Do people actually consider this...

[deleted]

well, yes i do think it's better than anything luhrmann has ever made.

this film of titus was actually adapted from a stage production that was done.

i've often found that people who dislike taymor's style usually want really easy concepts to understand---it is not to say that they are not smart just that they enjoy art when there is less thought involved/less stuff to take in.

anyway, watch it with the commentary on, you might gleam away more respect for the film.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. However, you would do well to watch out for implying that others' opinions are somehow less valid just because you disagree.

And yes. People DO actually consider Titus to be a superior Shakespeare adaptation to Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. I won't speak for anyone but myself, but in my estimation, both films have some poor performances, while only Luhrmann's has lousy work done by a title character (Leonardo DiCaprio clearly doesn't understand the language -- and a lot of the secondary characters are also dreadful). The only really sub-par performance in Titus is Alan Cummings' strange work as Saturninus -- and even that almost works in underscoring his total ineptitude as a ruler. He is not, however, convincing as a ravenously heterosexual man (and one could make the case for Saturninus "protesting too much" on even that point). I don't consider this to be a major flaw, particularly given the stupendous work done by Hopkins, Lange, Lennix and the rest.

Apart from their both being based on old plays, the only thing I can see the two films having in common is their employment of unique visual styles. But here again, I think the advantage is overwhelmingly to Taymor. Titus is often painterly in composition, with enormous emphasis placed on palette and frequent deliberate references to schools of painting (notably the desolate Corot-esque landscape in which Lavinia is martyred and the surreal image of Lennix's disembodied eyes in the rear view mirror with Hopkins' disembodied hand hanging below). In other words, there is a regimented strategy to Taymor's film. In wild contrast, Luhrmann's 'style' is based on maddeningly frequent cutting and visual chaos, as though he was inspired by a collage rather than a college. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'm personally less impressed.

In the end, perhaps the only thing that matters is whether the story is told, and maybe whether a message is imparted. In my view, Romeo + Juliet suffers from a show-off quality that screams "look how clever I am in re-imagining the classic balcony and death scenes!" instead of merely letting those scenes be re-imagined. The way he draws attention to how he's departing from the standard actually only serves to take me out of the story. And I become accutely aware that anyone seeing the film who was unaware of the standard staging would probably only be puzzled by the histrionics. Whether you want to think of Romeo and Juliet as a timeless play about tragic lovers or a vital plea for peace (and it can be viewed either way, or both), Luhrmann's vision overdoses on the saccharine and the melodrama, trampling much of the story and all of the message. For me. Whereas Titus -- which actually carries a similar plea for peace -- is made timeless by Taymor's fractured-time narrative. Not only is the brutal story conveyed, but its potentially redemptive message is illuminated as more urgent and vital because it is neither about ancient Rome nor the present day, but instead every era.

Now, you'll have to bear with me because its been a while since I've seen "Titus". I do not think of it as a good movie, and have (on more than one occasion) referred to it as being terrible (though, I believe this is a little bit unfair -- the movie is FAR from terrible, and even good in some spots). For anybody who calls Taymor a bad director: yes, she might be a little gluttonous when it comes to eye-candy, but she knows art, so you can give her a break. And "The Lion King" was sheer brilliance.

From what I observed, these were the two concepts behind the two movies (I'd be interested in hearing people's feedback on this):

TITUS - Taymor observed that Shakespeare's play is often panned for being too violent. Though, she observed in interviews, all you have to do is open a newspaper, and you see violence that rivals Shakespeare's play. In "Titus", she presents this bloody story and visual uses imagery throughout all of mankind's VIOLENT history. We see the ancient romans, we see some of WW2, we see some of modern day, we see some of the italian mafia, etc. etc. In my opinion, she's justified in this view. Though the end product might be a little pretentious to some, you can't deny its an interesting idea. Still...well, look at my FINAL POINT.

ROMEO AND JULIET - Luhrman is another director known for his imagery and in-your-face artsy-ness (not necessarily a bad thing). He is brave, and makes everything a feast for interpretation. With Romeo and Juliet, he strives to take Shakespeare's play and make it into a movie that will appeal to a modern, young audience. In a way, he strives to make a "teen movie" out of Romeo and Juliet: complete with pop music, hot stars, action sequences, and trendy costumes (not a bad idea -- its always a good thing to recognize Shakespeare wrote a variety of genres, and I LOVE Polanski's interpretation of "Macbeth" as a horror-thriller). Luhrman fails miserably though on one point -- Romeo and Juliet isn't necessarily about two young adults who fall in love. Its about puppy-love between two teenagers (practically *children*) whose passion for each other aggravates a family drama and ends in tragedy. Luhrman tries to pull off the "teen love story" with two young adults too old and too mature for their roles. The text specifically says Juliet is 13; from the way he acts, we can infer that Romeo cannot be more than two or three years older. The excitement in the story comes from seeing two children experience a kind of love we ALL had and we ALL remember: the first mutual attraction, when you go crazy and can't help but going "Oh my gosh, I'm in looooove, and I'm going to be with this person foreeeeveer!" Maybe if his "modernized" story had actually been about teenage children in the midst of a domestic drama, the movie would have worked. But come on -- a teen movie about young twenty-somethings falling in love. That's not really the same story.

FINAL POINT : Look, any time visual design and art direction tries to take the front seat, you're in trouble. The beauty of Shakespeare is his brilliant characterization and his poetic expression of timeless human emotions. That's artistic enough -- any time you let the visuals try to compete, you're in trouble. That's not to say Shakespeare has to be visually-dull. Look at Zeferelli: his movies are always visually stunning, with his period costumes and stunning scenery; but he never lets these get in the way of the story. In this respect, I was disappointed. But I definitely respect Taymor's vision of "bloody violence throughout history" much more than Luhrman's "teen movie"

Absolutely.
IMHO the aforementioned version of Romeo & Juliet failed with the inability of the actors to deliver a line that actually sounded believable.Which really sucked for me as I hold 95% of the cast in high regard. Every word that was uttered sounded as if it was read off of a cue card held by some poor PA (and if fate is indeed cruel he probably had a degree in literature)


"Some days you eat the bar...sometimes... the bar eats you."

[deleted]

Yes.

Titus is much more interesting (and not just visually) IMHO. It is simply the more creative film.

Yes. I do like Luhrmann's R&J, but Julie Taymor's Titus is among the most enjoyable, most creative, most visually stunning film adaptations of Shakespeare IMO.