Romeo and Juliet

Plot synopsis:
The play, set in Verona, Italy, begins with a street brawl between Montague and Capulet servants who, like their masters, are sworn enemies. Prince Escalus of Verona intervenes and declares that further breach of the peace will be punishable by death. Later, Count Paris talks to Capulet about marrying his daughter Juliet, but Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites him to attend a planned Capulet ball. Lady Capulet and Juliet's nurse try to persuade Juliet to accept Paris's courtship.
Meanwhile, Benvolio talks with his cousin Romeo, Montague's son, about Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from unrequited infatuation for a girl named Rosaline, one of Capulet's nieces. Persuaded by Benvolio and Mercutio, Romeo attends the ball at the Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. However, Romeo instead meets and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet's cousin, Tybalt, is enraged at Romeo for sneaking into the ball but is only stopped from killing Romeo by Juliet's father, who does not wish to shed blood in his house. After the ball, in what is now called the "balcony scene", Romeo sneaks into the Capulet orchard and overhears Juliet at her window vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to be married. With the help of Friar Laurence, who hopes to reconcile the two families through their children's union, they are secretly married the next day.
Tybalt, meanwhile, still incensed that Romeo had sneaked into the Capulet ball, challenges him to a duel. Romeo, now considering Tybalt his kinsman, refuses to fight. Mercutio is offended by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission", and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded when Romeo attempts to break up the fight. Grief-stricken and wracked with guilt, Romeo confronts and slays Tybalt.
Montague argues that Romeo has justly executed Tybalt for the murder of Mercutio. The Prince, now having lost a kinsman in the warring families' feud, exiles Romeo from Verona, under penalty of death if he ever returns. Romeo secretly spends the night in Juliet's chamber, where they consummate their marriage. Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses to become Paris's "joyful bride". When she then pleads for the marriage to be delayed, her mother rejects her.
Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a potion that will put her into a deathlike coma for "two and forty hours". The Friar promises to send a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan so that he can rejoin her when she awakens. On the night before the wedding, she takes the drug and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the family crypt.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and, instead, Romeo learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar. Heartbroken, Romeo buys poison from an apothecary and goes to the Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet privately. Believing Romeo to be a vandal, Paris confronts him and, in the ensuing battle, Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs herself with his dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the tomb to find all three dead. Friar Laurence recounts the story of the two "star-cross'd lovers". The families are reconciled by their children's deaths and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo."

Tags: tragedy, romantic

Review:
Renato Castellani's ROMEO AND JULIET has somehow fallen into a hole in film history.
Despite a handsome production with some worthy performances, it is overshadowed by Franco Zefferelli's 1966 film and even the 1936 MGM movie with Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, Basil Rathbone, and John Barrymore.
One has to wonder why - it was the first version of the movie to be shot (or partially shot) on locale in Italy in color.
While the leads are not the proper juveniles that appeared in the 1966 version, Lawrence Harvey and Susan Shentell were closer to the ages of the characters than Howard and Shearer were.My guess is that it's very reliance on Italian movie production may have been a drawback to the audiences who (unfortunately) counted the most: English - speaking ones.
The leads were all English and the basic play (despite the Italian setting) was in English by the greatest writer of the English language.
Orson Welles' had completed and released OTHELLO in 1952 (where it, like this ROMEO AND JULIET, won a prize at the Venice Film Festival).
The failure of the Castellani movie remains striking and puzzling.Today Zefferelli's version is considered the best one by most viewers, because of his making his hero and heroine what they are: growing teenagers.
But one should not sneer at Harvey's attempts at Romeo opposite Shentell's Juliet.
Whether due to her acting or the director's direction she gave Juliet's passing a type of dignity I have rarely seen.As for the performers in the cast, Sebastian Cabot's Capulet is the picture of an Italian Renaissance merchant prince type, corpulent and ruthless towards his family's foes.
It's funny thinking of Cabot today as a villain in his roles, but in fact (prior to his going into CHECKMATE on television - where he was the wise spy master of the heroes) most of his film parts were villainous, or (as in THE TIME MACHINE) ridiculously self-important.
Look at his scene at the ball he is throwing when Tybalt (Enzo Fiormonte) wants to kill Romeo, but Cabot restrains him - adding that it can be done later.Also note Mervyn Johns as Friar Lawrence, who manages to show the all-to-human side of the good man, which enables so many bad things to occur because of his trusting the wrong people (one messenger is locked up because he is stuck in a quarantined house), or his instructions were not clear enough.
Johns was a fine character role player, and was lucky to pass on his skills to his daughter Glynnis..
This film version created by Renato Castellani is a beauty to behold.
In the picturesque settings of Siena, Padova, Verona and Venice, this romantic tale unfolds in glorious color.While the character interpretations may appeal to a select number, I appreciate the total concept and the carrying out of that objective."Romeo" takes on a stylistic life of its own through Castellani, and for those willing to go on his journey, the rewards are great.Mr. Harvey is interesting to see in an early role.
There's nothing inherently sacrosanct in the role of Romeo, and Harvey interprets the way he (and Castellani) sees him, rather than according to some staid traditional model.
There are certain indispensable elements for a great Romeo and Juliet: youthful, energetic lovers; a brilliant Mercutio and irrepressible Nurse; and crisp pacing.
Castellani's version fails on all counts.
Yet Castellani's screenplay DRRRAAGGSS, interrupting key scenes with tedious stage business.
Similarly, when Romeo opens the tomb, Castellani has him stop, walk all the way back outside, find an appropriate tool, and then start over.
It's dismaying that these unnecessary scenes are added at the expense of some of the play's best material.
A high point in most productions is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech yet Castellani omits it!
Castellani seems to think little of Shakespeare's language, preferring  his own dialogue.
That's right; he cuts Queen Mab but adds vapid filler for Rosaline and other minor characters.
As for the actors, Susan Shentall sleep-walks through most of her scenes, but after two hours of Lawrence Harvey's plodding monotone, I can't blame her.
These actors can't even summon the energy for a proper swordfight; Tybalt merely stabs Mercutio, while a bored looking Romeo bashes Paris over the head.
Where's Basil Rathbone when you need him?This production is often praised for its lush costumes, picturesque Italian locations and cinematography reminiscent of Italian paintings.
Handsome, leisurely-paced, ineptly cut, often badly acted (especially by Laurence Harvey as Romeo, surprisingly) version of Shakespeare's most playful and youthful tragedy.
Much of the film's charm lies in the creation of sumptuous tableaux in the tradition of Italian Renaissance painting, and the portrayal of Capulet is a marvelously acted stereotype of the fat, crude nouveau riche Italian patriarch; but Harvey (despite a few promising moments early on) is far too effusive and unctuous, creepily reminiscent of John Dall in Rope; Susan Shentall displays admirable coyness and gusto in the "overture" of the dance and courtship scenes, but stiffens and is stifled by the death of a thousand cuts toward the end (although almost nothing is cut from the first act).
Still, aside from some ghastly, somnambulistic line readings, the film often dazzles with its feeling for the music of Shakespeare's text; the Nurse's folkloric shanty is highlighted with musical settings (shadings)-- Flora Robson is delightful in the role; the vaguely rappish banter of Benvolio and Romeo's first scene is gracefully and intelligently played.
The near-interchangeability of the actors who play Benvolio, Tybalt and Paris is regrettable..
Susan Shentall conveys all the fire of the first love and the impending tragedy that will follow it.
Laurence Harvey, though not the ideal match (as far as age is concerned) for Shentall's Juliet, manages to pass Romeo's brash, passioned nature.
The great Robert Krasker's photography is the work of a consummated master: each picture frame reflects a Renaisssance painting, as well as the sets (all original ones in Venice, Padova, Verona and Siena), costumes and the décor.
The best names then available in those fields in Europe were recruited to recreate what Romeo and Juliet's Verona should have been.
Roman Vlad's use of an Italian medieval gagliarda as the film's dominating musical comment is a lesson in itself.
When compared to Castellani's masterpiece, all other versions seem like pale, unfocused, poor readings of WS's immortal tragedy.
Hope this film will soon be available on DVD.The Blu-Ray version of the Castellani "Romeo and Juliet": this is one of the greatest movies of all time.
Castellani was surely not a Visconti nor a Rosselini, but his "Romeo and Juliet" is absolute perfection.
- there is more: subtitles are frequently a gross distortion of the original text - e.g.: in the DVD version the master of ceremonies at the Capulet's ball announces that "...
For its time it was revolutionary, because no previous Shakespeare film had used so many outdoor, realistic locations.
Since 1954, however, it has been remade in more cinematic and dynamic versions.Nonetheless, it's a very worthwhile movie, especially for Shakespeare fans.
I personally think Laurence Harvey is a terrific Romeo.
In fact, Harvey is the screen's best Romeo; he's a lot more passionate than Leslie Howard in the MGM version, and he speaks the verse better than either DiCaprio or Leonard Whitting in the two subsequent versions.
The locations, better than any version, remind us of just how thin the streets were in Verona during the time of the play, and the high, thick, stone walls serve as a symbol of the intransigence of the families.Yes, it does have shortcomings, but don't dismiss its virtues, which are many, especially to those of us who want more than the MTV-type Shakespeare that the DiCaprio version offers..
A very good film about the immortal and tragic story of the Verona's young lovers.
This lavish British-Italian production about ill-fated and star-crossed lovers deals about the Montagues and Capulets, two feuding families whose young sons Romeo(Laurence Harvey) and Juliet (Susan Shentall) meet and fall in love and whose passion for one another is irresistible .
But Juliet's father(Sebastian Cabot) wants marry her to a rich suitor (Norman Wooland) and keep apart Romeo.There are many obstacles on the way and they have to hide their love from the world because both know which their parents will not allow them to be together.The prince of Verona has prohibited duels and fights, but Tybaldo Capulet (Enzo Fiermonte) kills Mercutio and Romeo Montague as revenge murders Tybaldo.
The priest friend (Mervyn Johns) prepares a potion for Juliet to simulate her death.
Then Romeo is banished to Mantua when he receives the news that Juliet has dead, and happen their tragic destiny.This is one of the best filmed and most pleasant adaptations of Shakespeare's play.
Lush production and well-performed, though is handicapped because the two protagonists are too old for the roles , but at the play they were fifteen and fourteen years old respectively .This sumptuously version has the virtue of good and appealing casting , Laurence Harvey , Flora Robson , Mervyn Johns,Bill Travers and a brief introduction by John Gielgud.
Exquisite cinematography by Robert Krasker, a cameraman usual of costumer and historical super-productions (Alexandre the Great , Cid , Fall of the Roman Empire) .
Hauntingly wonderful musical score by Roman Vlad .The picture was professionally directed by Renato Castenalli, made in Pinewood Studios and Italian location .
Anyone interested in tragic love tales and timeless stories will want to watch this cinematic version on Shakespeare tragedy.Other versions about this know story are the following ones : the vintage classic, Romeo and Juliet (36)by George Cukor with Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard ; a dancing adaptation (1966) by Paul Czinner with Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn ; famous rendition (1968) by Franco Zeffirelli with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey ; and modern versión (1996) by Baz Luhrmann with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes ..
Renato Castellani's rendering of this tragedy is my all-time favorite version.
Using on-location settings and magnificent costumes and art direction, this presentation is without peer.Laurence Harvey is perfect as the young Romeo.
He brings genuine love and pathos to his character that is heart-rending.Susan Shentall's gives the most intelligent and moving execution of this challenging role I've ever witnessed.
She, like Harvey, overcome minor matters of age to make these characters their own.Who could be a better nurse than the great Flora Robson, or Norman Wooland a finer Paris?
Roman Vlad's original score is wonderful, and he's composed a Gallilard that becomes a haunting motif as it's reprised throughout in different variations.If only a digitalized restoration could be done on this great work, that would make everything complete..
The best Film of Romeo and Juliet ever made..
I was able to see it again a few years ago, thinking that maybe it would not have the same appeal as when I was a child, but I loved it again, only more appreciatively so.
The casting was brilliant and modern versions of this film bear no comparison.
It made an impression on a young child and encouraged further interest and research into the works of Shakespeare.
This version of the film is, in my opinion the best interpretation of the author's original play..
Admittedly, the performances are not perfect, but I actually like Susan Shentall in the role of Juliet.
Why is it that so many actresses playing Juliet feel the necessity to shout their lines?
So does Megan Follows.I will agree that Laurence Harvey is awful as Romeo.
(Although, truth be told, Howard's Romeo seems ageless to me.) His costumes aren't much better than his acting.
In the scene where he marries Juliet and the subsequent duel, he is wearing a blue and yellow ensemble that makes him look like a demented superhero.I'm still waiting for a film version of Shakespeare's wonderful play with an actor who truly seems to understand the character of Romeo.
A friend of mine lent this film to me, because I'm doing research before directing the play.
I've now seen about 9 different productions, and while the production is handsome and offers some interesting scenes to try and move the plot along, it features costumes woefully wrong for the period.
The interpretation of the text is probably as good as it can be, but huge chunks of dialogue, including the Queen Mab Speech are cut, and Mercutio, always a vivid character, has been reduced to a few lines and an unimportant character.
Sebastian Cabot is marvelous as Capulet, and Flora Robson offers some fine moments as the Nurse.
Susan Shentall's Juliet is not bad, but except for occasional scenes, Laurence Harvey is phoning it in.
I don't completely hate this one -- that would be the Baz Lurhmann disaster, but in comparison, while I've always loved the 1968 Zefferelli version, I'm seeing it from different eyes now, and as I watch the 1936 MGM production, I'm liking the interpretation of the text in that far better than the 1968.
This film is an interesting artifact, but it's not especially inspirational.
Some stage-like acting means story is viewed from a distance.
I wished Juliet hadn't been played so demurely.
I enjoyed Mervyn Johns' Friar Lawrence.
We had to wait another 14 years for Zefferelli's definitive version..
This version of Romeo&Juliet might have worked better had Marlon Brando and Pier Angeli done the leads as originally intended.
Laurence Harvey and the unknown Susan Shentall who stayed unknown after playing Juliet were adequate and nothing more.Possibly the mix of Italian and English players might have had something to do with it.
Such key roles as Mercutio and Tybalt were given short shrift here and they are integral to the story.
One thing I absolutely did not like was the dueling scenes between first Tybalt and Mercutio and then Romeo and Tybalt.
This is always to me the high point of Romeo and Juliet where matters come to a head between the two feuding families, Montagues and Capulets.
A pair of secondary characters in the play are who you notice.
Flora Robson as the nurse and confidante of Juliet and Lord Capulet played with passion by Sebastian Cabot stand out.
I never saw any other actor get so much out of that scene as Cabot did.The film is shot in Italy for authenticity and the cinematography is nice, as nice as Franco Zeffirelli's version.
The acting for the most part is not as good as that over the hill gang version that MGM did with Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer..
Highly praised by critic Pauline Kael, and absurdly over-rated by most other critics, this is undoubtedly one of the worst English-language, talking film versions of Shakespeare ever made.
It makes the ridiculous casting of Dick Powell in the 1935 "Midsummer Night's Dream" seem absolutely inspired.It isn't that the actual casting is bad, just that a lot of the acting is.With all due respect to gay people everywhere, I can safely say that Laurence Harvey, normally an excellent actor who can make even badly written roles seem memorable (such as his Col.Travis in John Wayne's "The Alamo"), is by far the swishiest Romeo imaginable, making you wonder what Juliet sees in him.
He makes Leslie Howard in the 1936 "Romeo" look like Clark Gable as Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up that staircase.
He has a moony-eyed smile on his face during the balcony scene which makes you want to say,"Snap out of it!"Susan Shentall is a beautiful but bland Juliet, Flora Robson is just OK as the nurse, especially in comparison with Pat Heywood in Zeffirelli's 1968 version.
Worst of all, director Renato Castellani has made an awesomely stupid decision in cutting the roles of Mercutio and Tybalt to shreds and casting two unknown, barely competent Italian actors with dubbed English-speaking voices as these colorful characters.The very minor role of Benvolio is beefed up for Bill Travers.
The brawls and duels are miserably done (there is actually no duel in this version between Romeo and Tybalt; Romeo simply rushes up to him and stabs him!), especially in comparison to both the MGM 1936 version and the Franco Zeffirelli 1968 film.
Only Sebastian Cabot (better known as Mr. French in TV's "Family Affair") comes out unscathed---he is a brilliant Lord Capulet.
The movie is the first "Romeo" in color, and filmed in Italy, but no match for Zeffirelli's version..
Actually I consider this one of the better filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet.
The best one for me is the 1968 Zeffirelli film, while I liked the 1936 Cukor film(though it was less than perfect) but didn't care for the 1996 Luhrmann version.
Castellani's does have some clumsily choreographed scenes, the stabbing of Mercutio and Romeo bashing Paris around the head were the worst offenders, a Mercutio that has no feeling for Shakespeare, a Paris that doesn't do anything with his already bland role and a Tybalt that is nowhere near smooth or nasty enough.
But of the four versions I put it second to Zeffirelli's.
And generally the script is witty and full of poetry,though the omission of Mercutio's Queen Mab is regrettable, and generally the actors do have a feel for it.
It is intelligently if leisurely directed by Castellani, while the story is still as emotionally resonant as it ever was.
The banter between Romeo and Benvolio is very intelligently done too.
The performances, apart from Mercutio, Paris and Tybalt, are great.
I personally liked Laurence Harvey as Romeo, much preferring him to Leslie Howard in Cukor's.
Susan Shentell brings a lovely gentle quality to Juliet and looks ravishing.
Flora Robson is simply delicious as the Nurse, while Mervyn Johns is a noble Friar Lawrence and Sebastian Cabot is a brilliant Lord Capulet.
Overall, this version is problematic but on its own it is a visually beautiful and more than decent film.
It seems the focus was so much on the religion of the play it lacked any passion whatsoever.Utterly unwatchable.There was a superior version filmed in 1936 and 1996 looks glowing by comparison.