Soon it adapts into a fury of, ‘war’, ‘deceit’ and, ‘death’.
Luhrmans version perhaps tries to capture the reality of things in a way that Zefferelli failed, or merely chose not to do.
The key characters in both films are also incredibly different. Zefferelli’s characters attempt to reflect a likely original Shakespeare version. They dress in Elizabethan costume, they speak using Shakespearean English and most of the time they follow the plot of the play closely. Whereas the characters in Luhrman’s version are very different in many ways. For instance their all Americans putting on an ‘old English’ accent, or rather speaking the words but failing to use the accent. As the film is a modern interpretation, all the sets and costumes are modern, and instead of certain props such as, ‘swords’, they use, ‘guns’.
When compared the characters of Romeo and Juliet in each play really have no similarities what so ever. Zefferelli’s ‘Romeo’ is altogether more sweet and perhaps in some respects, ‘innocent’. The scenes where he is fighting with the Capulets are a lot more relaxed and less serious than the modern version. But then again his relationship with Juliet, although more accurate, is what you could call too, ‘sissy’. He’s the fairytale prince prepared to do anything for his lover, I mean it seems a bit over the top and exaggerated. This was probably not thought of in this way at the time, as it was produced in 1967 and so was therefore influenced by the 1950s mood and Hollywood films giving off the overall idea of love and the dominating, romantic role played by the men. It was probably also influenced by the reaction to change and the deprivation of war. Of course film making has improved so much since then, and so we’re used to fast paced movies, which makes it quite hard for people of our age to take it seriously.
Unlike the Zefferelli version, the Luhrman version, although a lot less accurate is something that a lot more people, including myself can relate to. Not just because the actors and actresses playing the parts are well known and favored by many people, but because it is portrayed in a more realistic manner for the late 20thC. But then again this is probably due to the fact that all the scenes and clothing are very similar to the way people live and dress now.
The part of Tybolt in both films is played in very different ways. Zefferelli’s Tybolt is the so called,’baddy’, but not in an evil way, in a kind of, ‘wannabe tough’ sort of way. Take for example, scene 3, act 1,(Mercutio’s death) the fight between Mercutio and Tybolt is at first just simply two young men having a laugh. Although they are hand to hand fighting with swords, neither of them has any intention of actually injuring, or for that matter killing one another. There is no real vindictiveness amongst it all. When Tybolt punctures Mercutio’s chest, he is neither proud nor happy. He is mortified!
