As the two films are both from a different generation, the props and settings are exceedingly dissimilar too. The Zefferelli version used props of the Shakespearian time, like swords, market stalls, horses and carts. As well as this, costumes are used to great effect. They help bring the audience into the Shakespearian time, as they are exceptionally accurate. These, however, are not the only elements that make this film seem real. Furthermore, the settings used in this film are true to that time period. The main opening scenes take place in a market town – typical in the Shakespearian era. Extreme attention to detail was shown here, as the market stalls and landscape were tremendously lifelike (to that time) too. The settings, along with the props in this film, help get the audience involved in this motion picture, by showing them how the classic lifestyle was in that day. The settings and props help to familiarise the audience with that time period, making it easier for them to understand the rest of the film. The Luhrmann interpretation used props of the modern era like cars, guns, helicopters and a television (intro). Following this, clothing used made it clear that this film was set in modern times – instead of tights and the like, trousers and suits were used. To add to this, and make the film more real, the setting (scenery) was first-class – a big city, gas station and skyscrapers. The settings, clothing and props were all excellently used, so enhanced the fact that this was a modern film. This was a film the audience could identify with and relate to, due to it being set in their time period. This made it easier for the audience to understand, so they (the audience) would enjoy it more.
In the two films, there is a major difference between the actors and their characteristics (and costumes too.). In Zefferelli’s adaptation, the costumes, as I’ve mentioned before are Shakespearian. In this film, the Capulets are dressed in bright colours (Yellow and Red). This signifies to the audience that they are, in this film, the more light-hearted gang. There is quite a contrast between the Montagues’ and Capulets’ costumes; the Montagues are here dressed in dark colours, this again suggests to the audience that they are the more foreboding gang. From just seeing the two groups, the audience immediately gets an idea of who’s who, and can from then on, predict their reactions to certain events. One of the more key differences however, is between Benvolio (A Capulet) and Tybalt (A Montague). The instant the camera focuses on Tybalt, the audience can clearly see that he is evil and arrogant – he speaks slowly and clearly – which also suggests status. He obviously wants to fight – it can be seen in his body language and facial expressions, whereas Benvolio is softer spoken, with a bit more fumbling. He doesn’t make eye contact and from his look, it’s clear to the audience that he wants peace. In Luhrmann’s rendition, the costumes are extremely modern when compared with traditional Shakespearian costumes. In this film, the Montagues are the ones dressed in bright colours. They are clearly punks – pink hair and tattoos. The instant the audience sees them; they (the audience) can see that they are wild. The audience see the Capulets, in this film, as the gang that is to be ‘feared’ more. They are dressed in black, smart suits, metal studded boots and false metal teeth. Again, there is here a major contrast between Tybalt (a Capulet) and Benvolio (a Montague). Tybalt here speaks with a Latin – American accent, which immediately suggests to the audience that he’s something to do with the Mafia. He is seen as evil – both through his appearance and his attitude – he has the mind to kill. Furthermore, his facial expression is very effective. The audience can clearly see that he is full of hate towards Benvolio. Benvolio, again is a lot more scared. He isn’t as confident and outgoing as Tybalt. He speaks more softly, and from his facial expression, the audience can clearly see fear in his eyes. The actors and their accents, facial expressions, costumes and attitudes are very effective in both of these films. They allow the audience to form an idea of what each character is like and their motives.
Expectedly, the two films use very different camera shots and angles to create the desired effect on the audience. The Zefferelli version uses a slow moving long shot of the Verona landscape to begin the film. The slow build up to the main scenes allows the audience to appreciate the beauty of the setting, and tells them that this is going to be a slow, emotional story. Before the main fighting starts, the audience sees a close-up of Tybalt and Benvolio’s faces. This was designed to show the audience the emotions and the tension here. During the fight, high-angle, medium shots are used to show the audience the chaos. This was very advanced technology in those days, and in my opinion, Zefferelli here made the best of what there was. The Luhrmann adaptation is filmed in an entirely different style. It starts off with quick shots of the characters. Thereafter, fast camera movements, shots and sequences are used to show the city. This grabs the audiences’ attention, as it’s very speedy, and, perhaps, shocking. At the gas station, slow motion and close up shots are used when Tybalt steps out of the car. This gives the audience a hint that he’s someone very important. Before the major fight begins, the audience sees an extreme close-up shot of Tybalt’s face. This allows the audience to, again, see his emotions; his hatred and anger. When the fighting starts, there are many quick shots of the action and drama. This again is meant to grab the audiences’ attention – it is thrilling, explosive and dynamic. During the fight, the camera focuses twice on a sign in the gas station, which says something about fire. As the camera twice focuses in on this sign, the audience gets the idea that something, like a fire, is going to occur. Subsequent to this, the audience sees a high-angle shot from the Prince’s helicopter. This was intended to show the audience the citywide chaos that this fight has caused. In this film, Luhrmann took advantage of the advanced technology to capture the audience’s attention and create an awesome opening scene.
These films would be considerably less interesting, gripping and exciting without sound effects & music, and as far as sound effects go, the two films are like chalk and cheese. The Zefferelli version begins with soft, enticing music as the camera pans across the Verona landscape. This softens the audience, and, as I’ve previously mentioned, signifies to them that it is going to be a slow, peaceful tale. When the prologue is read, the narrator’s voice, too, is soft and would soothe the audience and make them reminisce. The music goes with the voice of the narrator to soften the audience and prepare them for a peaceful love story. When the camera goes down to the market, the sound effects are tremendous – the audience can hear people talking, horses and the hustle and bustle of a market. This really sets the scene and helps the audience to imagine they were there. There is then a sudden increase of pace before the fight – this suggests to the audience that something will be soon to happen. During the fight, all sorts of sounds are heard – shouting, screaming, swords colliding. This, again, helps the audience to imagine the commotion occurring. When the prince comes, trumpets sound, signifying to the audience that he is a very important person. This, as well, makes the film appear more realistic. The Luhrmann interpretation commences with the narrator (newsreader) reading the prologue very matter-of-factly. This tells the audience that this event is going to be big – why else would it be on the news? Following that, the prologue is repeated, but this time with loud, dramatic backing music – a mix of rock, classical, Latin and church. This builds up the audiences’ adrenaline, and excites them, as it is a thrilling build up to the first scene. The first scene shows the Montagues driving along the freeway, joking between themselves and with loud rock music on– this immediately tells the audience what kind of people they are – light hearted punks. When the Capulets turn up at the gas station and Tybalt gets out of the car, everything goes silent, and the camera goes into slow-mo until his steel-heeled boot hits the ground and stamps out his cigarette. This breaks the silence, and signifies to the audience that this character is important – why would everything go silent? This could also signify to the audience something about Tybalt’s character, as he walks slowly – arrogant? And he wears odd footwear – what are the metal heels for – kicking people? Also, as I’ve previously mentioned, Tybalt speaks with a Latin-American accent, which suggests Mafia associations, this as well, suggests to the audience Tybalt’s character – Bad. After the main fighting has taken place, Benvolio runs across the cars on the road outside. Here the audience hears lots of urban sounds – horns, sirens and cars revving, along with some of the disturbance the fight has caused – screams, guns and helicopters. This helps the audience imagine themselves there – it sets the scene and makes the film seem more real.
When it comes down to emotions, the two films are leagues apart. The Zefferelli performance starts with a market scene, where the audience sees some light-hearted humour from the Capulets. This quickly becomes serious when they meet the Montagues, and here, the audience can see a number of different emotions on the characters’ faces – anger, hatred. These are subtle changes to the characters’ faces – e.g. narrowing eyes. The slow build-up helps the audience become more involved with the characters, thus, they can identify with them (sort-of)
The Luhrmann presentation commences with some humour again – the Montagues are first shown joking amongst themselves in a car, this is the same when they reach the gas station and see the bus full of nuns. This, however, all changes when the Tybalt comes on to the scene. The audience can clearly see he is angry and full of hatred. When the camera then focuses on Benvolio, the audience, as I’ve previously mentioned, can see that he is the peacemaker here. When the fighting here, there is a lot of tension. This is broken up partly by some humour – one of the Montagues being hit with a lady’s handbag, as he takes cover in her taxi. The close-up and extreme close-up shots of the characters show the audience the passion and emotions of the characters. This, in a way, allows us to feel the characters’ emotions. Expectedly, the emotions in these two films are extremely dissimilar because they are both aimed at different audiences, and different audiences expect and enjoy different things.
To conclude this essay, I would like to say that I thought the Luhrmann version had the more effective opening. It was quick, action-packed and in your face and contained props and landscape from my generation. This was the decisive factor, as I could identify with them. It held my attention, and was more gripping than the Zefferelli version, which, in my opinion, was aimed at an older audience. It was slower, had less drama, and old, Shakespearian props were used. True, it was a beautifully realistic adaptation of Shakespeare’s tragic tragedy: Romeo and Juilet, but it just wasn’t for me. I like films that are fast and full of action, but this was, as I’ve previously mentioned, slow.
