The original text was intended by Shakespeare to have main themes of love and hate. These two themes are portrayed in various different ways throughout the play. Love is first mentioned in the Prologue, and immediately the audience know that love will be involved; “A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life,” (1, P, 6). It is also the first thing that Romeo talks about; his lost love for Rosaline. When Benvolio questions him about his sadness, Romeo says, with the context of love, “Not having that which, having, makes them short,” (1, 1, 162-163). The audience, at this point, knows that Romeo may have a slight reputation concerning matters of the heart, and the theme of love is continued. As Romeo continues to discuss his broken heart with Benvolio, he again persistently mentions love. In one particular speech to Benvolio, he says; “Love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs,” (1, 1, 188). This shows a slightly philosophical side to Romeo as his in depth discussion advances. Hate is also mentioned right at the very beginning of the play, in the Prologue; “From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,” (1, P, 3). Again, this informs the audience of the impending theme of hate. This theme is again mentioned frequently by the Prince, in his speech from lines 79-101; “Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace, Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel – Will they not hear? What ho! You men, you beasts.” This quote from the Prince tells the audience of the violent nature of the ongoing feud between the families, and of the depth and extent of the hate they feel for each other.
Baz Luhrman portrays love in many divergent ways. The first time we see Romeo he is at the beach and appears to be writing a poem about his feelings for Rosaline, which he speaks out loud (lines 174-177), before cutting back to lines 139 and 140. Soft focus lighting is used, and everything appears hazy, perhaps reflecting Romeo’s confused state of mind. He is stood next to the sea, which throughout history has been used as a symbol of futility (as it is forever waxing and waning, never going anywhere). The very first scene in Luhrman’s film is set in a petrol station, a setting that is, similar to the setting in Shakespeare’s original script, unglamorous. The music is very fast, upbeat and dynamic, creating dramatic excitement for the audience during the fight scene. This intensifies the hate aspect in this film version. The clever use of cutting and editing accentuates the energy and heat in the petrol station scene. Luhrman compounds the intense hate between the two families, and makes sure that the audience really concurs the feelings of antipathy that are present.
The first view of Romeo in Zeffirelli’s version is of him gripping a flower and looking sombrely thoughtful. It is romantic, and the slow, soft classical music emphasises the aspect of love. In this version, the anguish of the scene is clearly diminished, the oxymorons from the script are not used and it is unclear who he is in love with. From the flower in his hand to the classical, romantic music, it could just suggest that he merely wishes to be in love. As this is such a mild and moderate version of ‘Romeo and Juliet’, it is difficult for hate to be depicted in a pragmatic manner. The fight scene is set in a busy market place, not a particularly imposing or dangerous setting. In this version, the Prince is a small, inconsequential man with little threatening presence, who appears seemingly to gently tell off the Montagues and Capulets for fighting, rather than giving them a severe and serious warning.
The actors, whose accents are very RP, simply sound too reserved to feel any hate whatsoever for each other, and sound like they are just having a gentle disagreement rather than a fierce fight borne of their families’ hatred. Fundamentally, the scene does not capture this quote from the script; “What, drawn, and talk of peace? I hate the word as I hate hell, all Montagues and thee,” (1, 1, 67-69). Although this line is spoken in Zeffirelli’s version, the deep passion and feeling is certainly not conveyed.
The settings for the two films contrast greatly. Luhrman’s film is set in Rio de Janeiro, in the middle of a bustling city. This is a very unusual setting for a Shakespeare interpretation, and Luhrman obviously wanted to bring the traditional story to a modern setting. Zeffirelli, however, stages his version in Italy, where Shakespeare originally set the play. When making his film, he perhaps wanted to add a touch of authenticity by shooting it in the appropriate place. Shakespeare probably liked the idea of a romantic tragedy being set in Italy, and at the time in England, his audience would presumably have never been to Italy. This would maybe create a fantastical setting for his play, in a far off country that was isolated from the majority of his audience, a place where they would never have a chance of visiting.
In all three versions, the servants play a surprisingly large role. Shakespeare has cleverly managed to convey just how extensive the ancient family grudge is, by getting even the families’ servants to become involved in the feud, not just family members. As Gregory says in line 18, “The quarrel is between our masters, and us their men,” (1, 1, 18). This line is significant because Gregory realises that the quarrel is between the two families, but as one of the families is their ‘master,’ the servants as ‘their men’ are also obliged to be involved. The servants also extensively use sexual innuendo and double entendres in this scene; “My naked weapon is out,” (Sampson, 1, 1, 32). That is just one small example of the crude humour Shakespeare employed.
In his film version, Luhrman changes Sampson and Gregory to Montagues, as opposed to the Capulets they originally were according to Shakespeare. They do not appear to be servants at all. Dialogue begins at line 7, and then cuts to line 18. The Capulets then enter, and Luhrman uses extreme close-ups to energise the scene; there is a close-up of Tybalts’ metal-capped shoes. Abraham becomes a Capulet, and Luhrman keeps the sexual innuendo, by involving nuns in the scene whom Gregory and Sampson mock. The audience is kept amused in an updated, modernised way, as the innuendo is reworked to appeal to the audience. In his script, Shakespeare had Benvolio with Sampson and Gregory from the onset, but this film version has him arriving later, leaving the lavatory. Tybalt is introduced when he emerges as the ‘Prince of Cats,’ a name which suggests he is being portrayed in the same sense as Shakespeare intended.
Zeffirelli, however, exposes the servants in a different light. They are wearing jester suits when we first view them, in the middle of a bustling market. Again, as in Luhrman’s version, Sampson and Gregory are Montagues. They begin dialogue with line 18, and are laughing. The sexual innuendo, where present, is very subtle and low-key, and the double entendre of the original version is missed out. This is perhaps because of fear of offending the conservative audiences of the 1960s, whose innocent childhood was in the forties and fifties. Owing to this fact, this version comes across as very dry, and lacks much-needed humour.
Shakespeare could not have created two characters that differ to each other more than Tybalt and Benvolio do. Tybalt is the violent aggressor. He always seems to be there to start or aggravate a fight, and appears to thrive on violence and his hate of all Montagues. As though full of fury, in the first scene Tybalt launches into full throttle argumentative mode, determined to torment Benvolio as much as possible; “Turn thee, Benvolio; look upon thy death,” (Tybalt, 1, 1, 64). This shows the extent of Tybalts’ bitter hatred of Benvolio. However, Benvolio resists the obvious temptation to retaliate towards Tybalt’s comments, and manages to keep his cool. In response to Tybalt’s taunts, Benvolio simply replies, “I do but keep the peace,” (Benvolio, 1, 1, 65). This emphasises Benvolio’s peacekeeping characteristics, portraying him as the rational, sensible one, completely contrasting against Tybalt’s violent, aggressive and preposterous traits.
The opening scenes on Romeo tell us a substantial amount about what kind of person he is. His first words are sorrowful, melancholy ones as he expresses his emotion to Benvolio. He solely talks about his lost love for Rosaline, and uses various oxymorons and metaphors to express his feelings of despondency. In one particular 13-line speech, Romeo uses four oxymorons; “Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health,” (Romeo, 1, 1, 178). Oxymorons are words that, when put together, contradict themselves and make little sense, perhaps the message Romeo tries to convey about his confused state of mind when he uses them. He also uses metaphors to asseverate his empathy, such as “O brawling love, O loving hate,” (Romeo 1, 1, 174). These phrases maybe reveal how infuriated Romeo seems by his unrequited love for Rosaline. In his film, Luhrman has Romeo standing beneath what appears to be a broken down building that arches above him, as though Luhrman is framing the beach as the ‘stage’ of the performance. Romeo’s mood is reflected by the hazy use of camera lighting and the soft focus to mirror his blurred judgement.
Baz Luhrman’s film interpretation was considered controversial by many critics; “…Suffers from too many ideas, both good and bad,” (Internet review). He managed to update the story through use of modern symbols and alternative settings. Firstly we notice that the film is set in the bustling city of Rio de Janeiro, in stark contrast to the original setting of Italy. The film appears much more violent than the script, thanks to the raw setting of the modern petrol station for the fight scene. Luhrman had many things he needed to change in order to modernise the film sufficiently. Originally, the fight scene would have obviously involved swords, so Luhrman uses guns instead. The music used is dynamic, energetic and vigorous, creating a sense of excitement and danger as the tension builds. The clothing is also modernised considerably, and with it the symbolism is brought on to a whole new level by Luhrman. As Tybalt emerges, he is introduced as the ‘Prince of Cats.’ He is dressed from head to foot in black and silver, and small inconspicuous points suggest devilish symbolism; his sideburns are cut to a sharp point, his goatee beard is small, pointed and triangular, and he has a dark, evil aura about him. Also, he smokes, which can be seen as sinful. He is portrayed as typically ostentatious, as he is in the original script.
In Shakespeare’s time, women were not permitted to act, and men had to act the part of women in all plays. Black people were also seen as a minority, and racial equality was unheard of. Black people, therefore, rarely acted either. When Luhrman had both women and black people acting in his interpretation of ‘Romeo & Juliet,’ it sort of brought about closure on the traditional Shakespeare ways, as a black man plays Mercutio and at one point dresses as a transvestite. This certainly changed people’s views that Shakespeare was old-fashioned and out of date, as Luhrman successfully updated his work here. Shakespeare, as a result of this film, became much more appealing to the younger generations. It was highly effective in communicating to the audience, as everyone could relate to the modern settings and updated symbolism.
All in all, both film versions manage to convey the themes of the play, only in two completely different ways. Zeffirelli stays traditional to Shakespeare, managing to keep the original settings and feelings of the play, whereas Luhrman is more effective at communicating to his current audience the themes of the play. Each version works well, and I think it is admirable when the play is performed in the way that it was written. However, in my opinion it is more relevant to use modern language and settings to convey the themes of the play, as it is easier to communicate to the audience, who can relate to it more, and the wonder of Shakespeare’s play-writing and captivating story-telling are still present. This is why I find Luhrman’s version a lot more appealing and effective, as it helped me to understand the story of Romeo & Juliet much better then Zeffirelli’s version – I found I could relate to Luhrman’s modern settings, even though the dialogue was still pretty much the same. As William Shakespeare put it himself, “Never was a story of more woe, than this of Juliet and her Romeo,” (5, 3, 310).
Frances Duffy 10J
