Romeo and Juliet
discussion
Which Romeo and Juliet movie is the most accurate?
go to the theatre. Thats how Shakespeare intended you to watch it, and if you can get it with an all male cast, thats even closer to the original performances...
I'd totally try out for Juliet.
Will wrote: "I'd totally try out for Juliet."you'd not get it, your balls have dropped... I assume :P
I have the natural talent of being able to suck my balls into my prostate.
be that as it may, I doubt it changes how deep your voice is ...
Why must you insist on shitting on my dreams, Hazel.
... I was actually imagining you doing a pythonesque womans voice, ala the stoning scene from life of brian... I think you can still fulfil your dream, you just need Terry Gilliam writing for you :P
Georgia wrote: "i have only watched one and then read the book and found the movie very accurate. it was the one with Leanardo De Caprico!"wrng spelling of surname dapat po di caprio
I used to teach the play to my ninth graders. Before Baz Lurhmann's film, I showed them the 1968 version. But when I could, I started show the Baz Lurhmann version. I think it captured the essence of the play. True, it did take some poetic license here and there, but overall I thought the adaptation did an excellent job of portraying the kinetic and impulsive energy of youth. I showed the movie six times a day, and never got tired of watching it.
Watch a few of them, each film is somebodys interpretaion just the same as if you were going to see it as a play on the stage. The more classic versions set it in the period in which it was set which can be interesting, and the Lurhmann version shows it in a contemprorary setting with Shakespeare's language which can allow a better understanding for people who prehaps missed things in the language when reading it. i think it's important to watch Shakespeare's work performed either on stage or screen, his writing was never meant to be just read, the rythem in which he writes is beautiful and should always be spoken.
I'm a purest the 1936 version is pure Shakespeare, I agree except for that one minor glitch mentioned above. Second the Zefferelli third the Baz Lehrman(sp?) seen them all and studied Shakespeare for years and years. It's not just the accuracy it's the presentation and the intent. Each film was the best for it's day. Each decade has a style and feeling all it's own soon there will be a remake in about 10 or so years that will be relevent for that time as well! We can only hope that the magic will live on forever!
My recommendation would be the Zeffirelli version. What's interesting about this one is that the actors are about the same age as Romeo and Juliet were supposed to be in the original play. There youth and innocence comes out in the movie.
Zefferelli. Heartbreaking, and Olivia Hussey wide-eyed ness has stayed with me all my life. so beautiful. Love that film so much...
I enjoyed the DiCaprio one much more, it was way more unique and creative. Though the other is probably more accurate.
Neither Zeffirelli's 1967 version nor Luhrman's 1996 version...Zeffirelli's would be the one I'd pick if I had to choose, it's slow and rather dull, but has some good acting and costuming and some decent moments, and it's a classic...if you're interested in just getting one to fill out your Shakespeare DVD collection--like myself--I'd take his..
I DEPLORE the Luhrman version, R&J isn't, looking a Shakespeare's other works, that great a play, it's good, don't get me wrong, it has some of the best and most memorable prose and verse and scenes in all literature and Western Culture...
But Romeo is a rather stereotypical, paint-by-the-numbers Petrarchan lover (Juliet fairs a bit better, a she's a bit stronger than Romeo, which is something to be credited, and again speaks to Shakespeare's being one of the first great feminists), the plot is rather predictable and was already a cliche in Shakespeare's day, and really, it's the words we remember and relate to far more than the characters, again, especially in terms of Shakespeare plays:
We're far more likely to view someone like Hamlet or Lear or Lady Macbeth or Viola as someone we can relate to, as a really fleshed-out human being, and more likely to look to figures like Lear or Othello as greater figures with an ultimately-more tragic fall.
It's the beautiful prose and verse that saves this play...
And it's exactly that element that the Luhrman version skimps on and skips over in favor of visuals that are, admittedly, at times pretty impressive, but still, they take away from what made the play memorable in the first place.
True to the R&J fashion, Juliet fairs better here in the casting department than Romeo; Claire Danes is decent in the role...Leo was hired to make teenage girls swoon--
Maybe he can act in other movies, but he can't do Shakespeare, not if this dull, phoned-in, lifeless, overly-1990s performance is any indication.
All in all:
I haven't seen the 1936 version, maybe I'll have to see it now...
But just going off of the two most famous ones--
1968 > 1996, by far.
The one with Leonardo Di Caprio.
I just love having a class of students who say 'urgh, Shakespeare' and showing them his genius! He is the wordmaster and is a pleasure to read and study : )
Julia wrote: "I just love having a class of students who say 'urgh, Shakespeare' and showing them his genius! He is the wordmaster and is a pleasure to read and study : )"
i know how you feel, i've done workshops with teenagers on it and it's a great feeling to see them actually grasping it and getting excited by it!
i know how you feel, i've done workshops with teenagers on it and it's a great feeling to see them actually grasping it and getting excited by it!
Robin wrote: "I think the 1967, Franco Zefferelli directed one is good, with Olivia Hussey, and Leonard Whiting as the two lead characters. As far as accuracy this is pretty accurate."....two-thumbs up!...the zefferelli's better than leo's version...
have not seen the 1968/7 version but absolutely love Baz Lurhmann's version
The 1968 version was my favorite. I think it showed the essence of older times with still a hint of modern aspects which makes the best kind of mixture. the 1995 version i believe is a little too modern.
I agree with the Zeffrelli version in the 60's, costumes, etc. But I have to say that the excerpts of Romeo and Juliet played in "Shakespeare in Love" by Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes were the best played out.
Well Shakespeare wrote in a way so that it had an infinite possible ways of portraying it so all the movies are accurate. However my favourite is the most modern with Leonardo DiCaprio.
The '60s version is by far my favoite. Despite the bad kissing and tacky tights, it was really good. The acting was amazing, and even though they cut out a few lines, it doesn't matter, because the passionate acting of Hussey and Whitting make up for it. Also, the setting and the music are beautiful. I completely fell in love with the soundtrack:)
I liked the stage version I went to see with school. Though I couldn't help giggling when the dead Mercutio, in his drape covered upright coffin in the scene with the poison got a coughing fit half way through the scene. its the little things that make the stage so much better than the screen :P
For a movie that looks more like Shakespeare intended then the Zefferelli version. For modern understanding of the text Baz Lurhman did a fabulous job.
lenardo dicaprio
Hazel wrote: "Though I couldn't help giggling when the dead Mercutio, in his drape covered upright coffin in the scene with the poison got a coughing fit half way through the scene."Lol, did he try to play it off like it was scripted?
I forget which of the three seasons it is--maybe the first?--but the underrated Canadian series Slings and Arrows works into the plot a few really well-done scenes from this play.Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com
The DeCaprio version (that most of my students love)is entertaining, but having Romeo take some sort of mood-altering drug prior to meeting Juliet for the first time throws the whole movie off for me. Even if Shakespeare's characters may have been possibly drinking wine or partying in the text, the fact that Romeo's mind was clouded in any way throws his entire attraction to Juliet off for me. Their attraction is supposed to be this almost visceral, natural pull that neither have the maturity, power or sense to overlook.It's a small point to some, but this has always bugged me about this more modern version. Perhaps it speaks to the reality of what it means to be young today, but it impacts the story and Shakespeare's intent in my opinion.
This is why I wholeheartedly prefer Zeffirelli's version. It helps that I also find that Romeo a whole lot more attractive too!
I like them both honestly and you should watch them both because they each take a different view on Romeo and Juliet. The Zefferelli (forgive me if I mispell this)is really good and sticks to the Shakespearean feel. But the Luhrman version plays on Shakespeare's humorous side so that one is very good if you want a more dramatic take on the story. Both are really good though and the actors in both productions are seriously funny and hold the characters perfectly.
the Zeferelli one is the one done in the classic style.
My class watched the 1968 version and it was ok. The death scenes had horrible acting and was sooooooo fake I couldn't help from laughing. But it did not show the end right where Romeo kills Paris and where Romeo creeps on Paris (I think that's right). They also added some stuff but not that big of a deal. The other thing was that this version had some nudity and my teacher didn't skip over it at all, but she did warn us and told us when to look away. We also watched some of the 1996 version with Leonardo DiCaprio and that was pretty cool.
Is the 1968 version the one were the actress of juliet couldn't see even though she had acted in it because of the scene when Rome is leaving Verona. Because we watched that one and the Baz Luhrmann version for my English class did it. We watched both as we now have to modernize a scene and preform it. So nervous!
Robin wrote: "I think the 1967, Franco Zefferelli directed one is good, with Olivia Hussey, and Leonard Whiting as the two lead characters. As far as accuracy this is pretty accurate."I AGREE WITH YOU ROBIN. IT WAS ACCURATE AND A GOOD MOVIE!!!
I like the Zeffirelli version, only because it was the first one I saw and I was moved to tears. I loved it. Then in 96 when Baz Luhrman came out and did it with Leo, I had to see it...I was in my teens and in love with leo...but what girl wasn't. I loved it instantly. I would recommend both. I also saw Gnomeo and Juliet, and I thought that one was very cute, although it isn't shakespeare, it is a nod at the classic story.
The Baz Lurhmann one seemed out of place for me, really 1990s Venice Beach people speaking Shakespearean is really off-putting. It gave me a headache, and it felt like a non-self-induced high. I give him props for his creativity, and use of music though. Zeffirelli is classic & good, and not as obnoxious. But there are tons more. Zeff and Baz are the most notable.
I cant decide on one right now cause a new Romeo and Juliet movie is coming out, so after that one comes out then I guess I will see :)
The 1967 Romeo and Juliet movie was by far the best. It has the true spirit of shakespeare's play. I saw it as a kid when it first came out and it was the first time I saw a naked boy's butt (Leonard Whiting). I loved both characters (Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting) as Romeo and Juliet. They did such a great job. I bought the album right after the movie and picked up the play to read. I read the play but was too young to really understand the language. I still love that movie to this day. Watch it, you'll see.
The Zefferelli (w/e) film is more accurate but the Lurhman film is more heart-wrenching and beautiful
Zeffirelli is the most accurate
I agree with the ones who say Zeffirelli is the most accurate. I saw the movie in the theatre when it first came out. That had to be late 60's or eary 70's. I remember the big hype about Romeo's naked butt in the movie. I had to see it. I loved it so much that I bought the record. Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting were such great actors. This is the true Romeo and Juliet movie.
I thought the 1967 movie because the one with Leonardo DiCapricio places the setting in present day which takes the books far from its setting in Verona during the Renaissance.
Franco Zeffirelli's movie is the best, far away. It gets the Shakespeare's spirit best than no one else.
Honestly, I thought the Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes movie was awesome. It's very faithful to Shakespeare's dialogue, but in a very modern way. Wasn't Mercutio fab as a drag queen?! :)
William Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet in the late 16th century about events drawn from 15th century Italy (Verona), which was one of the major centers of the early Renaissance. It's hard to know how to decide about the 'accuracy' of a cinematic version of the play. As Daniel (above, msg 50) noted, Shakespeare 'updated' the action of the play to reflect his own place and time. If Shakespeare were directing plays today I think he would consider first of all the dramatic intent and the ability to affect an audience. I don't think he would concern himself with 'accuracy' or historical authenticity. The play's the thing, and that means, first and foremost, it's essential to grab your audience, keep them entertained, keep them focused on the production. If the OP's desire is to evaluate modern film versions in terms of Shakespeare's intentions, my guess is he would tend to prefer the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version over the 1996 Baz Luhrmann version. Luhrmann didn't pull any punches, it's definitely edgy, but my feeling is that his version loses some of Zeffirelli's focus. I see Romeo and Juliet as a love story but also an indictment of the Renaissance, with the Prince acting as Shakespeare's mouthpiece in articulating a position of social restraint and cultural propriety.
The Zeffirelli version came out when I was 12. Nothing can compare. Especially the very loud tendencies of Baz Luhrmann.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG4gNg..."
I agree. It was my wedding song.