Romeo and Juliet

This production got glitsy treatment by production head Irving G. Thalberg, who was showcasing his wife, Norma Shearer, playing Juliet: two years of research, a crew sent to Verona to photograph parts of the city; reconstruction of Verona's Church of San Zeno on the back-lot; thousands of extras; beautiful costumes and sets, etc. Although the screenplay was shortened, Thalberg also insisted that only Shakespeare's words were to be used in the dialogue. That would be a pleasure for those who knew the play, but a bane for those who didn't. Shakespeare's spoken dialogue isn't very easy to understand. Like any foreign language you learned a little bit in school, you can translate written material and get the gist of what is going on, but try deciphering normal speech in that language and you will be lost. I had a difficult time understanding some of the speeches (almost nothing that John Barrymore was saying) - they flew by me too fast. (On the other hand, I studied Hamlet and Macbeth in school and relish watching movie versions of those plays.) Still, I enjoyed this film, since I knew the general story, and there were sections that didn't tax my knowledge of Shakespearean English. Some of the lines were beautiful. I never new that the expression "star-crossed lovers" was Shakespeare's. Edna May Oliver's comedy was superbly played and the acting of the rest of the cast was excellent. The title characters were supposed to be teenagers, so that both Leslie Howard (at 54) and Norma Shearer (at 31) were a bit old for their parts, but that was a minor point. My advice to anyone wishing to watch this film: read the play first!

While I was looking for new materials to help teach "Romeo and Juliet," I found the 1936 version of the play and naturally I was intrigued. I'm assuming that most people know the basic plot and have seen other versions of the film, if this is not the case you may want to stop reading and keep the surprise for viewing.

This version is faithful if not to the exact order of all the dialogue then to the acts and scenes written by Shakespeare. For those teachers that are looking for a version that explains how the letter from Friar Lawrence never reaches Romeo and the reaction of the local populace to "Plague," this is the version that does it very well. Not only do we learn why Friar John never gets to Romeo but we also get the death duel between Romeo and Paris, a scene that has been cut out of every other version I've seen. Plus we get the closing moment of peace between the families. However, the death of Lady Montague is omitted.

The movie leaves a little to be desired by modern audiences and the typical class of high school freshman many need some heavy prep work to get them ready to view "black and white" and "old" as something other than "lame." But, I think that segments of the film would be well worth showing to the class and viewed as a treat and not a torture when it's not the whole product being shoved down in one lump.

I recommend checking it out as an additional resource to add a balanced movie perspective to the characters Shakespeare created. The main problem with it is the age of the actors playing the parts of all these young people. Leslie Howard is 40 years old. Norma Shearer must be of a similar age and it shows in some of the scenes. The age of the people supposedly playing teenagers does strain credibility and at times the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They don't convincingly play "passion." You can chalk the overall feeling of muted emotion to the era because at times the emotions do come through brilliantly.

Although there were a number of silent versions of Shakespeare plays, and the first direct screen adaptation of his work was in 1929 with the (incidentally very entertaining) Fairbanks/Pickford Taming of the Shrew, it wasn't until the mid-1930s that Hollywood really set its sights on the Immortal Bard™. The industry had emerged triumphant from the coming of sound, the worst years Depression and the enforcement of the production code, and now was the time to scale new heights.

Now, Shakespeare was great, and 30s Hollywood was also great, but in a very different way. The two were not entirely incompatible, but there was certainly a lot of scope to get things wrong. And one of the worst things to go wrong in this particular example is casting. A year earlier Warner Brothers had thrown decorum to the winds and simply lined up their usual rogues gallery of wisecrackers for a wild and surprisingly effective edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream. MGM however seemed keener to preserve a sense of theatrical propriety and chose actors for their credentials and experience.

Experience comes with age, and that is really the biggest single problem with these two star-crossed lovers. Norma Shearer gives a powerful and emotionally realistic performance, but she has the demeanour of a woman who has seen a bit of life, as opposed to a girl embarking on her first romance. Lesley Howard would actually make quite a good Romeo, he has the right honest bearing and simple handsomeness, but really he would have to be at least ten years younger. One might argue that if their acting is strong enough, surely we can stretch the imagination a little and overlook their years. This can and does work in some pictures (for example Anne Bancroft only being a little older than Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate), but for Romeo and Juliet it essential that we get that impression of flighty, passionate young lovers whose eventual demise is a tragic waste of life.

But there is worse yet than Shearer and Howard. The very acme of bad casting is here represented by John Barrymore as Mercutio. Don't get me wrong, Barrymore is comically eccentric, but Mercutio is supposed to be a sly young rake, not some jolly middle-aged lecher. And remember the character was named after his mercurial temperament (meaning quickly changing mood), yet Barrymore is just incessantly merry. Mercutio's greatest moment – the Queen Mab speech – is reduced to a wittering ramble. Another mistake of the casting couch was Andy Devine as Peter the servant. Devine is funny, and could even have been an asset in a Shakespearean comedy, but he is not right here. There are meant to be a few laughs in Romeo and Juliet, but not from some inept twerp. His inclusion in the opening brawl (the lines he speaks here belong to another character) is ridiculous, and sets absolutely the wrong tone.

This was an Irving Thalberg production, and Thalberg was probably the finest of the old-style producers, having a real knack for putting together the right team and then graciously leaving them to it. It's unlike him to make so many blunders with principle casting, but at least he got a decent crew. George Cukor was a good choice for director, as he was already the best when it came to stage-to-screen adaptations. He fills the earliest scenes with all sorts of bustle and background movement, then makes everything simplified and stripped down as the drama intensifies, focusing everything on the performers. William Daniels's cinematography is stunning, rich in light and shadow, the standout being the dance scene in which Howard is crisply black and Shearer shimmering white, with the background figures a wash of grey. Even on the acting front it's not all bad. Edna May Oliver is spot-on as the nurse, with her almost guttural delivery complementing the character's lewdness. And Basil Rathbone gives a calm, calculated performance, keeping all Tybalt's aggression simmering below the surface.

It was around this time that Laurence Olivier claimed Shakespeare could never work on screen, saying, "The shot is too big for the cannon". Of course, he would soon swallow his words and become the foremost actor, director and producer of Bard movies. His statement was born from the snobbishness of a naïve young theatre devotee, but one can't help thinking that such lukewarm offerings as this Romeo and Juliet only served to back up his opinion.

The fine cast and production make this adaptation of "Romeo & Juliet" a satisfying one, both as a movie and as a realization of Shakespeare's play. Most of the cast is matched up very well with their characters, and the lavish settings provide a good backdrop for the drama.

Although it's soon clear that Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer are quite a bit older than the original characters were, in other respects they are well cast. Shearer's eager innocence and Howard's refinement fit together well, and although they are clearly not the teenage characters of the original, their romance is believable and convincing in itself.

The other roles include some nice casting. Reginald Denny as the loyal Benvolio, Basil Rathbone as the hard-hearted Tybalt, and Edna May Oliver as Juliet's bustling nurse are all enjoyable to watch. But the highlight of the cast is John Barrymore, who steals every scene as the fun-loving, ill-fated Mercutio, a character who is well-suited to Barrymore's strengths. It's a blessing that at least one of Barrymore's numerous Shakespearean roles was captured in a film for posterity.

The script abridges many of the scenes for cinematic purposes, and it does well in fleshing out the basic story with the duels, festivities, and other events, at times also dramatizing developments that in the original text are only mentioned by the characters. Overall, it is a well-conceived, well-executed, and enjoyable movie version of the famous story.

Unlike so many of the other commentators below, I am not a fan of Ms. Shearer. In her opening scene, she gushily keeps herself wide-eyed and smiling--all the time acting innocent, while Olivia Hussey and other screen Juliets don't have to act innocent: they are innocent.

That said, this film has much to offer, despite its lacking the passion of other more recent versions. The verse is spoken well, and Barrymore is brilliant as Mercutio. Yes, he's pure ham---but a succulent one. His Mercutio is, as the character's name implies, mercurial as well as absurdist, ironic, and virile. Rathbone is like a living rapier and gets my vote as the best Tybalt the screen has ever seen. However, don't believe producer Thalberg's ballyhoo that every word spoken in this film is from Shakespeare's play: it isn't, although it's close.