"Well, Susan is with God, she was too good for me"
She is repetitive, constantly repeating silly things and veering of on a tangent as she gets drawn away from the first point of the conversation.
In (Act 1 scene 5) the Nurse interrupts the first kiss of Romeo and Juliet.
"Madam, your mother craves a word
With you"
The Nurse is clear about what is going on. She does what she thinks is best, and tries to protect Romeo by telling him who and what she is. This shows a soft touch. The Nurse may like him. However, she knows that it can only cause trouble
"Her mother is the lady of the house"
The Nurse, however, talks to Romeo and answers his questions in a very down to earth way as she explains that Juliet is the daughter of the host and that the man who will marry her has to be rich.
"Can lay hold on her shall have chinks"
The Nurse obviously wants the best for Juliet and she believes that he should have a lot of money. The Phrase "chinks" comes from the noise of which a lot of money in a mans pocket would make.
The Nurse is a source of information for Juliet, a sort of secret spy. She tells Juliet of Romeo in order to protect her now. She sees that the two like one-another but does it for their own benefit.
"His name is Romeo, and a Montague"
Juliet is comfortable and at ease when speaking to the Nurse. This allows Juliet to take her into her confidence when she decides to defy her family feud and marry Romeo.
In (Act 2 scene 2) the Nurse interrupts Romeo and Juliet again.
"Madam"
This is the scene where the couple renew promises to each other with the sudden proposal of marriage.
"Thy propose marriage, send me word
Tomorrow"
The proposal comes from Juliet, quite unexpected. The couple has only known each other for a short space of time. However the Nurse does not object and does what Juliet wishes.
In (Act 2 scene 4) the Nurse appears when Romeo is with his friends. For this Juliet has used the nurse as a messenger.
"Gentlemen, can any of you tell me where I may
Find the young Romeo?"
Although she spoke to him recently, it was brief and she cannot remember what he looked like. It is the same with Romeo. Romeo acts differently with his friends and when the Nurse enters he jokes with her, mocking her dress and movements.
"A sail, A sail"
The nurse is quite a large lady, she is written to wear a flowing dress. Romeo pretends that she is a ship and that her headscarf is a sail.
The Nurse holds Juliet's happiness so high that she betrays her employer and arranges Juliet's marriage and last night with Romeo. The bond between them is so strong that the Nurse would do anything to keep Juliet content. The Nurse is quite a comedian herself, joking with Peter.
"I am none of his flirt-gills"
The Nurse acts as an accomplice alongside Friar Lawrence in bringing the two lovers together. The Nurse is immersed in Juliet's affairs and strives to help her with her plans.
In (Act scene 5) we see more of the nurse's comedy. This is when she returns to Juliet with the news of the marriage. She is in a mischievous mood and she enjoys keeping Juliet in suspense.
"Jesu, what haste, can you not stay a while"
She leaves her waiting. She does however, show that she is impressed by Romeo and encourages Juliet's expectations.
"Your love says, like an honest gentleman,
And a courteous and a kind and a handsome…."
She sees that this is getting Juliet excited and does not want this. She wants to keep her lingering for a bit longer. To do this she changes the subject.
"Where is your mother?"
In the end the Nurse gives in and gives news to Juliet about the marriage. She seems to have enjoyed winding Juliet up, but knows when to stop. As she gives the news, she plagues Juliet with the trial that she must undergo to serve the child that she loves. Here she seems to teach Juliet a lesson, not to be so selfish and to care for others.
"Marry, come up, I trow is this the
Poultice for my aching bones"
When Juliet goes to marry, the Nurse does not follow she goes for dinner.
"Go - I'll to dinner: hie you to the cell"
In (Act 3 scene 2) the Nurse shatters Juliet's dreams of the night when Romeo will
"Leap to these arms"
The Nurse is the one who tells Juliet of the death of Tybalt and the Banishment of Romeo. She shows more sadness for the death of Tybalt than the banishment of Romeo. This is natural because Tybalt is part of the family that have come to adopt her.
"Tybalt is gone and Romeo is banished"
Juliet sends the Nurse to friar Lawrence’s cell to speak to Romeo. Although the case of more affection for Tybalt may be, the Nurse still obeys Juliet and goes to seek Romeo.
"O, find him! Give him this ring to my true night"
In (Act 3 scene 3) the Nurse has arrived at the cell to tell Romeo of Juliet's grief. Romeo shows his cowardly side by attempting to kill himself. The Nurse sees this in him. She stops him, for the sake of Juliet.
"Even so she lies she blubbering and weeping"
The Friar takes charge and the Nurse admires his plans. She passes the ring onto Romeo. Here she does as wished by Juliet even if we later find out that she wants Juliet to forget about Romeo. The Nurse was correct from what she said to each of them. She warns them, when they first meet, that their names can only bring trouble.
"O lord, I could have stayed here all he night
To hear good counsel"
She hastens Romeo to see Juliet. She has realised that, that is what would make Juliet happy and that is what she only wants. The nights that the Nurse says will not happen do. It is thanks to the Nurse, in the end, that the couple get to spend the night together.
In (Act 2 scene 5) the Nurse goes to Juliet's room. She warns the pair of Lady Capulet coming. This shows that the Nurse cares for Juliet and Romeo. If she perhaps didn't then we would see the Lady Capulet finding them together in the room.
"Your lady mother is coming to your chamber"
Juliet's mother enters the room. When the father enters towards the end of the scene, an argument brakes out. Juliet's father swears at the Nurse. He also curses Juliet.
"Disobedient wretch"
The two of them are shocked by this outrage, but the Nurse stands up for herself, whereas Juliet whimpers in the corner, hiding behind the Nurse. Juliet wants comfort from the Nurse. The Nurse, however, has no comfort to offer Juliet. She thinks of the grief and shock at the events of the previous day. She thinks only the most practical way of getting out of all their difficulties. When the Nurse advises Juliet to forget about Romeo and Marry, Paris she motivates Juliet to seek help from elsewhere.
The Nurse suggests that Juliet should forget about Romeo and marry Paris.
She loses Juliet's confidence and trust so Juliet decides to seek the help of Friar Laurence; thereafter she no longer involves the Nurse in her secret Plans to marry Romeo. That is the last scene in which we see the Nurse. Throughout the play, she appears, however when she loses Juliet's trust, she is lost from the play.
The Nurse plays a critical role in Romeo and Juliet. Her relationship with major characters and her part in the secretive romance of the two lovers causes the play's actions to move quicker and in a more powerful way. The Nurse acts as Shakespeare's pawn to guide the events of the play in a dramatic manner. As you can tell from the text the nurse and Juliet have a very close bond which is good in some respect because the nurse is Juliet’s servant so that shows a lot of trust towards the nurse.
From friendship to death, just who is responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet? What and who are to blame? Well let me tell you what I think is responsible and what I think and whom I suspect.
The deaths of Romeo and Juliet appear needless, as it was mainly the people around them who were fighting and disagreeing about the relationship.
Before judging to what extent Fate was responsible for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, we must first answer the question: what is fate? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, fate is the 'inevitable destiny or necessity destined term of life; doom.' On a more basic level, fate can be described as a pre planned sequence of events influencing one's life. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, is it true to say that Fate was the sole contributor to the deaths of the young couple, or was their death brought about by the mistakes of others?
In the modern world, most people choose to believe that they have a sense of responsibility and can control their own lives. They suppose that their problems are caused by the actions of themselves or those influencing them. From one viewpoint, it is true to say that the deaths of Romeo and Juliet were caused by the mistakes made by themselves and others: the influence of fate was almost non-existent. Four characters in the play greatly lead the tragic path of the young couple: (apart from Romeo and Juliet themselves) Mercutio, the Nurse, Tybalt and the Friar.
Mercutio, one of Romeo's friends and a supporter of the Montague household, changed the course of events by encouraging Romeo to go the Capulet's ball and fight with Tybalt in town. If Mercutio had not encouraged Romeo to go to the Capulet's dance, the couple would never have met and their deaths would have been avoided. But was Romeo going to meet Juliet, regardless of the actions of others?
If Mercutio had not insulted Tybalt in town whilst out with Romeo and Benvolio, Romeo would never have got into his fight with Tybalt and therefore would not have been banished. Perhaps, however, the fight started by Mercutio that unlucky day was certain: could it be that Romeo was somehow near to be banished?
The Nurse, Juliet's committed servant who treated her almost like a daughter, changed the course of events by going behind Lord and Lady Capulet's backs. If the Nurse had not performed Juliet's bidding and acted as her messenger, it is possible that Juliet would have given up on the idea of her marriage to Romeo and the couple's deaths would have been prevented. However, there is a strong possibility that regardless of the Nurse's influence, the couple would still have gone ahead with their condemned marriage once they had fallen in love.
The Friar, Romeo's friend and assistant of Juliet in her final plan, changed the course of events by helping the young couple in their plans to marry and assisting Juliet in her scheme to be with Romeo once again. If the Friar had not agreed to marry Romeo and Juliet, it is possible that the couple would have given up on the idea of being together. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet may have been favourable to marry and would have partaken in the ceremony one way or another no matter what the Friar's decision.
If the Friar had not suggested his dramatic plan to the desperate Juliet, she may never have seen Romeo again and the couple would have stayed alive, despite in depression! Perhaps, however, that if Juliet had not had the chance to see Romeo again she would have committed suicide anyway. The couple may have been marked regardless of the Friar's decision to involve Juliet in his elaborate plot.
Tybalt, the cousin of Juliet and hotheaded enemy of the Montague household, changed the course of events by agreeing to fight Romeo in town. If Tybalt had not deliberately started to make fun of Mercutio, the two would not have got into their duel and Romeo may have been safe from the threat of banishment.
Romeo, the youngest son of Lord and Lady Montague and Juliet's husband, was in fact a major influence on the events leading up to the deaths of him and his young wife. Romeo acts too hastily throughout the play: he shouldn't have asked Juliet to marry him so suddenly, and he should have thought more carefully before rushing back to Verona after hearing of Juliet's death. Romeo also acted violently and without thinking when he killed Tybalt and, later, Paris. Perhaps if he had thought about what he was doing a little more before acting, the deaths of him and his fair Juliet would have been averted.
Juliet, the beloved daughter of Lord and Lady Capulet and Romeo's lover, was also a major influence on the events leading up to the deaths of her and her husband. Juliet shouldn't have deceived and disobeyed her parents, and, like Romeo, she was too hasty in rushing into marriage. She was already engaged to marry Paris at the time of the ball, and until then, had been very happy with her parent’s choice. If Juliet had not been so unstable as to fall in love with Romeo on the night of the ball, they both may still have kept their lives.
Nowadays, most people do not have much time for the theory of fate. They like to believe that they are in control of their own destiny, and that any difficulties arising from their actions can be sorted out. But what if all our actions are already planned out and no matter what we do the ultimate consequence will be the same? Some people argue that Shakespeare wanted us to believe this was the case in Romeo and Juliet, and several quotations from the play can support this view.
The first example of a reference to fate is in the prologue, at the very start of the play.
'From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life;
Whole misadventure piteous overthrows
do with their death bury their parents' strife.'
This quotation implies that even from the very beginning, the young couple was doomed. 'Star-crossed' refers to the astrological outlook on destiny that was much more widely accepted when Shakespeare wrote his tragedy. By including this line so early in the book, Shakespeare creates a sense of anticipation in the audience. From the start they know what the eventual outcome will be, but the questions of 'how?' and 'why?' are only answered as the play progresses.
Another example of one of the characters from the play referring to fate is when Mercutio attempts to make Romeo go to the Capulet dance. Romeo eventually agrees, but he still feels uneasy:
'I fear, too early: for my mind missives
some consequence yet hanging in the stars
shall bitterly begin his fearful date'
This second reference shows that Romeo never felt happy with the idea of going to the Capulet party in the first place. If he had trusted his instincts and refused to go, the deaths of the two lovers may have been averted. By including these foreboding lines, Shakespeare suggests to the audience that the ultimate destiny of Romeo and Juliet was, in fact, fated.
After the Capulet dance, Juliet refers to fate once realising that Romeo is a Montague:
'My only love sprung from my only hate!
Too early seen unknown and known too late!
Prodigious birth of love it is to me,
That I must love a loathed enemy.'
Juliet suggests that the meeting of the two young lovers was perhaps too extraordinary to be solely based on coincidence. She acknowledges the curious situation of her 'only love' sprung from her 'only hate'. By including these lines, Shakespeare increases the tension in the audience by giving a clue as to how the lovers will meet their death.
When Juliet talks to the Nurse after finding out about Romeo's banishment, she again cries out an exclamation based on fate.
'Alack, alack, that heaven should practise stratagems
upon so soft a subject as myself!'
This remark demonstrates Juliet's grief upon hearing of her lover's banishment. She remarks upon 'heaven's stratagems', or in other words, fate. By including these lines, Shakespeare attempts to make the audience pity the doomed couple, especially the innocent, young Juliet, but at the same time realise that their unhappy destiny cannot be changed.
Friar Lawrence refers to fate when he is told that Romeo did not receive his especially important letter.
Now its time to explain how Shakespeare wrote (Act5 scene 3) in this section of my course work I’m going to include the following things; the setting, characters involved, actions of the characters, reasons why Shakespeare included these things-what would the audience have expected? The place where this scene was set was in a Churchyard, outside the tomb of Capulets. The reason why this scene was set in the churchyard was because it was after the death of Juliet. The scene is about Paris going to the tomb to see Juliet’s body and whilst Paris is Visiting the tomb Romeo goes along to see the body of Juliet. He doesn’t just want to visit the tomb he wants to open it and whilst his trying to open the tomb Paris challenges Romeo. They start a fight and the fight leads to the death of Paris. After Romeo killed Paris he killed himself so he could be with Juliet as he thought there was life after death and if they loved each other when they were alive they would be together after death. What Romeo doesn’t no is that Juliet’s just asleep and that she isn’t dead. So when she awakes and finds Romeo dead she stabs herself because she cannot live with out him. After the deaths of Romeo and Juliet the Prince and Capulets go to the tomb to see the bodies then they leave and it’s the turn of the Montagues to see the bodies also there with the Montagues is Friar Lawrence. Then the Prince finds Romeo’s letter and calls Capulets and Montague to look on their deadly results of their quarrels. The Capulets and Montague make up their quarrel. They promise to set up a golden statue of Romeo and Juliet and then the prince closes the play. The Characters involved are as follows; Paris, Page, Romeo, Balthasar, Friar Lawrence, Juliet, Captain of the watch, Second watch, Prince, Capulet, Lady Capulet, Montague. The actions of the characters in this scene are all very different but at the same time they’re all related because they’re all unhappy. The way Paris acts in this scene is how any one would act if they lost a loved one. He is grieving because he has lost his Fiancé who he loved dearly. Romeo on the hand is showing his affections in another way by opening Juliet’s tomb so that he could lie on her body after committing suicide. The other characters in this scene act in a similar way to Paris. Shakespeare included the tomb and churchyard because he thought that it would give the audience a better understanding of what the scene was about and it would help them to remember the scene because it was of vital importance to the play. I’m certain the audience would have expected the scene to be held in a churchyard or grave yard because it was the scene were Romeo committed suicide.
Well that’s the scene how Shakespeare wrote it lets now move on to the thareters and how theve changed since Shakespeare’s day I’ve compared them and I have film adaptation of the modern version. And after all that’s done its time for the conclusion and that will be the end off my course work.
Let me tell you a little about the theatres in Shakespeare’s day and they theatres we have today. Think about how you’d direct the play. Let me tell you a little about Shakespearean theatre was totally different to the theatres we have today, let me tell you a few of the major changes there are in theatres today.
To start with Shakespeare’s theatre was made from wood and were rounded and had no roof. The theatres today have roofs and are made from brick. Another difference is the actors were all male and no females were allowed to act because acting in those days were thought of as being lazy and like child’s play.
In today’s theatres women are allowed to act they even sometimes play parts of men. Men in Shakespeare’s day had to play parts of females in every thing because women were not allowed to entertain. Men even had to act out love scenes but there would me no actual contact between them and sex scenes were performed off stage.
Today love scenes are all done on stage as there would be a man and a women performing. Secondly in Shakespeare's day when it was day or night in a scene he had to make that clear because all the plays were performed during the day, which made it had for the audiences to tell. So Shakespeare showed this by written it into his scripts. In (Act 1 scene 5) he clearly shows it night by saying he does not see me”. This told the audiences that it was night. Also another thing Shakespeare had was live music because in those days there were no gadgets to allow music to be recorded. In theatres today there are lights to help with special affects. Also today there is pre-recorded music.
Thirdly there were no special effects in Shakespeare’s day so Shakespeare had to make do with the sunlight and use it to his advantage. Also there was little change in costume partly and manly because there were not a lot of actors around in Shakespeare’s day. Also Shakespeare would point out things in his plays like in (A1 sene5) when the servants are talking they are pointing out the atmosphere is very busy.
This is what servant 1 says where’s the potpan, that he helps not to take away? He shift a trencher? He scape a trencher? That shows the atmosphere is building up. It shows that the atmosphere is building up and what type of atmosphere it is I get the impression that it is a busy atmosphere. Today there are lots of costume changes and its easier to show a busy atmosphere because theirs a lot more actors around to day because it’s a well respected job. It’s now time for comparing the two videos this is a very detailed so if you never knew something about one film but you knew it in regard to the other here’s your chance to educate yourself.
I have watched two versions of 'Romeo and Juliet'. One was made in 1968 by a man called Franco Zeffirelli and was set in Verona, in the Middle Ages. A man named Baz Luhrmann made the other movie in 1996. This version was set in America and is very modern. The stars in the Zeffirelli version were Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting. The Luhrmann version starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.
One of the main differences between the two versions of 'Romeo and Juliet', was the opening. The Zeffirelli movie had quite a slow opening, in contrast to fast and furious opening of Luhrmann's version. Both films used Shakespeare's play properly, but their outcomes were very, very different. Zeffirelli's version of the opening was set in a market square, whereas Luhrmann's opening was in a petrol station. When the Montagues and Capulets have a confrontation in Zeffirelli's film, the argument is quite polite, in a mocking way. But in Luhrmann's version, everyone is frantic, especially the 'Montague Boys, but they still manage to put a shouted 'Sir!' at the end of each sentence. Also, before the 'Montague Boys' were shown at a petrol station, a newsreader is saying the prologue of 'Romeo and Juliet'. The news’ reader then fades out and the viewer is shown authority, belonging to the Capulets and Montagues. This is meant to show you that the reason for the Montagues and Capulets opposition is down to the business dominion, belonging to the two families. In Zeffirelli's film, there was no reason for the bitter, antique feud.
Both films used suitable techniques and props for the film. By that, I mean the Zeffirelli version couldn't have a newsreader and in Luhrmann's film the people had to wear normal clothes, for this time and age. In Zeffirelli's film, the actors and actresses wore wonderful, extravagant costumes. These were perfect for the Middle Ages, and looked very impressive. Just by looking at the clothes, the viewer would understand the importance of the two families. In Luhrmann's film everybody was wearing normal, everyday clothes, so there was no way that, you could tell the people were from important families. Also, in the two versions, the weapons used were different. Luhrmann's film used guns and Zeffirelli's film used swords. Another technique that Luhrmann used, was the old language. The whole film was very, very modern, but Luhrmann decided to keep Shakespeare's old English in his motion picture. I found this really pleasant, but it was also really confusing. I had just finished studying the book, so this helped me to understand the film.
The two films are set in different locations, and this small factor changes the outcome of the two movies completely. If you watched the two movies, one after the other, you would be thinking, "This was based on the same play?” and amazingly the answer would be "YES!" Actually, you can tell the films are based on the same play, as they both have the same plot, but look ENTIRELY different. It's amazing!
In both films, I favoured particular actors and actresses. In Zeffirelli's film, I preferred the Prince and the Nurse. In Luhrmann's film, I liked Mercutio, Benvolio and Romeo. All these actors and actresses, named above, were exceptionally good. Well, at least I thought that they portrayed their characters well! Leonardo (Romeo) didn't impress me much, but I thought he did quite well. But he was one of the better actors. I thought both Benvolios were good, but I preferred the Benvolio in Luhrmann's film. He was just very strange to how I imagined Benvolio. Now, I didn't like the Nurse in Luhrmann's version, at all! She just seemed very boring, cold and not like a lifelong friend to Juliet. The only thing was I thought that she couldn't do was cry because she sounded bogus. Which was a shame because she did the rest of Juliet really well.
In both films, scenes were missed out. In Zeffirelli's movie, the scenes missed out are as follows when Lord Capulet and Lord Montague, make up and become friends again; the Apothecary, which was when Romeo was buying the poison and the other scene missed out was when Paris was killed by Romeo in the monument. Scenes missed out in Luhrmann's film were as follows: the Lord Montague, and Lord Capulet scene and Paris's murder was also missed.
To conclude this essay, I am going to tell you what I liked in both motion pictures. Firstly, in Zeffirelli's film, I was fond of the costumes.
I also liked the way certain characters were portrayed In Luhrmann's movie I liked the way Leonardo was acting in the scene where Romeo and Juliet have just spent there wedding night together. He was rushing about, grabbing his clothes and looked so frantic, it added humour to the heavy scene! Another thing that I really liked in this film was the ending. I favoured the way Juliet woke up just as Romeo took the poison, because it filled everyone with dread and it was very misfortunate. Then when Juliet shot herself in the head, it was really dramatic, as you heard the sound of the shot.
To summarise the two films, all I can say is that I liked them both, because they are so different. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the Luhrmann version, starring Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio, just because it appeals more to me. And ill benefit more from that version of the film. Now I’m going to explain in detail the modern version of Romeo and Juliet.
The problem that faced Baz Luhrmann when he was directing the new version of Romeo and Juliet was that he didn’t know whether there would be an audience for Shakespearean stories in a modern culture. So Luhrmann didn’t make this film with the old-fashioned, Shakespeare "purist" in mind. Instead, by using lively, modern images (swimming pool etc.) with a modern soundtrack and young good-looking popular actors, he has taken Romeo and Juliet to an audience that would normally think of Shakespeare as a chore to be studied in school.
However to make it successful with the target teenagers he would have to change a few things- It has to have vibrant on-screen action, soppy love scenes and references to sex. By incorporating these three things into the film he can kill two birds with one stone. He will have an action film that is exiting and fun to watch, and a more romantic "chick-flick". For this reason things would have to be edited.
Another reason for editing the text would be to keep the length of the film down to a more suitable length for a movie, so some text and descriptive poetry had to be removed. However this doesn’t necessarily remove any of our understanding as speech can be replaced with images which, though a different way of communicating can add to our understanding even. The old Shakespearean language can be hard to understand, but images are more universal and can be understood by pretty much anyone. An example of images being used to put across a message is the use of the Madonna figure throughout the play. It shows that Juliet is always looked after. Romeo is looked after the Friar could see Juliet’s religious guiding figure seen as the Virgin Mary? The Madonna figure is shown at many stages throughout the film. Four of these are:
The swimming pool scene
when Romeo and Juliet get married
when Tybalt kills Mercutio
when Romeo kills Tybalt
Another Image used that is communicated differently in the text is the loyalty of the family members to their families. Luhrmann manages to show this without saying it in speech by using the family crest on the butt of their guns for example. Less direct, but effective.
However, perhaps one of the most obvious uses of imagery is water. It appears at many key scenes throughout the film and shows purity and clarity of thought, often adding one of these to the situation. Romeo washes his face in water at the party, which clears his mind of drugs and he sees Juliet in a clearer light. Romeo and Juliet’s first vision of each other are through a fish tank full of water. Water could also be seen as an object to show fate working. When both Mercutio and Tybalt die there is water very much present (seaside/fountain respectively). The swimming pool, obviously full of water, is used in a key part of Romeo and Juliet, a point where it could be make or break for their relationship.
Despite the changes to the text to show imagery and meanings in visual ways, there are some scenes that are changed with no reason other than to be different. The balcony scene for example, has been changed completely. Romeo no longer climbs up to Juliet, but he climbs up to find the nurse, adding comedy and smashing the cliché. Juliet then comes down in the lift, to the same level as Romeo, by the swimming pool. Even so, she still can’t see him, and even walks right past him while busy talking to the stars. This change doesn’t effect our understanding at all, but is more exiting visually than the traditional scene. Also, by incorporating the swimming pool into the scene Baz Luhrmann has managed to add more freedom of movement to the characters and the added tension of the security guard coming out to look, the whole time Romeo has to hold his breath underwater as not to be seen. Juliet then returns to her calling nurse in her room by the stairs so she is permanently in the view of the camera, not splitting up the action/speech by entering a lift. It also avoids repetition.
The Prologue was used in the play as a way for people to know what was going to happen if they should miss sections and so they could get the general gist of it. In the modern film adaptation the Prologue plays a huge part at the beginning of the film. It is played 3 times over. By the news reporter on the television and again on signs around Verona City. And again as text flashing on the screen. In the film the prologue is used to wet peoples appetite and get them interested and exited- loud powerful music and action during the prologue do this effectively.
The director has also done the clever thing of making each scene contrast from the previous and the next. This juxtaposition not only makes the film more exiting to watch but can highlight differences in peoples feelings and actions, and how it can effect others. A point where this can be seen is after Romeo and Juliet have been married, a scene of much joy and hope is contrasted sharply with the following more violent scene. In this scene Mercutio is killed by Tybalt, this is a scene where there is a raging sea and no sign of hope, and it is apparent that their marriage isn’t going to work out at all.
Baz Luhrmann also makes many references to the person who wrote the play- Shakespeare. The pool Hall where Romeo and his friends hang out is called the "Globe Theatre", all the guns used are called "Swords", and it is almost like he is trying to pay a tribute to the writer.
In conclusion, I think that the original text had to be edited in some way for to have worked as a film, especially as it was aimed at teenagers. Despite the heavy editing at some points during the play, and some scenes edited out to make the film, I don’t feel that I have had any major understanding detracted, or indeed added. However, if I hadn’t read the original text before I watched the film then I agree that I may have taken what I saw as being how William Shakespeare originally wrote the play. Especially since there is no hint of information at any point in the film that it is from an edited text. It even says on the front cover of the video and on posters etc. for the Luhrmann adaptation that it is "William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet". This was probably done so that no one would think that Baz Luhrmann is trying to take credit for the play itself. To finish my course work I will be writing a conclusion. If you’re into history you’ll like Zeffirelli's film of Romeo and Juliet because it uses costumes that Shakespeare would have used and it uses scenes set in market squares which were old. I would suggest that if your young and aren’t into history you should watch the modern version of Romeo and Juliet because It would appeal to you more than the older version. Also if you need to watch Romeo and Juliet for education
.