Discussão Romeo Và Juliet
Discussão → Filmes → Romeo Và Juliet → Geral
Romeo and Juliet (1968): Analysis
publicado por northcoastSTAFFMOD em 19 novembro 2023 às 1:23 PM
Like many in the English-speaking world, my first exposure to this film was in a school English class- in my case, around 1990 when I was a high school (secondary school) underclassman of around 15. Over the years I've heard that this adaptation, by the great director Zeffirelli, was perhaps the most faithful film adaptation of the classic stage play. I've not seen any of the other film adaptations, so I cannot personally verify if that is true, but last night, with a paperback copy of the play in hand, I compared the fidelity of the film to the actual work.
To my surprise, contrary to my initial belief and foggy memory, significant sections of the play were cut when writing the film's dialogue. This demonstrates the difference between artistic mediums, since-- purist though I am --these cuts were probably necessary in order to make an engaging film, as opposed to say, merely filming the actual stage play (which by very definition is not why audiences go to see movies). This film already came in at 2 hours and 18 minutes; to include everything-- along with the requisite cinematic flourishes --would've probably meant an at-least three hour effort.
To Zeffirelli's credit, the cut sections of the play were the least important, in terms of moving the movie along (from a purely stagecraft viewpoint, to eliminate any of Shakespeare's meticulous wordsmithing would be a literary crime, but for the world of cinema we can grant some license):
At various points in the film, lines from other characters not directly relevant to Romeo and Juliet's love story are eliminated, and in others, wholly new dialogue is presented to give context to certain scenes. In a few instances, there is even contemporary language used that would not have been uttered in Shakespeare's day. In some instances lines are moved around and spoken at different times than they were in the actual play-- but all the high points are there, along with, I'd say, better than 50% of the minor moments. Some major deletions are at the end:
We never see Romeo visit the apothecary to obtain his own dose of fatal poison, nor do we see Romeo and Paris (the "County" man who was to wed Juliet in Romeo's place) engage in their final fight at the mausoleum. But these cuts can be tolerated.
Michael York was phenomenal as Tybalt; both Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting acted adequately, but it is plain to see after rewatching this film so many years later that those two, at their very young ages (16 and 17, respectively, when their scenes were filmed) lacked experience. Some of their acting was rather choppy.
Technically speaking, the dubbing of the dialogue track with the rest of the film also appears somewhat off (and I have a recent Criterion version). I'm surprised with all the attention to detail, that this was not fixed in post.
Still, one cannot overlook the general good quality of this film, and its extensive impact on the modern day introduction and reception of many to the brilliance of Shakespeare's original play.
And I positively love the last line of the play, retained in its original in Zeffirelli's film:
"For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo."
Which only demonstrates that this story was just as much Juliet's, as it was Romeo's; in my opinion, even more so her story. Which is groundbreaking considering the time the play was written.
Romeo and Juliet (1968):
8 out of 10.
Resposta de rooprect
em 19 novembro 2023 às 3:56 PM
Great review! It's been ages since I saw this movie (shown in high school English class) so I remember almost nothing except your 1st point. It didn't feel like a stage play but rather a very cinematic adaptation, necessary cuts and all. I liked it that way at the time, but I guess in my old age I've become more of a purist preferring the stagelike Orson Welles or Laurence Olivier versions of Shakespeare. But I still want to watch this again.
Hey nc, since you have the play fresh on your mind, you might want to check out the 1996 adaptation Romeo + Juliet next. In this case, the director Baz Lurhmann took huge liberties, visually, by setting it in modern times (guns instead of swords, etc), but if I'm not mistaken he kept all the original Shakespearean dialogue as-is. Meaning word for word, it might be closer to the original text. Call me crazy but I enjoyed it. It pushed the boundaries of creativity without rewriting Shakey's words, and if you accept the deliberate anachronism of modern gangs sporting Elizabethan speech, it works. However, much suspension of disbelief is required so if you end up hating it, fair enough!
Resposta de northcoast
em 19 novembro 2023 às 6:03 PM
Ok, you're crazy.
Seriously, rooprect, thank you for the kind response. But, as for the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, I have been avoiding that movie like the plague. I mean, Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio? I like them both, but, it seemed too teeny-boppy (meaning aimed exclusively at teenagers, or, maybe I should say, even younger tweens). But it is closer to the original dialogue, you say? I never would've thought so. O, rooprect! I don't know if I can do it . . . I wouldn't mind giving any of the iterations of Romeo and Juliet made prior to 1968 a chance, but the 1996 version just looks too pretty. Then again, what am I going on about-- I liked Julie Taymor's modern spin on Titus Andronicus (Titus, 1999), and years later saw a similarly-modernized version of the actual stage play. O, rooprect I just don't think I can get there with a modernized version of Romeo and Juliet!
But that's just my hopelessly Luddite self.
Resposta de bratface
em 19 novembro 2023 às 7:36 PM
Here is an interview with Hussey & Whiting, done after they had finished filming:
https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-leonard-whiting-olivia-hussey-1967-online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDv-iV1gFgo
Resposta de rooprect
em 19 novembro 2023 às 8:20 PM
Haha it will definitely tax your patience to the breaking point. I didn’t care for it the 1st time I saw it, for the exact reasons you mentioned: the pretty pop version of Shakespeare. But since then I became a fan of Baz Luhrmann and came to understand his quirky Aussie irony. His 1992 debut Strictly Ballroom is a satire of Spinal Tappian proportions. So I honestly believe the DiCapprio/Danes pop flavor was intentional cheekiness. Perhaps he was making a veiled statement that modern audiences won’t care about Shakespeare unless it has teenieboppy heartthrobs and a lot of loud guns & explosions….?