In Luhrmann, Tybalt is portrayed as being highly religious as he wears a Jesus Christ shirt and a cross around his neck. In Zefferelli Tybalt does not seem to be religious, but shows he has a certain amount of authority over other members of his family during the fight at the market place as people nearby seem to fear him and move away when he enters the scene.
Benvolio follows the meaning of his name in both films as the attempted peacekeeper of the feud. Both films show this well as Benvolio tries to be diplomatic during the brawl at the market place and petrol station.
The Prince in Zefferelli is the official authority of Verona but Luhrmann had to adapt this idea of a monarchy being in control, as many countries are no longer run by a monarchy. Instead he changes the Prince’s role to that of a policeman, so he still has the same authority, just in a more common and acceptable way for a modern film. Another noticeable difference Luhrmann applies is the portrayal of Mercutio as a black man. In Shakespearean times, different races of people will have been less common in Britain and other more predominantly white countries than there are today, so by doing this, Luhrmann makes his film more culturally accurate for a modern audience.
From the opening of Zefferelli, the first impression is of a peaceful, almost perfect town - as though this is an eutopic society. The opening images are of mist which clears away as the camera pans out to a long shot of the back drop of the town before it becomes an extreme close up of the sun, later returning to the scenery of Verona. These opening images address no kind of rivalry or conflict, just a small peaceful town. This contrasts greatly to the next scene when the peace is shattered by a fight in the market place which seems to affect the whole community.
This sets a different tone compared to Luhrmann where the opening images show violence straight away. It is almost manic, showing a more dystopic society; as though no laws seem enforced right from the beginning. This version addresses most obviously the themes of violence and conflict. Guns are used in the streets, cars are spun around to show aggression and loud music sets the scene of almost mayhem, where uncontrolled behaviour is spiralling from the anger and conflict of the two houses.
Religion in Zefferelli seems almost non-existent, apart from the presence of a church in the town, compared to the amount of religious imagery in Luhrmann. In the opening, statues of Christ and Madonna are flashed across the screen and gothic, religious music from a church choir is used. Tybalt’s shirt bears a picture of Christ, and during the brawl at the petrol station there are nuns present. Most characters wear chains with crosses around their necks - one Capulet even had a cross shaved into the back of his head. This gives a much stronger presence of religion than in Zefferelli.
Luhrmann is less faithful to the text and setting in that more complex changes have been made which may confuse an uneducated audience. To show that both sides are equally to blame for the feud and just to make it different from other versions of the play, Luhrmann opens with the Montagues instead of the Capulets’, changing the servants Sampson and Gregory so they belong to the Montagues.
As a result of doing this, Sampson’s line had to be changed from, ‘A dog of the house of Montague moves me’ to ‘A dog of the house of Capulet moves me’. Also, Abra, a servant to the Montagues in the text, has been moved to the Capulet family. This may have been done just to balance the sides out and show that everybody has a part to play in the feud. Another change made to the lines in the first scene is that Montague and Capulets’ lines are reversed, again, this is just to show that there is a parallel between both sides and they are just as much to blame as each other. Although I understood why Baz Luhrmann chose to do this I found these changes rather unnecessary and at times confusing.
In both versions the text is accurate to Shakespeare’s play, but a lot has been edited for dramatic effect. In the Luhrmann film version, lines which are unimportant or insignificant have been edited along with parts which people might find offensive (Mercutio talks about raping women) and lines which are dated such as those about slaves.
A major change from the original in Luhrmann is that all actors are American whereas in Zefferelli all characters are English and speak in Standard English, the accent used for which is Received Pronunciation. This is because Shakespeare’s work was always classed as difficult to read and you had to be clever to understand it, so an ‘educated’ accent was used.
Like the Luhrmann version, Zefferelli’s contains heavy editing in parts, but unlike the modern interpretation, the characters are all in the correct house. In Zefferelli’s production Tybalt is a lot more provoked during the argument at the market; he is attacked physically rather than verbally, as he is kicked. Lines are added for the sake of the audience because sometimes it is hard to follow, for example, as Tybalt approaches, someone says ‘Here comes Tybalt; Capulets’ kinsman’ which is in modern English and is not part of the original text. Explaining his character is done in this way to avoid confusion and so it is clear to the audience.
The Prologue is used in a variety of ways in the Luhrmann version compared to being more simply spoken in Zefferelli’s adaptation. In Zefferelli the prologue is spoken once, by a calm, male voice whilst the camera follows a long shot of the town of Verona. In the modern film adaptation the Prologue plays a major part at the beginning of the film. It is shown a total of three times, firstly by a news reporter on television, with the TV shot from a long view which gradually moves to a close-up. It is used again following the TV reporter when it is spoken by a male voice while newspaper headlines on the screen and signs around Verona emphasise some lines such as ‘Star-crossed lovers’ and ‘Civil blood makes civil hands unclean’. Following these, the prologue is further used when the words are flashed across the screen to loud, powerful music sung by the choir.
Luhrmann’s variation provides clues in the setting to help understand meaning or tone. To continue with the modern theme all characters are given Christian names, as patriarchal societies are now generally outdated and everyone is treated equally, so they are introduced by their full name title and who they are in relation to other characters as well as which house they belong to.
Zefferelli’s production presents a more concise version of the play to the viewer, accurately portraying setting, characters, and atmosphere, but if you are a stranger to Shakespeare’s work then this version may leave you feeling lost, and the subtitles in Luhrmann’s production would be extremely helpful in understanding the play.
Although heavy editing took place in both films, removing some of the text doesn’t necessarily remove any of our understanding as speech can be replaced with images. Shakespearean language can be difficult to understand, but images are more universal and can add to our understanding. Luhrmann’s adaptation displays many examples of imagery replacing words or to avoid modern English being added. An example of images being used to put across a message is the use of the family crest on the bottom of their guns. Although differently communicated through images rather than added text, this effectively shows the loyalty of the family members to their families. A clever use of language illustrated by Luhrmann is the way he handles the outdating of swordfighting without changing the text. By calling all the guns used ‘Swords’, he takes Shakespeare’s original words from 16th century swordfighting so that it fits in with modern culture.
Not much imagery is used in Zefferelli compared to the heavy use of it in Luhrmann, but this is not particularly necessary as the earlier version is more accurate to costume and setting and so special effects and complex camera angles would make this a less faithful portrayal of the play. The music applied in Zefferelli is Elizabethan with the use of wooden instruments such as the piccolo and violin. As the Prince enters the market place to break up the fight a fanfare is used to show his authority. This style of music contrasts greatly to the use of loud, modern music preferred by Luhrmann for his film. Dramatic music builds up tension and adds to the ironic situations that take place and certain characters have signature music, for example the song ‘Pretty Piece of Flesh’ is used each time the Montague Boys are involved in a scene.
Methods of transport also differ between the two films. Zefferelli opted for horses, with white horses belonging to important characters, showing that they have enough money to own a well-bred horse. Because Luhrmann’s adaptation aims to be modern, means of transport have to be up to date to agree with the rest of the film, so expensive sports cars are used for wealthy members of the families and poorer people drive less extravagant cars.
Despite the many differences, there are a few similarities between the two films. These include the themes of violence, fear, and authority which are largely present in both versions; all characters obey the head of their household and the Prince still has a large authority showing that the original principles of the play still remain in these later adaptations.
Both contain heavy editing with some parts of speech re-arranged and some added. Identification of characters is more obvious in Luhrmann with the words on the screen introducing characters but it is similar with Zefferelli, although more subtly, by including the lines from another character to introduce Tybalt – ‘Here comes Tybalt, King of Cats’. This explains his character, which also shows that modern English is added to give the audience more understanding.
Although I found Zefferelli’s version of the play accurate and enjoyable, I think that for a modern audience this traditional type of portrayal of Shakespeare gives people the wrong impression that Shakespeare is solely for upper class citizens. I personally found it enjoyable, but I doubt many people nowadays would want to continue watching the rest of this film from the introduction given, rather than opt for a more modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, such as that by Baz Luhrmann. His version works extremely effectively in attracting people to the watch the rest of the film. The loud powerful music and action during the prologue invite people to continue watching, as it shows the audience right from the beginning exactly what to expect from the rest of the film.
Despite stating my preference to the later adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, I think that an uneducated audience may believe that all the added modern aspects of Luhrmann’s production is exactly how Shakespeare wrote his play, which may cause some confusion. Overall, I believe that Luhrmann produced the better and certainly more unique adaptation, and although Zefferelli’s does seem more traditionally accurate, it is less inviting from its introduction to watch the rest of the film.
