At the beginning of the Luhrman version it is quite obvious that the film is intended for a young audience in comparison to the Zeffirelli version. The opening of the Zeffirelli version is rather slow and the chorus is non-diegetic, whereas the Luhrman opening sequence is faster paced. The music Zeffirelli uses is slower and this establishes it to be intended for an older audience, but at that time it is likely that teenagers; would have wanted to watch Zeffirelli’s version because they would have been in awe to see teenagers roughly the same age as themselves against their parents and break the laws. On the other hand the Luhrman version is more modern and certain differences make it noticeable that it is intended for a young audience. For example the setting, music, language and clothing.
In the first section of Luhrman's version, various visual and audio devices are used.
Both directors deal with the monologue of the chorus in their own different ways. Firstly Zeffirelli's chorus is narrated by a male; the voice is soft and sounds depressing. I think Zeffirelli paces the chorus in this way to explain to people who have not read the play, what happens. On the other hand Luhrman repeats the chorus several times then captions appear on the screen and he also uses images. Some lines of the prologue are displayed in newspaper headlines and put next to with clips of riot police attempting to restore order in streets. I think Luhrman emphasized the chorus in this particular way to make the audience realise that the film will end depressingly. The media’s presentation of the feud illustrates the impact of the “ancient grudge” on the city while importing the play’s introductory content in a format familiar to a modern audience. Overall I think that Baz Luhrman's chorus is more successful than Zeffirelli's because of the repetition and different ways it was exposed.
There are a wide range of camera angles used particularly Luhrman’s production, the camera was never still. It was as though the cameraman was amongst spectators and actually felt fearful. Baz Luhrmen uses various close ups which were helping build tension by showing both families feelings and facial expressions. Throughout the third brawl scene there are a number of close ups on the key characters that show the aggression. When there is a close up on Tybalt it expresses the hatred between the two families and definitely sets the scene for the clash. This can generally appeal to any audience because it has everything. The Zeffirelli film had a varied range of camera angles but mainly they are medium close ups, they used the medium close up during the tussle to show all the characters involved.
I am going to contrast the humour, fighting, religion, dialogue, music and settings between the two films. There are many other differences between these two films, but I am going to focus on only these. The two films are set in completely different surroundings. The Baz Luhrman film is set in Miami whereas the Zeffirelli version is set in Umbria and Tuscany. Because they were very authentic cities, which were a lot like the setting of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, would have been. The brawl in the Luhrman version is set in a petrol station, it seems hot the way the Montague’s boys are dressed. The city seems like a dirty place and quite poor because the newsreader reports places that have been set on fire, people homeless and many fights breaking out. On the other hand, Zeffirelli based his in a market place.
Another difference is the dialogue. My impression is that Baz Luhrman cut more of the Shakespeare language out the film than Zeffirelli. If you compare what the characters say in the film with what is said in the text of the play, you’ll find that Luhrmann has actually cut a massive amount of the Shakespearian language out. In both films the language is well spoke. What Luhrman does instead is to reply on visual imagery to tell the story, and also by the way the characters act. There isn’t nearly as much dialogue as there is in the play and you could probably understand most of what was going on without any language used at all. But Zeffirelli's is much more traditional, some characters speak upper class English. They certainly did not talk like that in Luhrman’s. I think the reason that Luhrmann kept Shakespearian language was that he was trying to bring Shakespeare to a new generation.
Both directors use irony and humour. The humorous part in Zeffirelli’s opening sequence is when Tybalt says, “Hi thee home, fragment” to Benvolio. This is funny because of the way Tybalt said it and his facial expression. He was mocking the immaturity of Benvolio. However, the Luhrman version is even more humorous and there is also dramatic irony used.
At the petrol station, when the wind blows the sign, “add more fuel to the fire,” this is very ironic seeing as there is going to be a huge fire. There is another funny moment, again situated in the petrol station, when an old lady is hitting one of the Montague boys with her handbag.
There are different types of music used in both versions. In Luhrman’s version the music is dramatic and is choral orchestral. On the other hand, the music Zeffirelli uses is soft and calm. I think the Luhrman version is more effective because of the difference in time period. These techniques influence the target audience because in Zeffirelli’s version the music is slow and calm and there is not as much action as Luhrman’s version, this tells me that it is aimed at an older audience. Luhrman’s version however is very fast paced and action packed, this tells me the intended target audience is aimed at teenagers. I think that Luhrman’s opening sequence is more effective than Zeffirelli’s because of all the techniques used.
In the Baz Luhrman version the repeated focus on the Jesus statue and other religious icons comments on how religion, like the law, is no longer an effective means of maintaining peace and harmony in modern society. Shakespeare’s disregard of religion as a force in maintaining social order may not have been as obvious as Luhrman’s treatment in the film. Baz Luhrman chooses a black woman, who is the newsreader at the beginning of the play, he also chose a black male to lay the part of Mercutio.
The time setting makes a massive difference in these two films, as does the level of violence portrayed in them. The fight in the Luhrmann version is far more crafted in terms of the slow build up and the use of the creaking sign to build tension just before the battle explodes. They involve innocent passers by in the shooting and cause massive destruction when the whole petrol station goes up in flames. The whole police chase sequence heightens excitement and makes it thoroughly modern. However in the Zeffirelli version, Franco has opted for a period piece similar to the time in which Shakespeare would have been writing. He does not adapt the dialogue, but we get it word for word from the play. The fight took place in a market, which is appropriate for the setting, and again destruction is caused, although not on the scale of the Luhrmann film. Fighting here is done with fists and swords, and there is a clear difference made between the noble characters and the servants. The Prince is on horseback rather than in a helicopter, again keeping it in the appropriate time setting.
I think that the Zeffirelli sequence is what Shakespeare intended because it is more realistic and factual to the play rather than Luhrman’s. Luhrman’s version is not what Shakespeare would have intended because of the setting and the music, violence, clothing, for example instead of swords he uses guns and instead of a market place they fight in a petrol station.
I think that the Luhrman’s opening sequence is much more action packed. The characters appearance in the Baz Luhrmann is more modern and aimed more towards our age group whereas the Franco Zeffirelli version is more historical with period costumes and more detailed. So therefore the Baz Luhrmann version is a lot easier for us to relate to and understand. When I watched the Zeffirelli version the language and costumes just did not appeal to me. The Zeffirelli version made me feel like I was in the 1800s. It did not have much violence in it. I think it would have been better if it had more action, I think that the Franco Zeffirelli version is targeted at all ages young and old, whereas the Baz Luhrman is aimed at young adults or teenagers. I think that the Zeffirelli version would have appealed to more people when it was produced because of its content.
I think that the Zeffirelli version would have appealed to more people when it was produced because of the content. When it was released in 1986, it would have been different because people would have loved it, but at the moment the students would not even be watching these types of movies. On the other hand, the Luhrman version is quite appealing these days because of all the action and the different techniques used.
I preferred the Baz Luhrman version of Romeo and Juliet as apposed to the Franco Zeffirelli version. The Baz Luhrman version is a lot more eye catching, exciting and has more of an appeal to a younger audience like people or students my age. In the Baz Luhrman opening sequence, the dialogue is a bit easier to understand because the characters' speech is a lot more modern and the settings have a lot more reference me. Franco Zeffirelli used really old English, which made it hard for me to comprehend. Baz Luhrman's version is a lot more modern and there are different techniques used. There is a bigger variety of camera angles and it is more humorous than the Zeffirelli opening sequence. Baz Luhrman's film is more enjoyable because of the vibrant settings.
