Modern America is a very religious country and hundreds of preachers use the media to get messages across. This religious imagery ties in well with the play but also with modern day America
When pulling up to the Gas station the Montague’s step out of the car in the theme of a western shoot – out. Western music is played as Tybalt steps on a cigarette wearing cowboy boots. This clarifies the facts that there is to be a shootout style fight.
When drawing the guns for action, the camera focal point is the bran name of the gun – sword! When asked to bring out their swords, the Capulets pull out their guns. This updates the context of the play and allows the audience to appreciate the bitterness between the two families.
Imagery of fire is also used linking Tybalts declaration of hell and the Princes speech; “You beasts that quench the fire of your pernicious rage!”
Other fire imagery is when the Gas station goes up in flames. The fire is linked with menace and the hatred between the two families.
A negative point of Act 1 Scene 1 is that Tybalts violence is not penalized by the prince. In modern society, his actions would be severely punished though he was not. The reason for this is that in 15th century Verona, there was no police force. The prince had some supremacy but would have been weary of arresting the nephew of such a dominant personality in Verona. This shows that the 15th century text does not always fit a modern culture and makes the events of the play illogical.
In this scene, we see Mercucio give Romeo an ecstasy tablet. Whilst doing this, he gives one of the most famed speeches of the whole play, the Queen Mab speech. This is a speech that Mercucio gives about the happenings of the fairer sex, However Luhrman cuts a vast portion out of this breathtaking and attention-grabbing speech and this for me obscures it. Also, Shakespeare poetry is about dreams and yet the audience is sidetracked by the imagery of drugs. Perhaps Lurhman put this in to contrast with modern society and to make it fit in with modern life though for me, it makes it difficult to understand.
“Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight,
For I ne’er saw true beauty til this night.”
The meeting of Romeo and Juliet uses a terrific use of water imagery. As Romeo departs the party and heads towards the bathroom, he casts off his mast into the water, symbolising he is ready to see the truth and show his true feelings. This is a key instant, as up until now he has been fixated with Rosaline.
The water shows imagery is a radiant way in literature to symbolise purity and innocence. The Meeting of Romeo and Juliet is composed by Mr Luhrman in such an elegant style, using the fish tank as another masterpiece of imagery. The tank itself is symbolic, as it is full of astonishing fish that are trapped in the same way that Romeo and Juliet are trapped in their family’s conflict.
To an uneducated viewer, Friar Lawrence’s decision to marry two young people who have only been acquainted for a limited number of hours seems irresponsible and illogical, though Mr Luhrman shows his reasons in an understandable way. Luhrman illuminates this moment by developing a montage of images, of the fire and violence between the two families. This permits the audience to see the reasons behind Friar Lawrence’s actions and shows that he agrees to marry the youths as a bond to cease the hostility between the two families. This montage of images clarify s Shakespeare text by showing Friar Lawrence’s thoughts in an obvious way, if this were not to happen then various viewers may not comprehend his reasons and find it irrational.
In Act 3 Scene 1, Luhrman cunningly uses Juxtaposition to alter from a scene showing Juliet’s contentment juxtaposed with Romeo’s difference with Tybalt. Some would argue that this technique distorts Shakespeare’s text by cutting between two separate scenes, though in his defence, Mr Luhrman claims that “this technique adds dramatic irony as the audience is able to see the events that will destroy Juliet’s happiness. “ I personally consider that this technique work well because it is swift and dramatic and it enlightens the fact that these events will devastate the contentment of Romeo and Juliet.
As Tybalt is shot by Romeo, his body falls into a fountain, here Luhrman intended for the blood to contaminate the unpolluted, unsoiled water, signalling that this is the end of happiness for Romeo and Juliet’s love and is the commencement of the misfortune that will end their lives. Again here, water imagery is used to symbolise key events in the play. Water imagery is a fine idea of Luhrmans and it adds depth and meaning behind this intriguing film. I feel its use is a key issue to the film and is used to express the emotions of Romeo and Juliet.
Act 4 heads towards Luhrmans grand finale and at this section of the film, it contains two crucial moments of action that conspire to stretch the viewer’s credulity to the edge. As Juliet takes the Friars drug, she falls into a deep sleep to pretend she is dead. In the film, there is no investigation as to why she mysteriously died. This fits in with the 13th Century Verona and with Shakespeare text but does not fit in with 21st Century life. Obviously Luhrman could not have a post mortem in his film because this would show that Juliet was not dead and would revolutionize the outcome of the play but this is just another case where the 13th Century text does not fit in with modern life.
“Hast thou no letters from the priest?”
Another moment is the lack of communication between the Friar and Romeo. When informing Romeo about Juliet’s actions, the Friar sends letters, just as he would have in Shakespeare time, though in modern society, phones and email are a much more obvious and hassle free way of communication. Again this is crucial to the play but is more evidence to suggest that Baz Luhrmans work does not always fit in with 21st Century life.
“Farewell – God know when we shall meet again.”
This begins one of the most disturbing and powerful speeches in the whole play. Juliet voices her doubts about taking the drug and fears the prospect of waking up in a tomb next to her deceased ancestors. This speech is littered with dark and disturbing imagery that demonstrates Shakespeare mastery of language, and yet it is cut from the film as Luhrman speeds towards his grand finale.
Luhrman quotes; “I know the speech is important but I was under constant pressure to cut the text and increase the tempo of the action.”
Juliet’s bravery is crucial to the play and is expressed in Act 4 Scene 3;
“Where for this many hundred years the bones
Of all my buried ancestors are packed,
Where bloody Tybalt, yet green in earth
Lies fest’ring in his shroud,”
This speech shows what Juliet will face if she takes the drug and that she is so in love and desperate to be with Romeo that she is willing to awake lied next to the bodies of her dead ancestors and the rotting body of the late Tybalt. Her bravery is immense and she even thinks that being enclosed with all these bodies will make her go mad an play with her forefathers limbs and even perhaps club her own brains out with her ancestors thigh bones!
“And madly play with my forefathers’ joints,
And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud
And in this rage, with some great kinsman’s bone,
As with a club, dash out my desp’rate brains?”
In the text of the play, it states that Romeo dies before Juliet awakes. In Luhrmans film, it shows Juliet awakening as Romeo drinks the poison. This change in the story does obscure the text though it is cleverly used to create a dramatic ending. I feel it did not obscure the text too dramatically and I believe that a play should be open to interpretation, within reason.
“I will raise her statue in pure gold”
As the play comes to a close, there is a glimmer of hope and peace as the families promise to end their conflict. Luhrman, on the other hand cuts this optimistic ending and opts for a negative ending.
“all are punished!”
I do not agree with the way Luhrman has ended this and would opt for a more positive ending to put a more positive spin on Romeo and Juliet’s love. Instead I feel Luhrman has made their love feel negative and downbeat. I think Luhrman gave the film a negative ending to dramatically improve the ending and to have a twist at the end than having the same old happy ending.
I though Baz Luhrman had succeeded in a seemingly impossible task of modernising Romeo and Juliet. I feel he did the best he could under the circumstances although on occasions it did obscure the text. I feel 75% of the film worked, while the other 25% slightly obscured the text. I feel using techniques such as repeating 13th Century text, imagery of water and imagery of fire worked well with the play and overall I feel Luhrman did a marvellous job. I exceedingly enjoyed the film.