Updated: 12 July 1997

ROMEO + JULIET

This is a case of style overwhelming substance. Not replacing, just overwhelming.

By now we've all heard so much about the attention-deficit-disorder generation that we can recite most of the catch-phrases as easily as the alphabet. For example, it could be said that the director of this film used an "MTV approach," and most people would instantly know what was meant. The shots are edited after drinking about a gallon of Jolt. The result is a movie so seemingly fast-paced that one gets a caffeine headache without ever having taken a sip of anything.

But I still can't indict the filmmakers for this. If the desire is to bring the world of Shakespeare within the grasp of the modern generation, I think this film goes a heck of a lot further than, say, LOOKING FOR RICHARD towards accomplishing its goal.

This is an important point, because I don't think people can stand on very firm logical ground saying that the current generation is a hopeless mess that doesn't appreciate quality/literature, and at the same time get riled up when that literature is served up on "generation Y's" own terms. This is especially true because this century has been notable for its reworkings of the bard's material. From Orson Welles' JULIUS CAESAR, to WEST SIDE STORY, to the very recent RICHARD III, adaptations and modernizations have been a hallmark of current Shakespearean appreciation. It has been considered urbane and ambitious to find new approaches to this timeless material.

If there is criticism, then, it has to be found within the parameters of interpretation set by the filmmaker. That is, sheer distaste for the modern format doesn't cut it; looking past the loud and vibrant surface of the setting is required, for there for we find the interpretation of the text. And there is some valid criticism there. First of all, the inventiveness was mostly restricted to the soundtrack--a very good one, by the way. I didn't feel that, having taken the trouble to bring the story so far forward in tempo and tone, the director--Baz Luhrmann--went any further in finding modern creativity to interpreting the actual scenes. Some things were interpreted, yes, right down to labeling the guns so there would be no mistake as to what they represented. But bringing the balcony scene down into a swimming pool didn't ultimately shed any new light on the words, or add a new twist of meaning.

There is, too, the other problem with Shakespeare. The American-actor-doing- Shakespeare problem. The problem that is painfully emphasized with each new Branagh film. I know Americans can do old Will's plays. I've seen them do them. They were good. Somehow, though, Britain's marquee names have all retained the talent, while our superstars...haven't. Certainly, a great deal of this can be traced to the fact that many British stars went through rigorous Shakespearean training and are therefore at ease with the text; whereas American stars went through the also arduous training ground of daytime TV, and are therefore at ease with...each other. The American RSC--the soaps.

This isn't to say that the film is bereft of good actors. In particular, Harold Perrineau Jr. as Mercutio has been rightfully praised for delivering an electrifying performance. His death is somehow more tragic in this film though, leaving us too early in the show, as usual, but leaving less to fill his place, in this case.

There aren't too many other noteworthy performances, besides the always very good Pete Postlethwaite as Father Laurence (catch his incredible turn as an attorney--of all things--in THE USUAL SUSPECTS). Our two young stars are just passable, emoting nicely but never entirely comfortable with the dialogue. Maybe they'll [he'll] do better on the TITANIC, where the ship is already sinking...and they don't have to worry about keeping it afloat.