We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

TopBilled’s Essentials


  • Please log in to reply
230 replies to this topic

#41 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:30 PM

I will be reviewing my thirty-fourth essential tomorrow.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-03-at-5-22-31-pm.png

 

Check back.


  • rayban likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#42 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:59 PM

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-51-15-pm1.pn

 

Theme for March 2017: Roger Moore as 007

 

Saturday March 4, 2017

LIVE AND LET DIE (1973), starring Roger Moore & Yaphet Kotto. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Hulu.

 

Saturday March 11, 2017

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974), starring Roger Moore & Christopher Lee. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Hulu.

 

Saturday March 18, 2017

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977), starring Roger Moore & Barbara Bach. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Dailymotion.

 

Saturday March 25, 2017

MOONRAKER (1979), starring Roger Moore & Lois Chiles. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Dailymotion.

 

screen-shot-2017-02-27-at-8-50-48-pm.png


  • LiamCasey likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#43 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:18 PM

Man, you're tough. Ha ha!

 

I would rate it, Funny Girl and Rachel Rachel three stars, The Lion In Winter and Oliver! (roughly the equal to Oliver Twist by David Lean two decades earlier) three and a half. 2001 really should have been included that year, while If... and Z were released in the US a year after their foreign premieres and didn't make that year's cut. I find the O'Toole/Hepburn pic rather "stagey" too, but the performances make up for it. Likewise the costumes and the music are what make R&J somewhat successful. I do find the cinematography of R&J, Lion and the earlier Best Pic A Man For All Seasons all rather blah compared so much else put out in the sixties, maybe because too much of the "art" was put into the set decoration and the camera crew was way too cautious shooting it "right" rather than shooting it innovative.

 

On another note, I struggle a lot with the many 1990s Shakespearean "updates" to more contemporary settings (or Richard III adapted to the 1930s), since these are only contemporary to that already "dated" time period.

 

I absolutely hate the cinematography in over half of the films I have seen in the last ten years. There is way too much movement, helped by cgi effects. (The last feature that actually "wowed" me was The Aviator, only because of the attempt to duplicate 2-color Technicolor during the Hell's Angels production scenes and some creative close-up work in the later portions of that otherwise flawed Scorsese pic.) Sadly the whole landscape aerial that looked great in The Sound Of Music or Wise's earlier West Side Story, as well as both the pop art edits and running track shots of Truffaut's Jules & Jim, have all become clichés and this may be why I am more forgiving of R&J than you are.

 

Going back to my comment on his standing below the balcony-- when he leaves and runs across the hillside to see the friar that was obviously done on location and the camera has to move to keep pace with him running, and it's very cinematic-- definitely adding something to the story we don't get in the theater. So there are these bursts of creativity, but then Zefferelli quickly falls back on less innovative handling of the material (again, using what worked on stage as opposed to making it work on screen). 

 

I agree about some of the more recent Shakespearean adaptations. Recently I looked at CARIOLANUS, which Ralph Fiennes made in 2011. I had such high expectations and it was virtually unwatchable. Way too experimental, way too gimmicky, and I'm sure the bard rolled over in his grave. Julie Taymor's 1999 telling of TITUS with Anthony Hopkins is another one that is too clever, too gimmicky for its own good. Though I do think Taymor would be an interesting choice for a remake of ROMEO AND JULIET, if she could curb her more excessive arty tendencies. Peter Greenaway's PROSPERO'S BOOKS (a reworking of The Tempest) is also excessive and baroque. These filmed versions of Shakespeare need to be innovative and emphasize character just as much as plot, but they also need to remember to keep it mainstream and not be so decadent as to be inaccessible.

 

I feel Kenneth Branagh is probably the best modern interpreter of Shakespeare on screen. Though not all of his stuff has been a resounding success, he seems to know how to pay tribute to the "flavor" of a Shakespearean text while making it accessible to a contemporary audience and taking advantage of the cinematic possibilities without going too overboard. And he's very good at filling in the gaps, adding in flashbacks to explain the backstory-- risks that pay off and help us get the fuller meaning of the story.

 

The more I think about ROMEO AND JULIET as a filmed story the more I think it should start with the funeral of the two young lovers being taken to their final resting spot, and as the prince is telling the mourners "all are punished," we flashback to how the couple met-- how the families have been at war, and how they are all going to be punished for not stopping the violence. 


  • Jlewis likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#44 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:55 AM

Man, you're tough. Ha ha!

 

I would rate it, Funny Girl and Rachel Rachel three stars, The Lion In Winter and Oliver! (roughly the equal to Oliver Twist by David Lean two decades earlier) three and a half. 2001 really should have been included that year, while If... and Z were released in the US a year after their foreign premieres and didn't make that year's cut. I find the O'Toole/Hepburn pic rather "stagey" too, but the performances make up for it. Likewise the costumes and the music are what make R&J somewhat successful. I do find the cinematography of R&J, Lion and the earlier Best Pic A Man For All Seasons all rather blah compared so much else put out in the sixties, maybe because too much of the "art" was put into the set decoration and the camera crew was way too cautious shooting it "right" rather than shooting it innovative.

 

On another note, I struggle a lot with the many 1990s Shakespearean "updates" to more contemporary settings (or Richard III adapted to the 1930s), since these are only contemporary to that already "dated" time period.

 

I absolutely hate the cinematography in over half of the films I have seen in the last ten years. There is way too much movement, helped by cgi effects. (The last feature that actually "wowed" me was The Aviator, only because of the attempt to duplicate 2-color Technicolor during the Hell's Angels production scenes and some creative close-up work in the later portions of that otherwise flawed Scorsese pic.) Sadly the whole landscape aerial that looked great in The Sound Of Music or Wise's earlier West Side Story, as well as both the pop art edits and running track shots of Truffaut's Jules & Jim, have all become clichés and this may be why I am more forgiving of R&J than you are.

 

Ahhhh... memories...

 



#45 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:16 AM

You probably remember the golden age of Film Guides in the 1970s-90s and their four star rating systems. My favorites were Leonard Maltin and Leslie Halliwell (who died in '89 and his guide changed a lot afterward). Halliwell would give one star to films that would be rated two and a half stars in the other since he felt routine-or-worse was not deserving any stars. I think Maltin gave this film three and a half but Halliwell just one (equalling two and a half). That balances to three stars which is probably a good rough average. Ditto the '36 version. The '54 version was a lot more accurate (even using Verona scenery), but Halliwell's no-star review gives the impression that he fell asleep during it.

 

Before I re-watched this film, I read some user reviews on the IMDb where people were upset it lost to OLIVER! for best picture. So when I went over it again, I looked at it carefully (twice). But I found plot holes (where Zefferelli wasn't exactly filling in the gaps in a way someone like Branagh usually does); plus there was a static camera in major scenes. And I cringed both times at Whiting's playing of Romeo's over-the-top death scene which I felt to be atrocious (and I am saying that kindly since he lacked experience and it was up to Zefferelli to reshoot it and come up with a better take). With these things before me, I began to see why it did not win against OLIVER! and why Carol Reed's work during this given year is lauded considerably more (which is obviously not perfect either).

 

Does this mean I enjoy ROMEO AND JULIET '68 less than I did as a teen when I first watched it in high school? Maybe. But I still can recognize how it makes a Shakespearean work more accessible to younger audiences, and while Zefferelli fails in many regards (my honest opinion) it is still a valiant effort. On a four-star rating system, I'd give it a 2.5.

 

As for Halliwell or Maltin, they're obviously subjective and they have their biases. I will admit my bias here is that I love theater and I love cinema, but I consider them two very distinct approaches. I don't feel Zefferelli sees the difference. He thinks you can just transfer what is on stage to film without refining it.

 

I consider the static camera movement in the balcony scene where Romeo is talking to Juliet from below unforgivable. I'm not referring to where Juliet is moving or motioning to the nurse she's coming. But when Romeo is just standing down below, planted next to some plastic-looking trees in the Cinecitta studio. He has most of the dialogue and the camera just remains stuck on him and the fake scenery. It's way too flat. That's what you get in the theater, where the actor is allowed to orate and everyone just sits back and watches, and the highly artificial set design is tolerated. But on screen we need more dimension. And since Zefferelli is relying so much on relatively inexperienced actors in the lead roles, then the camerawork and lighting should be helping to compensate and often it does not.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#46 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 09:45 AM

You probably remember the golden age of Film Guides in the 1970s-90s and their four star rating systems. My favorites were Leonard Maltin and Leslie Halliwell (who died in '89 and his guide changed a lot afterward). Halliwell would give one star to films that would be rated two and a half stars in the other since he felt routine-or-worse was not deserving any stars. I think Maltin gave this film three and a half but Halliwell just one (equalling two and a half). That balances to three stars which is probably a good rough average. Ditto the '36 version. The '54 version was a lot more accurate (even using Verona scenery), but Halliwell's no-star review gives the impression that he fell asleep during it.



#47 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 09:17 AM

Younger viewers in 1968-69 especially since there was a growing generation gap. Note that Henry Mancini's cover of the theme song actually topped Billboard in an era dominated by Motown, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Even though I feel Olivia's rant with her parents less realistic than Leonard's "over" acting (which I greatly enjoy), it sent a message not unlike The Graduate and other popular hits of the new Baby Boom generation (those earliest boomers born in 1946-47 like Trump and the Clintons were reaching 21 and voting age by the '68 election).

 

I wasn't much of a fan of the late '80s Wonder Years, but there is a great scene set in a movie theater "circa" 1969 with Fred Savage's Kevin and his beloved Winnie involving this movie that many 35-40 year olds at the time instantly identified with. They weren't fussing over how accurate the dialogue and acting was. It was the ultimate "date" movie of that era for teens. Younger boomers under the of age ten flocked to The Love Bug and Oliver! or, rather, were dragged by their parents to see them.

 

This is why it is important to watch any old movie with a sense of how viewers viewed it in the initial release. One of my all time favorites of any era is I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang, but there are a few curios in the storyline you would struggle with there too. Yet everybody was so poor and unemployment so high in 1932 that many genuinely felt that what happens to Paul Muni could easily happen to them, especially if they are living in the south. When I first saw The Best Years Of Our Lives around 1980-81, I thought it was too much like recent episodes of The Waltons (which also covered the immediate post-war period in that last season). Yet you have to view it through the lens of 1946 audiences. Today I especially enjoy Dana Andrews increasingly, even more than handicapped Harold Russell (who broke just as much ground in terms of award attention as Hattie MacDaniel even though he was Caucasian), because he is an "every man" who must struggle in life much like Muni in the other film.

 

The Waltons is a separate topic, and though supposedly based on Earl Hamner's upbringing it is very derivative of 40s Hollywood movies-- especially the 8th and 9th seasons when the Walton boys go to war (which would have aired in '80 and '81). One episode rips off the SUNDAY DINNER FOR A SOLDIER plot when the Baldwins have dinner for one of Jason's war buddies. And all the Walton brothers going to war at the end of season 8 references THE FIGHTING SULLIVANS. Many other episodes before the end of the show's run have plots lifted from old 40s war flicks. But audiences at the time may not have realized it, at least not younger viewers like my generation. 

 

Getting back to ROMEO AND JULIET (and any film really), I think we can observe it from a historical perspective noting the impact on the culture at the time of original release and immediately afterward. But we can also "fuss" over it and discuss what doesn't work from a modern vantage point. And keep in mind there were fussy critics like Judith Crist and Pauline Kael watching and commenting when these films originally hit theaters. They are made for everyone, including the nitpickers. LOL

 

I was glad I re-watched Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET. It has charm and energy. But I also couldn't help but notice how a lot of it doesn't hold up and seems like a relic of its era. At some point I will probably do a whole month on Shakespearean adaptations, and I will no doubt look at Zefferelli's HAMLET which I haven't seen since it came out in 1990. 


  • Jlewis likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#48 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 08:58 AM

I am nearing the end of my repeat viewing of ROMEO AND JULIET. I guess I've had a few more observations about the overall nature of the production. I can see why it appeals so strongly to younger viewers. As Ray noted, there is a lot of raw emotion. 

 

Younger viewers in 1968-69 especially since there was a growing generation gap. Note that Henry Mancini's cover of the theme song actually topped Billboard in an era dominated by Motown, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Even though I feel Olivia's rant with her parents less realistic than Leonard's "over" acting (which I greatly enjoy), it sent a message not unlike The Graduate and other popular hits of the new Baby Boom generation (those earliest boomers born in 1946-47 like Trump and the Clintons were reaching 21 and voting age by the '68 election).

 

I wasn't much of a fan of the late '80s Wonder Years, but there is a great scene set in a movie theater "circa" 1969 with Fred Savage's Kevin and his beloved Winnie involving this movie that many 35-40 year olds at the time instantly identified with. They weren't fussing over how accurate the dialogue and acting was. It was the ultimate "date" movie of that era for teens. Younger boomers under the of age ten flocked to The Love Bug and Oliver! or, rather, were dragged by their parents to see them.

 

This is why it is important to watch any old movie with a sense of how viewers viewed it in the initial release. One of my all time favorites of any era is I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang, but there are a few curios in the storyline you would struggle with there too. Yet everybody was so poor and unemployment so high in 1932 that many genuinely felt that what happens to Paul Muni could easily happen to them, especially if they are living in the south. When I first saw The Best Years Of Our Lives around 1980-81, I thought it was too much like recent episodes of The Waltons (which also covered the immediate post-war period in that last season). Yet you have to view it through the lens of 1946 audiences. Today I especially enjoy Dana Andrews increasingly, even more than handicapped Harold Russell (who broke just as much ground in terms of award attention as Hattie MacDaniel even though he was Caucasian), because he is an "every man" who must struggle in life much like Muni in the other film.



#49 rayban

rayban

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,735 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 07:16 PM

There's a very respectable adaptation of this film that is directed by Renato Castellani and which stars Laurence Harvey and Susan Shentall.

 

Its' greatest strength is the on-location shooting.

 

Laurence Harvey is excellent (but too old).

 

Susan Shentall had never acted before.


  • TopBilled likes this

"I was born the day she kissed me.  I died the day she left me.  I lived a few weeks while she loved me." - Humphrey Bogart in "In A Lonely Place".


#50 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:40 PM

I am nearing the end of my repeat viewing of ROMEO AND JULIET. I guess I've had a few more observations about the overall nature of the production. I can see why it appeals so strongly to younger viewers. As Ray noted, there is a lot of raw emotion. 


  • rayban likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#51 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 05:47 PM

It's "red-hot" and "intensely excitable" - that's the nature of the text.

 

Franco Zefferelli isn't approaching it as "a museum piece".

 

That's the reason, I think, that it flew up in so many people's faces.

 

They were given "raw emotion".

 

They were not given a respectfully-mounted film production.

 

Interesting comment, Ray. 

 

I was never fond of Welles' takes on Shakespeare and knock-offs of Shakespeare. I understand that Chimes At Midnight is a classic. Macbeth has some charm. However I love Olivier's Henry V. I do not think that this film compares favorably with Henry V or even Branaugh's version. I have seen this movie more times than either of those two films. I have seen Olivier's at least four times, I think. Obviously you would favor that one because of how we start with the Globe theater and the stage then "evolves" into a more realistic setting, then reverts back to the Globe. I also like all of the Encyclopædia Britannica documentaries produced by John Barnes documenting the various plays, especially Shaw vs. Shakespeare.

 

I enjoy Branagh's version of HENRY V and his filming of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I haven't seen Branagh's HAMLET.

 

Olivier's is in a class by itself.


  • rayban likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#52 rayban

rayban

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,735 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 05:23 PM

Perhaps. LOL Actually I am watching it again right now-- the opening fight scene, exciting as it is, has no real motivation whatsoever. One of them asks another from the rival clan if he likes to quarrel, and apparently he does. The next thing we know they're shouting 'draw!' and the swords come out and the fathers rush down to the street to join the warring. It's unintentionally comical. Then the prince shows up-- and this actor shouts all his lines, bellowing at them to stop. And the prince says they've at least three times disturbed the peace, but he doesn't say why they are doing this or even offers to help find a solution. 

 

In addition to some of them shouting their lines, they flail their arms about and do very heightened gestures. The actress who plays the nurse is very guilty of this. She can't even hug Juliet without squeezing the garments of her clothes. Maybe on stage this type of animation works but not really on film. I even turned the sound off to watch the nurse perform-- it's like watching an actress in a silent movie. 

 

Yes, maybe I am finding too many faults with it-- but I don't think Zefferelli or his cast and crew see this as a very cinematic undertaking-- they are treating it as an expensively filmed play. The camera shots are often very static, and it is relying on performance more than on the images that are suggested by Shakespeare's text.

It's "red-hot" and "intensely excitable" - that's the nature of the text.

 

Franco Zefferelli isn't approaching it as "a museum piece".

 

That's the reason, I think, that it flew up in so many people's faces.

 

They were given "raw emotion".

 

They were not given a respectfully-mounted film production.


  • Jlewis likes this

"I was born the day she kissed me.  I died the day she left me.  I lived a few weeks while she loved me." - Humphrey Bogart in "In A Lonely Place".


#53 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 05:00 PM

I was never fond of Welles' takes on Shakespeare and knock-offs of Shakespeare. I understand that Chimes At Midnight is a classic. Macbeth has some charm. However I love Olivier's Henry V. I do not think that this film compares favorably with Henry V or even Branaugh's version. I have seen this movie more times than either of those two films. I have seen Olivier's at least four times, I think. Obviously you would favor that one because of how we start with the Globe theater and the stage then "evolves" into a more realistic setting, then reverts back to the Globe. I also like all of the Encyclopædia Britannica documentaries produced by John Barnes documenting the various plays, especially Shaw vs. Shakespeare.

 

Yet there is no point debating movies with me. As you already know, I also like The Incredible Shrinking Man. It is what it is. Movies are only fun for me if I have fun. Not because of their camera and story ingenuity.

 

I can not lie. I have lots of fun watching Pat Heywood drag little Leonard into the church, causing him to fall all over her. I don't care too much for Michael York here, High Dee Hoh.

 

Oh... I also love the fact that energetic Leonard is obviously still breathing in his death scene. Hey! You can't win them all.


  • TopBilled likes this

#54 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 04:38 PM

You forgot the silly zoom shots!

 

Yes, the zoom shots especially in the street scenes are Zefferelli's idea of camera movement. I did like the swirling movement during the group dance at the party, but I can only imagine how much more impressive it would have been with Welles or Ophuls directing it. It would have had a more shimmering effect probably and the dance would have been much more choreographed. It's obvious they're just using ideas that worked on stage without refining or enhancing it for the screen.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#55 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 04:28 PM

You forgot the silly zoom shots!

 

I cannot lie. I love Pat Heywood. Her cockney performance is so out of place, but she is so entertaining.

 

One of these days, you need to profile Disney's Pinocchio. I absolutely love that movie too, but... oh boy! It has massive story structure problems!


  • TopBilled likes this

#56 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 04:20 PM

I agree with much of what you say, but I am in the same boat with rayban here. I don't get fussy about all of the flaws. I just enjoy it for what it is. Also that second video posted below has one fan loving it more than any other Shakespeare movie and you can read comments by fans saying they have seen it 20 times. That may be a good 18 or so more than you can stomach, Topbilled. Ha ha!

 

Perhaps. LOL Actually I am watching it again right now-- the opening fight scene, exciting as it is, has no real motivation whatsoever. One of them asks another from the rival clan if he likes to quarrel, and apparently he does. The next thing we know they're shouting 'draw!' and the swords come out and the fathers rush down to the street to join the warring. It's unintentionally comical. Then the prince shows up-- and this actor shouts all his lines, bellowing at them to stop. And the prince says they've at least three times disturbed the peace, but he doesn't say why they are doing this or even offers to help find a solution. 

 

In addition to some of them shouting their lines, they flail their arms about and do very heightened gestures. The actress who plays the nurse is very guilty of this. She can't even hug Juliet without squeezing the garments of her clothes. Maybe on stage this type of animation works but not really on film. I even turned the sound off to watch the nurse perform-- it's like watching an actress in a silent movie. 

 

Yes, maybe I am finding too many faults with it-- but I don't think Zefferelli or his cast and crew see this as a very cinematic undertaking-- they are treating it as an expensively filmed play. The camera shots are often very static, and it is relying on performance more than on the images that are suggested by Shakespeare's text.


  • Jlewis and rayban like this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#57 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 03:09 PM

I agree with much of what you say, but I am in the same boat with rayban here. I don't get fussy about all of the flaws. I just enjoy it for what it is. Also that second video posted below has one fan loving it more than any other Shakespeare movie and you can read comments by fans saying they have seen it 20 times. That may be a good 18 or so more than you can stomach, Topbilled. Ha ha!

 

It is also a fun relic of Paramount film history too. That music by Nino Rota is so relentlessly repetitive, but like his Godfather scores, you can't get it out of your head. Amusingly when Robert Evans's wife proved a success in Goodbye Columbus, he had to make a composite of both that movie and this movie. Wallah! We got Love Story with music not quite as addictive, but additive enough.


  • TopBilled and rayban like this

#58 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 02:45 PM

I kind of felt Whiting was over-acting in spots-- really trying to get the pathos across by overdoing the expressions and vocal inflections. Hussey was a lot more subdued (except for when she and the father were arguing). Then we have the supporting cast-- some of them shouted their lines in dramatic scenes, which seemed like they were acting as if they were still on stage, instead of on a movie set near a boom mic. But since almost all of the dialogue was redubbed and they did their lines again in a sound recording booth there is no need for them to be shouting so much of the dialogue.

 

Another reason Whiting and some of the supporting cast might have been at high voltage was this was a big break for them career-wise and I'm sure they were trying to be powerful and make a major impression. But Zefferelli should have reigned them in more.

 

I wonder how this story would be told if it had a strong female director. I think it does need to be presented more from the female perspective, especially the balcony scene and the bedroom scene-- and a woman guiding it behind the camera might give the story the balance it deserves.


  • rayban likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#59 Jlewis

Jlewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 02:20 PM

In regards to ROMEO FEATURING JULIET, this is really more his film than hers anyway. I recall reading that Zefferelli's interest in him had more to do with his very photogenic face than his rear end, although the camera does linger there too. Olivia does a good job but I favor her later work in several prominent seventies and eighties successes (like playing Mary in Jesus of Nazareth). Leonard was sadly a "has-been" within five years after this film's success, although he attempted a music career.

 

Yet it isn't his looks that are important in keeping you focused on him. He has a very broad range of facial expressions. My "vibe" is that Leonard the actor was more "into" actress Olivia than she was "into" him. He puts a lot of raw emotion in that crypt scene and, unfortunately, her "happy dagger" speech comes off a trifle less motivated. Also her hysterical scenes with her parents earlier seem less about Romeo than just mommy and daddy's authority issues.

 

Leonard's "In what vile part of this anatomy" scene is so raw that you momentarily think he may kill himself on the spot if Milo O'Shea's friar doesn't stop him. In fact, this scene is great foreshadowing of what is to come: the friar failing to stop the eventual suicide. He succeeds in talking Romeo out of it in his quarters earlier, but the sight of the opened crypt prompts a scared-white expression on Milo's face. This works well on screen because Leonard pulls it off successfully as a 17 year old with feelings rather than a 17 year old with limited Shakespearean experience.

 

They may not have been lovers off screen, but they remained good friends. Here they are shortly after filming wrapped in October 25, 1967:

 

 

Then in December 6, 2016

 

 

 


  • TopBilled and rayban like this

#60 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,243 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 01:29 PM

Honestly, it is not that solid a piece of dramaturgy.

 

It is quite "contrived".

 

And, yet it endures, I think, as a testament to the glorious impetuousness of young love.

 

The type of love that is already "doomed".

 

Good point. I'm glad I watched it again recently and reviewed it. I remember the first time I saw it was in a high school Shakespeare class in the late 80s, on VHS! 

 

Now that I have finished with the classic love stories theme, I am going to look at different types of films next month. In March I will be focusing on several James Bond films starring Roger Moore. I just love Moore and feel like he needs a bit of honoring. And I've never seen his very first movie as 007, so I am eager to review it plus three more in the weeks ahead!


  • rayban likes this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users