Romeo + Juliet is a classic Shakespearean romantic tragedy. Director Baz Luhrmann attempted to make this into a post-modern movie where swords are merely a brand of gun and bored youths are easily spurred toward violence. Janet Maslin one of the top critics on Rotten tomato posted “Where is the audience willing to watch a classic play thrown in the path of a subway train?” Many elements were not well modernized, scenes were over exaggerated, as well as the language remained unchanged. For these reasons, Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet is ineffective because it destroys the elegance of the original.
The characters and plot elements are ineffectively modernized because they lack some of the important aspects that are included in the original play. One of the controversial character’s is Mercutio. In the play this character is presented as a high class guy that loves to toss in a dirty or funny joke when possible. This is proven when in the script it shows “An thou make minstrels of us, look to hear nothing but discords. Here’s my fiddlestick. Here’s that shall make you dance.” (3,1,40) Mercutio say’s this funny phrases after being insulted by Tybalt from the house of Capulet. It is also clearly shown that he also has class. Although in the movie he is changed into a druggy gangster. Fortunately he does not lack humor in the movie, but he start’s to lack all the class that has been given to him during the play. At the Capulet party, Mercutio takes LSD and dresses like a man without a rank. He makes the spectator comprehend this by dressing as a female and putting a lot of makeup on. This choice of modernization is unappealing since Mercutio is a perfect character outline, which is brainlessly re sketched. Unfortuna...
... middle of paper ...
...easily been transformed into something better just by adding modern day language. Lastly the scene in which Benvolio wornes himself that a battle might break out, clearly represents an area in which language is very ineffective. This is shown when he mentions “the Caples are abrod… we shall not escape a braw” (Movie: Baz Lurhmann) Not changing this dialogue to modern language just confuses viewers, since they might not know what he just claimed. It also does not add any extra elegance to the movie which makes it useless.
Unfortunately Baz Luhrmann's attempt of re creating this classic is unsuccessful. Romeo + Juliet should not be changed into “a frenetic, explosive experience full of car crashes and gun battles” said the top critic Desson Howe. Many elements are inefficiently modernized, plot element’s are greatly exaggerated, yet the language remains unchanged.
One of the most celebrated plays in history, “Romeo and Juliet”, was written by William Shakespeare in the late 16th century. It is a story about two lovers that have to meet in secret because of an ongoing family feud. Tragically, because of their forbidden love Romeo and Juliet take their lives so they can be together. In 1997, a movie was adapted from the play “Romeo and Juliet”, directed by Baz Lurhmann. However, as alike as the movie and the play are, they are also relatively different.
Modern audiences have been reintroduced to William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet largely through modern film reinterpretations of the play. Many of these films, most notably Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet and John Madden’s 1998 Shakespeare in Love, have focused on the tragic destiny of these "two star-crossed lovers". Seemingly, it is the destiny of Romeo and Juliet to commit suicide because they are not allowed to love each other. It’s the kind of dramatic story that makes teenage hearts swoon: pure love, passionate love, forbidden love. And while the passionate romance of young Capulet and young Montague is essential to the play, it is by no means the only way to understand Romeo and Juliet. Unfortunately, many students are first exposed to this particular work early in high school, an age at which the issue of love resonates more powerfully than many other of life’s concerns. After this initial exposure in high school, most students do not return to Romeo and Juliet except in films, which again, cater to youth. This particular emphasis, along with the use of young and attractive headliners, explains the success with young audiences of the 1996 film version. The film interpretations of this work along with the early initial exposure make it rather easy for a current reader to dismiss the play as just a love story.
Romeo and Juliet is a play about two adolescents—Romeo and Juliet from two hostile families fall in love with each other. This prohibited love ultimately turns into a romantic tragedy, in which they commit suicide for each other. Both Franco Zeffirelli’s (1968) and Baz Lurhmann’s (1996) versions retained the dialogues written by William Shakespeare in their movies. However, these two movies are directed in their own unique ways, which have several distinctive differences.
There are many differences between Luhrmann’s 1996 and Zeffirelli’s 1968 versions of Romeo and Juliet. One of these differences is the setting and time era. Zeffirelli’s version is more fitting of Shakespeare’s idea of the time era – it is all very renaissance. They start out with a tournament, they use swords, and they dress to their part. Another difference is culture. In the new version, the movie starts in the city, and it is a fight between the Montague’s and the Capulets. Perhaps the most important between the two versions is the religions and beliefs of the people as a whole.
...entio plays the foil to Petruchio. He falls in love at first sight and coveys a sweet, mild-mannered personality throughout the movie. Posing as a tutor, Gordon-Levitt shows the overeager desperation that makes Lucentio likable. The casting of the main characters would have received Shakespeare’s seal of approval. The actors managed to convey the original sense of the characters while slightly adapting them for a different century. Shakespeare, who commonly borrowed plots from other writers, would have appreciated his work getting a facelift. It brought his characters to a new audience and the casting suited this modernization.
The premise of the plot is held in tact but the setting is shifted several hundred years, to the 1970s. The characters’ names even remain familiar. The dialogue is contemporary English yet you can still recognize the similarities in conversation. Major themes from the original work – revenge, guilt, self doubt, fate, and prophecy still exist in this manipulated adaptation. “He (Morrissette) is able to make an interesting point about how the difference between tragedy and comedy is often how the material is viewed by the audience”.(Berardinelli)
The story of Romeo and Juliet has been altered and tweaked over the years in many movies. One of the many versions of the story is in the movie called Romeo and Juliet two stars, which was directed by Baz Luhrmann. Roger Ebert, a famous film critic, gave Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet two stars because to him it is not a good version of the original story of Romeo and Juliet and that it messed up the story. I completely agree with Ebert's opinion and choice of giving two stars to Luhrmann’s movie because I feel that it was a poorly directed film and that it ruined the story of Romeo and Juliet.
As a lover of books, I am often very disappointed by the movies based off of books. This was the case with both of the Romeo and Juliet movies we watched in class because it differed from the play Romeo and Juliet quite a bit. The 1968 and the 1996 movies based off of William Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, are alike in few ways but they deviate from each other very much. A few examples of how they veer from the actual play include the balcony scene, Tybalt’s death, and even the letter that was sent to Romeo by Friar Lawrence.
Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet is a film that converts Shakespeare’s famous play into a present-day setting. The film transforms the original texts into modern notions, whilst still employing Shakespearean language. Compared to Franco Zeffirelli’s adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, Luhrmann’s picture is easier for a teenage audience to understand and relate to because of his modernisations. Despite the passing of four centuries Shakespeare’s themes of love, hate, violence, family and mortality remain the same regardless of the setting.
Baz Lurhmann’s creation of the film Romeo and Juliet has shown that today’s audience can still understand and appreciate William Shakespeare. Typically, when a modern audience think of Shakespeare, they immediately think it will be boring, yet Lurhmann successfully rejuvenates Romeo and Juliet. In his film production he uses a number of different cinematic techniques, costumes and a formidably enjoyable soundtrack; yet changes not one word from Shakespeare’s original play, thus making it appeal to a modern audience.
In précis, through comparing and contrasting the inclusion of certain themes and textual features, and their transformations, the main motifs behind these alterations are clearly established. These transformations are influenced by the author’s social and cultural context, as well as their present defined social order, which is extensively reflected in BBC’s adaptation of the Shakespearean play, “Much Ado about Nothing”.
The endurance of Romeo and Juliet’s love story benefits from Shakespeare’s prestige, however, Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation and numerous other adaptations maintained the love story’s popularity. Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation took advantage of the universal theme of the story, language and context. With the theme that everyone can relate to, the modernised language and technique of showing rather than telling, the more relatable setting for modern audiences. Baz Luhrmann has demystified
“The most filmed of all plays, ‘Romeo and Juliet’, with its universal themes… remains uniquely adaptable for any time period,” (Botnick, 2002). Directors Franco Zeffirelli (1968) and Baz Luhrman (1996) provide examples of the plays adaption to suit the teenage generation of their time. Identifying the key elements of each version: the directors intentions, time/place, pace, symbols, language and human context is one way to clearly show how each director clearly reaches their target audience. Overall however Luhrman’s adaptation would be more effective for capturing the teenage audience.
Though there were some technical difficulties that affected things that is no excuse except for it being harder to hear. The actors and actresses definitely could have projected more which would have helped the technical difficulties. This was seen in the scene where the young boy was trying to talk to the girls and you could not hear a word he said because there were technical difficulties and he did project. The main problem of the actors and actresses was that for majority of the actors and actresses they did not do the accents properly and for some not even at all this made the play very hard to both understand and follow. For example, Olga was supposed to be speak American with a slight Polish accent and the actress completely dropped the accent and spoke purely English. Also the actress who played the German maid Margareth made her accent so thick you couldn’t understand her one bit and it was hard to determine whether it was French or German same with the French girl Felice. Another problem is they did not show character development whatsoever. The other problem was that the actresses in specific did not show proper emotional responses when they were supposed to be sad and depressed they did not act sad enough you could tell they were faking
...ing. If it were to be produced in a modern setting it should not stray to far from the playwright’s original intentions. I went to see this play produced at UMASS last semester; it was what prompted me to read the play for this analysis. I walked out of the theatre totally confused about what had just saw and so did the person that I went to see it with. The director changed so much of the script and altered the playwright’s intentions so much that the entire production was a fast whirlwind of confusion with random things thrown in. It was not until I read the play did I understand what some of those things were. I believe if this play is to be produced modernly the language can be changed to modern English but the plot should stay the same without many alterations. We need to see the entire story in order to understand exactly what is going on. We can do this by changing some of the characters to more modern people of today’s society that the audience can relate to; such as instead of Faustus conjuring Helen he could conjure a popular supermodel instead. Modernizing in this way would give a better understanding to the audience of what the play is about and what the story line is.