On the other hand I believe Luhrmans objectives were far different to Zefferellis, I feel Luhrman was somewhat touched by the storyline, inspired or found it worthwhile, therefore decided to make a blockbuster, entertaining film from it. This approach is far more appealing and gives interest to the majority. Luhrman uses the MTV style of editing, this is completely different from continuity editing and basically means the opposite, so it doesn’t flow and leaps from one shot to the next, allowing the creation of the imagined world.
Zefferelli does not vary the camera shots as much as Luhrman does, although he uses different angles to suit the atmosphere he wants to create. He also uses many natural sounds, e.g. crowd noises, horses travelling. I have noticed in the opening, he uses non-diegetic sounds until Romeo’s entrance. Luhrman uses a lot more music, which is of great significance as this is what creates the atmospheric moods of the play.
The lighting varies greatly in each play. It plays an essential role in displaying the importance of character or in setting an atmosphere. In Zefferelli's production, the lighting in the opening scenes is of a dull, low-key nature (no detail), and then develops as the market stall scene commences; the lighting is now high key, showing more detail. This is in complete opposite to the lighting used in Luhrman's production, as Luhrman applies high key lighting straight from the beginning.
Zefferelli in his production shows a distinct contrast in the outfits worn by the two individual, different families. Both Luhrman and Zefferelli use a stereotype view on the clothing.
The use of sets in the film makes it far more effective and realistic. Zefferelli uses all the old-fashion original props, such as swords etc. Luhrman replaces these swords applying the modern approach to killing, using guns.
In Zefferellis, production music is not of great significance and not relied upon to create atmosphere. When there is dialogue, there is no music; music is only present when there is action.
In Zefferelli's production, the opening scene starts at the market place, where's there is high key lighting, there are various consistent mid-shots emphasizing the Capulet boys and Montague boys (the lighting supports the realistic detail).
A fight breaks out, involving everyone, there's increasing tension, the camera jumps from one individual to another, sudden screaming, shouting, crying, whole scenario of jumpy, loud tension, then a stop! A deadly eerie pause accompanies the introduction of Tybalt. This is a very strong grand entrance, immediately portraying the importance of his character. There is a close-up as Tybalt speaks, and then as a word of command, the brawl starts again. The town is bell rang and the prince enters the scene.
The opening brawl differs in Luhrman’s production, as he uses a far modern approach. The fight takes place in a petrol station, involving just the main characters and usage of guns. Luhrman uses props to increase the level of intensity; there is a board on the petrol station stating
"Add more fire to your flame"
The use of modern props gives Luhrman the advantage of creating an entertaining scene. It is far more enthusiastic and exciting to follow, as there are gunshots being fired, the characters are ducking and running,
In conclusion, my opinion is that Zefferelli’s production is far more realistic and original, it relates to how Shakespeare wrote it and was set in that particular period. This production helps understand the concept of the play far better, as the customs, props, scenes all relate to the originality of the play. This however does not appeal as much to the 20th century audience, as it is not very thrilling or moving.
Zefferelli’s approach is strictly to Shakespeare’s writing. This lacks all the new additional camera effects and does not fulfil the entertaining visual. The colours are quite dull, in relation to the radiant colours used by Luhrman.
Zefferelli’s production may appeal to the elder audience, but is I do not think it would do very well with today’s youth.
The audience is also an important consideration. Zefferelli’s production would be more aimed at the Elizabethan audience, who were in some ways a lot more sophisticated than the audiences of the twentieth century were. For example, when we go to see a new film or play, we expect to find the novelty in the action. Some of the situations may be familiar; we may be able to anticipate the ending; and the characters (who should not really be different from everyday people we meet). Having said this most people today like to see a new story, a new moral. This is a demand that every director tries to fulfil. Shakespeare’s audience had different expectations, they were happy to be given stories they recognised.
A final note, I believe Zefferellis production is successful in the way that it presents the play very accurately and aids understanding and gives, one historic knowledge of the period. Nevertheless, Luhrman’s production is far more thrilling and great to watch, having said this; it also follows the story well. The film is very entertaining to watch and vastly appeals to the modern generation.
