Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
shelbyrider2
Reviews
The Taming of the Shrew (1929)
Dull, lifeless, and unworthy
SPOILER ALERT By detaching from any consistency on style, setting, characterization and duologue, this adaptation of the Taming of the Shrew forfeits any authenticity and originality compared to the Shakespearean text. Arguably progressive for its time period and critically acclaimed for its giant leap into talkie cinema, this film successfully introduces themes that send the world back into the dark ages. The opening scene clearly depicts said attributes by foreshadowing the prominent domestic violence portrayed throughout the play by including a puppet show of a man who uses a mallet-like weapon to beat the woman into submission. Judging from the enthusiastic response by the audience, the idea of physically abusing another person seems to be perfectly rational in their eyes. The film continues to border on moral ambiguity, inspiring more cringe worthy responses as the plot advances leaving the viewer more scarred than any emotion resembling enjoyment.
Stylistically speaking, the director chose to incorporate a myriad of perspectives. The film seems to take place during the Shakespearean time period from the incorporation of traditional wardrobe, and surrounding setting for each scene. However some period discrepancies are blatant throughout the film like the makeup used for certain characters, and some visible contemporary furniture in some bedroom scenes. The black and white style hid most of the other obvious time inconsistencies including textural differences leaving a more realistic approach to the film. The filmmaker's incorporation of close-up shots to main characters was stunning and interesting because it meant the actors needed to further the plot through more than just duologue but also through their facial expressions and interactions. This inclusion brought a heavier influence of character acting, and made the supporting character's antics more enjoyable. The supporting characters also brought comedic relief to the otherwise less funny main character portrayals of their Shakespearean counterparts, which was the best idea by the director of this film. The external shots of the surrounding city of Padua also made the film more watchable bringing more of an emotional depth to the film. By involving more setting changes the movie was less stagnant, and made the movie more relevant to contemporary viewers who would otherwise get bored from the prolonged difference of action depicted compared to modern cinema pieces.
A rather bothersome issue prominent throughout the film was the actor's portrayals of the characters. From the duologue presented it is apparent that women are not treated with the same respect men are in this time period, and yet everyone in the town fears Katherine through her reputation. They start from bragging how women are easy conquests to disapproving of her disobedience claiming she is the unattainable. Disregarding the obvious issue of needing to tame any woman, the characters do not seem to fully grasp their identities. Petruchio enters, carrying a whip (used throughout the film as a gag prop and not something violent), and willingly admits to his interest in marrying a woman solely for her money addressing his amusing desire to also prove to everyone that he can overcome the challenge of procuring the town's black sheep. He is the only character who remains loyal to his conquest, without any character discrepancy, and even though his methods are medieval, his refusal to give up is admiring. In contrast, the character of Katherine does not seem to fully understand her purpose within the film. She is introduced wearing contemporary clothing down to the feather boa wrapped around her neck; a seemingly metaphorical way of introducing how modern her character is compared to the rest. She refuses to get married, take orders from anyone, and disengages from the societal expectations of her. The town fears her, essentially giving her the power, even giving her a room higher than the rest of the bedrooms, and yet her perception falters as soon as she is introduced to her fiancée to be. Both carrying whips and highlighting the heavy influence of slapstick humor, the two set off on some hilarious excursions of trickery and manipulation. However, Mary Pickford's style of approaching this character leaves the audience more puzzled than anything. She goes from being too angry to stand him, to swooning over his kiss. She doesn't care about fitting into society, and yet gets so frustrated when he arrives to their wedding late, and in nontraditional garb. Her upset does not represent Shakespeare's character whatsoever. It is only after Katherine becomes aware of his motives that we see the true feminist emerge, proving she'll pretend to be a loyal wife to get what she wants again addressing her unclear motives.
The minor characters throughout the movie stole scenes, and it's a shame that they were not given more of a dominant role. The only seemingly interesting parts of the movie were the ones including supporting characters, even with the discontinuing plot development of Bianca and her suitor. It's unclear why they were introduced in the beginning only to be cut completely as the movie progressed, just proving how disorganized the movie actually was. The duologue, which was clearly recorded separately, did not make the movie any better, it was incredibly distracting, as some parts did not match what the actors were saying. Still worth mentioning as this shattered the illusion regardless of knowing these are flaws of the time period to which the movie was created. Overall the film left more questions unanswered, making it one of the worst film adaptations from text, and an hour that any viewer will never get back.
West Side Story (1961)
Delight from start to finish
*spoiler alert*
Magnificent, "I'll never stop saying" West Side Story is magnificent! Flashback to the year 1961, where the streets of New York City were filled with two rivaling gangs, the recently immigrated Puerto Rican Sharks, and the defending white natives the Jets. Each respective gang with a leader, to whom the entire gang looks to for advice, and would protect until the very end proves the movie's overall theme of loyalty. However, complications arise when outsiders, somehow related to either gang (Maria is the Sharks leader's sister) fall in love with each other at first sight and decide to spend the rest of their lives together. Begging the question, will either gang put aside their differences so these two lovebirds can be together? Based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the movie of West Side Story contains elements that could satisfy anyone. The opening "Prologue," proves, through Jerome Robbins use of aerial shots of the surrounding city contrasting Leonard Bernstein's instrumental, that an intricate action scene is about to take place. The vivid incorporation of ballet, mixed with the sporty style dance fighting is so incredibly detailed, an obvious homage to Gene Kelly's masculine dancing style that became popular after his critically acclaimed Singin' in the Rain debuted. This scene introduces a new genre of gangster fight dancing, which can be argued as an early hip hop dance style, popularized modernly and seen throughout the movie. There is a reason the movie has earned 19 awards and 7 overall nominations. Each scene transitions flawlessly, introducing more action, drama and other popular genres along the way. Elements of the tragic play are emphasized, including the exaggerated love story for the hopeless romantic. John Astin relieves the heavy drama with comedic relief during the dance scene/"Mambo" number. Even the obsessive musical theater major will enjoy this movie. Overall, an audience interested in multiple stylistic qualities can follow the movie, which is what makes this film an overall classic.
The music incorporated furthers the storyline without interrupting key aspects of character development, like in other musical movies, meaning songs don't just appear because this is a musical. The songs are so catchy, you'll be singing them days after you've witnessed the movie. Each song serves a purpose, sometimes surpassing the duologue in the film. In fact, the songs without singing tend to be the movies best, enhancing the dancing visuals, intensifying the storyline. The placement of every song may differ from the musical, for good reason, moving the light-hearted numbers to the beginning act, and saving the darker songs for the second. Some musical theater "buffs" would argue against the authenticity of this but by doing so Robbins somehow added more heart to an already emotional piece simultaneously ensuring the film's originality. Each actor possessed the emotionality behind every song in every scene, which is why some earned Academy Awards for their portrayals. However, a majority of the cast was dubbed over by trained singing professionals. Common for film on this era, the idea behind awarding someone for work that wasn't entirely their own seems cheated. The dubbing was fairly obvious in certain scenes as well, making it very distracting (Rita Moreno and Natalie Wood were both dubbed by the same singer at one point in "Tonight," which made the harmony sound like it was being sung in one key). Keeping in mind the generation to which this movie debuted, and how incredible the acting is, the sound discrepancy can be overlooked.
The camera style and seamless combination of colors in the set contrasting the climatic scenes during the film should be admired almost as much as the acting. The use of multiple angles throughout the film made it more realistic, and added a perspective that couldn't normally be seen through the musical (because of it's stationary viewpoint on stage). The sets resembled an authentic version of New York in the 1960's. The tall skyscrapers, fire escape behind every apartment and graffiti written buildings helped audiences believe that the film actually took place in New York. Scene's containing both Tony and Maria sometimes showed a blurred background, making it seem like they were the only people and nothing else mattered. Every scene was more breathtaking than the last, making the film one of the greatest musical adaptations even today.
Following certain "ridiculous" qualities of the original play however proved the film's faults in storyline. The two main characters that fall in love despite their feuding families, don't really know each other that well but are willing to put everything aside to pursue this relationship. This becomes incredibly absurd when Maria finds out that her lover killed her brother, and instead of being upset immediately sleeps with him. From a realist perspective it seems pretty bizarre to forgive someone that quickly for murdering your sibling just because you love him or her. This plot line parallels Shakespeare's equally ridiculous suicide scene that could have easily been avoided if either respected an outsider's opinion over their own, which is again seen in this film during its climatic scene. Tony upset of Maria's death, runs through the streets trying to be killed because he couldn't live without his true love, essentially causing his demise in the process. This was an incredibly frustrating aspect of the film, but needless to say falls under the romantic genre smoothly.
Besides the minor flaws, the overall quality of the film garners respect not only to the filmmakers but also to the incredible cast. Even though the movie came out over fifty years ago, it still maintains relevancy, making it a classic must-see. The expression "they just don't make movies like this anymore," directly correlated with this film. No matter how many times viewed the ending scene with Natalie Wood threatening to take her own life will bring any audience member to tears. It's extremely well made, and easily and overall favorite.