The classic 1968 Romeo and Juliet Review

My Freshman year of high school I was introduced to the beauty of William Shakespeare, when my english class took to studying the tragedy Romeo and Juliet. Immediately we followed the story into Zeffirelli's 1968 rendition, a true classic. With 16 year old Leonard Whiting as Romeo and 15 year old Olivia Hussey as Juliet. I fell upon a copy of it in my local bookstore and immediately jumped at it. Now years have passed and I find myself pulling it out and popping it into my VCR. As years have fallen since I took to studying the beautiful language and magnificent stories I have grown to respect the man, the story, and the luscious history behind it. Outside it is a glorious day as beautiful as it would have been centuries ago on the day the fictionalized characters Romeo and Juliet wed. 

The script of the film is a difficult one to assess for it holds still to the language of Shakespeare. Historians have studied it from the beginning to this day as to how the origin of it all began. With the developing Elizabethan language and the dramatist Shakespeare was, he seemed to come up with a more passionate tragedian language homage to many of his tragedies as well as a foundation for his other plays and sonnets. The actors as well chosen for the roles carried the hard language extremely well, their diction, pronunciation, and  

This is definitely a tragedy, a drama but a romance first and foremost. 

Giving the characters are set at a very young age around 15 or 16, with all of the teenage angst and dramatic elements brought on by puberty. It is only fitting that of the two Juliet be the most spoiled, whiny, and dramatic. Olivia Hussey was dead on in her performance. Though she did carry herself well as the ill-fated Juliet, she tended to whine through the more darker themes, as did Leonard Whiting. The film portrayed all aspects of what teenage hormones and true love can do to a person. To me they were in that stage of the relationship where the only two people who mattered were themselves, they seemed enflamed by love's selfishness that ultimately destroyed them. The two young actors did a wonderfully impressive job, taking on a language most foreign to us all. They were brave in the way of giving themselves completely to the roles, often in a vulnerable state they gave freely to the story. As did the other actors, especially John McEnery as Mercutio and Michael York as Tybalt. Visually the sword fights were brilliantly fascinating and realistic. The one long sword fight between Mercutio and Tybalt and then Tybalt and Romeo had me on the edge of my seat. Incredibly well choreographed and performed. The setting in Italy was beautiful the old stone buildings and walls that lined the dirt paths. Though in entire film there seemed to be a smoky atmosphere all throughout the scenes. And I really loved that, a sort of darker element foreshadowing the untimely end. The costumes were brilliant, so full of life and beautiful. Colors in every corner of every piece of fabric. They added a warmer balance to the films darkness. Franco Zeffirelli really pulled together all the elements to bringing the world of Shakespeare to life. He brought this magical atmosphere of Romeo and Juliet on the screen that swept you into it.

From a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being bad and 5 being superior, rating on the acting between Leonard Whiting, John McEnery, and Michael York I give a 5. Olivia Hussey, did actually hold herself very well, but her constant whining often put me back. So I'd give her a 4. The script being a Shakespeare classic of course a 5. The directing was very lively and colorful, a 5. The only true technical aspect would have to be the sword fighting and in which case I would rate a 5. And the overall effect of the film, the atmosphere being a classic, a 5.    

Any Shakespeare historian of course would have the grandest time with this untimely classic. And anyone intrigued by literature or perhaps a literary major would appreciate this. But it's difficult to say who would truly enjoy such a film. Shakespeare has always been a controversial subject of sorts, and it's often hard too find people who will truly appreciate it for all it is. But I would love to introduce him to anyone with an open mind.  

My Take on Art!

I was lucky enough to come across a class called Introduction to Theatre, and to no hesitation jumped at the opportunity to broaden my understanding of art at an actor's point. When assessing the question of "what is fine art," I had to immediately access all my basic knowledge of art as a whole. In the time it took me to, I came up with the idea that art is a creative process, it is a passage to clarity, to understanding life in the only way we know how, and that is through passion, love, hunger, scraping the very low and coming back up with a better meaning and respect. It is a way of communication, of release, insanity, and then at the end of it, this unbelievable idea of what it's like to live.

Having read up on the first chapter of my assigned book, I was overwhelmingly informed of the various categories in art, for example; graphic art, which is more or less the creative design of objects or companies and is something attractive to the eye. Then there was commercial art which from the very core, exists for selling only. Liberal art, which is one of my favorites and pertains to more literature, the history of art, and philosophy. And last, a second favorite of mine, fine art, which is in a way the most passionate, the most misunderstood, and the most complex of the various categories.

Fine art, is a collection of art, and from the pit of the soul remains the fire lit beneath the heart. It is ideally a passionate and exotic way of releasing one's emotions that in no other way one can access. It is the drive one feels towards situations or way of escaping situations and their creative intake of it. Fine art is communicating, of letting go and moving on. It is a break in insanity where the rest of the world falls away, leaving only our artist and their creation.

Theatre, is also an art of communicating, it is entirely built on communication and contact. Whether it be with the actor and the audience, the writer and director, the actor and the writer, the director and the audience. Also a way of escaping or camouflaging the soul and jumping into the shoes of someone else for a while. Theatre dips into many categories of art, first graphic; when there is a production, of course it is necessary for it to be appealing and attractive to the eyes of the people they wish to sell it to. Which immediately leads us into commercial, when playbills are created or posters, that is in itself commercially theatrical. You want to succeed in ticket sales and have a full house, so you go to the effort of commercially developing the production, in summary, to the people of the city. Liberal, without a doubt, from the script to the music. Without which it would barely survive in the market. People go to the theatre for the music, ie, opera; and for the literature, which Shakespeare can always apply to. People set aside lifetimes in devotion to the beauty that is Shakespeare. And the philosophical aspect only broadens our understanding of the art behind the theatre. But as we make our way through the list, fine art, stands out amongst the categories in a bolder detail. As explained before, fine art, is passionate creativity, a release, and of surrendering yourself completely. In theatre that is what becomes of you, it brings forth that passion, swallows you up in a wave of creative hunger. That need, to be completely different than who you are, and to shed the life with which you lead upon the seats, as you climb the steps to the stage, remains one of the more glories of the art.

I often found my knowledge, as a whole on art, well educated as I am an artist and that of which I have written I often feel myself. That drive and passion, the hunger for escaping and need for a better understanding. I base my entire existence on art and I don't think not a minute goes by that I don't think of it. I thank God for the passion and artistic power which engulf my fingertips and wouldn't trade it for a single thing in the world.

My take and review on the masterpiece "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

For the second time, I have been lucky enough to view the beautifully captivating drama  Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? A brutally honest tale about an older couple who's games may seem a little out of the ordinary for a young couple. Opening to the public in 1962 at the Billy Rose Theatre, written by Edward Albee and directed by Alan Schneider. Little would they know at what a hit it would become, stemming into cinema and receiving 5 Academy Awards and being nominated a total 13 times. When I came down to the gist of this project and saw that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was available, I jumped at it, running to my sister's boyfriend's Netflix account and immediately searching for the film. I sat back for the next two hours and nine minutes completely captivated by every scene.

At the core of it this is a drama of the century, the entire experience from the viewer is raw and painful. I think in every scene, there is some heated battle between two of the greatest actors in cinema history, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. You feel so much emotion from the very first scene, when Martha and George, coming back from a party, and upon entering the house you hear the words "what a dump." Immediately you are whisked away into a heated conversation (one of many) involving the whereabouts of that line. It's emotional to the very end, especially from Dame Elizabeth Taylor breaking down when finding out that Richard Burton's character George had killed their "child." All in all this is not for the light of heart, it is a heavy slap to the face, and a damn good drama.

In some of the scenes it purposefully drags in pace, leaving us, the viewers, only lusting for the rectitude, or more so, the quiet after the storm. You can't help but be attracted to them, as the young couple, played by Sandy Dennis and George Segal become even more enthralled in their volatile behavior. I especially loved Sandy Dennis as Honey, the sweet, naive, and in-denial wife of the new biology teacher George. The two actors were able to hold their own against the powerhouse couple Liz and Richard. But there ended up being two scenes which moved me so too tears, both by Ms. Taylor, burning their images in my mind. First one, as she stands at her kitchen screened-door, leaning her head upon it. We're immediately bearing witness to another side of Martha, as she begins to confess her love, no matter how screwed their relationship may be. She says this, "George and Martha: Sad, sad, sad. Whom I will not forgive for having come to rest; for having seen me and having said: yes, this will do." And confessing her want for happiness. She reveals to Nick that their has always been one man for her and that man is George. The second scene, had me so disgustingly pitying Martha, as George revealed to her that their "son," I believe a symbolism for a game she held dear, had been killed. Martha breaks down in a fit of tears and screams falling limp to the floor, screaming "no no, you can't do that." Tears swelled up my sight as I saw a muddled image of Martha grabbing hold of her arms and burying her head. From the very first scene to the very end, you don't see quality actors, but a disturbed, cruel couple whom finding it best to quarrel then to show actual affection. Rating all four performances one of the greatest and intense, and emotionally adequate of all cinema history.        

I love that the script is witty and smart, it catches on like a cat and dog fight. George and Martha constantly slashing remark after remark. They want to hurt each other and it's obvious and it's sad and it's painful. But still you hold on till the very end because in a weird way, you've fallen in love with them. I love how George spouts scientific and literary comparisons toward every situation. For instance right after Martha screams "up yours," George replies with, "You take the trouble to construct a civilization, to build a society based on the principles of... of principle. You make government and art and realize that they are, must be, both the same. You bring things to the saddest of all points, to the point where there is something to lose. Then, all at once, through all the music, through all the sensible sounds of men building, attempting, comes the Dies Irae. And what is it? What does the trumpet sound? Up yours." Even our young couple soon reveal a more vulgar and mean side as the night wilts into the early morning. We come to know to dangerous and sad facts, one being the supposed child of George and Martha's and of the mysterious "puff" Honey had that disappeared after she and Nick wed. You are fed little by little secrets of these two facts, making you yearn for more. You're curious as to why the puff went away and who their son is.  I love that they keep you coming back for more. Throughout the film you are a sort of fly on the wall peering into the lives of two couples, the older more vulgar couple who have lived at the college for years, and the young naive couple new to the school coming over for a nightcap. You get a glance at what the young couple may become in years ahead.

The cinematography played an extremely important part as if it were a character itself. The black and white aspect built so much contrast to the situation and depth to the matter as a whole. I think that the views, the close-ups, the swaying of the camera, all make the experience for the viewers more real, more emotional, more on edge. For instance, anytime Martha began to scream at George or anyone for that matter, they shot a close-up on her. You immediately get the full experience as they bring into focus the wrinkles under her eyes when she glared. And the intensity of her voice vibrating through the camera and into the viewer's ear. The scene taking place at the bar, half-way through the movie was extremely intense, as both Nick and Martha begin to dance, swaying their arms and pressing their bodies upon each other. Also one of my favorite scenes, as Martha begins to reveal the story of George when he was a boy, banging a huge base drum that sat at the end of a darkened stage, she is raised above the other three, symbolizing her position amongst them. The camera shakes throughout the dance scene and even more so as Martha raises her voice. I love the close-ups on their faces, and the sharp focus. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Burton aren't afraid of looking even the most harsh, revealing their wrinkles, most who would cover up with make-up, and veins which popped as the situations intensified. That is very important to the overall theme of the film, the story, which is about a gross, vulgar, and raw couple living a bland lifestyle at a school.

If I were to rate this film over all, scaling 1=bad to 5=superior, there would be no other way then to rate it a perfect 5. The acting being top notch a 5. The script a fun intense and witty work of art, 5. The directing only perfected by director Mike Nichols, a 5, who was able to dig deep and reveal what lies beneath the skin of the viewer. The technical effect, which played more to the film in aspect of the cinematography and theme, a 5. Overall I give this a HUGE 5++++. 

This film comes in high recommendation not for the faint of heart, but for the brutal, raw viewers of this age. When I went to view this, I jumped for joy, talking brainless, at why my sister and her boyfriend should watch it. I told them that it was a fantastic beautiful film. A powerhouse, top notch performance by Taylor and Burton. And upon viewing it, I came out of my room drying my eyes, so not to look as though I was crying, running to my mother asking her if she had ever seen it. She replied to me with a gleeful expression "yes!" I would recommend this film to those aspired to be actors. To those of artistic attributes, who know how to beautifully capture this film as the gem it is. Or for anyone who is looking for a good quality film of high standards. This should be viewed by all in general so that we all may see quality art in its finest.