You either love this movie or you hate it. It either decodes the Shakespearean language for a modern audience or hacks the language into incomprehensible, meaningless snippets. The entire production is way over the top, which is sure to put off some people, but by the final scene it gets pared down to the story of two young people who simply shouldn’t have fallen in love.
I think before I go any further, I ought to talk a little about Shakespeare’s audience. According to the best sources I’ve read, the Londoners filling the Globe Theater came from every walk of life, from the wealthy and the educated to the poor and unschooled. It’s hard to imagine members of the upper nobility turning out to watch a play with a bunch of grocers, tanners, and clerks, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the lesser nobles show up. The cheaper area, standing in front of the stage, would have been affordable for the working-class people, while the wealthy would have paid a premium to sit in the balconies, shaded from the sun and protected from the rain. Shakespeare had to appeal to all these people with their varying interests by including in his plays as much comedy, romance, tragedy, fantasy, history, drama, violence, action, poetry, and anything else that would fill the theater.
It’s frequently pointed out that Romeo and Juliet starts out as a comedy - the wordplay between Romeo, Benvolio, and Mercutio is (better than, but) reminiscent of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, plus there are the typical comedy elements such as love at first sight, and the Nurse’s funniest scenes are in the first half of the play - and then turns suddenly to tragedy. The switch happens in the scene where Mercutio and Tybalt are killed. I’m sure many High School English papers are written on the subject every year.
The job of cutting a play that usually runs almost 2-1/2 hours down to fit in a 90-minute film must be daunting. When the play has as many facets as Romeo and Juliet, which appears to have been written to appeal to as many of Shakespeare’s audiences as possible, the screenwriter is faced with making choices about which of the facets to highlight, diminish, or eliminate. Apparently, you need to cut the “Poor John” joke, which I guess seems impenetrable on paper, although it is easily understood on screen. (With any other writer, you might even be able to add a line or two of your own to the script, but with Shakespeare, that is almost universally frowned-upon.) Choices must be made. You have to pick which audience you want to address.
To me, it looks like Luhrmann decided to make a date night movie - romance and eye candy for the ladies, action and eye candy for the guys - and make it hip, funny, and modern enough to keep everyone happy up to the crying part at the end. By the end of the movie, your date should be in pretty good shape.
As for decoding the language, I’m not so sure he was successful. Shouting the words doesn’t necessarily mean you’re conferring the meaning. Neither does screaming, mumbling, or putting on a very very fake-sounding accent. I think they missed the mark there. I don’t think the acting for Romeo and Juliet needs to be particularly realistic (the characters are completely unrealistic, after all) but the actors need to keep their feet not on the ground, but plausibly close to it.
I hate Miriam Margolyes portrayal of the nurse. She puts on a terrible Cuban accent and falls flat on all the comic potential of the character. The “Over-The-Top Flamboyant Spanish” character must seem very funny to British and Australian directors (as Timothy Spall in Branaugh’s Love’s Labours Lost can show). To me, it’s just annoying. Like Jar-Jar Binks annoying.
Paul Sorvino is underutilized as Capulet, and also crippled with a fake accent. I like the idea that Capulet’s a drunk, though. I think that really works.
I like Harold Perrineau as Mercutio. He doesn’t have the unpredictable rage you see in John McEnery, or the mischievousness anger of Robin Nedwell, but those are hard to pull off. His Mercutio is over-the-top in everything he does - over-the-top joy, over-the-top anger. In a film where everything is over-the-top, it works. Also, if you’re like me, you keep thinking “That’s Michael from Lost! Let’s hope this ends better for him….”
Claire Danes does OK as Juliet. She’s not spectacular, but she does alright.
I remember when this came out I was very excited that there was a new production of Romeo and Juliet that was directed at people my age and younger. When I saw it, I thought it was excellent. That was nearly 20 years ago. The shock value has worn off. The energy of the production seems misdirected. The concept seems misguided. I mean, Yes, you can do Romeo and Juliet like this, but should you?
I still think the Post-Haste Dispatch is hilarious, though. I wish I’d thought of that.
This production currently ranks as my third favorite Romeo and Juliet.
Here’s the overall ranking so far:
Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.
Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Perf. Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey, and John McEnery. 1968. netflix.com, 19 SEP 2013.
Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, and Harold Perrineau. 1996. DVD, Twentieth Century Fox, 2007.
Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Alvin Rakoff. Perf. Patrick Ryecart, Rebecca Saire, and Anthony Andrews. 1978. DVD, Ambrose, 2000.
Romeo and Juliet. Chor. Kenneth MacMillan. Perf. Angel Corella, Alessandra Ferri, and Michele Villanova. Teatro Alla Scala, Milan, JAN 2000. DVD, Euroarts, 2002.
Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment