Violent Delights In Romeo And Juliet
Areeba Hasan
MYP Theatre 5B
Violent Delights With Violent Ends
They say as a part of today’s generation, it is our responsibility to create history rather than to repeat it. But some history is just too sensational that it must be repeated again. Such a momentous event happened to occur by the hands of William Shakespeare in 1595 as he wrote the timeless story of Romeo and Juliet. A story of star crossed lovers who because of the enmity between their families were unable to meet. Even though such a story cannot be repeated, there have been numerous replications in many forms including movies. In 1968, the movie Romeo and Juliet directed by Franco Zeffirelli was released. 28 years later in 1996, the movie Romeo + Juliet directed by Baz Luhrmann …show more content…
was also released. Although another film was released later on, as a reviewer I personally considered these two as the ones who justified this tale. Though based on the same story, both versions have massive differences in terms of costumes, characters, and important scenes.
First of all, the costumes differed quite greatly. In the 1968 or the Zeffirelli’s version of the movie, the costumes are true to the original story. The style of the costumes was based on medieval clothes from the 1300s. The women in the film wore beautiful long simple dresses. Juliet, for example was always seen in an exceedingly long in length dresses. Even during the balcony scene, Juliet was wearing some sort of sleeveless long dress as a night suit. I felt uncomfortable with the women’s clothing at times because they wore a lot of it. The scene in which the Nurse goes to ask Romeo of whether or not his and Juliet’s relationship is to continue for, depicts her wearing her entire wardrobe on a presumably hot summer day. The women were never shown to wear anything tight, rather very loose clothing. The women also had elaborate headwear which was beautiful. In the Capulet’s party, Juliet had a fancy red cap with a string extending from it. That string was wrapped around her braid. Her mother always had an enormous black headdress that covered her entire head. I figured it must be a sign for higher class people. Another thing noteworthy was that all the women had the hair tied, proper, and presentable, while Juliet, a child and yet unmarried had her hair down. Her hair was very irritating to look at since it was a mess when she had the argument with her father at getting married with Paris. Even the men’s clothing was true to the story. I saw that the men wore awkward leggings, vests, and puffy caps. They were color coded based on the family they belonged to. The Montague’s costumes wore blue and green while the Capulet’s were red and yellow. I liked that because they were so many characters talking and in scenes. It was helpful for me to distinguish who is who. The 1996, Baz Luhrmann version was completely different. It was so modernized. The women wore fitting clothes and very simple short dresses. In terms of hair, the nurse was the only one that had it neatly tied was the nurse that too because of her character. All the other women characters had their hair down especially Juliet who never tied her hair up. Thankfully, the women had more varied wardrobes in this version. Juliet had a variety of clothing. She wore a simple white tee as she waited for Romeo on the night of their wedding. Juliet had a sailor outfit when she came to meet the Friar for the poison. It was not as conspicuous in this version who was a Capulet or Montague. The Capulet had more casual clothing with their Hawaiian shirts and their colored hair while the Montague also wore Hawaiian shirts with their vests, pants, and black belts. They didn’t need the color code things because they weren’t that many characters that were focused on. Luhrmann’s version’s clothing not only made it easier for the audience to relate to, but also aided in character development. The fact that Mercutio wore “lady” clothes to help himself crash the Capulet party developed his character into a dirty, humorous, and out of control person. It completely changed my view on that character as I never imagined him to be this kind of a humorous person. A great example of the costumes and the character development was the Capulet’s party that was more of a costume party that hinted at each character’s personality. Juliet was an angel while Romeo was a knight. Tybalt was a devil (since he was the antagonist of the story). Paris was an astronaut- the one that is always loved and at center of attention; a hero. The Zeffirelli’s version had all the characters basically wearing the same thing in which for the audience, it felt like the clothing was more like costumes than actual clothes. The costumes had more meaning and were more effective in the Luhrmann’s version since they were eye-catching and carried a meaning towards the story. Zeffirelli’s costumes were mere costumes and seemed to me as forced. It was a “Shakespeare put it, so we decided to too,” thing.
Secondly, despite having the same characters, the movies portrayed some characters with variations in their personality and traits.
In the first place, Juliet’s mother, Lady Capulet was two complete characters. In the Zeffirelli’s version, she was what you’d expect a high class woman to be like. She doesn’t get too happy, was always standing straight, stern in her speech, and very proper. I liked her character since it’s what a lord’s wife is supposed to be like. The second version showed this mother way too self-centered. Her behavior should’ve been as someone of high status. I hated the way she was introduced to the audience with this bold attitude, clothing, and her absurd makeup. Frankly, the way she applied the dark lipstick was even more ridiculous. She was also very oblivious to her daughter. Lady Capulet doesn’t even look at her daughter when she is asking her to like Paris unlike the Lady Capulet in Zeffirelli’s version who used her finger to raise her daughter’s face and stared into her eyes as if looking through her soul. It felt like she was being forced to even talk to her about the topic in the first place. In the first version, she didn’t seem really obsessed with Paris. She could feel her daughter’s pain when she rejected to marry Paris. I saw it in her facial expressions, but her value towards obedience pulled her back. In the second version, Paris was her own personal interest that really disgusted me. This is your daughter’s to-be husband! Also, just before Juliet is to drink the poison, Lady Capulet enters in her bath robe. Her conversation with Juliet made her more like any simple everyday mother. I found that confusing and quite absurd. It was such a dramatic change from the Cleopatra mother to this everyday mother. I, for one wasn’t ready for that and it was confusing. Lady Capulet was a side character and her personality didn’t need to be made so complex. Rather, she should just be a character easily defined by one trait. Secondly, Romeo
was another character that was slightly different in both versions. In the Zeffirelli’s, he had a more juvenile, immature, and playful impression. He literally whines when he tells the Friar the news of his banishment. It was very annoying and I honestly lost my respect for that character. In the second version, particularly in that scene, Romeo seems more raged than sad that too at himself for his stupidity rather than on his fate. The crying for Romeo was so different in the Friar’s. In the older version, Romeo blubbers or in other words is loud and completely unattractive. There was a lot of erratic breathing and was almost forced in some parts. In the Luhrmann’s version, Romeo is more scream-crying in which he was quite violent with outbursts of yelling, shrieking, and physical expressions of distress. I actually found Luhrmann’s Romeo more admirable. Romeo was supposed to change after he falls in love with Juliet. I wasn’t able to sense any change in Zeffirelli’s version especially after his tantrum in front of Friar. The nurse was yet another character with slight variations. In the Zeffirelli’s version, the nurse was pretty important. She had a major role in the development of Romeo and Juliet’s relationship. She was shown to have a very intimate relationship with Juliet. In the Luhrmann’s version, she had a more prestigious and mature personality than what the audience expected. I almost felt a sort of pride coming from the nurse the way she stood so straight and held her head up high. She doesn’t say all the original lines during the scene in which Lady Capulet confronts Juliet about Paris. I hated that since it really killed the comical part about the character. Her character became nothing more than a simple messenger. I loved the nurse since she was supposed to be a sort of a comic relief, but that didn’t happen here. I felt the Zeffirelli’s version was very good with its character. Since it followed the original story, Zeffirelli’s didn’t have a hard time developing his characters. In his version, the characters were so distinct in their traits that it was easier to distinguish them.
Lastly, both the stories varied the important scenes. As a reviewer, the differences in the scenes didn’t seem good or bad. The opening that was responsible for setting the mood and tone of the entire movie was completely different in both versions. Zeffirelli’s made the prologue be stated by an anonymous narrator while in the Luhrmann's version it is announced by a news anchor on a TV. The TV news reporting was a big thing in this movie. It was helpful in transitions such as when Romeo is informed of the Capulet party. There was no Peter in the Luhrmann's version rather the news report was what led them to there. I have mixed feelings toward that since it was useful in the sense of transitioning, but a little awkward at the same time. The setting was in a huge city and the Capulet’s party being formally reported seemed quite odd and so unrealistic at the same time. After that, in Zeffirelli's there is a verbal confrontation between the Capulet’s and the Montague’s that ultimately leads to sword fighting. It causes a lot of uproar in the city especially with the food from the food market. However, it was not as extreme as the Luhrmann's version. It was a wild goose chase with fancy convertibles and guns, not swords. They sure created uproar, but since the setting was in a city, the commotion was at a greater scale. Shots of car accidents, headlines, and the police searching on either their cars with their siren or on the helicopters were all a result of this dispute. Instead of coming on a horse, the “Prince” who’s actually more the commander in officer uses his walkie-talkie from a helicopter telling them to break it up and actually takes the two families to court. Again, in some sense quite bizarre, but it was intriguing how the same concept was modernized. The ending that was responsible for moving the audience was just as different. In the Zeffirelli's version, Romeo gets poison from an apothecary in Mantua, not in Verona City. Paris and Romeo have a duel in the crypt with Romeo killing him. Luhrmann never had Paris even mentioned in the crypt scene. Paris was trivial in this scene and his existence and non-existence really didn’t affect anything. The vision he has earlier before crashing Capulet’s party was connected to by having that same scene replay as Romeo walked to Juliet’s crypt by Luhrmann. In my eyes, that was really cool and it showed how love is powerful enough to show vision. Lastly, Zeffirelli has Romeo assume that Juliet is dead and kills himself with the poison. Done. Then Juliet wakes up, sees him dead, and then kills herself. However, in the Luhrmann version, Romeo drinks the poison, but lives a little longer to see his Juliet and exchange a kiss with her. She then instead of stabbing herself shoots herself with a gun. Specifically, he drank the poison while she was waking up. It was so infuriating! I was yelling at the screen, but it was surprisingly quite effective. I felt sorrier for them afterwards.
Despite being based on the same exact story, these 2 versions are miles apart from each other. Franco Zeferelli’s Romeo and Juliet was more true to the original written by Shakespeare. The costumes were a weakness in this film since they were too original, but the characters were portrayed excellently. On the other hand, Baz Luhrmann modernized that same story. His costumes were meaningful, but the characters lacked the proper development. As a final point, the scenes in both films were different, yet effective in their own ways. They both were very successful in telling this amazing story. It didn’t really matter how both directors did it for “which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”
MYP Theatre 5B
Violent Delights With Violent Ends
They say as a part of today’s generation, it is our responsibility to create history rather than to repeat it. But some history is just too sensational that it must be repeated again. Such a momentous event happened to occur by the hands of William Shakespeare in 1595 as he wrote the timeless story of Romeo and Juliet. A story of star crossed lovers who because of the enmity between their families were unable to meet. Even though such a story cannot be repeated, there have been numerous replications in many forms including movies. In 1968, the movie Romeo and Juliet directed by Franco Zeffirelli was released. 28 years later in 1996, the movie Romeo + Juliet directed by Baz Luhrmann …show more content…
was also released. Although another film was released later on, as a reviewer I personally considered these two as the ones who justified this tale. Though based on the same story, both versions have massive differences in terms of costumes, characters, and important scenes.
First of all, the costumes differed quite greatly. In the 1968 or the Zeffirelli’s version of the movie, the costumes are true to the original story. The style of the costumes was based on medieval clothes from the 1300s. The women in the film wore beautiful long simple dresses. Juliet, for example was always seen in an exceedingly long in length dresses. Even during the balcony scene, Juliet was wearing some sort of sleeveless long dress as a night suit. I felt uncomfortable with the women’s clothing at times because they wore a lot of it. The scene in which the Nurse goes to ask Romeo of whether or not his and Juliet’s relationship is to continue for, depicts her wearing her entire wardrobe on a presumably hot summer day. The women were never shown to wear anything tight, rather very loose clothing. The women also had elaborate headwear which was beautiful. In the Capulet’s party, Juliet had a fancy red cap with a string extending from it. That string was wrapped around her braid. Her mother always had an enormous black headdress that covered her entire head. I figured it must be a sign for higher class people. Another thing noteworthy was that all the women had the hair tied, proper, and presentable, while Juliet, a child and yet unmarried had her hair down. Her hair was very irritating to look at since it was a mess when she had the argument with her father at getting married with Paris. Even the men’s clothing was true to the story. I saw that the men wore awkward leggings, vests, and puffy caps. They were color coded based on the family they belonged to. The Montague’s costumes wore blue and green while the Capulet’s were red and yellow. I liked that because they were so many characters talking and in scenes. It was helpful for me to distinguish who is who. The 1996, Baz Luhrmann version was completely different. It was so modernized. The women wore fitting clothes and very simple short dresses. In terms of hair, the nurse was the only one that had it neatly tied was the nurse that too because of her character. All the other women characters had their hair down especially Juliet who never tied her hair up. Thankfully, the women had more varied wardrobes in this version. Juliet had a variety of clothing. She wore a simple white tee as she waited for Romeo on the night of their wedding. Juliet had a sailor outfit when she came to meet the Friar for the poison. It was not as conspicuous in this version who was a Capulet or Montague. The Capulet had more casual clothing with their Hawaiian shirts and their colored hair while the Montague also wore Hawaiian shirts with their vests, pants, and black belts. They didn’t need the color code things because they weren’t that many characters that were focused on. Luhrmann’s version’s clothing not only made it easier for the audience to relate to, but also aided in character development. The fact that Mercutio wore “lady” clothes to help himself crash the Capulet party developed his character into a dirty, humorous, and out of control person. It completely changed my view on that character as I never imagined him to be this kind of a humorous person. A great example of the costumes and the character development was the Capulet’s party that was more of a costume party that hinted at each character’s personality. Juliet was an angel while Romeo was a knight. Tybalt was a devil (since he was the antagonist of the story). Paris was an astronaut- the one that is always loved and at center of attention; a hero. The Zeffirelli’s version had all the characters basically wearing the same thing in which for the audience, it felt like the clothing was more like costumes than actual clothes. The costumes had more meaning and were more effective in the Luhrmann’s version since they were eye-catching and carried a meaning towards the story. Zeffirelli’s costumes were mere costumes and seemed to me as forced. It was a “Shakespeare put it, so we decided to too,” thing.
Secondly, despite having the same characters, the movies portrayed some characters with variations in their personality and traits.
In the first place, Juliet’s mother, Lady Capulet was two complete characters. In the Zeffirelli’s version, she was what you’d expect a high class woman to be like. She doesn’t get too happy, was always standing straight, stern in her speech, and very proper. I liked her character since it’s what a lord’s wife is supposed to be like. The second version showed this mother way too self-centered. Her behavior should’ve been as someone of high status. I hated the way she was introduced to the audience with this bold attitude, clothing, and her absurd makeup. Frankly, the way she applied the dark lipstick was even more ridiculous. She was also very oblivious to her daughter. Lady Capulet doesn’t even look at her daughter when she is asking her to like Paris unlike the Lady Capulet in Zeffirelli’s version who used her finger to raise her daughter’s face and stared into her eyes as if looking through her soul. It felt like she was being forced to even talk to her about the topic in the first place. In the first version, she didn’t seem really obsessed with Paris. She could feel her daughter’s pain when she rejected to marry Paris. I saw it in her facial expressions, but her value towards obedience pulled her back. In the second version, Paris was her own personal interest that really disgusted me. This is your daughter’s to-be husband! Also, just before Juliet is to drink the poison, Lady Capulet enters in her bath robe. Her conversation with Juliet made her more like any simple everyday mother. I found that confusing and quite absurd. It was such a dramatic change from the Cleopatra mother to this everyday mother. I, for one wasn’t ready for that and it was confusing. Lady Capulet was a side character and her personality didn’t need to be made so complex. Rather, she should just be a character easily defined by one trait. Secondly, Romeo
was another character that was slightly different in both versions. In the Zeffirelli’s, he had a more juvenile, immature, and playful impression. He literally whines when he tells the Friar the news of his banishment. It was very annoying and I honestly lost my respect for that character. In the second version, particularly in that scene, Romeo seems more raged than sad that too at himself for his stupidity rather than on his fate. The crying for Romeo was so different in the Friar’s. In the older version, Romeo blubbers or in other words is loud and completely unattractive. There was a lot of erratic breathing and was almost forced in some parts. In the Luhrmann’s version, Romeo is more scream-crying in which he was quite violent with outbursts of yelling, shrieking, and physical expressions of distress. I actually found Luhrmann’s Romeo more admirable. Romeo was supposed to change after he falls in love with Juliet. I wasn’t able to sense any change in Zeffirelli’s version especially after his tantrum in front of Friar. The nurse was yet another character with slight variations. In the Zeffirelli’s version, the nurse was pretty important. She had a major role in the development of Romeo and Juliet’s relationship. She was shown to have a very intimate relationship with Juliet. In the Luhrmann’s version, she had a more prestigious and mature personality than what the audience expected. I almost felt a sort of pride coming from the nurse the way she stood so straight and held her head up high. She doesn’t say all the original lines during the scene in which Lady Capulet confronts Juliet about Paris. I hated that since it really killed the comical part about the character. Her character became nothing more than a simple messenger. I loved the nurse since she was supposed to be a sort of a comic relief, but that didn’t happen here. I felt the Zeffirelli’s version was very good with its character. Since it followed the original story, Zeffirelli’s didn’t have a hard time developing his characters. In his version, the characters were so distinct in their traits that it was easier to distinguish them.
Lastly, both the stories varied the important scenes. As a reviewer, the differences in the scenes didn’t seem good or bad. The opening that was responsible for setting the mood and tone of the entire movie was completely different in both versions. Zeffirelli’s made the prologue be stated by an anonymous narrator while in the Luhrmann's version it is announced by a news anchor on a TV. The TV news reporting was a big thing in this movie. It was helpful in transitions such as when Romeo is informed of the Capulet party. There was no Peter in the Luhrmann's version rather the news report was what led them to there. I have mixed feelings toward that since it was useful in the sense of transitioning, but a little awkward at the same time. The setting was in a huge city and the Capulet’s party being formally reported seemed quite odd and so unrealistic at the same time. After that, in Zeffirelli's there is a verbal confrontation between the Capulet’s and the Montague’s that ultimately leads to sword fighting. It causes a lot of uproar in the city especially with the food from the food market. However, it was not as extreme as the Luhrmann's version. It was a wild goose chase with fancy convertibles and guns, not swords. They sure created uproar, but since the setting was in a city, the commotion was at a greater scale. Shots of car accidents, headlines, and the police searching on either their cars with their siren or on the helicopters were all a result of this dispute. Instead of coming on a horse, the “Prince” who’s actually more the commander in officer uses his walkie-talkie from a helicopter telling them to break it up and actually takes the two families to court. Again, in some sense quite bizarre, but it was intriguing how the same concept was modernized. The ending that was responsible for moving the audience was just as different. In the Zeffirelli's version, Romeo gets poison from an apothecary in Mantua, not in Verona City. Paris and Romeo have a duel in the crypt with Romeo killing him. Luhrmann never had Paris even mentioned in the crypt scene. Paris was trivial in this scene and his existence and non-existence really didn’t affect anything. The vision he has earlier before crashing Capulet’s party was connected to by having that same scene replay as Romeo walked to Juliet’s crypt by Luhrmann. In my eyes, that was really cool and it showed how love is powerful enough to show vision. Lastly, Zeffirelli has Romeo assume that Juliet is dead and kills himself with the poison. Done. Then Juliet wakes up, sees him dead, and then kills herself. However, in the Luhrmann version, Romeo drinks the poison, but lives a little longer to see his Juliet and exchange a kiss with her. She then instead of stabbing herself shoots herself with a gun. Specifically, he drank the poison while she was waking up. It was so infuriating! I was yelling at the screen, but it was surprisingly quite effective. I felt sorrier for them afterwards.
Despite being based on the same exact story, these 2 versions are miles apart from each other. Franco Zeferelli’s Romeo and Juliet was more true to the original written by Shakespeare. The costumes were a weakness in this film since they were too original, but the characters were portrayed excellently. On the other hand, Baz Luhrmann modernized that same story. His costumes were meaningful, but the characters lacked the proper development. As a final point, the scenes in both films were different, yet effective in their own ways. They both were very successful in telling this amazing story. It didn’t really matter how both directors did it for “which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”