Romeo and Juliet (1954)

This film version created by Renato Castellani is a beauty to behold. In the picturesque settings of Siena, Padova, Verona and Venice, this romantic tale unfolds in glorious color.While the character interpretations may appeal to a select number, I appreciate the total concept and the carrying out of that objective."Romeo" takes on a stylistic life of its own through Castellani, and for those willing to go on his journey, the rewards are great.Mr. Harvey is interesting to see in an early role. As always, his work is very well thought out, and the aloofness which made him so right for callous young men in later modern roles, is intriguing here. Romeo now has a tinge of egotism and even femininity. Well, why not? As there are dozens of ways to read a line, so there are many approaches to a character. There's nothing inherently sacrosanct in the role of Romeo, and Harvey interprets the way he (and Castellani) sees him, rather than according to some staid traditional model. It's hard to believe this lovely production has not yet been transferred to video. Surely one day some enterprising company will take on this project and help preserve a very beautiful production for future generations to enjoy.

There are certain indispensable elements for a great Romeo and Juliet: youthful, energetic lovers; a brilliant Mercutio and irrepressible Nurse; and crisp pacing. Castellani's version fails on all counts. Take pacing. This is a tragedy of timing; the story unfolds over 4 days of desperate urgency. Yet Castellani's screenplay DRRRAAGGSS, interrupting key scenes with tedious stage business. Take the opening brawl: instead of escalating rapidly, it *stops* while the Capulets lug home the body of a servant, women wail, etc. Who cares about the servant? When do we get to the real action? Similarly, when Romeo opens the tomb, Castellani has him stop, walk all the way back outside, find an appropriate tool, and then start over. What a waste of screen time! It's dismaying that these unnecessary scenes are added at the expense of some of the play's best material. A high point in most productions is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech yet Castellani omits it! All directors make cuts, but why this key speech? Castellani seems to think little of Shakespeare's language, preferring his own dialogue. That's right; he cuts Queen Mab but adds vapid filler for Rosaline and other minor characters. Did he really think no one would notice? As for the actors, Susan Shentall sleep-walks through most of her scenes, but after two hours of Lawrence Harvey's plodding monotone, I can't blame her. These actors can't even summon the energy for a proper swordfight; Tybalt merely stabs Mercutio, while a bored looking Romeo bashes Paris over the head. Where's Basil Rathbone when you need him?This production is often praised for its lush costumes, picturesque Italian locations and cinematography reminiscent of Italian paintings. It's pretty as a picture, but equally lifeless.

Admittedly, the performances are not perfect, but I actually like Susan Shentall in the role of Juliet. Her acting is subtle and refined, which is more than I can say for many other actresses who have taken on the role. Why is it that so many actresses playing Juliet feel the necessity to shout their lines? Olivia Hussey does this. So does Megan Follows.I will agree that Laurence Harvey is awful as Romeo. I find his delivery a bit too mannered for my taste even if his true age is more appropriate than Leslie Howard's. (Although, truth be told, Howard's Romeo seems ageless to me.) His costumes aren't much better than his acting. In the scene where he marries Juliet and the subsequent duel, he is wearing a blue and yellow ensemble that makes him look like a demented superhero.I'm still waiting for a film version of Shakespeare's wonderful play with an actor who truly seems to understand the character of Romeo. Sumptuous, sumptuous cinematography and music though, and well worth a look if only for that.

Highly praised by critic Pauline Kael, and absurdly over-rated by most other critics, this is undoubtedly one of the worst English-language, talking film versions of Shakespeare ever made. It makes the ridiculous casting of Dick Powell in the 1935 "Midsummer Night's Dream" seem absolutely inspired.It isn't that the actual casting is bad, just that a lot of the acting is.With all due respect to gay people everywhere, I can safely say that Laurence Harvey, normally an excellent actor who can make even badly written roles seem memorable (such as his Col.Travis in John Wayne's "The Alamo"), is by far the swishiest Romeo imaginable, making you wonder what Juliet sees in him. He makes Leslie Howard in the 1936 "Romeo" look like Clark Gable as Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up that staircase. He has a moony-eyed smile on his face during the balcony scene which makes you want to say,"Snap out of it!"Susan Shentall is a beautiful but bland Juliet, Flora Robson is just OK as the nurse, especially in comparison with Pat Heywood in Zeffirelli's 1968 version. Worst of all, director Renato Castellani has made an awesomely stupid decision in cutting the roles of Mercutio and Tybalt to shreds and casting two unknown, barely competent Italian actors with dubbed English-speaking voices as these colorful characters.The very minor role of Benvolio is beefed up for Bill Travers. The brawls and duels are miserably done (there is actually no duel in this version between Romeo and Tybalt; Romeo simply rushes up to him and stabs him!), especially in comparison to both the MGM 1936 version and the Franco Zeffirelli 1968 film. Only Sebastian Cabot (better known as Mr. French in TV's "Family Affair") comes out unscathed---he is a brilliant Lord Capulet. The movie is the first "Romeo" in color, and filmed in Italy, but no match for Zeffirelli's version.