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 Key Themes
This paper analyzes and compares Franco Zeffirelli's (1968) and Baz Luhrmann's (1996) film adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It explores how these films, separated by 28 years and vastly different in aesthetic approach, reflect their respective eras while adapting a classic text for modern audiences. The analysis considers the directors' backgrounds, the use of music and visuals, and the adaptations' handling of Shakespeare's text.
- Adaptation of Shakespeare for the screen.
- The impact of time and cultural context on film adaptations.
- Comparative analysis of cinematic styles and techniques.
- The portrayal of characters and key scenes across different adaptations.
- The relationship between Shakespeare's text and its filmic realization.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the paper's subject: a comparative analysis of Zeffirelli's and Luhrmann's film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet. It establishes the enduring relevance of Shakespeare's work and the influence of changing cultural contexts on its interpretations. The chapter outlines the paper's structure and methodology, highlighting the intention to analyze the films' aesthetic differences while exploring their shared socio-cultural intentions, particularly their focus on youth and the use of cinematic techniques to convey a sense of swiftness and energy. It sets the stage for a comprehensive comparative analysis.
2 Outside and inside the movies: This chapter delves into the broader context of Shakespearean film adaptations, exploring films that paved the way for Zeffirelli's and Luhrmann's works. It provides detailed background on both directors, examining their individual styles and how their backgrounds influenced their approaches to adapting Romeo and Juliet. Significant attention is paid to the use of music and its role in shaping the overall atmosphere and emotional impact of each film. The chapter lays the groundwork for understanding the unique stylistic choices made by each director.
3 Shakespeare's text and the filmic realisation: This chapter examines the directors' approaches to adapting Shakespeare's text to the screen. It addresses the issue of cuts and rearrangements, discussing whether these are necessary for adapting the play for a cinematic audience or simply a matter of convenience. The chapter analyzes how each director interprets and conveys Shakespeare’s themes for a contemporary audience. A key consideration is how both filmmakers aim to "bring Shakespeare to the masses," each utilizing different methods and stylistic approaches.
4 Selected Characters and scenes and their realisation: This chapter delves into a detailed analysis of specific characters and scenes from the two films, focusing on how the directors' interpretations shape our understanding of these elements. The analysis includes a discussion of female roles, Romeo and Juliet's portrayal, and the iconic "Queen Mab" speech, demonstrating the contrasting approaches of Zeffirelli and Luhrmann. The chapter utilizes these specific examples to illustrate larger themes regarding character development, adaptation choices and cinematic representation across both productions.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, film adaptation, Franco Zeffirelli, Baz Luhrmann, cinematic style, comparative analysis, youth culture, adaptation techniques, character portrayal, cultural context, socio-cultural intentions.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Zeffirelli and Luhrmann's Film Adaptations of Romeo and Juliet
What is the overall focus of this academic paper?
This paper provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of Franco Zeffirelli's (1968) and Baz Luhrmann's (1996) film adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It examines how these films, differing significantly in style and era, adapt a classic text for modern audiences, reflecting their respective times and cultural contexts.
What aspects of the films are compared and analyzed?
The analysis encompasses the directors' backgrounds and stylistic approaches, the use of music and visual elements, the handling of Shakespeare's text (including cuts and rearrangements), the portrayal of key characters and scenes, and the overall relationship between the original text and its cinematic realization. The impact of time and cultural context on the adaptations is also a central theme.
What is the structure of the paper?
The paper is divided into three parts: Part I (Theoretics) introduces the topic, provides historical context, and explores the theoretical framework; Part II (Application) delves into a detailed analysis of selected characters and scenes from both films; Part III (Evaluation) offers concluding remarks, considering the themes of historicization versus modernization, and provides an outlook on the ongoing relevance of Shakespearean adaptations.
What specific characters and scenes are analyzed in detail?
The detailed analysis of selected characters and scenes includes a comparative look at the portrayal of female roles (Lady Montague, Lady Capulet, the Nurse), Juliet's character development across different ages, Romeo's portrayal, the ball scene, the balcony scene, and Mercutio's "Queen Mab" speech in both film versions.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
Key themes explored include the adaptation of Shakespeare for the screen, the influence of time and cultural context on film adaptations, comparative cinematic styles and techniques, character portrayal across different adaptations, and the relationship between Shakespeare's text and its filmic realization.
What is the methodology used in this comparative analysis?
The paper employs a comparative analysis approach, examining both films' aesthetic differences while exploring their shared socio-cultural intentions, particularly focusing on their engagement with youth culture and the use of cinematic techniques to convey themes of swiftness and energy.
What are the key takeaways or conclusions of the paper?
The concluding section discusses the contrasting approaches of historicization versus modernization in adapting Shakespeare for the screen and examines the challenges of preserving the essence of Shakespeare's work for a contemporary audience. It offers an outlook on future adaptations and interpretations of Romeo and Juliet.
What are the keywords associated with this paper?
Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, film adaptation, Franco Zeffirelli, Baz Luhrmann, cinematic style, comparative analysis, youth culture, adaptation techniques, character portrayal, cultural context, socio-cultural intentions.
- Citation du texte
- Bodo Heil (Auteur), 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
