SHAKESPEARE ON FILM:
ARE WE STAYING TRUE TO HIS PLAYS?.
Picture a stylish, 1996 convertible racing down a busy highway. The three
young men in the car, all with identical blond crew cuts and colourful
Hawaiian shirts, are shouting at anyone who look at them. One of them stands
up in the back seat and screams " A dog of the house of Montague moves
me!" and thus begins Baz Lhurman's 1996 version of William Shakespeare's
Romeo and Juliet. In the following scenes, we witness a confrontation between
Benvolio, one of the men in the car and one of the "Montague Boys" and
Tybalt and Abram, A member of the Capulet's and the King of Cats respectively.
We are not even ten minutes into the film and already you can hear the
die-hard William Shakespeare fans groaning " Oh no! Another modernized
version of Shakespeare". What's wrong with a modernized version of Shakespeare?
Nothing, if you don't mind missing dialogue, missing or misplaced characters,
inaccurate locations and a host of other things. The past decade has seen
an increase in Bard based movies, with a growing number of them being modernized
versions where 70% of the budget goes towards either paying the actors
and their wardrobe. Other than the fact that there is more money that can
go towards hiring famous actors and shooting on location to make a movie
look real, are we staying true to the plays and to the message that William
Shakespeare intended for them?.
Let's return to Lhurman's ‘Romeo and Juliet'. What was it about the film
that got many Bard fans wincing? well, for starters, the characters are
all mixed up; i.e. Sampson and Gregory, though they are only referred to
as the Montague Boys instead of individuals, are Montague's instead of
Capulet's and Abram is a Capulet instead of a Montague. Secondly, we're
missing two to three minutes of dialogue i.e "Gregory, on my word, We'll
not carry coals". Finally, we are not in Verona, Italy anymore, but Verona
Beach, California !. But does any of this matter? No, not really. In the
movie as in the play, Abram, Sampson, and Gregory disappear and are never
mentioned again and everything is forgiven by the young girls as Leonardo
DiCaprio shows up on screen as our Romeo. This film did do well in the
box office, largely because of the two star actors Leonardo DiCaprio and
Clarie Danes as the star-crossed lovers and the curiosity of seeing yet
another Romeo and Juliet movie. If this movie didn't rely on Shakespearean
verse and the title ‘Romeo and Juliet', it would just be another movie
that starred the popular DiCaprio. Shakespearean films generally do well
in the box office, i.e Much ado about nothing and the pseudo biography
Shakespeare in Love, but most of them are either BBC type productions that
bore John Q. Public or star vehicles that justify their presence because
they have stars and special effects, ex. 1999's ‘A Midsummer Night's Dream'
with Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, and Kevin Klien .
Modernization of a play is one thing. The original script, or language
as some like to call it , is kept for either romantic or dramatic effect
. In an adaptation, the language reflects the slang, nuances etc. that
was popular during the time the movie was made. 1999's ‘10 things I Hate
about You' is one such example. An adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew,
core elements such as betrayal, deceit, and love are still evident but
unless one was told that this movie was based on Shakespeare's play, you
wouldn't recognize it and therefore, the message is lost behind pop music
and Calvin Klien . The 60's movie ‘West Side Story', which was adapted
from the broadway musical of the same name, succeeded where ‘10 Things
I Hate about You' failed dismally. Set in New York City during the early
60's, this version of Romeo and Juliet centers around a pair of star-crossed
lovers; Maria and Tony. Instead of feuding families, we have feuding street
gangs who are fueled by racial tension; The Sharks, an Hispanic gang lead
by Maria's brother, and The Jets, and Italian gang lead by one of Tony's
friends. In classic Romeo and Juliet style, Maria and Tony keep their love
secret until Tony's friend and Maria's brother are killed in a fight (
The equivalent of Mercutio and Tybalt's deaths) and in an ending that is
much sadder than the play, Tony is killed and Maria is left alone.
Even though there is no use of Shakespearean language and there are plenty
of musical numbers in the movie, ‘West Side Story' is the superior adaptation
because it mixes it's contemporary setting with main elements of the play
without losing the lesson about the folly's of our hatred.
Those are only a few examples of the nearly 417 movies that are based on
Shakespeare's plays. Then there are movies whose stories are so well written
and meaningful in themselves that it cannot be possible that they are closer
to translating Shakespeare than most movies that move through the play
word for word. Take Disney's ‘The Lion King' for example. Laugh if you
must, but The Lion King is the closest one can get to bringing Hamlet to
the under-12 set. Unless you have read the play, this is yet another movie
where you would not know that it was based on Shakespeare (then again,
when your target audience can barely read chapter books, you don't have
to worry). Despite the toned down violence, cute characters, and countless
musical numbers, the movie benefits from the same combination that made
‘West Side Story' a great Shakespeare adaptation; mixing setting, main
elements of the play, and in this case the medium of animation to relay
the lesson that Shakespeare.
Ever since 1899, William Shakespeare's plays have been turned into
numerous films and television movies. Some are good ( Anthony Hopkins ‘Titus'),
Some are bad ('10 Things I Hate About You'), Some are forgettable ( Woody
Allen's version of A Midsummer Night's Dream), and others should never
be made ( A version of Richard the III called ‘Rikki the Pig' that is set
in 21st Century L.A. in the middle of gang turf wars), but each one venturing
into the writer's and director's own view of how Shakespeare could be interpreted
. Though the way the movie is portrayed is to the discretion of the director,
I believe that we are moving further and further away from the plays themselves
and how they are supposed to be displayed; on stage. The 17th century did
lack the technology of the 21st and not everybody can go to a theatre to
watch a play, but what one gains in modern locations, expensive wardrobes,
and star actors by watching a movie, you lose the personal experience of
being in the theatre and watching the scenes unfold before and the fact
that no two shows are the same. Shakespearean movies can be great if done
right, but the only way to truly enjoy Shakespeare is to watch the play
for yourself.
Return
to Writings Main Page.
