Luhrmann directs the opening scene in a very original and advanced way, different from Zeffirelli’s version. The setting of the two films are contrasting. Zeffirelli’s version is situated in a relaxing atmosphere of Verona in the 16th century. While Zeffirelli maintains Shakespeare’s traditional setting and costume, Luhrmann updates his dressing and setting to the 20th century. Luhrmann was determined to devise a “created world”. Luhrmann has a futuristic urban backdrop of Verona Beach USA to exaggerate the chic modern look. Luhrmann tries to modernise the original setting and immerse his spectators into another world. This is distinct in style and set in a world of aggression and religion. On the other hand, Zeffierlli’s version is medieval and pastoral set in an ancient Italian city with cobblestone streets and Roman mansions.
Sir Lawrence Olivier reads Zeffirelli’s narration. The tone of the narrator sounds calm, masculine and very traditional. It sounds like a bedtime story trying to soothe the audience. Zeffirelli focuses on familiarising his audience with the setting of the film. In stark contrast, an African American female reads Luhrmann’s narration. The TV changes channel to a news report, immediately recognised as the prologue of the play. The verbal style of the film is set as the female anchorwoman reads the prologue’s original text in the tone of a journalistic contemporary reportage in which we are accustomed to hearing the news of tragedies in modern life. From the onset, Luhrmann makes his spectators aware of his modern setting and the fact that he is making a clear-cut modern movie.
The prologue is read slowly, giving Luhrmann’s spectators enough time to chew on what is said. The way it is read and directed draws the audience slowly as the camera zooms in on the reporter, wearing red to symbolise the blood shed during the feud between the ‘two households’.
There is a contrast in her background, the Shakespearean language and her American accent. The prologue is marked as news broadcast on television, a unique way of narrating. It sets the scene of the play by illustrating the violence between the two wealthy families. I think Luhrmann choose to do this because he is trying to set up a traditional presentation as the anchorwoman reads the prologue, so that when his vision appears, it would be even more explosive and unpredictable of what will happen next.
Despite his alternative approach, Luhrmann repeats his prologue, but this time in a voice over, akin to Zeffirelli. The second prologue is narrated by a white male who sounds traditional, analogous to Zeffirelli’s narration. Luhrmann obviously feels it is crucial for the spectators to understand the prologue of the play, which is why it is doubled: spoken once by the newscaster and secondly in a voice over by the Fair. Luhrmann flashes the words of the prologue on screen. Luhrmann’s style at once unmasks the role of religious symbol. With the words he sends out a spiritual message, all the T’s are in the shape of a crosses in relation to Jesus, giving us a religious impression which suggests “death marked love” and suicide. Luhrmann shows the audience a very crowded Verona, suggesting jeopardy, excitement and turmoil. Although Luhrmann has a modern depiction of society, like Zeffirelli, Luhrmann maintains the traditional Shakespearean language. Both directors use voice over techniques.
The directors share several shots. Zeffirelli starts with a natural look in an aerial shot of Verona City as the camera pans. There is then a zoom in on the sun and the camera becomes static. We then get a long shot of the castle and then panning as the camera follows horses and carts. There are no close ups of characters, Zeffirelli’s tries to make it all about his setting. Luhrmann’s version is not like Zeffirelli’s. The opening shots are unusual, but highly effective. Luhrmann starts off with a static long shot focusing on a TV screen in the middle of the room. The camera zooms in slowly, taking the audience along. After the prologue is read, an avalanche of images flash across the screen, going too fast even for comprehension. The spectators are introduced into fast editing, zoom shots, close ups, long shots, panning and aerial shots over the city of Verona likewise to Zeffirelli. The prologue is played out in a rapid flow of shots. Luhrmann shows scenes of people lying dead, blood, fires and crashes. With these shots Luhrmann establishes the background of feud and violence.
However, Luhrmann uses repetitive zooming, something Zeffirelli doesn’t use. The camera in aerial shot focuses on two big buildings, one owned by that Montague’s and the other by the Capulet’s. The height of the skyscrapers suggests they are equal in power “Two households both alike in dignity”. In between the buildings, a statue of Christ, which suggests to the spectators that the only thing that can stop their squabble, is God. Luhrmann uses interesting graphics, detail and special effects, which has made his film more motivating to watch. In successive shots, Luhrmann shows newsprints and magazine photo versions of Jesus and Mary. Cinematography in both films is used differently. Both directors give the spectators a different impression of Verona. Luhrmann gives a prevailing mood that Verona City in ugly, harsh and cruel. The spectator is catapulted into the violent world of Verona Beach. From the Zeffirelli version, our impression of Verona is calm and peaceful.
Luhrmann creates a film that is more interesting to a modern viewer and captures the essence of Shakespeare for a present day viewer. There are endless amounts of close up shots and clips of full action scenes and movement, which captures Luhrmann’s crowd. Zeffirelli’s version is not as fast moving or a lot of different variations of camera shots due to the fact that there was only one transition, which is very slow and smooth. This made his prologue not as exciting as Luhrmann’s. Luhrmann uses frenetic editing that flashes between shots and lots of fast transitions that almost flash before the eye to interest his spectators. His extreme fast shots feature violence, death and danger.
Both interpretations use a musical accompaniment but for different reasons. Zeffirelli’s sound is very soft, slow and is a classical romance. Who could fail to be relaxed by a calm peaceful atmosphere with a flute to play a simple Elizabethan tune? Zeffirelli uses mild music, which sounds very relaxed and dreamy to contrast with the surroundings. Zeffierlli wants the audience to focus on the setting and what they can hear. The music is calm, jolly, as well as old fashioned. On the other hand, Luhrmann’s sound is velocitised. Luhrmann uses a gospel soundtrack, which becomes louder and builds up a crescendo. He also uses special effects, e.g. helicopter sound. Luhrmann’s sound is done in a particular way to interest and excite his mainstream audience.
Both directors also use other techniques in their version of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Luhrmannn uses neon lights, traffic lights and flashing lights in the city, which portray the film as modern. Alternatively, there are hardly any lighting involved in the Zeffirelli version because the prologue was filmed outside during daytime. Zeffirelli uses natural light, which makes the film look more realistic. Luhrmann also uses other techniques like graphics and newspaper headlines. The styles and techniques of both directors are very effective in that both versions draw you into the play.
Both productions catered for completely different audiences, also stressing the fact that the two films were completely unlike. Luhrmann aimed his version of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ at a more modern audience. People whom like action, love and brilliant plots. Zeffirelli’s target audience is Shakespeare’s fans; the authenticity of his prologue made it to be as much like Shakespeare’s play as possible.
Baz Luhrmann was at aches to find visual ways to expand the audience’s understanding of the language and of the world of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Luhrmann’s version had enough action to attract his young audience who might not have understood the Shakespearean language. People today wouldn’t have digested the play unless you dressed it up the way Luhrmann did. The movie was sold as a ‘youth appeal’. Luhrmann aimed to appeal to a much younger audience, who on a whole wouldn’t usually read or watch Shakespeare.
I think Luhrmann’s use of shot were highly effective. The huge range of camera shots used in his version astounded me. In Luhrmann’s production, the camera was hardly ever still, except in the narration by the anchorwomen. He used a wide range of shots in the short introduction of the play. It was also effective the way Luhrmann updated the play. Luhrmann’s vibrant setting made his film even more enjoyable to watch. The location of his setting brought his prologue to life. Luhrmann’s frenetic editing was extremely effective because the spectators had to watch really carefully and move fast with the transitions to understand the plot of the play.
Overall, I found Luhrmann’s prologue more interesting. I was thrilled by Luhrman’s version in which I was on the edge of my seat. I was almost overwhelmed by his fantastic prologue, which I found to be a brilliantly innovative work of sheer cinematic artistry. Luhrmann’s prologue demands a lot from the audience at the opening scene. Baz Luhrmann’s prologue is a highly successful appropriation of his modern style. I personally preferred Luhrmann’s version because was modern and I personally could relate to it in my life and I like an action filled production. Although Zeffirelli’s version is very well made and was original, it wouldn’t plea to everyone because of its authentic setting. However, Luhrmann has changed enough in his version that I wouldn’t blame anyone for seeing his version as a work separate from Shakespeare, yet closely related to it. Although I favour Luhrmann’s version, I like Zeffirelli’s beautiful interpretation of Shakespeare’s enduring classic.
Shakespeare’s language and plot is brought to life more in the prologue by Baz Luhrmann, who combines slick camera work, a modern soundtrack and spontaneous setting to give his version a modern touch.
