Product: Romeo and Juliet [Region 2] (1968)
Rating: 5.0
Great movie, wonderful Shakespeare
I must have seen this in 1968, when a college student at the height of the 60s. I vaguely recall thinking it a "good" movie, but not particularly memorable. What I recall most is a review I read afterword by John Simon, the theater/film critic. It tore the movie to shreads. Simon hated it. Don't recall exactly why but Simon's review led me to think that my mildly positive response gave the film too much credit and if I saw it again, would probably conclude that it was poor/mediocre.Almost four decades later, after listening to my wife's rave reviews, I did see it again. After a series of events,I had occasion to revisit Romeo and Juliet, watching the stage production and reading it a few times. What the hell, I thought, and took the Hussey Whiting DVD out of the library.Boy did I misjudge what I thought, 38 years ago, would be my reaction to a second, third or fourth viewing because this movie simply blew me away. Olivia Hussey is riveting. John McEnery is riveting. So is Michael York and Milo O'Shea. Leanard Whiting is good enough, probably because Hussey could render anyone's expression of enthusiasm for her utterly convincing. The whole show pivets around her. Her lines in the balconey scene cut right through me. Look at her eyes and expression when she recites the lines containing the words "cunning" and "strange." And watch the way she scrutinizes Romeo to see if it was a mistake not to play hard to get or "strange." Wonderful. This is the movie's center and its Hussey's way of getting across the point - the point that I got anyway -that from here on there's no turning back and whatever hand fortune deals, we're gonna have to play it for better or worse.The scene seems to directly connect with Whiting's most effective - also riveting, anguished line - "Oh I am fortune's fool," after he kills Tybalt. For me this is the film's essence and feels very Shakepearean. That is that passion drives even logical decisions, sending the characters on a journey which is at the mercy of utterly uncontrollable forces. Shakepeare works this idea wonderfully in this play, King Lear and likely many more (I hope to read them). Here this somewhat abstract idea comes alive with great emotional force.Also, another deduction of mine, four decades in the making: John Simon, the critic who tore the film to shreads, simply doesn't like movies and has no business reviewing them. In fact his specialty was to go out of his way to trash those films which were broadly admired. I believe Shakespeare would have loved this film and laughed Simon off as a "fool."I went out and bought three copies of this to give to my 3 daughters. If they don't like it, they can bequeath it to my grandchildren. What a window into Shakespeare. Yes, much of the text was cut, a bit more could have been included. I could have done without the singer at the ball. Too corny and didn't add anything. But didn't subtract anything either. This film was, is and will always be terrific. Sensational.