Glittering Carbon-Copy...

Rating: 6/10 (26 March 2017)

Movies like "Moulin Rouge!" (or more recently, "La La Land") are so lavishly designed and stylishly directed that the simplicity of their stories is no coincidence, they are well-crafted forms of entertainment meant to arouse emotions rather than thoughts.
Indeed, while I'm not a professional on editing or filmmaking, what I gathered from years of cinematic dedication is that complex, multi-layered, character-driven stories generally call for straightforward directing, so that the form doesn't distract from the content. In other words, there's a time for "2001: A Space Odyssey" and another for "Chinatown", and I can't think of a good movie that is both exceedingly directed and written (with the exception of "Citizen Kane").
Can we take for granted that people know "Romeo and Juliet" so well that a few artistic licenses won't hurt, or are actually needed? Is it such an iconic story that it can sustain every narrative form without undermining the emotional bingo of the end? Well, I'm not sure the story is self-sufficient, while watching Leo as Romeo (talk about predestination in that rhyming) challenging Tybalt (John Leguizamo), shouting Shakespeare's lines with such passion I could hardly understood what he said, I was wondering if the movie wouldn't have worked as well or better had they been swords instead of guns, Verona instead of Verona Beach and good old Renaissance as the time setting.
And it's precisely because Leonardo Di Caprio was an excellent Romeo, in his pre-"Titanic" fame years with the youthful charm, the wide-eyed innocence, the eyebrow-raising enthusiasm and penetrating sadness, he was a baby-faced young man who could easily pass as a teenager. The rest of the casting was competent, honorable mention to Leguizamo who looked as passionately angry as his 1968 counterpart Michael York, and to Paul Sorvino and Pete Postlewhaite. Claire Danes paled in comparison but not to the point of ruining the film. What did spoil the film a little was actually its own reason to be, Baz Lhurmann!" thought that Shakespeare's romance needed a rejuvenation treatment, as if it wasn't modern enough for younger audiences.
The problem is that the story has been modernized already, like Kurosawa made adaptations of "Macbeth" and "King Lear", "Romeo and Juliet" inspired good movies like "West Side Story" or "China Girl", love stories with a gang war as the backdrop. In fact any interesting romance inevitably revolves around star-crossed lovers, any romance owes a bit to "Romeo and Juliet" which owed to all the romantic heritage of the past centuries. So you either remake "Romeo and Juliet" or you adapt it, there is rarely an in-between solution. Lurhmann took the challenge and it's laudable, but his "Romeo + Juliet" couldn't be a total remake or it would have been a second "West Side Story", it was doomed to be half-Shakespeare, half-something else.
And the problem is that the text didn't match the setting, no matter how hard it tried like replacing the narrator by a TV announcer. It was so busy reminding you that this is the Shakespeare play in its academic version (same lines) that it became unchained to its premise, while in any of the previous adaptations; the romance was the focal point, not its kinship with the original story. It came to the point that the 'Trainspotting'-like editing, the pop music, the opera, the shootouts, the awkward mix between modern settings and Renaissance-expressions becomes a sort of gimmick that overshadowed the story. The form detracted from the story, and the heart of "Romeo and Juliet" is the story. If you're not emotionally involved, it's over.
And the film could still win the audiences, had it not ruined the very scenes that could create the emotional involvement, through some bizarre experimentation. I didn't care for the 1968 version until the balcony scene; Olivia Hussey's youthful beauty, the purity of Nino Rota's score, the interactions between the young lovers, the film won because of that scene. So, I expected the balcony scene to enhance "Romeo + Julier" but Lurhmann had to introduce the novelty of the swimming pool. What was he thinking? If you're going to stick to the play, don't ruin the most iconic part. How can someone be focused on loving while he's also trying to float in the water. Forget what I said, the whole thing just looked awkward and as sincere as the actors were in their intent to play "Romeo and Juliet", it's like Lurhmann had another movie in mind.
The film was a success but it was out-shined by the Leo's following hit, the one that put him in Hollywood map forever and ever; "Titanic" the year after, interestingly, this was a tale of forbidden love that was closer in spirit and in heart to "Romeo and Juliet" than "Lurrhman's jukebox. And Claire Danes, with all due respect, is no Kate Winslet. Leo is a real romantic actor but the real star of Baz Lurhmann's film was Baz Lurhmann. His unique jukebox-styled directing fitted "Moulin Rouge!" but as far as "Romeo + Juliet" goes, it's still an entertaining little movie, that nostalgic of the 90's will cherish. For me, it's the film of that "Love Fool" song and I have it on my playlist.