“Romeo and Juliet”
Directed by Carlo Carlei
Starring Hailee Steinfeld, Douglas Booth, Damian Lewis, Kodi Smi-McPhee, Ed Westwick, Paul Giamatti, Stellan Skarsgård
Drama, Romance
118 Mins
PG-13

Traditionally there have been two ways to tackle a Shakespeare production. The first is a straight adaptation of the film language, with a time-period that may vary, often abridged to cut running time (take Baz Luhrmaan and Franco Zefferelli’s versions of Romeo and Juliet). The second substitutes traditional, or shall we shall colloquial, speech patterns for Shakespeare’s lofty language but follows the basic plot (think Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood). In his version of Romeo and Juliet, Carlo Carlei kind of does both. Famous lines such as “A rose by any other name…” make it into the film, but they are surrounded by mang riffs on his language that are only similar to the source material. It’s written to sound like Shakespeare, but it is not Shakespeare. The end result can only be described as Shakespeare-ish. Seen as a tactic to distinguish this version from older productions, it only draws more attention to the fact that we probably have enough Romeo and Juliet films already.

Someone who hasn’t read the play in a while or watched any of the other film adaptations may be deceived by the trailers, but the glaring changes made by Carlei are apparent immediately, when the film opens on a Capulet/Montague tournament, overlaid with an updated introduction from the chorus. There’s no thumb biting here. Instead the opening conflict begins by high tensions following the tournament. In this opening, the action scenes are quite well done. Close camera angles and fast cuts don’t quite capture the nifty chaos of the battles from older adaptations. But Carlei’s fight scenes, aided by choreography from Paolo Antonini are visceral and competently arranged to suit modern tastes.

Unlike the trend that many modern Shakespeare adaptations follow, such as Joss Whedon’s Much Ado About Nothing, Carlei’s Romeo and Juliet is set in traditional renaissance style, with gorgeous costumes and set design (the only exception is a truly awful CG wedding chapel that looks like something out of a Star Wars prequel). The aesthetic will undoubtedly draw comparison to Franco Zefferelli’s version of the star-cross lovers, as some of the set designs look pulled directly from the 1968 film.

Aesthetics aside, the frantic pacing of the film, which seems to be there as to not bore young audiences, ends up skipping over many of the plays great comedic moments, exposing the intentions of a film more concerned with beating the audience over the head with the romantic elements and entirely skipping the actual absurdity of its events.

Stellar performances by some of the older cast members, especially Paul Giamatti and Damian Lewis, bring a lot of credibility to the film, but Hailee Steinfeld and Douglas Booth’s respective turns as the titular lovers range from overdone to flat, demonstrating a fundamental lack of engagement with the text. “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?” should be spoken in anguish, to accentuate the central conflict of the play, not with a dreamy, glazed-over look. Too often, our protagonists feel like they are reading lines at each other, which is a common trap for actors with no Shakespearian training. This, combined with forced stage directions, make this production feel very “high-school play.”

With the central performances working mostly against it, Romeo and Juliet relies on a cheesy score to try and jerk some tears during pivotal scenes, combining unnecessarily fast-paced shots to create several moments straight out of an engagement ring commercial. These scenes were receiving giggles I don’t think the film was in on (a “so bad it’s good” production of this, played straight, could be interesting and hilarious, as long as the production is in on the joke). Scenes where Romeo and Juliet are alone suffer the most compared to the rest of the film, as if the editor was pulling his hair out to save the uninspiring performances.

It takes a special kind of hubris to take one of the most beloved plays of all time and say, “That needs another draft.” But that’s exactly what Downton Abbey writer Julian Fellowes did. Romeo is shown to be a much bolder young Montague, while Lord Capulet has some of his motivations changed entirely by Fellowes’s new script. The goal was allegedly to simplify it enough to bring Shakespeare to a new audience. A good adaptation of the material would have done this, without the edits, through context clues.

Shakespeare’s words were not only chosen for the ideas they convey, but for the sounds they make. By altering that distinct cadence, Fellowes creates a slightly easier to understand, but far more shallow play. It may serve as an apt cheat sheet for high school students who have never heard of the internet, but it surely won’t help them delve further into the text. A shallow adaptation will beget a shallow audience. And it has. Sounds of sniffling from the women in the audience, confirm the success of Carlei’s ham-fisted approach.

Zefferelli’s 1968 version of the play remains the most competent, true to source, and enduring version of the traditional play (It’s also on Netflix). Luhrmaan’s controversial adaptation broke away from tradition and brought an exciting new angle to the play, fully embracing the sometimes-ridiculous concept, while making it culturally relevant and fresh. Carlei’s film, however, faces the struggle of justifying its own existence among the pantheon of great Shakespeare productions. It succeeds as a kind of “No Fear Shakespeare” on film, but will be quickly forgotten. Twilight fans and pubescent girls may give Carlei’s Romeo and Juliet two thumbs up, but anyone familiar with the play will inevitably bite their thumb at it.