By: Reah Johnson

When the Russian poet Yevgenny Yevtushenko visited the United States he was appalled by what he saw, claiming that American pop culture was causing the debasement of our intellect and morale. He spoke of how in his homeland a hundred thousand people will fill a stadium to hear the words of an even lesser known poet. According to Yevgenny, it is unfortunate that such intellectual fervor does not exist in America.

Perhaps Yevgenny would be pleased to know that thousands of Americans have recently sought the iambic pentameter of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.. In fact, director Baz Luhrmann's version of this timeless play has become the number one movie in the country, and had an opening weekend gross of over eleven million dollars. Why such the response to a play that's four hundred years old? Probably because this version of the Bard has been embellished with the flavors of Pulp Fiction, and no, this time around the men do not wear tights.

The film begins with a TV-news prologue that takes us into the Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous, otherwise referred to as Verona Beach. In this mythical metropolis star-crossed lovers have cross dressing friends, carry semiautomatics, and their family names can be seen in enormous neon lights atop skyscrapers. The rival Montague and Capulet dynasties have younger members who cruise the streets, parading their flamboyant belligerence from one gang fight to the next. The innocent love that flourishes between Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Juliet (Claire Danes) is accentuated by the futuristic chaos and utter corruption of their surroundings.

Amongst all the swank-trash production designs one thing which manages to retain a sense of class is the role of Romeo played by Leonardo DiCaprio. This twenty one year old actor has previously proven his power and likable persona in movies

p. 2

such as What's Eating Gilbert Grape? and The Basketball Diaries. And if one does not find his enunciation convincing, there is still no denying that he and his co-star Danes, with their delicate and sensational style, make superb camera subjects. Yet, the plot ofRomeo and Juliet includes more than the simplicity of a youthful romance. It is tangled with tradition, blind vanity, and the mutual hatred of two families, and therefore needs to incorporate more than the casting of a couple sexy teen-idols.

Nevertheless, this film succeeds in amusing and mesmerizing its audience, and the reason why is quite simple. The appeal of Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet has little to do with the attributes of Shakespeare and everything to do with its use of pop culture icons and garish audiovisual effects. The film is intentionally blaspheming Shakespeare in order to entice Generation X and its muddle-headed tendencies. If the majority of American entertainment desires displayed a hint of intellectualism, we would remain at home to watch the discovery channel.

It's assumable Luhrmann felt no obligation to remain true to the essence of Shakespeare, after all, the bucks are made by Hollywood and not Elizabethan England. It is a recurring theme for the movie industry to sacrifice literary value in attempts to be more enticing to the public. Take for example last year's film version of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, staring Demi Moore as Hester Prynne. Director Roland JoffŽ took the liberty of doing away with Dimsdale's death, being that it was such a letdown to viewers, and creating an ending in which the main characters ride happily off into the sunset. Now, no one can really claim that such alteration are an injustice to Hawthorne's classic work of literature, for as Demi so brilliantly pointed out, "The ultimate message of Hester Prynne would have been lost had we stayed with the original ending."

Let's face it, Yevgenny made a valid judgment of our society. Imagine for a moment how many people would show up at Yankee Stadium for a poetry reading. In

p. 3

fact, the last I heard of any prose-hungry Americans crowding into a stadium, it was to hear the gangsta rappers NWA sing the lines, "I take the ho to the ho-tel."

There is a certain mental incapacitation exhibited in American pop culture. It's not that we simply have a lack of interest in anything intellectually stimulating, but at times we actually stooped to praise stupidity. This problem lies beyond the inexplicable success of actor Jim Carrey and is a particularly insidious tendency among youth. Why should young Americans have an interest or a need for poetic romance and passion when they can simply appear on MTV's Singled Out (the dating game which doesn't exactly emphasize the intellect in a relationship) and participate in a choice option system designed for the production of immediate results? For example, men, do you prefer your woman a. round and pleasing, or b. tight for squeezing? I don't know how much things have changed in the last four centuries, but when Romeo asked of Juliet, "O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?" it's safe to assume his head was not in the gutter.

What personal standards one takes to the theater will determine whether or not what Baz Luhrmann has created works. His version of Romeo and Juliet is an entertaining movie that caters to the expectations of pop culture. It is not, however, nor was it meant to be, an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare. So, Juliet, in answer to your question, "What's in a name?" ...apparently not much.