Would anyone help me with finding differences between the movie "Romeo+Juliet" -1996 and original play? I've got to do it for my English class and I read the play a long time ago so I don' remember much of it - all faded out with time...Would anyone get my out of trouble? (I really suck at Shakespeare's plays as well as poetry)...
Read the play again, watch the film. Do your own work and your own thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by katejuliette
Someone must have posted this place as a site to go to get other people to do one's homework. :nonod:
pathetic............
Are we talking about the DiCaprio one? You don't really need to be good at Shakespeare to spot the differences... just the ability to like tell the difference between guns and swords... the changes aren't exactly subtle.
Shakespeare didn't set his play in the 1990's. That's one difference.
It honestly doesn't take too long to read Shakespeare's play. If you have trouble with the language, read sparknotes as well to better understand what's going on.
Shakespeare didn't intend to cover a variety of DVD extra bonus material, including interviews of the cast and crew, special behind the scenes footage - as well as audio commentary by the director and producer. Neither did he intend a 45 documentary on set design, a photo gallery or even a teaser trailer. :rolleyes5:
I would think it cannot have been that long since the class read the play as the assignment seems to be a current one. Unless maybe you didn't do it at the time and now it is a make up assignment? Also, I would imagine that if the class watched the film together (and I'd assume that because of the assignment) the class also discussed some of the differences between the film and the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by katejuliette
You haven't paid attention in class, you are probably doing a long overdue makeup assignment, you want someone else to do your work for you. Pity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
He did pen a hell of a soundtack though, no?
I went through all that support material for Brannagh's "Magic flute" recently and it was all pretty useless. What *would* be useful is a printed libretto (even though it's in English) so you can understand what the diction-less support singers are singing... in general, such support material could be really useful if they put some thought into it... All those millions to spend, where *does* it all go...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Would anyone help me with finding differences between the movie "Romeo+Juliet" -1996 and original play?
One sucks... the other doesn't.
Hooboy, now there's a classic movie. We had to watch it in eighth grade, I think. The two things I remember:
1) DiCaprio overacting these lines: "Then plainly know my hearts dear love is set / On the fair daughter of rich Capulet."
2) Mercutio was a black guy. :rofl:
Do your own homework.
Hey, katejuliette, did you come back to see if anyone answered your post?
And a transvestite :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Abras
Isn't this question just all too obvious? Of course, you'd have to be familiar with the play to know that.....oh, duh.....:nopity:Quote:
Originally Posted by katejuliette
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrna22
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrna22
Myrna> I think you have made your point very clearly and repeatedly starting with your very first post in this thread. I really don't see the point of coming here again and again - especially because it is obviousl that you don't want to help or reply the OP's questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by myrna22
TO ALL
If you don't want to offer any help,
please feel free to ignore this thread and others which aim to get help from Forum members.
Off-topic posts will be deleted without any further notice.
Am I the only one who thought the movie was actually pretty good? It had great music and a unique twist.
It was alright. It was just very like cartoonish and flashy. Aside from that, Talk Show Host is one of my favourite Radiohead songs and Claire Danes was nice to look at... it had some pretty good qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis_R
I thought it was great for showing up the difference in the 16th C play, or any play really, and how current media - films etc are presented. The stage in the 16th C was all about the words - costumes were recycled and not accurate, sets were minimal, boys were girls, but it was popular and worked really well. This was also no doubt down to the skill of the actors etc, but they needed excellent writing.
The film takes the writing - script - and places it in a modern film which uses al the visual cues and action you might normally get. I fact it is overblown right from the petrol station scene on. I found it rather overwhelming on first watch - I couldn't follow the 16th C script with the visual pyrotechnics, although I appreciated the humour of the capulet's party.
Now i can follow it, after a number of watches - my classes used to study R&J and we used this Luhrmann to contrast how Scene 5 could be presented.
I think Luhrmann may have failed to bring Shakespeare to the young with this production - the contrast in 16th and 20th C styles was too much, but it was an interesting experiment.
I liked the movie, too. I've seen the play a lot, and worked on it a couple of times as an actor and combat choreographer. My experience has been that in the theatre, there are never enough actors to properly stage the first scene or Capulet's party--two things the Luhrmann film does quite well. The opening fight at the gas station was evocative and provided a powerful visualization of how the conflict between the Capulets and Montagues is tearing Verona apart. I also liked the way Luhrmann used ethnicity, religion, and costume to make the Capulets and Montagues immediately distinct. Several of the actors were very effective in their roles, including John Leguizamo as Tybalt, Harold Perrineau as Mercutio, and Paul Sorvino as Capulet. I thought Miriam Margolyes captured the humor of The Nurse better than in any stage production I've seen. Paul Rudd's interpretation of Paris was fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis_R
I thought Leonardo DiCaprio lacked the creative imagination and verse speaking skills to play Romeo. To some extent, Claire Danes was similarly hobbled, but I was still captivated by her beauty and innocence.