“That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet
Briefly describe and comment on the way one aspect of the play is treated in either Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet or Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. What are the effects of the artistic choices made?
The aspect of the play I found really interesting in Baz Luhrmann's adaptation was at the end, when Romeo dies and Juliet kills herself. In fact, Juliet wakes an instant after Romeo took the poison and he can still talk. He dies in her arms, whereas in Zeffirelli's film he is already dead when Juliet opens her eyes and according to me the presence of Friar Lawrence reduces the effects of the tragic irony in this scene. In Luhrmann's end, the theme of time is even more developed and we feel frustrated for the lovers, as if we still expected a happy end for them. Furthermore, the memories we see after their death remind us the beauty of their love and it was undeniably striking. The candles surrounding them make the scene very beautiful and it seems to me that death was not the worst end for Romeo and Juliet, they are now in peace. To sum up, I was more touched by Luhrmann's adaptation that's why I think his choices were more effective.
I completely share your point of view :) and I think it really helps to emphasize our feeling of injustice from fate and our anger towards the parents.
I chose the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet in Baz Luhrmann's film. In this scene, the two characters discover each other through a fish tank. They don't exchange a single word, but the long glances that they share are even more powerful : it is love at first sight. This scene really stands out from the rest of the movie, due to its length (1 min) and its peaceful atmosphere. With the soft background music, all sense of time seems suspended ; which really heightens the viewer's attention and the effectiveness of the scene.
The choice of the aquarium has a strong symbolical meaning and can be interpreted in different ways. As the water gently blurs the two lovers from each side of the glass, they almost appear like imaginary creatures ; which adds a quite surreal dimension to the scene. The costumes of the characters also lean in this direction : with Romeo as a knight and Juliet as an angel ; they seem coming straight from a fairytale. Through this staging, Luhrmann managed to capture the genuine worship that Romeo vows to Juliet ; especially when he describes her as a "winged messenger of heaven".
Finally, the glass of the fish tank could also represent a symbolical separation between the two lovers. It perhaps embodies all the obstacles to their passion : family duty, honor, fate,.. The fact that they cannot be reunited but still can admire each other truly emphasizes the dramatic effect. To conclude, through original artistic choices, Luhrmann succeeded in bringing a certain modernity to the tragedy, while remaining faithful to the main themes of the play.
I completely agree with you Emma :) I thought that the feelings between the two characters were more powerful especially when they meet in Luhrmann's adaptation of the play.
One thing I really liked in Luhrmann's adaptation was the way he filmed the scenes between Lady Capulet and Juliet. For example, when she is dressing up for the party while talking to Juliet, Luhrmann uses fast motion. It emphasizes the fact that everything is rushed. We get the impression that Lady Capulet wants to get rid of Juliet as quick as possible. Her acting gives us informations about her state of mind. She glances at Juliet with exasperated looks that only the audience can see. We can understand she doesn't care about or even doesn't like her daughter. However, in Zeffirelli's adaptation, this aspect of Shakespeare's play is hardly developed, which I think is disappointing. It is partly because of her family carelessness that Juliet will come to a tragic end.
In Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I liked how the first part of the Capulet's party was filmed. Just before going to the party Romeo takes drugs and the party is showed from his state of mind. Everything is spinning both in slow and in fast motion and it is mixing up. We feel opressed by the very heavy atmosphere imposed by the drugs. It is so confused that some moments from the final scene are added : Romeo even says "thy drugs are quick" which is his very last line. All this filming techniques emphasize the fact that Romeo is alone and very different from the people he is with. He stares but doesn"t participate to the general madness of the guests of the Capulet's. The use of drugs as I said is very opressive but also could explain how Romeo forgot Rosaline so quickly. I enjoyed the effect it produced and the fact that it showed the extravagance of the rich Capulets family.
In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, I really liked how the names of places or nouns from the play fitted perfectly in the modern movie.
Some great examples of his adaptation are when Benvolio screams “Put up thy swords”, when Montague says “Give me my long sword”, when we see Mercutio at The Sycomore Grove, or even at the intro when it's written “In Fair Verona”. In the play of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare meant actual swords unlike the adaptation of Luhrmann who had chosen a gun. He had chosen this weapon because it is modern so it fits well in the movie and although we could think it doesn't go well with the play - because it isn't a sword like it's said in the play - naming that gun a “sword” - just like naming Montague's gun a “long sword” - connects the play to the movie and what we hear to what we see. Moreover, in the play, it is often written “fair Verona”, so Luhrmann took this phrase and made of it the name of the place. And finally, seeing Mercutio standing in an open-air theatre called The Sycamore Grove, connects once again the movie to the play because The Sycamore Grove was a theatre much used by Shakespeare, the writer of Romeo and Juliet.
To conclude, Luhrmann introduced well fitted adaptations into the movie to still keep the original text but to modernise the visual part of the play so there would still be a link between his movie Romeo + Juliet and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. The effects of these adaptations are that the audience is everything but shocked, it even makes the movie funnier.
What I found striking in Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" is the presence of religion everywhere. I've noticed for example the religious images on Tybalt's gun and on his outfit, the crosses on Romeo and Juliet's wedding ring, the one in the title, the one in the back of a car, the countless ones in the church where Juliet and Romeo see each other for the last time and many religious statuettes in Juliet's bedroom. Those appearances of religion in different circumstances seem to represent the different ways religion can be used. On one hand, we have the religious symbols which are shown during conflicts (e.g : Tybalt's gun and outfit) which reflect a misappropriation of what claims religion (peace, love) and how it can sometimes be used to justify any kind of violence. On the other hand, those symbols are also shown when love is expressed (e.g all the statuettes that are visible when Juliet thinks about Romeo), which can be associated with what religion is suppoed to be really based on : love. Therefore, we can say that although Luhrmann's movie is based on "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, he still managed to share his own view, not by changing the text but by visual adaptations.
Baz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet" and Zeffirelli's adaptation of the play are very complementary. Indeed, some scenes, or interpretation are different. Nevertheless, the feature that I think is interesting to look at in both movies is the character of Juliet.
Thus, when I read the book, I pictured Juliet as an angel; blond hair, bright skin, blue eyes.. and, apparently, so did Luhrman, who pushed it very far with her angel costume during the party. However, Zeffirelli chose a brown haired Juliet with dark costumes. At first, I liked this new Juliet, and thought this actress could represent the character's change throughout the play (two sided appearance). But, I was very disappointed of how the actress played Juliet, not showing her that much as a strong women, but more as a child. I thought he could've highlighted Juliet's change, for example, by showing her soliloquy in Act 3 scene 2. Although Luhrman cut it out too, I preferred Juliet in his movie because she looks stronger, and has a childish side at the same time which is fair to the book. Some of his stagings really emphasized this evolution, one of the most striking is when she enters in Friar Lawrence's cell and point a gun at him.
As a conclusion, I would say that, although Zeffirelli's ideas about Juliet's physical appearance were great, the actress didn't fit perfectly Juliet's personality and evolution. However Luhrman really did a great job with this character.
One interesting aspect of Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " is that despite the film being set in a modern environment, the director has made the choice to keep the original text/script.
At first, this decision would seem like a very bad idea but with the help of good acting and a good screenplay, the film is almost flawless with moviegoers and spectators almost not noticing the old english. Baz Luhrman goes to such length as to change the names of elements of the film for example the guns which he names longsword or sword...
It is this kind of precision and detail that makes this movie a great movie with a realistic but slightly cartoony feel.
One aspect I would like to comment about it is the way the two directors depict the scenes between Romeo and Juliet. In Baz Luhrmann's adaptation we can really see passion and love between the two characters. In Zeffirelli's film, the scenes are shorter and the feelings are expressed through words rather than scenography and attitude. The director has made the choice to stay faithful to Shakespeare's text. In fact we can see this difference particularly at the beginning of Luhrmann's version. He adds a first meeting between Romeo and Juliet before the real first meeting of the book. It's a very powerful moment because, even if Romeo and Juliet don't speak, that scene gives a magical aspect to their love conveyed by their gaze. Finally, the effects of the artistic choices of two directors appear in the feeling they give to the viewer. In Luhrmann's film, love between Romeo and Juliet seems to fulfill the two with more joy, even if it is a tragic one, like in Zeffirelli's adaptation.
One aspect of Romeo and Juliet that I think was made interesting use of in both films is the portrayal of the two families. Both directors went to great lengths to show the families in a different light, mainly in their clothing and personalities, yet they did it in quite different ways.
In Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the play, the two families are mainly differentiated by their clothing. While the Montagues wear dark, sombre clothes, good examples of this being Romeo and Benvolio, the Capulets wear doublets in far brighter hues such as reds and yellows. This corresponds to the way the director portrays their personalities, much graver for the former and far more sanguine and open for the latter. This is especially important in developing the characters of Tybalt and Capulet, who are both fiery and impulsive and whose personalities play and important part in the plot.
Interestingly, Baz Luhrmann also chose to differentiate the two families by clothing in his film Romeo + Juliet – only the colours are exactly the opposite, the brighter clothes representing the Montagues and the darker ones the Capulets. Furthermore, whereas in Zeffirelli’s adaptation both houses have clothes of the same style, showing how similar they really are and insisting on the futility of the conflict, Baz Luhrmann’s Montagues have much more casual clothing than for example Tybalt, who appears to be dressed in a far more formal way. In fact they almost seem to be from different classes; this shows the huge rift between their status, traditions and personalities, further accentuating the conflict.
In conclusion, the directors of both movies really made an effort to physically show the differences between both houses which are visible in the original text only through the characters’ words, and very much open to interpretation; these choices are both necessary, in order to help the viewer distinguish between the two houses, and interesting, in terms of development of the theme of conflict.
Even though I liked Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet more than Luhrmann's adaptation of the play, I thought that the way Romeo and Juliet fell in love in Luhrmann's movie was very interesting and realistic. First of all, the way they actually meet, with the aquarium was very original and we feel an interest coming from both sides whereas in Zeffirelli's adaptation we can get the feeling that the feelings only come from Romeo at the party. Then, the way they escape together from Juliet's mother with the lift is comic and romantic at the same time. We can really feel a connexion between the two characters and their feelings for one another appear much more realistic. To conclude, I found Luhrmann's way of seeing love between Romeo and Juliet very convincing and interesting and I really liked that aspect of his movie.
In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the Christian aspect of the play is really exaggerated. For example, Juliet has a tonne of statues which represent angels praying, the Virgin Mary and she also has a lot of candles which she lights up to pray. Furthermore, Friar Lawrence's dedication to God is very clear thanks to his enormous crucifix tattoo on his back. Besides, in the Capulet's house, there's a large religious painting hanging above the stairs and between their building and the Montague's building stands a huge religious statue. This exaggeration emphasizes on the important role played by Christianity in the actions of all the characters of the movie and the play : they are influenced by it. In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the artistic choices made add a ridiculous atmosphere to the play, they act as a comic relief in opposite to the more serious moments.
I choose the final scene when Romeo and Juliet die because I thought that their death had different effect in Baz Luhrmann's movie compared to Zeffirelli's one. Indeed in Franco Zeffireli's adaptation, Romeo dies before Juliet wakes up so it's fatal but there is no hope left, we know that Juliet is going to kill herself and that the end will be tragic. Moreover the presence of Friar Lawrence reduce the effect of the tragic irony of the scene. Whereas in Luhrmann’s movie, when Juliet wakes up, Romeo did not took the potion yet, and I thought that that specific moment was very intense. We hope that he will just see that she is alive and won’t drink but he does. The fact that Romeo is dying in Juliet arm is very touching and all the memories of their time together that appear only remind us how pure, innocent and beautiful their love was. Moreover even if both movies are using Shakespeare’s text, the meaning of it changes a lot with the acting especially in this scene which can had to the tragic irony in Luhrmann’s adaptation. To conclude I think that Baz Luhrmann’s version of the scene was more efficient and convincing but also much more dramatic than Zeffireli’s one and I prefer this end for that.
One aspect of Luhrmann’s version of the story of Romeo and Juliet I think is particularly witty is the weather changing really quickly. I think this shows the everpresence of fate in the story and how the weather influences the characters. Thus, it sticks to Shakespeare’s text in which the weather is really important both as a physical apparition of fate and as an example of pathetic fallacy. Moreover, Luhrmann, by making the weather change so rapidly, like in the equivalent of act 3 scene 1 that takes place at the beach, exaggerates the influence of fate in the story by making it obvious and over the top (maybe highlighting how obvious it is too in Shakespeare’s play) and emphasises the quick pace of the story. The vivid and nearly psychedelic shades of the sky as well as the way the scenes are shot help the viewer picture the characters’ states of mind. RENAUD Esteban
The thing I liked the most about Baz Luhrmann's film adaptation of Romeo & Juliet was its time settings - it was set in the present, not in the Shakespearean time. Although it takes place in the 20th century, we don't lose the Middle-age feeling; the old English is preserved and the weapons aren't swords as in the original; the weapons used are guns with names such as "Sword" or "Longsword". Also the characters' behaviour happens to be slightly Middle-aged, for example Romeo's courtesy or Juliet's restraint. On the other hand, the scene settings match the present day; all the characters use modern inventions such as cars or electrical lighting, and I really appreciated this contrast.
Although I was one of the two people in the class who preferred Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the play, there is one aspect of Luhrmann’s version that I really liked, and that is the way he felt free to, without changing the words, change the meaning of a sentence. I think this was not only a way to change the movie to be more adapted to the modern context, but also to show that one line can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the start of Juliet’s soliloquy before taking her potion is “Farewell! God knows when we shall meet again”, which, in the book, seems to be addressed to her mother or the nurse, but of course isn’t heard by them as they are out of the room. In Luhrmann’s adaptation, however, these words are spoken directly to Lady Capulet. In this particular case, I think the director wanted to mock Juliet’s parents even more than they already are by Shakespeare, by really making them seem ignorant and blind before the truth that is right under their noses. Another example of Luhrmann’s slight modifications is during the last scene, upon Romeo’s last words: “thus with a kiss I die”. In the book, Romeo kisses what he thinks is Juliet dead, whereas in the movie, he’s kissing Juliet alive, who has just realised what’s happening. Without changing the words, but simply their meaning and who they’re addressed to, the director has once again changed the spectator’s view about the story. This is one of the many changes Luhrmann made to the original play to add to the tragedy of the end.
What I found striking in Baz Luhrman's adaptation of the play was the rivalry between Montagues and Capulets. In this movie, the younger people seem to be more affected by the rivalry, and that's how I expected it to be. In Luhrman's adaptation, the first scene (the quarrel) seems kind of out topic with all the fast camera action and the cowboy type of fight. But once you think back at it, it is somehow realistic and is more fun to watch and that's what I felt when I read this scene, I was amused by the situation and fight and the people surrounding must be happy to see some action. Whereas in Zeffirelli's movie, the quarrel of the first scene is way too realistic. People who don't belong to any of the houses are getting in the fight for example.
I think this scene sums up my vision of the two movies, Baz Luhrman made it realistic and pleasant to watch and Zeffirelli always did a little too much, some parts were interesting to watch but overall the movie seemed kind of rushed (not in terms of the theme of time of the play, but more like it was done in a couple of months) whereas in Romeo + Juliette, every scene is relevant but is pleasant to watch because the backgrounds and other choices about the aspect of the movie are more effective in my opinion.
I really loved how Luhrmann adaptated the way Romeo misses Friar Lawrence's letter regarding Juliet's fake death. Compared to Zeffirelli's version, it feels more like it is Romeo's fault rather than fate's.
In Luhrmann's adaptation, the letter is carried to Romeo by the post office, and is concidered as very urgent. The postman delivers it to Roeo's location, but he is absent (even though he is ten meters behind his camper and could - or should - have seen the postman coming), so he puts a sign on his door to tell him he has a letter for him and that he will deliver it tomorrow. Somehow, the sign falls down and Romeo does not notice it. The day after, Balthazar comes to Mantua tu tell Romeo that Juliet is dead (she is not, but Romeo doesn't know, because he hasn't received the letter). As they rush towards Verona, they come accross the postman's truck, without stopping.
All of this makes it more Romeo's fault because he should have waited for a letter in the first place, and should have stayed at his place. Moreover, he misses the postman twice, without even thinking he could have a letter for him from either Friar Lawrence or Juliet. This shows Luhrmann's will to blame it as much on the characters as on their fate, compared to Zeffirelli's version which blames fate a lot more and makes the characters less guilty.
I really loved how Luhrmann adaptated the way Romeo misses Friar Lawrence's letter regarding Juliet's fake death. Compared to Zeffirelli's version, it feels more like it is Romeo's fault rather than fate's.
In Luhrmann's adaptation, the letter is carried to Romeo by the post office, and is concidered as very urgent. The postman delivers it to Roeo's location, but he is absent (even though he is ten meters behind his camper and could - or should - have seen the postman coming), so he puts a sign on his door to tell him he has a letter for him and that he will deliver it tomorrow. Somehow, the sign falls down and Romeo does not notice it. The day after, Balthazar comes to Mantua tu tell Romeo that Juliet is dead (she is not, but Romeo doesn't know, because he hasn't received the letter). As they rush towards Verona, they come accross the postman's truck, without stopping.
All of this makes it more Romeo's fault because he should have waited for a letter in the first place, and should have stayed at his place. Moreover, he misses the postman twice, without even thinking he could have a letter for him from either Friar Lawrence or Juliet. This shows Luhrmann's will to blame it as much on the characters as on their fate, compared to Zeffirelli's version which blames fate a lot more and makes the characters less guilty.
One interesting aspect of the play is the final scene, in which Romeo and Juliet both take their lives. The two movies presented this scene really differently. In Baz Luhrmann's adaptation, Juliet wakes up a few seconds before Romeo dies, but after he took the poison. She is forced to watch him die without being able to do anything about it. She doesn't speak, but the way the realisation strikes her is well shown on her face, and is emphasised by the contrast between when she first wakes up and when she understands what is happening. Indeed, she initially thinks that Romeo came here waiting for her to wake up, and her facial expression goes from pure happiness to horror and despair when she realises that Romeo is dying. The fact that she witnesses her husband die adds a more dramatic effect that was missing in Franco Zeffirelli's film.
I liked how Luhrmann represented the character of Friar Lawrence as I thought it gave an interesting alternative to the vision the original text gave from the Friar. And I thought that this Friar Lawrence is much more “realistic” than the Friar from the Zeffirelli's adaptation : he acts a lot more “naturally”. For example if you look at the act 5 scene 3, in Zeffirelli’s adaptation, the Friar run away from the tomb where Juliet is about to commit suicide (because he is afraid of what will happen to him) in an exaggerated way that is more likely to turn the dramatic mood into a comic one. Instead of that Luhrmann offers a view of the Friar where he tries to send back the letter to Romeo, trying to fight against their inevitable destiny. Luhrmann also developed the fatherly side of the Friar and emphasized his relations more than Zeffirelli did. This fatherly behavior transform the Friar in a more likeable character and give him more importance as he get closer to one of the main character.
One aspect of Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet I found particularly interesting is the balcony scene that turns into a swimming pool scene. Indeed, in Luhrmann's adaptation, Romeo meets Juliet in her orchard she is first at her balcony but the she go down and walk around the swimming pool. Romeo is hidden, lets her talk and decides to push her in the swimming pool, joining her in the water for a long and languorous kiss. Here, the scene breaks with the traditional vision of the balcony scene. Indeed, in the traditional version, Juliet is laid on her balcony staring at the stars. She is up and Romeo sees her as a “bright angel”. Then he elevates meets Juliet where she is. Here, both are at the same level. I find this point of view very interesting because here the scene turns out much more sensual; than in the traditional point of view. They touch each other body and express their love with passion; this is particularly expressed thanks to the quick shots and the water surrounding. Indeed, the water and the foam blur the image and protects them from the outer world as a kind of cocoon. However, it conveys a meaning of truth and transparency. Indeed, it cans reminds us of the first time the two lovers met in front of the aquarium. In both moments, water represents the clarity of their sentiments as opposed to the tumult of the context. In the pool scene, Romeo and Juliet get rid of their origin and express their love. It really shows the rupture in the different periods of time, from a realistic point of view to a an unreal and passionate one. The development of the two lovers as free and with ardent love is well made. Moreover water makes this scene quite unreal, almost like a dream and quite beautiful too.
As a conclusion, I really like the choices made by Luhrmann in this scene. I found that the motif of water was really relevant, even though it wasn’t present in the original text. It really helps to develop the tho lovers and their passion.
What I found really interesting in Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was the extravagant side of his adaptation, opposed to the relatively solemn orginal play. Indeed, even though it is quite clear that both the Capulet and Montague families are wealthy and prosperous, the attention of the reader was mostly drawn to the dramatic atmosphere and the tragedy in itself rather than the superficial and materialistic aspect we see in Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation. This aspect is emphasized during the party at Capulet's house. What is interesting is the way it is shot. The scene is seen from Romeo's point of view and it is quite clear that he is definitely overwhelmed by the situation. The shots are blurry, everything seems to mix up in his mind.. All the elements of a perfect party are presented but in a disproportionate manner. Luhrmann also chose to develop here the merry and joyful aspect of Mercutio.
We can also see this in the decoration of different and important places. First of all, the Capulets' mansion is enormous and the inside decoration is again excessive. We can see this when everyone turns around the preparation of the party and everything is getting ready, Baz Luhrmann uses fast motion when the numerous lustres are hung up, emphasizing again the superfluous aspect. Juliet's bedroom was also full of angels, which could refer to the way she was dressed at the party when she met Romeo or could symbolize the innocence of the young character she is. What was also interesting and special was the decoration of the church with the neon crosses and all the candles surrounding Juliet's body; elements showing once again the modernity given to the play by Baz Luhrmann.
To conclude, all these elements are like a gust of wind through an original play rather solemn. All those modern choices plus the fact that the original text has been kept in the script make the movie more accessible to the people and probably change the view of some on theatrical adaptations.
In Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the character were more well depicted and were more accurate to the idea of Romeo and Juliet I had while reading Shakespeare's play. It may be in a different time than the play, which Zeffirelli's one respected, the characterization is particularly well done: Mercutio is amazingly extravagant and every bit of the exentric he is. And his relationship with Romeo was more developed, or it is at least the impression I've got. In Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, it sticks too much to the play while cutting important part, as Juliet's soliloquy. It's too much like the play while not being enough to give an impression of reality. But in Romeo + Juliet, the play is taken in a whole new universe who gave it a new aspect. It is a new sight to take in, with the marvelous side of a setting totally opposite of the play, but the text is still the original. All this mix in Luhrmann's adaptation makes it surprinsigly good and amazingly refreshing for a 400-years old play.
One aspect of the play that I really liked in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet is the scene when Romeo and Juliet meet, which is very different in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. I thought it was very original to show them seeing each other for the first time through an aquarium, it made this meeting feel a bit magical, with their faces being distorted because of the water and the fishes all around them. It's as if they're in an other world, separated from the others, and it made this meeting more special and intimate for the two of them, while Zeffirelli's scene of their first meeting is way more normal, the two lovers simply see each other at the party. Also, in Luhrmann's scene of their meeting, the youth and innocence of the two adolescents is emphasized, because when they see each other they sort of play together, moving their faces towards each other, smiling and laughing. Moreover, the fact that I really found interesting in Romeo+Juliet is that the love between Romeo and Juliet is represented by water. Indeed, whenever the two lovers are together there is water represented in a certain way, for example the aquarium when they meet, the swimming pool when they see each other for the second time, or when Romeo sees Juliet after having killed Tybalt, and he's all wet because of the rain. This originality in presenting the two lovers, which is less present in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, is the reason I preferred Lhurmann's way of approaching the play.
catch/caught/caught! Religion plays an important role, but perhaps the omnipresent of religion in this movie emphasizes the hypocrisy or at least the irony that, despite their religious beliefs, the characters cannot avoid killing one another.
What I found very interesting in Luhrmann’s adaptation is the first meeting of Romeo & Juliet and all what surrounds this important meet. Indeed, as we have sawn in Zefferilli’s adaptation the Capulet’s party is very festive, lively but remains very sophisticated, the music is very traditional but quite calm; as well as the decorations, there isn’t no explicit appearance of any decoration that could help the audience to imagine that there is a party, thus the Capulet’s house is kind of dull (as for the outside and the inside). There is admittedly a lot of people at the party but they remain well dressed, no exuberance nevertheless they all wore a mask, the ambiance is joyful but without excess. However, in Luhrmann’s movie the Capulet’s house is well-dressed, it is covered with light, tinsels, colors, flowers, as for the inside! There is a lot a glitter and sparkles; In addition, there are a lot of drinks, aperitifs, even the mother is very extravagant as her house; Plus the guests are all disguise, the ambiance is more festive, childish, and everything is very over the top, really eye-catcher and show-off, the Capulets power, popularity and money is more shown in this adaptation, we understands why they are recognized for organizing huge parties.
Actually, I was quite surprised by the way the two love birds met, In Zefferelli’s version, Romeo saw Juliet (at first) from the other side of the hall, he got closer and closer to her, and at the moment he was on the other side of the beam, behind the velvet curtain, he catches her hand and pulled her back, then they went in an empty room and exchanged 2 kisses, everything is very slow, the music is very calm and soft. Luhrmenn version was, to my mind, more unexpected, funny and dynamic. Indeed, after washing his face Romeo had a look on the fishes in the aquarium and Juliet’s face appeared (thus, they saw each other at the same moment), […] after Juliet’s dance with count Paris, they exchanged a kiss in the elevator, then a hide-and-seek game begin between the lovers a Lady Capulet (I think it emphasis even more this aspect of secret love that can’t be shown nor seen, and also this love is unstable, with a lot of up and downs.), I also noticed that R&J exchanges a lot of kisses in this version, perhaps we can think that there is a lot more passion and (physical) attraction between them.
I was also surprised to see how Lady Capulet and Paris were close, it wasn’t seen like a mother-in-law and son-in-law relationship but rather a lovely (more from the mother than Paris) relation, it stresses the fact that if Juliet’s marry Paris it is rather for her parents (in this case, her mother) than for her; I was even more surprised to see Lady Capulet kissing Tybalt’s, there is a closeness between the family that is not shown by Zefferilli. In his movie Lady Capulets is more inexistent, calm, obedient and narrow minded, it is interesting to see how she can rather be submissive and side head, or extravagant an broadly open-minded! What was extremely strange and incomprehensive to my mind was the fact that Romeo was drugged by Mercutio before the Party, could we think that because of the drug effects he was directly attracted to the first lady he saw?, can it emphasis the fact that this “love” has fatal effects just as drug ?
To conclue, I liked to see how a first meeting, a love at first sight could be shown, how a same idea can be represented in diffrent ways, Zifferilli stayed very straight no fantasy nor fun, whereas Luhrmann tried to make it a bit more humoristique.
One aspect that striked me in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, was Mercutio's characterization, and his relationship with Benvolio and Romeo, which I felt was not as developed in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. Mercutio was, to me, when reading the play, the most interesting character by far : he seemed to be on the edge of madness, and a witty and perhaps a quite belligerent character. This really came out in Luhrmann's version of the play, more so than in Zafferelli's, in which he was a minor character and didn't hold a very important role, except for dramatic effect when he was killed. Mercutio and Romeo's friendship also felt very authentic in Romeo + Juliet : I loved seeing them banter in the first acts, and seeing how every time Mercutio mocked him, there was a kind of visible anger about him that told the viewer he wasn't entirely joking and that perhaps he did hold some kind of anger toward the way Romeo tended to act, which felt very realistic to me. And then Mercutio's death was absolutely heartbreaking, and this time it made me understand how the events of the play were breaking Romeo little by little, how much the love he held for both Montagues and Capulets destroyed him.
One of the most unforgettable scenes for me in Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " is the balcony scene. In Zeffirelli's film, we see Romeo climbing trees and climbing on the balcony when Juliet standing on the balcony of Capulet’s house; it is the traditional way to act this scene and while we are reading in the book we can also imagine that. To our surprise, in Baz Luhrman's film there is a swimming pool in this scene, and the couples not only speaking on the balcony but also in the water. It makes the words they speak and their actions of love more romantic. I prefer Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " because he really does a lot of changes than the traditional ones, especially the time and the background of the film. But still, the story goes smoothly that it is like a story happened in nowadays.
The aspect of the play I found really interesting in Baz Luhrmann's adaptation was at the end, when Romeo dies and Juliet kills herself. In fact, Juliet wakes an instant after Romeo took the poison and he can still talk. He dies in her arms, whereas in Zeffirelli's film he is already dead when Juliet opens her eyes and according to me the presence of Friar Lawrence reduces the effects of the tragic irony in this scene. In Luhrmann's end, the theme of time is even more developed and we feel frustrated for the lovers, as if we still expected a happy end for them. Furthermore, the memories we see after their death remind us the beauty of their love and it was undeniably striking. The candles surrounding them make the scene very beautiful and it seems to me that death was not the worst end for Romeo and Juliet, they are now in peace.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up, I was more touched by Luhrmann's adaptation that's why I think his choices were more effective.
Maëlys Gauthé
I completely share your point of view :) and I think it really helps to emphasize our feeling of injustice from fate and our anger towards the parents.
DeleteI chose the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet in Baz Luhrmann's film. In this scene, the two characters discover each other through a fish tank. They don't exchange a single word, but the long glances that they share are even more powerful : it is love at first sight. This scene really stands out from the rest of the movie, due to its length (1 min) and its peaceful atmosphere. With the soft background music, all sense of time seems suspended ; which really heightens the viewer's attention and the effectiveness of the scene.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of the aquarium has a strong symbolical meaning and can be interpreted in different ways. As the water gently blurs the two lovers from each side of the glass, they almost appear like imaginary creatures ; which adds a quite surreal dimension to the scene. The costumes of the characters also lean in this direction : with Romeo as a knight and Juliet as an angel ; they seem coming straight from a fairytale. Through this staging, Luhrmann managed to capture the genuine worship that Romeo vows to Juliet ; especially when he describes her as a "winged messenger of heaven".
Finally, the glass of the fish tank could also represent a symbolical separation between the two lovers. It perhaps embodies all the obstacles to their passion : family duty, honor, fate,.. The fact that they cannot be reunited but still can admire each other truly emphasizes the dramatic effect. To conclude, through original artistic choices, Luhrmann succeeded in bringing a certain modernity to the tragedy, while remaining faithful to the main themes of the play.
I completely agree with you Emma :)
DeleteI thought that the feelings between the two characters were more powerful especially when they meet in Luhrmann's adaptation of the play.
I also agree with you ;) but I think that water here conveys also the idea of transparency in their feelings and truth in their love.
DeleteOne thing I really liked in Luhrmann's adaptation was the way he filmed the scenes between Lady Capulet and Juliet.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when she is dressing up for the party while talking to Juliet, Luhrmann uses fast motion. It emphasizes the fact that everything is rushed. We get the impression that Lady Capulet wants to get rid of Juliet as quick as possible.
Her acting gives us informations about her state of mind. She glances at Juliet with exasperated looks that only the audience can see. We can understand she doesn't care about or even doesn't like her daughter.
However, in Zeffirelli's adaptation, this aspect of Shakespeare's play is hardly developed, which I think is disappointing. It is partly because of her family carelessness that Juliet will come to a tragic end.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I liked how the first part of the Capulet's party was filmed.
ReplyDeleteJust before going to the party Romeo takes drugs and the party is showed from his state of mind. Everything is spinning both in slow and in fast motion and it is mixing up. We feel opressed by the very heavy atmosphere imposed by the drugs. It is so confused that some moments from the final scene are added : Romeo even says "thy drugs are quick" which is his very last line.
All this filming techniques emphasize the fact that Romeo is alone and very different from the people he is with. He stares but doesn"t participate to the general madness of the guests of the Capulet's. The use of drugs as I said is very opressive but also could explain how Romeo forgot Rosaline so quickly.
I enjoyed the effect it produced and the fact that it showed the extravagance of the rich Capulets family.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, I really liked how the names of places or nouns from the play fitted perfectly in the modern movie.
DeleteSome great examples of his adaptation are when Benvolio screams “Put up thy swords”, when Montague says “Give me my long sword”, when we see Mercutio at The Sycomore Grove, or even at the intro when it's written “In Fair Verona”.
In the play of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare meant actual swords unlike the adaptation of Luhrmann who had chosen a gun. He had chosen this weapon because it is modern so it fits well in the movie and although we could think it doesn't go well with the play - because it isn't a sword like it's said in the play - naming that gun a “sword” - just like naming Montague's gun a “long sword” - connects the play to the movie and what we hear to what we see.
Moreover, in the play, it is often written “fair Verona”, so Luhrmann took this phrase and made of it the name of the place.
And finally, seeing Mercutio standing in an open-air theatre called The Sycamore Grove, connects once again the movie to the play because The Sycamore Grove was a theatre much used by Shakespeare, the writer of Romeo and Juliet.
To conclude, Luhrmann introduced well fitted adaptations into the movie to still keep the original text but to modernise the visual part of the play so there would still be a link between his movie Romeo + Juliet and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. The effects of these adaptations are that the audience is everything but shocked, it even makes the movie funnier.
What I found striking in Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" is the presence of religion everywhere. I've noticed for example the religious images on Tybalt's gun and on his outfit, the crosses on Romeo and Juliet's wedding ring, the one in the title, the one in the back of a car, the countless ones in the church where Juliet and Romeo see each other for the last time and many religious statuettes in Juliet's bedroom.
ReplyDeleteThose appearances of religion in different circumstances seem to represent the different ways religion can be used.
On one hand, we have the religious symbols which are shown during conflicts (e.g : Tybalt's gun and outfit) which reflect a misappropriation of what claims religion (peace, love) and how it can sometimes be used to justify any kind of violence.
On the other hand, those symbols are also shown when love is expressed (e.g all the statuettes that are visible when Juliet thinks about Romeo), which can be associated with what religion is suppoed to be really based on : love.
Therefore, we can say that although Luhrmann's movie is based on "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, he still managed to share his own view, not by changing the text but by visual adaptations.
Baz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet" and Zeffirelli's adaptation of the play are very complementary. Indeed, some scenes, or interpretation are different. Nevertheless, the feature that I think is interesting to look at in both movies is the character of Juliet.
ReplyDeleteThus, when I read the book, I pictured Juliet as an angel; blond hair, bright skin, blue eyes.. and, apparently, so did Luhrman, who pushed it very far with her angel costume during the party. However, Zeffirelli chose a brown haired Juliet with dark costumes. At first, I liked this new Juliet, and thought this actress could represent the character's change throughout the play (two sided appearance). But, I was very disappointed of how the actress played Juliet, not showing her that much as a strong women, but more as a child. I thought he could've highlighted Juliet's change, for example, by showing her soliloquy in Act 3 scene 2. Although Luhrman cut it out too, I preferred Juliet in his movie because she looks stronger, and has a childish side at the same time which is fair to the book. Some of his stagings really emphasized this evolution, one of the most striking is when she enters in Friar Lawrence's cell and point a gun at him.
As a conclusion, I would say that, although Zeffirelli's ideas about Juliet's physical appearance were great, the actress didn't fit perfectly Juliet's personality and evolution. However Luhrman really did a great job with this character.
One interesting aspect of Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " is that despite the film being set in a modern environment, the director has made the choice to keep the original text/script.
ReplyDeleteAt first, this decision would seem like a very bad idea but with the help of good acting and a good screenplay, the film is almost flawless with moviegoers and spectators almost not noticing the old english.
Baz Luhrman goes to such length as to change the names of elements of the film for example the guns which he names longsword or sword...
It is this kind of precision and detail that makes this movie a great movie with a realistic but slightly cartoony feel.
One aspect I would like to comment about it is the way the two directors depict the scenes between Romeo and Juliet. In Baz Luhrmann's adaptation we can really see passion and love between the two characters.
ReplyDeleteIn Zeffirelli's film, the scenes are shorter and the feelings are expressed through words rather than scenography and attitude. The director has made the choice to stay faithful to Shakespeare's text.
In fact we can see this difference particularly at the beginning of Luhrmann's version. He adds a first meeting between Romeo and Juliet before the real first meeting of the book. It's a very powerful moment because, even if Romeo and Juliet don't speak, that scene gives a magical aspect to their love conveyed by their gaze.
Finally, the effects of the artistic choices of two directors appear in the feeling they give to the viewer. In Luhrmann's film, love between Romeo and Juliet seems to fulfill the two with more joy, even if it is a tragic one, like in Zeffirelli's adaptation.
One aspect of Romeo and Juliet that I think was made interesting use of in both films is the portrayal of the two families. Both directors went to great lengths to show the families in a different light, mainly in their clothing and personalities, yet they did it in quite different ways.
ReplyDeleteIn Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the play, the two families are mainly differentiated by their clothing. While the Montagues wear dark, sombre clothes, good examples of this being Romeo and Benvolio, the Capulets wear doublets in far brighter hues such as reds and yellows. This corresponds to the way the director portrays their personalities, much graver for the former and far more sanguine and open for the latter. This is especially important in developing the characters of Tybalt and Capulet, who are both fiery and impulsive and whose personalities play and important part in the plot.
Interestingly, Baz Luhrmann also chose to differentiate the two families by clothing in his film Romeo + Juliet – only the colours are exactly the opposite, the brighter clothes representing the Montagues and the darker ones the Capulets. Furthermore, whereas in Zeffirelli’s adaptation both houses have clothes of the same style, showing how similar they really are and insisting on the futility of the conflict, Baz Luhrmann’s Montagues have much more casual clothing than for example Tybalt, who appears to be dressed in a far more formal way. In fact they almost seem to be from different classes; this shows the huge rift between their status, traditions and personalities, further accentuating the conflict.
In conclusion, the directors of both movies really made an effort to physically show the differences between both houses which are visible in the original text only through the characters’ words, and very much open to interpretation; these choices are both necessary, in order to help the viewer distinguish between the two houses, and interesting, in terms of development of the theme of conflict.
Even though I liked Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet more than Luhrmann's adaptation of the play, I thought that the way Romeo and Juliet fell in love in Luhrmann's movie was very interesting and realistic.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the way they actually meet, with the aquarium was very original and we feel an interest coming from both sides whereas in Zeffirelli's adaptation we can get the feeling that the feelings only come from Romeo at the party. Then, the way they escape together from Juliet's mother with the lift is comic and romantic at the same time. We can really feel a connexion between the two characters and their feelings for one another appear much more realistic.
To conclude, I found Luhrmann's way of seeing love between Romeo and Juliet very convincing and interesting and I really liked that aspect of his movie.
In Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the Christian aspect of the play is really exaggerated. For example, Juliet has a tonne of statues which represent angels praying, the Virgin Mary and she also has a lot of candles which she lights up to pray. Furthermore, Friar Lawrence's dedication to God is very clear thanks to his enormous crucifix tattoo on his back. Besides, in the Capulet's house, there's a large religious painting hanging above the stairs and between their building and the Montague's building stands a huge religious statue. This exaggeration emphasizes on the important role played by Christianity in the actions of all the characters of the movie and the play : they are influenced by it.
ReplyDeleteIn Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the artistic choices made add a ridiculous atmosphere to the play, they act as a comic relief in opposite to the more serious moments.
I choose the final scene when Romeo and Juliet die because I thought that their death had different effect in Baz Luhrmann's movie compared to Zeffirelli's one.
ReplyDeleteIndeed in Franco Zeffireli's adaptation, Romeo dies before Juliet wakes up so it's fatal but there is no hope left, we know that Juliet is going to kill herself and that the end will be tragic. Moreover the presence of Friar Lawrence reduce the effect of the tragic irony of the scene.
Whereas in Luhrmann’s movie, when Juliet wakes up, Romeo did not took the potion yet, and I thought that that specific moment was very intense. We hope that he will just see that she is alive and won’t drink but he does. The fact that Romeo is dying in Juliet arm is very touching and all the memories of their time together that appear only remind us how pure, innocent and beautiful their love was.
Moreover even if both movies are using Shakespeare’s text, the meaning of it changes a lot with the acting especially in this scene which can had to the tragic irony in Luhrmann’s adaptation.
To conclude I think that Baz Luhrmann’s version of the scene was more efficient and convincing but also much more dramatic than Zeffireli’s one and I prefer this end for that.
One aspect of Luhrmann’s version of the story of Romeo and Juliet I think is particularly witty is the weather changing really quickly. I think this shows the everpresence of fate in the story and how the weather influences the characters. Thus, it sticks to Shakespeare’s text in which the weather is really important both as a physical apparition of fate and as an example of pathetic fallacy. Moreover, Luhrmann, by making the weather change so rapidly, like in the equivalent of act 3 scene 1 that takes place at the beach, exaggerates the influence of fate in the story by making it obvious and over the top (maybe highlighting how obvious it is too in Shakespeare’s play) and emphasises the quick pace of the story. The vivid and nearly psychedelic shades of the sky as well as the way the scenes are shot help the viewer picture the characters’ states of mind.
ReplyDeleteRENAUD Esteban
The thing I liked the most about Baz Luhrmann's film adaptation of Romeo & Juliet was its time settings - it was set in the present, not in the Shakespearean time. Although it takes place in the 20th century, we don't lose the Middle-age feeling; the old English is preserved and the weapons aren't swords as in the original; the weapons used are guns with names such as "Sword" or "Longsword". Also the characters' behaviour happens to be slightly Middle-aged, for example Romeo's courtesy or Juliet's restraint. On the other hand, the scene settings match the present day; all the characters use modern inventions such as cars or
ReplyDeleteelectrical lighting, and I really appreciated this contrast.
Although I was one of the two people in the class who preferred Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the play, there is one aspect of Luhrmann’s version that I really liked, and that is the way he felt free to, without changing the words, change the meaning of a sentence. I think this was not only a way to change the movie to be more adapted to the modern context, but also to show that one line can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the start of Juliet’s soliloquy before taking her potion is “Farewell! God knows when we shall meet again”, which, in the book, seems to be addressed to her mother or the nurse, but of course isn’t heard by them as they are out of the room. In Luhrmann’s adaptation, however, these words are spoken directly to Lady Capulet. In this particular case, I think the director wanted to mock Juliet’s parents even more than they already are by Shakespeare, by really making them seem ignorant and blind before the truth that is right under their noses.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of Luhrmann’s slight modifications is during the last scene, upon Romeo’s last words: “thus with a kiss I die”. In the book, Romeo kisses what he thinks is Juliet dead, whereas in the movie, he’s kissing Juliet alive, who has just realised what’s happening. Without changing the words, but simply their meaning and who they’re addressed to, the director has once again changed the spectator’s view about the story. This is one of the many changes Luhrmann made to the original play to add to the tragedy of the end.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat I found striking in Baz Luhrman's adaptation of the play was the rivalry between Montagues and Capulets. In this movie, the younger people seem to be more affected by the rivalry, and that's how I expected it to be. In Luhrman's adaptation, the first scene (the quarrel) seems kind of out topic with all the fast camera action and the cowboy type of fight. But once you think back at it, it is somehow realistic and is more fun to watch and that's what I felt when I read this scene, I was amused by the situation and fight and the people surrounding must be happy to see some action. Whereas in Zeffirelli's movie, the quarrel of the first scene is way too realistic. People who don't belong to any of the houses are getting in the fight for example.
ReplyDeleteI think this scene sums up my vision of the two movies, Baz Luhrman made it realistic and pleasant to watch and Zeffirelli always did a little too much, some parts were interesting to watch but overall the movie seemed kind of rushed (not in terms of the theme of time of the play, but more like it was done in a couple of months) whereas in Romeo + Juliette, every scene is relevant but is pleasant to watch because the backgrounds and other choices about the aspect of the movie are more effective in my opinion.
Thibault Ferveur
I really loved how Luhrmann adaptated the way Romeo misses Friar Lawrence's letter regarding Juliet's fake death. Compared to Zeffirelli's version, it feels more like it is Romeo's fault rather than fate's.
ReplyDeleteIn Luhrmann's adaptation, the letter is carried to Romeo by the post office, and is concidered as very urgent. The postman delivers it to Roeo's location, but he is absent (even though he is ten meters behind his camper and could - or should - have seen the postman coming), so he puts a sign on his door to tell him he has a letter for him and that he will deliver it tomorrow. Somehow, the sign falls down and Romeo does not notice it. The day after, Balthazar comes to Mantua tu tell Romeo that Juliet is dead (she is not, but Romeo doesn't know, because he hasn't received the letter). As they rush towards Verona, they come accross the postman's truck, without stopping.
All of this makes it more Romeo's fault because he should have waited for a letter in the first place, and should have stayed at his place. Moreover, he misses the postman twice, without even thinking he could have a letter for him from either Friar Lawrence or Juliet. This shows Luhrmann's will to blame it as much on the characters as on their fate, compared to Zeffirelli's version which blames fate a lot more and makes the characters less guilty.
I really loved how Luhrmann adaptated the way Romeo misses Friar Lawrence's letter regarding Juliet's fake death. Compared to Zeffirelli's version, it feels more like it is Romeo's fault rather than fate's.
ReplyDeleteIn Luhrmann's adaptation, the letter is carried to Romeo by the post office, and is concidered as very urgent. The postman delivers it to Roeo's location, but he is absent (even though he is ten meters behind his camper and could - or should - have seen the postman coming), so he puts a sign on his door to tell him he has a letter for him and that he will deliver it tomorrow. Somehow, the sign falls down and Romeo does not notice it. The day after, Balthazar comes to Mantua tu tell Romeo that Juliet is dead (she is not, but Romeo doesn't know, because he hasn't received the letter). As they rush towards Verona, they come accross the postman's truck, without stopping.
All of this makes it more Romeo's fault because he should have waited for a letter in the first place, and should have stayed at his place. Moreover, he misses the postman twice, without even thinking he could have a letter for him from either Friar Lawrence or Juliet. This shows Luhrmann's will to blame it as much on the characters as on their fate, compared to Zeffirelli's version which blames fate a lot more and makes the characters less guilty.
One interesting aspect of the play is the final scene, in which Romeo and Juliet both take their lives. The two movies presented this scene really differently.
ReplyDeleteIn Baz Luhrmann's adaptation, Juliet wakes up a few seconds before Romeo dies, but after he took the poison. She is forced to watch him die without being able to do anything about it. She doesn't speak, but the way the realisation strikes her is well shown on her face, and is emphasised by the contrast between when she first wakes up and when she understands what is happening. Indeed, she initially thinks that Romeo came here waiting for her to wake up, and her facial expression goes from pure happiness to horror and despair when she realises that Romeo is dying.
The fact that she witnesses her husband die adds a more dramatic effect that was missing in Franco Zeffirelli's film.
I liked how Luhrmann represented the character of Friar Lawrence as I thought it gave an interesting alternative to the vision the original text gave from the Friar. And I thought that this Friar Lawrence is much more “realistic” than the Friar from the Zeffirelli's adaptation : he acts a lot more “naturally”. For example if you look at the act 5 scene 3, in Zeffirelli’s adaptation, the Friar run away from the tomb where Juliet is about to commit suicide (because he is afraid of what will happen to him) in an exaggerated way that is more likely to turn the dramatic mood into a comic one. Instead of that Luhrmann offers a view of the Friar where he tries to send back the letter to Romeo, trying to fight against their inevitable destiny. Luhrmann also developed the fatherly side of the Friar and emphasized his relations more than Zeffirelli did. This fatherly behavior transform the Friar in a more likeable character and give him more importance as he get closer to one of the main character.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet I found particularly interesting is the balcony scene that turns into a swimming pool scene. Indeed, in Luhrmann's adaptation, Romeo meets Juliet in her orchard she is first at her balcony but the she go down and walk around the swimming pool. Romeo is hidden, lets her talk and decides to push her in the swimming pool, joining her in the water for a long and languorous kiss. Here, the scene breaks with the traditional vision of the balcony scene. Indeed, in the traditional version, Juliet is laid on her balcony staring at the stars. She is up and Romeo sees her as a “bright angel”. Then he elevates meets Juliet where she is. Here, both are at the same level. I find this point of view very interesting because here the scene turns out much more sensual; than in the traditional point of view. They touch each other body and express their love with passion; this is particularly expressed thanks to the quick shots and the water surrounding. Indeed, the water and the foam blur the image and protects them from the outer world as a kind of cocoon. However, it conveys a meaning of truth and transparency. Indeed, it cans reminds us of the first time the two lovers met in front of the aquarium. In both moments, water represents the clarity of their sentiments as opposed to the tumult of the context. In the pool scene, Romeo and Juliet get rid of their origin and express their love. It really shows the rupture in the different periods of time, from a realistic point of view to a an unreal and passionate one. The development of the two lovers as free and with ardent love is well made. Moreover water makes this scene quite unreal, almost like a dream and quite beautiful too.
ReplyDeleteAs a conclusion, I really like the choices made by Luhrmann in this scene. I found that the motif of water was really relevant, even though it wasn’t present in the original text. It really helps to develop the tho lovers and their passion.
What I found really interesting in Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was the extravagant side of his adaptation, opposed to the relatively solemn orginal play. Indeed, even though it is quite clear that both the Capulet and Montague families are wealthy and prosperous, the attention of the reader was mostly drawn to the dramatic atmosphere and the tragedy in itself rather than the superficial and materialistic aspect we see in Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation. This aspect is emphasized during the party at Capulet's house. What is interesting is the way it is shot. The scene is seen from Romeo's point of view and it is quite clear that he is definitely overwhelmed by the situation. The shots are blurry, everything seems to mix up in his mind.. All the elements of a perfect party are presented but in a disproportionate manner. Luhrmann also chose to develop here the merry and joyful aspect of Mercutio.
ReplyDeleteWe can also see this in the decoration of different and important places. First of all, the Capulets' mansion is enormous and the inside decoration is again excessive. We can see this when everyone turns around the preparation of the party and everything is getting ready, Baz Luhrmann uses fast motion when the numerous lustres are hung up, emphasizing again the superfluous aspect. Juliet's bedroom was also full of angels, which could refer to the way she was dressed at the party when she met Romeo or could symbolize the innocence of the young character she is. What was also interesting and special was the decoration of the church with the neon crosses and all the candles surrounding Juliet's body; elements showing once again the modernity given to the play by Baz Luhrmann.
To conclude, all these elements are like a gust of wind through an original play rather solemn. All those modern choices plus the fact that the original text has been kept in the script make the movie more accessible to the people and probably change the view of some on theatrical adaptations.
In Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, the character were more well depicted and were more accurate to the idea of Romeo and Juliet I had while reading Shakespeare's play. It may be in a different time than the play, which Zeffirelli's one respected, the characterization is particularly well done: Mercutio is amazingly extravagant and every bit of the exentric he is. And his relationship with Romeo was more developed, or it is at least the impression I've got.
ReplyDeleteIn Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, it sticks too much to the play while cutting important part, as Juliet's soliloquy. It's too much like the play while not being enough to give an impression of reality. But in Romeo + Juliet, the play is taken in a whole new universe who gave it a new aspect. It is a new sight to take in, with the marvelous side of a setting totally opposite of the play, but the text is still the original. All this mix in Luhrmann's adaptation makes it surprinsigly good and amazingly refreshing for a 400-years old play.
One aspect of the play that I really liked in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet is the scene when Romeo and Juliet meet, which is very different in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. I thought it was very original to show them seeing each other for the first time through an aquarium, it made this meeting feel a bit magical, with their faces being distorted because of the water and the fishes all around them. It's as if they're in an other world, separated from the others, and it made this meeting more special and intimate for the two of them, while Zeffirelli's scene of their first meeting is way more normal, the two lovers simply see each other at the party. Also, in Luhrmann's scene of their meeting, the youth and innocence of the two adolescents is emphasized, because when they see each other they sort of play together, moving their faces towards each other, smiling and laughing. Moreover, the fact that I really found interesting in Romeo+Juliet is that the love between Romeo and Juliet is represented by water. Indeed, whenever the two lovers are together there is water represented in a certain way, for example the aquarium when they meet, the swimming pool when they see each other for the second time, or when Romeo sees Juliet after having killed Tybalt, and he's all wet because of the rain. This originality in presenting the two lovers, which is less present in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, is the reason I preferred Lhurmann's way of approaching the play.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Luhrmann chose this water motif?
Deletecatch/caught/caught!
ReplyDeleteReligion plays an important role, but perhaps the omnipresent of religion in this movie emphasizes the hypocrisy or at least the irony that, despite their religious beliefs, the characters cannot avoid killing one another.
What I found very interesting in Luhrmann’s adaptation is the first meeting of Romeo & Juliet and all what surrounds this important meet.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, as we have sawn in Zefferilli’s adaptation the Capulet’s party is very festive, lively but remains very sophisticated, the music is very traditional but quite calm; as well as the decorations, there isn’t no explicit appearance of any decoration that could help the audience to imagine that there is a party, thus the Capulet’s house is kind of dull (as for the outside and the inside). There is admittedly a lot of people at the party but they remain well dressed, no exuberance nevertheless they all wore a mask, the ambiance is joyful but without excess. However, in Luhrmann’s movie the Capulet’s house is well-dressed, it is covered with light, tinsels, colors, flowers, as for the inside! There is a lot a glitter and sparkles; In addition, there are a lot of drinks, aperitifs, even the mother is very extravagant as her house; Plus the guests are all disguise, the ambiance is more festive, childish, and everything is very over the top, really eye-catcher and show-off, the Capulets power, popularity and money is more shown in this adaptation, we understands why they are recognized for organizing huge parties.
Actually, I was quite surprised by the way the two love birds met, In Zefferelli’s version, Romeo saw Juliet (at first) from the other side of the hall, he got closer and closer to her, and at the moment he was on the other side of the beam, behind the velvet curtain, he catches her hand and pulled her back, then they went in an empty room and exchanged 2 kisses, everything is very slow, the music is very calm and soft.
Luhrmenn version was, to my mind, more unexpected, funny and dynamic. Indeed, after washing his face Romeo had a look on the fishes in the aquarium and Juliet’s face appeared (thus, they saw each other at the same moment), […] after Juliet’s dance with count Paris, they exchanged a kiss in the elevator, then a hide-and-seek game begin between the lovers a Lady Capulet (I think it emphasis even more this aspect of secret love that can’t be shown nor seen, and also this love is unstable, with a lot of up and downs.), I also noticed that R&J exchanges a lot of kisses in this version, perhaps we can think that there is a lot more passion and (physical) attraction between them.
I was also surprised to see how Lady Capulet and Paris were close, it wasn’t seen like a mother-in-law and son-in-law relationship but rather a lovely (more from the mother than Paris) relation, it stresses the fact that if Juliet’s marry Paris it is rather for her parents (in this case, her mother) than for her; I was even more surprised to see Lady Capulet kissing Tybalt’s, there is a closeness between the family that is not shown by Zefferilli. In his movie Lady Capulets is more inexistent, calm, obedient and narrow minded, it is interesting to see how she can rather be submissive and side head, or extravagant an broadly open-minded!
What was extremely strange and incomprehensive to my mind was the fact that Romeo was drugged by Mercutio before the Party, could we think that because of the drug effects he was directly attracted to the first lady he saw?, can it emphasis the fact that this “love” has fatal effects just as drug ?
To conclue, I liked to see how a first meeting, a love at first sight could be shown, how a same idea can be represented in diffrent ways, Zifferilli stayed very straight no fantasy nor fun, whereas Luhrmann tried to make it a bit more humoristique.
One aspect that striked me in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, was Mercutio's characterization, and his relationship with Benvolio and Romeo, which I felt was not as developed in Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. Mercutio was, to me, when reading the play, the most interesting character by far : he seemed to be on the edge of madness, and a witty and perhaps a quite belligerent character. This really came out in Luhrmann's version of the play, more so than in Zafferelli's, in which he was a minor character and didn't hold a very important role, except for dramatic effect when he was killed.
ReplyDeleteMercutio and Romeo's friendship also felt very authentic in Romeo + Juliet : I loved seeing them banter in the first acts, and seeing how every time Mercutio mocked him, there was a kind of visible anger about him that told the viewer he wasn't entirely joking and that perhaps he did hold some kind of anger toward the way Romeo tended to act, which felt very realistic to me. And then Mercutio's death was absolutely heartbreaking, and this time it made me understand how the events of the play were breaking Romeo little by little, how much the love he held for both Montagues and Capulets destroyed him.
One of the most unforgettable scenes for me in Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " is the balcony scene. In Zeffirelli's film, we see Romeo climbing trees and climbing on the balcony when Juliet standing on the balcony of Capulet’s house; it is the traditional way to act this scene and while we are reading in the book we can also imagine that. To our surprise, in Baz Luhrman's film there is a swimming pool in this scene, and the couples not only speaking on the balcony but also in the water. It makes the words they speak and their actions of love more romantic.
ReplyDeleteI prefer Baz Luhrman's " Romeo + Juliet " because he really does a lot of changes than the traditional ones, especially the time and the background of the film. But still, the story goes smoothly that it is like a story happened in nowadays.