The main stars of Zeffireli’s film are Leonard Whiting (Romeo) and Olivia (Juliet) I think they were picked because it was not easy to find young stars in those days and because they just fitted in to the category. Olivia was 16 when she was cast the part and Leonard was 17 so they were near to the age of Romeo and Juliet in the play which was how Zeffireli wanted to create it exactly like the original play. The main stars of Lurhmann’s version are Leonardo Dicaprio (Romeo) and Claire Danes (Juliet) I think they were picked because they seemed like the perfect couple they make the movie what it is.
The opening title sequence for the Zeffireli version is in old English font, which is trying to show which era the film was set in which was the 16th century. Also at the beginning he employs a series of shot of Verona accompanied by a voiceover. In contrast the Lurhmann versions opening sequence is newspaper clips showing the prologue, which I think, is an effective way to show the story. They show the Montague and Capulet Empire and in the middle of both buildings there is a religious statue that is showing peace between both families when obviously there is not but there audience do not know that until later on in the movie.
Each film producer has made a different type of movie in a different type of genre. Genre is what type of film it is based on the camera angles and movements that help determine what the genre is. In Zeffireli’s adaptation the genre is an overall romance but it is got a bit of action in it we know this because of the fights that went on between the Montague’s and Capulet’s at the beginning of the film. Comparatively the Lurhmann version is a romance again but action and western are incorporated into it we know this again because of all the gun fights. We also see a shot of Tybalt’s boots they are like the cowboy boots in the old western movies we also see cowboy gun slinging action that signifies that the western genre is implemented.
The music used in the Zeffireli adaptation is old and traditional he used this because to bring certain characteristics from the original play to keep a sound vision of the atmosphere created. Whereas in the Lurhmann version he uses a chorus with the titles, newspaper clippings and magazine covers. Luhhrmann focus on the chorus and imbeds in into the viewer's brain that is why the viewer remembers the prologue because it creates a tense atmosphere when we see the pictures of shooting and people dying.
In the Zeffireli version there is not a lot of lightning used because we have natural light, which they have used effectively we see them use top lighting in the markets to brighten the look of it and give it a pleasant atmosphere. We know they must have used lighting effects and not natural lights because at the beginning we see the town of Verona very misty so therefore it couldn’t have been natural lighting. In comparison the Lurhmann film we see him use top lighting again to make the atmosphere nice and bright which illustrating how California is like.
In the Lurhmann film the costumes the actors who played the Montague boys wore Californian shirts I think they wore these to show the audience that they in California and I think the directors stereotyped them because if you go to California you would not see people going around wearing them shirts. It’s like saying all French people wear striped tops and artist hats and eat baguettes all day when obviously it’s not true. Romeo wears normal clothes nothing fancy I think this is because it is showing that his character doesn’t really care about all the money that his parents have he just wants to be a normal teenager and he cant. The Capulet’s wore smart clothes, which I think made them look dangerous like the Mafia they look like gang lords. The make up used is not very obvious so you can’t really tell that they are wearing any. Similarly in the Zeffireli adaptation the common people in the markets wear rags and scruffy, tatty clothes but the houses of Montague and Capulet wear jester type of clothes, which in my opinion makes them look rather stupid. The make up you cant really tell that they have got anyone on.
The props that were used in the Lurhmann film the most were the guns that were called swords which had the name of the house that they were from written on it either Montague or Capulet. They also had a cross on it, which I think is hypocritical because they are using the name of Christianity and yet they are killing people with it. Well on the other hand the Zeffireli version they mostly used swords because of the era that it was set which was the 16th century. They also used a bugle that is like a fanfare to show that the prince is coming and they rang a bell to tell the prince that a riot was happening in the markets.
A significant camera shot that they used in the Zeffireli film is when the prince came and the camera shot was a low angle shot looking up at the prince which is illustrating that he is very important. When we have a long shot of the sun rising it is indicating the beginning of a new day. Comparatively the Lurhmann version a significant shot would be when Tybalt throws the match down after lighting it goes down in slow motion and builds up the tension because we think that right then the petrol station will blow up but in the end it doesn’t
I think this movie is perfect for teenagers to watch because it’s like their usual “teen flick”. This is intended as a spoof with freeze frames and titles appearing on the screen like in the old 1970's TV action shows this appears to be used to draw a wider audience into the story and through the original dialogue that isn't easily comprehended by today's crowd. It's hard to say how kids will react to this film. Obviously designed to draw them in (by the shooting style and young stars). As far as content goes, the film is full of gang lifestyles and extreme use of guns (as both weapons and a fashion statement). Both of the lovers commit suicide (after threatening it earlier). Children would not like this sort of movie because of the romance, which they won’t be able to understand, let alone the dialogue
To conclude my essay the two films made by Zeffireli in 1968 and Lurhmann in 1997 are very different. I think both films are different a lot of this difference is due to the time one is a authentic replica of what the story was meant to be and one is an up to date film about modern times I think the Lurhmann version is more exciting and it feels like real life because it is set in modern times. Although I may have felt the same about the Zeffireli film if I had been writing this in 1968.
