Baz Luhrmann brings Romeo and Juliet to the late-twentieth century, catapulting the star-crossed lovers into the action packed, gang riddled, violent, powder keg environment of 1990s downtown LA. In doing so, he draws a younger, more mainstream audience to Shakespeare by making the drama more current and accessible; and yet Luhrmann is unable to retain the original aura of Romeo and Juliet in this updated version.
William Benjamin believes that mechanizing art allows for engagement in politics, contending, “The instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics.”[1] This statement certainly rings true for Luhrmann’s Shakespeare remake. The political climate of Los Angeles in the 80's-90's was extremely heated due to mass scale gang violence, and Romeo and Juliet highlights tragedy, calling attention to the calamitous situation in Los Angeles. It was not only politically clever to portray the Venetian households as rival gangs but thematically clever for the setting as well. Transforming an Elizabethan conflict into a modern conflict is not easy but a city gang rivalry fits perfectly for this play.
One of Luhrmann’s most enjoyable contemporary additions to Romeo and Juliet is its camp elements.[2] Because a portion of the film takes place at a costume party, there are extravagant outfits and disguises. The costumes are absolutely stunning and perfectly epitomize each character’s persona. Romeo’s knight costume brings a familiar touch of Elizabethan style to the modern remake while Juliet’s angel costume emblemizes her purity and virtue, an important element from the original play. The most camp character of all is Mercutio, an African American person who is portrayed as a fabulous drag queen. Not only would the campiness of the film appeal to a newer generation, but the diverse casting would also draw new people to Shakespearian works. The multi-racial cast makes the contemporary setting more realistic for the modern era.
The decision to dress the main Black character in drag also made me think of the regime of representation.[3] Mercutio is dressed in drag for the costume party portion of the film but returns to wearing traditional men’s clothing afterward. To have a strong, African American male character have the mobility to dress in drag at night and then return to appearing as a typical alpha male by day seems rather progressive for the 1990’s. This gender mobility certainly pushes against the regime of representation surrounding Black men in America, who are stereotyped as tough and hyper masculine.[4] In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio can be both the alpha male and fabulous drag queen. I applaud Luhrmann for adapting Mercutio’s character in such a daring and contemporary way.
Yet it appears to have been challenging For Luhrmann to preserve the aura of a 400-year-old play when transferring it to film and setting it in modern day America. Although I think Luhrmann came close to preserving, the original aura of the play is something that simply cannot be reproduced mechanically.[5] Using another Shakespeare play as an example, Benjamin states: “For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot: be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”[6] The Shakespearian prose feels jarring to the viewer because it does not fit in the era and setting of the film. Philosopher Theodore Adorno would have certainly decried the idea of turning a live play into a film and would even have gone so far as to say that transferring art to a digital medium “demolishes the genial old tavern to a greater extent than bombs ever could.”[7]
Overall, I think Luhrmann made a valiant effort to bring Shakespeare to the contemporary era and succeeded in creating a beautiful and enjoyable film, but, for me, this film does not capture Renaissance Shakespeare, and the use of the original script can come across as unsettling for the viewer. There is something hyper unrealistic about iambic pentameter being spoken in a pop culture setting. It’s harder to immerse oneself in an environment that is so unconventional. Part of the reason why Shakespeare lovers enjoy his plays is because they transport them to his era. Perhaps, the viewing experience of the film would have been improved if Luhrmann had opted for a contemporary script to match the updated setting. Other than the script, the costume, casting, and filming of the movie were absolutely phenomenal. I really do admire Luhrmann for attempting such a bold task in his effort to attract modern society to such a Shakespeare production.
[1] Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin Books.
[2] Sontag, S. (1964). Notes On Camp.
[3] Hall, S. (1997). Representation - cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE Publ.
[4] Hall, S. (1997). Representation - cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE Publ.
[5] Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin Books.
William Benjamin believes that mechanizing art allows for engagement in politics, contending, “The instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics.”[1] This statement certainly rings true for Luhrmann’s Shakespeare remake. The political climate of Los Angeles in the 80's-90's was extremely heated due to mass scale gang violence, and Romeo and Juliet highlights tragedy, calling attention to the calamitous situation in Los Angeles. It was not only politically clever to portray the Venetian households as rival gangs but thematically clever for the setting as well. Transforming an Elizabethan conflict into a modern conflict is not easy but a city gang rivalry fits perfectly for this play.
One of Luhrmann’s most enjoyable contemporary additions to Romeo and Juliet is its camp elements.[2] Because a portion of the film takes place at a costume party, there are extravagant outfits and disguises. The costumes are absolutely stunning and perfectly epitomize each character’s persona. Romeo’s knight costume brings a familiar touch of Elizabethan style to the modern remake while Juliet’s angel costume emblemizes her purity and virtue, an important element from the original play. The most camp character of all is Mercutio, an African American person who is portrayed as a fabulous drag queen. Not only would the campiness of the film appeal to a newer generation, but the diverse casting would also draw new people to Shakespearian works. The multi-racial cast makes the contemporary setting more realistic for the modern era.
The decision to dress the main Black character in drag also made me think of the regime of representation.[3] Mercutio is dressed in drag for the costume party portion of the film but returns to wearing traditional men’s clothing afterward. To have a strong, African American male character have the mobility to dress in drag at night and then return to appearing as a typical alpha male by day seems rather progressive for the 1990’s. This gender mobility certainly pushes against the regime of representation surrounding Black men in America, who are stereotyped as tough and hyper masculine.[4] In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio can be both the alpha male and fabulous drag queen. I applaud Luhrmann for adapting Mercutio’s character in such a daring and contemporary way.
Yet it appears to have been challenging For Luhrmann to preserve the aura of a 400-year-old play when transferring it to film and setting it in modern day America. Although I think Luhrmann came close to preserving, the original aura of the play is something that simply cannot be reproduced mechanically.[5] Using another Shakespeare play as an example, Benjamin states: “For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot: be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”[6] The Shakespearian prose feels jarring to the viewer because it does not fit in the era and setting of the film. Philosopher Theodore Adorno would have certainly decried the idea of turning a live play into a film and would even have gone so far as to say that transferring art to a digital medium “demolishes the genial old tavern to a greater extent than bombs ever could.”[7]
Overall, I think Luhrmann made a valiant effort to bring Shakespeare to the contemporary era and succeeded in creating a beautiful and enjoyable film, but, for me, this film does not capture Renaissance Shakespeare, and the use of the original script can come across as unsettling for the viewer. There is something hyper unrealistic about iambic pentameter being spoken in a pop culture setting. It’s harder to immerse oneself in an environment that is so unconventional. Part of the reason why Shakespeare lovers enjoy his plays is because they transport them to his era. Perhaps, the viewing experience of the film would have been improved if Luhrmann had opted for a contemporary script to match the updated setting. Other than the script, the costume, casting, and filming of the movie were absolutely phenomenal. I really do admire Luhrmann for attempting such a bold task in his effort to attract modern society to such a Shakespeare production.
[1] Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin Books.
[2] Sontag, S. (1964). Notes On Camp.
[3] Hall, S. (1997). Representation - cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE Publ.
[4] Hall, S. (1997). Representation - cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE Publ.
[5] Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin Books.
Hey Jacquline!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your interpretation and analysis of the Baz Luhrmann version of Romeo and Juliet. While it was nice reading your analysis, there are a few things I would have wished you could have included. While a majority know the story of Romeo and Juliet, it would have been nice to know which film you were comparing the Baz Luhrmann to. Romeo and Juliet has been remade several times including with an animated version “Gnomeo and Juliet.” However, I felt just a bit lost as I did not know what the other version of Romeo and Juliet you were comparing and contrasting the Luhrmann version to was. Other than that, you did a great job explaining what the plot of this remake was. Because Romeo and Juliet has been remade so many times, the story line may be the same since both characters die at the end, but some newer adaptations tend to add in their own twist to it. I thought it was interesting you referred this version of Romeo and Juliet to the Baz Luhrmann version, rather than the Leo Dicaprio one since I think most people would know which Romeo and Juliet you wrote about if you included that it was Leo’s. It was interesting how you included the background knowledge of the political climate seen in LA at the time the film was released as it is understandable as to why the film is relevant, and how you included Benjamins thoughts on how art allows for an engagement with politics. I would add on that what Benjamin would say about the recreation and adaptation of Romeo and Juliet from the Shakespeare play to film is that film allows the story to be more significant and it is what allows for a global audience to be introduced and attracted to the original Shakespeare story.
Hi Jacqueline,
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of Luhrmann's modern adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet'' quite illuminating. I really appreciated your objective critique of what you perceived served as the film's primary strengths and weaknesses. I was most interested in your point regarding the character of Mercutio, and the ties you made to class readings on camp and regimes of representation. I agree that the casting decision and personification of this character was quite progressive and unconventional; having a Black man portray a character who is represented as both a hyper masculinized and a hyper feminized figure together in the same film serves as an evident attempt to turn traditional social norms on its head. This makes me think of a particular line from Hall's reading that I used for my own paper: "people who are in any way significantly different from the majority are frequently exposed to this binary form of representation. They seem to be represented through sharply opposed; polarized, binary extremes and they are often required to be both things at the same time." I was also curious about Luhrmann's intended audience for this modern adaptation of the classic Shakespearean play. Even though the tale of Romeo and Juliet is obviously a heteronormative narrative, one could infer that Luhrmann was hoping to reach a much more contemporary and thus sexually diverse audience. Not only with the inclusion of a gender queer character, but especially with the strong elements of camp which has strong ties to the queer community, many characteristics of this film could have been deemed potentially appealing to LGBT audiences. All in all, I really enjoyed reading your commentary on these elements of pop culture theory found in Luhrmann’s film.
- Oscar Vasquez