Romeo&Juliet same as R&Julie?

I am unsure if this will be the popular opinion, but I cannot seem to make enough connections between Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet for it to make sense to compare them. I can see the resemblance in the names, and the two opposing worlds colliding, but other than that I am lost. If someone could help me out with this I would appreciate it. 

I can clearly see the connection between West Side Story and Romeo & Juliet, that seems much more apparent than Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet.
So my question is: how do you connect Warm Bodies and Romeo & Juliet other than the name similarities and the opposite worlds coming together via two people?

What makes "Great Art"?

I chose to watch Warm Bodies(2013) along with West Side Story(1961).  I found this version(Warm Bodies) of Romeo and Juliet to be entertaining.  The story was modified to fit pop culture and the intense interest in zombies and the apocalypse.  As I was reading Bourdieu's piece, he included a quote by Suzanne Langer that said, "But now that everyone can read, go to museums, listen to great music, at least on the radio, the judgement of the masses about these things has become a reality and through this it has become clear that great art is not a direct sensuous pleasure.  Otherwise, like cookies or cocktails, it would flatter uneducated taste as much as cultured taste." As I read this quote, I understood it to mean that great art is not something that can just be consumed, you have to be educated to understand the deeper meanings behind it.  Is Romeo and Juliet still a product of high culture?  Especially in the Warm Bodies adaption of the story, I feel like the story has been adapted to fit popular culture and has created new ideas that did not exist in the original story.  Besides R, the zombie, Romeo and Julie being the human, Juliet they were not really star cross lovers and there was less of a focus on the other characters except for the role of Nora as the best friend/advisor.  The major theme seemed to be that love and understanding can change even the toughest of hearts.  That seems to be quite different from the original Romeo and Juliet.

 Image Source: http://rebloggy.com/post/nicholas-hoult-warm-bodies/43178547120

Image Source: https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/20992-warm-bodies-tops-us-box-office

Who Decides What is Art?

While watching the two reboots of Romeo and Juliet in the 1996 Baz Luhrmann and the 1961 film version of West Side Story, I'm struck by two things:  How well they've both aged (although the casting of Natalie Woods is a different discussion. .  ), and how they were created to be accessible for their culture/audience to create their own meaning and relevance.  I chose the above picture because I think Banksy is an excellent, current day example of creative people pushing the arts in a direction that makes it challenge the authorities of what should be considered art, just as those two films did during their time period.  The division between "high" culture and "low" culture is being destroyed even as we speak.  As an example, I remember when Lin Manuel-Miranda went to a White House dinner in 2009 to celebrate "poetry, music, and spoken word."  At this performance the opening of his new project, Hamilton was performed for the first time.  Here's a link to watch on your own. It is interesting to watch the crowd!  At first laughter, then realization of pure genius. All done at the White House in front of the President of the United States. In many ways, it's an example of how suddenly the culture and background of "old, white men" can be transposed/transferred for the rest of us.  Like Romeo and Juliet the story doesn't change, just the intended audience.  I see this as a source of a power grab by the "folk," the "popular culture" takes the material, then shapes it as necessary for their own meaning in their own life.   

Baz Luhrmann more like Bad Luhrmann

"Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of art favours those who have had early access to legitimate culture, in a cultured household, outside of scholastic disciplines, since even within the educational system it devalues scholarly knowledge and interpretation as 'scholastic' or even 'pedantic' in favour of direct experience and simple delight." (499)

This "early access" to legitimate culture, whether at home or in school, that is mentioned in this quote from Pierre Bourdieu reminded me a lot of our class conversation from last week. Today, less and less children are reading Romeo and Juliet seemingly than ever before. If they're exposed to this story at all, it is likely through one of the adaptations produced in the twentieth or twenty-first centuries, whether it be West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet the film, or something of the like. I still find these adaptations to be less enriching of an experience than reading the original play, or seeing a live performance of it. But less enriching doesn't make these films or only seeing this story through the lenses of these films any less "legitimate" or favorable, rather they are just...not as aesthetically good, in my opinion. There were some choices made in both West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet (1996) and phew were they something. But I guess they are not any less legitimate...although we really should continue to challenge our children with what they read.

The Art of Love and Zombies

"A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possess the cultural competence...the code into which it is encoded."

My experience with rewatching and finally finishing West Side Story then to jump into Warm Bodies was strange to say the least. The variations of the love of Romeo and Juliet, the remixing of the nurse and the two "houses" at odds with each other, even death is switched up a bit to accommodate to the remixed plot. I find it hilarious that these directors and writers can create the same premise but make it fit into the current times, especially in a zombie apocalypse.

The quote above I disagree with completely. A work of art can have meaning and interest for many people. You can show a random person who isn't fully culturally aware Warm Bodies, they'll still understand that it's clearly a zombie movie that wanted to jump on the zombie hype train of the time but make it a love story. Sure, they won't delve any deeper than that meaning for them but this quote seems to have a narrow view on what makes culture culture.

Reboots and Deviation

In comparing West Side Story and Warm Bodies to the original text of Romeo and Juliet. I caught myself wondering if, outside of context, I would have recognized the films as remixes of the play.  Of course there are the subtle (and not so subtle) nods to the play; the balcony scenes, names of characters, and perhaps even lines or phrases from the original text, but I’m not certain that a love story between two members of opposing parties makes a work recognizable as a Romeo and Juliet remix.  Sure, the folks who wrote Warm Bodies modeled their story heavily off of Shakespeare’s play, but deviations from the source material may lead readers to claim that a reboot does not do the original work justice.  I was dissatisfied with the “happily ever after” ending of Warm Bodies, but perhaps that is simply because it didn’t go in the direction I was expecting.  Had I been unaware that the film was a remix, maybe I would have been relieved, rather than annoyed, that nobody died.

Westside Story

During the final scene of Westside Story, Maria says, "Don't you touch him!" "You all killed him. And my brother. And Riff. Not with bullets and guns. With hate!"

These quotes are so powerful and tie the whole movie together in one moment. Hate and love coexist and shape the world we currently inhabit.

Romeo and Juilet, more like Lancelot and Guinevere

When I was reading about how terribly sad Lancelot and Guinevere were in last weeks reading, I couldn't help but think of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". Lancelot was rejected by Guinevere, so he attempted to kill himself (if I'm remembering correctly). When Guinevere hears of this, she is so sad that she also wants to take her own life, BUT, what she doesn't know at the time is that Lancelot is still alive. How is this not the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? He thinks she's dead, so he kills himself, but WAIT, she wasn't dead. I know there are some differences, but the similarities are impossible to ignore. This makes me ask the question I never wanted to ask myself; is Shakespeare not even original? Are all of his plays reminiscent of other works?

bring on the lesbians!

I should not have gone to read the comments on the NYT article, "To Renovate or Not to Renovate?" I know you suggested we do, so I did, but I still found myself getting quite annoyed, as I always do when I sift through comments on anything that could be seen as controversial. The one that caught my eye the most was this one:

I just cannot imagine what makes people so uptight and almost elitist about maintaining things the way they were originally. Most of the things we have today would not exist if not for works that came before. Particularly for Romeo and Juliet--there are so many things we see reused today, again and again and again. They are things we see in real life, too, not just in literature. Obviously it doesn't have to be something as extreme as the situation in Romeo and Juliet, but it could be something like, me and my crush live in different states so we can't really be together, not in the way you would be in an ideal world. 

I just figure if we're going to see these types of situations in real, modern life, then why not try to make it more accessible to people in real, modern life? If you truly enjoy reading the original Romeo and Juliet story, then by all means, have at it. More lesbian content for me!

I'm not a purist. I like remakes. I like wacky interpretations. I like when I recognize the skeletal remains of a classic in some bizarre crime scene of a modern version. I believe in living documents. But I do wonder if we're underestimating the general public's ability to engage with original material because the language or syntax is different, or because the original text takes place in an unfamiliar time or place. AND I wonder if the general public underestimates its own ability to engage with those same texts. A lot of times being pushed out of our comfort zones can be mistaken for being disinterested. It almost seems like a kind of literacy is being lost - if we can't see how this directly relates to us here and now, the text is no longer meaningful.

In a related note, season two of Sex Education has one of the most hilarious productions of Romeo and Juliet ever.
"Sex Education Season Two: Sexy Shakespeare." YouTube, uploaded by coffee & tv, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE85C9lNedQ

Perfection?

Something that stood out to me while reading the comments to Isherwood’s “To Renovate or Not to Renovate” was just how passionate people are about maintaining the original. It’s not just that the remixes bother them because they distort their interpretation of a beloved work; they believe any remix is “messing with perfection” (cagy- fourth screenshot) and that “Shakespeare was a genius, updaters are not” (A.G.- first screenshot). But what is it about Romeo and Juliet that is so deserving of that “perfection” label? Is it out of cultural habit? Is it because Shakespeare’s name is on it? I enjoy reading the text because it does entertain. In some ways, however, how is it any better than a CW show? There’s plenty of angst (simultaneously relatable and annoying), love at first sight, fight scenes, and it all wraps up in moral at the end. Are these the necessary qualities to make a story timeless? (I hope not.) The characters are well-imagined, and the dialogue is beautifully written. But, when I finish reading the play, I’m left wondering why this is the version of love that we idolize so much and constantly reference in our culture. Is it truly a work of “genius”?  

Angsty love: https://kindledimagines.tumblr.com/post/162101269301/the-birds-and-the-bees-part-3-jughead-x-reader

Interesting AND Humorous

I find the entire idea of updating Shakespeare's plays as both interesting and humorous at the same time.  Interesting because I do love seeing what fresh ideas talented directors can do with the text.  Choices about what theme to lean on is always, at times, interesting.  Do you make the show about bad parenting?  How about bad timing?  Do you view the Friar as holy, or do you view him as a bumbling religious figure?  What about the role of the common people in the play compared to "both houses"?  What about the idea of friendship and love?  There are so many ways you can move that play towards a thematic pulse that makes it a wonderful script filled with timeless ideas!

Humorous because often those choices have nothing to do with reclaiming the story, but everything to do with trying to be "hip" or "relevant," script and themes be damned!  Why can't directors today just "trust the script"?  I can't tell you how many times I keep coming back to that quote when I am directing my own shows.  Trust the script!  It's NOT a love story, it's a play filled with MANY emotions!  Romeo rides a motorcycle, then become an uban hipster?  Why?  For what purpose thematically?  I don't mind the motorcycle if it serves as a purpose to the plot/theme the director is going for in his idea.  From what I read, this was not the case at all.  "Fundamentally, a great Shakespeare production will rise or fall not on what the actors are wearing, and whether they are barking into cell phones or slinging swords at each other, but on whether they can infuse these magnificent, challenging texts with the life blood of honest feeling and formal beauty."

I've got an idea:  Hey Boomers. . . Leave it alone.  Let the kids be the creative ones, not the grown adults who think they are doing something "fresh."  It's like finding out your parents have a TikTok account to keep their daily life "up to date" and "hip" so you can look at it and relate to them.  Yeah, it may be funny the first time, but after awhile it's just cringeworthy.  More importantly, you quickly realize that your parent's TikTok has no substance, purpose, or meaning, it's just fluff!  You know. . . like most TikTok posts.  No matter how cool they seem.

Now get off my lawn and let the actual script take over!

 

Don't Renovate, Definitely Don't Renovate

Leave Shakespeare and his creations alone! No, seriously, while reading "To Renovate or Not to Renovate" I detested the possible sight of Macbeth picking up an iPad or Orlando Bloom aka Romeo taking off a motorcycle helmet! Call me a purist, but any "modern" rendition I've seen of any Shakespeare play has typically fallen flat for me, as said similarly by the author of this article. (However, I am very excited to watch the 1990's version of Romeo and Juliet for class next week because I've heard very good things, so I might be soon completely contradicting myself!) But really, something neither of the articles really hinted much at--is that I think the best modern "versions" of any Shakespeare plays are ones where the stories are inspired by Shakespearean stories rather than direct remakes of. A Romeo and Juliet play where Romeo is an edgy pop-punk fan and Juliet is a rich valley girl who loves mainstream pop and their musical differences can't stop them from being together? No thanks. But an HBO show called Succession REMIXED and obviously heavily inspired by King Lear but with new, modern, and complicated characters? GOLD. The problem with direct modernization of these play productions is that honestly, I think they just really don't make sense. Shakespeare wrote his plays in ways that made sense for the time. In my opinion, keep the live productions traditional to the original writing, and be inspired by, and write new, modern stories of his plays instead. Is that boring? Maybe! But it's better than Orlando Bloom wearing torn jeans as Romeo and declaring his cheesy love for Juliet.

Not for the Purists

I found Isherwood's article to be pretty compelling, specifically towards the end, where he states, "It’s not for purists, to be sure, but it is showing people a very good time, and maybe, just maybe, inspiring some of them to pick up the play and see what inspired all that spooky, interactive fun."

While I do consider myself to be a "purist" when it comes to some stories and texts, I do believe that "updates" really could potentially create more buzz around original works. What Isherwood touches on in the final words of his text is the fact that a story that has been reworked is certainly not for those who practically worship the original.

That doesn't necessarily mean that an updated version is bad though, and I do believe that it could be beneficial for the same reason that Isherwood states here: it gives more attention to the original, and maybe, intrigues the audience enough to pick up a copy of the original text.

My question is, however, what about those audience members who are affected in the opposite way? Meaning, what about those people who watch something like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet and just think, "absolutely not, this is terrible. I'm never picking up a Shakespeare play because of this." Could this possibly be an indication as to how the updates sometimes "may not work?"

Update GIF from giphy.com

The Big Picture

Romeo and Juliet contribute to modern opinions of what defines love. Love can be shown in many ways. Romeo and Juliet have a strong sense of infatuation of love. Love in the later 1500s is different from love in the 2000's. Hate also exists as long as love has. The hate from the Montague and Capulet families essentially bring Romeo and Juliet together. The love they have for one another is stronger than the hate their families have toward one another. This is ultimately why they kill themselves. If they cannot be together in present life, then they will be together in the afterlife. The belief of afterlife has also been around for an infinite amount of years. Romeo and Juliet are dramatic, but there are realistic and timeless elements to the storyline. For example, in current times, parents can be particular about who their children marry or date. They can hold prejudices in race or ethnic background and socioeconomic status. Some families will disown their children if their stipulations are not in place. This is perhaps what Romeo and Juliet believed, and may be one of the reasons they fled their homes. I am unsure of how popular the belief of love at first sight is, but Romeo and Juliet feel intense feelings for one another upon their first meeting. Some people still hold this belief nowadays. My Dad told me that he felt this when he first met my Mom, which I found ironic.

                                                                 Romeo Must Die

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=104BAE62F88A2EBACB92FF6238E75C5935D959C6&thid=OIP.s3_kMf3jD-T-svUuCi0hYgHaE4&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs24195.pcdn.co%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2FAMBW_romeomustdie.jpg&exph=462&expw=700&q=romeo+must+die&selectedindex=14&ajaxhist=0&vt=0

Wherefore art thou adapting?

Sir Ian McKellen in the "Nazis vs British soldiers" themed film production of Richard III

"...the production was really a new musical inspired by the Shakespeare comedy, in no sense an actual production of the play." writes Charles Isherwood in his 2013 New York Times article Updates Work, Except When they Don't. Isherwood is refering to a musical adaptation of Love's Labor's Lost but the point can be made in the broader context of adaptation as a whole. There seem to be three different paths that get taken; direct reproductions that re-create the original point for point with minimal alterations (if any), remixes that alter things like dress and setting. In the context of Shakespeare, this is things like the 1995 cinematic production of Richard III pictured above, or the 2010 TV film version of Macbeth starring Patrick Stewart, "remixed" to evoke 1960's Romania and the brutality of Nicolae Ceaușescu. In both cases, the original language is maintained, with minimal alterations for time. Finally there are adaptations which abandon both setting and text for updated dialogue, costuming, setting, and other aditions like musical numbers, the most famous example being West Side Story. There is a lot of leeway within those three categories, but they broadly encompass the three ways I believe we creatively interact with a source text and turn it into popular culture; recreation, adaptation, and inspiration.

What is Romeo and Juliet about?

(Frederic Leighton)

One of the constant themes in Romeo and Juliet is that of teen angst.  This, perhaps just as much as the romance in the play, is a feeling to which readers of any era are able to relate.  On more than one occasion (and with a variety of levels of snark), I've heard this play described as being about teen rebellion more so than love.  This argument may hold some truth.  From Juliet describing her situation as "past hope, past care, past help" (4.1. 46), to Romeo unleashing an anti capitalist tirade on an innocent apothecary (5.2. 84-91), the text is certainly ripe with teen angst and knowitallness.  But does this attitude take away from the love story built around it?  Which aspect of the text has led to its constant retelling and re-imagining?