My first reaction to watching Romeo and Juliet (the one with DiCaprio) was, holy @#$! this is crazy. There is no subtlety, no restraint. And... on thinking about it, that was really appropriate. I mean, yes this goes more crazy than Shakespeare certainly intended, cross dressing Mercutio being one obvious example, I feel that it worked. Not in a serious light in any way, but it seemed to have fun going completely crazy and I did enjoy a bit of it. At least I enjoyed the first half of it.
The second half was where it went downhill for me. The first half was so over the top, it seemed almost a parody, for it then to go more serious seemed dumb. To have a gun fight with a freaking gas station exploding and then for me to be worried about a character being wounded? A GAS STATION BLEW UP. YOU ARE HAVING GUN DANCES. YOU CANNOT EXPECT ME TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.
And before you give the argument that the same happened in Shakespeare. NO. In Shakespeare it works because having a happier beginning only serves to more starkly contrast the tragedy that would follow, AND the beginning, while more jovial, was still tense and somewhat serious. Yes, there was good times had by Romeo and company, but that was intended to make us like and care for the characters in the play. So when they actually die, we care.
If you're going to go insane, go fully insane. Make it all a joke. But by having the giant contrast between the first and second half, and not doing it in a deliberate and skilled way, it weakens the movie, putting it somewhere between a parody and a serious take.
(An example of a hilarious parody of Romeo and Juliet[and Shakespeare in general] is this The Complete Works of Shakespeare(Abridged):Romeo and Juliet )
As for the update to modern times, or any other times that was not intended in Shakespeare, It can work. One amazing example of a change that looked really cool was this interpretation of Julius Shakespeare that used African Americans for Romans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7apiYunEU
I feel that what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare is the language. If you can make his writing sound natural I feel that you can make any Shakespeare play work. The imagery, the characters, heck even the plot can be changed(as the Abridged Shakespeare proves), but the language is the most important for maintaining the identity. The language isn't everything though. While I feel it is important, and the most signifying part of a Shakespeare play, the play is still made up of the acting, props, costumes, the stage. While changes can be made, they need to be made in way that maintains some sort of internal consistency and logic, as well as working.
And finally, and on a slightly less relevant note, I love the beginning scene of Romeo and Juliet, Do you bite your thumb at me Sir?
You make an interesting case for the language of Shakespeare’s plays, and I agree that a good amount of what makes them what they are is the language. Do you think that someone could preserve that identity by modernizing the language as well? I don’t know that it has been done, but I could imagine someone could spend the time and effort in an attempt to preserve the language’s complexity and “translate” some associations and idioms so that they would have the unstudied effect that they did when Shakespeare wrote it. Would it work? probably not, but it would be an interesting experiment.
ReplyDeleteThe language itself is where I stake my favor as well David. No matter how much I may have disagreed (to put it lightly) with the choices of Brave Romeo and Fair Juliet, Shakespeare has managed and continued to manage a beautifully clever poetry with twists, turns, wit and snark that still amaze scholars and students today. The movie itself was interesting to say the least. I, for one, am all for interpretation and modernization. It's only 'legitimate' fan culture grabbing hold of a piece and making it their own, going somewhere with it that the author never considered or could never conceive of given the Bard's era of life.
ReplyDeleteAndrew makes an interesting point in his comment: modernizing the language, as opposed to keeping it the same/cutting out parts to trim it down is definitely the direction I think it needs to head in next. Although Old Bill's words are golden, they do not appeal to nor reach all audiences and since the plays and their adaptations have been around since the 16th century, that might be the point.