The use of music is very different but equally effective in both movies in terms of what the directors wanted to achieve ways in terms of reaching out to their different target audience. Luhrmann’s prologue has no music to start with to convey the seriousness of the story of the two families. It makes very clever use of music to convey the excitement to the audience through building up the music from being slow and calm to very loud and exciting. It helps to build up the tension in the story. This tension is maintained throughout the scene with loud music in the car. The music changes to Western as Tybalt from the petrol station. This has the effect of making him appear very important. The music then stops creating some uneasy tension before the quarrel between the Montague's and the Capulet. The music then becomes increasingly louder with the action creating lots of excitement and tension. Music stops after the fighting. There is an explosion and people running away. The camera then zooms onto Romeo who talks about love with sad background music. The music and Romeo’ words leaves the audience feeling sad.
Zeffirelli's use of music is a complete opposite to that of Luhrmann’s. He starts the movie with calm, soft classical music in background as the narrator talks about the prologue. The music then stops as the film shows the Capulets walking into town. There is no music in the action scene that follows so the attention of the audience is totally on what is happening. There is no music until near the end of the scene when Romeo walks into the scene. There is soft, calm music as Romeo speaks. The music is not sad as it was in Luhrmanns scene. The audience is not therefore made to feel as emotional.
Both versions of the play make good use of music which would appeal to their audience – Luhrmann uses music to heighten tension and make the play dramatic, exciting and sad which would appeal to a younger audience. Zeffirelli, on the other hand, makes use of calm, classical music but uses it only at the beginning and the end of the scene. This would appeal to the older target audience.
Both Zeffirelli and Luhrmann make good use of natural light in their versions of the play. Neither use dramatic studio lighting. In Luhrmanns prologue, there is no light so attention is focused on the television. In rest of the scenes all the lighting is natural. This changes when Romeo appears because then the camera points into the sun and makes him look hazy. The audience is left feeling intrigued because they can’t really see Romeo. Like Luhrmann, Zeffirelli doesn’t use much studio lighting. Most scenes make use of natural light.
The use of camera is very different in the two plays and both Luhrmann and Zeffirelli have used well to portray different things. Luhrmann frequently zooms in on his characters. A good example of this was when Tybalt was first introduced to the movie. The camera zooms onto Tybalt and maintains a close up shot for long period of time. This made Tybalt seem important. It also makes the audience wonder what is special about this new character because the camera spends so much close up time on him. Putting Tybalt on his own and close up on the camera also adds to the effect of making Tybalt seem scary which is what Luhrmann wanted. Luhrman also made of use of slow motion clips. An example of this was in the beginning of the movie when the fight started between Montague and Capulet. Tybalt jumped though the air and started shooting. This clip was done in slow motion to keep the attention of the audience for a longer period of time. Another use of the camera angle was when Romeo was first introduced to the movie. The camera was pointing directly into the sun and this made Rome seem hazy and made the audience feel a sense of suspicion about this character.
Zeffirelli also made a great deal of use out of different camera angles in the first scene of his movie. Some of this was shown when the Prince was first introduced to the movie. Many of the camera shots were from a high camera angle or he used close ups of him. This gave the Prince a great feeling of power over everyone else. More use of the camera was shown when Romeo was first introduced to the scene. The camera started off by showing Romeo in the distance and then he got closer and closer to the camera. By doing this Zeffirelli increased the emotional tension of the scene.
Luhrmann makes the Capulet’s seem more sinister by making it seem that the Montague's are afraid of them. In Zeffirelli's version of the play both families seem evenly matched and are not afraid of fighting but in Luhrmann’s version the Montague's are made to look afraid of the Capulet’s as shown in the beginning fight scene. The costumes worn by the Capulet’s and some of their actions make them seem more sinister. When Abra revs his car engine and shows his silver gum shield with ‘sin’ written on it all of the Montague's get scared which makes it seem as though the Capulet’s are much more sinister than the Montague's. Also the costume worn by Tybalt makes him seem sinister. He is wearing shoes with a metal heel, he is smoking and he is carrying two guns and although the Capulets are clearly out numbered the Montague's still seem to be afraid of them as they are shown running away from them. .
In my opinion Luhrmann’s movie was much better than Montague’s as Luhrmann’s modern and updated version of the story appealed more to me. It was based in my time period and everything about the story was updated to the modern day world which made it easier for me to relate to. A good touch to the modern movie was the fact that instead of swords there were guns. To me the old movie was very boring and didn’t interest me but I do think that people that were born around the time the movie was made would be able to relate more to the movie and would enjoy it more. Both movies had good points but to me the more modernised version of the story was much better and more exciting to watch.
In conclusion I think that both movies have been successful in appealing to their target audience. As I am the same age as the target audience for the modernised version of the play I can say that it has been successful in appealing to me as I enjoyed it and am sure the rest of my class did. I also think the older version has been successful in appealing to its target audience as it has used things in the movie that would appeal to the people born at the same time the movie was made.
