MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Review: Romeo and Juliet in Yiddish

Romeo and Juliet in Yiddish feels like it wants to be a big, sprawling, artistic statement on art and religion and big life lessons and the chasms that divide us. Unfortunately, while it’s certainly sprawling, it’s also often unruly and chaotic and all over the place, keeping itself from being as profound as it aspires to be by tripping over its own ambitions. I found myself frustrated frequently by writer-director-actor Eve Annenberg’s frenetic approach to integrating classic Shakespeare and Orthodox Judaism with a tale of midlife crisis and faith, even though at times the very things that I found most exasperating were also kind of charming, in their way.

Our star-crossed lovers here are represented by Lazer/Romeo (Lazwer Weiss) and Juliet (Melissa Weisz), young people from rival Hasidic groups, with the Satmar and Lubavitch denominations subbing in for Montagues and Capulets. Even if you don’t know anything about Orthodox Judaism or Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Shakespeare’s tale of love amid feuding would seem to be an interesting basis for exploring the ideas of isolation, rule-breaking and consequence in which Attenberg seems to be interested. But rather than simply taking Shakespeare’s classic tale and adapting it to a story about outcast Jews and rival denominations and playing up the universality of the ways in which we humans stratify ourselves within culture and subculture, Annenberg adds in this second layer of story in which a disgruntled, sarcastic ER nurse/literature grad student, Ava (played by Attenberg), is assigned to modernize an old Yiddish translation of Shakespeare’s play, and further complicates Ava’s storyline by adding in a Kabbalah-studying houseguest who keeps leaking magic and talking like he’s tripping on ‘shrooms. Ava enlists the help of the three young outcast Orthodox Jews Lazer, Bubbles (Bubbles Yoeli Weiss) and Mendy (Mendy Zafir) — also respectively Romeo, Mercutio and Benvolio in intercut scenes re-enacting Romeo and Juliet which re-imagined in urban settings … and in Yiddish, and real life starts to merge into play and fantasy as our characters explore new ideas through Shakespeare.

It all sounds great on paper. Unfortunately, the time is spent on Ava’s arc took away from the more interesting story about these three young outcast Jews trying to simultaneously break away from their restrictive upbringing, while keeping a foot in both worlds, as represented by Lazer’s pursuit of a young woman forbidden to him not only by being from a rival denomination, but also by his choice to leave the community and become an outcast, and how they deal with all that. The leaking magic keeps things unpredictable and chaotic, but does little to help us understand (or care) why Lazer, Mendy and Bubbles chose to become outcasts, or what their goals are other than slacking, smoking and doing drugs.

Consequently, almost everyone, in spite of abundant individual charms, ends up feeling more like surface caricatures than full-fledged characters. The story ends up revolving more around Ava, and the need for her to come to terms with her own life choices, isolation from the community in which she was raised, and the reason behind her prickles and barbs, and it felt like this much more personal angle is perhaps what Attenberg started out wanting to explore. Not that it’s not a valid choice for this to really be Ava’s story/Attenberg’s exploration of secular versus Orthodox Judaism, but for me it made the whole Romeo and Juliet angle feel more like a clever conceit wrapped around the story the writer-director really wanted to tell, rather than a greater exploration of Shakesperean theme and Jewish subculture, and I’d have rather had just one focus or the other, fully developed, instead of this overly ambitious attempt to intertwine the two.

Some positive notes: Romeo and Juliet in Yiddish did retain my attention most of the time and kept me interested in seeing where it was going, and while Attenberg’s ambitions sometimes exceed her ability to knit everything together succinctly, there are clever bits here and there with the way the film is edited and shot. Visually, some of the scenes are lovely and there’s a bit of a fairy-tale feel to this film that sets it apart from the pack. This film’s greatest strengths lie in the charm and energy of the cast and in the compelling idea of melding Shakespeare with Orthodox Judaism. I wish, though that those strengths didn’t get so bogged down in the ambition for this film to be “more,” to the extent that the overall impact ends up being less.

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

Tsangari: With my next film, White Knuckles, it comes with a budget — it’s going to be a huge new world for me. As always when I enter into a new thing, don’t you wonder how it’s going to be and how much of yourself you are going to have to sacrifice? The ballet of all of this. I’m already imaging the choreography — not of the camera, but the choreography of actually bringing it to life. It is as fascinating as the shooting itself. I find the producing as exciting as the directing. The one informs the other. There is this producer-director hat that I constantly wear. I’ve been thinking about these early auteurs, like Howard Hawks and John Ford and Preston Sturges—all of these guys basically were hired by the studio, and I doubt they had final cut, and somehow they had films that now we can say they had their signatures.  There are different ways of being creative within the parameters and limitations of production. The only thing you cannot negotiate is stupidity.
Filmmaker: And unfortunately, there is an abundance of that in the world.
Tsangari: This is the only big risk: stupidity. Everything else is completely worked out in the end.
~ Chevalier‘s Rachel Athina Tsangari

“The middle-range movies that I was doing have largely either stopped being made, or they’ve moved to television, now that television is a go-to medium for directors who can’t get work in theatricals, because there are so few theatricals being made. But also with the new miniseries concept, you can tell a long story in detail without having to cram it all into 90 minutes. You don’t have to cut the characters and take out the secondary people. You can actually put them all on a big canvas. And it is a big canvas, because people have bigger screens now, so there’s no aesthetic difference between the way you shoot a movie and the way you shoot a TV show.

“Which is all for the good. But what’s happened in the interim is that theatrical movies being a spectacle business are now either giant blockbuster movies that run three hours—even superhero movies run three hours, they used to run like 58 minutes!—and the others, which are dysfunctional family independent movies or the slob comedy or the kiddie movie, and those are all low-budget. So the middle ground of movies that were about things, they’re just gone. Or else they’re on HBO. Like the Bryan Cranston LBJ movie, which years ago would’ve been made for theaters.

“You’ve got people like Paul Schrader and Walter Hill who can’t get their movies theatrically distributed because there’s no market for it. So they end up going to VOD, and VOD is a model from which no one makes any money, because most of the time, as soon as they get on the site, they’re pirated. So the whole model of the system right now is completely broken. And whether or not anybody’s going to try to fix, or if it even can be fixed, I don’t know. But it’s certainly not the same business that I got into in the ’70s.”
~ Joe Dante

Z Weekend Report