The paper is organised in three main parts, theoretics, application and evaluation.
The first part will deal with issues necessary to fully apprehend Shakespearean
moviemaking. I will examine the history of it and explain what made the two films
discussed herein possible and what eventually led to them. Furthermore, I will depict
the two directors’ different backgrounds and how they lead on to their individual styles.
I will consider some other films that have paved the way for Zeffirelli and Luhrmann. A
chapter is dedicated to the filmic realisation, which will consider the cuts,
rearrangements and general approach of the films and their directors. These issues will
be confirmed by the secondary literature used herein. The second part will apply these
issues to single and in my opinion particularly revealing film-scenes, which will be
examined to perceive Zeffirelli’s and Luhrmann’s access to the characters, early and
latter scientific reception and how Zeffirelli’s approach might differ due to the times his
motion picture was made in and how both may or may not have succeeded in mirroring
its times. The second part will thus rely on my interpretation and less on secondary
literature. The third part will try to bring these perceptions to a conclusive evaluation.
These are subjective and thus liable to objection. They cannot be universally valid, but
since I am dealing with art, nothing is.
Luhrmann was obviously firmly affected by Zeffirelli’s work, and moreover used
it as a guiding line for his film, which gives rise to the question, if he was merely an epigone, or maybe rather struck by Zeffirelli’s scenic ideas as being plausible and
practical. This is a question which I shall seek to respond to, if I cannot answer it, in the
progress of this paper. Furthermore, I will try to point out Morris’s2 dictum, that
Shakespeare movies are an art form and a genre in their own right and should not be
confused with or compared to a theatrical production of Shakespeare, but have an
aesthetic language of their own. [...]
2 Morris, Peter. Shakespeare On Film. Canadian Film Institute/Institut canadien du film. Ottawa: 1972
Table of Contents
Part I: Theoretics
1 Introduction
1.1 Preliminary remarks, methods and elementary presuppositions
1.2 A glimpse at the history of Shakespearean movie-making, focussing on Romeo and Juliet
1.3 Shakespeare’s theatre-drama as a film version: Pro and contra
2 Outside and inside the movies
2.1 Paving the way and West Side Story
2.2 The music in Zeffirelli and Luhrmann
2.3 Franco Zeffirelli and Romeo and Juliet
2.4 Baz Luhrmann
2.5 Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet
3 Shakespeare’s text and the filmic realisation
3.1 “Bringing Shakespeare to the masses”: Two popularisers
3.2 Cuts and rearrangements. A necessity or a convenience?
Part II: Application
4 Selected Characters and scenes and their realisation
4.1 Women’s roles and their design
4.1.1 Lady Montague
4.1.2 Lady Capulet
4.1.3 The Nurse
4.2 Juliet, as a child, girl, woman
4.3 Romeo, the poetic boy
4.4 The ball and the balcony
4.4.1 The ball
4.4.2 The balcony
4.5 Mercutio
4.5.1 "Queen Mab"-speech in Zeffirelli’s film
4.5.2 "Queen Mab"-speech in Luhrmann’s film
Part III: Evaluation
5 Conclusion
5.1 Historicisation versus modernisation
5.2 Preserving for “eternity”?
5.3 An outlook
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to critically analyze and compare the 1968 film adaptation of William Shakespeare’s "Romeo and Juliet" by Franco Zeffirelli and the 1996 version by Baz Luhrmann. The research focuses on how both directors translate the original theatrical work into the medium of film, investigating their respective methods for appealing to youth audiences and their approaches to Shakespearean text, staging, and character development.
- Evolution of Shakespearean cinema from the 20th century to the mid-nineties.
- Comparison of the directors' stylistic choices, specifically regarding music, camera work, and editing.
- Examination of character construction, focusing on women's roles and the portrayal of Mercutio.
- Analysis of structural changes, including cuts and rearrangements of the original text.
- Discussion on the balance between historicisation and modernisation in Shakespearean adaptations.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1.1 Lady Montague
Lady Montague is not well introduced to us by Shakespeare’s text. Her appearances are much scarcer than Lady Capulet’s. It is the more astonishing, how well Zeffirelli’s film portrays her in the opening scenes: We immediately recognise her as the Lady of the Montague clan by her noble attire. Esmeralda Ruspoli’s slender and stately figure and her aristocratic face easily help to convey this image. In I.1 she tries to restrain her husband from fighting with Lord Capulet: “Thou shalt not stir one foot to seek a foe”. She falls into Lord Montague’s arms and pleadingly seeks to keep him back. The way Zeffirelli films it, she does this out of a rather convincing love of a woman who fears for her man as he goes to war. He pushes her away (“Hold me not, let me go!” and we catch a brief look of her in fear, her mouth open in stinted dread. When the Prince arrives on the scene interrupting the brawl, we see her in brief instances constantly clutching Lord Montague’s arm and he reassuringly holds on to hers during the “Rebellious subjects”-speech, but apparently also seeks support and assistance from her.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the study, emphasizing the shift in viewing habits and the necessity of adapting Shakespearean texts to the zeitgeist of different generations.
2 Outside and inside the movies: This section explores the influences on the directors, focusing on the cultural climate of the 1950s, 60s, and 90s, the role of music, and the personal backgrounds of Zeffirelli and Luhrmann.
3 Shakespeare’s text and the filmic realisation: The chapter examines the directors' strategies for bringing Shakespeare to mass audiences through cinematic adaptation and the justification for textual cuts and rearrangements.
4 Selected Characters and scenes and their realisation: This part provides a detailed comparative analysis of key characters (Lady Montague, Lady Capulet, The Nurse, Juliet, Romeo, and Mercutio) and pivotal scenes in both film versions.
5 Conclusion: The final chapter evaluates the findings, discussing whether these adaptations successfully balance the preservation of the original text with the demand for contemporary relevance.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Franco Zeffirelli, Baz Luhrmann, film adaptation, zeitgeist, theatre, cinematography, youth culture, character analysis, narrative, music, directing, interpretation, performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core objective of this study?
The study aims to compare how Franco Zeffirelli (1968) and Baz Luhrmann (1996) adapted William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" to different cinematic eras and youth audiences.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
The work focuses on the evolution of Shakespearean film, the impact of music and editing styles, character design, and the necessity of editorial cuts in bringing Shakespeare to the masses.
How does the author characterize the difference between the two directors?
Zeffirelli is portrayed as a purist who emphasizes lyrical, semi-historical authenticity, while Luhrmann is identified as an eclectic artist who prioritizes sensation, visual spectacle, and pop-culture references.
What methodology is used to conduct this research?
The author employs a comparative analysis of primary scenes and characters, supplemented by secondary film and literary criticism to evaluate the directors' stylistic decisions.
What does the paper cover in its main sections?
The paper is organized into three parts: a theoretical framework concerning Shakespearean film history, a detailed application phase comparing specific character arcs and scenes, and an evaluative conclusion on the endurance of these adaptations.
Which keywords best define this work?
Key terms include Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, film adaptation, Zeffirelli, Luhrmann, zeitgeist, youth culture, character construction, and cinematography.
How does the paper analyze the portrayal of Lady Montague?
The paper highlights that Zeffirelli gives Lady Montague greater emotional depth and a supportive role to counterbalance the violence, whereas Luhrmann portrays her as cold and superficial, reflecting a different societal focus.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the "best" adaptation?
The author concludes that neither version is definitively "best"; instead, both are unique interpretations of their respective times, and the ideal cinematic version of the play is arguably still yet to be made.
- Quote paper
- Bodo Heil (Author), 2002, Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" in the movies: Comparing Franco Zeffirelli's (1968) and Baz Luhrman's (1996) film versions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/23991
