![]() They're a bit older than the Shakespearean ideal, but we can still buy it (and those precious few years gave them some time to hone their acting skills too). Hence Luhrmann's choice of seventeen-year old Claire Danes and twenty-two-year-old Leonardo DiCaprio in the leads. Romeo's age isn't specified, but you can't make him too much older-or younger, for that matter-without things getting creepy. For example, Juliet "hath not seen the change of fourteen years" (1.2.9), so you can't cast Sally Field in the role (sorry, Sally Field). Since he stuck with the script, Luhrmann had to pay close attention to casting choices that fit the in-line descriptions. And as Luhrmann proves, you can do a lot. The trick, then, is to see what you can do within that framework. You can cut lines, you can move lines around, but you absolutely do not get to add any lines. ![]() The dialogue doesn't change, and that's the real key with Shakespeare. What's the SameĮverything and nothing all at once-that's what. ![]() Modern settings! Gang warfare! Leonardo DiCaprio at the height of his Tiger Beat cover phase! Luhrmann's film had it all, and most importantly, showed us why we still read Shakespeare after four hundred years. Seizing on Kenneth Branagh's mission to make the Bard more accessible to modern audiences, Luhrmann produced an MTV shotgun blast to the face. If you stuck Shakespeare in a pop-culture blender and hit "puree," you'd probably end up with Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |