Performance Review of Romeo and Juliet By Baz Lurhmann - Essay Example

Romeo + Juliet Introduction William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet is the full of the film directed the Australian director, Baz Luhrman. The film places Leonardo DiCaprio in the Role of Romeo and Claire Danes in the role of Juliet. Essentially, the film is a modern retelling of the story with much of the original dialog. The modernization of the story means the family have turned into corporate business concerns each with their own skyscraper offices and the swords that were used by Shakespearean play actors have been replaced by highly customized and heavily art worked and engraved guns. In this manner, is a very interesting twist on perhaps the most famous love story of all and while in broad strokes it achieves most of that it set out to achieve, there are still some things left to be desired. Both the positive and negative aspects of the film can be condensed into the ideas contained with the film genre, the text of the film and individual performances of the actors. Therefore, to better appreciate the film itself it is important to look at these three elements individually to obtain a better appreciate of where the film shines and where it fails to meet the mark. The Film Essentially, Romeo and Juliet as written by Shakespeare is a tale of love that ends in tragedy. Unlike some other tragedies of Shakespeare, the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is special because there is no real villain in the story (Draper, 1939). Other plays written by Shakespeare certainly have their villains as we can see in the tragedy of Hamlet that Claudius is playing the role of the villain while in the case of Othello it is Iago who becomes the villain in the story. In such tragedies, negative human emotions and the dark side of one or more individuals may have caused the tragedy (Brown, 1981). However, for Romeo and Juliet, even though it is a tragedy, all we have are well meaning characters such as Friar Laurence and those who are seeking to protect their sense of honour (even thought it may be misplaced) such as Tybalt. Thus the only villain which we come across in the tragedy is fate which may also be called chance. This becomes evident from the opening scenes of the film itself where a newscaster takes the role of the chorus and describes the tragedy as it is about to unfold upon the people of the city in general and the two “star-crossd” lovers in particular. From the film itself, this becomes evident in the prologue as flashes of riots and stunned faces of the members of the Capulet and Montague elders are shown to the audience. The opening scenes of the film also firmly establish it as a film set in modern times since helicopters, automatic weapons, automobiles and several other trappings of modern life are shown to the audience. However, there is also a subtle hint of Christianity playing a part somewhere since plenty of the words in the text which comes on screen have crucifixes embedded in them graphically. While this may set up the expectations of the viewers, these are certainly not met since religion appears to play nothing more than a cultural role in the film. LaSalle (1996) compares the presentation of another Romeo and Juliet film directed by Zeffirelli and says that: “Zeffirellis film version created an intensely Roman Catholic environment to suggest spiritual, almost supernatural, forces at work in the attraction between the lovers. Luhrmann, in turn, flings Christian trappings all over the frame. But everything, even the huge religious statue that dominates the town square, is as empty of spiritual currency as a crucifix in a Madonna video (LaSalle, 1996, Pg. 1)”. Most interestingly, once the film and the action has began in earnest, the quarrel between the Montagues and the Capulets servants is very well choreographed and the music which accompanies the first scene alternates between rock and roll as well as operatic sounds which place the film firmly in the modern film genre. The guns used by the brawlers are called Swords while the weapon Capulet asks for is the long sword (which looks very similar to an automatic rifle or a shotgun). By this scene, Shakespeare lovers watching the movie would have realised that some dialogue has been cut from the film in order to improve its flow and rhyme. However, this does not take away much from the meaning of the narrative since that by itself is improved for film presentation through these subtle changes in the text and the idea that fate will have a great part to play in the coming story. When it comes to the actual story of the play, Draper (1939) makes us keenly aware that chance plays an essential part in creating the tragedy when he writes: “Romeo and Juliet is an tissue of improbably coincidences: Capulet’s illiterate servant happens by mere chance to ask Romeo to read the list of those invited to his master’s entertainment; Romeo, by a most unusual chance, decides to attend his arch-enemies’ festivities, and so chances to fall in love with Juliet; at just this time the Prince chances to make a stringent edict against brawling, and Romeo chances to kill Tybalt and so is banished; and, also at just this time, Old Capulet chances to betroth Juliet to the Count Paris. Any one of these chances might singly be accepted but why should they all occur within two days and just in the right order to set the plot? (Draper, 1939, Pg. 16)”. These chances become plain to the viewers of the film particularly in the scene where Mercutio offers a pill to Romeo just before going to the party at the Capulet residence. The drugged state of Romeo is evident from the manner in which he goes into the party completely dazed and has to recover his senses by dousing himself with water. However, a few seconds after that he beholds Juliet and this is the moment he falls in love with her. Of course it is not clear to the audience whether the drug he took had any part to play with him falling in love yet as far as Juliet is concerned, the audience knows that she has had no drugs while she is wooed by Romeo. The tragedy soon comes back from the heady heights of love as both Romeo and Juliet realise that their last names will have an influence on their love. In terms of acting, Claire Danes outshines Leonardo DiCaprio in terms of reacting to the news since her silent shock speaks a lot more than the lines given to DiCaprio. Ebert makes no room for the age of the actor and gives no quarter to DiCaprio when he compares his performance to the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet when he writes that, “I think back to the tender passion of the 1968 version, and I want to shout: Romeo! Quick! Poison yourself! (Ebert, 1996, Pg. 1)” The San Francisco Chronicle is even more critical of the acting since in a review of the film, LaSalle (1996) called the film a monumental disaster and further says that the leading actors were not up to the task. Concerning DiCaprio and Danes, he writes that, “They can neither say the lines nor convey the feelings underneath them. They sound uncomfortable and constrained and look like people embarrassed to be talking funny (LaSalle, 1996, Pg. 1)”. This does not mean that critical opinion about the acting is unified in rejecting the acting since other reviewers have offered glowing praise for the lead couple. Amongst those who offer praise for the film itself as well as the acting done by the players in the movie, Johanson stands first when she writes that: “The oddest thing is how well the Shakespearean language fits into the films setting, and how well actors youd never think of as Shakespearean pull their roles off. DiCaprio as Romeo is brilliant, as is Danes. But Brian Dennehy as Montague? Paul Sorvino as Capulet? John Leguizamo as a nasty Capulet homeboy? Everyone -- down to the aforementioned newscaster -- is perfect. The language flows so beautifully that you barely notice youre listening to 400-year-old dialog (Johanson, 1998, Pg. 1)”. This divided opinion certainly shows that if nothing else, the film is provocative and elicits different responses depending on who is reviewing the film and the performance of the actors. Seasoned veterans and respected film critics such as Ebert (1996) and LaSalle (1996) may think that the film has little to offer to contemporary audiences, but reviewers who are closer to the common person take great delight in seeing Shakespeare redone for the modern viewer. To call the movie unrealistic is nothing more than a misstatement since the play itself and the story is quite unrealistic to begin with. Just one example of that is how the story handles the profound nature of love which becomes clear in the film as the lovers fall in love just at first sight. Romeo seems to fall completely in love with Juliet and has all but forgotten his former flame when he declares that he “never saw true beauty till this night”. When the two characters are trading ideas about saints and pilgrims, Romeo mentions that Juliet will be able to help him overcome his sorrows, since just by touching she could “make blessed my rude hand”. The discovery that she belongs to the house of his foes makes him stunned but does not put him in despair since the feeling of love which he has for her is still too great. he does not back down from what he feels for Juliet which both in the play and in the film can be seen as an unrealistic situation that has profound meaning for the viewers since love should be able to overcome a lot more than family brawls. There are certainly some deviations between the film and the play and one of those is the presentation of the character of Tybalt. While reading the play, Tybalt comes across as a hot headed and angry individual who seeks to regain his family’s honour. The film audience is presented a negative character in the shape of Tybalt who is a member of the Capulet family and he makes no effort to hide his anger and hatred as soon as he recognizes Romeo’s voice in the party. In fact, he calls for his sword to be brought to him so he can assault and kill Romeo since he sees no sin “to strike him dead”. This realistic approach of his is based on his profound respect for the values and the honour of his family and his idea of revenge against Romeo for the slight he committed by coming to the Capulet party. When Romeo leaves the party, Tybalt is shown to come after him and foreshadow that he will have revenge for this excursion made by Romeo. The audience can expect Tybalt to react very negatively when and if he discovers that Romeo and Juliet are in love with each other since his words have foreshadowed his intentions throughout the story (Sanders, 1968). In fact, as shown in the movie, the only reason he could not attack Romeo immediately was because the master of the house i.e. Capulet, held him back. The film presentation of Tybalt is quite different from what the play would present him to be. This is also true of Mercutio since there have been suggestions by those who have analysed the play that Mercutio is a closet homosexual. However, as discussed by LaSalle (1996): “Luhrmanns one innovation is to take other peoples ideas and exaggerate them until they become obvious and stupid. He takes, for example, the convention that Romeos friend, Mercutio, is secretly gay and turns him into a flamboyant drag queen. So all the tension of repression and bittersweetness of unrequited love go out the window, and whats left is a goofball in a dress and white wig singing rock songs at the Capulets ball (LaSalle, 1996, Pg. 1)”. Capulet himself seems to be a wiser and more civilised version of Tybalt since prevents Tybalt from attacking Romeo in the house. He also knows that Romeo is well known and well respected in Verona while the Prince has made it clear that any fights between the two families will not be tolerated. The character in the film certainly displays his joviality and ability to understand the demands of chivalry. His advice to Tybalt is given while they are in a tight embrace and he tells him to ignore the presence of Romeo. While Capulet shows his colours as a kindly father figure, the nurse who takes care of Juliet is shown to be a realistic mother figure that treats Juliet much like her own daughter and is very proud of her when extolling her virtues to Romeo on the beach. In fact, she essentially becomes the real mother to Juliet since her actual mother seems to be only interested in dressing up for the party and greeting Juliet to accept the hand of Paris in marriage. Interestingly, the critics seem to be quite aware that there are quite a few elements in the play that just do not work in the film setting. LaSalle (1996) writes that: “The updating makes for lots of awkwardness -- swords work differently than guns, and police captains are not allowed to exile anybody. But its worst effect is on Romeo and Juliet themselves. Who are Danes and DiCaprio playing? Modern teenagers would not do the things they do in this movie. They would not be wanting to get married after kissing three times. They probably wouldnt be virgins (LaSalle, 1996, Pg. 1)”. Perhaps the most unkindest cut comes from LaSelle (1996) regarding the manner in which the players act when he writes, “Danes is too low-key and dreamy for Juliet, and DiCaprio looks too much like an anaemic Brooke Shields to be a convincing romantic hero (LaSelle, 1996, Pg. 1)”. He is not the only critic to question the acting within the file since Millar (1996, Pg. 1) writing for the Houston Chronicle notes that, “Maybe a quarter of the cast has an idea how to do the dialogue. But the iambic pentameter stuff is mooted. To Luhrmann, the choice between reading a line as Shakespeare intended or screeching it in a manner appropriate to the films style simply does not require a decision”. In fact, for the actors, the only salvation from a professional critic comes from Baumgarten (1996, Pg. 1) who writes that, “I can hardly think of another work this year that compares with Romeo & Juliet. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes once again prove that they are two of the best actors of their generation”. Conclusion In conclusion, while the film gives some very interesting twists and presents some very unique viewpoints on the most famous love story, it also fails to make many of the critics happy with the approach taken by the film. Interestingly, as a viewer of the film and as shown with the viewpoints taken by non expert viewers, it achieves most of that which it set out to achieve. It presents Shakespeare in a modern setting and it was indeed a commercial success. While it did not make the critics happy, it certainly made the audiences appreciate what Shakespeare had written and that in itself is an achievement which shows that the brad is still relevant today even after four hundred years of dust cover his folio. No matter what the critics say, this achievement cannot be taken away from the film and remains an important feather in the cap of Lurhman. Works Cited Baumgarten, M. 1996, ‘William Shakespeares Romeo & Juliet’, [Online] Available at: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3a137998 Brown, J. 1981, Discovering Shakespeare, Columbia University Press. Draper, J. 1939, ‘Shakespeares Star-Crossed Lovers’, The Review of English Studies, vol. 15, no. 57, pp. 16-34. Ebert, R. 1996, ‘Romeo & Juliet’, [Online] Available at: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19961101/REVIEWS/611010304/1023 Johanson, M. 1998, ‘Romeo in the Hood’, [Online] Available at:http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/1998/03/romeo_juliet_review.html LaSalle, M. 1996, ‘This `Romeo Is a True Tragedy’, [Online] Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/11/01/DD15503.DTL Millar, J. 1996, ‘Energizing `Romeo and Juliet’, [Online] Available at:http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story/content/chronicle/features/96/11/01/romeo-and-juliet.0-1.html Sanders, W. 1968, The Dramatist and the received Idea, Cambridge University Press. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, [Online] Available at: http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/romeo_and_juliet/ Word Count: 2,738 Read More