Romeo + Juliet (1996)
Leonardo DiCaprio, Clare Danes, John Leguizamo; d. Baz Luhrmann; B

Whoever said that all adaptations of classics should be stiff and resemble an old film production of a classic play should be beat across the head. Well, not really, but the idea of it is simply ridiculous. What's the point of an adaptation if it's going to be word-by-word? Isn't that merely reproducing the original? Seriously, what is so wrong in setting, say, Lord of the Rings in 1920's Chicago? Or turning an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel into a Woody Allen film? Isn't the fun of an adaptation seeing an artist turn something original into something else completely?

So, what the heck is so wrong with Baz Luhrmann's modern adaptation of Romeo + Juliet? Does every adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy have to be as wooden as Zifferelli's version, or be completely changed around like West Side Story? Am I asking too many questions? Indeed I am. But I am merely confused as to why Luhrmann's vision of Romeo + Juliet is looked upon as such a sin by the Shakespeare elite. Of Luhrmann's three films to date, it is the most deeply flawed, but it's nowhere near the bottom of the barrel when it comes to botched Shakespeare adaptations.

Do I need to retread the plot to Romeo and Juliet? No I don't. If I do, you need to pay attention in school more. All you need to know about the plot is that the leads are played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes, and that John Leguizamo (Toulouse-Lautrec of Moulin Rouge) is in it, too. Oh, and instead of being set in 15th Century Verona, Italy, it's set in 20th Century Verona Beach, California (if you'd like to locate this place on a map, be my guest).

Romeo + Juliet is the scorned middle child of Luhrmann's "Red Curtain" trilogy (the other installments being Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge), and though it is nowhere near the bottom of the barrel of Shakespeare adaptations, it's certainly the most flawed of all Luhrmann's films. Moulin Rouge and Strictly Ballroom show the strengths of Red Curtain, Romeo + Juliet shows its weaknesses and the weaknesses of Luhrmann as a director.

So much of Red Curtain relies on how certain elements of the film's plot, theme, and setting are presented to the audience, and so much of this relies on the time period that the audience lives in. Therefore it's easy for any Red Curtain film to become dated very quickly. Who is to say that 50 years from now the bright, vibrant colors and fast editing of Moulin Rouge will still have the same effect on the audience as it does now?

Romeo + Juliet's seemingly familiar/exotic world becomes more and more exotic as the years grow. The soundtrack plays like a Best of the 90's CD compilation, and the setting, no matter how out of touch with reality it may seem to be, is most decidedly mid 90's. The two young stars of the film are far past their box office peak, one of them has pretty much fallen off the pop culture radar. Years from now this film might not even be as relevant as it was supposed to be in 1996!

Luhrmann was also trying far too hard to make this film appealing to an American audience. Yes, so he's grown up on American cinema, but, unless he's like the Jack of one of Coppola's lesser films, he hasn't grown up on modern American cinema. He can't do action, he can't do teen, and so the result is something as phony as the music in Strictly Ballroom. His style is far too theatrical to be at ease within the blast-and-sock'em crowd.

Another problem with this that isn't reflective of the trilogy is that the use of Shakespeare's original language nearly defeats the purpose of the artistic device used to convey the central emotions/theme. Imagine how effective Strictly Ballroom had been if it was just a ballet, or Moulin Rouge if it were an opera. If Red Curtain is such a collage of culture references, then there is no need for a single, consistent emotional output. Besides, there still needs to be some familiar middle ground at which the audience and the film can meet, and that is the importance of regular dialogue in Red Curtain films. Since modern audiences can barely understand Shakespearian, all the film's basic emotions and character developments are lost. Those who don't know Shakespeare can't understand what's going on, and thus can't get it from the film's visuals.

Then again, the Shakespearian could have worked. It all relied on the acting. But the acting in this film is, for the most part, thin. The key to understanding Shakespeare live is to have good actors who understand the language. Much of Red Curtain relies on not only how well the actors can play their parts but also how skilled they are in the artistic medium used in the film, and most of the cast aren't skilled at Shakespeare at all. The only two who seem to get it are John Leguizamo and Leonardo DiCaprio. Everyone else is just lost in the sauce. Even experienced actors like Paul Sorivino (Goodfellas), whose accent is the very definition of incoherent, can't get the language down. So even still the language is lost on the audience. Thankfully Luhrmann learned from his mistakes.

So Luhrmann can't direct his cast to understand what the word "wherefore" means, but by gawd does he show a remarkable visual skill that wasn't seen in Strictly Ballroom. If anything this film floats on its visuals alone. It's sensory overload, sure, but it's a darned good looking overload at that. Don't believe me? Watch the film in black and white. I did so recently and was amazed at the results. Hopefully if Luhrmann continues to make more films, he'll continue to develop his already superb visual style.

Though I've already dismissed the film's soundtrack as something terribly dated, the film's score is brilliant. Overly sappy at times, yes, but it's a masterful mix of opera and techno (or "electronica" for those who want to get fussy over it), and an improvement from the Casio symphony of Strictly Ballroom. But as far as the score reaches in its emotional intensity the film fails to follow. It's almost like Bernard Herrmann's score for Obsession, just not as good.

Romeo + Juliet is nowhere near as good as West Side Story, but it certainly diserves to be ranked up there as one of the better adaptations of Shakespeare solely because it is not your typical adaptation. It may not go where it wants to, it may not to be a masterpiece, but it's certainly a testament to a talented and daring director.

© Vert A Go Go Reviews 2002