Poor script
-
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 12:31 PM)
Actually, they can be wrong. Some people were of the opinion that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as an allegory for World War II. Tolkien said he didn't.
People used to believe african slaves didn't count as a whole person.
Some people think if a woman is wearing very revealing clothing, she's "asking for it."
Opinions can be very wrong. Very wrong indeed.
But if you want a better argument, the flavor of Shakespeare is in the language and themes, not necessarily the setting.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(May 18, 2016 05:27 AM)
The mix of a modern day setting (which I think is a great idea) and the original dialogue from Shakespeare did not mesh in my opinion
So you wanted a modern setting, without the original dialogue? Fine, but that sort of thing has been done many times before across a range of genres.
I think it was great the way Baz Luhrman imaginatively set the play in a contemporary, urban, coastal, Mafia - run Verona, whilst utilizing an abridged version of the original Shakespearean dialogue. Luhrman tends to seek out cinematic trails, that are less travelled. More power to him! -
Ace_Spade — 9 years ago(June 08, 2016 06:21 PM)
See, I felt like his use of the setting was largely just posturing - just him being "cute". You know like, "Hey, look, everybody, see? The gun has "BROADSWORD" on the side of it, so it's like his broadsword! Get it? GET IT!?"
The movie always feels to me like he didn't care about the story, the characters, or the dialogue, he was trying to be clever and show off with his camerawork and the revamped setting. It's superficial. -
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 05:33 AM)
You weren't happy that some of the props referenced the original play and that's being "cute" and "posturing"? Serious stuff indeed!
Get it? GET IT!?"
In a contemporary reworking of the original play, I can't honestly say that I do. -
Ace_Spade — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 06:21 AM)
I mean that Luhrmann's use of a modern setting feels like he's doing it to try and be clever, not because he really had a good idea.
West Side Story, for instance, uses the story of Romeo & Juliet to look at modern (at the time) gangs and class/race division. They updated the dialogue and turned it into a musical because they wanted to comment on modern society, so they did that.
Luhrmann is interested in everybody calling him clever, so he hamfistedly mashes Romeo & Juliet into a modern setting and makes the movie about how fast he can whip-pan and what kinds of colours he can use. DiCaprio is on record saying he had no idea what he was doing/saying, and that's Luhrmann's fault for paying attention to his gimmicks instead of his story.
That's the most succinct way of saying it: for me, it comes across as gimmicky. It seems forced, unfocused, and just like it's trying to be clever. Like he's saying, "See what I did? I modernised it!" but without purpose or intent.
I'd also point to Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing as a "modernised" adaptation that works, not because he's commenting (like West Side Story) but because his version "just happens" to be modern. As opposed to Luhrmann's force-feeding of every instance of his modernisation, Whedon just lets it be modern. He doesn't feel the need to rub faces in it, so you kinda wind up ignoring the modern setting and just digging on the characters and the plot.
Whedon and West Side Story started focused on story and characters. Luhrmann started with effects and art design.
That's how it comes across to me, anyway. -
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 07:07 AM)
I love West Side Story, but please
They updated the dialogue
The producers didn't use any Shakespearean dialogue. They used a screenplay by Ernest Lehman which earned him an Oscar nomination no less, and Shakespeare's ideas. However I don't believe old Will even received a credit. Luhrmann's work retains the original Shakespearean dialogue. There's a world of difference. You're comparing apples and oranges and essentially saying the orange is better because it doesn't have a hard core in the middle.
DiCaprio is on record saying he had no idea what he was doing/saying
Well you may wish to listen to him here talk about how initially he was a little overwhelmed on the set (as if that is something new for actors), but once he understood Luhrmann's vision and directions, all went well and he is very complimentary of the final result. And let's remember he was very happy to work with Luhrmann again on The Great Gatsby. But something tells me that probably wasn't your cup of tea either. -
Ace_Spade — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 10:46 AM)
I don't see it as apples and oranges. I see it as a re-interpretation of the same story (which Shakespeare re-interpreted himself).
I was saying that I didn't mind the update in West Side Story because they went whole-hog as opposed to Luhrmann's version which throws a lot of noise and yelling into the picture without a lot of purpose. It's just updated for the sake of updating - no deep commentary, just them yelling.
I'll also say that I don't think Luhrmann really understood the script, either. I still don't think DiCaprio understood what he was saying half the time. It's a terrible performance where he just mangles the dialogue.
The Great Gatsby was fine; I enjoyed it immensely and had few quibbles (mostly Nick's drinking problem - which deliberately runs contrary to the book for reasons I'm unsure of). Luhrmann did a much better job there of translating a cautionary tale about the true joys in life set against the lures of idle and senseless pleasure, and his chaotic style slid much easier into that reality (as opposed to his high-octane opener for R+J which has a character literally SCREAMING the dialogue, preventing the scene from achieving anything close to a dramatic build and leaving the following fight at the gas station feeling stale).
I'll re-iterate: I recognise that this is all my opinion, but it's how I feel, and what I've gleaned from interviews.
My overall point is that R+J under Luhrmann feels kinetic for the sake of it, and it feels like all of the updates (the guns with BROADSWORD printed on them, the Miami Beach type setting, the gang wars) were made without really thinking it through and the movie lacks depth. The performances are one-note for the most part (I make exceptions for Pete Postlewaithe and John Leguizamo, both of whom did wonderful jobs), and either the director didn't know what the dialogue/scenes were about, the actors didn't know, or both of them didn't know (or care) about subtlety and nuance. It's just paved over by flashy neon, slick technique (which is slick - the cinematography and art direction is terrific) for the sake of it.
In a single word: gratuitous.
I could pile on more: unsubtle, shallow, pedantic, ill-informedetc.
The movie looks good, has a couple decent performances, but the leads aren't good in this (I love their work elsewhere), the vision has no substance, and it's all just designed to pander to the then-current MTV ADHD regardless of the match to the text.
To provide what evidence I can that I'm not just biased against this sort of thing, know that I enjoyed Ran - Kurosawa's take on King Lear - very much. I have already highlighted Much Ado About Nothing. Whedon and his team obviously understood the text far better than Luhrmann and his people. That's apples and apples. Whedon's apple is delicious, Luhrmann's is shiny, gorgeous, and wax. -
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 08:49 AM)
I think it was great the way Baz Luhrman imaginatively set the play in a contemporary, urban, coastal, Mafia - run Verona, whilst utilizing an abridged version of the original Shakespearean dialogue.
For the families to be Mafia does explain/put into context the violence of the family "boys" but goes against the presumed intent that "alike in dignity" meant equally high in dignity and their vice of dislike of the other house was one of their few vices. -
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 01:43 PM)
Actually, alike in dignity meant both were high ranking families. It wasn't about actual "dignity."
So it would still go with the mafia family theme as both families would be high ranking mobs.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.