- Knowing what you know about Shakespearean theatre now, what do you you think about the Luhrmann interpretation?
I think that the Luhrmann interpretation was a lot more graphic (not in a bad way) than the original play in a lot of obvious levels and since it was done in a movie, the Luhrmann had cut out some parts so it was difficult for the audience to grasp onto some scenes because of the shortness. I thought there was a lot of things going on in each scene, even though they were short so it was hard to keep up with Luhrmann's version at times. I thought that Luhrmann's modern day interpretation to adapt it to a familiar modern setting was very creative, I especially thought that the little details from Shakespeare's plays that were added on the skyscrapers and shops in modern, pop-iconic Verona in the film was very good and creative. In the film the actor's expressions were more life-like but dramatic whereas the original play required the characters to exaggerate their emotions even more, so I personally prefer the Luhrmann version in terms of the actors' expressions and their more natural delivery of their dialogues.
- What specific "Shakespearean" elements can you identify from your research?
The most distinct and obvious Shakespearean element was were the dialogues because they referred directly to the original script. They also used Shakespearean quotes from other tragedies he wrote on the shops or billboards in modern Verona in Luhrmann's film. Since this was a movie, there were sound effects (including songs), lights and also weather variation whereas the original play didn't have many lights and sound effects. There were many expensive props like cars and such in the movie, which were a lot more than the original play.
- Do you like the artistic concept he has chosen for the piece?
The artistic concept of Luhrmann's version was very creative and I personally thought it was very impressive. I thought the concept of a modern Verona including all the classic Shakespearean intentions of drama was very good because they were able to convey the story almost exactly like Shakespeare with a different setting. I think that the character's costumes were very expressive of their nature and the use of the weapons and props was great too. I actually quite liked Luhrmann's artistic concept because of the witty moments in the film. But the dialogues were unintelligible sometimes because they were grunted or shouted, but I still liked some of the delivery, it was kind of a hodgepodge, but a successful hodgepodge I guess.
- Do you agree with the characterization, conventions, and design elements you have seen?
Yes, I do agree with all three. I think the characterization and design elements were the best part of the film because the character's had realistic and convincing expressions so that emphasized each one personality even more. The little Shakespearean details like the quotes on billboards were one of the little design elements that I like I also like the setting with the beach and the modern theme of the infamous party where Romeo and Juliet meet. The convention was good but I think it could've been better with the famous and great actors like DiCaprio and Claire Danes but sometimes I felt that they weren't able to grasp their lines in the original character's intentions.
- Which side of the argument do you think Shakespeare would have agreed with? Do you think he would have supported or criticized Luhrmann's attempt to revolutionize his work?
I think that Shakespeare would have criticized most of the things about Luhrmann's work because he cut out some bits from the script which made the movie into a whirlpool of details that weren't easily noticeable unless watched 2 times. And I also think that Shakespeare wouldn't have been impressed with the swimming pool scene because that was crucial scene where it was supposed to be pure and tender but like the NY Times reviewers mentioned: "[Luhrmann] turned Juliet's balcony into a Manhattan fire escape for ''West Side Story,'' this film draws on watery settings so that its lovers can quite literally take the plunge,". It also missed some crucial classic details of purity in the movie with the (although impressive) costumes and open profanity, provocation in some bits.
At the time of the movie's release it was very controversial--critics polarized and either loved or hated the piece (see here: http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C0CE7D91139F932A35752C1A960958260 and here: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/romeo-and-juliet-1996
