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?

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.

Romeo & Juliet original vs remix

While reading Romeo & Juliet for another time, (I don't even know how many times I've read it) it was simply familiar. I have an appreciation for Shakespeare, but I am not the type of person to go out of my way to read his plays willingly. In all honesty, the language used in it still confuses me and I get lost trying to understand it that I miss things. I do much better with it when it is discussed and acted out and there is a visual appeal. Personally, that makes it easier for me to understand it. I also believe that the updates and modern twists can help students when reading it in school, I know they helped me. One of the comments screenshot said that students will begin to forget about the original, but that cannot be the case because the original is what is taught, the other versions are just shown to help students comprehend and understand it. 

Another one of the comments says that we should leave it the way he read it, but that would end up really boring and confusing and not a lot going on. I think this because I remember in Sandona's Shakespeare class, him talking about how some of the stage directions didn't exist and were added in. Things have been added so it made more sense and so it was interpreted correctly. Also, I don't think anyone wants a real live bear running across the stage while watching The Winter's Tale. 

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

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.

True Reflections

Image Source: http://immeasurablyvacant.blogspot.com/2014/08/week-05.html

                   Image Source: http://queenelizabethsfantasy.blogspot.com/2014/09/gnomeo-and-juliet-arousing-childrens.html

As I was reading the comment section for the "To Renovate or Not to Renovate" article, I was struck by one particular comment made by H5.  They wrote, "I always think of Shakespeare as they(the) mirror people crave to see themselves. But of course, he states this best: "And since you know you cannot see yourself, so well as by reflection, I, your glass, will modestly discover to yourself, of yourself which you yet know not of." WS  

Is the reason Romeo and Juliet and MacBeth as well as Shakespeare's other plays redone and re-imagined because the core ideas, characters and themes are timeless?

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?