Shakespeare Fans discussion

How do you think the movies compare to the original play?

Ok, I'll go first. I really like the old version with Olivia Hussey playing Juliet. I liked how they quoted the play exactly, though I caught some changes in the dialogue. I did not care for the modern remake with Leonardo DiCaprio. It was too weird for me, but I did enjoy the ending.

Rose wrote: "Ok, I'll go first. I really like the old version with Olivia Hussey playing Juliet. I liked how they quoted the play exactly, though I caught some changes in the dialogue. I did not care for the mo..."

Rose, I agree in some respects, love the older version, but I liked the DiCaprio version because it introduced a new generation to the play. With any luck, they were hooked a bit on Will through it. i also liked that you feel the youth and edgy/angsty quality that i think the play contains.

I liked the Leonardo DiCaprio version, too. It is really weird, and I don't think I liked it at first, but it grew on me. I agree about the edgy/angsty quality. And I thought Clare Danes and Leo were perfectly cast. They were a beautiful couple and my heart broke at the end.

It's been decades since I've seen the Olivia Hussey one - we watched it in school while reading R&J in class, but it's in my Netflix queue to watch again soon.

I loved the remake with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. It was definitely weird but the dialogue was original and there was definitely an artistic spin on the visuals. I think it did an excellent job of bringing the play into modern times all while retaining the point and story of the original.

Last year, I taught a boy with severe learning issues at his home.
Before we read Romeo & Juliet, he watched DiCaprio and Danes in Romeo & Juliet. He LOVED it. It got to where he was quoting Tybalt and talking excitedly about the psychological needs of the characters. And before we read the play together each day, we'd watch a section of the DVD first and then discuss it.
What a treat to watch this kid get excited about the Bard!

I'll confess: this is low on my list of Shakespeare plays (sorry) BUT nevertheless that Zeffirelli, with Olivia Hussey, does things to me. I cry buckets. I remember once - we went to see this a few times at an arty cinema - once, out in the carpark, I was sobbing as if my heart was broken. That was strange. I do cry easily at movies but not like that. Years later, I got the dvd, and I cry. What's more, I even start to like the lines and hear the poetry - in this play that, honestly, I've had almost an aversion to.

I'll add... (sorry again, if I need to be sorry) the BBC Romeo & Juliet has to be the most hideous thing on earth. I'm a fan of the BBCs; R&J was their launch and they had a different philosophy, than with the others - they were trying to 'sell' to financial backers. To me it's truly dreadful (except for a couple of sides, like Mercutio).

I agree about the BBC version. It was brave of them to cast a fourteen year old to play Juliet, but then to pair her with a Romeo well into his twenties made for very uneasy viewing.

I love both the Zeffirelli and Lurman's versions. While Zeffirelli brings to life the "love at first sight" and the sentimental version that has been enjoyed for hundreds of years, Lurman brings a new version that brings about a more passionate lust and brings to life the sexual attraction between the two characters that may not have been presented in the past. I think Shakespeare originally wanted there to be a stronger attraction of lust between he two but it died down because of the improper use of his time.

My favorite movie adaptation of the play is the Zeffirelli film. I have it on DVD and it's in regular rotation.

I see the appeal of the DiCaprio/Danes version and some of the updates (such as making the chorus a newscaster) were brilliant.

The best LIVE version I ever saw was a small experimental staging that made the Montagues white and the Capulets black. The play worked on so many levels that I'm sure the author never considered.

I'm generally NOT a fan of color blind casting as it really denies something that we humans are NOT blind to and this was not that. In fact the race issue added new levels of complexity to the work making it even more interesting.

The worst production I've seen was actually the converse of that.

Private Romeo a version in which both love interests are guys. While I applaud the idea of an m/m R&J, the gender blind casting with an updated setting but traditional dialogue made for a muddled mess of mixed metaphors. MM MM Bad!

I agree that the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet is excellent (although I find the looped-in dialogue and really bad hair distracting - check out Juliet's father and Friar Lawrence). But before you say that's your favorite, check out the 1976 Thames television version directed by Jean Kemp-Welch. Ann Hasson is the best Juliet I've seen. The fight scenes are the best I've seen in a Romeo & Juliet. Robin Nedwell is one of the best Mercutios I've seen. Do yourself a favor and check it out. You can probably find it at your local public library or request it through interlibrary loan

Romeo & Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.

a true story you must read!

Hi everyone
I went to see Romeo & Juliet at the theatre, directed by Kenneth Brannagh.....umm not sure what to make of it. First of all I thought Derek Jacobi as Mercutio was very good, he gave a new, more hurmouristic rendition of the character. We know Mercutio has a dry cynical humour, but Jacobi's version ellicited quite a few laughs from the audience. As for the fated couple, well...... the PASSION was missing, and Juliet seemed as if she was whining most of the time. Anyone who has seen the 1969 version must remember Olivia Hussey's passion, desperation, "who do absolutely anything for her love" attitude and that was missing in this version. But then it's on stage, so maybe this limits things. Richard Madden as Romeo was very good in some parts, and not so good in others. It was a 1950's style costume, and the Capulet ball had kind of Tango/rock music which was fine.....no need to be in medieval costume every time..... but on the whole what I thought....I quite liked it generally, but the 1969 version might have spoilt me for all other versions. I have, however, just bought myself the DVD of the Christopher Neame adaptation and will watch that......apparently this is a brilliant rendition. However, any opinion one has of various adaptations is very subjective so.....

Patricia,

Thanks for that account of the Branagh production. I am so out of touch these days, I did not even know it was on. It seems to have favourable reviews, for example,

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/201...

-- but the Guardian is very "Branagh friendly". The surprise must be a man in his late 70s playing Mercutio. This, added to the absence of swords in modern Verona, must have given the duel with Tybalt a very odd feel. But casting against expectation can work well: I saw a young, handsome Sir Toby in 12th Night, and that really worked. I'd like to see Falstaff in TMWOW done against our expectations of how Falstaff has to look.

The Zeffirelli film nowadays gets much praise, but when it first came out I remember it was seen as something of a travesty of the original. Mercutio then was played by John McEnery, a brilliant actor who has never made the big time in cinema, and I think his part was a major success of the film ...

Patricia, did you get a feel for the audience reaction to the play?

Right, where to begin. Firstly, Lily James was not playing as she was ill and was replaced by her understudy. I loved Lily James in Downton Abbey, and haven't seen Cinderella yet. Anyway, I thought Kathryn Wilder was a little whiny. She had spoilt brat mannerisms sometimes, don't know if that was part of the director's guidance or her own. Her text sometimes sounded too "recited", like she had learnt her lesson well. But at other times it was better, more heartfelt. As for Richard Madden, very handsome of course, and most of the time he was good, especially towards the end, the "I defy you stars" part....you really felt his emotion. However, at the beginning, I couldn't really "believe" that he was madly in love with Juliet. The "passion" seemed to be missing somewhat.
The 1950s style didn't bother me, I thought it was refreshing, and the music used for the Capulet masked ball was very catchy (tango-ish).
Right, now, Derek Jacobi. Well, he really does not need to prove himself any more (I have admired this actor since the I Claudius days), but boy was his rendition of Mercutio brilliant. And although when I first read he was playing that role, I thought it odd.....but given that Mercutio is a cynic, and has a very dry humour, borne maybe from life experience, an older man playing the role give Mercutio's personality more depth and credence. His Queen Mab speech was just so perfect. His swagger on stage, the happy go lucky, but deeply troubled, attitude fits the character so well. As for Meera Syal as the nurse, she was very good too. Quite a departure from the nurse we see in the 1969 version.
Speaking of that version, I don't see how it is a travesty. Ok, so they cut some of the long long speeches from Friar Lawrence and the nurse, but the fact that it was filmed on location gave it such a real feel, the piazza where they fight, the scorching sun....the crypt. I just love that version. And the passion between Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting was magical.
And of course, Mercutio was brilliant, John McEnery was so good,
I think in England, he played in a lot of series, which I did not see because I live in France. Might have to get some DVDs of his. I saw on his filmography that he played John of Gaunt in Richard II, which I can really see him play. I saw the Ben Wishaw version of Richard II where it was Patrick Steward playing John of Gaunt.

But I really thank Zefferelli for that film, it made me understand Skakespeare at 11 years old. He even got me to see his Hamlet with Mel Gibson, a play I have never been able to get on board with. I know there is a Brannagh version of Hamlet which, apparently is brilliant and which I have to try again, as I only got through two hours of it last time.

As for the audience, well the lady next to me said that the fact that Lily James was not playing made all the difference, and I think she meant that in a bad way.
The audience did laugh and reacted very well to Mercutio, and even some of Richard Madden's inflections when he talked to Benvolio.
A generally positive reaction I think, a lot of clapping, but not a standing ovation. Worth seeing though, because it is always interesting to see how actors/directors feel and interpret plays of any kind. After all, they are not set in stone.

I read the review (thanks for that), and I generally agree with it, except for Lily James obviously.

Well, I'll stop now, because I have rattled on a bit :)

Just now I am reading a "frank annotation" of the play by Dimitra Papadinis. If anyone has chanced on this would be interested in their views. Papadinis reckons that the play (and others by Shakespeare) is so chock-full of multiple entendre sexuality a very great deal more than one's head spins. In terms of reading the play with her notes, I am yet to reach scene two of the first act.

She has more to say about the process of editing Shakespeare that I am not at all sure about, and her case for sex everywhere there is a where is overcooked I think. But she definitely has a case all the same. I bought her edition because I recognised something in the scene between the nurse and Juliet that no edition I know or performance I have seen picks up. When I get to it I'll be back and will probably do a post on my Written World blog about it.

Papadinis has done a few other plays including As You Like It, which is quite bawdy by any measure, so I may read her version as well to see how much more spice she finds to flavour it.

Lauree wrote: "I loved the remake with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. It was definitely weird but the dialogue was original and there was definitely an artistic spin on the visuals. I think it did an excelle..."

I've never had more than a passing interest in R&J, but I rented and watched the DeCaprio-Danes remake yesterday afternoon on a whim; no, I watched it because Claire Danes is so damn good in Homeland. I disliked the opening scenes of this remake so much I was about to throw in the towel...until the fish tank moment, in what would be Shakespeare's original Act 1, Scene 5, which reminded me of that famous Joseph Campbell quote: "The eyes are the scouts of the heart." After that, I couldn't get enough of these two star-crossed lovers. The chemistry was palpable. By the end tears were rolling. I sat up last night reading the play with a whole new appreciation.

I loved the Baz Luhrmann version. Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio were highly believable and I thought the setting perfectly suited the play. Despite having seen R&J half a dozen times the ending made my jaw hit the floor with shock then came the tears.
The Michael Bogdanov RSC version of R&J also brought me to tears but those were tears of laughter. It was modern dress and very well done, though my mother did remark that until this production she hadn't realised that 'Romeo is such a wimp"!!
The Zeffirelli film is a classic but while Juilet is beautiful, Romeo was a little bland and I could never quite figure out why she fell in love with him.
And the BBC Romeo & Juliet was not good.
I would love to see the Branagh production but heaven knows when I will be in London again.

Patricia wrote: "...However, at the beginning, I couldn't really "believe" that he was madly in love with Juliet..."
For me chemistry between the leads is the clincher in every romance. Some couples just don't work.
I saw Wicked a while back and although the guy was singing loudly into the girl's face (hardly romantic) he managed to convey with his body language that he was truly, passionately in love with her. It was both impressive and moving.

Esther wrote: "The Zeffirelli film is a classic but while Juilet is beautiful, Romeo was a little bland and I could never quite figure out why she fell in love with him."

Because I enjoyed the DiCaprio-Danes version, I watched a few clips from the Zeffirelli film, which a lot of critics consider the Hollywood gold standard for R&J. Nope. Doesn't work for me. "Bland" is a good description. Whole sequences of the Luhrmann version are over-the-top punk/MTV/whatever and a huge turn off to me, but the two stars carry it off in a big way, especially Claire Danes, who is its heart and soul.

Steve - I loved the Leo and Clair version ! It was modern , had a different flair , and funny as a tragedy with teen love being awkward would often be . It just goes to show that you can take Shakespeare and interpret him in so many ways to make his work fresh and NEVER boring !

I have yet to see a Shakespeare done as a ballet and that is something I would love to see !

Bravo Shakespeare !
Dawn

Dawn go to you-tube and search on ballet romeo and Juliet. There is a full length video of Peter Martins NYCB take on the classic. Personally I like some of their other stuff better.

Of course some would say that NYCB's "other" choreographer did a better job at "adapting" the Romeo and Juliet story... (West Side Story)

Dawn wrote: "Steve - I loved the Leo and Clair version ! It was modern , had a different flair , and funny as a tragedy with teen love being awkward would often be . It just goes to show that you can take Shake..."

Well said, Dawn! Bravo Shakespeare!

Leonard Whiting as Romeo in the Zefferelli version did not look "bland" to me! Of course, I was in high school (over 40 years ago) when I saw the film and Whiting was about 18. He seemed very nice looking! More people were critical of the girl playing Juliet at this time, but I liked her portrayal too. At the time he and Olivia Hussey were the youngest to portray the lovers.
The version with Danes and DiCaprio is a little too modern for me, but it does show the timelessness of Shakespeare. However, Juliet does not say the famous line, "O, happy dagger!" when she kills herself with a gun.

Kenneth Brannagh's production was thought provoking even if I needed ear plugs. I'm glad I saw it. The older Mercutio worked really well. The version brought out more humour too and the usual male servant parts were played by women who were hilarious.
I just found that because they played it wildly Italian and passionate the actors started off at a high pitch of emotion and volume so R&J had nowhere to go to reach a height of passion that should mark their dialogue and make it memorable.

I have never seen a really perfect production.

As for films, the Zefferelli lost so much of the Shakespeare dialogue though Olivia Hussey was a good Juliet.

Ballet. I wish we could get a copy of The Royal Ballet's production of R&J with Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev. That was spell binding and tear inducing and everything Shakespeare wrote into that play was there - without words.

I was glad to see the Branagh production, but it was much more West End than South Bank, I thought. Juliet seemed to be already too experienced -- with Fellini and pasta and Versace and night clubs.

I'm rewatching the Zefferelli version again & am just wondering... was Mercutio supposed to seem a bit mentally ill? He does come off that way in the Queen Mab speech. And it's reinforced a bit by Romeo's concern.

He's also a bit manic after being mortally wounded. Given the supposed age of the character I'm guessing the it wouldn't be advanced syphilis, but possibly... or perhaps some other mental malady?