Nov 06, PM. Yes, I liked this one tremendously. I never cared to watch the DiCaprio one. Too modernistic for me. Nov 07, AM. This discussion makes me want to watch both versions again; I wonder, would I like the version we had to watch in school more for its nostalgic value? I agree that the later version made the characters more "real" to me, but again I wonder is that simply because Im older now, and can enjoy a good love story without the jr.
None of them. Read the play, or watch a stage production. I'd like to add that Ive also listened to this and a few others okay alot of others I confess on CD and that is my favorite way to soak up a story.
Having it read to you just cant be beat. Rachel, well said. Nov 11, PM. I really liked the theme song in the Zefferelli version,and I enjoyed the soundtrack of the DiCaprio film. All the references to Shakespeares other works were great. Plus it was just a super cute movie. I thought Baz Lurhmann's version was decent, very dazzling visually, but I prefer Zeffernelli's version. It was the first one I saw and I fell in love with it.
Nov 12, AM. Nov 12, PM. Jaykumar wrote: "i think Zeffernelli's version was authentic in terms of the feel of the romance, the youth and the innocence, while the DiCaprio version is modern in its presentation - it does display the grit and I have all 3 copies 2dvd 1vhs so I have to hunt down a VCR. Nov 15, PM. Can we please stop calling Zeffernelli's version the version?
It came out in , I've tried correcting this a couple of times now. Nov 16, PM. The Zeffirelli version retains more of the original spirit of the play. The scenes are mostly in correct order however, as with the Baz Luhrmann version, there are some mixed up scenes. The Luhrmann version changes some pretty obvious and HUGE things like the final scene where Juliet actually wakes up before Romeo is dead.
That definitely brings the accuracy into question. Nov 20, PM. Old version. Nov 26, PM. I think I should see the version. The same goes for his hit movie, which paired teenagers Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting — a younger couple than in previous screen versions.
If Shakespeare was a genius at rhyming couplets, so is Stephen Sondheim: just listen to the staggering lyrics of America, the showstopper in West Side Story, winner of 10 Oscars. Jerome Robbins choreographs balletic battles between the Jets and the Sharks, slang-slinging gangs whose senseless feud unfolds on the streets of New York while the ill-fated lovers share trysts on a fire escape. Bright and brisk, it hurtles towards its finale and is lavishly presented with sumptuous costumes.
A new Romeo and Juliet movie just came out in , directed by Carlo Carlei. It is similar to the Zeffirelli version, with period clothing and the like, but they added in a jousting tournament and some other things not from the play.
Jan 11, PM. Defintely not the 90s one. Jan 10, AM. I think it reveals the true essence of what Shakespeare was trying to write.
Jan 08, PM. I am a high school English teacher, and I find Luhrmann's treatment insulting. It is visually FAR from the way the play was intended to be seen. Shakespeare's vision was created for performance in the Globe's open air atmosphere with few effects, little "flash," and a bawdy appeal to the common-folk. The actors were, indeed, frenetic in their performance, and the pace was such, for many plays late tragedies being an exception , that the humorous scenes came off like slapstick.
The props that were available for Elizabethan-era productions were limited to what the company could afford to supply. There weren't many, but many props they did have were swords. It does not. It represents bloated, Hollywood-ized Shakespeare. Don't misunderstand, there was some very good acting in the Luhrmann fiasco not from DiCaprio or Danes , but the overall effect was that of a standard 's era MTV music video.
The Zeffirelli version, though lacking some of the common-folk appeal of the Globe productions from the s, actually IS better aligned to Shakespeare's reality than the look-at-all-the-pretty-colors-and-modernity version from ' From an academic point of view, I eschew the Luhrmann film because of its blatant lack of concern for Shakespeare's intent.
Just because it uses the language from the original, does not mean that it is good. THAT is some quality modernization. I could have appreciated the flash and color MUCH more if the language was modernized as well.
Staunch defenders of the Luhrmann film were hypnotized by all the pretty colors and fail to see past them into the true nature of the play. Nov 01, PM. Oct 18, PM. Oct 05, PM. The Zeffirelli version came out when I was 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 Franco Zeffirelli version over the 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.
Oct 05, AM. It's very faithful to Shakespeare's dialogue, but in a very modern way. Wasn't Mercutio fab as a drag queen?! Oct 04, PM. Franco Zeffirelli's movie is the best, far away. It gets the Shakespeare's spirit best than no one else. Dec 10, PM. I thought the 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. Dec 03, AM. 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. He was dull, shoddy and lifeless; not at all the Romeo I had imagined and a lot less convincing that Leonard Whiting.
DiCaprio had the looks, but the performance was lacking and his chemistry with Claire Danes was seemingly non-existent. For example, when Romeo searches for someone to lend him a deadly poison.
I was happily surprised by these insertions as they gifted more empathy to secondary characters who were otherwise overlooked. Likewise, the decision to shoot the balcony scene at the pool in the middle of the night made the atmosphere of the scene quite magical courtesy of vivid light reflections and therefore a more atmospheric frame. In this version the director Baz Luhrmann uses a lot of alternative cuts to show events that were told one after another.
The two young lovers being dressed as an angel and a soldier in a armour were also quite telling of the destiny of their young and unhappy lives. I think these similarities were very well managed and I appreciated the work of the director of cinematography and wardrobe team in this respect. Of course, the swords and daggers are replaced with guns, and the two families are like two gangster families — that was maybe a bit excessive as they could have been two rich families without some criminal background.
Conclusively, it can be argued that the two films were very different on many levels despite being adaptations of the same work. Personally, I enjoyed the version much more as there were simply too many faults with the version to overlook in this instance.
0コメント