Differences Between Romeo And Juliet Play And Movie
Romeo and Juliet: Film vs Movie
The 1996 cinematic adaptation of the esteemed Shakespearean play Romeo and Juliet not only managed to modernize the classic tragedy but also clarified the message Shakespeare first offered while doing so. This was demonstrated by its Director, Baz Luhrmann’s, adaptation of Act III, scene i. Throughout the scene, Luhrmann focused on both character and plot development, but gave specific attention toward the creation of each character’s three dimensional personality. His act, alongside the demotion of minor characters, allowed the audience to develop a closer understanding of both the scene’s main characters, Romeo, Mercutio and Tybalt, as well as its overall intention. Mercutio, Romeo’s best friend, offered a …show more content…
Solely based on Mercutio’s complex characterization, him choosing wood over tin was tremendous. The very act of him replacing his gun showed that his intention was never to kill, but to protect—a decision which allowed the audience to see a different, yet relatable side of him that had not yet clearly been portrayed. Similarly, Tybalt, a commonly demonized character, appeared both regretful and merciful throughout the film. In place of him simply exiting, as shown in the classic Shakespearean version, Tybalt, following Mercutio’s murder, expressed a look of horror and regret only comparable to that of Romeo after the realization of Tybalt’s death. His expression, aside from adding empathy to Tybalt’s character contributed to the support of the film’s original message: impulses never end well. Such message was demonstrated when all three men initially did not wish to kill, but, due to rash decisions, misinformation, and a lack of control essentially killed themselves. The 1996 adaptation truly focused on plot development which, in turn, replaced common demonization and angelization with impulse, moral, and regret-filled three dimensional personalities. In the end, Baz Luhrmann’s film added small changes of characterization to invoke large differences in character perception which not only complemented but
The 1996 cinematic adaptation of the esteemed Shakespearean play Romeo and Juliet not only managed to modernize the classic tragedy but also clarified the message Shakespeare first offered while doing so. This was demonstrated by its Director, Baz Luhrmann’s, adaptation of Act III, scene i. Throughout the scene, Luhrmann focused on both character and plot development, but gave specific attention toward the creation of each character’s three dimensional personality. His act, alongside the demotion of minor characters, allowed the audience to develop a closer understanding of both the scene’s main characters, Romeo, Mercutio and Tybalt, as well as its overall intention. Mercutio, Romeo’s best friend, offered a …show more content…
Solely based on Mercutio’s complex characterization, him choosing wood over tin was tremendous. The very act of him replacing his gun showed that his intention was never to kill, but to protect—a decision which allowed the audience to see a different, yet relatable side of him that had not yet clearly been portrayed. Similarly, Tybalt, a commonly demonized character, appeared both regretful and merciful throughout the film. In place of him simply exiting, as shown in the classic Shakespearean version, Tybalt, following Mercutio’s murder, expressed a look of horror and regret only comparable to that of Romeo after the realization of Tybalt’s death. His expression, aside from adding empathy to Tybalt’s character contributed to the support of the film’s original message: impulses never end well. Such message was demonstrated when all three men initially did not wish to kill, but, due to rash decisions, misinformation, and a lack of control essentially killed themselves. The 1996 adaptation truly focused on plot development which, in turn, replaced common demonization and angelization with impulse, moral, and regret-filled three dimensional personalities. In the end, Baz Luhrmann’s film added small changes of characterization to invoke large differences in character perception which not only complemented but