Romeo and Juliet

I must confess that I find it difficult to write about films that are adaptations of William Shakespeare’s plays. In the hundreds of years since those plays were first performed in the theaters in England, hundreds, perhaps thousands, have put in their opinions on the bard, especially when it comes to the most famous of his works. Plays like Hamlet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Othello, Macbeth, and many others have been analyzed and overanalyzed to the point that someone like me would hardly have anything to say that is unique or enlightening. 

Fortunately, in this situation at least, what I am looking at is not the play itself—though that has to be taken into consideration to a degree—but a specific adaptation of that play. After all, there are numerous films adapting Romeo and Juliet, and all of them are unique in their own way, some to their own detriment, such as Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, which tried to be unique by setting it in modern times but keeping the poetic dialogue of the original play. This ended up being more distracting and silly than effective, making for a less than stellar experience. 

The 1968 version, perhaps the most well known adaptation on the Oscars’ Best Picture nominee list, has its problems, too. It is mired in scandal revolving around its underage cast and choices made by the director that would come back in later years to haunt them all. This is the version we were shown in school, albeit edited to remove the nudity. That film, problematic as it is, had a life and youthfulness to it that kept it entertaining and somewhat light, at least until the very end. 

Prior to today, I had never seen the 1936 film and, story aside, had no idea what I would be getting into. The cast list seemed problematic to me, though, as it appeared to me, well before I saw a single frame of the film, that it leaned far too old for this story. Leslie Howard as Romeo? The man was in his 40s. When we consider the story of Romeo and Juliet, we are thinking about two young people falling in love, not two middle-aged people. The idea behind the love story is that they are young and don’t fully consider what a romance would be between their two houses. It may seem like a trivial thing to get hung up on, but their age changes the dynamic entirely as well as strains credulity as a woman of Juliet’s age in the film (Norma Shearer was in her thirties) who was not yet married would have been considered an old maid, not someone people would be fighting to the death over. 

When you get past this aspect of the film, what you have left is a very average adaptation of the Shakespearian play. Louie B. Mayer, the studio head of MGM didn’t want to make this film. This was an Irving Thalberg pet project from the start, and Mayer had to be convinced to invest in it. It most likely wouldn’t have happened at all except Warner Bros. began work on A Midsummer Night’s Dream, prompting MGM to try and beat them at their game. Mayer’s insistence that MGM films were to be prestige films led to the production of Romeo and Juliet being overly elaborate. The production quality can be seen everywhere in the film, making this a beautiful film to look at, especially noticeable during the immaculate masquerade dance and the famous balcony scene.

But all that comes at a price, and this film ended up being so expensive that even though it was a hit in theaters, it still lost a lot of money and proved to Mayer that films based on Shakespeare should be avoided. They wouldn’t commission another one for more than a decade. Even though people came out to see the film, critics at the time were less enthusiastic about it. 

It hasn’t aged well, either. In the ninety years since it was released, we have seen many better adaptations of this play than this. Andy Devine adds some much-appreciated levity as Peter, a servant, but by and large, this is a humorless and energy-less production. John Barrymore is even more head-scratching a casting choice for Mercutio than Howard was for Romeo. John was well into his fifties at this point and playing Mercutio as a flirtatious young man, an image that clashes with his visible age. Tybalt is equally poorly cast with the stuffy British actor Basil Rathbone. Basil seems to be in his Sherlock Holmes mode, despite it being a few years too early, rather than the hot-headed troublemaker of the play. 

This is a story about youthful love and the kind of rash decisions that come from being in love for the first time. It is therefore unfortunate that producer Irving Thalberg elected to cast his wife in the role of Juliet despite her being about twenty years too old for the part. That choice alone forced casting all the leads older just to compensate. Even without this problem, though, the film cannot overcome the stodgy performances and the drawn-out plotting. This could have been an energetic tale of love and tragedy, and instead it ends up being a struggle to sit through. At over two hours in length, it is too long by a good half hour. Shakespeare’s romantic tragedy deserves better than this, and it would get that in the years to come. This film isn’t awful by any means, but it just feels full of missed opportunities, and sometimes that is worse than being awful. 

Academy Award Nominations:

Outstanding Production: Irving Thalberg

Best Actress: Norma Shearer

Best Supporting Actor: Basil Rathbone

Best Art Direction: Cedric Gibbons, Fredric Hope, and Edwin B. Wallis

____________________________________________________

Release Date: August 20, 1936

Running Time: 125 Minutes

Not Rated

Starring: Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, John Barrymore, Basil Rathbone, and Andy Devine

Directed by: George Cukor