Romeo and Juliet

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. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Even though the colour and the impressive location scenarios work really well here, the rest of it rather falls between two stools. It lacks the intensity of a stage play and the acting talent assembled - Flora Robson and the underused John Gielgud notwithstanding - is really quite underwhelming. You'll recall the story of the feuding Montagues and Capulets that sees true love emerge from centuries of slaughter and mayhem. It's "Romeo" (Laurence Harvey) who falls for "Juliet" (Susan Shentall) and they must keep their burgeoning romance under wraps for fear of all hell breaking loose. That's becoming harder and harder but as the story unfolds it also becomes much less engaging to watch. Harvey never was a particularly versatile actor and there's virtually no chemistry on display between him and the almost as wooden though maybe a bit more suitably virtuous Shentall. It's very much a lacklustre ensemble effort with few of the originally quirky and notable characters standing up to much scrutiny and somehow Renato Castellani has striven to create something here that belies it's credentials as one of literature's greatest and most enduring love stories. At times, it is almost little better than a very well choreographed and photographed soap. Every now and again these re-imaginings of Shakespeare's works come along, but this one is unlikely to be one anyone remembers too fondly.

Yes, this film has been overpraised by Pauline Kael and others. For its time it was revolutionary, because no previous Shakespeare film had used so many outdoor, realistic locations. Unlike the previous MGM version (which all in all is superior), this version did not use middle-aged actors and made splendid use of technicolor. Black and white cinematography may suit MACBETH, HAMLET, KING LEAR, and other Shakespeare trajedies--but not this one. 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. Yes, he's a bit of a simp, but that's the character. 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.

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. As always, his work is very well thought out, and the aloofness which made him so right for callous young men in later modern roles, is intriguing here. Romeo now has a tinge of egotism and even femininity.

Well, why not? As there are dozens of ways to read a line, so there are many approaches to a character. 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.

It's hard to believe this lovely production has not yet been transferred to video. Surely one day some enterprising company will take on this project and help preserve a very beautiful production for future generations to enjoy.

Castellani presents his neo-realistic view of WS's tragedy. Never have the personalities of the two lovers been so intensely portrayed in the screen. 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. The result is a joy to watch and is worth the movie. The ball scene alone could receive all the prizes this film was awarded in the 1954 Venice Film Festival. 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. However, this Blu-Ray incarnation is a disaster. The glorious cinematography (Robert Krasker) is disgraced by a white-washed remastering. The ball scene is completely distorted. The colours that were once a magnificent succession of Renaissance paintings now appear irritatingly blurred. And - alas ! - 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 "... the musicians of Saint Jerome will now play..." In the Blu-ray captions read ..."the musicians of CENTER ROME will now play...". Ghastly. Also, many dialogues are not transcribed, and one frequently bumps into an "a" or a "the" in capital letters in the middle of a sentence. The whole transcription is absolutely amateurish. Therefore, keep your precious DVD of this masterwork and forget this third-rate Blu-Ray.