Compare the ways in which Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann present key scenes in Romeo and Juliet and say which one you preferred and why.

ROMEO AND JULIET

Assignment:

The scenes that I am going to compare and focus on are:

The starting of both versions – Act 1 sc I

The main fight scene with Romeo, Tybalt and Mercutio – Act 3 sc I

The ending of both versions – Act 5 sc III

We have watched two versions of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. One was made in 1968 by a man called Franco Zeffirelli and was set in Verona, in the middle Ages. The other by Baz Luhrmann made in 1996. This version was set in America and is very modern and has more visual and graphical effects. The stars in the Zeffirelli version were Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. The Luhrmann version starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.

One of the main differences between the two versions of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was the opening. The Zeffirelli movie had quite a slow opening, in contrast to fast and furious opening of Luhrmann’s version. Both films used Shakespeare’s play properly, but their outcomes were very, very different. Zeffirelli’s version of the opening was set in a market square, whereas Luhrmann’s opening was in a petrol station. When the Montagues and Capulets have a confrontation in Zeffirelli’s film, the argument is quite courteous, in a mocking way. But in Luhrmann’s version, everyone is frantic, especially the ‘Montague Boys’, but they still manage to put a shouted ‘Sir!’ at the end of each sentence. Also, before the ‘Montague Boys’ were shown at a petrol station, a newsreader is saying the prologue of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. The newsreader then fades out and the viewer is shown empires, belonging to the Capulets and Montagues. This is meant to show you that the reason for the Montagues and Capulets rivalry is down to the business empires, belonging to the two families. In Zeffirelli’s film, there was no reason for the bitter, prehistoric feud. I noticed how Luhrmann tried to bring in the element of fire at the start and how the fire spread really fast, hinting that the situation would get out of hand. In both versions it was a hot sunny day, the heat again showing that trouble was about. It came to my attention how humorous the Zeffirelli version was compared to the modern one which seemed more serious. I think that the setting was really good in the Zeffirelli version because everything seemed to go. But I think that the fact that the setting and the actors were modern, I didn’t think that then language suited the characters. In the Zeffirelli version there isn’t much music, which I expected because it is set out like the real play, but I the modern one there is a lot of sound effects and music. I liked the way the Luhrmann version introduced the play through a news report. Both versions were really good but the Luhrmann version seemed slightly more exciting, maybe because it was modern and there were more effects or the emotion the characters put into the production. But overall I preferred the Zeffirelli version because I felt that it was more like the play, I felt that the Luhrmann version had missed out some things.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Both films used suitable techniques and props for the film. By that, I mean the Zeffirelli version couldn’t have a newsreader and in Luhrmann’s film the people had to wear normal clothes, for this time and age. In Zeffirelli’s film, the actors and actresses wore wonderful, extravagant costumes. These were perfect for the middle Ages, and looked very impressive. Just by looking at the clothes, the viewer would understand the importance of the two families. In Luhrmann’s film everybody was wearing normal, everyday clothes, so there was no way that; you could tell the people were from important families. Also, in the two versions, the weapons used were different. Luhrmann’s film used guns and Zeffirelli’s film used swords. Another technique that Luhrmann used was the old language. The whole film was very, very modern, but Luhrmann decided to keep Shakespeare’s old English in his motion picture. The two films are set in different locations, and this small factor changes the outcome of the two movies completely. They both have the same plot, but look entirely different.

Another scene I focused on was the key fight scene; I found that both films had their own similarities and differences. In the Luhrmann version, at the start of the scene we see Mercutio shooting bullets in to the beach, showing us that he is a bit mad and wants trouble. The setting is at a beach and it is a hot sunny afternoon, a similarity in both versions. Then we see the arrival of Tybalt, he is dressed all in black and has a stern expression. I think that the Tybalt in the Zeffirelli version was too soft, where as this Tybalt seems more evil and dire. I saw that Mercutio was provocative to Tybalt in both versions; in Luhrmann’s film he even makes gestures towards Tybalt. In both versions he seems very humorous. Tybalt actually doesn’t want to fight Mercutio, I saw that it was Mercutio that seemed more aggressive towards Tybalt and it was he who was looking for a fight, especially when he says “couple it with

Something; make it a word and a blow.” As I said before I thought that the Zeffirelli version was a lot more humorous than the Luhrmann one. When Mercutio asks Tybalt to draw, Romeo shows up and Tybalt says” Well, peace be with you, sir: here comes my man.” Tybalt doesn’t want trouble with Mercutio, he was looking for Romeo. I found a lot of differences between the two Tybalt’s, the one in Luhrmann’s film looked a lot more threatening, stern and aggressive. I also thought that he delivered his lines more sternly and grimly. I found another difference when Tybalt says “Romeo, the hate I bear thee can afford No better term than this,--thou art a villain.”

The Tybalt in Zeffirelli’s film says it casually but the modern one spits as he says it, he looks threatening and serious. After Romeo disagrees to fight Tybalt, he shakes his hand. Quickly, Tybalt says ‘eeeewww’ and washes his and in the water fountain that Mercutio is bathing in and all of Tybalt’s servants laugh. Mercutio seems insulted by this and asks Tybalt to draw. None of this happens in the modern version but when Romeo disagrees to fight Tybalt starts to knock Romeo about and starts to beat him up, meanwhile Mercutio is watching and getting worked up by this. Romeo is bleeding and when he delivers his lines,

“I do protest, I never injured thee,

But love thee better than thou canst devise,

Till thou shalt know the reason of my love:

And so, good Capulet,--which name I tender

As dearly as my own,--be satisfied.”

He takes his gun out and gives it to Tybalt, but Tybalt carries on beating him up. By now Mercutio is mad at Tybalt and he runs after him, drops his gun picks up a branch of a tree and starts hitting Tybalt. I think the modern version gives Mercutio more of a reason to fight Tybalt. The old one doesn’t. Both of these missed out bits from the play; none of the films involve Benvolio to stop the fight once it has started.

I also saw the camera angles; there were a lot of close-ups to show the facial expression and body language. There was also one shot where Tybalt was framed on his on, to make him look intimidating. But there wasn’t much of this in the Zeffirelli version, although there were some close ups. The music was also a factor to consider, there was a lot of sound effects and music in the modern one, but there was only some music in Zeffirelli’s film.

Once Romeo delivers his lines Tybalt starts to walk away, but Mercutio stops him and asks him to

In both films, scenes were missed out. In Zeffirelli’s movie, the scenes missed out were when Lord Capulet and Lord Montague, make up and become friends again; the Apothecary, which was when Romeo was buying the poison and the other scene missed out was when Paris was killed by Romeo in the monument. Scenes missed out in Luhrmann’s film were also the Lord Montague and Lord Capulet scene and Paris’s murder was also missed.

Teacher Reviews

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Laura Gater

6th of Jun 2013

There are lots of points made about what happens in the two films but not enough about why choices are made by the directors. When analysing productions it is important to consider how decisions made by the directors relate to the original material. 3 Stars

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn