William Shakespeares Romeo & Julia

Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" is not your high school Shakespeare. It's a bullet-riddled opera of young love that has gone up in flames, and I loved most of it. The costumes and makeup were amazing. The settings were great, and the acting was immaculate. The only thing is that Luhrmann's style sometimes overwhelms the story. Leonardo DiCaprio brings raw teenage vulnerability to Romeo-his pain feels real, especially in the final scenes. Claire Danes starts stiff but grows into Juliet's grief with heartbreaking clarity. But the true standout is Harold Perrineau as Mercutio, stealing scenes with wild charisma and tragic depth.

Like many who saw this as a teenager, this was a movie that felt like the most sophisticated thing I'd ever seen, while also being accessible enough to my immature brain. And that's pretty much how I'm going to judge it today.

This is Shakespeare. It's as much Shakespeare as any other adaptation over the centuries. And yet Baz Luhrmann went in with a very specific approach, not only to modernise it while maintaining the poetic dialogue, but to also make it enticing for a teenage audience; the audience most arguably suited to the tale of Romeo and Juliet. It's chock full of the same hallmarks of modern day teen dramas; beautiful teens from wealthy families, sudden and passionate love affairs, with a dash of violence and murder, capped off with an emotional gut-punch or two. It's a tale quite literally as old as time: Star-crossed lovers finding each other against all odds, fighting to keep what they have against the forces around them, and the near-miss of longevity, like every Rom-Com airport scene. It's the type of story that has endured so long precisely because it appeals to us at the most emotional and vulnerable time of our lives, speaking to how we feel about the world around us. It's a hormonal barrage of narrative cues.

So Luhrmann takes this timeless classic, and decides to transplant it into a modern day setting to appeal to modern day teenagers. Or at least, the teenagers of the late 90s. You could probably trace a line from all late-90s fashions back to this movie, either creating the stereotypical aesthetic of the time, or merely doubling down and reinforcing it. This movie is garish. It opens with a newscast acting as the narrator, followed by quick-cuts and flybys of a city centre framed by two imposing skyscrapers, each with the name of a respected mafia-like family conglomerate plastered over the roof. Between them is a giant statue of Jesus himself, almost as tall as these skyscrapers. It's almost cartoonish in its aesthetic. We're then introduced to the Montague boys, clad in Hawaiian shirts left open to flap in the wind, riding a bright yellow topless jeep. They pull up to a gas station and encounter the rival Capulet boys, clad in dark blues and leather, with clean-cut facial hair and a menacing glare. If the Montagues gave the instant impression of good guys having fun, the Capulets give the immediate impression of brooding and serious antagonists. After an exchange of insults, they break out in a gun fight. The saturation is turned way up, the camera shakes and zooms uncontrollably, the editing cuts every second or two. It's beautiful and ugly all at the same time, as Tybalt, the Prince of Cats falls on his knees dramatically, pulls out his pistols, attaches an excessive sight, and takes aim at the fleeing Montagues. It's big, it's bombastic, it's completely lacking in subtlety. There's bright colours and shouting, and emphasis put on every footstep and gun cocking. It's so bad. It's so 90s.

Fortunately this style isn't maintained throughout the movie's runtime, but it never entirely leaves either. We get another frenetic array to the Capulet party, whereby a sexually-ambiguous Mercutio laces Romeo with Ecstasy creating a fever dream of visuals. And then there's that iconic meet-cute. The meet-cute to end all meet-cutes. And the movie slows to a halt. It remembers this isn't a story about the outlandish gang war between two mafia families, but a story about teenage love. Its garish and frenetic nature gives way to something more brooding and enthralling. Things turn serious, characters start dying, the prospect of marriage and a new life become real entities.

Judging this movie literally is a recipe for disaster. Literally it's an over-edited series of scenes full of shouting and bad judgment, about a young boy and girl falling in love immediately, getting married the next day, and then committing suicide over one another a mere four days later. Literally this movie makes no sense. It's ridiculous. But the movie knows that. It's painfully self-aware of how ridiculous this story actually is when you boil it down, so it embraces it. And this is why the prose was kept largely intact: It's poetry. The whole movie is poetry. This isn't a movie about plot points and character development. It's a movie about feelings and moments, about capturing that teenage urgency in a glowing, multi-coloured bottle. I know I had these moments as a teenager, where everything felt like the most important thing ever, where I fell in love with pretty girls without even knowing their names, where anger and joy, love and hate were all so painfully intense. Every scene is bathed in this intensity, including that opening of garish colours and overemphasised sound effects. It's a movie so chock full of hormonal energy it's intoxicating.

Leo is still a fairly young and inexperienced actor here, and his ego shines through his performance. He delivers his lines which such ferocity, like he too felt he was participating in the most sophisticated thing he'd ever done. But at this level his line delivery loses all emphasis, causing it all to merge into a mumble of Shakespearian vocabulary. That said, he's just about as perfect for Romeo as you could get. Claire Danes doesn't fare much better, seemingly struggling with the emotions of it all. It's like they were both put on auto-pilot while delivering their lines. Honestly I can't really blame them. Shakespeare's dialogue is in poetic verse, written for a different time with different dialects and slangs. We the audience are encouraged to just feel what's going on rather than follow and dissect every single word spoken. That said there are some genuinely fantastic performances her that prove that dialogue as outdated and wordy as this can be engaging and emotive. Harold Perrineau plays Mercutio with a fire in his eyes, like he poured over the script and accurately pinpointed which words needed more emphasis, and where he could embellish with gestures and intonation. John Leguizamo is also electrifying as Tybalt, grasping the over-the-top antagonism of his character and having fun with it, creating a whole new style of gun-fu to portray Tybalt's apparent fancy fighting style.

And of course, I couldn't talk about this movie without talking about the soundtrack, which gave us one of the best Radiohead songs ever written (which is a bold claim, I know). It captures the 90s the same way the rest of the movie does, with OK Computer-era Radiohead, Garbage, Des'ree, Butthole Surfers, and The Cardigans. It's rocky, it's ravey, it's as garish and frenetic as the movie's cinematography, and if you're at all a fan of 90s pop music, this soundtrack is a snapshot of that exact taste. Of course this ages the movie horrendously, but hey, we're approaching the time of 90s nostalgia, so now's the time to embrace it.

Romeo + Juliet is an interesting movie to judge, because it's a strictly terrible movie. The modern setting and 16th century dialogue goes together as well you'd imagine, despite some imaginative transpositions (like each gun's brand being a type of blade; Sword 9mm, Dagger .45, Rapier 9mm, or in the case of shotguns; a Longsword). It's so intensely bright and colourful, the editing so frenetic and hard to follow, and the story being somewhat nonsensical by modern standards, but its self-awareness makes up for it, making it all feel deliberate and purposeful. We hold Shakespeare up on a pedestal these days, as some form of high art, but in his time he was basically writing the best soap operas, aimed at entertaining the commoners (the exact same trajectory as actual operas, incidentally, which are nowhere near as sophisticated or intelligent as modern high society would have you believe). With that in mind, and Luhrmann's attempt to make what Shakespeare would've made today (in 1996), I think this movie nails every goal it aims for. It's pure visual poetry, encouraging you to feel the story than follow it intently, blasting you with the intense emotional highs and lows of hormonal teenagedom. I give Romeo + Juliet a bizarrely successful 8/10.

This is not Shakespeare's best play, but it has his best poetry; that's because the play is ABOUT language, about the difference between what something is and the language used to describe it. So among the plays, this may be one of the hardest to film. But alas it suffers from another blessing which is also a curse: the story itself is so powerful that one can build any sort of film or play or whatever around it and have it be likely to work. Thus, we often lose the language.

Zefrelli made his own choices in the earlier film; these were relatively conventional. While it cut some valuable language, sacrificed to the gods of contemporary patience, it is by far the better version. But here we have some interesting choices.

First the setting. Italians to Shakespeare's England were a comical people, and his setting of the play there would have encouraged the audience to bring heavy stereotypes to the drama. Latins in his day were considered: Foppish: Quick to violence (a stereotype that has been inherited by blacks today, but to Londoners, Italians were nearly Africans): Incredibly proud especially as regards slights to masculinity: Obsessed with weapons.

Today, we roll those up under the relatively crude notion of stupid Latin macho. In this film, the director has exaggerated the Latin macho ethic to have the same effect 16th century Londoners would get. It works because these stereotypes are powerful memes which attract many hosts which perpetuate their underlying truth. Baz adds the additional dimension of the people being captured by the superstitious underbelly of the Church.

He deliberately straddles the border between apparent truth and satire. These Latins are superficial visually and not verbally. So here is the solution to the problem on how to make a film (which is primarily a visual medium) out of a play that leverages poetic language. The solution is to convert all the metaphors from language to vision. Hence the much-noted lack of poetry. I imagine Baz directing the players to not worry so much about the poetry.

Both Romeo and Juliet are incapable of performing the poetry anyway: they are children learning on the job. And what acting skill they have from film is all in the face, not the tongue. They are pretty enough though.

I like this film for its boldness. Some of the experiment works since we get the message of the difference between what we see and what is true. This is why Juliet has to see a LIVE Romeo at the end. Living under water is used to good effect. But in the real play, there are so many and such subtle explorations of the theme, and these are scoured away here for a few broad effects. The real message, which comes through loud and clear if you know the play (or even Zefrelli's film) is not the distance between the reality of events and the language, but the reality of the richness of the real play and this film. Equally vast. Equally powerful statement. So we have a playhouse with the back part blasted out to the sea.

As a separate matter, the play has three anchors: Mercutio, the Friar and the Nurse. These are handled interestingly here.

The Friar is an alchemical master hiding under the cloak of the Church. The play equates the magic of language with the magic of potions, equally deadly. The congruence is lost in this film, but Baz definitely gets the magic part as well as the superfluous ritual of the church. This friar is a terrific, memorable performance of someone who believes he can defeat nature. Serves as an anchor as intended.

The Nurse is the true domestic, raw nature, full of uncompromised loyalty but ultimately compromised. Her character is lost here. We NEED to know about the dead sister and why the nurse turns on Juliet in order to save her life. Baz fails here, and so provides no center. For Shakespeare, she's the white space on the palette.

Mercutio in the play is a emotionally engaged visionary mystic. We understand that Romeo and Mercutio studied magic (`philosophy') abroad together much as Hamlet and Horatio had. The dream they shared the night before is the axis of the whole action: rather like the magic of the witches in Macbeth. Baz gets this as well: Modern magic is what? Drugs. So Hamlet is given a psychotropic by Mercutio before going to the party. Works for me, because it allows everything to be visually blasted and inexorably tragic. The whole thing after the party is a trip, see? It is why they can meet, become entranced and arrange marriage after an hour or two. (Remember that until this point Romeo is hopelessly smitten by Roseline.)

Anyone who wrestles with problems of filming the Bard and comes out alive deserves my respect. This is a weird interpretation, but that's the point.

The amazing thing about this movie is that it has managed to re-do Shakespeare's famous tragedy in a modern setting while still retaining its original dialogue. What's even more amazing is it works. I admit that I was a little apprehensive about seeing this movie, fearing that Luhrman had either destroyed the play's beauty and power by setting it in modern times, or had butchered Shakespeare's eloquent words by making them sound more modern. I was wrong. Almost everything about this movie is just incredible.

Luhrman brilliantly casted Claire Danes as fourteen-year-old Juliet. The actress certainly looks the part, with her youthful features and innocent eyes. More importantly, she acts the part. Ms. Danes almost flawlessly captures Juliet's distressing journey from childhood to womanhood, beautifully showing her dramatic transition which had taken toll on her during her five day relationship with Romeo. When the story begins, Juliet is a naive girl, having not yet experienced true love, and by the end we can clearly see just how much her love for Romeo has deepened in passion, and how dramatically her character has developed.

Leanardo DeCaprio's Romeo was almost equally impressive. Some of his recitations of Shakespeare made me cringe, but for the most part he was perfect. One of Romeo's most important characteristics in the play is the intensity of his emotions, and DeCaprio captures this feature incredibly. Romeo is brash and impulsive, with a tendency to act on the heat of the moment rather than to first consider the situation like the more levelheaded Juliet. This unfortunate characteristic, which played a huge role in leading up to the lovers' tragic fate, is wonderfully mastered by DeCaprio and retained throughout the film. But we also, like with Juliet, get a glimpse of his character's development. At the beginning of the play Romeo is a hopeless romantic who fantasizes of love, and seems to dwell more in his daydreamed world than actually on earth. At this point he has no idea what true love really is, he only thinks he does. It is not until he meets Juliet that he can begin to comprehend the true depth and passion of love. DeCaprio triumphs in this area as well.

The other actors are superb, and wonderfully portray their characters as Shakespeare intended. But what really impressed me was, as I stated earlier, the keeping of Shakespeare's original dialogue in Luhrman's modern setting. I know some people criticize this film for destroying the romance and beauty of Shakespeare's words by setting the story in modern day Verona, but I feel that it only made the film more romantic. What Luhrman did was both bold and brilliant, and he succeeded wonderfully.

I won't speak any more of the brilliance of this film, I just highly recommend you see it as soon as possible. If you're a fan of Shakespeare like me, I think you will enjoy this hip, yet still lovely, modernization of his most famous play ever.

I wouldnt change a thing. The acting was beautiful, the scenery, the costumes, the raw emotion. The best version of this tale yet.