Ways of Knowing

Journal Entry 1

Erin Peters

Spring 2005

Dr. Joe Maxwell

After viewing Romeo and Juliet (1996) I felt that I understood more details of the story because I could relate to the culture in which the story was set. The mannerisms of the actors gave me clues about emotions that I did not perceive in the 1968 version of the same story. In the classic versions of Shakespeare’s story, all of the characters seemed romantic to me, but in this version it is clear to me that the “boys” on both the Montague and Capulet sides were violent, raw and lecherous. The violent and desperate nature of some of the characters was illuminated through the context of the movie. From the context of hair styles, clothing choices and mannerisms I saw how romantic Romeo was compared to the other male characters. In the 1996 version, I could see by the context that Juliet’s mother was shallow and petty, something that was not apparent to me in classic versions of the play. To the modern viewer, the substitution of guns for swords adds to the violence and inhuman nature of hate in the story. The director made the hateful scenes choppy and rough, while the scenes between Romeo and Juliet were softened which added emphasis to the message that being hateful is destructive. Due to the contextual clues in the costumes, settings and mannerisms, I understand the passion of the work much more with the 1996 version than with older versions. In my critique of Romeo and Juliet, I use my own background to establish an evaluation of the movie. I feel that an updated version of the movie has more meaning for me, because I do not have schooling in the culture of England at the time of Shakespeare. Classic versions of Shakespeare plays hold little meaning for me, so having some context on which to hang the unfamiliar language helps me to understand the story in a deeper level.

Movie critic, James Berardinelli, perceives the update of the 1996 version to have the same effect. On the website movie-reviews.com, Mr. Berardinelli states that “Luhrmann (the director) hasn’t fashioned this motion picture with the stodgy, elitist Shakespeare ‘purist’ in mind. Instead, by incorporating lively, modern imagery with a throbbing rock soundtrack and hip actors, he has taken aim at an audience that would normally regard Shakespeare as a chore to be endured in school. . . “ By putting the story into a context that is modern, audience members that are not educated in Elizabethean English culture can understand the jokes and small details meant to elaborate on the issues of the story. Mr. Berardinelli boils down the success of an adaptation of Shakespeare to two factors: the competence of the director and the ability of the main cast members. By fashioning a rubric Mr. Berardinelli evaluates several Shakespeare adaptations systematically. He establishes outside criteria from which to judge the effectiveness of the retelling of the 1996 version as well as the 1968 version. Anthony Leong expresses his disappointment in the delivery of the lines in Romeo and Juliet (1996). He feels that the movie spends more effort being flashy rather than being true to the intended performance of the text. Because the movie is in the context of an amalgamation of a modern day Miami and Mexico City, some of the props had to be tweaked to be understood when the lines were enacted. For example, the guns display brand names such as “Sword” so when the gangsters yell, “Put up your swords” it makes sense. Mr. Leong feels that such adaptations give the movie a campy atmosphere. It seems that Mr. Leong is a purist and regards any adjustment to Shakespeare’s original script to be scandalous. He judges the movie on the basis of the degree of difference of the language from the classic version.

On a website for movie reviews written by teens, I found a critique that applauded the linking of everyday context to Elizabethan language. Ellan S., on teenink.com, describes here appreciation of common artifacts such as the television in this production because they drew her into the meaning of the movie. She felt that this version of Romeo and Juliet may revive Shakespeare in the eyes of a new audience. Ellan S. evaluated the movie from the perspective of the amount of access she and her peers had to an old story that is forced on young people through school.

I read many more critiques of the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, but they repeat the same types of evaluations as the ones discussed above. All of the online critiques seemed to come from two perspectives, Shakespeare purists who disliked the movie for the adjustments it made on the original or Shakespeare novices who appreciated the changes because it made the material more accessible to them. The common factor of both of these camps is education. If the critic had schooling in Shakespearean works, they tended to dislike the movie because it took artistic license in order to be original. If the critic did not have schooling in Shakespearean works, they tended to like the movie because it spoke to them through the context of the setting and costumes.