The Montague’s and Capulet’s are extremely wealthy families, yet as I have mentioned their attitudes couldn’t be more different. The Montague’s are very much iconoclastic; this becomes apparent at the beginning of the film when they mock a passing group of nuns. On the other hand, the Capulet’s like to think of themselves as devout Catholics. One of the brothers even reveals a tattoo of Jesus on his chest shortly before a fighting scene, almost glorifying what he is fighting for.
The use of soundtracks is of ample importance in this film. The first thing that hits you is the loud, dramatic music, which accompanies the vivid scenes of panic and destruction which unfold. In contrast, a piece of upbeat rap music is played shortly afterwards to accommodate the introduction of the Montague family. I think this represents well the laid-back attitude of the family and their extrovert behaviour. In contrast, the introduction of the Capulet’s prompts ‘wild western’ type music to accompany their seemingly slick persona. Furthermore, the music is reminiscent of countless spaghetti westerns, something which is portrayed soon after in the ‘cowboy style’ encounter between the families.
Throughout the film, Luhrman includes several pastiche elements, that is ideas that are borrowed from other media. In this case Luhrman has taken ideas from other films in order to bring it up to date. At the start of the film for instance, a typical American television broadcast is shown. The only difference is, the newsreader is reciting Shakespeare’s prologue. An effective introduction, or is this simply taking the fusion between old and new too far? As the broadcast unfolds, ‘eye in the sky’ footage of scenes of destruction are presented, similar to those of countless modern action films.
Having watched Romeo and Juliet, I decided to watch another adapted Shakespeare classic, Richard III. Similarly, the film was a modernised adaptation, designed to give viewers a slice of the Hollywood action the original play can’t provide. The gist of the plot is a fictitious scenario set in the run up to World War Two, in which Britain is a fascist state. The setting is very much 1930’s, a nation ravaged by a bloody civil war, in which the king has been assassinated. But whilst many are suffering on the streets, the House of York are having an extravagant party to celebrate their victory. After many years of fighting, the throne finally seems secure. The next heir to the throne, Edward has the security of three children. Nevertheless, his power-hungry brother Richard of Gloucester has other ideas… Bentleys, champagne, lavish celebrations, whilst the rest of his family enjoy these luxuries, Richard is discontent.
So how do you dress such a cunning, malevolent villain? Richards’s cold and calculated personality is very much reflected in his crisp military uniform. As everyone else mingles around in their dinner jackets, drawn into the spirit of the party, Richard can be seen skulking around in isolation and plotting his way to power. His villainy is not just reflected in the clothes he wears; from the very start we discover his cruel ways as a tank violently smashes into his victim’s home, the victim being Prince Henry, one of King Edward’s sons. As Richard steps out of the tank a gas mask covers his face, amplifying his loud and slow breathing. I think this is in many ways reminiscent of Darth Vader and shows just how much of a ruthless killer he is. Soon after the dramatic entrance, comes the cold assassination, in the form of a single shot to the head. This then prompts the entrance of blood-red title graphics ‘Richard III’. Each letter is followed by a gunshot, once again amplifying cold-blooded violence.
Back to the celebrations, Richard has been honoured with the task of reading a post-war speech, taken from Shakespeare’s prologue. Towards the end, the scene is cut and Richard appears peeing into a urinal, the perfect place for him to disclose his plans to us. Indeed it fits right in with his sly and sneaky persona, what kind of man conspires in a public lavatory? Even as his ghastly reflection stares back at him in the mirror, we know this is a man that cannot be trusted.
Overall, are the films really that different? Okay, we know they are both Shakespearian plays that have maintained the original language, but beside that I believe they have more in common then you might expect. They are both Americanised, modernised adaptations designed to bring Shakespeare to a younger audience. Although one is set in the 1930’s and the other in a modern day setup, one can’t help but feel the plots aren’t too dissimilar; two warring families with ancient grudges, violent openings and of course tragic endings. The idea of using the original prologues in the opening is also a shared phenomenon, which helps to bind together Shakespeare’s language with the contemporary settings.
To conclude, I think these films have been well adapted to suit a perhaps younger audience who demand supplementary action and celebrity icons. Although fans of Shakespeare may despise the films, I think they have been superbly directed and open up the world of a famous playwright to an audience that would otherwise lose out.
