ROMEO & JULIET – BAZ LUHRMANN (1996)

The Baz Luhrmann directed ‘William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet’ tells the Romeo and Juliet
story using Shakespearean Language set in a modern day environment. Not all viewers would
be familiar with the language of Shakespeare so the mise-en-scene as well as the actors’
movements are very important to make sure that the audience knows what is going on within
the dialogue

In the 1996 movie, there are many significant differences from the Shakespeare play of Romeo
and Juliet. The first noticeable difference is in the opening of the movie; a newscaster reads the
opening prologue. The director wants the audience to feel like they are watching a play on a
stage, so they know not everything is real. Luhrmann’s ideas are emphasized here in the over
saturated colours, clothes and sounds of the movie. Filmed in Mexico City, Vera Cruz, Los
Angeles and San Francisco the natural sunshine gives the Verona, Italy feel. In this opening
sequence of the film we are introduced to the main characters and to the feuding Montagues
and Capulets.

We are introduced to the movie by a newsreader on a TV, which acts as a Shakespeare

We also see skyscrapers with Montague on one side of the street and Capulet on the other side,
symbolizing the divide between the two rival families.

As the Capulets drive into the station, the first obvious reaction is that they look slicker than
their rivals. The colours used are darker, perhaps even mirroring their Latin ethnicity.

As the two families show their weapons the edits are fast, the sound is almost like that of a
sword cutting the wind.

Luhrmann has made changes to Shakespeare’s story, changing locations of monologues, the
trimming and paring of certain parts of the text, the vibrancy of colour and the frenzied editing.
Luhrmann made a Shakespeare film for the attention span of the MTV generation. While this
film is called ‘William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet’ it is most definitely ‘Baz Luhrmann’s
Romeo & Juliet’.

The repeated focus on the Jesus statue and other religious icons comments on how religion,
like the law, is no longer an effective means of maintaining peace and harmony in modern
society.

MOVIE VS PLAY
The changes Luhrmann makes for the difference it time are very significant throughout the
movie. The time period change, did not allow the characters to wear the typical clothing of a
late 15th century person. Luhrmann has transformed Shakespeare’s original masquerade ball
into a casual costume party. The male characters were viewed in the movie wearing Hawaiian
shirts, and black pants, while in the play; the males would have worn tights and frilled shirts. At
the Capulet Ball, it is very clear to see the differences in the role of Mercutio in the movie as
compared to the play. In the movie he dresses in drag sporting a white Afro wig and a silver
sparkling dress. He is perceived as very feminine throughout his scenes in the movie. The
females dressed more scantily clad in the movie than in the play. Juliet’s mother is shown in the
movie wearing a seductive Cleopatra outfit for their ball. She is in a tight bodice, and it is
insinuated that she and Tybalt, her nephew, are romantically involved. Also, the movie is set in
a much warmer climate, than Shakespeare intended for his play. More skin was shown in the
1996 remake, which is also familiar to our time. The fact that there were prostitutes and
hookers in this version of the film, also says something about the time period that it was set in.

Another big change in the movie was the usage of weapons. Romeo in the late 15th century
play has a sword for his weapon. While Leonardo DiCaprio, Romeo in the Baz Luhrmann’s film,
packed gun, engraved with the name “sword”. Other gang members in the Montague family
are also seen with guns and daggers. The change in weapons ultimately altered many scenes. In
one of the beginning scenes in the movie, when the Capulet “boyz” and the Montague “boyz”
meet at a gas station, and instead of meeting, quarrelling and having a sword fight, they have a
gun battle. This gunfight resembles more of a gang fight then a feuding family disagreement.
The sense of loyalty to the house is also similar to how a gang member would be loyal to a
gang. Also, the fact the fight takes place at a convenient store shows that the settings were
adjusted to fit the time period.

The way the characters spoke to each other were still fitting to the Shakespearean dialect,
however some changes were made in the deliverance of the lines. For example, in the scenes
where Benvolio and Romeo are speaking, instead of calling him cousin like in the play where
Benvolio states his line “Good morrow cousin”, he calls him “cuz”. This slang would not have
been acceptable in the 1500’s. The language use that was altered in the movie was also used to
fit the time frame, using “cuz” instead of cousin gives the movie a modern feel where teenagers
today change how some words are said.

 Also at the party, Romeo gets his first view of Juliet through a fish tank. As soon as their eyes
meet, the viewer gets the feeling that these two have instantly fallen in love. Soon after Juliet is
introduced to Paris. In the play, they do not see each other for the first time in a fish tank. It is
while she is dancing, Romeo notices her and pulls her away to speak with her.
Also in that scene, the famous balcony scene takes place. In the movie, Romeo and Juliet are
only partly on the balcony. Most of it takes place in the pool, which creates a different way to
see that scene. It also makes for some great camera work!

In my opinion, there were several key strengths as well as weaknesses in the movie. The main
strength in my opinion was how Baz Luhrmann stuck to the original script. I also found the
comical relief in the movie quite appealing. A main strength was the camera work. The pool
scene was one of the best scenes. Also, the way the camera crew had beautiful background
scenes, like the sun setting in the beach scene. Another bonus of the movie was the way that it
presented a difficult subject matter so easily. The weaknesses that I found in the play were
greater than the strengths however. The play tended to be confusing at points. This may have
happened due to the fact that main characters were cut out of the play, or other interesting
scenes were cut from it in the end. Also, other personal relationships were not explored such as
the relationships between: Mercutio and Romeo, Friar Lawrence and the Nurse, and Capulet
and Montague. It seemed as though Baz Luhrmann was too busy concentrating on the love
aspect in the story, between Romeo and Juliet. The movie had too much gunplay also. Yes, it
was cute to have the guns named things like, “sword” and “dagger”, but the movie became too
much like a mob movie when every other scene someone has a gun out ready to kills someone.
The final weakness that I found in the movie was the ridiculous way that the director Baz
Luhrmann made the characters come across. The characters were giving silly mannerisms, and
the costumes that they wore were out of control! Friar Lawrence was in a Hawaiian shirt with
tattoos. I think that this is just a totally different way of looking at a masterpiece.

FRANCO ZEFFIRELLI VERSION (1968)

This film adaptation, unlike most of the others which were produced in later years, depicts the
families, lifestyle, practices, and acts as portrayed in the play, and does not adopt a ‘modern’
version of events as many of the subsequent films want to do (Rothwell 326). The director
makes every effort to depict an era similar to that intended by Shakespeare.

The voice-over has a soft male’s voice reciting the prologue almost like it is a bedtime story
for children. He also does not narrate the entire prologue but omits the line “Is now the two
hours traffic of our stage… ” and the two lines following that. This makes it seem more
movie-like than play-like and since the narrator is not definitely talking to the audience,
and it seems a more story/plot (reading lines) type. The music played while he is speaking
is gentle and “flutey” and also represents the medieval time in which the play is meant to be
set.

When the voice-over says “star crossed lovers”, the title Romeo & Juliet is shown on the
screen. This could be a subtle way of saying who the lovers are. Certain camera shots,
words, objects, settings and even colours can have hidden or deeper meanings. Orange is
the colour of the sun rising which could symbolise a new day, just as the close-up of the sun
represented. It is a bright vibrant colour, which can represent joy, vitality and excitement.It
also contrasts the calmness with mayhem, which later occurs in the story.

Luhrmann’s prologue is all about mayhem and is anything but calm and peaceful. This is
one of the points that makes the two prologues so different. The audio is very dramatic,
loud and powerful orchestral music. It grabs the viewers’ attention as this is played just
before the prologue is spoken for the second time by a deep and also powerful voice which
is almost frightening. The first time the prologue is read it is done by a female newsreader
on a television.

This adds a more modern touch to it, and shows us that the events were in the past. During
the music you hear a few gun-shots. This just shows a part of the violent society. The
technical codes also show violence as well as confusion and mayhem. 

In this film version of Romeo and Juliet by Franco Zeffirelli, the director has altered, removed,
or re-created several scenes. In the play, when Paris faces up Romeo outside the tomb, he
executes Paris. The film version does not however portray this part and the entire scene in Act
5 of the play is conspicuously missing in the film.

Since Romeo is the one that kills Paris in an effort to get to his ‘dead’ wife Juliet, the murder of
Paris casts him in bad light, and may deny him the sympathy of the viewer. The film thus omits
this act of murder so that Romeo may experience the full sympathy of the viewer of the film.

The series of actions preceding Juliet’s swallowing of the sleeping potion has also been altered
in the film. In the play, Juliet delivers a long monologue prior to taking the sleeping potion,
communicating her fears, her hopes, and her love for Romeo to the audience. However, in the
film, Juliet simply swallows the sleeping potion without much ado, simply asking for strength in
love before taking the portion. Secondly, in the film, the single sentence by Juliet comes across
as very powerful and memorable; the phrase by Juliet asking for strength from love is
memorable and is more poignant, and the viewer’s emotional connection with the
character/actor is enhanced.

 In Scene III of Act IV of the movie she merely says, “Love give me strength” (Zeffirelli). This
changes the entire character of Juliet, as instead of ostensibly seeming hesitant, doubtful, or
scared, she appears determined and undaunted through the power of love. This is not how she
is truly depicted in the book, where she expresses her fears of taking the potion.

In the film, the audience does not see Romeo buy the toxicant; therefore, the audience remains
in suspense, not knowing what Romeo would do next. The viewer is unsure of Romeo’s next
course of action after his wrong perception of Juliet’s death. The deletion of the scene that
shows Romeo purchasing the poison thus enhances the suspense in the film version of the play
to the very end.  Once Romeo reveals the bottle of poison, the addled watchers question where
and when Romeo obtains the poison as it appears out of nowhere

The way Zeffirelli adapts certain scenes changes the ambience of the events which influences
the viewer’s conclusive thoughts on the information. During the marriage scene between
Romeo and Juliet, the atmosphere adjusts from a momentous event to one that seems
childishly trivial. The movie depicts the two lovers relentlessly giggling and kissing as Friar
Lawrence weds them. This event is originally expressed more ceremoniously and solemnly to
show the significance of the pivotal decision, but when the movie portrays the lovers as ‘fools in
love,’ the understanding grasped from the scene is overturned.

The fight scene takes place around a fountain, where Mercutio plays in the water while
bantering with Tybalt. It is one of the most famous scenes in Shakespeare movies and the
tension between the heat and the need to keep the peace is masterfully done.

LUHRMANN VS ZEFFIRELLI

Luhrman has based his version at Verona Beach; America and instead of basing it in the 16th
century like Zeffirelli, he had his film based in the 20th century, with mansions, shiny cars and
bright lights. While Zeffirelli paced his film in an Iambic pentameter – a traditional Shakespeare
pace; Luhrman never kept his film at a solid pace. “By modernizing these aspects of the play, and
reconstructing the prologue, Luhrmann creates a movie that is more interesting to the modern
viewers.”

As Zeffirelli may have believed famous actors would steal his show he instead hired fresh new
faces to give the movie a more fresh, innocence value, But Luhrman used well known actors to
play the lead roles. This worked because more people were attracted to the film by the actors.
Zeffirelli used symbols to help capture his audience. Some were subtle, others were meant to get
the audiences attention. For example Romeo climbing over the high wall to reach Juliet’s balcony
was a subtle symbol showing the heights and challenges he would face for true love, and even
the fact the scene was set on a balcony overlooking an orchid which was may have been meant to
symbolise the ‘natural love’ or ‘green’ being fresh and inexperienced. Some more prominent
symbols were used, such as Juliet’s particular costume in this scene, a symbol
 The Balcony Scene- Luhrmann v/s Zeffirelli

 The balcony scene of Romeo & Juliet is arguably one of the most famous scenes from the
entire play. A key, pivotal moment in the story in which Romeo and Juliet ponder and discuss
their intense love for each other, with Juliet spouting prose out of her balcony as Romeo listens.
It’s a scene that most who’ve familiarized themselves with the play will know. Despite this,
there exists a balcony scene without a balcony at all, and it turned out surprisingly well,
potentially even better than the original. The two film adaptations of Romeo & Juliet attempt to
portray the balcony scene from the original play in completely different ways, with the Baz
Luhrmann film being more emotional and impactful as a result of the modifications it has made
in setting, costumes, and line delivery when compared to the Zeffirelli adaptation which is more
like a play rather than a romantic movie.
 The most noticeable key element of the scene which differs in both would be the setting. In
the Zeffirelli adaptation, Romeo appears in the greenery outside the balcony of a stone home,
with Juliet at said balcony. This is largely consistent with how the play portrayed the scene,
showing how much Zeffirelli cared about sticking to the original source material. Baz
Luhrmann’s adaptation, however, tries to bring a bit of originality to the film, by having the
scene take place around a mansion’s pool. Romeo, in this adaptation, sneaks past several
security cameras in the area to see the balcony by the pool. He then realizes that Juliet isn’t at
the balcony, when she walks towards the pool area. This leads to Romeo and Juliet discussing
their feelings in the pool, rather than at her balcony. The magnitude of the modification of this
scene strongly shows just how dedicated Baz Luhrmann was to making an original film out of
the source material. When compared with the Zeffirelli film, the Luhrmann film feels more
dramatic as a result of the modified setting. In the Luhrmann scene, Romeo has to evade the
security cameras, which creates a feeling of suspense, while in the Zeffirelli scene Romeo just
sits still in the dark to evade capture. When Romeo and Juliet talk to each other in the pool of
the Luhrmann film, the scene feels more personal than the Zeffirelli film, where Romeo and
Juliet calmly talk to each other at a distance without much emotion. The change in such a key
element of the scene, the moving from the balcony to a pool, changes the entire mood of the
scene.
 Another key element of the scene which very noticeably differs in each film is the costume
design of the characters. In the Zeffirelli adaptation, Romeo and Juliet are wearing medieval-era
English costumes, which is how Shakespeare likely envisioned the characters himself. The
Luhrmann adaptation, however, wanted to again put a spin on the story, by having Romeo and
Juliet wear modern clothing. The modern clothing makes it easier to empathize with Romeo
and Juliet during the scene. When watching them, one can easily imagine themselves in their
roles, meanwhile one may struggle with doing so when watching the Zeffirelli balcony scene. In
the Luhrmann scene, they look like everyday people in love, while in the Zeffirelli film one
simply cannot picture the scene occuring the way it did in the modern world everyone currently
lives in. The change in this key element, clothing, really improves the emotive abilities of the
scene.
  In the Luhrmann scene, a moment comes up which really demonstrates how much the
adaptation improved the line delivery. As Romeo and Juliet are in the pool, a security guard
appears to investigate the situation, as he saw two people in the pool despite the fact that only
Juliet should be there. When he appears, Juliet hides Romeo under the water so he doesn’t get
caught. After the guard leaves, Juliet’s tone turns playful and slightly flirtatious, something
which isn’t portrayable in the Zeffirelli film as the situation presented in the film’s balcony
scene can’t have enough layers of character interaction to facilitate such complex tones and
deliveries.
 When one compares the elements of the Baz Luhrmann balcony scene, the settings, clothing,
and line delivery, which created layers of character interaction, more relatable characters,
suspense, and drama, to the Zeffirelli balcony scene, one can very reasonably argue that the
Luhrmann scene is a dramatic improvement. The balcony in the balcony scene is not what
makes it the balcony scene. It is the passion of the two characters, Romeo and Juliet, that
makes the scene the most famous scene of the entire play. So, if one were to say that one
balcony scene were better than the other, would one not pick the one that better portrays the
emotion of the characters? In this instance, the better balcony scene would be the balcony-less
balcony scene of the Baz Luhrmann adaptation of Romeo & Juliet.

CONCLUSION

The decision to adopt a play into film always carries the burden of the level of creative license
the director should employ. The film should also allow the reader to make his or her own
conclusions.

The film should ultimately tell a similar story to the play, but should also incorporate elements
that will make the entire efforts worthwhile and enriching. Franco Zeffirelli’s film provides a
different angle to one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, Romeo and Juliet, thus enriching
the viewer’s sense of understanding of the play, even for those who may have previously
read/watched the play.

However, Franco Zeffirelli directs the play exactly how Shakespeare wrote it, with no modern
language or urban effects. It is even set in Fair Verona. Baz Luhrmann's characters are taken out
of modern films, such as Leonardo Di Caprio, but Zeffirelli uses characters no one has heard of,
since his film was made in the 1960's. Luhrmann's movie companied with music formulates a
great recipe for a very compelling movie for all ages twelve and above. Zeffirelli's movie is more
for the older generation. It is not compelling to the younger audience, since the first scene do
not have all the modern effects. Baz Luhrmann's opening of the film is rather queer but
effective for the cinematic audience

With his rather feminine facial features, the shadowy camera angles, slow music and romantic
backdrop the whole scene is very dreamy, showing that Romeo is in a world of his own. After
viewing both interpretations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, I believe that Baz Luhrmann's
first scene and opening are superior to Franco Zeffirelli's. This is because it is more appealing to
the younger generation. On the other hand if a person wished to view the exact interpretation
of the play, then I would recommend Zeffirelli's one. The way that Baz Luhrmann captures
Shakespeare's language, is done very well, cause each character has his own accent. He also has
made the play very modern and it is even set in an urban area. Luhrmann has changed every
aspect to the book to modern day accurately, from the guns to the cars. However Zeffirelli only
intended to interpretate the play exactly how Shakespeare wrote it. Both directors have been
successful in achieving what they wanted. Luhrmann wanted the film to be very modern and if
William Shakespeare were alive to this day, this is how he might have produced his own play in
movie form. Baz Luhrmann was able to understand the messages conveyed by young
Shakespeare, bought it into the present and successfully related it to many issues plaguing our
society we live in today. Zeffirelli wished to carry out the play, word to word, as Shakespeare
wrote it. In conclusion both directors has made their opening and first scene very well.