Baz Luhrmann took liberties with the setting and costuming of the play. His characters fought with guns rather than swords. The law-making Prince was replaced with a Police Chief. Luhrmann updated the setting of the play, but he actually used a lot more of the original written dialogue than Zeffirelli did. While Zeffirelli had shortened many of the speeches, Luhrmann did not do as much cutting or shortening of characters speeches, but did switch certain dialogues between rival characters compared to the original play. Luhrmann also expressed the homosexual characteristics of Mercutio, and brought to life more of the sexuality of the play. While the setting was updated, Baz Luhrmann seemed to follow more closely the original dialogue and meaning of Romeo and Juliet.
Like Zeffirelli, Baz Luhrmann also used young actors to portray Romeo and Juliet. Young, good-looking, and increasingly popular Leonardo Di Caprio played Romeo. The advantage of casting Leonardo Di Caprio, besides the fact that he’s a very talented actor, is that he seems to be what most women would picture as the perfect Romeo. Actress Claire Danes played Juliet. Claire Danes became popular while playing "Angela" on the short-lived television series ‘My So Called Life’, it now in reruns on MTV. Leonardo and Claire were the perfect Romeo and Juliet in this brilliant production.
Every director has his own vision of how he sees the scenes of his production playing out. Zeffirelli and Luhrmann had different interpretations of certain scenes of Romeo and Juliet. One such scene was the famous balcony scene. Zeffirelli stuck to the classical interpretation, while Luhrmann did not. In Zeffirelli’s version Juliet was on the balcony outside her bedroom calling rhetorically, "Romeo, Romeo where fore art thou Romeo?" Romeo appears and climbs up the balcony, and they share a couple of small kisses before he departs. However, in Luhrmann’s version of the play, things happen differently. Juliet is walking by the pool when Romeo startles her and they both fall into the pool. Their conversation then takes place in the pool. They share a several passionate kisses between getting interrupted by a nosy security guard.
Another significant scene that was portrayed differently in the two films was the suicide scene Zeffirelli’s version is once again almost exact to what we read in the book. Romeo sees what he perceives to be a dead Juliet lying in her family’s tomb, and distraught by the sight he drinks poison. When Juliet awakens from her sleep she finds Romeo dead, and stabs herself with his knife. In Luhrmann’s version Romeo goes to the church where Juliet is laid out for her funeral. He also sees what he perceives to be a dead Juliet and drinks poison. When Juliet awakens from her sleep she discovers that Romeo has swallowed poison and is dying. The main difference lies in the fact that we are led to believe that maybe he will see her awake before he drinks poison. After Romeo has drunk the poison, but before he dies he makes eye contact with Juliet. They then share one final kiss, and Romeo dies. Juliet, not being able to live without Romeo, takes his gun and shoots herself in the head. We then see Romeo and Juliet lying together with a light sprinkling of Juliet’s blood on Romeo.
Luhrmann’s interpretation of Romeo and Juliet is much more romantic than Zeffirelli’s. He interprets the play as a story of romantic love rather than teenage lust. The wedding night scene in Luhrmann’s production was much more about the romance of the moment than the act of sex itself. For example, Juliet’s bedroom was adorned with lit candles. Even the suicide scene had a much more romantic quality to it. Romeo gently brushed Juliet’s face and her hands before drinking poison. The most romantic moment of the suicide scene is when they make eye contact, and share one final kiss before Romeo dies. This did not happen in any recorded versions of the play, but it left the audience with much more of a sense of satisfaction. With this ending we are left to bask in the afterglow of their romantic love. Baz Luhrmann’s production just seems to be more of what Shakespeare would have intended Romeo and Juliet to be.
In both films the Montague’s and Capulet’s are shown wearing distinctively coloured attire as though to represent their personalities. In Zeffirelli’s film the Capulets are wearing bright colours red and yellow and the Montague’s are wearing dark colours - for example purple. In Zefferilli’s film the Capulets seem to be the ones who want to start a fight, always edgy, emotionally volatile. Hence bright colours worn by the characters work nicely to prove this because you associate bright colours with people wanting to be seen, in the spotlight. The Montagues on the other hand act as they are keeping to themselves, not looking for trouble compared to the Capulets, hence the dark colors portray a sense of introversion, not wanting to be seen, isolationists. In the Lurmann’s film it’s the opposite - the Montague’s are shown wearing bright Hawaiian shirts whereas the Capulet are wearing dark suits, and again the idea of personalities represented by the colour of the clothes the characters wear come in. When the Nuns come out of the shop of the gas station the Capulets do nothing, whereas the Montague boys follow them to their van and show them sexual gestures. In Lurmann’s film he gave the Montague’s the Caplets dialogue, again this ties in with my point it is actually the Montague’s who wear light and bright colour clothes who start the fight by biting their thumb at the Capulets prompting the fracas. This shows that both the directors decided that whoever was wearing the bright colored attrite was going to start the fight.
Another distinct difference between the two films is the manner in which who gets involved in the opening melee. In the Zeffirelli’s film, which follows the original version, it starts off with the servants attacking each other in the market place. The conflict escalates to the next level when kinsmen join the fray (Benvelio and Tybalt). Soon after the citizens get involved, then finally it escalates even higher with the Lords of both houses entering the conflict. Finally horns sound and the Prince enters the scene on a white horse and delivers his speech to end the brawl. In Luhrmann’s film he sets the servants fighting at the gas station, escalates to it the next level when the kinsmen arrive to join the brawl. After that we see a live news scenes with shaky pictures of the fight taken from a news helicopter. In this film the Police Chief’s (the Prince’s) arrival is heralded by sirens and lines are delivered from a loudhailer from a white helicopter to cease the fight.
In Luhrmann’s film the main characters are introduced and their relationship with either Romeo or Juliet is clearly established. For example in the beginning of his film Benviolo and Tybalt are introduced. In the Zeffirelli’s film this do not happen. Personally I think Lurmann’s method was good as people who may have not read the play and do not know the original dialogue, can’t work out who is who. I personally found this problem when watching the Zeffirelli’s film because I could not identify the characters until I recalled a distinct line said by a one of them or one character address, another by name.
In the Zeffirelli’s film he did not have to emphasis religion as it went hand in hand with the setting of his film because it was set in medieval times when religion played a big role, whereas Luhrmann had to emphasis on the religion as he set his film in a modern city. He bombards the viewer with religious iconography in almost every shot, e.g. Statue of Jesus, crosses etc. This way Luhrmann gets the message across to the viewer that religion still has a major role in his film.
The prologue is another difference between the two films. In Zeffirelli’s film we see a birds eye view of Verona and a market. Whilst this scene unfolds on the screen Laurence Olivier delivers the prologue in the background. In Luhrmann’s film we have the prologue three times. We first hear the prologue being said by a T.V anchorwomen, we then hear it again as recited by a man, but then finally we see it from a montage of newspaper headlines.
The music for both films is definitely different. In Zeffirelli’s it is very old medieval themes, created with classical instruments playing in the background. In Lurmann’s film a Church choir theme is in the background while the prologue is being delivered. It then changes to a techno song while the Montague boys are speaking; changes again to a Wild West theme to introduce the Capulet boys. After Tybalt and Benvelio join the brawl the music changes back to the church choir.
The initial atmosphere of confrontation is different in the two films. Personally I did not find the Zeffereli’s film to be very nerve-wracking, or holding me in suspense as they were fighting with swords and the fight scene did not shake me up. Luhrmann’s film on the other hand kept me on the edge of my seat because protagonist were using guns; I didn’t know when someone was going to be shot. My interest was maintained in the fight as bullets were being fired and people were jumping around and slow motion was employed to show Tybalt killing a servant from the Montague house.
There are similarities and differences between the two most popular film versions of this classic play, but both hold true to the language and story Shakespeare intended. While Zeffirelli’s version held true to the way the play has been written, only to take liberties with some of the dialogues, Luhrmann set the play in modern times. With his updated version, Luhrmann was able to bring Romeo and Juliet to an entirely new and younger audience. He directed the film so that today’s teenagers could relate to it. While the language may have confused some of today’s teenagers, the majority of them understood the story. The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is a timeless, romantic story that everyone at some point can relate to. This is not a fairytale - it doesn’t have a happy ending, but it is a love story. Romeo and Juliet is a play that can be updated time and time again without ever losing its original luster, and brilliance.
I can only hope that when my children are teenagers, another inspired director will bring this love story to life again.
***************************************************************
By Eran Saputhanthiri 10KM