Release date: December 2015
Print run: 500
Print run: 500
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks,@augustus. I don't get irate about people not understanding Shakespeare. Sometimes it takes time. Certainly I didn't get it till I was older. There are a couple things that brought it to life for me.@C.C. 95 I can see where you're coming from. I was always amused that this film was released with the title, "William Shakeaspeare's Romeo + Juliet". I always thought that the title, "Baz Luhrmann's .......... " would have been more appropriate.
As a product of the English education system, I spent five years in English Literature classes, studying and dissecting various Shakespeare plays, and I hated it. Only later, when I had experienced life outside of the classroom, did I begin to appreciate what all the fuss was about.
Key to that understanding, was seeing the plays performed, albeit in the classic movie adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles and Franco Zeffirelli, as opposed to merely reading from the page.
The greatest of Shakespeare's plays are universal, in that they can be set anytime, anyplace, anywhere and still be equally effective, dealing as they do with the frailties of human nature. Added to which, is the absolute beauty of the language used, and it is the combination of these two factors which makes Shakespeare as relevant today, as he has ever been.
"Romeo and Juliet", with its tragic tale of the star crossed lovers, is probably the most universal story of them all, and one which everyone can relate to. "For never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo." Its greatness even transcends Baz Luhrmann's wayward interpretation.
I can put up with the quirks, mentioned in your own post, as well as the updated setting, but the thing I found intolerable were the thick American accents of some of the cast, which rendered much of Shakespeare's verse incomprehensible to my ears. That's not to say that Americans can't do Shakespeare. Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey and Orson Welles have all demonstrated an affinity with the Bard.
The sole reason I still regularly revisit this film, is the impassioned performance of the young Leonardo DiCaprio. There's an intensity to his portrayal of Romeo which puts all the anachronisms of the movie to the back of one's mind.
So, in spite of my ambivalence towards this film, I welcome it getting a Blufans makeover, and would certainly get it for DiCaprio's moving performance.
For repeated viewing, however, I shall be sticking with Zeffirelli's version (1968) which, for me, has never been equalled.
Thanks,@augustus. I don't get irate about people not understanding Shakespeare. Sometimes it takes time. Certainly I didn't get it till I was older. There are a couple things that brought it to life for me.
First- I acted in Henry V on stage with Ian McKellen... It is true!
...But i'm embellishing! Let me explain...
Back in the 80s Ian McKellen toured the U.S. with a show called 'McKellen on Shakespeare'. As luck would have it, his show came to Cleveland, Ohio- and my high school English class was lucky enough to go see it.
It was one of the most eye-opening shows ever. He basically broke down Shakespeare to its root element.
He basically said to us "guys- this is not that hard – you can understand this. Let me explain..."
And needless to say, I have understood and loved Shakespeare ever since.
The finale of the show was Sir Ian acting a scene from Henry V. He needed extras to come on stage with him to be soldiers. I was called up. He huddled us up and gave us direction- "when I say...You all die on my cue!"
And we did! And now I get to say, without lying- I performed Shakespeare on stage with Sir Ian McKellen!
That was the first of a One-Two Shakespeare punch...
The second punch being the 'out-of-nowhere' lightning bolt that was Kenneth Branagh's 1989 HENRY V.
Blew the doors off! (And I won't join an argument about Branagh's vs. Olivier's. I love both for different reasons). And I absolutely adored MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING too.
But McKellen was right. There is no special secret handshake, or decoder ring to open up Shakespeare.
And I agree that it is timeless and can transend time and place. I just find that sometimes modernized versions get too 'cute' with updates. (The 'swords' thing, for instance).
If memory serves, the Ethan Hawke HAMLET was not too bad. (DENMARK became a company instead of a country). In fact, one of my favorite movies is a play on Shakespeare. If you haven't seen ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD- you must!
I have not seen Zefferelli's ROMEO & JULIET in a loooong time- so maybe I should check it out again soon.
(I have NEVER seen his OTELLO- and I want to!)
I also love the National Theater Live movie theater showings. Such a great way for people to see Shakespeare on stage- even if it is in the theater! (Branagh's MACBETH was Awesome!)
But anything that gets younger viewers into Shakespeare is never a BAD thing!
I DO love it when I hear young lovers say "We are like Romeo & Juliet"...
...And I chuckle quietly to myself, thinking "You DO know they DIE in a tragic double suicide, right?!!"
@augustus,@C.C. 95 Very interesting. Your account of how you got into Shakespeare brought to mind a film I saw many years ago, "Renaissance Man" (1994), in which Danny Devito played an English teacher to a bunch of misfit US army recruits, which included Mark Wahlberg back in the days when he was still known as Marky Mark. DeVito's character uses Shakespeare's "Hamlet" as a teaching tool but it's a staged production of "Henry V" that they go to see performed. I imagine that you've probably seen this movie already, if not I'd commend it to you.
Yes, there are a number of films about Shakespeare's plays that are as diverse and entertaining as the plays themselves, from Vincent Price in "Theatre of Blood" (1973), taking in Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" (1996) and John Madden's "Shakespeare in Love" (1998), to Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous" (2011).
You will be aware that Boris Pasternak, the author of "Doctor Zhivago", translated a number of Shakespeare's plays into Russian. Two of those works were later filmed by the great director, Grigori Kozintsev, "Hamlet" (1964) and "King Lear" (1971). If you're interested in trying something different and are not averse to hearing Shakespeare performed in a foreign language, give these a viewing. Both come highly acclaimed and Laurence Olivier publicly stated that this "Hamlet" was better than his own version. If you've already seen them, I apologise for being presumptuous.
Anyway, back on topic, "Romeo and Juliet". The new version directed by Carlo Carlei (2013) is also worth viewing but it's not for purists, due to Julian Fellowes tampering with the screenplay. Some wits have also drawn attention to the fact that in this version, you have a Romeo who is prettier than his Juliet. On the plus side, Douglas Booth makes for an ardent Romeo but Hailee Steinfeld disappoints as Juliet. It's a lavish production with Renaissance Italy vividly to the fore but ultimately, the Zeffirelli version (1968) remains supreme.
it's among the best Shakespeare-based films ever made.
You bet!Love this film, love Shakespeare, fo def will be getting this! And massive thanks to @c-c-95 and @augustus for very interesting info on Shakespeare in films
(Actually, I'm sure we are forgetting a lot of other great ones!)
You saw it live?!! Lucky duck! (Do you mean with those actors or just the play?)I personally quite like the recent version of Hamlet with David Tennant and Patrick Steward. Having seen it live in theatre a couple of times, I can honestly say this version is pretty good in transferring raw emotions of the live performance to screen.
You saw it live?!! Lucky duck! (Do you mean with those actors or just the play?)
Don't be! I'm jealous! Thank god for National Theater Live Stuff for the rest of us! I haven't been to either the West End or Broadway in 20 plus years. I actually would have shelled out BIG bucks if I even had a shot at seeing Branagh's Macbeth in NYC. (I had no idea it was on its way when it happened...and I think tickets sold out before you could bat an eyelash anyway.)Twice with these actors, Hamlet with other actors ... quite a few times I am a bit of a theatre nut, sorry
Missed that one too, unfortunately. And Branagh's Macbeth was really mind-blowing, seen it at Manchester theatre festival, same version they showed on NT Live.Don't be! I'm jealous! Thank god for National Theater Live Stuff for the rest of us! I haven't been to either the West End or Broadway in 20 plus years. I actually would have shelled out BIG bucks if I even had a shot at seeing Branagh's Macbeth in NYC. (I had no idea it was on its way when it happened...and I think tickets sold out before you could bat an eyelash anyway.)
Would have loved to have seen McKellen and Stewart do 'Waiting For Godot' too....