September 25, 2008: Revisiting History with Romeo+Juliet, Titus

In my contemporary literature class we’re currently learning about the idea of revisiting history within texts (you know this, obviously, because you are teaching it).  We briefly discussed this in our Shakespeare class, but I had a lot more ideas I wanted to mention.  Although Luhrmann’s Romeo+Juliet and Taymor’s Titus are more modernized versions of their respective texts, they feature aspects from throughout history that make some interesting commentary.

Romeo+Juliet, although portrayed in a modern setting, still maintains the Elizabethan language and the historically centered customs of that day.  For example, Juliet is still betrothed to Paris, even though arranged marriages rarely in America today (especially between a fourteen-year-old and, well, however old Paul Rudd was supposed to be (and please don't get me started on Paul Rudd as Paris)).  Other historical customs from the play—banishment and duels in the name of honor—are maintained in the movie despite the fact that these things do not regularly occur in modern day America. Luhrmann changed the setting and time period, but stayed true to Shakespeare’s plot.  Other interesting historical references can be seen in the characters’ costumes at the Capulet party.  Juliet’s mother, Lady Capulet, is dressed as Cleopatra.  This could be a reference to how Lady Capulet, along with her husband, are “rulers” over Juliet and have a power over her just as a queen would have over her subjects.  Romeo’s costume is just chain mail and armor, but it is a reference to knights and crusaders throughout history.  Knights were seen as saviors and warriors; the crusaders were on a quest.  Romeo, in the same way, is on a quest to win Juliet.  Juliet, dressed as an angel in white, represents the angels we know from throughout history—pure, divine, innocent, and beautiful beings.  

Julie Taymor’s Titus also revisits history, though subtly.  Like Romeo+Juliet, the setting seems more modern, but the Elizabethan language and 16^th century customs are still presented in the plot.  The Roman Senate, heredity deciding who’s next in line to rule, and even mercy killings are all ideals from Shakespeare’s time, but are still part of the modernized movie.  Another interesting historical reference I found online (so it’s credibility is questionable) is that during the election scene at the beginning of the film, Saturninus’ car resembles the car used by Hitler, and that Bassianus’ car is the same as the one JFK rode in the day he was assassinated.  If this is true then there are some interesting observations to make.  Like JFK, Bassianus is assassinated in the play, and like Hitler, Saturninus ends up leading a tyrannical regime.  The cars were clever references to historical men, and their lives foreshadow what is to become of the two brothers in Titus Andronicus.

September 17, 2008: Titus Andronicus

Almost immediately my play group decided that the scene we wanted to do for our performance of Titus Andronicus was the last major scene, the one with the cannibalistic dinner party.  Even if my group hadn’t immediately expressed their wishes to perform this scene, I would still have suggested it.  Since most of the play’s scenes have quite a few characters, our decision wasn’t influenced by how many actors we had.  We already knew we had too few, so I figured we could just pick a scene we liked and hoped things worked out from there.  The final scene would probably have been one of the best too.  It’s essentially the climax of the play and there’s plenty of fun for everyone—cannibalism and death all around (four, I believe, is the count unless you include Demetrius and Chiron).  Unfortunately, even if everyone has good pacing and doesn’t die too quickly, this scene probably wouldn’t fit our fifteen to twenty minute requirement, so we agreed to also perform one of the previous scenes—the meeting between Tamora and her sons (disguised as Revenge, Rape, and Murder) and Titus.  It’s a good scene to have because it acts as a bit of a prelude, an explanation of sorts, for the meal that is to come. 

Because of my job as director, I’m going to have to somehow bring this scene to life.  I think my biggest challenge will be presenting a different vision than that of Julie Taymor.  I really enjoyed her movie and the way she directed the whole thing (especially that final climactic dinner party), but I don’t want my version to be an exact copy of hers.  As of now, I’m not sure how I want to go about this.  After today’s class on camp (and parody and pastiche) I’m hoping that some new ideas will come along.  I don’t really think Taymor’s version is campy; it’s more on the side of pastiche, if I have to label it.  Perhaps if I try to look at the work in another light I can find a vision of it that’s different enough from Taymor’s.  This will probably take more reflection on my part, but I’m confident that eventually it will all come together. 

September 11, 2008: Romeo and Juliet, Act IV, Scene I, pages 94-99

For our scene from Romeo and Juliet (Act IV, Scene I) my group had specific ideas on how we wanted to portray the main characters (Paris, Juliet, and Friar Laurence) and that determined how we blocked out the particular scene. The interaction between Juliet and Paris was first. As we saw it, Paris believed that Juliet already belonged to him because despite the fact that they weren’t yet married, Lord Capulet had bequeathed her to him. At this point Juliet was already married and had no romantic interest in Paris; she wanted to avoid him entirely. To get this feeling across, we had Paris slowly advance towards Juliet as he spoke. We wanted him to get uncomfortably close to Juliet, to show the possessiveness of the character. Juliet, in turn, would react by moving away from him, showing her reluctance to even be near him. Once or twice she even walked around him to avoid him (although this was partially influenced by the amount of space we had, it worked well for the scene). In the second part of the scene between Juliet and Friar Laurence, we used blocking to emphasize the difference between the two characters’ state of mind. Juliet moved around a lot; her movements got more dramatic as her speech reached its peak. The friar, on the other hand, we had stay in the same spot throughout that part of the scene. We felt he was the levelheaded, grounded character in this scene. He remains calm during Juliet’s tirade, just as he is the calm planner throughout the play.

September 4, 2008: Romeo+Juliet

One of the most emotionally provocative scenes in Luhrmann’s Romeo+Juliet is the scene where Romeo confronts Tybalt at the fountain and kills him. Leonardo does a great job of moving flawlessly through Romeo’s rapidly changing emotions. When he first comes after Tybalt after Mercutio’s death, Romeo is furious. Leonardo shows it the most in his face; his eyes, brimming with tears, are narrowed in anger and he bares his teeth at Tybalt like an animal. He literally screams his lines and his voice sounds raw from overuse. When he does shoot Tybalt, that fury is brought up a notch. His eyes look like they’re closed, but when the camera zooms in on his face, you can see the tiny slit of his blue eyes and the tears that are blurring his vision. He screams the whole time he is shooting, the sound ragged, angry, and yet sad at the same time. All the rage, all the regret he is feeling comes out through that scream. When Tybalt finally falls dead into the fountain, Leonardo’s whole person changes drastically. His teary eyes open wide and you can see the shock and confusion all over his face. Now done screaming, his mouth hangs slightly open; his nostrils flare as he breaths heavily. He blinks slowly, as if trying to understand the situation. A single tear slowly slides down his cheek. Leonardo looks away and the camera pans down to his hand where the gun slowly slides out of his grip and to the ground. Now past the rage he felt before, the situation is bearing down on him. Leonardo’s facial expressions reflect his character’s astonishment and almost detachment from his actions.