Baz Luhrmann made one change to the characters in his film. He took Abraham from the Montague’s and put him on the Capulet’s side. He also changed his name to Abra. This may have been because Abraham was quite a vicious character and would therefore fit better in the Capulet side. The first impressions of the Montague boys are that they are very laid back with no cares in the world. Their actions represent their immaturity as they are always mucking around. They provoke the Capulet’s by biting their thumbs at them. Once the Capulet’s see them they act very scared and just want to get out of there. The Capulet’s on the other hand are very cool and are not scared of the Montague’s. They provoke the Montague boys by making them jump and then laughing at them. The Capulet’s are acting as though they are the ‘Kings of the Jungle’; they are almost looking for a fight. In this production Baz Luhrmann may have decided to have the Montague boys acting immaturely because he wanted to provide a significant contrast to the Capulet’s behaviour, this links in with the differences of their costumes. This difference is important because it really emphasises each characters personality and it provides a great contrast in the two sides. In the Franco Zeffirelli version the Montague boys are acting maturely by trying to avoid a quarrel. They do not provoke the Capulet’s but just go about their business. When the Capulet’s provoke them they are very quick in demanding that they should draw their swords. The Capulet’s are acting very stupidly by telling each other to do something to the Montague’s. To provoke the Montague’s the Capulet’s trip up an old man. They act very shocked and scared when the Montague’s demand them to draw their swords. I think that Baz Luhrmann represents the characters first impressions best because he makes their personalities very extreme. This helps the viewer determine who each character is and realise their antagonism towards each other, which is an essential feature of the original text.
In the Baz Luhrmann version Benvolio is quite full of himself. He wants to be in charge but doesn’t want to cause any street fights. He is the person that try’s to keep the peace” I do but keep the peace. Put up thy sword, or manage it to part these men with me,” Benvolio seems to be afraid of Tybalt and so tries to look innocent when he sees him. He knows he is capable of fighting but he really doesn’t want to. In this production Tybalt is a very confident character. You can see by his actions that he is not afraid of anything, like when he drops his match on the floor of the petrol station and crushes it underneath the silver heel of his shoe. He is named Tybalt The Prince of Cats. This tells the audience that he is a sly character, he speaks with a lisp, which makes him sound like cat and he has quite sharp canines, which reinforces him being The Prince of Cats. Tybalt is looking for a fight and is not afraid to fight the Montague boys. The effect of this contrast allows the two sides to become even more quarrelsome and reinforces the clash between the two families. In the Franco Zeffirelli version Benvolio is a much shyer character. He is small and quite skinny and is afraid of Tybalt and will do anything not to have to fight him. When Benvolio sees Tybalt he seems to listen to him. In the Franco Zeffirelli production Tybalt is not as evil as in Luhrmann’s version. He is a more smug character and is very full of himself. Tybalt seems to believe that whatever he says it is right. He hates Benvolio and will take any opportunity to fight him. I think that the Luhrmann version shows the contrast between Benvolio and Tybalt the best because of how extreme the character’s personalities are. The viewer can really see how much they hate each other and how different the two sides are.
In the Baz Luhrmann version there are a number of clumps taken out of the text. The first major change is when they miss out the ending of Romeo and Benvolio’s speech. The viewer sees them walk into the snooker hall and then it flicks to the beginning of act 1 scene 2 and shows the conversation between Paris and a Capulet (Lines 1-6 act 1 scene 2) It then goes back to the conversation between Romeo and Benvolio but has missed lines 175-186. This could have been because the lines (175-186) are not of any use to the viewer seeing as they already understand the situation. So Baz Luhrmann decided to let the viewer get a glimpse of what may be happening in Act1 Scene 2. Baz Luhrmann also cut out lines 88-94 of the Prince’s speech. This may have been because it was not very important and it would add more effect if he ended it with “If ever you disturb our streets again, your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace” Franco Zeffirelli on the other hand has kept much closer to the original script. He has cut the end of Romeo and Benvolio’s speech just like in Baz Luhrmann’s version(Lines175-186) and has also flicked to the beginning of Act1 Scene 2. I think that Franco Zeffirelli represents the text better as he stays close to the original script. This helps the viewer pick up on all aspects of what is happening in the film.
In the Baz Luhrmann version the Montague’s are dressed in Hawaiian shirts and shorts. Their clothes are very bright and colourful, signifying their attitude towards life. Their body language is very relaxed and their body movements suggest that they believe they can get away with anything. There speech is spoken as if everything to them is a joke and should not be taken seriously. The initial impression the viewer gets of the Montague boys is that they are quite immature.
The Capulet’s on the other hand are the complete opposite to the Montague’s.
They wear dark black suits with silver heeled boot that show just how smooth and classy they are. This initial impression is very important as it allows people to see the behaviour of the characters. I show’s their hatred to the other side and allows the viewer to recognise them when they are seen again. The difference in clothing reinforces visually the behaviour and attitude of the two families. This distinctive style of dressing enables fellow family members to identify each other and also to identify the opposition. This way use of distinction in the characters is also used in gangs in the U.S.A. Their body language suggests that they are very smug and think highly of themselves. Their speech is much more serious than the Montague’s and is spoken as though they are trying to bully them. The initial impression the viewer gets is that the Capulet’s are very full of themselves and are always trying to act cool. In the Franco Zeffirelli version the Montague’s are wearing dark grey and black clothing. Their dress looks as though it comes from around the Elizabethan period. Their body language suggests that they are upper class people and are very mature and sensible. They are clearly very proud to be Montague’s and will allow nobody to disgrace their name. The initial impression the viewer gets of the Montague’s is that they are mature and want to stay out of trouble, but when the Capulet’s provoke them they take no time at all in defending their households name. This shows that they have very little patience with the Capulet’s. The Capulet’s are wearing red and yellow clothes. Their clothes almost look like a jokers costume, which represents their foolish attitudes. Their body language is very relaxed and they are always playing practical jokes on other people. The initial impression the viewer gets of the Capulet’s is that they are very immature and think that life is a big joke. They are always mocking the Montague’s, but when they are told to draw their swords, they are very reluctant to fight and would rather run away. I think that Baz Luhrmann represents the characters the best because of the way he really brings out the personality of each character. He makes each character very different, making it easy to relate them back to the text. He also emphasises the differences between the two groups, which links to the differences between the two families.
In the Baz Luhrmann version the Prince is portrayed as a Police Chief. He is seen in a helicopter above Benvolio and Tybalt, forcing them to put their weapons to the ground. The Prince is using lots of high tech machinery and guns to make them drop their guns; this helps to state how important he is as a figure of power and authority and emphasises his position as the head of the police department.
This is important because in his position he has ultimate control of right and wrong. The Montague family look quite shocked that their sons have started another fight. It seems like they want to go and sort it out and make sure that there is nothing said about their household. The Capulet’s react in the same way, by wanting to sort it out. The head of the Montague’s even reaches for his gun in order to sort it out. When the two families are being talked to by the Prince they both seem to be trying to blame the other household. Clearly neither household likes to get in serious trouble and therefore blames the other household out of spite. In the Franco Zeffirelli version the Prince is represented by the Prince of the City. You see him enter onto the screen, riding a horse. At the time the film was set it would have been a sign of royalty to own a horse. The prince has several bodyguards around him suggesting that he is a very powerful person in the city.
He doesn’t speak very forcefully, but just relies on his position in the city to make them listen. This tells the viewer that he is very full of himself (by just expecting them to listen). In this version both the leaders of the two sides start fighting.
This shows the viewer how proud they both are of their household and also the lack of patience they have towards each other. I think that the Baz Luhrmann version represents the Prince best because he sounds very forceful, and in the text his speech suggests that he is a very harsh type of character “That quench the fire of your pernicious rage, with purple fountains issuing from your veins: On pain of torture, from those bloody hands, throw your mistempered weapons to the ground.” This shows that the police officer (Prince) is not afraid to use force. He uses strong and forceful language to put fear into Benvolio and Tybalt and uses his position in the city to make them drop their guns.
In the Baz Luhrmann version Romeo is quite an innocent character. He is dressed in smart but casual clothes, which signifies his attitude to life. His introduction suggests that he is friendly due to the slow, soft music playing in the background. The viewer then sees a picture of him sitting by the sea and creating poems. This helps to emphasize his non-violent nature. This is important because it is important to make Romeo look as innocent and un-harmful as possible. This links with the way he acts and how he reacts to seeing Benvolio on the television holding his gun. Romeos demeanour tells us that he is the kind of person that has no troubles in the world. He is an easygoing sort of person who likes relaxing. He has a very good personality and seems to like being alone. He is the kind of person that everyone is friends with. His relationship with Benvolio is quite strong as they are cousins “good morrow, cousin”. You can clearly see that Romeo is not happy with all the fights Benvolio gets involved in “o me! What fray was here?”. In the Franco Zeffirelli version Romeo is again quite an innocent character. He is wearing quite tatty clothes and is holding a flower , which signifies his good nature. The way in which he enters the film gives the viewer the impression that he is feeling depressed. His demeanour is that he is a person with little on his mind. His relationship with Benvolio is not as strong as it could be.
I think that this is because he doesn’t like violence and therefore tries to limit his time with Benvolio. This shaky relationship could be the explanation for why Romeo was out in the woods all morning. I think that the Franco Zeffirelli is the best at representing Romeo as a character. This is because he makes him much more innocent and seem more lonely than in the Baz Luhrmann version. When I read the text I could picture a boy in my mind and in my view Franco Zeffirelli represented that character very well.
Throughout this coursework I have commented on how well each production represents the text. Baz Luhrmanns version had many good points but I believe that he made his film more for the enjoyment of viewers rather than relating to the text and making it easy for people to relate it to the original story. I think my coursework has been quite successful and my over all conclusion is that the Franco Zeffirelli version represents the play much closer than the Luhrmann version. This is because he has not changed the setting, characters and has cut out far less script than Baz Luhrmann. This really helps any viewers doing their G.C.S.E’s because of the way he created the film as close to the text as he did. It lets the viewer get a much greater understanding of the original story.
