Shakespeare is the type of writer where the substance of the plays is so rich, incredible, and timely that one can’t help but automatically differentiate the works by the style employed to bring them to life. Shakespeare’s plays have in essence become all about style, and the versions that don’t employ some sense of interesting style seem to lack purpose. Take, for instance, the 2013 version of the Bard’s Romantic Tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. If the merits of a Shakespeare adaptation lies in the style of the film, then this film is a failure, a straight telling of the tale that finds itself extremely boring and lacking any sense of interpretation or comment on the work. This is, of course, unlike the 1996 Baz Luhrmann version, which stands as a towering achievement in Shakespeare adaptation, that should be held up with the best of Olivier, Branagh, and Polanski. Why? Because it understands what Romeo and Juliet is the same way that Shakespeare understood Romeo and Juliet, in that it has the balls to make fun of the material, while also stepping completely into the glorification and exaggeration of said material. It has become a common school of thought to think that Romeo and Juliet is in some ways so absurd that it suggests comedy (we are of course talking tone and not genre technically). On one hand, the lust of the two protagonists is beautiful and pure and nice, but on the other hand, that beautiful purity raises the material to a level of absurdity that can’t be supported by anything else than material that holds such a stylistic flourish that it both glorifies and trivializes the material, something that is found consistently throughout Luhrmann’s adaptation. The film, whether by author intent or not, seems to understand the play the same way that Shakespeare did. Shakespeare seems to understand the play as an absurdity, even creating an obvious parody, he placed in his play, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Pyramus and Thisbe. In actively trivializing his own work, Shakespeare accepts that it is, in some stripes, trivial, something that this very self away version of Romeo and Juliet does too. I recently wrote about the film, Bãhubali: The Beginning, another film that perfectly accentuates the strengths that Luhrmann displays here. That film is a ridiculous piece of art, a cheesy, but honest work that plays fully into its emotionality in a way that allows you to both laugh at the care put into such a corny thing, but also accept the badassery (yep that’s a word) of the emotionality on display. To be honest, Romeo + Juliet feels a bit like a Bollywood version of Romeo and Juliet, remixing the play into a music video, corny, yet so emotional that you can’t help but be sucked in. The best moments are those that you can laugh at wholeheartedly and yet indulge in dramatically. An example of this is found in the meeting of Romeo and Juliet. Luhrmann stages the thing like the nightmare of a soap opera hater. He puts up the soft light, he blasts the cheesy late 90’s love ballad and he goes to town showing us the immediate attraction of the titular leads. It’s the type of moment that on one hand is laughable. The music, the close ups, the ungodly naive looking players, they all suggest parody...but it’s not. Instead, that cringeworthy, blistering emotionality seems to create a self-fulfilling circle on itself, with each directorial choice both trivializing and strengthening the connection at the center of the scene. This rampant emotionality combined with the trivialization creates an odd balance. It makes us completely aware of the stupidity that can be found in the center of the connection, but also of the beauty. We as an audience know how this all ends, and trivializing the love only accentuates the tragedy of it, making the audience realize that once and for all, the death means absolutely nothing. If we ourselves can only interpret the love itself as something that is not to be taken seriously, then we cannot take the death seriously, increasing the pathos and sadness grounded in the death of these poor lovers. The most interesting thing about the film is the way that this whole idea would not exist without Luhrmann’s efforts, with his style dictating the interpretation. Romeo and Juliet, played the way it is in the 2013 version (which is to say straight) lacks the extra layer pathos. Now, productions of this play lacking this pathos, aren't technically lesser, they just lack an extra layer. Shakespeare played straight and done well can be a beautiful thing. My favorite of the films adapted from his work is Branagh's, Hamlet. But Luhrmann is a bit more interesting. Part of Luhrmann's style is the way that he cuts film, speeding it up, and slowing it down in the effort to both heighten the style of the piece but also create an exasperating, deflating, break in the verisimilitude of the piece. By doing this, Luhrmann is even calling attention to the fact that each time the film is getting close to feeling legitimate, he can’t help but ridicule the material, forcing the loop of catharsis around and pressuring his audience to understand the sadness in all of this. Looking at many modern interpretations it’s impossible to ignore the reality that Romeo and Juliet’s love is ridiculous and Baz Luhrmann, using his ridiculous style provides the audience with a manifestation of the ridicule we should place on the love at the center of the film and therefore make the story even more pointless, even sadder.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStephen Tronicek. Archives
July 2017
Categories |