"For there was never a story of more woe than this Juliet and her Romeo" Children listen to stories that generally end with "… and they lived happily ever after" but as they grow older, and maybe more deeply involved about the matters of love, the stories that are more likely to find a powerful echo in their hearts would rather have an epilogue like William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". It is as if you could only measure the true power of love within its tragic implications, through the tale of two star-crossed lovers, victims of the feud between their families and an unforgettable chain of events where even their passion would play an ironical role, allowing each lover to mourn the loved one's death.There had been stories of forbidden loves all through the ages and the civilizations, as a Moroccan, I can tell you the legends of Ali and Zaina, two lovers from rival Berber tribes who died of sadness together and the spot of their last rendezvous became the confluence of two rivers formed by the flows of their tears, the meaning of each river's name would be fiancé (for each gender). The two rivers exist so that people can remember the story. Now, this is the stuff that the greatest romances are made on, and one could react to "Ali and Zaina" as passionately as for "Romeo and Juliet". But it's a credit to Shakespeare's talent to have written a tale for all seasons, a staple of tragedy that wrapped up all the romantic heritage of past centuries and turned into a universal and timeless tale.Indeed, if there ever is a word that captures the spirit of "Romeo and Juliet", it is timeless. This is a story that time cannot wither, for it's a story of a love that never fades, a love that culminates at the ultimate moment and resists death; in fact, it is a love that ignores death as much as it provokes it. The love between Romeo and Juliet is eternal, because we all love someone but know that time can affect the strongest passions, that even the blooming flower will fade, so we never identify with Romeo and Juliet as much as we admire and venerate the persistence of their feelings till the last breath. Both ignored the obstacles, rejecting their own names as soon as they became burdens, they were careless, they were kids, and since when do kids listen to their parents? And that's one of the forgotten aspects of the play, besides being lovers; Romeo and Juliet were teenagers in old Verona. They were young and they were innocent, and innocence is exactly what conveys the "Romeo and Juliet" of Franco Zifferelli, whose masterstroke was the casting of two unknown faces, two teenagers even by 60's standards, to play the parts of the doomed lovers. Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey were respectively 17 and 15 when the shooting started and their lack of maturity made their romance beautifully fragile and poignant. Three years after Laurence Olivier's infamous black-faced performance as Othello, a director like Zifferelli understood that the time of make-believe was over and the audience didn't need a star-studded cast, but needed to believe, in the case of "Romeo and Juliet", it's not essential, it is vital.And from the juvenile confidence of Romeo and the naive innocence of Juliet, there is just something magical operating, and after the balcony scene, it is impossible not to believe in their passion. Zifferelli's "Romeo and Juliet" was made in 1968, one year after movies like "Bonnie and Clyde" or "The Graduate" broke many grounds in Hollywood, but 1968 had a more traditional line-up with many costume-movies such as "Lion in Winter" or "Oliver!". Still, Zifferelli understood the era and didn't sugarcoat the material for all that; his film is still oddly modern, cleverly using costumes to differentiate between the Capulets and the Montaigues and using sex and violence in risqué ways but never at the expenses of the romance. The fight between Tybalt (Michael York) and Romeo is a heart-pounding action sequence beautifully staged while the infamous bed scene by daring to show the two protagonists naked, prove that Romeo and Juliet weren't just talkers.Yes, they were under the legal age. It even reached the irony that Oliva Hussey couldn't have seen her performance in America. While this aspect had raised some controversy, there's nothing in that moment that feels gratuitous, it is clean because we believe in it and we can see that the chemistry isn't just on an emotional level, but on a physical one too. The movie version can't ignore the play's erotic undertones as it can't ignore that it's about two teenagers and yes, teenagers are attracted to bodies. It is very sad that today, a film like "Romeo and Juliet" couldn't be shown on classes because of a few glimpses of nudity while the students can go home and have daily access on porn images that will totally deconstruct their notion of love. We take that word 'love story" for granted and forget what it means, and Shakespeare's play can give you one notion or two.The film might be overshadowed by the remake starring Leonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes, but this one has the merit to respect the original material while still making it accessible to young people and teenagers. It captures the spirit of Shakespeare while translating it into cinematic language, with a powerful photography, a perfect leading cast, great supporting performances from Mila O'Shea and Pat Heywood playing Friar Lawrence and Juliet's nursemaid, and a haunting score by Nino Rota. Ziffereli's directing made the rest by finding the perfect compromise between a classical and colorful approach to the play and the changes of society and the tumultuous minds of 1968's mood.

Well, it was about a year ago, when I was in ninth grade and I had to read Romeo and Juliet for English. Course, like any high school student, I dreaded it. But at the end of the unit, we got to see Zeffirelli's interpretation of the tale. In the beginning, I didn't really get the majesty of the film until I re-watched it today, and oh my god, what a film! What really makes this movie work is one fact: Zeffirelli understands the material well! The reason why so many adaptations before this one failed, is because they were casted poorly, but here, every single role, done to the last damn extra was casted correctly! I could go on saying how the editing of the original script was done well, and how the sets and costumes and cinematography are done beautifully, but I think you get the gist. Watch it its awesome!

Having watched this film about sixty times (as an addendum for my Shakespeare students), I'm glad the kids got to see a play by the Bard. It is very visual, very colorful, with a modern twist and a beautiful Nino Rita soundtrack. The two kids who play the leads are decent actors and they give us the basics. But it is barely Shakespeare because most of the poetry is left out. It also leaves out significant plot elements that are critical to the play. This is about character development and the building suspense and angst that gets us to the conclusion. Too little and too fast. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed this movie, but don't mix it up with a real presentation of Shakespeare. There is cutting and then there is cutting.

I was 14 years old when this film came out, and sat in the theater all day (ah, remember back when you could do that and not have to pay to see the film again?) with a friend from school, and we just cried and cried. That night I dreamed the whole film again! It was one of the first movies I purchased on video, and I have seen it way too many times to count. It truly remains timeless-- the cinematography is beautiful, the cast delivers across the board, and it never looks dated, even now. The brilliant move of using actors who were actually close in age to the characters they played makes this film work like no other adaptation. One of the best films ever...