I was confused at first when I watched Luhrman's version, as he has swapped the Capulet

Shakespeare

A Comparative Essay

This essay compares two scenes, from two film products. The directors have very differently modernised and restored the famously tragic love story written by William Shakespeare. In this essay I will be writing about the fight scenes in ‘Romeo & Juliet’, compare the different setting and language, and interpret the characters between the Baz Luhrmann-1996, and Franco Zefferelli-1968 versions of this William Shakespeare play.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) wrote thirty-four plays altogether. They can be separated into five different groups according to the subject matter and theme:

The Histories, e.g. Henry V
The Tragedies e.g. Macbeth
The Comedies e.g. Twelfth Night, A Midsummer Nights Dream
The Romances e.g. The Tempest
The problem plays e.g. the Mechant of Venice, and Romeo & Juliet (interestingly both set in venice...)

Shakespeare wrote at a time of considerable political unrest. Elizabeth-I was on her throne and Britain was under constant threat from Roman Catholic enemies who wanted to restore the links with Rome that Henry VIII had severed.

He depended on royal approval to survive, so it is hardly surprising that he is pro-monarchy, as in Henry V and Macbeth, and anti civil war, as in Romeo & Juliet. Shakespeare wrote for a company of actors that he knew so he was able to tailor the parts to suit them. Women, however, were not allowed to perform on stage – acting was regarded as a lowly profession unsuitable for women – so all female roles had to be played by boys.

Summary

This is a story of a love at first sight, a love so powerful it results in tragedy beyond prophecy. This love is between Romeo and Juliet, who belong to rival families in the city of Verona, and how the hatred between their familes brings about their deaths. These families go by the names of the Montague and the Capulet Houses. In the first scenes of conflict, up for comparison I will summarise the basic sequences of events; the original first script to Act 1, Scene 1 involves both Houses, quarrelling and bearing weapons, and wreaking havoc, then emerging with only minor injuries. Later on, in Act 3, Scene 1, both Houses have reached a climax of such vengeance that this scene results in the death of Mercutio, Romeo’s best friend. Romeo, bent on revenge, then kills Tybalt. The characters that are central in these scenes are;

Of House capulet: Samspon, Gregory, Mercutio and Benvolio, and then Romeo in Act 3, Scene 3, and those of House Montague, Abraham, Balthasar and Tybalt.

I was confused at first when I watched Luhrman’s version, as he has swapped the Capulet and Montague roles; originally in the first fight scene Sampson and Gregory begin the scene and the script enters them as Capulets and Zefferelli has decided to stick to the original shakespeare script, whereas in Luhrmans version he has given them the role of Montagues (same lines just a different name). The characters that are central in the fight scenes in Luhrman’s version are:

Of house Capulet; Tybalt, Balthasar, and Abraham. Of house Montague; Sampson, Gregory, Mercutio, and Benvolio, and then Romeo in Act 3, Scene 3.

What initially confused me was the costume, which clearly signifies which House is which, like a uniform. So Sampson and Gregory were in Montague ‘uniform’ and as soon as Tybalt enters it is clear to the audience by his style of dress he is a Montague.

In Zefferelli’s version he also makes it clear to the audience which House was which from both separate dress styles, and making both Houses (correct to the script) stand out against the villagers in the scene; the costume was traditional, with colourful tights. The Capulets fashioned black and gold shirts, which signifies danger and wealth. Montagues wear thin, plain, dirty cream shirts, this does not signify wealth. It is clear that Tybalts ‘gang’ are vain and appear to have higher significance within the story, as both films present them like this.

In Luhrmans version the ‘Montague’ uniform consists of leather trousers and jackets, trouser braces, severe hairstyles, complete with ‘accessories’ of shiny signiture-House weapons and silver dentures; this makes the overall look aggressive and ovrbearing. Much like a ‘gangster-look’. Whereas, the ‘Capulet’ uniform customised an impersonation of this ‘gangster look’ without leathers. The uniform consists of Hawiian shirts, trouser-braces and severe hairstyles; completing the ‘cowboy-gangster’ look with their trademark/signature-House weaponry. Both uniforms have an overall unique appearance, with similar attitudes, I get the impression that the ‘Capulet’ House are not as wealthy as the Montague House; for example the Leathers vs Hawiian shirts. Baz Luhrmann has also upgraded swords for guns. (but they have the words Sword imprinted on them!)

Romeo

Romeo does indeed experience a love of such purity and passion that he kills himself when he believes the the object of his love, Juliet has died. Even Romeo’s relation to love is not so simple; (at the begining of the play Romeo pines for Roseline) Romeo is a great reader of love poetry, and the portrayal of his love for Roseline suggests he is trying to re-create the feelings that he has read about. Juliet is not a replacement, the love she shares with Romeo is far deeper, more authentic, and unique than the cliched puppy love Romeo felt for Roseline. Romeo’s deep capacity for love is merely a part of his larger capacity for intense feeling of all types/kinds. Such as; anger, compelling him to kill his wife’s cousin in a reckless duel to avenge the death of his friend. Despair; compels him to commit suicide upon hearing of Juliet’s death. This extreme behaviour dominates Romeo’s character throughout the play and contributes to the ultimate tragedy that befalls the lovers. Had Romeo restrained himself, matters might have ended happier.

Among his friends, especially while bantering with Mercutio, Romeo shows glimpses of his positive social persona. He is intelligent, quick witted, loyal and unafraid of danger.

Romeo

A young man of about sixteen; Romeo is handsome, intelligent, and sensitive. Though impulsive and immature, his idealism and passion make him an extremely likeable character. He lives in the middle of an intense and violent feud between his family and the Capulets, but isn’t at all interested in violence. His only interest is love. At the begining of the play he is madly in love with a woman named Roseline, but the instant he lays eyes on Juliet, he falls in love with her and forgets Roseline. This gives us a good reason to question how real Romeo’s new love is, but Romeo goes to extremes to prove the seriousness of his feelings. Romeo is a great reader of love poetry, and the portrayal of his love for Roseline suggests he is trying to re-create the feelings the he has read about. Juliet is not a replacement, the love shares with Romeo is far deeper, more authentic, and unique than the cliched puppy love Romeo felt for Roseline. Romeo’s deep capacity for love is merely a part of his larger capacity for intense feeling of all kinds. Such as; anger, compelling him to kill his wife’s cousin in a reckless duel to avenge the death of his friend. Despair; compels him to commit suicide upon hearing of Juliet’s death. This extreme behaviour dominates Romeo’s character throughout the play and contributes to the ultimate tragedy that befalls the lovers. Had Romeo restrained himself, matters might have ended happier. He secretly marries Juliet, the daughter of his father’s worst enemy; he happily takes and retaliates abuse from tybalt. He would “Rather die than live without his beloved Juliet”. Romeo is also an affectionate and devoted friend to his relatives Benvoilio and Mercutio..

Among his friends, especially while bantering with Mercutio, Romeo shows glimpses of his positive social persona. He is intelligent, quick witted, loyal and unafraid of danger

Juliet

This is a preview of the whole essay

Among his friends, especially while bantering with Mercutio, Romeo shows glimpses of his positive social persona. He is intelligent, quick witted, loyal and unafraid of danger

Juliet

The daughter of Sir Capulet and Lady Capulet. A beautiful thirteen-year-old girl, Juliet begins the play as a naive child who has thought little about love and marriage, but she grows up quickly upon falling in love with Romeo, the son of her family’s great enemy. Because she is a girl from an aristocratic family, she has none of the freedom Romeo has to roam around the city, climb over walls in the middle of the night, or get into sword fights(!). Nevertheless, she shows amazing courage in trusting her entire life and future to Romeo, even refusing to believe the worst reports about him after he gets involved in a fight with her cousin. Juliet’s close relationship and confidant; her nurse, is much more of a mother figure to her than Lady Capulet. (Though juliet is willing to shut her out of her life the moment the nurse turns against Romeo).

Tybalt

A Capulet, Juliet’s cousin on her mother’s side. King of Cats (leader of the pack, stalking in the night), vain, fashionable, supremely aware of the courtesy and the lack of it, he becomes aggressive, violent, and quick to draw his sword when he feels his pride has been injured. Once drawn, his sword is something to be feared. He loathes montagues.

Mercutio

Montague. Romeo’s closest friend. One of the most extra ordinary characters in the play because he captivates the hearts of the audience.. He can be hot headed, and hates people who are vain (the only difference between Mercutio and Tybalt, otherwise these characters are quite similar.) He finds Romeo’s romanticised ideas about love tiresome, and tries to convince Romeo his fantasies are quite juvenile.

Benvolio

Montague and Romeo’s thoughtful, sensitive friend, he makes a genuine effort to defuse violent scenes in public places, though Mercutio accuses him of having a nasty temper. He spends most of the play trying to help Romeo get his mind off Roseline, even after Romeo has fallen in love with Juliet.

Abraham

A Montague. Fights with Sampson and Gregory in the first scene of the play.

Sampson and Gregory

Servants of House Capulet, who hate the Montagues. They successfully provoke some Montague men into a fight...

Comparing scenes

Act 1, Scene 1

In Zeffereli’s version…When the Capulets show up they are very different to the Montagues. The audience would notice this in comparison to the clothes that the other people of the market place are wearing. They are dressed in Black and gold, symbolising danger and wealth. Soon Tybalt Capulet moves into the picture, the camera move very slowly from his feet up to his face then we see a close up shot of his face. Close ups are there to help the audience identify with the characters facial expression. When the eventual fight scene occurs the camera moves very quickly and we lose sight of who is fighting. All we can hear is people shouting and screaming, with a mix of close ups and medium shots of various parts of the body. The camera creates an effect of complete havoc. As the Prince arrives and the crowd disperses he delivers his ultimatum to the families. This has an effect on the people as silence is observed so you can hear the prince's words. This is because the prince's speech is a crucial part of the story and his final threat underlines all of what happens in the play. The camera makes him out to be strong and powerful.

The first characters that enter are the servants to the Capulet house, Sampson and Gregory.

Sampson and Gregory stroll streets of Verona. Having a bawdy banter – Sampson expresses his hatred of Mantagues.

‘Sampson: A dog of the House of Montague moves me’

Gregory spots two Montagues approaching and discusses with Sampson how best to provoke them into a fight without breaking the law;

‘Sampson: let us take the law of our sides, let them begin.’-so we dont get into trouble, let them start the fight instead.

Then they both discuss how they are to start a fight, and compared to Luhramann’s they aren’t as serious about the fighting with them as they are about getting in trouble about fighting. Therefore their characters seem more immature in this version compared to Luhrmann’s.

‘Gregory: I will frown as they walk by, and let them take it as they list.-I’ll pull a face when they walk past, and let them assume what they want.

Sampson: nay as they dare. I will bite my thumb at them, which is a disgrace to them if they bear it.-no, that might not work out, I will bite my thumb at them, if they don’t retaliate it is a disgrace to their people, their choice...

Sampson bites his own thumb – considered to be a highly insulting gesture – at Montague, verbal confrontatation rapidly escalates into a fight.

Difference as the script goes along...interpret language, characters, and setting, comparison in both versions.

In Baz Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet they have guns as weapons rather than swords. Rock soundtrack accompanies their entrance. The Capulets on the other hand appear very menacing and sinister. They are viewed feet upwards, showing their shoes, which have metal spurs up to their gun holsters, and black suits. Western styled music accompanies their entrance, giving the idea that they are similar to cowboys. The Capulets appear to be a mixture of cowboys and gangsters. The Montagues and Capulets have swapped roles in this film, but the difference between them still gets displayed well. Luhrmann does not force us to use our mind in any way, he even puts badges on the Capulets and the Montagues, to reinforce the theme of the rivalry between them. Zeffirelli portrays the important characters through the lighting and focus of the camera. Luhrmann however goes to the trouble of introducing the main characters by giving tableaux introductions. Tybalt's character is introduced with the tableau, title sequence quoting "Prince of Cats". This instantly makes us think he has a high status, the word prince referring to power. He has a sneering facial expression, and a twiddle with his gun, trying to make out he is a gunslinger, although we later on learn that this is not the case. His posture is straight and he holds his head high, portraying confidence. Although there is the obvious difference in period and costume, the character of Tybalt is presented in a similar fashion in both the film extracts. In Luhrmann's film he too is filmed feet upwards, portraying his as a figure of power and strength. The character of Benvolio is also presented in a similar fashion in both films, although naturally due to the difference in period, they bear little resemblance. He is a lot quieter than the others, and hides in the car until he if forced to come out and participate in the fight. This shows he is less willing to fight. In the Zeffirelli film, Benvolio gets stabbed in the face. However, in Luhrmann's film he gets shot.

Scene 1 Act 1

(Luhrmann wanted his film to be dramatic, and most of the lines are more about how they are said than not what is actually being said, so the facial expressions are what the audience are seeking for the plot and so have to be dramatic...)

In Luhrmann’s version you are thrown into a scene with three rowdy men racing down a freeway, a modern song blaring, repeating lyrics ‘’The Boys! The Boys!’’ Then the scene reaches a petrol station, and everyone is hot and sweating. Having a bawdy banter (the houses have swapped, maybe Luhrman noticed the houses suited the script better that way..?) the Montague Boys express their hatred of Capulets. In Zefferellis version, this scene is set in a dusty village, and the many villagers are the surrounding environment in the busy market place.

One: A dog of the House of Montague moves me.

Two: to move is to stir, and to be valiant is to stand, therefore if thou art moved, thou runn’st away.

One: a dog of that house shall move me to stand. I will take the wall of any man or maid of Montagues.> protesting against accusation to being effeminate.

Luhramann’s version has an expensive Montague car approach, and park beside them. The capulets discuss how best to provoke a fight without breaking the law

One: My naked weapon is out. Quarrel, I will back thee.- start a fight I’ll back you up.

Two: How, turn thy back and run?-you promise you won’t flee?

One : Fear me not.-Trust me

One: Let us take the law of our sides, let them begin.-so we don’t get into trouble, let them start the fight instead.

Two: I will frown as they walk by, and let them take it as they list.-I’ll pull a face when they walk past, and let them assume what they want.

One: nay as they dare. I will bite my thumb at them, which is a disgrace to them if they bear it.-no that might not work out, i will bite my thumb at them, if they don’t retaliate it is a disgrace to their people, their choice.>

One bites his own thumb – considered to be a highly insulting gesture – at Capulet, verbal confrontatation rapidly escalates into a fight.

Sampson: (growls and bears his steely teeth! Slamming the door and steps up) do you bite your thumb at us sir?-‘’ ‘’

One: I do bite my thumb sir-‘’ ‘’slighty worried.

Sampson: do you bite your thumb at us sir?-‘’ ‘’is having trouble keeping his temper. But is clearly insulted and livid.

One: (aside to two) is the law of our side if i say ‘ay’. –is the law still on our side if i reply ‘yes’?<his face is flooded with panic, fear, and regret, camera close up on whomever is talking, the conversation is tense and the pace is fast, the camera is moving quickly as the tension is rising.

Two: (aside to gregory)no.-‘’ ‘’nervously hesitant, regretting initial plan...

Tne: no sir, i do not bite my thumb at you sir, but I bite my thumb sir.-no, its not personal, but its still an insult. Whimpering, and searching for an exit, constantly glancing at two, who has a car between himself and the fight, yet...

Two: (suddenly more courageous knowing he has the protection of a car...)do you quarrel, sir?-do you want to make something of it?

Sampson: quarrel, sir? No, sir.-no I do not

One: but if you do sir, I am for you. I serve as good a man as you.-if you do, im on your side, being the good man you are. ( in this version he is vulnerable, and this line is used to express his true character-insecure, he basically attempts to flatter the vain characters his way out of a tight situation, taking note that he is out of his depth-hense, fear, panic, regret.

Sampson: no better-no better than you- calls his bluff.

One: well, sir.-well then...uncertain

Benvolio has now entered and draws ‘sword’(weapons are modern consequently, guns. The guns cleverly, have such names inscribed in them as ‘sword 6mm’. The guns display the pride of their name with the houses’ coat-of-arms.) Benvolio attempts to end the confrontation.

Two: (aside to Sampson) say ‘better’; here comes one of my masters kinsmen.-say he is more of a good man than you, here comes a man from my house I serve...

One: yes, better sir- ‘’ ‘’

Sampson: you lie –‘’ ‘’he is not letting them get away with the insult.

One: draw if you be men. Gregory, remember thy washing blow.-if you are men, fight, gregory, lets fight go ahead. Suddenly, his attitude changes, as Benvolio is drawn, he assumes now their side has the advantage...three against two....alas!

Benvolio: Part fools! Put up your swords, you know not what you do.-dont be so stupid stop fools! Drop your weapons! You dont know what you are doing. Obviously doesn’t wish to fight and is not interested in the violence at hand.

Tybalt encounters the confrontation situation, observes the drawn ‘sword’ and draws his own ‘sword’. Benvolio explains that he is merely trying to keep the peace. Tybalt proclaims a hatred for the capulets, and attacks...moreover this scene has caused a great disturbance, the onlookers display the impact made with shrieks and cries of distress.

Tybalt: What, are thou drawn among these heartless hinds? Turn the Benvolio, look upon thy death.-what are you doing mixing with the likes of those men? Benvolio, you are about to die. he makes his entrance a statement of how he percieves himself (vain) and how everybody respects him, a chilling silence, as his body language and uniform coveys his whole persona, and those around him. The scene is shaking with fear and respect. Tybalt has turned the whole scene around.

Benvolio: I do but keep the peace. Put up thy sword, or manage it to part these men with me.-I want to restore peace here. Defeat your weapon, or let us make these men see reason, lets agree on a compromise. Is intimidated.

The camera moves very slowly from his feet up to his face then we see a close up shot of his face. Close ups are there to help the audience identify with the character’s facial expression. The effect is similar to a showdown in a cowboy movie. The camera closely inspects these characters’ eyes, and this captures everything emotionally. Tension builds up so that the audience anticipate that he's going to shoot. The camera angles become sharp and fast, as the fighting starts, showing the urgency of the situation. As the two gangs shoot at each other the camera focuses on the sign again 'Add more fuel to your fire' being shot at continuously. During the fight, the speed fluctuates a great deal, sometimes moving very fast with the movement of the camera very erratic and occasionally moving in slow motion. Although the editing makes this scene overall fast paced, the camera centres on Tybalt several times, in slow motion, as he prepares to shoot. His movements are like a ritual which it seems he has performed many times. Every distinct movement is exaggerated; taking his jacket off, then taking his gun out and kissing it. The camera also focuses on his skills with the gun. He doesn't seem to be disturbed by the situation in the least. He seems very comfortable with the scenario and takes his time in every movement rather like a cat. In fact all the characters in this scene seem to have an exaggeration on their personalities. When the two gangs shout at each other it is to show they are not scared, which is true for Abraham but not for the Montague boy. He is very scared but tries to increase the volume of his voice to cover the fact. The camera angles in this scene focus mainly on the facial expressions, especially eye movements, as well as the exaggerated actions of each of the characters. It also focuses on the little things like the engravements on the gun and the signs at the petrol station to emphasize what is going on at the petrol station and to allow the viewers to understand the situation immediately and also form opinions about each character promptly.

Tybalt: what, drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee. Have at thee coward! – what? Your sword is drawn and you say you want peace? Peace, I hate the word, as much as I hate all you montagues, and you, yourself! You coward! Overly confident.

In Zefferelli’s version as the ‘brawl’ escalates, and when the eventual fight scene occurs, the camera moves very quickly and we lose sight of who is fighting. The overall effect is realistic, and the characters are treating this fight as a game, like they are just friends messing around. All we can hear is people shouting and screaming, and also with Luhrmann’s version there is a mix of close ups and medium shots of various parts of the body. Bullets fly in all directions, spinning a sign stating ‘add fuel to your fire’ this is a line from the script. (some lines aren’t appropriate and therefore aren’t applied). The overall effect is very dramatic and much like a cowboy duel, as the camera creates an effect of complete havoc, which keeps viewers on their toes.

Finally the Capulets escape.

Act 3, Scene 1

The settings are very different between Zefferelli’s Romeo & Juliet and the version by Baz Luhrmann; Zefferelli set the play Romeo and Juliet in Fare Verona, in a little town, but Baz Luhrmann’s version was set in America near a beach, which was meant to have portrayed Fare Verona in such a way it was attractive to young people.

Walking through the city streets under boiling sun – Benvolio suggests to Mercutio they go indoors – fearing that a conflict will be unavoidalbe should they encounter montague men. Mercutio replies that Benvolio has a quick temper, as any man in Italy (hypocrite) and should not criticise others for their short fuses.

Benvolio: I pray thee good Mercutio, let’s retire, the day is hot, the Capulets are abroad, and if we are to meet, we shall not ‘scape a brawl, for now these hot days, is not mad blood stirring.-its hot, I insist that we go home, the capulets cant be far, and if we encounter them, a brawl is inevitable, especially nowa days, its dangerous. Benvolio has grown wiser to the risks they continue to take.

Mercutio: Come, come, thou art as hot a jack in thy mood as any in Italy, and as soon moved to be moody, and as soon moody to be moved.-now, now,tut tut, you are one of the most shortest and quickest tempered men in all of Italy, you are a hyporcrite. No such hope of growing wisdom...

Tybalt then enters with a group of Montague men. Who approaches Benvolio and ‘Mercutio’ requesting to speak with either one of them. Annoyed, Mercutio begins to taunt and provoke him.

‘Benvolio’: By my head, here comes the capulets-oh my god, here come the Capulets

‘Mercutio’: By heel, I care not. So what, I don’t care

‘Mercutio’: And but one word with one of us? Couple it with something, make it a word or a blow.-just a word with one of us? Team it with something, like a punch.

‘Tybalt’: You shall find me apt enough to that sir, and you will give me occasion.-you will find me capable enough for that sir, I am man enough. And you give me a perfect excuse to.

‘Mercutio’: Could you not take some occasion without giving?-could you let me punch you without retaliating?

‘Tybalt’: Mercutio, thou consortest with Romeo-Mercutio, you associate undesirably Romeo.

‘Mercutio’: Consort? What, dost thou make us minstrels? An thou make minstrels of us, look to hear nothing but discords. Here’s my fiddlestick, here’s that shall make you dance. ‘zounds, consort!-what do you think we are? (minstrels-timid insult) and you make minstrels of us, go out of your way to disagree with us. My sword here will make you dance! (encourage you to fight.)

‘Benvolio’: We talk here in public haunt of men. Either withdraw into some private place, and reason coldly of your grievances, or else depart; here all eyes gaze on us.-not where the public can witness/observe. Either resolve/settle our differences/problems out of the public eye, or leave.

>’Mercutio’: Men’s eyes were made to look, and let them gaze. I will not budge for no man’s pleasure, I-‘’ ‘’

Romeo then enters. ‘Tybalt’ turns attention from ‘Mercutio’ to Romeo, calling him a villain.

Romeo, now secretly married to Juliet, making him and Mercutio relatives, refuses to be angered by Mercutio’s verbal attack. Mercutio commands Romeo draw his sword.

Romeo: Mercutio, the reason that I have to love thee doth much excuse the appertaining rage to such a greeting. Villian am I none. Therefore farewell, I see thou knowest me not.- I am not an enemy. Therefore goodbye, you won’t know me. Romeo protests he has good reason to love Tybalt, and isn’t his enemy and has no desire to fight him. This quote shows the audience another side to Romeo’s personality as he is swallowing his pride, he compromises his passionate emotions of love and anger.

Tybalt: Boy, this shall excuse the injuries that thou hast done me, therefore turn and draw.-this cannot excuse the damage you have caused me, therefore draw your sword.

Romeo: I do protest I never injured thee, but love thee better than thou canst devise, till thou shalt know the reason of my love. And so good capulet, which name I tender as dearly as my own, be satisfied.

Romeo protests he has good reason to love Tybalt, and has no desire to fight him. He asks that until Tybalt knows the reason for this love, he put aside his sword

Then Tybalt then angrily draws his sword and declares ‘with biting wit’ that if Romeo won’t fight Mercutio, then he will.

Mercutio and Tybalt begin to fight, whilst Romeo in an attempt to restore peace, throws himself between the combatants. Mercutio stabs Tybalt, but despite Romeo’s intervention, Tybalt falls, Mercutio and the Capulet crew depart hastily.

Tybalt dies, cursing both the Montagues and Capulets ‘A plage upon both you houses!’ and, still pouring forth his wild witicisms an enraged Romeo then declares his own love for Juliet has made him effeminate, and he himself should have fought Mercutio instead of Tybalt.

Romeo and mercutio then end up fighting, resulting in Romeo killing Mercutio. Benvolio urges Romeo to run, Romeo, shocked from events, cries “O, I am fortune’s fool!” – then flees.

The music, the light and colour used help create the mood. After Mercutio is killed, the clouds move in and it suddenly turns very dark. The colours are very bleak and dreary. When Romeo goes after Tybalt, it is in the dark of the night and the only light there is, is that of the moon giving everything a blue tint. The viewers themselves find it hard to make out the scene. The reason for it being dark (in my opinion) is that Luhrmann was trying to show the audience the world through Romeos' eyes, blinded in anger and moving in confusion. In this anger and confusion he kills Tybalt.

Conclusion

As I see it the over all attire and demeanour of the characters in both versions was extreamly important in enabling the audience to interpret the differences in language and the effects in settings. The costumes and make up played roles in themselves to define information about each character: for example; their motivations and their significance within the story, their mood also enhanced the atmosphere in each version. I feel that Baz Luhrmans version was more effective with this technique. The tone of the story helps foretell how each character might act as the plot unfolded. How the actors/characters interpretted the script and interacted amongst eachother was helpful when learning about them and adapting to the different styles in each version. Both directors aimed for/enabled the characters to have a natural and realistic look, again this helped interpret the significance of characters within the story. As a result, each film seemed to tell a different story, as the overall individual exaggerated film contrasts were different. Both versions seemed appropriate and were successfull in each era.

Zefferelli enabled each scene to appear natural by setting the film in a sunny, humid, dusty old village; the scenes involved a dull roar of villagers in a crowded market place-(the audience feel part of the village), and without the advantage of modern camera tricks, or musical influence/emotion. In the fight scenes the town all get involved and are entertained by the hatred and violence, making jokes and treating the feud like its a joke itself. This doesn’t allow the audience treat the feud seriously, and almost loses the audience as the fights are fast and rather untidy. However Luhrman has an advantage of camera tricks and musical emotion, which the film occasionally relys on, to grab attention and storytell alone. The conflicts in this version are personal between the main house characters, every character has their own dramatic, individual introduction, in fact the film has a dramatic introduction hinting what is in store, opera music, flashing images, bright colours, snap shots of characters. Consequently capturing the minds of a young audience. Zefferelli has made his version comparable to Shakespearean times, being naturally traditional.

Despite both versions having different intents, in both versions the actors are fluent with the language, expression in the words makes it easier to adjust with a Shakespearean world, and follow the complex plot. The intent of Luhrmann’s version was for the film to appeal to, and be accessible to a modern day audience. He hoped that the power of this play would be enjoyed, especially by a young audience, this version has compromised a Shakespearean language with a modern world.

By Lauren Rickard 10B