MovieChat Forums > Romeo & Juliet Discussion > I have never cried so much over this sto...

I have never cried so much over this story

posted 11 years ago by amjohnson1569
9 replies | jump to latest

When I saw that yet another Romeo & Juliet was made I internally groaned at the uselessness of it. However, I decided to watch it anyway and I am so glad I did. Out of all of the movies that tell this story, it is by far my favorite. The casting was great, Hailee is extremely beautiful and Douglas is a dream. They all played their parts well. When the film was nearing the end, I was expecting what was going to happen, I've read the play, studied it multiple times for school, I've seen soo many movies, but still, it was different this time. I was crying my eyes out. Like, nose running, tears dripping off my face, my breaths stuttering, My sister was making fun of me. Lol I loved it. This is a wonderful version, truly beautiful. ♥

[–] anmepa93 11 years ago

It happened to me too!

I've seen so many versions of this, I've read the play but I had never cried about it until i watched this movie. I specially loved the music.

*The moment that made me react even more was when the friar was telling Juliet the plan, because you never get to see how his plan COULD'VE worked. It was so sad to see how a happy ending could have been instead of the tragedy.

[–] howdy2525 11 years ago

i thought it wasn't as bad as many of the "critics" said - I mean, the visuals and historical 1500s(?) Italian/verona scenery were lovely - I, personally, didn't feel much chemistry between hailee, 17, and douglas, 21, but I didn't think it was "terrible" - and they didn't even put this film in mainstream movie theaters, and box office mojo said it only made $1.2 million at the box office (u.s. and global box office "apparently", and they don't give the estimated production budget for the film) - box office mojo said '96 "r + j" with leo dicaprio, 39, and Claire danes, 34, made $46 million in the u.s./north America and $148 million globally - I think the cast should have been all English, with no non-English people in it personally (actually, me, personally, I would have liked them to all be Italian-English, lol, 'cause it is supposed to take place in Italy, but the writer(s) of the play were English apparently) - the '96 version took place in the u.s. in the '90s, so it obviously and logically starred American actors - I think there should be big romance movies starring latino American couples, Asian American couples, biracial couples, multiracial couples, interracial couples, etc.

[–] billyparker 10 years ago

The people responsible for this film should be made to cry, forever.

[–] kellydg 10 years ago

I also cried when I watched the movie but probably not for the same reasons as the other people who posted on this thread. I cried at the arrogance of Julian Fellowes who thinks he can write better than Shakespeare. I cried at the incompetence of whomever cast Douglas Booth as Romeo. I cried for Hailee Steinfeld trying to play one of the great heroines of literature with no idea of the character. I cried for the careers of Damian Lewis, Paul Giamatti and Stellan Skarsgård after appearing in this movie. Especially, I cry for those people who enjoyed this travesty.

The plays of William Shakespeare, besides being immensely entertaining, explore the human condition better than any other writer (with the possible exception of Geoffrey Chaucer). Obviously, they have to be cut for performance. However "let those that play ... speak no more than is set down for them... though in the meantime some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villainous, and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it."

[–] ehaas-3 9 years ago

I agree about the mediocrity of this film, but am bothered by the Shakespeare cultism influencing this post. Often material is altered and reinterpreted as time goes on. Shakespeare's strength is his subject matter`s adaptability and appeal across generations and cultures.

I hated the additions this writer made, but the demand that no one ever tamper with Shakespeare for any reason whatsoever turns him into the "smart" set`s silly obsessive-compulsive substitute for religious fundamentalism.

And most people who claim to be purists aren't. Do they only watch productions on a bare stage exposed on three sides to the crowd without wings, background or a curtain and hardly any props?

I would actually respect that kind of Shakespeare purism; kind of like a Western equivalent of Noh theatre. But people usually mean that they like early to mid-20th Century interpretations. There is also a stifling official style of performance that many worshippers insist on, dismissing heartfelt performances by talented actors who happen to do it differently.

The idea that Shakespeare was some kind of ultimate philosopher, psychologist and general master of all wisdom is also something to let go of. He has many insightful passages, yes, but also stories in which there is virtually no motivation for the character's actions beyond "jealousy", "love at first sight" and other generalizations.

A couple of 19th Century Russian or French classic novels have more real philosophy and psychology than all of Shakespeare besides Hamlet. This actually does no harm to the plays as plays, and the lack of modern-style character development can actually stimulate the imagination and give room for many different performers and directors to fill in the blanks.

And he was definitely the master of stirring the audience's passions and just plain being a lot of fun.

[–] kellydg 9 years ago

Thank your thoughtful reply. I am not a cultist like Harold Bloom but I want to see competent performances. Obviously many of the plays have to be edited and I enjoy innovative staging e.g. Orson Welles' Julius Caesar as a study of fascism.
However, I do not like stunt casting e.g. Julie Taymor's Tempest or ridiculous staging e.g. Kenneth Branagh's As You Like It.

I tend to agree with you on the more extreme aspects of bardophilia and I don't think Shakespeare is a philosopher. He was first and foremost a playwright trying to get bums into seats but he was also something else. King Lear is a sublime exploration of the human condition (and great theatre). The man who wrote that may very well have "invented the human" as Harold Bloom would have it. (Personally I prefer Northrup Frye's criticism)

As far as productions on bare stages, I recommend the Globe in London as well as the ones in Austin TX and Cedar City UT

[–] ehaas-3 9 years ago

Thanks a lot for replying. You have a very balanced and thoughtful view on the subject. I've never seen it on a traditional bare stage but if I'm ever in London or Austin at a convenient time (been to both places a long time ago, but didn't see a play) it would be great to see that.

I don't go to stage shows that often, but when I do, it tends to be at modernist theatres that have certain things in common with Elizabethan, ancient Greek and Asian traditions.

Few props, anything that needs to be moved is moved in front of the audience, between acts, actors enter and exit through regular doors and are just plain more a part of the audience's environment than what became the standard European stage.

As far as movies, I tend to enjoy Shakespearean movies that are set in different (real or hypothetical) times and places than the time periods the originals were set. It gives the illusion that there is some sort of fantastic Shakespearian parallel universe.

I liked the Richard III set in a fictitious Fascist Britain in the 30s or 30s-like civilization. I also (stone me if you must, LOL) like the 1996 Romeo + Juliet for the vibrant setting and the very fact that the actors were trying to and in my opinion often succeeding in speaking Elizabethan English conversationally.

Sometimes they used their potentially awkward deliveries to enhance the hesitation, confusion or overwhelming emotion of the character, making me feel what it would be like to flirt with my father's worst enemy right under his nose, reveal that I had broken into my love's private courtyard (you really would have to choose the perfect moment) getting caught in the middle of a deadly street fight because some idiot had to bite his thumb, etc.

The 2000 version of Hamlet set in a contemporary Manhattan like our but where corporations are ruled directly by families, can get away with obvious murder instead of sneaking around and of course, speak Elizabethan English was very classy, but kind of dull for Hamlet.

Throne of Blood (Japanese Macbeth) is my favorite adaptation that changes the language and culture completely and even changes the value system by making the assassination of the Duncan surrogate karmic retribution for his own violent rise to power.

As far as costume drama movies, I do still love the 1968 Romeo and Juliet everyone saw in school, even if it's a little too sanitized, it was very touching. The version of Othello with Lawrence Fishburne was beautiful, but I agree with a lot of critics that it failed to establish Othello's character and made him a helpless victim of Iago.

Maybe Shakespeare was a more profound thinker than I give him credit for, but I don't so much think he "invented" the (modern, self-motivated, self-conscious) human as reflected it. He was living at the beginning of the modern era and was clearly fascinated by the increasing influence of the private self, personal ambition, assertiveness and defiance of tradition.

This puts him in opposition of the fatalistic classical ideas about drama, as well as stories of the time where fidelity to conventional morals was rewarded or disobedience punished. He walked a fine line between rebelliousness and preserving the status quo.

[–] MydnightRose 10 years ago

The only version I have cried at was the 1996 movie, but this one brought me very close to tears; especially when the Friar walks in and sees Juliet dead.

Brian Kinney & Justin Taylor

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]