West Side Story

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

Oh man, the last time I watched Annie I was left thinking it's not a very good movie. Kind of plastic and impersonal IMO. (I liked it as a kid.)

[Cameron H. 23786]

On 3/21/2019 at 12:40 PM, Cameron H. said:

Oh, and since I'm on the topic, Clambake and Stay Away, Joe would both be good candidates for HDTGM  The first one is just flat out ridiculous and the second has Burgess Meredith made up to be a Native American. It is upsetting.

Um...I’m only about 20 minutes in, but I’m going to have to go ahead and add Live a Little, Love a Little to the list of HDTGM worthy Elvis movies. So far, it is fucking bananas. It’s like a erotic, psychodrama - Elvis-style. Or if Misery were filmed with a Beach Blanket Bingo aesthetic. I literally don’t know if Elvis is going to make it out of this one or not...

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

I haven't read Romeo & Juliet since I was in high school, maybe middle school, but reading this thread, I realized I'm unclear how people view Romeo & Juliet - i.e. are they actually in love.  Somewhere along the way I transitioned from thinking it's a love story (plus other stuff) to thinking, "oh, those two were never in love, they were just really highly, emotional, melodramatic teenagers."  And coincidentally at the time, I was reading other people's posts, basically saying, "yeah, and Shakespeare dropped cues in the play to convey that."  Googling, I noticed people often cite the parts about Romeo professing to be so madly in love with Rosaline, that he would die without her, right before he meets the next love of his life that he would also die without, Juliet.  This both portrays him both as someone who loves being in love, and one astute take I saw, playing up the Italian stereotype of being overly passionate, setting the stage that he would be someone who could kill himself later, mostly on an impulse.

I also haven't seen WSS since middle school or high school, and don't think I'll be able to make time for revisiting it now, but I don't remember any situations that might have been commentary on the silliness (or I guess stupidity) of the impetuousness of the drama of youth romance, since, no literal suicides.  But I also haven't seen it since an age when I probably would have missed it if it was there.

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

6 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

 

I haven't read Romeo & Juliet since I was in high school, maybe middle school, but reading this thread, I realized I'm unclear how people view Romeo & Juliet - i.e. are they actually in love.  Somewhere along the way I transitioned from thinking it's a love story (plus other stuff) to thinking, "oh, those two were never in love, they were just really highly, emotional, melodramatic teenagers."  And coincidentally at the time, I was reading other people's posts, basically saying, "yeah, and Shakespeare dropped cues in the play to convey that."  Googling, I noticed people often cite the parts about Romeo professing to be so madly in love with Rosaline, that he would die without her, right before he meets the next love of his life that he would also die without, Juliet.  This both portrays him both as someone who loves being in love, and one astute take I saw, playing up the Italian stereotype of being overly passionate, setting the stage that he would be someone who could kill himself later, mostly on an impulse.

 

Yeah, R&J is just a mess of dysfunction. I’ve never really taken them to be “in love” either. Not only was Romeo hung up on Rosalind, but Juliet was being forced to marry the much older Paris. Juliet serves as a rebound for Romeo, and Romeo is an “out” for Juliet. Like, I think they were attracted to each other, but the only way their love would ever actually be “eternal” is through death. I always quietly chuckle when people hold R&J up as romantic ideals. Like I said previously, I think it’s more about squandered youth - dying young - over something stupid (e.g. a family feud, a gang rivalry)

I think WSS sells Tony and Maria’s love a little better, to be honest. Sure, they’re being a bit naive, but I think that’s okay when you are first falling in love - or at least it should be. Cutting out the Rosalind character also helps sell the audience on Tony’s feelings for Maria; and Chino never really feels like as much of an issue for Maria as Paris does for Juliet.

[grudlian. 4725]

1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

I haven't read Romeo & Juliet since I was in high school, maybe middle school, but reading this thread, I realized I'm unclear how people view Romeo & Juliet - i.e. are they actually in love.  Somewhere along the way I transitioned from thinking it's a love story (plus other stuff) to thinking, "oh, those two were never in love, they were just really highly, emotional, melodramatic teenagers."  And coincidentally at the time, I was reading other people's posts, basically saying, "yeah, and Shakespeare dropped cues in the play to convey that."  Googling, I noticed people often cite the parts about Romeo professing to be so madly in love with Rosaline, that he would die without her, right before he meets the next love of his life that he would also die without, Juliet.  This both portrays him both as someone who loves being in love, and one astute take I saw, playing up the Italian stereotype of being overly passionate, setting the stage that he would be someone who could kill himself later, mostly on an impulse.

I also haven't seen WSS since middle school or high school, and don't think I'll be able to make time for revisiting it now, but I don't remember any situations that might have been commentary on the silliness (or I guess stupidity) of the impetuousness of the drama of youth romance, since, no literal suicides.  But I also haven't seen it since an age when I probably would have missed it if it was there.

 

I've definitely read theories that Romeo and Juliet was meant to be one of Shakespeare's comedies. I don't know that I'd go that far, but it could be played as one without much changing it as I recall.

[TheQRM 3]

I LoVe the example of Homer singing about food, since it's how I feel about most musicals - people trying to lyrically advance a plot over music that isn't particular good or even memorable ("Rent"?). WWS along with a handful of other musicals are in a class all by itself, despite Natalie Wood's accent standing out as one of the film's few blemishes (think Sofia Coppola in Godfather III...). 

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

4 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

Yeah, R&J is just a mess of co-dependence. I’ve never really taken them to be “in love” either. Not only was Romeo hung up on Rosalind, but Juliet is being forced to marry the much older Paris. Juliet serves as a rebound for Romeo, and Romeo is an “out” for Juliet. Like, I think they were attracted to each other, but the only way their love would actually be “eternal” is through death. I always quietly chuckle when people hold R&J up as romantic ideals. Like I said previously, I think it’s more about squandered youth - dying young - over something stupid (i.e. a family feud, a gang rivalry)

I think WSS sells Tony and Maria’s love a little better, to be honest. Sure, they’re being a bit naive, but I think that’s okay when you are first falling in love. Cutting out the Rosalind character also helps sell the audience on Tony’s feelings for Maria; and Chino never really feels like as much of an issue for Maria as Paris does for Juliet.

I have the same interpretation of R+J as just some hormonally charged, melodramatic teenagers, and not love at first sight (not that I think such a thing exists). I agree that WSS has a more believable love story. They meet at the dance, and then just make plans to meet at her shop, not to get married. Sure, they have the symbolic wedding, but I took that as just youthful playfulness confessing their feelings for each other, but I never understood it that they were already ready to live together and make babies. 

Here's a question - does Maria forgive Anita for lying to Doc and Tony that Maria was dead? What happens with their relationship?

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

44 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

Here's a question - does Maria forgive Anita for lying to Doc and Tony that Maria was dead? What happens with their relationship?

If Anita tells Maria about the Jets basically trying to rape her, then yeah she probably forgives her. It's very possible Chino would have shot Tony regardless.

I agree with Cameron's take on Romeo & Juliet. The real point of the play is not about those two being in "real" love, it's about how the stupid family feud meant they couldn't deal with their lustful teenage feelings in a healthy way and caused a lot of unnecessary death. West Side Story extends that message to modern American racism and gang culture.

[EvRobert 1684]

I think that a lot of the misconceptions about R&J come from a very basic, surface level reading of the play. Most people have only ever read the play when they were in Grade 9/Freshman year of High School. It is usually a week or two long and is taught not by someone trained in theater but in English (this isn't to dog on English teachers--I HAVE a degree in English Education in addition to a degree in theater). It is taught as basic lit i.e. "you need to have a basic understanding of Shakespeare" and the language is a big barrier for a lot of people. 

If they have seen a production, it is Baz's Romeo + Juliet, which is good but you believe that they are in love. I don't think I've seen a production that plays up the absurdity of the situation. If we removed the names "Romeo" and "Juliet", if we removed the classical setting, if we cast appropriately, people would say that this is a joke. The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet isn't that two young lovers died (although it is tragic) but that EVERYONE was so stupid. The Prince's speech at the end is the crux of that.

[Cameron H. 23786]

8 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

EVERYONE was so stupid

Everyone but Mercutio, that is. He’s neither Montague nor Capulet and the only person to see how ridiculous everyone is acting - and then is killed over their absurdity.

[EvRobert 1684]

3 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

Everyone but Mercutio, that is. He’s neither Montague nor Capulet and the only person to see how ridiculous everyone is acting - and then is killed over their absurdity.

Yeah Mercutio is the real tragedy of R&J

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

3 hours ago, EvRobert said:

Yeah Mercutio is the real tragedy of R&J

100% 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

When I've seen stage productions of R&J it's usually Mercutio who gets the most applause in the curtain call.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

On 3/24/2019 at 4:14 PM, Cameron H. said:

Yeah, R&J is just a mess of dysfunction. I’ve never really taken them to be “in love” either. Not only was Romeo hung up on Rosalind, but Juliet was being forced to marry the much older Paris. Juliet serves as a rebound for Romeo, and Romeo is an “out” for Juliet. Like, I think they were attracted to each other, but the only way their love would ever actually be “eternal” is through death. I always quietly chuckle when people hold R&J up as romantic ideals. Like I said previously, I think it’s more about squandered youth - dying young - over something stupid (e.g. a family feud, a gang rivalry)

I think WSS sells Tony and Maria’s love a little better, to be honest. Sure, they’re being a bit naive, but I think that’s okay when you are first falling in love - or at least it should be. Cutting out the Rosalind character also helps sell the audience on Tony’s feelings for Maria; and Chino never really feels like as much of an issue for Maria as Paris does for Juliet.

I believe that we all fall into a modern sense of R+J when we dissect it though.

Like Ol' Eddy I haven't read this since high school, and I have a feeling that since a lot of us are at the ages of R+J when we first experience it then a lot of it makes sense of being this grand love, because when we are teenagers everything seems sooooo dramatic and intense and that makes sense since Juliet is supposedly 13 and Romeo 17 (right? did i just make that up?).

However, I think about it much more through the lens of Shakespearean times and things make sense in a totally different way. I have to imagine by that point when you're 13 you're a woman (hence marrying her off to Paris like it's nbd) and this is not the age of premarital sex. So, if you were physically attracted to someone and wanted to bone them that was considered love to you. In our modern eyes we can see that they were just hormonal teenagers wanting to bone, but back then this was in fact a love story, and they may have been happier in their lives together if they had been allowed to marry normally. It's extremely tricky to make adaptations in our era because then you get stuck with things like Little Italy or that 2013 R+J with Hailee Steinfeld and it completely ruins the source material. Or maybe the 2013 doesn't if truly people think it's supposed to be a comedy, because everyone in my showing of that was laughing their asses off and no one felt the tragedy that was supposed to show up.

Anyway, my point is that I do think that times changing have hindered the impact of the story.

[EvRobert 1684]

I think you are onto a point here Taylor that the story may not translate as well to a modern setting or sensibilities, but not for the reason you stated. In Victorian England the average age of marriage was 28 for men and 26 for women (https://www.history.com/news/5-things-victorian-women-didnt-do-much) but courtship was a big deal. So what R&J were doing was "rebellious" skirting the societal norms. The whole ballroom/dance sequence is basically R&J rebelling against the traditional courtship rituals (which were often done at a ball). 

 

I'm going to do a C/O on myself here, I was linking to info on Victorian Era not Elizabethan so basically ignore what I was saying here or apply it to a later time. Although I did find that boys did not marry until they were usally 21 (the "age of consent") but earlier marriage could be done with parental blessing. According to this the average age was late teens to early 20s although it could be a little older

[taylor anne photo 11311]

48 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

I think you are onto a point here Taylor that the story may not translate as well to a modern setting or sensibilities, but not for the reason you stated. In Victorian England the average age of marriage was 28 for men and 26 for women (https://www.history.com/news/5-things-victorian-women-didnt-do-much) but courtship was a big deal. So what R&J were doing was "rebellious" skirting the societal norms. The whole ballroom/dance sequence is basically R&J rebelling against the traditional courtship rituals (which were often done at a ball). 

 

I'm going to do a C/O on myself here, I was linking to info on Victorian Era not Elizabethan so basically ignore what I was saying here or apply it to a later time. Although I did find that boys did not marry until they were usally 21 (the "age of consent") but earlier marriage could be done with parental blessing. According to this the average age was late teens to early 20s although it could be a little older

That's very interesting! I will admit that I know next to nothing about the actuality of those times, but there are a lot of media that portrays young teen girls as being women once they get their first period, and I could have sworn they mention that with Juliet but now I'm not positive because it's been so long since I've read it.

If it's true that marriages skewed older than the ages of R+J then it makes me wonder why he had them so young. Maybe he was trying to highlight the ridiculousness in their love, or maybe he was trying to highlight the societies ridiculousness towards marriage and feuds and then make it slightly out of reach by having them be younger and set in Italy rather than England. So many things to ponder.

What I do think I really like about West Side Story's adaptation is that they take the bs that is this pointless feud and translate it to the pointlessness of racism. It's still gang related and painted as being Sharks v Jets, but it really comes down to races hating each other and in the height of the 60s during the Civil Rights Era that seems especially poignant.

[EvRobert 1684]

17 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

That's very interesting! I will admit that I know next to nothing about the actuality of those times, but there are a lot of media that portrays young teen girls as being women once they get their first period, and I could have sworn they mention that with Juliet but now I'm not positive because it's been so long since I've read it.

If it's true that marriages skewed older than the ages of R+J then it makes me wonder why he had them so young. Maybe he was trying to highlight the ridiculousness in their love, or maybe he was trying to highlight the societies ridiculousness towards marriage and feuds and then make it slightly out of reach by having them be younger and set in Italy rather than England. So many things to ponder.

What I do think I really like about West Side Story's adaptation is that they take the bs that is this pointless feud and translate it to the pointlessness of racism. It's still gang related and painted as being Sharks v Jets, but it really comes down to races hating each other and in the height of the 60s during the Civil Rights Era that seems especially poignant.

Well, if you look at the lens of Shakespeare's comedies, I think he found "love" as a notion a bit ridiculous. The "young lover" troupe in his comedies is usually played up for a laugh and are presented as kind of stupid 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

3 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

Well, if you look at the lens of Shakespeare's comedies, I think he found "love" as a notion a bit ridiculous. The "young lover" troupe in his comedies is usually played up for a laugh and are presented as kind of stupid 

Do you view R+J as more of a comedy yourself?

[EvRobert 1684]

Just now, taylorannephoto said:

Do you view R+J as more of a comedy yourself?

I don't. Honestly, I would classify it as one of the "problem plays" if it wasn't universally taught as a tragedy. The characters of R&J (not from the upper class) are presented as the young lovers, Merctiuo is the "fool" but  comes from the upper class, the Nurse and the Friar are complicate in helping (traditionally in a Shakespearean comedy the young lovers come from the upper class and the fools from the lower and the lower class usually have a lower view of "true love"). so in a lot of ways Shakespeare is taking his own troupes and inverting them.  

[Cameron H. 23786]

11 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

I don't. Honestly, I would classify it as one of the "problem plays" if it wasn't universally taught as a tragedy. The characters of R&J (not from the upper class) are presented as the young lovers, Merctiuo is the "fool" but  comes from the upper class, the Nurse and the Friar are complicate in helping (traditionally in a Shakespearean comedy the young lovers come from the upper class and the fools from the lower and the lower class usually have a lower view of "true love"). so in a lot of ways Shakespeare is taking his own troupes and inverting them.  

When you say “not upper class” you mean in the literal sense, as in “not royalty,” as opposed to “not wealthy,” right? I don’t know that I’ve ever heard them described as anything but being wealthy, high ranking families. Juliet is to be wed to a Count after all, which implies their rank would be right around that - although, admittedly, probably a little below. 

[EvRobert 1684]

1 minute ago, Cameron H. said:

When you say “not upper class” you mean in the literal sense, as in “not royalty,” as opposed to “not wealthy,” right? I don’t know that I’ve ever heard them described as anything but being wealthy, high ranking families. Juliet is to be wed to a Count after all, which implies their rank would be right around that - although, admittedly, probably a little below. 

Yes, they aren't royalty but they aren't poor either. They are in the upper middle class.

[EvRobert 1684]

And Juliet being engaged at a young age means that she was being married into a class above the Capulets own to move them up.

 

Here is a good, brief article explaining it 

[Cameron H. 23786]

17 minutes ago, EvRobert said:

Yes, they aren't royalty but they aren't poor either. They are in the upper middle class.

Right. I just wanted to clarify.  When I read “not upper class” it sounded (to me) like you were implying they were somehow low class rather than relatively lower class, but still wealthy.

[EvRobert 1684]

4 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

Right. I just wanted to clarify.  When I read “not upper class” it sounded (to me) like you were implying they were somehow low class rather than relatively lower class, but still wealthy.

They were in the "gentry" class, which is the bottom of the three tier of the "upper class"

[taylor anne photo 11311]

Here's an insanely long image that I'll just post the link to instead, because it was screenshotted from Tumblr and it's incredibly interesting and relevant to our conversation, and also paints to how women are treated in his tragedies vs. his comedies.

View here.