WRITING CLASS PAPER ON ROMEO AND JULIET (PLAY VS THE MOVIE) - Essay Example

11 April Romeo and Juliet: The Play vs. The Movie - A Masterpiece Gone Wrong in Reel Shakespeare wrote one of the best love stories in theworld to be passed down to generations and to be remembered and learnt from; according to him, society, despite having as many developments and rapid changes, would still contain the same kind of love and attributes of love that it had been, since times immemorial. True love was an element that would see no change, despite the time period it was thrust into. In following this very sentence, the movie directed by Luhrmann, was a disappointment because it was not able to reflect a number of emotions that Shakespeare intended to portray in his work. Due to this very reason, the movie is quite irrelevant when it comes to the actual play written, and through examples of this paper, the same has been depicted. Shakespeare did not fathom the fact however, that his play would later take the form of a movie enacted by Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes; he never thought that actors on reel would ever portray his characters; and do it very averagely at that too. There have been a number of statements and reviews regarding how terrible the movie version, ‘Shakespeare in Love’ was as compared to the actual emotions and feelings that should have been reflected in any enactment of Romeo and Juliet; this play has been done time and again in theatres big and small, all around the world. In Shakespeare’s play, Romeo says, “Is love a tender thing? it is too rough, Too rude, too boisterous, and it pricks like thorn.” Much the same way, Luhrmann’s movie is the thorn that pricks, however, unlike Romeo’s sweet words, the thorn does not come equipped with a flower or fragrance of love. Despite having so many experiences of different people and directors, the movie by Luhrmann failed to incorporate any of that. The director should have tried and helped his actors by asking them to learn from videos and shows of the play from all around the world; and even if they had adhered to this, it was not depicted at all in the film. Shakespeare in Love was an edited and much abridged version of the actual play, it was actually a plot line along which the director wanted to portray what love was as an emotion to Shakespeare. He wanted the audience to know what Shakespeare was thinking of when he thought of the word love, and thus, how the same feeling came across to the world through the pages of Romeo and Juliet. However, since the director wanted to show all of this while keeping in account his own ideas and beliefs of what the same emotions of affection were according to the renowned playwright, he failed miserably in doing so. A number of important speeches, dialogues and scenes have been left out from the story in the movie; some of which were crucial for the existence of the entire plot of the novella; for example the scene that takes place between Romeo and the apothecary. Yet another change in the scenes is when at the end, Lady Montague is shown as alive and standing next to her husband, instead of having died of pain, grief and trauma caused to her due to the various incidents that take place in the play. The death of Paris has also not been shown in the movie and the scene where Romeo was supposed to visit the Capulet tomb thus had to be omitted and misinterpreted to the audience. Another misgiving has been provided to the audience through the movie; the presence of Friar John. The man was supposed to have been quarantined due to being suspected of having the plague, yet in the movie version, he passed Romeo and Balthasar while they were on their way to Verona. A number of dialogues that were supposed to be said by Capulet have also been passed o Lady Capulet instead. Many suspect that such a move was done in order to increase the role that women have in society in the present day and age. In those times, when Shakespeare had initially written the play, women were not given much importance, and their please or requests were either made in private, or were not heard at all. Thus, perhaps, in order to do away with that notion, women have been given more dialogues, some even snatched from their male counterparts to portray the same. However, the question still remains that the director should not have allowed such a transmission of dialogue in order to keep the essence of the play and Shakespeare’s thoughts. The main idea was to let the world know and understand the kind of plight that women were made to bear the brunt of; however because of this move; all hope regarding the same was lost. Mick LaSalle’s piece “This `Romeo' Is a True Tragedy” is a pinpoint review of the movie Romeo and Juliet by Baz Luhrmann. LaSalle makes a very accurate statement about the lack of passion and sentiment that had been put in the acting while filming the movie. According to him, “Emotion is the first thing Luhrmann kills in this update…while the lovers are passionless.” Keeping his views in mind, as well as having watched the movie with reference to Shakespeare’s masterpiece, Romeo certainly did not seem genuine in the first few minutes of providing an impression to remember for the audience. At first he was in absolute agony, mourning over Rosaline and writing sonnets at the Verona beach. Then all of a sudden, very abruptly indeed, he began showing enthusiasm at the mention and arrival of Benvolio as the two soon began taking centre reel and talking. Romeo was not very convincing in the portrayal of the character of his namesake from the pages of Shakespeare; he walked very fast, talked even faster and read his lines as if he had to get them out as soon as possible because of prior appointments or engagements. His heart did not seem like it was in the role, and that proved to be distracting for the viewers as well. “An actor can't do the job unless he or she can speak and feel at the same time.” said LaSalle. This line holds very true for the part portrayed by DiCaprio in the movie, because in all his silent scenes, he does an excellent job of observing Juliet, may it be through the aquarium, or engagingly during the course of the party. These scenes have also helped to form a vivid image of some of the main scenes of the movie in the viewer’s minds. Juliet, the true princess of literature, portrayed by Claire Danes was also done with immense mediocrity. She was heavily constrained when it came to showing an emotion; this was not appreciated by the viewers because while watching a Shakespearean film, one would expect a heavy amount of drama as well as countenances full of the dialogue and emotion. Danes’ acting is excruciating to watch because in actual play, Juliet is a feisty and a little outspoken (for that time) yet Danes portrays Juliet like a “lost lamb” who just happened to meet the love of her life. When her mother speaks to Juliet about Paris’s interest in her; she seems nonchalant and almost drunk to even say her lines with a little feeling. This is one example of a scene where she looked extremely disoriented. During her monologue in the garden, she is not very convincing while speaking to herself. Since monologues are yet another vital aspect of Shakespearean plays, this was a bit of a disappointment as it was not depicted carefully and with meaning or feeling. Nonetheless, when DiCaprio is hanging from the wall in the garden his acting seemed extremely discomforting to watch. This was because the actor lacked any kind of emotion; such as those that are very juvenile and relatable to any person of the same age, going through the same things. For example, his speech after the line “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?” he really looks like he’s speaking to someone behind the camera, and not to himself while looking at the window. Juliet’s mother and father are not depicted as the way they were in the play. They are supposed to be reputable, dignified family members. However Capulet seemed incredibly drunk, bewildered and funny looking at the costume party. Juliet’s mother was even worse because while dressing up for the main party, she burst out line after line, and it was obvious that even she was not understanding what she was saying - Lighting up a cigarette and immediately putting it off, or making a weird gesture to Juliet before she shuts the door; all these actions are unwarranted as well as are insulting to Shakespeare’s literature. Moreover, another depressing aspect of the movie was the job of the costume department because of the lack of understanding they had regarding the clothing belonging to the era Shakespeare had written the play in. Mercutio looked like a woman; Capulet was dressed in shiny clothing that probably fitted better with modern day Caesar clothing, and Juliet looked like an angel in white, which was not the way she should have ideally looked. The sentence “The emotions he wrote about could never be duplicated in today's world” explains both LaSalle’s and my opinion on the movie of Romeo and Juliet. Because the acting is so bad, the fact that these actors sound ridiculous and act so bad, it makes the audience think these feelings Shakespeare wrote in old English is irrelevant to our day. Some of the main fights, including the sword fight between the two male characters were also not reflected with enough hatred or vengeance. The actors, probably on account of being young and inexperienced; failed to deliver an exciting performance on the basis of the play written by Shakespeare. On watching the movie, one does not feel as if he has gained enough information about Shakespeare. It is not enough to simply watch the mess that has been shown in the form of a movie, and tell oneself that a full comprehension of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet has been done. Therefore, the original script and the final movie are far from each other in terms of relevance to Shakespeare’s thoughts and his actual ideas on the basis of which he wrote the play. In the final scene of death as well, there are certain variations that set both the versions of the film and the play apart – in the movie, Romeo and Juliet are able to spend some time in each other’s arms as Romeo drinks the poison and Juliet awakens from the deep slumber she was forced into. However, in the play, the two are not able to spend the final seconds of bliss together because Juliet reaches her dead husband Romeo after having been told by the Friar of his death. She then delivers one of the longest and most important monologues ever written by Shakespeare as she swears her love onto the man and spends time with his dead body in order to gain a few moments of peace with her lover’s soul and thus embark upon the rest of the journey of her life. The movie can therefore truly be called a masterpiece gone wrong in reel, with respect to the play. None of the emotions and feelings that Shakespeare had intended to give off in the play has been able to come out thoroughly and cleanly in the movie version of the same. Despite this, the movie has its own elements of light wit, humour and love that have been wrapped together into two hours or so, for brief enjoyment by the audience. Unlike the play, it does not intend to provide a lasting impact on the viewer; something if the director was gunning for, was not able to provide through his reel. Therefore, the movie is very far from the kind of timelessness that was portrayed through the emotions of the two lovers in the book. It is indeed, a two hour show depicting the kind of irrelevance that Shakespeare has to do with Luhrmann’s ideas. And much the same way, the man has been proven wrong by the great playwright, who once believed that the kind of emotions and love that were shown in that age, cannot be imitated or revealed again; this goes to show how wrong the modern age director has been, in trying to toy with people’s lives and reflect the youth of today as. (LaSalle, Mick) Works Cited Buttar, Sara. "Two Sides of Love - Romeo and Juliet, Film Vs Play Article Source: Http://EzineArticles.com/3456567." Ezine Articles. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. . LaSalle, Mick. "This `Romeo' Is a True Tragedy DiCaprio, Danes Weak in Shakespeare Update Read More: Http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/11/01/DD15503.DTL#ixzz1JKlvIov0." SFGate. 1 Nov. 1996. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. . Read More