9309629n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Dear Mark -
> Hello from Australia - yes, I have seen the recent film version of Romeo
> and Juliet (is there anyone left on the planet who hasn't?) And it is a
> beaut film - Luhrmann is one of my favourites - I particularly liked the
> whole gang warfare thing, but why do you call it a postmodern reading of
> Shakespeare? I'd be interested to know - help me get a grip on this whole
> *postmodern* business.
> Regards, Brigid Venables.
>
Hi Brigid...greetings from England...are you any relation to Terry?
Although I'm only a newcomer to postmodernism myself (I am, after all, still very
young), I'm tentative about thinking of it in any fixed terms. Its very hard to pin
down, so I tend to think of it as a big vague blob...which is useful for me anyway. So
when I call the film a postmodern reading of R & J, I suppose I mean it is full of
things which I associate with postmodernism. Such as? Well, where to begin...
OK, so I suppose one of the major features of postmodernism is this idea of lack of
closure...no grand narratives. Well, I think the film does open out R & J and leaves it
open. Perhaps it does this anyway by being a 1990s appropriation of a 16th century play.
And I think there is a non-convential slant given to the text which further instills
this sense of opening out. Beyond this is the way the film begins and ends with a TV
screen. To me this is a reference to Baudrillard (who famously stated that the Gulf War
took place on TV screens) and an avoidance of closing the film with any kind of
severence. I think the TV at the end goes fuzzy. Well we all know that a fuzzy TV screen
will become filled with pictures again the next morning. TV images are cyclical and
everlasting...the use of the TV signals there is no definite end.
Another aspcet of the opening out of the text is its use of intertextual references.
Again, intertextuality seems to be a feature of postmodernity...because everything is
text isn't it? Its also a sign of the film showing its own mechanisms. We read all
things intertextually and the film makes blatant this reading process. I found it really
enjoyable to sit and try and catch all the references in the film. There's a Globe
Theatre somewhere isn't there? (is it a pool hall?) and a stage on the beach. Also on
the beach, all the bars, tents, cafes etc. have names which relate to other
Shakespearian texts...Macbeth & other tragedies appear to be quite prominent on the
beach. Perhaps this is signcfant because the "battles" take place in this arena. What
else? Well, I think the party scene is wonderful. The cross-dressing is a theme which
permeates Shakespeare - happens in loads of the comedies, and - of course - all female
characters were orginally played by boys. The costumes of Romeo's gang are intriguing. I
can't quite remember what they were all wearing but I thought at the time that Romeo
(knight) represented the histories, Tybalt (cross-dressed) the comdeies, and the others
tragedies. Also tempting was the way that Juliet's mother was Cleopatra...very clever, I
thought.
Also on the theme of intertextuality is the eclecticism of the film. A variety of
cinematic styles are used, and references are made to both "high" and "low" culture
indiscriminately - a gesture towards the collapse of such obsolete heirarchies. Its a
love-story gangster-flick wetsern with shades of West-side story which blends Rozala and
Prince (the choir's songs) with (arguably) the central figure in the Western literary
canon . And all along the film makes clear to the audience what it is doing. Like the
naming of the guns (saber, sword, dagger, whatever)...the long and deliberate close-ups
upon the writing on firearms are an announcement of the film's mechanism. It says, bold
as brass, this reading is an appropriation...all readings are appropriations. I think
this is another example of the fim evading closure too. In stamping the nineties upon
the 16th century text, it shows that the text will be appropriated, re-read, changed
even, again and again...this film is just the latest (and not even that anymore) of a
series of appropriations which have taken place, and will continue to take place, within
the domain of a variety of media.
What else? Well, the film is certainly set in a landscape of late/high cpatialism.
Indeed the Montagues and Capulets are multinationals and the battleground is as much the
market as anywhere else. The Coke logo is everywhere...but it intriguingly reads "love".
And that provides a nice ambiguity...is Coca Cola the modern world's equivalent of
Renaissance love? Or is love in R & J (now) as cliched and meaningless as ubiquitous
Coke today? There's certainly the possibility of applying the latter reading to the
whole text. The famous lines like "Romeo Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo" and "What's in
a name?" etc. all ring so familiar that they take greater significance than the scene
in which they appear. This makes such scenes kind of transparent. Someone has cast a
very young-looking Romeo and Juliet - and this is a point of interest for me. The lovers
seem to be the only parts played completely seriously...everybody else has an air of
irony, cyncicism even. It is stressed that Romeo has been in love with another very
recently (he is given to fads...), Romeo is drugged when he falls for Juliet, and the
death scene - which recaps all the scenes they have shared - shows two kids who haven't
known each other for very long at all. It doesn't necessarily detract from the tragedy
of it all...but the romance of it is certainly questionable. This to me, is a postmodern
feature...we question everything with a cynical eye and express everything
ironically...or at least semi-ironically...So the "world's greatest love story" is taken
apart and exhibited with its bones showing through its skin.
I'm sure I had other things to say...the film really fascinates me. Oh yeah...one last
thing. The use of speeded up action was, I thought, pretty funny. Communicates with
ideas of the three minute culture and the MTV generation. We need everything fast and in
our faces. Sped-up movements not only break any spell of realism (they are a reminder
that this is a film, and the makers of this film can do what they like....but you can
see that for yourself), they also frame the film in the question of "what do you do to R
& J to place it in the modern world?" Performances of Shakespearean plays are long and
often gruelling affairs. Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet is testament to this (now R & J makes
an interesting reference to our Ken). R & J says, OK we're in the nineties now so we'll
skip this bit...
Then again, "the nineties" is by no means synonymous with "postmodern". Personally I
don't think that the idea of postmodernity works on a linear temporal basis...perhaps it
would detract from itself if it did. Maybe R & J - using an early modern text - is an
indicator of this. The most "postmodern" literary text I've ever come across is Laurence
Sterne's "A Sentimental Journey"....which was first published in 1768...hmmm...
Cheers,
Mark
>
> Dear Mark -
> Hello from Australia - yes, I have seen the recent film version of Romeo
> and Juliet (is there anyone left on the planet who hasn't?) And it is a
> beaut film - Luhrmann is one of my favourites - I particularly liked the
> whole gang warfare thing, but why do you call it a postmodern reading of
> Shakespeare? I'd be interested to know - help me get a grip on this whole
> *postmodern* business.
> Regards, Brigid Venables.
>
Hi Brigid...greetings from England...are you any relation to Terry?
Although I'm only a newcomer to postmodernism myself (I am, after all, still very
young), I'm tentative about thinking of it in any fixed terms. Its very hard to pin
down, so I tend to think of it as a big vague blob...which is useful for me anyway. So
when I call the film a postmodern reading of R & J, I suppose I mean it is full of
things which I associate with postmodernism. Such as? Well, where to begin...
OK, so I suppose one of the major features of postmodernism is this idea of lack of
closure...no grand narratives. Well, I think the film does open out R & J and leaves it
open. Perhaps it does this anyway by being a 1990s appropriation of a 16th century play.
And I think there is a non-convential slant given to the text which further instills
this sense of opening out. Beyond this is the way the film begins and ends with a TV
screen. To me this is a reference to Baudrillard (who famously stated that the Gulf War
took place on TV screens) and an avoidance of closing the film with any kind of
severence. I think the TV at the end goes fuzzy. Well we all know that a fuzzy TV screen
will become filled with pictures again the next morning. TV images are cyclical and
everlasting...the use of the TV signals there is no definite end.
Another aspcet of the opening out of the text is its use of intertextual references.
Again, intertextuality seems to be a feature of postmodernity...because everything is
text isn't it? Its also a sign of the film showing its own mechanisms. We read all
things intertextually and the film makes blatant this reading process. I found it really
enjoyable to sit and try and catch all the references in the film. There's a Globe
Theatre somewhere isn't there? (is it a pool hall?) and a stage on the beach. Also on
the beach, all the bars, tents, cafes etc. have names which relate to other
Shakespearian texts...Macbeth & other tragedies appear to be quite prominent on the
beach. Perhaps this is signcfant because the "battles" take place in this arena. What
else? Well, I think the party scene is wonderful. The cross-dressing is a theme which
permeates Shakespeare - happens in loads of the comedies, and - of course - all female
characters were orginally played by boys. The costumes of Romeo's gang are intriguing. I
can't quite remember what they were all wearing but I thought at the time that Romeo
(knight) represented the histories, Tybalt (cross-dressed) the comdeies, and the others
tragedies. Also tempting was the way that Juliet's mother was Cleopatra...very clever, I
thought.
Also on the theme of intertextuality is the eclecticism of the film. A variety of
cinematic styles are used, and references are made to both "high" and "low" culture
indiscriminately - a gesture towards the collapse of such obsolete heirarchies. Its a
love-story gangster-flick wetsern with shades of West-side story which blends Rozala and
Prince (the choir's songs) with (arguably) the central figure in the Western literary
canon . And all along the film makes clear to the audience what it is doing. Like the
naming of the guns (saber, sword, dagger, whatever)...the long and deliberate close-ups
upon the writing on firearms are an announcement of the film's mechanism. It says, bold
as brass, this reading is an appropriation...all readings are appropriations. I think
this is another example of the fim evading closure too. In stamping the nineties upon
the 16th century text, it shows that the text will be appropriated, re-read, changed
even, again and again...this film is just the latest (and not even that anymore) of a
series of appropriations which have taken place, and will continue to take place, within
the domain of a variety of media.
What else? Well, the film is certainly set in a landscape of late/high cpatialism.
Indeed the Montagues and Capulets are multinationals and the battleground is as much the
market as anywhere else. The Coke logo is everywhere...but it intriguingly reads "love".
And that provides a nice ambiguity...is Coca Cola the modern world's equivalent of
Renaissance love? Or is love in R & J (now) as cliched and meaningless as ubiquitous
Coke today? There's certainly the possibility of applying the latter reading to the
whole text. The famous lines like "Romeo Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo" and "What's in
a name?" etc. all ring so familiar that they take greater significance than the scene
in which they appear. This makes such scenes kind of transparent. Someone has cast a
very young-looking Romeo and Juliet - and this is a point of interest for me. The lovers
seem to be the only parts played completely seriously...everybody else has an air of
irony, cyncicism even. It is stressed that Romeo has been in love with another very
recently (he is given to fads...), Romeo is drugged when he falls for Juliet, and the
death scene - which recaps all the scenes they have shared - shows two kids who haven't
known each other for very long at all. It doesn't necessarily detract from the tragedy
of it all...but the romance of it is certainly questionable. This to me, is a postmodern
feature...we question everything with a cynical eye and express everything
ironically...or at least semi-ironically...So the "world's greatest love story" is taken
apart and exhibited with its bones showing through its skin.
I'm sure I had other things to say...the film really fascinates me. Oh yeah...one last
thing. The use of speeded up action was, I thought, pretty funny. Communicates with
ideas of the three minute culture and the MTV generation. We need everything fast and in
our faces. Sped-up movements not only break any spell of realism (they are a reminder
that this is a film, and the makers of this film can do what they like....but you can
see that for yourself), they also frame the film in the question of "what do you do to R
& J to place it in the modern world?" Performances of Shakespearean plays are long and
often gruelling affairs. Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet is testament to this (now R & J makes
an interesting reference to our Ken). R & J says, OK we're in the nineties now so we'll
skip this bit...
Then again, "the nineties" is by no means synonymous with "postmodern". Personally I
don't think that the idea of postmodernity works on a linear temporal basis...perhaps it
would detract from itself if it did. Maybe R & J - using an early modern text - is an
indicator of this. The most "postmodern" literary text I've ever come across is Laurence
Sterne's "A Sentimental Journey"....which was first published in 1768...hmmm...
Cheers,
Mark