Product: Romeo and Juliet [Region 2] (1968)
Rating: 5.0
The classic version of Romeo and Juliet
I first saw Zeffirelli's R&J; when I was 12 or 13 years old and I thought it was wonderful. Juliet and her Romeo are, I think, well-cast (thought I appreciate Leonard Whiting more now than I did then). I have watched Romeo + Juliet (which is how I refer to it when speaking--"Romeo PLUS Juliet"). I have no quibbles with R+J being new and innovative, but I think a lot of the details (guns called "Rapiers", Mercutio as a drugged-out drag queen, etc) were over the top in a very distracting way. I have no doubt the Bard would have found Luhrmann's interpretation interesting (Shakespeare was, after all, most likely bisexual and English theatre of his day used boy actors to portray women, i.e. cross dressing) but I felt, as with most Baz Luhrmann films, the emphasis was more on style and less on substance.The '68 version of R&J;, has style by the barrelful, but it never overwhelms the story, which is the most important element. Since I watched it as a child, I was enraptured with Juliet. I think Olivia Hussey provided us with a definitive version of Juliet. Unfortunately, Claire Danes can't come close. Hussey seemed to understand what she was saying; it seems as though she understands the Elizabethan English and is at home in it. Danes several times seemed confused by what she was saying or her reading of the lines was off. Leonard Whiting as Romeo is slightly less successful, as Zeffirelli seemed to choose him based more on his waifish, slightly androgynous looks than on his talent, though I think he did a decent job. Strangely enough, there were moments when I preferred DiCaprio's Romeo as he seemed to have a lot more vigor and youthful force.Aside from all the brouhaha over Zeffirelli being gay and thus highlighting the sexually ambiguous relationship between Romeo and Mercutio (not overly done and it did seem to have more to do with Mercutio than Romeo), Romeo and Juliet is essentially, a very sensitive portrayal of young, heterosexual love. Nothing for anyone to get upset over. As much as Shakespeare might have applauded Luhrmann's commercial angle (Shakespeare was also a businessman and wrote plays not only to be poetic works of art, but also commercially viable), but I can't help but think he would have been disappointed with the acting in R+J.In Zeffirelli's version, the characters move naturally within their world. Aside from the beautiful sets, costumes, and Zeffirelli's use of real teenagers to play teenaged characters, the 1968 version MEANS something and holds an audience emotionally, whereas Luhrmann's version seemed like an exercise in excessive style.If you want to see one of the best adaptations of a Shakespearean play, see this one.