I appreciate your tracing of the history of the story's source, one with which I was not terribly familiar. Shakespeare's addition of the murder of Paris adds such delicious moral ambiguity to the climax of the play, and despite the fact that I enjoy butchering the Bard as a hobby, Luhrmann's choice in this case has always baffled me, as it actively makes the story less interesting.
Interesting post on Romeo and Juliet! I haven't seen Luhrmann's version, but your critique did remind me of another writer he butchered: F. Scott Fitzgerald.
There were many things to like about Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" (my favourite novel). His depiction of the era was over the top, yes. To be "faithful" to reality wouldn't convey the wildness of the time -- it would look way too staid by today's standards. By using stylized, hyperbolic, art deco-based imagery, he was able to make the audience feel what it was like during that era better than any true-to-life depiction could. So kudos on that.
But there were at least two changes he made that I disagreed with. One was choosing to have Nick so tramautized that he's in mental health crisis, struggling over ethical elements of the story and how he felt about them. (Really?)
The other falls in line with your argument against his interpretation of Romeo and Juliet -- changing the text. He drops what is probably the most quintessential line in the book (aside from the last line): "Her voice is full of money." Gatsby says. Either Luhrmann doesn't understand the story or he's wilfully butchering it to suit his own artistic vision.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not *morally* outraged he did this. Any adaptation is going to make changes to suit the next medium, and I believe whole-heartedly in artistic licence. But the adaptation should at least convey the spirit of the source material. Otherwise, why bother? (I guess that makes me *artistically* outraged... lol)
In this case, as I said at the time, he ended up with a lesser Gatsby rather than a greater one. (Insert groan here...)
In all fairness, most (maybe all) Gatsby scholars agree that there has never been a good movie adaptation of this book -- I wonder as many of them do if there ever could be. But Luhrmann's was, in contrast to your summation of Romeo and Juliet, a little less perfect and a little less apt than the source material.
I appreciate your tracing of the history of the story's source, one with which I was not terribly familiar. Shakespeare's addition of the murder of Paris adds such delicious moral ambiguity to the climax of the play, and despite the fact that I enjoy butchering the Bard as a hobby, Luhrmann's choice in this case has always baffled me, as it actively makes the story less interesting.
Interesting post on Romeo and Juliet! I haven't seen Luhrmann's version, but your critique did remind me of another writer he butchered: F. Scott Fitzgerald.
There were many things to like about Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" (my favourite novel). His depiction of the era was over the top, yes. To be "faithful" to reality wouldn't convey the wildness of the time -- it would look way too staid by today's standards. By using stylized, hyperbolic, art deco-based imagery, he was able to make the audience feel what it was like during that era better than any true-to-life depiction could. So kudos on that.
But there were at least two changes he made that I disagreed with. One was choosing to have Nick so tramautized that he's in mental health crisis, struggling over ethical elements of the story and how he felt about them. (Really?)
The other falls in line with your argument against his interpretation of Romeo and Juliet -- changing the text. He drops what is probably the most quintessential line in the book (aside from the last line): "Her voice is full of money." Gatsby says. Either Luhrmann doesn't understand the story or he's wilfully butchering it to suit his own artistic vision.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not *morally* outraged he did this. Any adaptation is going to make changes to suit the next medium, and I believe whole-heartedly in artistic licence. But the adaptation should at least convey the spirit of the source material. Otherwise, why bother? (I guess that makes me *artistically* outraged... lol)
In this case, as I said at the time, he ended up with a lesser Gatsby rather than a greater one. (Insert groan here...)
In all fairness, most (maybe all) Gatsby scholars agree that there has never been a good movie adaptation of this book -- I wonder as many of them do if there ever could be. But Luhrmann's was, in contrast to your summation of Romeo and Juliet, a little less perfect and a little less apt than the source material.
~Graham
Interesting read.
Such concupiscence is shown by literary experts who trade Shakespeare's lessons for the momentary glow of Hollywood's farce!