> I can't believe anyone could be so incensed about the recent movie > rendition of Romeo and Juliet, going so far as to call it "not > Shakespeare"! A fellow student and I followed the movie through > Shakespeare's script and found that the only differences were caused > by the time limit imposed by modern movie convention. Exactly. This is what I mean by Luhrmann trying to take his cues from Shakespeare. For example, In Shakespeare you *had* to have `What country, friends, is this?' `Illyria madam' because you're on the stage in the middle of the day having chestnuts thrown at you. Whereas in movies all you need is EXT, DAY - A BEACH, ILLYRIA (: > My > only complaint was of diCaprio as a slightly girly Romeo. At times > he sounded like a schoolgirl, especially in his opening ravings on the > beach, IMHO. Believe it or not, that was actually intentional; Luhrmann deliberately placed him somewhat androgynously. For a couple of reasons - feminine boys were considered attractive in the C16th and also the general tone of sexual exploration embodied by characters such as Tybalt (How do I know all this? Apart from seeing the film seven times at the movies, I'm doing an exam on it next week!) Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 @ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest