More care to stay than will to go ... |
Romeo and Juliet are like vampires: a permanent fixture in popular consciousness who lie dormant for a while then, when the cycle comes full circle, are revived once more. The latest version of Shakespeare’s homage to star-crossed love is adapted by Downton Abbey’s Julian Fellowes and produced in part by Swarovski Entertainment—the crystal people. Ter and I saw it on the weekend and yep, it’s a gem.
I’m a big Shakespeare fan, but not such a snob that I
have issues with a writer tweaking the lingo. “Adaptation” suggests that a
script will differ somewhat from the original, and what tinkering Fellowes did
with the dialogue worked fine for me. The scenery was stunning, the plot true
to form, and the lovers were indeed young enough if not to be actual teens then
to be taken for them.
My benchmark production is Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968
version with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey—that film boiled over with the
tangled emotions of new love blooming amid ancestral hate. This one fell a
little sort in that regard despite some serious smouldering by the fabulously
hot-tempered Tybalt and the poetic portrayal of Romeo himself. The kid who
played him made this movie more than a pretty bauble. He was Romeo: the
sweet, ardent, honorable fool of Fortune. The guy who played Friar Laurence was
equally good.
No complaint about anyone else, either. They all
wielded Will’s words with relative ease. No society ever spoke in iambic
pentameter, so it was refreshing to hear the iconic lines delivered with an
everyday rhythm that made them sound natural. The one thing I would change—and
Ter didn’t notice it, so I may be picking nits—was an overused soundtrack.
There were scenes where the music was unnecessary and even, so I thought,
intrusive. That said, this is easily the most beautiful version of the story
I’ve ever seen, and I’m watching for more of Douglas Booth (Romeo) in future.
Zeffirelli’s masterpiece still trumps them all, and
Baz Luhrmann’s modern-day version with Leonardo diCaprio and Clare Danes sits
firmly in second place, but for sheer gorgeousness as well as a decent effort,
this one is a hair more than too flattering sweet to be substantial.
I only just learned about this film from your post. If time allows, I may see it Sunday as it is playing in the afternoon.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding, Bean - the PR on this one fell down somewhere, as we only heard about it two days before we saw it. I don't read the newspaper, but Ter does and if not for her catching an article about it in the Arts section, we might have missed this ... and it truly is a beautiful piece. A little light in comparison to the 1968 version, but well worth the price of admission.
Deletecloser halsey the chainsmokers lyrics: click here
ReplyDeletecold future maroon 5 lyrics: click here
black beatles gucci mane rae sremmurd lyrics: click here