The city called Mantua where Romeo is banished to, in my opinion set a certain tone to make the audience visually tell that who ever has done something wrong is sent there. The dusty, arid, dirty landscape is meant to tell us that Mantua is nearly an uninhabited deserted place.
Baz Luhrman also uses American accents so you as the audience can get an idea of where the play is set. He also uses popular modern music to attract the audience, especially teenagers or anyone who likes music.
The Franco Zefirelli version of the play is much different. He uses more authentic costumes, props and surroundings to Shakespeare's play. He uses big castle buildings. The accents of the characters are more traditional and English. The soundtrack that features in the film is boring. Zefirelli uses the music at his best when he changes the music to fit the mood in the scene e.g. Sad, happy or angry. The setting in the play doesn't look interesting because it is very dull and plain where as in the Baz Luhrman version they have tall building all sparking clean and much more interesting than the 1968 film. When Zefirelli made his film he maybe had fewer resources than Baz Luhrman.
Because the films are set in different times, the Zefirelli version uses swords when there fighting, the modern Baz Luhrman version uses guns. He has this to show the different times he has set his play in. In a way guns do create a bigger build of tension when the enemies are shooting at each at each other. A sword however enables the two characters to talk to each other while they fight, for example; When Mercutio and Tybalt were sword fighting, they begin by joking and making fun out of each other while fighting.
We see the conflict between the two families but don't see the conflict inside the family. The scene where I am focusing on is act 3 scenes 5 just after Romeo leaves Juliet alone with lady Capulet. The conflict starts with L Capulet telling Juliet that she will marry Paris on Thursday but she's already married to Romeo so she refuses to marry. So when L Capulet calls Capulet about what Juliet said, he got really angry and threw her across the room, he then said.
"Hang thee, young baggage, disobedient wretch."
That shows that the conflict can also be within a family as well.
The character Tybalt is portrayed in two different ways in each film. In the Zefirelli version of the film Tybalt is a relaxed person is often seen laughing a lot and joking about with Mercutio. But in the Baz Luhrman version Tybalt is much more violent and seems to get angrier quicker with a short temper. Baz Luhrman has done this to contrast the character Tybalt with Mercutio. I think this because if I am right it will create a better enjoyment for the audience to see how the characters mix and react with each other. Franco Zefirelli hasn't done the same. He has instead made Tybalt more relaxed to make it look like that Mercutio is playing with him and his playing along as well. You can tell that Tybalt is more aggressive in the Luhrman version because the facial expression on his face is different in from both films. He also seems to shout more.
In conclusion, the fact that both the films were made in different times will tell you that they will be done in different styles. Zefirelli has tried to keep the play as tradiontional as possible, where as Luhrman has altered the play to make it set in modern times with modern surroundings and props. I think that I like the Baz Luhrman better then the Franco Zefirelli version because I am used to seeing the flashy cars and tall buildings. Another way Baz Luhrmans version of Romeo and Juliet is better is that he has used actors and actresses that are already famous and recognised so people will go to see that film any way. The Franco Zefirelli version uses actors that are totally unknown and had never made a film after that one. The acting in the Luhrman version was a lot better then the other film. Both films missed scenes out; this was because the directors probably wanted to make the film their own. Overall then I prefer the Baz Luhrman version of the play because it is set in modern times and because the acting was a lot better. I also think that the difference in time that the films were made in, affected the way the two films were made.
