Voltaire once said, “Originality is nothing more than judicious imitation. The most original writers borrow one from another.” And to an extent, Voltaire is right. Many works of art are mere replicas of a previous work. Although most writers, directors, etc. constantly reinvent and manipulate common themes by adding their own interpretations, the basic skeleton is always the same. A prime example are adaptations. And yet again, William Shakespeare’s classic play, Romeo and Juliet, is being adapted.
When I first heard of another movie adaptation of this classic, I was skeptical. Romeo and Juliet has been done over and over and over again. From movies to broadway shows to ballets, how many versions can stem from one play?
Well now, Julian Fellowes is tackling the iconic Shakespearean play. Adapted by Fellowes and directed by Carlo Carlei, this new Romeo and Juliet movie retells the story of two star-crossed lovers in Verona. Although the movie follows the basic outline of the play, Fellowes has taken many liberties with the script and made many alterations. Addressing his alterations to the text, Fellows stated that in order “to see the original in its absolutely unchanged form, you require a kind of Shakespearean scholarship and you need to understand the language and analyze it and so on.” Basically, Fellowes says the general public is not intelligent enough to understand Shakespeare’s work in the original language. Although majority of the public may not fully comprehend Shakespearean language, does that justify changing the original dialogue? After all, Franco Zeffierlli’s 1968 film adaptation with original Shakespearean dialogue received positive reviews, multiple accolades, and much success.
In addition, Manohla Dargis’ review on the New York Times criticizes the films lack of depth and passion. Dargis asserts that although the movie is sufficiently entertaining, overall the film relies too much on looks and the “prettiness” of the characters. Despite their attractiveness, Haliee Steinfeld as Juliet Capulet and Douglas Booth as Romeo Montague make an awkward couple and lack the intense love and urgency the characters possess in the original work.
Since I have not seen the film, I can not determine whether the movie is a successful adaptation or not; however, after watching the trailer, I do see where Dargis is coming from. However, despite Dargis’ mediocre review of Romeo and Juliet, I am still interested in how Fellowes puts his own spin on the Shakespearean play to create a new version of an old classic.
Citations
Dargis, Manohla. “Oh Hey, Romeo, What’s Up?” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/movies/romeo-juliet-adapted-by-julian-fellowes.html?ref=movies
Adaptations and remakes probably encompass a good chunk of Hollywood films. However, they’re not all bad and unoriginal. Take the James Bond films for example, and the remakes featuring Daniel Craig. Daniel Craig’s portrayal introduces younger audiences of a cooler and edgier James Bond, while still staying true to the charm and swagger that Sean Connery had in the original films. Adaptations reflect the time period the films are produced in. Modern movie-goers might feel that the old Bond films do not have enough hardcore action and are instead welcomed by the fast-paced choreography that the newer films have. New versions of movies and stories help keep their respective franchise alive by catering to new and younger audiences that always crave for something fresh.
I think that critics who pan remakes may be too conservative. They might be too focused on what the stories are “supposed” to be in accordance to tradition and what is expected of the story-telling.
I generally don’t like remakes. Oftentimes when a movie is redone or ‘re-colorized,’ however the production company spins it, it is simply to make money. Take for example the 3D version of Titanic that was just released, how did anyone walk out of that theater without feeling totally ripped off?
That being said, a good remake can be very interesting. If the director is inspired, instead of resigned, to redo a classic film the results speak volumes. It shows how film culture and technology has changed in the years between when the two versions were released. I for one loved the Brad Pitt/ George Clooney version of Ocean’s 11. It was the same basic story as the 1960’s version but it offered a fresh perspective and meaningful writing.
It’s hard to say whether remakes are good or bad because it depends on each film. But I think a good general rule is that a remake could be worth filming if makes people rethink their interpretation of the original movie.
I agree with you in the point that you made about remakes. Typically, remakes are either really good or really terrible. How many times can you make Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet? Many books and other plays are derived from the same plot. An example would be West Side Story. That is much more contemporary and the language is modern. This goes to my point about language. I totally disagree on making the remake’s language into modern English. Shakespearean remakes (not Shakespearean remakes where the time period is different, but if it is made in the original time period intended) should utilize the original text! I understand that it is a remake, but in terms of language, it takes away so much from the movie. I wouldn’t say the audience isn’t smart enough to understand it, but in retrospect, many do not understand. But, Romeo and Juliet is known worldwide – it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t know the plot. They’ll still know what’s going on in the movie!
Janice Fong
I personally believe that it is more difficult for remakes to be better than the original, just like how sequels are usually worse than the original. Remakes and sequels are expected to contain all the pros of the original, as well as some innovative characteristics that are unique to them. The same goes for adaptations; those who have encountered the original works already know what to expect, such as the basic storyline and perhaps the climax. It will definitely be interesting to see how Fellowes retells the story of “Romeo and Juliet.” His justification of changing the Shakespearean text, although sounds somewhat condescending, holds true to a certain extent. If it allows for more people to comprehend and appreciate his adaptation movie more easily, some alteration can be done, as long as it does not interfere with the original motif of the play.
I really like the way you opened your post with the quote by Voltaire. It definitely is true that “many works of art are mere replicas of previous work.” Songs are also being remixed and changed from every generations to another. Although I probably would not want my own work to be taken and recreated, I really do enjoy adaptations of shows as well as remixes and remakes of songs. A good remake can show another persons interpretation of something brilliant. Albeit, its mostly for the money, but, remakes can be very enjoyable if done properly. You cannot just take a classical song, like Beethoven’s 5th symphony, and then add/remix it into an Afrojack song. A remake must be done tastefully, and must also be relevant in structure.
I believe that Fellowes intent on changing some of the text was just a way to demonstrate his adaption better. I don’t think there was any malicious intent on killing the beautiful Shakespearean text in the making of his production.
I really like Voltaire’s quote in the beginning of your review. I think it really ties up the theme of Romeo and Juliet. Although Voltaire’s quote is clearly a paradox, it reflects the ideas that we have already accepted, but never explicitly acknowledged. If you think, “Originality is nothing more than judicious imitation,” then you are essentially saying a masterpiece is remarkable by the virtue of being a derivative. This idea will evoke disagreement and an unrelenting debate, but is it actually false? After all, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is based on Arthur Brooke’s poem The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet.
As far as the modern adaptation is concerned, I am skeptical of the changes that Julian Fellowes considers necessary. I think language plays a crucial role in bringing about the feel of Romeo and Juliet; without it, the play lacks emotions and depth. It’s true that one needs to evolve with time, but some things are meant to remain intact and persist in its original form because they are classics—perfect the way they are.
I know that there’s a lot of controversy over whether Shakespeare himself altered and plagiarized from other works. I guess this is just a continuation of that into modern times. I really enjoyed some adaptations of the classic. West Side Story was a great rendition because of its urban setting and the parallel between the family names and gangs. I think that we are still seeing Romeo and Juliet in all of these different forms today because it has themes which transcends time: Forbidden love, violence, tragedy, romance. In some cases, there is added further layers of depth to the original plot line, which becomes a well-known story of its own (West Side Story). Talk about “Judicious imitation.” Others, such as the one you’ve brought into question, may be more focused on the original play bringing recognition to their own in order to bring in a greater revenue. This is clear by the fact that the actors and actresses were selected for their appearances rather than chemistry or ability.
You win some, you lose some.
(By the way, Fellowes was definitely doing us all a favor when he claimed that the public just couldn’t understand Romeo and Juliet in its original form. Though I am an avid reader, I myself can’t get through Shakespeare without reading the No Fear Literature on SparkNotes. The old language is something we all complain about, so I think it’s okay to modernize the dialogue.)
There is nothing wrong with the reuse of classical stories to express different views. As the society progresses the notion of “common art” changes along as well; you can’t expect anyone today to understand a play made centuries ago without any alternation to fit it into our world view. The quote by Voltaire at the beginning nicely portrays the need for remakes of classical works. A work is good because it provides multiple angles for its viewers, and remakes are evidence of the existence of multiple angles. You may say that remakes are the proof for classical works.