Hi John. Your points are very well made. As far as scholars' response to Luhrmann's take on the play is concerned, I see them as being grateful that Luhrmann's film attracted so much attention. The humanities have been under threat in universities since the 1980s, so a film version of R+J, however bastardised, which achieved Oscar status, and that attracted a new generation to Shakespeare, must have been a huge relief for academics. When I attended the University of Auckland as an undergraduate in the 1970s, the English department had several internationally renowned Shakespearean academics, including MacDonald P. Jackson and Michael Neil. Andrew Gurr was a student a few years before. Ten professors and lecturers taught Shakespeare. I recently returned to do a Masters and the department was down to two Shakespearean scholars. They were both very knowledgeable, but just one had international profile. And the English degrees now teach way fewer Shakespeare courses. Projecting myself back to when Luhrmann's film came out, I imagine the emotion quite a few academics felt was gratitude. They weren't going to then quibble over Luhrmann's departures from the text.
Jan 3, 2022·edited Jan 3, 2022Liked by John McGee, PhD
I found these essays very compelling & well written. In fact, I actually love Baz Luhrmann’s R & J, but you have managed to put into words the feeling I always had that it was missing something. I was in my early 20s when it came out & a theatre tragic, so I was the perfect audience for Luhrmann’s MTV version. It is only with age, experience & a little knowledge that I understand what I felt, even if I still love the film for it’s spectacular visuals, some of the ways in which it was modernised (the newscasters as Chorus where a brilliant choice) & the fact that it brought Shakespeare to a whole new audience in a way that they could identify with.
However, I wholeheartedly agree that this film is most definitely Baz Luhrmann’s R & J, not Shakespeare’s. His claims of fidelity to the text are misleading. He is only true to the text in that he kept the original language, all be it picking & choosing what suited his vision. And that vision was always going to be huge & poppy - it’s what we know to expect from him. Now, coming at this as a more experienced theatre maker, I can see how the film fails to serve the text in important ways. Having performed R&J numerous times now, the grimness of Shakespeare’s text is what really drives home the deep suffocation and desperation that these characters must experience. As Nurse, sitting by the tomb where my Juliet lay, I felt literally crushed by the weight of death, heartbreak, and guilt. Interestingly, our production was designed around a Mondrian inspired floor painting, with specific spaces for specific things, keeping the central white tomb space free of anything but R & J’s deaths. We avoided it at all costs, taking pains to make it obvious that we were skirting around this “bad” area of the stage, and even when R & J died, no other actor entered the area. For me these choices were what enabled me to access this crushing horror & unbearable sadness. I had the same feeling a few years later when I was lucky enough to see R & J at The Globe in London - a modern day performance without set that still managed to stay true to the text. In fact it was only enhanced by some of the choices made. Mercutio as a female added an incredibly rich layer & the way the actor delivered the Queen Mab monologue was nothing short of heartbreaking. These feelings of suffocation & desperation are important parts of what I feel Luhrmann missed, and so the film feels messy & lacks focus. The first thing I tell my company when directing Shakespeare is that the text is everything- there are no stage directions or scene descriptions because everything that Shakespeare wants to communicate, all of the themes & emotionality, are in the dialogue. By cherry-picking what he wanted from the play, Luhrmann misses some of the most important pieces of information. I still feel that there is a lot to like about the movie - visually it is quite stunning, well shot, and the performances are great. I just wonder what magic could have happened if Luhrmann was as faithful to the text as he claims.
Firstly, may I commend you on your engaging writing style, illuminating without being dry.
You write a thought-provoking line by line analysis of the original text to support your argument that this scene should be more macabre than marvellous, more gruesome than gallant. And there is no doubt that Shakespeare's language supports your point. However, the bigger question is whether a movie has to be loyal to its source? Particularly when its source is over 400 years old. A film is, after all, a distinct visual genre with its own conventions and stylistic criteria. And, as with any art form, open to individual interpretation. Most importantly, it is written to suit its audience and the expectations that they will bring into the theatre - in this case, the modern expectation that Romeo and Juliet is a play of romance and beauty. Should your beef be with the academics and teachers who create this flawed expectation in the first place rather than movie makers whose primary job is to create a commercial success?
Good points and similar to my read of this play as very dark. BL pops it up to make money - hey, S-speare would approve, maybe. This is a ply where all the main characters end up in pools of their own blood and vomit! So the "love" theme, seems a "bolt-on."
To me the play starts with young guys trying to kill each other (gee, just like today) and gradually pulls deeper into itself and the truly dark. S-speaere is awful at love - "Desire is death." in the Sonnets, "love is an ass" in the only plot he made up, etc. - and these characters descend - literally and figuratively into gut rending destruction. Remember also Julie really likes Tybalt.
I have started to reread Freud and so characters actions "descending" into very dark places is a nice pre-modern/Freud reality check. Mab's "atomies" having their way - again, as tank roll thru UKR.
THEN, at the end. And S-speare's ending are weird - the parents celebrate!? A golden statue!? Huh!? "Desire is death." Really!? Weird....
Hi John. Your points are very well made. As far as scholars' response to Luhrmann's take on the play is concerned, I see them as being grateful that Luhrmann's film attracted so much attention. The humanities have been under threat in universities since the 1980s, so a film version of R+J, however bastardised, which achieved Oscar status, and that attracted a new generation to Shakespeare, must have been a huge relief for academics. When I attended the University of Auckland as an undergraduate in the 1970s, the English department had several internationally renowned Shakespearean academics, including MacDonald P. Jackson and Michael Neil. Andrew Gurr was a student a few years before. Ten professors and lecturers taught Shakespeare. I recently returned to do a Masters and the department was down to two Shakespearean scholars. They were both very knowledgeable, but just one had international profile. And the English degrees now teach way fewer Shakespeare courses. Projecting myself back to when Luhrmann's film came out, I imagine the emotion quite a few academics felt was gratitude. They weren't going to then quibble over Luhrmann's departures from the text.
I found these essays very compelling & well written. In fact, I actually love Baz Luhrmann’s R & J, but you have managed to put into words the feeling I always had that it was missing something. I was in my early 20s when it came out & a theatre tragic, so I was the perfect audience for Luhrmann’s MTV version. It is only with age, experience & a little knowledge that I understand what I felt, even if I still love the film for it’s spectacular visuals, some of the ways in which it was modernised (the newscasters as Chorus where a brilliant choice) & the fact that it brought Shakespeare to a whole new audience in a way that they could identify with.
However, I wholeheartedly agree that this film is most definitely Baz Luhrmann’s R & J, not Shakespeare’s. His claims of fidelity to the text are misleading. He is only true to the text in that he kept the original language, all be it picking & choosing what suited his vision. And that vision was always going to be huge & poppy - it’s what we know to expect from him. Now, coming at this as a more experienced theatre maker, I can see how the film fails to serve the text in important ways. Having performed R&J numerous times now, the grimness of Shakespeare’s text is what really drives home the deep suffocation and desperation that these characters must experience. As Nurse, sitting by the tomb where my Juliet lay, I felt literally crushed by the weight of death, heartbreak, and guilt. Interestingly, our production was designed around a Mondrian inspired floor painting, with specific spaces for specific things, keeping the central white tomb space free of anything but R & J’s deaths. We avoided it at all costs, taking pains to make it obvious that we were skirting around this “bad” area of the stage, and even when R & J died, no other actor entered the area. For me these choices were what enabled me to access this crushing horror & unbearable sadness. I had the same feeling a few years later when I was lucky enough to see R & J at The Globe in London - a modern day performance without set that still managed to stay true to the text. In fact it was only enhanced by some of the choices made. Mercutio as a female added an incredibly rich layer & the way the actor delivered the Queen Mab monologue was nothing short of heartbreaking. These feelings of suffocation & desperation are important parts of what I feel Luhrmann missed, and so the film feels messy & lacks focus. The first thing I tell my company when directing Shakespeare is that the text is everything- there are no stage directions or scene descriptions because everything that Shakespeare wants to communicate, all of the themes & emotionality, are in the dialogue. By cherry-picking what he wanted from the play, Luhrmann misses some of the most important pieces of information. I still feel that there is a lot to like about the movie - visually it is quite stunning, well shot, and the performances are great. I just wonder what magic could have happened if Luhrmann was as faithful to the text as he claims.
Okay, so spoon in hand I begin stirring.
Firstly, may I commend you on your engaging writing style, illuminating without being dry.
You write a thought-provoking line by line analysis of the original text to support your argument that this scene should be more macabre than marvellous, more gruesome than gallant. And there is no doubt that Shakespeare's language supports your point. However, the bigger question is whether a movie has to be loyal to its source? Particularly when its source is over 400 years old. A film is, after all, a distinct visual genre with its own conventions and stylistic criteria. And, as with any art form, open to individual interpretation. Most importantly, it is written to suit its audience and the expectations that they will bring into the theatre - in this case, the modern expectation that Romeo and Juliet is a play of romance and beauty. Should your beef be with the academics and teachers who create this flawed expectation in the first place rather than movie makers whose primary job is to create a commercial success?
Just saying.
Spoon down.
Good points and similar to my read of this play as very dark. BL pops it up to make money - hey, S-speare would approve, maybe. This is a ply where all the main characters end up in pools of their own blood and vomit! So the "love" theme, seems a "bolt-on."
To me the play starts with young guys trying to kill each other (gee, just like today) and gradually pulls deeper into itself and the truly dark. S-speaere is awful at love - "Desire is death." in the Sonnets, "love is an ass" in the only plot he made up, etc. - and these characters descend - literally and figuratively into gut rending destruction. Remember also Julie really likes Tybalt.
I have started to reread Freud and so characters actions "descending" into very dark places is a nice pre-modern/Freud reality check. Mab's "atomies" having their way - again, as tank roll thru UKR.
THEN, at the end. And S-speare's ending are weird - the parents celebrate!? A golden statue!? Huh!? "Desire is death." Really!? Weird....