One of the few Romeos in history to be prettier than his Juliet

Rating: 6/10 (13 December 2012)

In the nineties films based upon works of literature were commonly given an official title incorporating the name of the author of the work, so this film was at the time often referred to as "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" rather than simply "Romeo and Juliet". There was, apparently, a technical reason for this connected with copyright law, but some viewers and reviewers took this form of title as an indication that the film would be more faithful to the original book than previous attempts to film it had been. This might be true of something like the Kenneth Branagh "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", but it is certainly not true of this film. Derek Jarman's version of "The Tempest" probably remains the most eccentric Shakespearean film adaptation I have seen, but Baz Luhrmann's runs it close.
Luhrmann transfers the action to a modern American city, "Verona Beach", with the Montagues and Capulets represented as rival criminal gangs masquerading as legitimate businesses. The idea of portraying the two families as feuding gangsters is not an original one. It is copied straight from Leonard Bernstein's musical "West Side Story" and the film that was made from it. Like the Jets in the musical, Luhrmann's Montagues are white Anglo-Saxons, whereas his Capulets, like the Sharks, are Hispanic. (Mercutio, who belongs to neither side despite his friendship with Romeo, is black). "White Anglo-Saxon" does not, however, in this context equate to "Protestant"; both families are obviously Catholic, and the film is notable for its use of Catholic religious imagery, with rosaries, religious statues, etc., much to the fore.
The difference between the two films is that "West Side Story" keeps the basic outline of Shakespeare's story, modernising it and transferring it to 1950s New York, but changes the names of the characters and does not use any of Shakespeare's words. Luhrmann, however, retains Shakespeare's original dialogue (in an abridged form), and only makes minor changes to the plot; for example, the Prince becomes Captain Prince, the local police chief, Friar Lawrence becomes Father Lawrence (a priest rather than a friar) and swords are replaced by guns. (This does not, however, necessitate any change in the dialogue; 'Sword' becomes the name of a gun manufacturer).
Luhrmann's film suffers from a problem common to a number of cinematic attempts to modernise Shakespeare. There is a jarring contrast between the modern setting and the sixteenth-century language, and an even more jarring contrast between that setting and the sixteenth century attitudes which that language expresses. These contrasts are not normally an issue in the theatre, which is a very different medium and which does not generally aim for the same degree of realism as the cinema. Filmed Shakespeare generally works better when the director either keeps the traditional setting (as Zeffirelli did with his "Romeo and Juliet") or transfers it to a fantasy setting (as Branagh did with his "Much Ado about Nothing" or Trevor Nunn with his "Twelfth Night", to take two other examples from the nineties).
To give an example of what I mean by a "jarring contrast", it seems odd to see on screen a late twentieth-century American police officer threatening, in antique language, two warring gang bosses with the death penalty if their followers cause any more trouble. Our instincts are to ask "But what about their constitutional rights? What about due process?" To reply that the police officer is supposed to represent a absolute Renaissance Italian ruler is no real answer; it merely invites the further question "Then why not keep a setting in which rulers do have absolute powers of life and death?"
The film's other main drawback is that neither of the leads are very good. In 1996 Leonardo DiCaprio was still in the pretty-boy, heartthrob stage of his career; indeed, he must be one of the few Romeos in history to be prettier than his Juliet, the pointy-chinned Claire Danes. Serious acting for DiCaprio was something that would not come until some years later, and here he is bland and uninteresting. Natalie Portman was originally cast as Juliet, but Luhrmann sacked her after production began, apparently because he was unhappy with the age difference between her (15 at the time) and DiCaprio (22). As, however, Danes is only two years older than Portman, and plays the role in a very "adolescent" way, with a breathy voice and a perpetual expression of wide-eyed innocence, I am not sure that the change in casting made any real difference.
I didn't like Harold Perrineau's camp, lisping Mercutio; he appeared to be trying to imply a gay sub-text into the relationship between Mercutio and Romeo, which struck me as inappropriate. Some of the actors playing the Capulets, notably Paul Sorvino as Old Capulet and Miriam Margolyes as the Nurse, affected odd foreign accents, while others, such as Danes, spoke in standard American accents. There were, however, acting performances I liked, such as John Leguizamo, who brought the necessary arrogance and swagger to Tybalt, Pete Postlethwaite's dignified Father Lawrence and Vondie Curtis-Hall's authoritative Prince.
Luhrmann's direction is a bit too flashy for my taste, with excessive use of cross-cutting, but he does bring a good deal of pace and excitement to many scenes, especially the fight scenes. Despite my reservations about the basic concept, and some of the acting performances, I have given the film an above-average mark, largely because it is Shakespeare, and you can't go too far wrong with Shakespeare, at least not with a play as great as "Romeo and Juliet". (You could probably go very wrong with something like "Troilus and Cressida" or "Titus Andronicus", but not too many people try to film those plays). "Romeo + Juliet" is always watchable, if only as an interesting experiment. It does not, however, compare to the really great Shakespearean films such as the Zeffirelli version of this story. 6/10