|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 1, 2019 17:24:36 GMT
This is one of my favorite movies, and, IMHO, the very best Shakespearean adaptation on film.
Franco Zeffirelli really took a gamble in casting actors who were close in age to the star-crossed teenagers of the play.
But I think it worked beautifully; sure, they were inexperienced, but what the hell?
They were both so beautiful and lovable, and their deaths caused Vietnam-hardened young people to weep.
It deservedly won Oscars for Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design.
If I had my way, it would have won for Best Picture, too, although 1968 was a great year for movies.
In honor of the film's 50th anniversary last year, Olivia Hussey came out with her autobiography called "The Girl on the Balcony".
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jan 1, 2019 17:44:36 GMT
Definitely my favorite film version of the story, although the 1936 version with the overaged actors was fun as well because of the all-star cast. Beautifully filmed and as you said, it certainly did deserve those two Oscars. Did not know about Olivia's book. I will have to check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 1, 2019 19:25:06 GMT
Let's not forget the uncredited Sir Laurence Olivier, who provided the prologue and epilogue and who dubbed for the actor who played Lord Montague.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jan 2, 2019 21:38:45 GMT
Good movie. In my top 5 for 1968. Mercutio (John McEnery) just about steals the movie, and Michael York's acting (as the villain Tybalt) is excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 4, 2019 21:45:27 GMT
Good movie. In my top 5 for 1968. Mercutio (John McEnery) just about steals the movie, and Michael York's acting (as the villain Tybalt) is excellent. An 18th century story that has entered the Shakespeare mythos is that Will decided to kill off Mercutio about half-way through the play because he threatened to take over the play from the two leads. Well, there is no way anyone could have known that, but McEnery's performance demonstrates to us why the myth started in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 4, 2019 22:01:51 GMT
When I was in high school in the early '60s the two Shakespeare plays we read were Julius Caesar in the 10th grade and Macbeth in the 12th because these were two of Shakespeare's plays with no sex (or so that was the belief). Shortly after Zeffirelli's film, Romeo and Juliet, with loads of sex, replaced JC in many, if not most, U.S. high schools. In the '70s and '80s, it was often taught alongside West Side Story.
In 1996, Baz Luhrman directed another big screen version with a modern setting. It had a similar impact on high schoolers. I have put this in some other threads but maybe it bears repeating. It is about something I listened to on a podcast from the Folger Shakespeare Library.
Stage director Joe Calarco described productions of “R&J” from past times, especially the Victorian era, until Zeffirelli (including the 1936 George Cukor directed film) as “Very cold, very polite, and very constipated.” All that changed in 1968. Suddenly, all the sexual attraction, the erotic charge, and the sheer excitement and energy was back. On that same podcast, Linda Charnes, professor of English at Indiana University, Bloomington, confessed, “My first experience of Shakespeare was Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, after which I wept for two days.” About the 1996 film, another professor of literature had this to say: “For people my [high school] age the Luhrman film was just a really powerful introduction to Shakespeare…they made these promotional and, I think, collectible postcards that came out in magazines like ‘Seventeen’ or “YM.’ I had this postcard that I had ripped out of Seventeen Magazine - it had a picture of Juliet on her balcony and underneath in script it said, ‘My only love sprung from my only hate’ - and I put it up in my locker.”
I think the 1968 Romeo and Juliet can rightly be called revolutionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 5, 2019 1:56:34 GMT
If memory serves me correctly, there was another version made in 2015 or 2016.
It sank like a stone!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 5, 2019 2:14:01 GMT
If memory serves me correctly, there was another version made in 2015 or 2016. It sank like a stone! It was 2013. I have not gathered the courage to watch it. One reviewer called it "dumbed down." Apparently they hired a bunch of bored and mumbling twenty-something actors who couldn't care less what they were saying or doing. I thought I had read at the time that they were using a modern English "translation" but I may have misunderstood. I don't have the energy, however, to check up on it. EDIT: Instead of a modern "translation" there is a new screenplay by Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park, Downton Abbey) who should have known better. |
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 5, 2019 14:54:43 GMT
2013?? My, how time flies!! I saw the 1936 version once on TCM, and I wouldn't care to ever see it again. Besides the actors being too old for their roles, Thalberg produced this film as a showcase for his wife, Norma Shearer, whose performance as Juliet is totally unwatchable. The others just walked through their roles, and I don't believe that John Barrymore (Mercutio) drew a single sober breath throughout the production. IMO, the only really great performance was from Edna May Oliver as the Nurse. Besides, those artificial sets made the movie look like a photographed stage play. Funny, but it seems that Shearer gave her best performances after Thalberg's death, especially in THE WOMEN. I have never seen Luhrmann's version (starring Leonardo de Caprio and Claire Danes), nor do I wish to. Guess I'm too spoiled by the Zeffirelli masterpiece,  . |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jan 5, 2019 15:26:07 GMT
If memory serves me correctly, there was another version made in 2015 or 2016. It sank like a stone! It was 2013. I have not gathered the courage to watch it. One reviewer called it "dumbed down." Apparently they hired a bunch of bored and mumbling twenty-something actors who couldn't care less what they were saying or doing. I thought I had read at the time that they were using a modern English "translation" but I may have misunderstood. I don't have the energy, however, to check up on it. EDIT: Instead of a modern "translation" there is a new screenplay by Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park, Downton Abbey) who should have known better. A reviewer once said about the 2013 version, something must be wrong when Romeo is more beautiful than Juliet. I've seen this version and there is no sparks whatsover, and no feeling for what they were doing. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 5, 2019 15:39:16 GMT
Good movie. In my top 5 for 1968. Mercutio (John McEnery) just about steals the movie, and Michael York's acting (as the villain Tybalt) is excellent. An 18th century story that has entered the Shakespeare mythos is that Will decided to kill off Mercutio about half-way through the play because he threatened to take over the play from the two leads. Well, there is no way anyone could have known that, but McEnery's performance demonstrates to us why the myth started in the first place. Well Mercutio perhaps is arguably more dynamic as also not as annoying as Romeo within some regards. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 5, 2019 16:37:13 GMT
Good movie. In my top 5 for 1968. Mercutio (John McEnery) just about steals the movie, and Michael York's acting (as the villain Tybalt) is excellent. An 18th century story that has entered the Shakespeare mythos is that Will decided to kill off Mercutio about half-way through the play because he threatened to take over the play from the two leads. Well, there is no way anyone could have known that, but McEnery's performance demonstrates to us why the myth started in the first place. Now to be fair Mercutios my favorite character actually. |
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jan 5, 2019 20:51:44 GMT
The 1968 Romeo And Juliet is a beautifully crafted film.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 5, 2019 21:18:53 GMT
Is it on DVD?
If so, I'd sure like to get it.
EDIT: It is, and I have one.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 6, 2019 0:25:10 GMT
If I'm right, the first actual filming of this play was the swordfight between Romeo and Paris, which was shot in NYC's Central Park in 1898.
There was a later film (hardly a feature) starring Paul Panzer (later the villain in THE PERILS OF PAULINE series) and Florence Lawrence (the "Biograph Girl").
There were several other silent films of this play, one even starring Theda Bara (of all people!) as Juliet.
Most, if not all, of them are lost now.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 6, 2019 4:40:17 GMT
Lovely film, snsurone. I remember watching it at school. Last time I saw it was a couple of years ago. Still great.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 6, 2019 16:22:36 GMT
Lovely film, snsurone. I remember watching it at school. Last time I saw it was a couple of years ago. Still great. Did your school cut out the nude scenes? |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 22, 2022 1:16:54 GMT
Lovely film, snsurone. I remember watching it at school. Last time I saw it was a couple of years ago. Still great. Did your school cut out the nude scenes?
You know, I have no memory of any, so yes, they may have. But it was also a very long time ago.
I rewatched this movie several years ago (enjoyed it) and don't recall any then either.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Jan 22, 2022 2:05:23 GMT
When I was in high school in the early '60s the two Shakespeare plays we read were Julius Caesar in the 10th grade and Macbeth in the 12th because these were two of Shakespeare's plays with no sex (or so that was the belief). Shortly after Zeffirelli's film, Romeo and Juliet, with loads of sex, replaced JC in many, if not most, U.S. high schools. In the '70s and '80s, it was often taught alongside West Side Story. In 1996, Baz Luhrman directed another big screen version with a modern setting. It had a similar impact on high schoolers. I have put this in some other threads but maybe it bears repeating. It is about something I listened to on a podcast from the Folger Shakespeare Library. Stage director Joe Calarco described productions of “R&J” from past times, especially the Victorian era, until Zeffirelli (including the 1936 George Cukor directed film) as “Very cold, very polite, and very constipated.” All that changed in 1968. Suddenly, all the sexual attraction, the erotic charge, and the sheer excitement and energy was back. On that same podcast, Linda Charnes, professor of English at Indiana University, Bloomington, confessed, “My first experience of Shakespeare was Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, after which I wept for two days.” About the 1996 film, another professor of literature had this to say: “For people my [high school] age the Luhrman film was just a really powerful introduction to Shakespeare…they made these promotional and, I think, collectible postcards that came out in magazines like ‘Seventeen’ or “YM.’ I had this postcard that I had ripped out of Seventeen Magazine - it had a picture of Juliet on her balcony and underneath in script it said, ‘My only love sprung from my only hate’ - and I put it up in my locker.” I think the 1968 Romeo and Juliet can rightly be called revolutionary. I think the really revolutionary thing Zeffirelli did was to use actual teenagers. High school kids could imagine themselves staying up all night on the porch talking and kissing. In the brief marriage , separation , grief, and death , they grew up. You see it in Juliet’s remark to her nurse” thou hast comforted me Marvelous much” In that moment she realizes that no one is on her side, that she will have to fool all of them. This is what teens live, so of course it came to life for them. I wish we had such excellent films for all the plays. Zeffirelli does not make this huge impact in every production, but his La Bohème, Taming of the Shrew are really famous for new life to old works. One thing he does is creat wonderful lively sets and costumes. Another is to cast beautiful lively actors who can move around the set, say the words as if they are living them, and enfuie life and character onto the stage or film.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 22, 2022 14:42:42 GMT
Romeo and Juliet (1968), directed by Franco Zeffirelli. After warming up with the funny and frantic The Taming of the Shrew (1967) (thank Burton and Taylor for giving him the job) Zeffirelli continues with Italian Renaissance Shakespeare, notable this time for using teen leads more closely matching the original play. By comparison, Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer were 43 and 34 in Romeo and Juliet (1936). Pioneering modern movie Shakespeare, Zeffirelli's great strength is in the intelligibility of the story. The lines make sense even if the wording might be obscure in print. Wisely, he is willing to show rather than tell and trim long speeches as needed. Olivia Hussey is the shining star here: "she doth teach the torches to burn bright". Her reaction in the first balcony scene is the best I have seen. He: "O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?" She: "What satisfaction canst thou have to-night?" (He saves it with a good come-back). On the downside: her dubbed in moans and sobs are excessive. The famous poster was suggestive: she is halfway down his chest with the implication that she might be sliding down farther, which wasn't allowed in 1968:  Notes: - We never hear Romeo's dream. He is about to tell it when Mercutio interrupts with "Queen Mab".
- Eerie, ominous fate hangs over the story. Romeo fears "some consequence yet hanging in the stars" and after the disaster says "then I defy you, stars".
- Lady Capulet plans to have Romeo poisoned in Mantua, but he buys his own poison there.
- Capulet: "The earth hath swallow'd all my hopes but she", meaning Juliet is his only living child. He argues that 13 is too young to marry and wants to wait a couple of years. Paris: "Younger than she are happy mothers made". Capulet: "And too soon marr'd are those so early made", clearly thinking of his own wife.
- Is something going on between Lady Capulet and Tybalt? They share a fiery spirit.
- Shakespeare uses a race image: "It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night / Like a rich jewel in an Ethiope's ear". It is a lovely picture, but Juliet is the gem and the Ethiopian the background.
- Most of the cruder sexual jokes are omitted, although we have this naughty usage when reading the clock: "the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon".
- "At lovers' perjuries, they say, Jove laughs". Put that in the Romantic Comedy Handbook.
- "Women may fall when there's no strength in men".
- "These violent delights have violent ends" -- the motto of Westworld (2016).
- In this version Mercutio and Tybalt are not seriously fighting, just dueling and putting on a show for the crowd. When they become heated Romeo intervenes. Mercutio: "Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm". The crowd laughs through his dying lines, thinking he is clowning.
- The final third is much compressed. Having set up the ending I suppose audiences want to get to the death scene, but we skip Juliet's horror-film debate over whether to take the potion, Romeo's visit to the Apothecary and his fight with Paris at the tomb.
- We ought to spend more time with Friar Lawrence's uncertainty. How does he know this drug works and lasts exactly 42 hours? How often has he used it?
- Juliet had two funerals. That must have been unprecedented.
- Bruce Robinson plays loyal and earnest Benvolio. He later became a writer and director and says the fruity Uncle Monty from his Withnail and I (1987) was based on Zeffirelli. Robinson had to fend off the director's sexual advances.
Score by Nino Rota. The lyrics are not from the play. As with Michel Legrand's music for Summer of '42 (1971) the love theme was so popular that everyone became sick of it eventually. Available on Blu-ray. Image quality is only fair, but that may be limited by the film source. 
|
|
.
