The recent discussion of Moulin Rouge! in the musicals group included a slew of references to Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, so when I saw it in the library the other day I picked it up.
A note on the play itself: We studied it in 8th grade, so I was not unfamiliar with it, but I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen a production of it as it (as opposed to an updating/homage/musical/whatever of it). My opinion of it now, as opposed to 40 years ago -– what a couple of ninnies! Jesus.
A note or six on Luhrmann’s version: I liked it. I loved the way he handled the intro, which I was surprised to be able to recite along with the news anchor (I was surprised throughout at the bits and pieces I still remembered from 8th grade), which took me immediately into the worlds of the film. I had no problem with the updating, and I thought most of his twists and adaptations were a lot of fun. (Unlike Sampiro in the Moulin Rouge! thread, I specifically liked the “When Doves Fly” aside – once I figured out what the damn song was – I spent about a minute saying “I know this! I know this! What is it?”) His cast was impressive – the acting by both leads was, I thought, very good, esp. considering they were playing a couple of ninnies, and, I choose to believe, were aware that their characters were ninnies and not tragic lovers.
The only part I really didn’t care for were the trademark Luhrmann herky-jerkiness in the scene at the beginning when Juliet’s mother was getting dressed –- that was the one place I was taken out of the film. I was reminded of the similar pacing/style of the farce scene in the elephant at the beginning of Moulin Rouge!, which on my most recent viewing was irritating enough to take me out of the entire film –- annoying in a film I think of as one I enjoy.
And the visuals, of course, were utterly marvelous, as they always are with Luhrmann. Which led me to muse on directors who can be relied on to provide gorgeous, trippy visuals movie after movie. David Cronenberg is one, but his movies are so freaking dark. I’m a fan, but it’s hard to say I enjoy Cronenberg’s films. For great visuals, serious joie de vivre, and a rather odd take on the universe, I think you have to go back to Ken Russell.
Now, some of the younger Dopers may not be familiar with Ken Russell, though I think most people who enjoy film at all have seen Altered States or Tommy, perhaps Lair of the White Worm, which I consider kind of his swan song, though IMDb shows another 20 years’ of work after that.
For me, though –- and I think probably at least one or two of my fellow Boomers –- movie-going in the ‘70s was a fair amount about Ken Russell. Those were the days when I, at least, was consuming a fair number of mind- and mood-altering substances (emphasis on the “mind”) as an adjunct to … well, I was going to say movie-going, but there was also music-listening and TV-viewing, and hell, just about everything, up to and including to laundromat-going. Hell of a decade, the '70s.
Anyway, here are some similarities between Baz Luhrmann and Ken Russell:
Style: Killer visuals and serious trippiness; a kind of emotional distance.
Subject matter: A high-culture/low culture meld in which each element comments on the other. Russell did a series of bios of composers that had the same kind of anachronistic vibe that Luhrmann has made a trademark. (In addition, Russell’s Savage Messiah, which I haven’t seen, is about a sculptor. I found out today that 1976’s Incredible Sarah, also starring Russell regular Glenda Jackson, was [despite my memory of it as another Russell flick] directed by Richard Fleischer, a name not too familiar to me, though he had an interesting filmography.)
Casting: Fairly well-known names, though Russell was more apt to come up with names that were well-known for endeavors other than film (Roger Daltry, of course, but also Twiggy, Rudolf Nureyev, et al.). Even Russell, though, worked with some well-respected actors (in addition to Glenda Jackson, Alan Bates, Vanessa Redgrave, Oliver Reed, et al.).
A final note: I haven’t seen Australia yet –- should I?
