Student Essay Model #4
Here is another sample of a comparison of two Romeo & Juliet videos. Notice in this superior paper the writer’s particular attention to the uses of certain images in the films. Notice once again that the choice of which film the writer preferred is immaterial, as long as she supports her major points with specific details.
XXXXXXXXX
Pace/English 154
September 9, 2000
Romeo and Juliet
Romeo and Juliet, a film by Franco Zeffirelli, was produced in 1968, while another film of Romeo and Juliet was produced in 1996, by Baz Luhrmann. Both Zeffirelli and Luhrmann are not only the directors, but they are also the co-writers. Zefferelli’s Romeo and Juliet seems more true to the play, in that it gives the same tragic message as Shakespeare does. Romeo is played by the young Leonard Whiting, while Olivia Hussey plays a beautiful Juliet. It is easy to understand how someone, such as Romeo, could fall madly in love with Juliet and desire to “be the glove upon her hand so that he might touch that cheek.” Tybalt is played by Michael York , Father Lawrence by Milo O’Shea and the Nurse by Pat Heywood.
Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet is set in the 1990’s, and because of this loses much of the original message of the play. Juliet is played by Claire Danes. She is not a beauty, but her sweet disposition and manners grow on the audience. Leonardo Di Caprio, who plays Romeo, is well known as a “handsome” man and is out of balance with Juliet’s beauty. Capulet is played by Paul Sorvino, Montague by Brian Dennehy, Lady (Gloria) Capulet by Diane Venora, and the Nurse by Miriam Margolyes.
In both of these versions, many of the original lines were omitted with cause, since film has the ability to convey the setting without all of the words. This is a luxury Shakespeare did not possess in his lifetime. The death scene is handled quite differently within the two versions. One takes place in a tomb, the other in a church. In the tomb scene it is understood that Romeo feels much sorrow. And his sorrow is not just for the death of his Juliet, but also for his killing of Tybalt. They are not alone, but surrounded by the others who were laid to rest here, including Tybalt. Father Lawrence also enters the tomb. This very same scene is different in Luhrmann’s film where Juliet’s body is in a church, all alone, surrounded by hundreds of burning candles. The candles are possibly Lurhmanm’s attempt to make it feel “tomb” like. In this scene Romeo and Juliet are alone in the church. The message of sorrow that is displayed here by Romeo is for the death of his Juliet and, perhaps, for his own. This Romeo sees through his dying eyes that Juliet is truly alive. Juliet awakes to see him dying. Now they both have come face to face with death. He dies knowing his death is in vain. In the 1968 film version Juliet awakes to find Romeo dead and recently so, because his “lips are still warm.” The difference of being in a tomb and not in a church sets a whole different tone. A tomb is a house of death and a place of finality, whereas a church is a house of worship and a place of hope. But interestingly enough, the message for both these couples is that they are truly on their own because even the presence of Father Lawrence cannot help them, as in 1968-film version.
Another interesting difference between these two scenes is not just the choice of weapons that both Juliets used to end their lives, but where they aimed their weapons. For one, it was a dagger to the heart, for the other, a shot to the head. Again one film reached the heart, the other, the mind.
Yet, another major difference is found in the treatment of the balcony scene. In the 1968 version Juliet was on her balcony above Romeo, who was down in the garden listening to Juliet. She warns him that if any of her kinsmen find him there they will murder him. In the 1996 version Romeo was hanging from a trellis above Juliet, and they were physically close. The threat of Juliet’s kinsmen in this version was found in the security cameras that threatened to bring the guards.
Luhrmann , being consistent with the play, did address some loose ends left with Zeffirelli version, such as when and where Romeo obtained the vial of poison that he used to end his life, an important item overlooked by Zeffirelli. Along with the purchase of the poison, this scene shows that young Romeo understands that money corrupts.
The 1996 version used the garb of today. The only time Luhrmann used costumes was for the masquerade party, which was nicely done. The 1968 version used marvelous costumes that should be considered part of this delightful setting because they authenticated the time and place. They were quite elaborate and flowing and just lovely. Most of the characters had some sort of hat or headdress. Tybalt wore a hat that resembled two devilish horns giving his character a devilish or more mischievous appearance, an aspect of his character that would eventually lead to his death.
The manners and speech of the 1968 cast seemed more fitting than Luhrmann’s cast, perhaps if only in our imagination of the time and place this play was written. Shakespearean speech flows much better with an English accent than it does with an American one. Perhaps, this is because society has learned to expect in an English accent when we listen to the words of Shakespeare.
In the original play, Romeo and Juliet were young teenagers and so, the choice of casting these two young teenagers, Hussey and Whiting, was an excellent one. They were very believable, fitting the expectation of the audience about how young and innocent lovers might behave . These are just some of the elements that captivate the audience.
Luhrmann chose a Romeo and Juliet who were not teenagers and who definitely were not innocent. Romeo smoked, took drugs, and carried a gun. His friends appeared more like battling gang members rather than feuding families. In fact, Capulet and Montague seemed to be Mafioso-type “heads of families.” not unlike Marlon Brando in the Godfather movie.
The 1968 version was filmed in a quaint village somewhere in Italy. Not only did this lend charm to the story, but also it matched the time and place of the original drama. The narrow alleyways, the stone pavement and the fountains all make the audience feel as though they are there in Verona. In contrast, the 1996 version was filmed in Mexico and shows the ocean, warm weather and a beautiful cathedral where Juliet and her Romeo later die.
The way a scene is set up not only creates different moods but is the director’s way of sending a message to the audience. The death scene in the church has a different feeling from the 1968 version. The camera shot from above shows hundreds of burning candles that surround Juliet. It was similar to another scene shot from below, looking up to Juliet on her balcony in an angel costume with wings. These scenes appear to be Luhrmann’s attempt to create an image of purity and innocence for Juliet and her love of Romeo. But, they are in contrast to the film’s setting of modern day events and violence.
The first time we see Romeo is on the beach. He is in an unusual setting, a makeshift stage whose purpose might be to remind the audience that this is still a play. This stage appears massive and has a huge round opening . It resembles an ancient ship whose metal has rusted, leaving a big hole in its outer walls. Across the top of the hole or opening is inscribed the name, Sycamore Grove. It is through this hole that we view the ocean, the coastline that is at the edge of land and maybe, the edge of life. This opening appears to be the gateway to the story of Romeo and Juliet. It is through this gateway that the audience goes to Sycamore Grove on Verona Beach, with Romeo, as the story is told and his fate unfolds. In the original text the first reference to Romeo is that he is walking in “the sycamore grove.”
Luhrmann, interestingly, uses water in some very important scenes, such as on the scene on the beach. The first time we see Juliet is with her face under water, a position we will later see Romeo in just before he meets Juliet. The first time Romeo and Juliet’s eyes meet is through an aquarium filled with beautiful swimming fish. Instead of the traditional balcony scene, both Romeo and Juliet are beneath the balcony and fall into the pool fully clothed. Is the director portraying them like “fish in water”? Or, when they fell in the pool, were they “in over their heads”? Or, with their faces under water, could he be foretelling an omen that they would be “drowned by love”?
Another interesting element that Luhrmann uses is religious symbols. He uses items such as crosses and icons that direct the audience to church and to God throughout the movie. Perhaps this is just another omen, a forewarning that Romeo and Juliet’s paths will lead to their fated deaths in the church.
Zeffirelli’s version was more serious in that it lacked comedy with the exception of the Nurse, whose flavorful speeches were left intact. She still babbled and used her bawdy innuendoes. In contrast there is comedy in Luhrmann’s version, not in the style of Shakespeare, but perhaps in honor of it. Lady Capulet, or Gloria Capulet in this film, is presented as a silly woman whose only interest appears to be in the material and superficial elements of life. She is a comical figure. In one particular scene she is running down the staircase calling for Juliet in full view of the servants who are setting up for the big party. Her undergarments are exposed and when she looks down and realizes this, she closes her “sheer” robe. That did a lot of good! It is not only the situation and the way she behaves here that makes it comical but also the way it is edited. This scene is shot at a faster speed, giving it a Charlie Chaplain type feel. This same treatment was also given to the scene where Lady Capulet brings up the talk of marriage to Paris. Both of these scenes also include the Nurse…..or the maid, who is also quite comical with her wide-eyed expressions. The most comical scene with Margolyes was her shadow being filmed through a curtain of the window, as she was hollering for, “ H-o-o-l-i-e-t-a.”
With our modern society comes a lack of innocence. This greatly affects the play and its message in the 1996 version. It diminishes the role of the Nurse who was not just a companion but a confidant to Juliet in the original play. The importance and role of the Nurse is diminished to that of a maid. This alters the relationship between Juliet and the Nurse found in the original as well as in Zefferelli’s version, where we feel the desperation and urgency that comes from this innocent and dependent 13 year old Juliet. The Nurse is the person Juliet clings to for help when she is in need. She is also a messenger of the story and the connection between Romeo and Juliet. She was also Juliet’s good friend, and Juliet in the 1996 version lacks that connection.
Important relationships in a play include more than those among the characters. Equally important are those between the audience and the actors. How connected the audience feels affects the level of concern they feel toward the fate of these two lovers. In other words, how sad do they feel? Are they drawn to these two lovers? Do they feel any connection with the feelings of these characters? With human nature, it is natural to be drawn towards the young, the innocent and especially, toward the magic of LOVE.
The sweet innocent love that the audience buys into with the Zeffirelli’s version is minimized in Luhrmann’s version. It is not just the lack of innocence in the characters, but also in that of the time. The 1500’s seem much more romantic, and, of course, there is always the sweet flavor of nostalgia. When the audience is in a world of more simplicity, they are less distracted by the fast-paced bombardments of today. And it is this simplicity that allows human nature and character to shine through.
What is innocence? I found two definitions. One was “not experienced or worldly; naïve.” The other was “being without deception or guile.” Yet another might be Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet.
The greatest difference between any stage production and film is that the director of a film can shoot and re-shoot, edit and re-edit until they get it right. They control it all, the mood with the lighting and costumes and music. And after they have it just so, it is recorded permanently to be watched again and again. Even with today’s wonderfully creative stage sets, there are still limitations in a play. They can only control so much and at each performance they have only one shot with each performance being varied from another other. Zeffirelli’s lighting was more dim, giving it an antique feel. This contrast helped the costumes stand out. And both of these productions had wonderful choices of music that really set the mood. For example, both parties had a singer singing a love song.
I thoroughly enjoyed Zeffirelli’s version. I thought the setting was so charming. After going back and watching it again, I found it was even better than I had remembered. The costumes, the settings, the cast and music all drew me in. I cannot say enough about the feeling of beauty that comes from the purity and innocence of young love. Romeo and Juliet’s expressions and mannerisms were so sweet and enchanting and results were amazing .One could not help but want to adopt them. The last impression I had of this movie was how gently and sweetly the last five lines of the play were read. The narrator spoke to the heart. In contrast, the modern version ended with a television reporter reading these very same lines with a tone that was more philosophical, making it more appealing to the mind and much less to the heart.
With Luhrmann’s version, I can say in the beginning I was totally turned off, and I had actually decided I would not like this movie. It seemed so off color, especially with the Shakespearean speech done in this modern day. It was a very strange scene with Ted Montague in his black chauffeur limousine along with Lady Montague. This is right after Montague is finished speaking with Benvolio, while Montague is closing the electric tinted glass window. He turns to his wife and says, “Come, madam, let’s away.” This speech was “crossed out” by the elements of the time and place. But it was a delightful discovery, once the movie ended, to recognize that it was brilliantly done, given all the obstacles of our modern world. In retrospect the scene with the limousine was an oxymoron which continued throughout the movie. The comedy here was one that the modern audience could understand and enjoy. There were also the omens with the water and with religious references. So all these Shakespearean elements were present--- the oxymoron, the omens, and the comedy. Perhaps they were not done in the same way that Shakespeare did them but that they did portray the spirit of Shakespeare. And yet again, it could be Luhrmann’s attempt to portray this story the way Shakespeare might have written if he were alive today.