Unfortunately, I couldn't get any clips of the newer Romeo And Juliet with Leo, so the older one will have to do.
Alright, right off the bat West Side Story takes the win. At the beginning of Romeo & Juliet you see a guy telling you what's going on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6zKB6_mo_M I found it hard to take this seriously because of the over-dramatic narrator. A few minutes in, you see a small confrontation between the two gangs that is initiated by a gesture of "biting one's thumb". Back in the day that was a great offence, but to me he could have been chewing his finger nails. If you will, go to 3:18 and just listen to what he says. Was it funny? That is for you to decide. Anyway, what I do actually like about this is that the Capulet actually killed a Montague. In West Side Story, no one dies. Later on in the clip, at 7:30, the leader scorns his people with great diction and vocabulary. Frightening, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krhqiyGwJyM
Go to 6:35 for the actual beginning. Not the toughest looking gang around, but they sure do have an actual appropriate attitude. This group of roughians aren't going to the neighborly bakery to buy a loaf of bread. They mean business. Sure, they're dancing in the streets. But it's THEIR street and they make it known by jumping around while looking cool. How else do you show your dominance? This beginning is so much more interesting to me because it doesn't have any unnecessary dialogue, gestures or costumes.
To me, actions are more meaningful and speak louder than words. In the beginning of Romeo And Juliet, one of the Capulet tells the other that he will back him up. For the sake of the audience it makes sense to have lines like that, but in West Side Story there is no such dialogue at the beginning. In truth, there is no dialogue in the beginning! Having an unspoken loyalty and support in each other draws me into the movie.
Obviously there are similarities between the two. It's two gangs fighting each other fighting for their territory. As well of a love story, but that is just a whole other discussion entirely.
I think that both openings set a good tone/mood for the rest of each show. Each one shows the rivalry that they have, the era, environment and what they're capable of. From swords to zip guns, each one has their own type of arsenal.
It sort of seems like you aren't that big of a fan of either show from what you've written, haha. I just have a couple of comments. People definitely do die in West Side Story - Bernardo (Tybalt in R&J) kills Riff (Mercutio in R&J), which causes Tony (Romeo) to avenge Riff by killing Bernardo, and of course Tony dies at the end.
ReplyDeleteAs for the whole 'Romeo and Juliet' thing that you've got going on. I understand that it seems as though the dialogue, gestures or costumes are unnecessary at times, but that is only because we look at it from our modern (and rather minimalist) point of view. In Shakespeare's day, this was considered modern, new and rather controversial. Also, I would recommend perhaps trying to find a modern take on the Romeo and Juliet story. The Leo movie version is a good example of this - I wonder, do you like the modern take better than a traditional take? Or does it make a difference at all?
My bad Theo, I meant that in the beginning of WSS there isn't any killing. There's just one guy getting a scrap on his face.
DeleteI do have a fairly "black or white" opinion, so I don't mean to sound rude about anything that I've written. Not going to lie, I didn't much like the new one either with Leonardo. Sure there were some good parts, like when they both are in the pool and Leo pours his heart out to her. But when you think about it, Romeo is a bit of a stalker. Leo did a good job though at that age, I'll give him that. In the modern version there's still a lot of dialogue, just not as similar as the old version.
Nice comment about the action vs. the spoken. When you look at Shakespeare most of what they do is describe their actions, their emotions and tell everyone what they're about to do, where as in modern theatre we tend to lean towards "showing" as opposed to telling. Modern story telling is definitely more at home in action and less explanation.
ReplyDeleteThank you Katherine! That is precisely why I prefer more modern story telling.
DeleteKatherine I half agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that action in general is highly valued in modern forms of entertainment especially movies and theatre but Shakespeare was no slouch in that respect either. His text is descriptive but there's lots of room for subtlety and action alike. For example The duel before Mercutio's death (1986 movie version for example) is filled with action although it may not read in the script you cannot simply narrate that part of the show. Also there was pretty much at least one big sword duel in most of his plays.
I can see why you might not hold either of the shows in high esteem. Unfortunately not only have both shows been done to death, but the basic love story has been done so often i feel like it has lost its meaning. No longer does it represent the beauty and pain that comes with love, but instead it seems cheesey and cliche.
ReplyDeleteYeah but don't you think that for a time that did not use sung songs in their theater, that the lines do just as well to express the characters emotion as the songs do in the musical? you know how kevin says the reason you sing in musical theater is because words will simply not do? do you think that the script to R+J does just as well to express the feelings?
ReplyDeleteGood point, but in my opinion there's more importance in a song than in just a conversation. I think you just contradicted yourself. "...words will simply not do?" proves my point that dialogue isn't always the best way to go.
Delete