The Anti-Feminism of Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, while patented as being a romantic tragedy, serves history as more than just a portrayal of young love and demise. The original story deviates from traditions of the 16th century in a way that is both the empowerment of a young woman, Juliet, and constructive criticism on gender roles in their society. By comparison, the 1996 Romeo and Juliet movie, directed by Baz Luhrmann, falls flat in portraying the rebellion of a young woman. The layers of social commentary Shakespeare had written in his time have been lost to modernity and rewritten for a contemporary audience. However much praise the movie deserves in other aspects, its depiction of Juliet is an anti-feminist take on an otherwise politically motivated story. The movie adaptation does the play an injustice by removing a key element of what made the original story so impactful, creating a tired idea of romance where there had previously been rebellion.

Romeo and Juliet is a beloved piece of media unique in the sense that it was progressive for the time period it was written in. Given the traditional ideas of what men and women were supposed to be during the 16th century, it’s remarkable that Shakespeare wrote a story where the mind of a young girl is thoroughly explored. When people recall the story of Romeo and Juliet, it is likely not with the sentiment of Juliet being a political character, but that’s exactly what she is. For a play written by someone accustomed to the idea of women equating to servitude, it’s unusual that Juliet’s character be given such thought. She is more than just a lovesick girl, but an intelligent young woman with a desire to escape the leash of what her family expects of her. In her first introduction, we immediately see Juliet’s sharp personality when Lady Capulet tries talking to her about marriage. Instead of politely declining or acknowledging her family’s wishes, Juliet says: “I’ll look to like if looking liking move. But no more deep will I endart mine eye” (Act 1, scene 3, line 103). Meaning she intends to make her own decisions about her life, no matter what.

 Juliet is given the same complexity as any male character within the play, and even more so considering she is the focal narrative of the original Romeo and Juliet text. She is the one guiding the relationship between her and Romeo because she’s been given not only competency, but an alternative motivation for seeking refuge in Romeo’s company. Shakespeare captured a level of feminism within the original story for this reason. It’s rare that even today we see stories with a more dominant female character in heterosexual relationships, and Juliet could be considered exactly that despite her younger age and “inferior” gender. Romeo and Juliet is undoubtedly her story, which cannot be overlooked and still be maintained as an iteration of Shakespeare.

The play also highlights the negatives of toxic masculinity in a means that communicates Shakespeare’s feelings about gender roles in their society. Even the fictional kingdom of Verona embodies the systemic concepts seen during the 16th century, and they are deconstructed in the subtle jabs at what drawing a firm line between the roles of man and women creates. For example, this idea that masculinity is attributed to violence is summed up as a whole by leading to inevitable death. “The sins of the fathers are surely visited on both the sons and the daughters in Verona when toxic masculinity becomes the norm that is passed down from one generation to the next.” (Keiper, 2019). This source, which follows a West Virginian teacher’s perspective on teaching Romeo and Juliet to her high school students, points out how Shakespeare’s play is a good example of breaking down toxic masculinity because of its demonstration of consequences. Not only does this stereotypical behavior end poorly for Romeo, it’s a generational curse that is the root of our main characters’ downfalls.

Romeo is an outlier from this violence and he dies a tragic death because of how he  walked the line of what a man should be and who he actually was. That is to say, Shakespeare’s complex relationship with gender norms in the original play compliment Juliet’s outspoken personality in a way that coins the text with a level of progressivism. She is outwardly scolded by her family for her opinionated personality and her constant refusal to conform to their every will. Her personality is not only the reader’s narration for the bold acts of rebellion displayed by Romeo and Juliet, but she is the puppeteering hand which determines when the events of the play strike. “Juliet’s rhetorical ability is clearly her most masculine trait, and it is one in which she seems to develop and delight, though in Shakespeare’s time, it was patently unfeminine.” (Cori Mathis, 2014). The concept of Juliet wielding more masculine traits as a woman and being empowered by them is the spark of feminism. Acknowledging the connection built between a man and a woman who do not fit into societal expectations contributes to the many factors in what makes Romeo and Juliet a political commentary.

In comparison, Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo and Juliet does not capture the essence of feminism that Shakespeare had written into the original text. This makes for not only a very surface level understanding of the play, but for an inaccurate adaptation of an otherwise complex story. While an enjoyable movie on its own, the plot is misconstrued when Juliet, played by Claire Danes, is given a secondary role in the story rather than being the one to tell it. The movie spends so much time building up Romeo’s character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, that it forgets to empower Juliet as an individual capable of complex thought beyond just romance. In making the movie, about 40% of the original Shakespearean dialogue was cut, (ACMI) and a large percentage of what was sacrificed from the plot seems to be Juliet’s independent moments. Such as integral dialogue which largely showed her emotions and life circumstances. 

Any attempt at criticizing the constant male violence is overshadowed by how absurdly unrealistic the directing makes the movie feel. In having Verona be set in a presumably mafia setting where the house of Capulet and Montague are more closely aligned with gang violence than a quarrel of nobility, it offers up a certain normalcy to death. Romeo might still exhibit a loverboy personality, but it’s not to the extent where he feels out of place among the slaying of Tybalt and Mercutio. Luhrmann’s interpretation of deconstructing toxic masculinity is either a poor attempt or a miss altogether when there’s no condemnation of it beyond a stormy scene with tears shed (1996 Romeo and Juliet 42:35). By failing to delve into the societal issues that Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet did, the movie adaptation is missing half of the plot. Not only does it make for a more simple story, but it becomes this idea of teenage angst and forbidden romance when the original meaning was always to stress the tragedy of their circumstances. While a commonly false interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, it’s a neglected opportunity to hone in on the societal commentary in a modern setting where Shakespeare’s work would then be honorably remembered by the people of today. Instead, Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet has done the opposite, making audiences reminisce over a young Leonardo Dicaprio falling in love with some girl while wearing a Hawaiian shirt and holding a gun. 

By making Romeo the main character of the movie, Luhrmann sacrificed Juliet’s complexity to be that of Romeo’s fantasy. No longer is she the leading one in their romance, but simply a pretty girl that Romeo felt himself drawn to. Without the same context of Juliet feeling trapped by her parent’s desire for her to marry Paris, an older man, the scene where they meet for the first time is nothing more than a meet-cute between two kids. 

When Romeo saw Juliet at the party, he fell in love with her because she was attractive to him. Since the movie follows Romeo’s character and not Juliet’s, this is the only explanation we get behind their connection. It’s built on vanity and the actions of hormonal teenagers, not any commentary on the stresses of their lives outside of the escapism romance offers. Despite the many reasons Luhrmann may have made this change, it reads as an oppressive statement in and of itself. Juliet is not allowed to be the main character in a movie directed in the 90s, more than 400 centuries after Shakespeare had written a play in which her character mattered the most. It’s incredible that sexism of the twentieth century beat out that of the English Renaissance, which only makes Juliet’s original writing more profound. The movie adaptation leans towards the romantic aspects of the play, nullifying the negativity associated with Juliet’s desperation to be with Romeo. She is no longer a young girl seeking refuge from the decisions her parents are forcing upon her, but a teenager in love. 

The 1996 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet is certainly famous for a reason. There are many aspects of the movie that make it memorable as not only a development of Shakespeare, but as its own concept. However, because of how shortsighted Luhrmann was with Juliet’s character, it lacks the same depth as the original. There’s no touch of political or societal commentary, nor any real consideration for Juliet as a young woman imprisoned by the expectations forced upon her by gender. The movie’s biggest failure is how it feels as though Baz Luhrmann did not understand the play. Either he intentionally disregarded Juliet’s dimensions as a character or fell victim to the same patriarchy that oppressed her to begin with—regardless, she was removed from a story written about her. Romeo and Juliet was meant to be a societal commentary on the consequences of forcing youth to live under the thumbs of what olden society expected of them, ending in tragedy because they weren’t accepted by the world they lived in. The 1996 adaptation missed the mark, and because of that, fails to recognize the empowering story that was Juliet and her ever present, ever female, struggles.

Sources:

Unknown's avatar

Published by Olivia Quilliam

Leave a Comment