Review of Shakespearean recommendation - Baz Luhrmann's Romeo+Juliet

Ah yes, let’s talk about the king of literature this week, with two adaptations of plays that many of us high school students have drudged through to talk about either the doomed nature of love or the nature of guilt. For the recommendation, I take you to a PCP-trip of a movie with a ton of energy and style, and no, I’m not talking about that 2006 Australian gangster version of Macbeth (because that’s a meth trip).

So this movie, directed by Australia’s own Baz Luhrmann, updates the setting of Romeo and Juliet from 16th century Italian Verona to 1990’s Verona Beach in California. I will first start by praising this as a great choice for appealing to audiences, as we can see how Shakespeare’s story and dialogue are timeless. By comparison, if we look at Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet film, which is set in the 16th century, it doesn’t hold up as well because there’s really not as much context or entertainment value as there can be from a more contemporary film. Anyway, back to the actual movie.

Similarly, these meme is more effective at communicating the joke than the use of a 16th century stone tablet.

Two rival gangs, the Capulet’s and the Montague’s are duking it out in the hot Californian summer, with the heat and vibrant neon providing an awesome backdrop to the scene. Forbidden love soon blooms between the children of both families, and a tragedy of love and devotion follows, with plenty of shootouts and rage along the way.

Baz Luhrmann’s ridiculous, over-the-top directing style somehow feels right at home here, capturing the drug overflow, boiling heat and bright colours of MTV-era California and applying it to a timeless story. The rapid editing, flashy cinematography and music video set pieces all come together brilliantly in showing the flurry and rush of these people’s romance, all set against a backdrop of stylised violence.

The Montague squad.

One thing I do usually notice with films of this 90’s/early 2000’s era is that they age like decrepit milk, because of visual presentation and an MTV style which confuses the children who came after. But Romeo + Juliet somehow avoids that problem, despite its direction and 90’s AF soundtrack (which is awesome, by the way), because the story it’s telling is timeless, and the disjointed, wavering style and cinematography really give it a sense less of time period and more of a sense of location, of a hot place filled with tension of all kinds. It’s still as good now as it was in 1996.

And how can I go without mentioning Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so steaming hot in this movie that he’s contributing to global warming. His energy and playfulness with an equally game Claire Danes make them a believable couple, and his youthful energy and discovery really make him a relatable character. Throw in the ever-capable Pete Postlethwaite as a tattooed monk and Blackadder’s Miriam Margoyles as the kindly Nurse, and you have an excellent quartet of different wits, ages and styles coming together really well.

Star-crossed lovers.

If I have a problem with this movie, it’s John Leguizamo. Now I have no problem with Leguizamo, especially considering his theatre work and movies like Chef, but his portrayal of Tybalt just doesn’t feel right. He’s the only character in the movie for whom the original Shakespeare dialogue just doesn’t fit, and his rage in the original play just fails to come through in Leguizamo’s acting or his costume. He just looks like some gangster.

Regardless, Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo+Juliet is a great Shakespeare adaptation, proving you can take 400-year-old texts and redesign them in a modern context without losing any of the spirit that made them great. The tongue-twisting dialogue of Medieval England combined with the pop and vigour of 90’s California makes for an engrossing love story with some good performances and a genuinely original style.

So, which Shakespeare adaptations made you either want to be or not to be? That is the question I want you answering in the comments.