make a tragedy that relies entirely on knowing from the start what will happen surprising, and even more tragic as a result. That feeling of things weilding out of control is heightened. I enjoyed the interesting fast-paced camera work, and didn't entirely mind the "Verona Beach" thing, the music was great, but I still don't understand why it was necessary to repeat the prologue in the begining, and I wanted to hurt someone (again) when it was time to put up their "swords" and their guns were conveniently labeled "sword" (and let's not forget Capulet's "Long sword"). Overall, a mixed blessing, but I truly did enjoy much of it. I've never been a fan of the Zefarelli version (my apologies to fans of that film!), and for a while, this was the best film version of R&J around, in my opinion. However, I think it was ultimately surpassed by the abridged R&J contained within Shakespeare in Love. There's another film I have mixed feelings on, but I loved their R&J. I'm going to get yelled at for these thoughts. Aren't I?
|
|
Juliet
Denizen
There's many a man hath more hair than wit.
Posts: 53
|
Post by Juliet on Jun 25, 2002 1:14:27 GMT -5
I loved this R&J. I suppose it's a matter of taste; it is quite artsy and perhaps over-enthusiastic, but this appealed to me. I confess I found the "sword" thing cute. I thought the intro was unabashedly brilliant, as was the ending, and the whole thing very well-thought-out. There are so many discreet references and layers in the movie, some more subtle than others, (all the title jokes, the fact that Romeo hangs out in a broken theater, all the Freudian water, playing pool...) but overall I was quite impressed. Considering it bridged the popular and scholarly movie category, any sucess is amazing. Leo, well....he got better towards the second half. And Claire Daines, who I thought was very plain and un-julietty in the pictures I saw of the movie, was lovely. A very decent Juliet, and she even got the lines right (I practically cheered when she got the dirty pun in her balcony scene: ("What's Romeo? It is not hand nor foot nor arm nor face nor any *other* part belonging to a man. " ) I was sad they cut out some of the nicer Juliet speeches, but that's a fair trade, in my opinion, for sticking with the real language. And the ending was very moving. I wrote a paper on this film....it was fun ~Juliet~
|
|
Juliet
Denizen
There's many a man hath more hair than wit.
Posts: 53
|
Post by Juliet on Jun 25, 2002 1:16:38 GMT -5
oh, and one last thing, shaxper... It isn't fair at all to contrast the R&J in Shakespeare in Love to an actual movie of R&J. In SIL, they got to pick and choose their favorite bits, and the only real scene was made moving by the plot surrounding it. I loved SIL, but R&J is in a whole different class. It's not an even comparison by any means. Well, that wasn't yelling, but it's the thought that counts...
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 25, 2002 9:58:53 GMT -5
I still thought the intense passion that came through, both from the actors and from the camera work, was amazing; shots with audience reactions aside. I would have liked to have seen a whole film of R&J done like that. I agree with you about the Luhrman version making great use of bawdy subtext though. I love the whole "Wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?" exchange.
|
|