One of the most memorable scene in ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is the classic Balcony scene. The two directors’, Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann have staged it differently to suit their genre and their audiences. Zeffirelli’s version has the traditional Orchard scene whereas Luhrmann has the same scene set at the swimming pool of Juliet’s house. Nonetheless, the swimming pool would have been equivalent to the orchard in Juliet’s garden in the Zeffirelli’s traditional version.
Romeo enters the Capulet garden in the traditional version surrounded by purposely-displayed foliage. This depicts the risk that Romeo is taking due to the shrubbery acting as a camouflage in which Romeo can hide from anyone who would be in the garden. As a result, there is intensity in the atmosphere that allows Zeffirelli’s audience to focus completely on the play. Luhrmann’s modern work has Romeo entering the garden by climbing over a wall and then slowly passing the poolside to avoid the security cameras. It could be argued that using devices such as security cameras completely contradicts the traditional Shakespearean set. However, it also gives the viewer, especially a young viewer a modernized interpretation of what the traditional balcony scene would have been like that gives a much more lively and entertaining mood and thereby, the modern day audience would understand it more effectively just by focusing on the setting and not just the language. In Luhrmann’s ‘balcony scene,’ he has Juliet entering from a lift and descending to the same level as Romeo but at this point, she is oblivious to Romeo’s presence, which is done to suggest that there is a clear bond between the two even though they both cannot be together. On the other hand, Juliet remains on a higher level to that of Romeo in the Zeffirelli’s version. This is done to show the distinct separation between the two characters.
The slow background music in the Zeffirelli scene creates a romantic atmosphere to the film whereas Luhrmann does not use any music at this point in the scene; only the odd sounds of insects and the hooting of an owl provide the music. This type of technique is used to portray the time of the day, i.e. the night and consequently, creates suspense within the audience, therefore captures the viewers’ attention when Romeo enters his rivals’ house. At the beginning of the Zeffirelli scene the soundings of church bells ringing at the point where Juliet appears to be fantasizing about something, wearing her night attire. This conveys, to an extent, a matrimonial effect because Romeo and Juliet (although she does not know yet) are together and therefore, symbolises their love for one another. It also emphasises the importance of religion and furthermore adds to the matrimonial effect.
In Luhrmann’s version, there are security lights that switch on when Romeo makes his way to the Capulet house. We are shown the swimming pool at this point and the of statues surrounding it. It could be argued that the use of the technology is to allow the modern day audience to interpret the scene better. The usage of many statues implies the importance of the Capulet household and also signifies a traditional element that symbolises the religious and cultural aspect in ‘Romeo and Juliet.’ However, the traditional version has chipped masonry on the balcony that adds to the realism of the setting.
Both Zeffirelli and Luhrmann try to focus Romeo more in the story but they both approach it in a different manner. As Romeo moves along the garden of the Capulet’s mansion in the traditional version so does the music. This portrays the tension in the story progressing as Romeo moves along with it and thereby allows the viewer to focus in with Romeo more. There is no music at all until the kissing part in the scene in Luhrmann’s interpretation that could be argued is done because there are already distractions such as the security cameras and the modern set which deliberately focus Romeo more towards the viewer. It also pays more attention to Romeo’s movements as if there had been music Luhrmann’s audience would have been distracted. The humorous effect also makes the romantic scene more upbeat and the clumsiness of Romeo is also intentionally done to add to the humour.
Luhrmann uses the element of climbing in the scene and similarly, so does Zeffirelli. In the traditional film, Romeo is climbing up Juliet’s balcony and speaks to her there. However, Luhrmann’s scene involves Romeo climbing up a balcony that leads to Juliet’s room, but Romeo is instead talking to the nurse that destroys the cliché. It is also ironic that Romeo briskly retreats just as Juliet comes from the lift and in the process makes a lot of noise due to his clumsiness. Luhrmann creates humorous situations and in this way there is continuous attention to the film from the audience. There is more focal point of Juliet in Zeffirelli’s version than compared to the Romeo who, at first, is the focal point in the Luhrmann’s re-make but gradually it is both Romeo and Juliet who are captioned together more than in the Zeffirelli’s film. The Italian director has deliberately done this so that the viewer can see Juliet and Romeo’s individual thoughts for one another separately and consequently, depicts the complication of them becoming an item.
The obvious use of imagery is the use of water in both productions of ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ and appears in many key scenes, such as the balcony scene that symbolises purity and clarity of thought. For example, in the balcony scene where Juliet says, ‘Romeo! Romeo! Where for art thou Romeo…’ The swimming pool is a key point where it could make or break a relationship. Luhrmann incorporates the swimming pool to add more freedom of movement to the characters and the added tension of the security guard coming out to look where Romeo has to hold his breath underwater as not to be seen allows the audience to continue watching the film.
Juliet’s innocence is a sign of her youth, virginity and purity. Romeo calls her ‘Bright Angel’ and in Luhrmann’s version, particularly, these words are significant as Juliet is dressed like an angel from the ballroom scene. The fairy lights light up the garden just like an angels home and thereby Juliet is like an angel glowing.
In contrast to Luhrmann’s version, in the conventional rendering Juliet is sitting on the wall of her balcony that could be argued acts like a barrier between Romeo and her. Juliet’s innocence and youth is portrayed here at the point where Juliet sits on the balcony with her knees drawn to her chest like the foetal position. The camera shot is long but eventually gets closer until it is a close-up of Juliet to examine her thoughts more effectively from her face expressions. Romeo’s face expresses love and his face lights up and as a result as there is no distraction from the poetry and beauty of Shakespeare’s words. There is a sense of youthful, poetic mischievousness when Juliet says, ‘or any other part of man’ in a way such that even though she is fifteen years of age, she is still aware that it may have a sexual meaning. In both interpretations, the Juliet actresses: Claire Danes (Luhrmann’s version) and Olivia Hussey (Zeffirelli’s version) express deep sorrow from the quotation, ‘what’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet.’ This facial expression is done by both actresses because of the fact that Juliet knows that Romeo and herself cannot become an item due to their families hatred and grievances for one another.
Zeffirelli’s version involves Romeo hiding when Romeo says, ‘O, speak again bright angel,’ whereas in the Luhrmann’s making of the film, Romeo is now standing right behind Juliet and therefore ends up startling Juliet which results in them both to fall in the swimming pool. The deliberate hiding of Romeo in the traditional film is done to allow the suspense to continue and thereby holding the audience attention. The audience is still focused on the film due to the main characters falling into the swimming pool and thereby creating a lot of noise, especially when Juliet screams when Romeo says, ‘……’ in the Luhrmann’s version. It is at this point where slow piano music begins that adds to the romance, as there is body contact between Romeo and Juliet. The effectiveness of both of the two in the water is one of gentleness in a sense that the water makes it look soft and romantic. There is a comic moment when the security guard arrives and Juliet does not tell of Romeo that proves the fact that she loves Romeo. The camera to symbolise how intense their love for one another is focuses the passionate kiss between Romeo and Juliet and as a result when Juliet is leaving the pool, she clings to Romeo as if their love is so powerful that there is a strong bond between them that does not want to be broken.
In both the individual productions, the two directors cut out several lines in the balcony scene but they purposely do this so that the audience do not get bored of the film. Also, some of the lines are not necessary to prove a point and therefore are cut out. However, Zeffirelli cut out some lines differently to that of Luhrmann’s film. For example, at the beginning of the scene, Romeo in the Zeffirelli version does not say, ‘It is the east, and Juliet is the sun! Arise……….And none but fools do wear it; cast it off,’ whereas Luhrmann includes the first part of the quotation. Luhrmann also changes words in the original script, for example, the word ‘name’ in the following quotation, ‘By any other name would smell as sweet,’ to ‘word.’ The reason for altering specific words is to allow the reader to understand some of the texts clearly.
The part where the Juliets in both versions know about the presence of Romeo, are expressed clearly with fearsome; and both Romeos show their presence in the same place that shock the Juliet’s from the quotation, ‘I take thee at thy word…’ However, the Romeos come out in different ways. In the traditional version, Romeo is camouflaged in the orchard whilst Juliet is on the balcony. Luhrmann’s Romeo is behind Juliet at the point where she says, ‘Romeo, doff thy name; And for thy name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself.’ The camera is focused at both of them at this point in the Luhrmann’s version and continues to focus on them together. However the camera focuses on Romeo when he is talking and shows the back of Juliet’s head at the same time, and visa versa when Juliet is talking during the rest of Luhrmann’s film. Whereas in the Zeffirelli film, the camera focuses more onto Juliet and when one of the characters speaks, (Romeo or Juliet) the camera shows them, individually. Luhrmann chose to do this to emphasise how close Romeo and Juliet are – they are inseparable, even when they are physically apart. Zeffirelli, however, tries to suggest the fact that although their love has a strong bond, it is still, physically separated due to their families hatred for one another. Nevertheless, both directors have successfully achieved their point by altering the camera.
In conclusion, Zeffirelli and Luhrmann’s variations generated from the original and thus brought about new concepts to the stage. Both the productions were distinct and intense in their own execution of the balcony scene and also the rest of the film. The English accents constantly was used throughout the Zeffirelli version that unlike Luhrmann’s adaptation, brought about no hints in the setting to allow understanding of the meaning of love and tone. However, it presented a more concise version of the play to the viewer, accurately delineating the setting, characters and atmosphere and consequently, it allowed a significant understanding of he world of William Shakespeare. On the other hand, Luhrmann’s edition of Romeo and Juliet was an entirely different contrast to Zeffirelli’s that portrayed and brought about more contemporary aspects to the stage, for example, the setting being modernized, the American accents used to draw in predominantly young viewers. However, both the productions did succeed in delivering two fantastic versions of Romeo and Juliet to their specified audiences to fit their individual genres.
However, I personally preferred the Luhrmann’s version, as there was an element of understanding, especially for younger adults that were able to comprehend it easily. It produced a new variation that was still exciting and enjoyable to watch in which it gave many connotations from the tense, romantic and humorous situations throughout the film.
