Baz vs. the Bardolaters, or Why William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet Deserves Another Look

By Hamilton, Lucy | Literature/Film Quarterly, January 1, 2000 | Go to article overview

Baz vs. the Bardolaters, or Why William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet Deserves Another Look


Hamilton, Lucy, Literature/Film Quarterly


Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet provoked in 1997 almost as much passion and violence of expression as the action of the play itself. Conservative opinion spluttered in outrage at Luhrmann's film. While audiences responded to the latest film with considerable enthusiasm, and cinematic criticism provided enlightening insights,1 those who have allied themselves with Shakespeare-as-bulwark-of-tradition tended to dismiss William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet as a "monumental disaster" (LaSalle) or a "violent swank-trash music video that may make you feel like reaching for the remote control" (Gleiberman 1). Earnest critics decried: "there are `bad films,' there are `worst films of all time,' and then there's Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet." 2 Such a reaction of abhorrence is almost as interesting as the reluctance of academic publications to treat the film as a work worthy of scholarly attention.3

Before beginning a study of Shakespearean interpretations, it is important to note that the sense of definitive scripts, against which adaptations must be measured, is a product of twentieth-century textual scholarship. Biblical study notions of textual purity (or Manichean notions of "good" and "bad" quartos) and authenticity are firmly attached to our understanding of the plays we read and perform, yet these artifacts are modernized for us and any scholarly edition will elucidate the decisions made in the collating of a series of recollections by actors and audience (Holderness). Theoretical developments take us further: Reception theory points out that any text is partly created by the reader/viewer and we generally accept that no interpretation is definitive. In the light of these considerations, it is intriguing to observe critics' ambivalence. A recent text on this subject appears open to the "multiple possibilities" available in interpretations in its introduction (Boose 3); again the chapter by the editors admits that a "single, unified Shakespeare whose works could be covered" has always been an illusion (18), yet mourning, on the following page, "the disappearance of an older sense of the actor as someone who actually knew Shakespeare, who communed with him, understood his mind, and perhaps at times even thought that he himself was Shakespeare." 4 It seems that the author is dead, but that the author-function of Shakespeare makes for an intimidating ghost.

The action of adapting Shakespearean plays into film has mostly been dangerous for those game enough to make the attempt. The plays remain in the realm of prestige entertainment, whereas it has taken many years for film to be accepted as "Art." The dominance of the visual in film can struggle with the preeminence of the word in Elizabethan drama. Given that it had been accepted for critics to despise theatrical productions of Shakespeare's plays, allowing that true appreciation was only possible on the page, film was always destined to face opposition. The Shakespeareans' reluctance or inability to read the visual adaptation of linguistic elements of the plays leaves their comprehension of the cinematic version impoverished and the works, therefore, often despised. Translation of the play to film requires a number of stylistic decisions to be made to assist in conveying stories told often in blank verse, in archaic language, in the presence of an overwhelming tradition of an overwhelming tradition. Olivier opted for a deliberate staginess-Branagh for a stronger cinematic intertextuality in worlds distanced by time and space. Zeffirelli and Luhrmann have taken a work that is strongly familiar to one section of the audience and frighteningly off-putting to the Shakespeare-shy and made it over.

Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, revolutionary in its time, was more apparently traditional in its use of the original, and so the criticism he received, for his cutting of text and casting youthful actors who spoke the lines "sagging with puppyfat" and bereft of poetry, was more muted in nature (Simon 208). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Baz vs. the Bardolaters, or Why William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet Deserves Another Look
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.