romeo and juliet 1968 and 1996 movie comparison essay

Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: a Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences

How it works

Ah, “Romeo and Juliet”! The age-old story of star-crossed lovers that Shakespeare spun into literary gold. And guess what? Filmmakers couldn’t resist turning this tragic tale into cinematic magic. We’ve got not one but two iconic adaptations from the late ’60s and the ’90s. Buckle up because we’re diving into the world of “Romeo and Juliet” on the big screen.

1.1 Keeping It Traditional
1.2 Star-Crossed Chemistry
1.3 Visual Poetry
1.4 Soothing Sonnets
2.1 Shaking Up the Scene
2.2 Visual Extravaganza
2.3 Cultural Remix
2.4 Unforgettable Soundtrack
3.1.1 Strengths
3.1.2 Weaknesses
3.2.1 Strengths
3.2.2 Weaknesses
4 The Final Verdict: Which One’s Your Cup of Tea?
5 Conclusion

The Vintage Vibe: 1968’s Classic Charm

Keeping it traditional.

The 1968 film, directed by Franco Zeffirelli, grabs the bull by the horns regarding Shakespearean authenticity.

You’re talking about lush Renaissance-era settings, costumes that are fit for royalty, and dialogue that sticks true to Bard’s poetic prowess. If you’re into that old Shakespearean elegance, this film is your ticket to time travel.

Star-Crossed Chemistry

Let’s talk chemistry. Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, who play Romeo and Juliet, are the poster kids for star-crossed lovers. Their chemistry sizzles like bacon on a Sunday morning. You’ll swoon, sigh, and forget that this movie was made ages ago.

Visual Poetry

Zeffirelli’s 1968 film crafts scenes that are straight-up visual poetry. Every frame is a masterpiece, from Verona’s lush landscapes to the Capulet mansion’s opulent halls. It’s like stepping into a Renaissance painting, and you won’t be able to tear your eyes away.

Soothing Sonnets

The 1968 adaptation doesn’t just nail the visuals; it captures the essence of Shakespeare’s language in all its glory. The characters’ speeches roll off the tongue like a symphony of sonnets. If you’re a word nerd, this film is a treat for your ears, with every line dripping with the beauty of Bard’s prose.

Modern Twist: 1996’s Contemporary Flair

Shaking up the scene.

Fast forward to 1996, and we’ve got director Baz Luhrmann kicking down the Shakespearean door with a modern-day adaptation. Let’s be real, Leo DiCaprio as Romeo? It’s like a ’90s dream come true. This film splices classic dialogue with modern settings, and you know what? It works like a charm.

Visual Extravaganza

Luhrmann isn’t shy when it comes to visual extravagance. The film’s got the verve of a music video on steroids. Neon signs, wild parties, and a snappier pace than your grandma’s comeback in a bingo game. It’s Shakespeare with a side of MTV and oddly satisfying.

Cultural Remix

Luhrmann’s 1996 version isn’t just a movie; it’s a cultural remix. Complete with guns and Hawaiian shirts, the modern setting bridges the gap between centuries. It’s Shakespeare made accessible, inviting a new generation to experience the tale without feeling like they’re decoding a secret language.

Unforgettable Soundtrack

If the 1996 film had a heartbeat, it’d be the rhythm of its soundtrack. Featuring tracks from Radiohead, Garbage, and Des’ree tracks, it injects the story with a vibrant energy that matches the characters’ whirlwind emotions. The music becomes another character in the story, underscoring the drama and love in every scene.

Let’s Compare and Contrast, Shall We?

The good, the bad, the 1968.

– It’s like diving headfirst into the pages of a classic novel. The authenticity is so thick you can cut it with a dagger.

– The chemistry between the lead actors is so palpable you’ll practically need a fan to cool off.

– It’s a time capsule; not everyone’s into Renaissance vibes.

– The language can be a barrier, especially if your English skills could be a lot better.

The Swag, The Oops, The 1996

– Leo and Claire Danes ooze ’90s coolness. Their romance feels like a millennial fairy tale.

– If Shakespearean language makes you go “Huh?”, this modern take will have you nodding like you’re at a hip-hop concert.

– The pacing might leave you breathless—either because it’s exciting or you’re trying to keep up.

– If you’re a purist, some of the liberties taken with the original text might feel like a Shakespearean sin.

The Final Verdict: Which One’s Your Cup of Tea?

Choosing between these two adaptations is like picking your favorite flavor of ice cream—it’s all about personal taste. If you’re all about that classic Shakespearean experience, the 1968 version will sweep you with its timeless charm. But if you’re up for a wild ride that blends old-school dialogue with modern flair, then the 1996 film is ready to knock your socks off.

So there you have it, a tale of two films, faithful to Shakespeare’s masterpiece but dripping with their unique sauce. The 1968 adaptation is a romantic throwback to the past, while the 1996 take is a modern whirlwind that’ll keep your eyes glued to the screen. Whether you’re a die-hard Shakespeare fan or a rookie just stepping into his world, both these films have something unique to offer. So, grab your popcorn and your doublet or denim jacket—because there’s room for everyone in the world of Romeo and Juliet.

Cite this page

Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences. (2023, Sep 18). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/romeo-and-juliet-1968-and-1996-movie-comparison-essay-a-tale-of-two-cinematic-experiences/

"Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences." PapersOwl.com , 18 Sep 2023, https://papersowl.com/examples/romeo-and-juliet-1968-and-1996-movie-comparison-essay-a-tale-of-two-cinematic-experiences/

PapersOwl.com. (2023). Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/romeo-and-juliet-1968-and-1996-movie-comparison-essay-a-tale-of-two-cinematic-experiences/ [Accessed: 7 Jun. 2024]

"Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences." PapersOwl.com, Sep 18, 2023. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/romeo-and-juliet-1968-and-1996-movie-comparison-essay-a-tale-of-two-cinematic-experiences/

"Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two Cinematic Experiences," PapersOwl.com , 18-Sep-2023. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/romeo-and-juliet-1968-and-1996-movie-comparison-essay-a-tale-of-two-cinematic-experiences/. [Accessed: 7-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Screen Rant

Romeo and juliet: 20 differences between the play and the movie.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

6 Cleverly Disguised Teen Movies That Are Actually Shakespeare Adaptations

Rosaline cast & character guide, 15 best cult classics that perfectly capture the 1990s.

Verona becomes Verona Beach in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, set in modern times with guns and TV news updates.
Luhrmann modernizes Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, changing characters and setting but keeping original dialogue.
Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo + Juliet uses guns instead of swords, updated costumes, and modernized character names.

In 1996, Baz Luhrmann turned his eye to the works of Shakespeare and created a finished product with several differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie. William Shakespeare's 38 plays have proven to be quite memorable, but the one most adapted is Romeo and Juliet. It may have been first performed in the 1500s, but elements of the tragic play ("the star-crossed lovers") can be found in the likes of several popular TV shows, rom-coms, musicals, and even video games. None remained as loyal while making such drastic changes, as Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet .

Watch on Hulu

There are many modernizations of Shakespeare's works , such as 10 Things I Hate About You bringing Taming the Shrew to modern times. Few have done anything as kinetically different as Luhrmann's story using the original dialogue, but setting it in a modern-day Verona Beach. Shot almost like a long-form music video, Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet uses the original Shakespeare dialogue, but intersperses it with television footage, news crews, and car chases, making it like nothing fans of the Bard had ever seen while making it accessible for contemporary teenagers to understand the tragic love story.

Some of these adaptions are popular teen movies dating back to the 80s, many of which cleverly adopted many themes of Shakespeare's original plays.

The Setting Is More Modern In The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Fair verona becomes verona beach.

The original version of Romeo and Juliet is set long ago, with most guesses being the 14th or 15th century. People acted differently and the world operated with a different structure. The main change here is that Baz Luhrmann’s version is set in the modern-day (or at least 1990s America).

The Romeo and Juliet movie changes to allow cars, guns, FedEx trucks, cafés, and TVs. Everyone is also dressed in modern clothes and many people have dyed their hair. It couldn’t look more different, but the language remains unchanged.

Some Of The Lines Have Either Been Cut Or Altered In The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Only one character uses iambic pentameter.

Despite the language of the play remaining mostly unchanged, notably with the characters still referring to their guns as "swords," a few things did have to be adapted if it was to be shown on the big screen. One of the differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and movie was Luhrmann cutting some of the lines since he only had a certain run time to tell his version. Additionally, despite the majority of Romeo and Juliet being written in iambic pentameter, Father Laurence (Pete Postlethwaite) is the only character in Romeo + Juliet to speak in this meter .

The Montagues And Capulets Are Not Just Warring Families In Romeo + Juliet

The montagues and capulets are mafia empires running corporations.

Tying in with the updated location and time period, the actual presence and existence of the Montagues and Capulets are drastically different from the original play. Rather than being two families at war, the difference between the Romeo and Juliet play and movie is that the war here is between two rival businesses. In the movie, it is rival mafia empires. That made them criminal empires rather than prominent families. However, they pretend to be legitimate corporations with law enforcement in their pockets. With this comes a change in motivation for a lot of the major plot points in the story.

The Messenger/Prologue Chorus Is Replaced

News reports act as the chorus.

As the film modernizes the original play, it naturally had to find a new way to present the role usually fulfilled by the chorus, such as in the opening prologue. This is cleverly done by having a news anchor read these lines, presenting the chorus lines as if it were a news report on television screens .

Additionally, the TV also fulfills the role of the messenger that was in the play. Instead of the cast finding out about the Capulet's party by messenger, they see it announced on TV. This is not only a good way to modernize the story, but to make it work cinematically.

Rosaline's Role Is Reduced Drastically In The Plot Of Romeo + Juliet

Rosaline is not even seen in most adaptations.

Rosaline is a character that doesn't actually appear in the play but still plays an important factor. She is Romeo's (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) first love and the reason he is distraught at the beginning of the story, as she does not love him, instead swearing a vow of chastity. Rosaline is the main reason the Montagues visit the Capulet's party, as she is meant to be there.

In the film, Rosaline's role is reduced, though she still acts as a device to get Romeo to the party. Despite Romeo brooding at the beginning, his feelings for Rosaline appear to be presented as more of a crush, and Romeo's emotions are downplayed when Benvolio (Dash Mihok) asks why he is sad.

Rosaline's fate after the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet's romance has actually prompted much speculation. Books and movies both have speculated about how Rosaline might have reacted to her previous suitor dying after a whirlwind romance. Shows like Still Star-Crossed and movies like Hulu's Rosaline have attempted to answer those questions.

The romantic comedy Rosaline has a great cast full of talented young stars and Hollywood veterans. Here's a guide to the film's cast and characters.

The Balcony Scene Is Cut From The Romeo + Juliet Movie

The scene plays out in a pool instead.

The balcony scene is arguably the most iconic scene of not only Romeo and Juliet, but of Shakespeare's entire works. It is a scene frequently referenced in pop culture and it is well-known to most people, even if they have never read or watched the play in any form. So it's pretty surprising that the film decided to change this legendary scene. In Romeo and Juliet 1996 vs the play, Luhrmann first reduced the 190 lines to just 90 lines. Secondly, the setting changed from an orchard scene to a more modern scene in a swimming pool .

The Tone Of The Marriage Proposal Is A Lot More Immature

The romeo + juliet movie makes it seem impulsive.

In the original play, the scene where Romeo proposes that he and Juliet (Claire Danes) should get married is normally perceived as being a serious part of the play. However, one of the differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie is that the characters are less serious.

Instead, they are giggling and laughing as they relay the lines that are more commonly acted out more earnestly on stage. Of course, this could be Luhrmann's way of presenting how happy the two are, so joyous that they keep smiling and laughing, but it downplays the importance of their union and how it would unite their two houses.

Paris’ Death Is Excluded From The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Romeo kills paris in the play.

In the original version of Romeo and Juliet , Romeo goes to the Capulet crypt to find Juliet. However, when he gets there, Paris is there grieving the loss of Juliet and Romeo kills him during a fight. The Romeo and Juliet movie changes this. Firstly, Paris is called Dave Paris in the Romeo and Juliet cast , and secondly, he isn’t in the crypt at all, meaning Romeo doesn’t bump into anyone there.

In turn, this means Dave Paris ends the film very much alive , while the Romeo and Juliet play provided that cruel twist ending everyone is too familiar with. This makes a major change, as his death showed how the battle even killed innocent people who were not part of the feud.

Lady Montague Is Alive At The End Of The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Lady montague dies after romeo is exiled in the play.

Although six people died in the play, Baz Luhrmann's version reduced this number to four as he left two individuals alive. Not only did he omit Paris' death from his script, but he also omitted Lady Montague's death too (who can be seen sitting in the limousine at the very end).

While the Shakespearean play said she died as a result of Romeo being exiled, it appeared that Luhrmann didn't think it was as important in his adaptation since she didn't have much impact on the story. Of course, her fate could have remained the same, but it was not part of the movie's tale.

The Montagues And Capulets Don't Reconcile At The End Of Romeo + Juliet

The families symbolically reconcile in the play.

Luhrmann continued to create differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and movie by not including the reconciliation. This came in the final act of the tragedy when the two fathers walked into the church and discovered that their children died. To pay tribute, they decide to end the feud and build two statues of them side-by-side.

It's possible Luhrmann decided not to include this scene because it overlooked Romeo and Juliet's deaths. However, they were the most important people in their parent's lives, so Luhrmann instead had them contemplate the brevity of the situation and how their violent feud cost several people their lives.

Balthasar And Friar Laurence Don't Appear In The Ending Of Romeo + Juliet

Balthasar and friar laurence explain events in the play's final act.

While they appeared in the movie version, some people might not have realized that Balthasar (Jesse Bradford) and Father Laurence should also have been involved in the final act. In the play, it is Balthasar and Friar Laurence who discover Romeo and Paris' bodies and explain why this tragedy came about. However, given that the movie is set in a more modern era, where technology and autopsies are more advanced, and marriage certificates are easy to track, the two families would have been able to quickly figure out what happened, which would mean that this scene was not needed.

The Prince And Paris' Familial Relationship Is Excluded From Romeo + Juliet

Paris is the son of the governor.

With Paris still alive at the end of the movie, it appears that Lurhmann had cut the familial ties between Paris and Captain Prince (Vondie Curtis-Hall), since they were declared "kinsmen" in the play. Although some might say that it didn't really affect the story as much since Paris and Prince Escalus didn't really interact, it changed the interpretation of the play slightly.

Not only was Paris' death meant to highlight the immense tragedy further, but the Prince's grief was to show that innocent people were also caught up in this family's feud. Once again, this allowed Luhrmann to keep the focus on Romeo and Juliet and not as much on the other casualties.

Paris' Familial Relationship With Mercutio Is Also Excluded From The Movie

They are referenced as kinsmen in the play.

Since the play established that Paris and Mercutio (Harold Perrineau) were kinsmen to the Prince, it also appears that the movie adaptation excluded their familial ties to each other. The only one Lurhmann keeps intact is that of Mercutio and Captain Prince.

Given that Mercutio played a pivotal role in Luhrmann's version of the play , it makes sense the director kept Captain Prince and Mercutio's relationship as it emphasized that even outsiders can be drawn into the family feud. It also makes a lot of sense that he would cut Mercutio and Paris's ties too, since they didn't even interact in the play or acknowledge their relationship with each other.

Juliet Wakes Up Before Romeo Dies

Juliet wakes up after romeo's death in the play.

The twist ending is one of the reasons why Romeo + Juliet is one of the most memorable adaptations. Where the play sees a heartbroken Romeo take his own life before Juliet wakes up, one of the differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and movie is that the film changes this.

Instead of the heartbreakingly unfulfilled, and brutal ending of the original, Luhrmann has Juliet wake up just before Romeo dies, so they can share a quick kiss before she takes her own life. It was a silly end that Hot Fuzz made fun of in its mock Romeo and Juliet play, which itself was the cast adapting the Luhrmann movie - not the play, including the movie's song "Lovefool."

The Misuse Of Drugs Is Different In The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Romeo is seen taking a pill early in the movie.

One of the differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie is its depiction of drugs. In the play, the only time "drugs" are used is when Juliet takes tonic to fake her death or the poison Romeo drinks at the end. However, the misuse of drugs is completely different in the Lurhmann version as Romeo is seen taking a pill before he enters the Capulets' party.

While this might have been the director's way of making it modern, it added to the symbolism and hidden meanings. This isn't to say there weren't drugs in the 15th century, as marijuana (The Herb) was around in those days, which created hashish. With that said, Shakespeare didn't use it in his play.

Baz Lurhmann Replaces Swords With Guns In The Romeo + Juliet Movie

The guns are actually named swords.

Baz Luhrman’s film replaced the swords from the original with much more modern guns. Swords obviously require a lot of close combat, which means fights need to be done from close range. A gun could end a fight in less than a second, which could reduce the dramatic tension. Having said that, shootouts give the scene the Hollywood edge and make the film fit the 1990s more.

It was also needed because people in the 1990s wouldn't likely be carrying swords in a beachside town. Luckily, the dialogue still referred to the guns as "swords," keeping the callback to the play intact in this Romeo and Juliet adaptation . The guns were also stamped with the name "sword" to make the naming convention make sense .

The Costumes In Romeo + Juliet Are More Reflective Of Their Personalities

Other adaptations have simply employed masks to cover identities.

During the Capulet party, the costumes in the original Shakespeare play seem nothing particularly outlandish, with the characters wearing Elizabethan garments that would have been worn during any part of that era. However, in the film, Luhrmann decides to dress each character in a costume that reflects their personality.

The audience sees Juliet with ethereal angel wings and Tybalt dressed as the devil. It's not just the party. Mercutio’s glitzy lingerie set and cape were perfect for his character's personality and the flaming sacred heart on the Hawaiian shirt Romeo wore was iconic. Australian costume designer Kym Barrett delivered strongly for the movie .

Baz Lurhmann Gave The Characters Modern Names In The Romeo + Juliet Movie

Lurhmann also gave some characters first names.

Baz Luhrmann kept the dialogue the same as it would have been so many hundreds of years ago, but he changed the Romeo and Juliet character names . Paris gets a first name in Dave. The Montagues are named Caroline and Ted, while the Capulets are named Fulgencio and Gloria. Friar Laurence is turned into Father Laurence and Prince Escalus becomes Captain Prince, a police chief. These differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie make sense. Friar makes no sense in 1990s America and the police officer being a captain is also the proper title for the time.

Some Minor Characters' Affiliations Are Swapped Around In Romeo + Juliet

This allowed some characters to have larger roles.

Luhrmann decided to shuffle the affiliations of certain minor characters around. It’s a little confusing for those already familiar with the characters and doesn’t seem to make much sense or have any reasoning behind it. Abram (Vincent Laresca) and Petruchio (Carlos Manzo) become Capulets despite being Montagues in the original, while Sampson (Jamie Kennedy) and Gregory (Zak Orth) are Montagues in the film. Sampson, in particular, is an interesting one, as he becomes Romeo’s cousin, whereas before he was nothing more than a Capulet servant.

Friar John Is Excluded From The Romeo + Juliet Movie Altogether

Friar john isn't needed in the modern story.

Although he isn’t exactly a huge presence in the original play, Friar John nevertheless exists and has a certain role to fulfill. His character is used as a tool to send a letter from Friar Laurence to Romeo, but regrettably, he is unable to fulfill his duty because he becomes quarantined after an outbreak of plague. His small role is ultimately unsuccessful, but this makes him hugely important to the plot. He was supposed to tell Romeo about Juliet's false death, and since he never arrived, it led to Romeo's death.

Of the differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie, this one might have been omitted because Laurence could just overnight the letter, which he did. There's no need for someone to deliver a message on foot between two people they know when such things as overnight mail service exist. It's one of the Romeo and Juliet differences that makes the most sense .

Romeo + Juliet

10 Films Where Ballet and Horror Dance Together
Where to Start with Hirokazu Kore-eda
Where to Start with Italian Neorealism
I Saw the TV Glow (2024) Review
Sting (2024) Review

Romeo and Juliet (1968) vs. Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Having watched the two most famous versions of Shakespeare’s tragedy ‘ Romeo and Juliet ’, I decided to compare the two and say which one, at least in my opinion, is the best of the two. In this article I will try to analyse as many points as possible in order to give you a panoramic view of these two film adaptations.

Romeo and Juliet (1968) by Franco Zeffirelli

The most awarded and perhaps the most well-known rendition of the story of the two star-crossed lovers is Zeffirelli’s 1968 ‘ Romeo and Juliet ’ . This version is the more ‘realistic’ or ‘accurate’ of the two films, not only because of how it is in accordance with Shakespeare’s text, and how it is also set in Verona during the Renaissance, but also because of how the costumes designed by Danilo Donati – which earned the film an Academy Award along with Best Cinematography – were extremely accurate when compared to the original play and were true to the time the story is set in. Although the dialogue was cut or trimmed in parts, this version stayed as loyal to the original stage play as possible.

The cast members were almost the same age as the young lovers in the play: Olivia Hussey was 15 at the time and Leonard Whiting was 17. Zeffirelli purposefully chose among a new, talented and still unknown generation of actors. Although Olivia Hussey’s career is still strong now, Leonard Whiting’s didn’t enjoy the same popularity – it reached its peak in the 70s but he is no longer seen in any major new roles. In this performance together, the two share great onscreen chemistry that transcends their mixed careers and I still think that they were the most suitable and believable pair to perform Romeo and Juliet at the time despite how their individual performances were not the best, though their incredibly young age must be taken into consideration in this respect. Ultimately, I was never expecting Academy Award worthy performances from two teenagers, but Juliet did sound slightly overly melodramatic even for a Shakespeare adaptation, and Romeo never sounded quite at one with the language he used, making for an even less convincing solo performance.

I find Juliet’s reactions to be over the top, especially during the famous balcony scene or when she speaks to the priest after her betrothal to Paris, or again in some of her dialogue with both the Nun and with her mother. One example of Juliet’s exaggerated acting can also be seen when, after receiving the news of Romeo’s actions against Tybalt , she is talking to her mother and crying so loud that it becomes almost unbearable to hear. Although both actors tried to respect the rhythm of the verse, the acting overall wasn’t convincing enough in comparison to the overall quality of the picture. Leonard Whiting made a better Romeo than Leonardo Di Caprio – though I’ll get to this soon – but he was still not quite as convincing as he could have been. Even so, I admit that his performance grew on me as the movie progressed and I eventually enjoyed watching him as Romeo. He had the looks, of course, and the chemistry he had with the lead actress was palpable. He tried his best to act as truthful to the text as he could and that is more visible in some scenes than others – for example in the ball scene, or the sequence in the church when he watches Juliet and smiles as she smiles back; a testament to their director’s abilities. In the end, I think that choosing fresh-faced actors of around the same age as the characters in the tragedy itself gave much realism to the story on screen, furthering the appeal of the picture and my appreciation for the director’s contributions.

The whole cast was more appropriate and carefully chosen than in the Romeo and Juliet 1996 version which aimed for an entirely new and different audience. Just to mention some notable names: there’s Michael York as Tybalt, who had a prolific career as a film and Theatre actor, Natasha Perry as Lady Capulet and Bruce Robinson as Benvolio.

Moving on to the use of camera: it is worth mentioning the effective use of close-ups to emphasize the most tragic moments in the play by putting into focus the character’s face and emotions. For example, when Romeo is talking to his friend Mercutio he suddenly has an omen of death, which will eventually become reality, and the camera zooms on him with a close-up on his face, right before Romeo puts on his mask. During the ball we have the use of a subjective camera shot, when Juliet and Romeo dance the Moresca in a circle, thus the director gives us the impression of moving in circles as the main characters do – we see the blur of faces as if we were Juliet spinning uncontrollably. These are effects that can not be present while watching the stage version of the Shakespeare text and, in many ways, ensure that the art-form of film is as present within the storytelling of this famous text as the text itself.

The entire film was shot in Italy between Rome, Tuscany and the North of the country. This, along with the costumes, gave the impression of real Renaissance Italy in Verona, during the time when Romeo and Juliet are written to have lived, as well as when their tragic love story unfolded. The colours are very cheerful and bright, which means that the light was of primary importance in the sequences – there is always some light during the scenes that should be set at night. The balcony scene, for example, starts at night and ends at the first light of the day, which explains why Mercutio and Benvolio wonder where Romeo had been all night. This is a juxtaposition to the story which is, of course, much darker, and is representative of a fresh mode of visual storytelling from Zeffirelli’s team. The music is very telling as well; Zeffirelli uses compositions that could be heard during the 15 th and the 16 th centuries, and this is no more prominent that in the ball scene where there is also the Moresca dance, which is amongst the most popular dance types in 15 th century Italy, Spain and France. Zeffirelli, who was very careful and had a keen eye for detail, masterly used this music during the dance and, I might say, beautifully too. The main theme of the film is an original score composed by the great Nino Rota, who was a famous composer during the 60s in Italy and who was the author of many important and famous film scores of the time.

Romeo + Juliet (1996) by Baz Luhrmann

The entire setting is completely different and therefore it is slightly more difficult to compare this version with the previous one, so I’ll try to highlight some points that had a significantly different impact on the audience while watching this version and thus made for what I will present as a more, or less, enjoyable adaptation of the story.

Romeo + Juliet won many awards – The Silver Bear for Best Acting to Leonardo Di Caprio and the Alfred Bauer award to Baz Luhrmann, along with other important nominations – and while the movie was praised for its modern setting, it was something that didn’t quite sit right with me. I personally see very little appeal in this film, primarily because there are too many changes and inconsistencies that detract from the feel of the story and Shakespeare’s original work. Here’s why…

First of all, the story is set in modern Verona beach in the US and therefore all the characters speak with American English accents, which sounded quite weird for a start, especially if you’re used to the classical adaptation of the tragedy. I feel like the actors should have spoken British English not American English even if the setting was different from the original one, especially considering just how much of the original dialogue the movie maintained.

Secondly, I didn’t like all the cuts that were made. The dialogue between Romeo and the Nun to establish a date and place for the marriage to Juliet should have been more important, for example, as it is usually pivotal to the plot in Shakespeare’s drama – but this is only one instance I found of scene cutting that I couldn’t appreciate. Another example that I can’t quite figure out the reason for is a central scene that hasn’t been cut completely – I am, of course, referencing when the nurse speaks to Juliet about her cousin’s murder at the hands of Romeo. In Luhrmann’s adaptation we see Romeo hidden at Friar Lawrence’s house and the nurse goes to him to tell him how Juliet is. The dialogue between the nurse and Juliet is completely cut for seemingly no reason, detracting from the story due to the necessity of understanding Juliet’s emotional stance at this point in the movie which is thus completely absent, leading to a lesser understanding of the plot as a whole. There are also some cuts in Mercutio’s speeches and the whole relationship with Romeo isn’t as well explored as it probably should have been. Similarly, the scene in which Juliet talks to her parents and gives her consent to marry Paris has also been cut – it would have shown Juliet’s psychological growth if they had included it and there’s no doubting that it was an important moment as well, particularly regarding the development of Juliet, a character whose impact, development and overall story was reduced dramatically in this adaptation.

From an acting stand-point, Juliet’s marriage to Paris is better acted by Claire Danes than it is by Olivia Hussey. Danes’ Juliet is, generally, much less melodramatic than Hussey’s, though the acting isn’t convincing and lacks tone and sentiment throughout the picture. This is also true of Leonardo DiCaprio whose performance as Romeo was completely out of place due to the verses not being followed accurately and a seeming lack of passion behind his reading of them. He was dull, shoddy and lifeless; not at all the Romeo I had imagined and a lot less convincing that Leonard Whiting. DiCaprio had the looks, but the performance was lacking and his chemistry with Claire Danes was seemingly non-existent.

While a fair amount of my criticisms of Romeo + Juliet have been regarding the key story cuts made from the Zeffirelli movie, there were also some sequences in this film that weren’t to be found in the other. For example, when Romeo searches for someone to lend him a deadly poison. Similarly, Tybalt’s threat to Romeo after the ball and Friar Lawrence’s speech at the post office as he realises that the urgent letter wasn’t received by Romeo. I was happily surprised by these insertions as they gifted more empathy to secondary characters who were otherwise overlooked.

The imaginative choice by the director was to shoot the famous elevator scene with a camera spinning in a circle around the two characters while they kiss, thus giving us a 360° view – something that I found to be quite new and creative, and artistically indicative of the whirlwind romance the two were embracing.

Likewise, the decision to shoot the balcony scene at the pool in the middle of the night made the atmosphere of the scene quite magical courtesy of vivid light reflections and therefore a more atmospheric frame. I also enjoyed the ending, even if in the 1968 version it was longer and we see Romeo talking to Tybalt’s dead body, as this version was also emotional especially with the use of the flashback after the lovers’ death – back to the start of their unfortunate story.

In this version the director Baz Luhrmann uses a lot of alternative cuts to show events that were told one after another. One such an example is the use of the close-up on Juliet’s eyes when she is first introduced to the audience, which is a constant for the character as she sees Romeo, for the first time, through a fishtank, and they swear their eternal love in the pool. The two young lovers being dressed as an angel and a soldier in a armour were also quite telling of the destiny of their young and unhappy lives. I think these similarities were very well managed and I appreciated the work of the director of cinematography and wardrobe team in this respect.

The colours and the atmosphere of Romeo + Juliet are less bright though perhaps more vivid than the 1968 version, with a bit more dramatic stress and suspense placed within the visual narrative as Romeo is shown to not see the letter from Friar Lawrence twice, once because he is on the beach and the second time because he was already on his way towards Verona Beach; or at the very end when Juliet wakes up right before seeing Romeo taking the deadly poison. Of course, the swords and daggers are replaced with guns, and the two families are like two gangster families – that was maybe a bit excessive as they could have been two rich families without some criminal background.

Conclusively, it can be argued that the two films were very different on many levels despite being adaptations of the same work. Personally, I enjoyed the 1968 version much more as there were simply too many faults with the 1996 version to overlook in this instance. So, while I did enjoy some aspects of the new version of the movie, and I appreciated a lot of the choices of the cinematographer and director particularly, Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet was not only the more faithful of the two adaptations but also the best.

Recommended for you: Baz Luhrmann Films Ranked

Share with your friends / followers ...

Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Very helpful!! Thank you!

Thanks for reading! I’m happy to hear that!

‘The Batman Part II’ Delayed by a Year

2024 oscars winners – full list.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, romeo and juliet.

romeo and juliet 1968 and 1996 movie comparison essay

Now streaming on:

"Romeo and Juliet" has been filmed many times in many ways; Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard starred in the beloved 1936 Hollywood version, and modern transformations include Robert Wise's " West Side Story " (1961), which applies the plot to Manhattan gang warfare; Abel Ferrara's "China Girl" (1987), about a forbidden romance between a girl of Chinatown and a boy of Little Italy, and Baz Luhrmann's " Romeo + Juliet " (1996), with California punk gangs on Verona Beach. But the favorite film version is likely to remain, for many years, Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 production.

His crucial decision, in a film where almost everything went well, was to cast actors who were about the right age to play the characters (as Howard and Shearer were obviously not). As the play opens, Juliet "hath not seen the change of 14 years," and Romeo is little older. This is first love for Juliet, and Romeo's crush on the unseen Rosalind is forgotten the moment he sees Juliet at the masked ball: "I ne'er saw true beauty until this night." After a well-publicized international search, Zeffirelli cast Olivia Hussey , a 16-year-old from Argentina, and Leonard Whiting , a British 17-year-old.

They didn't merely look their parts, they embodied them in the freshness of their personalities, and although neither was a trained actor, they were fully equal to Shakespeare's dialogue for them; Anthony Holden's new book William Shakespeare : The Man Behind the Genius contrasts "the beautiful simplicity with which the lovers speak at their moments of uncomplicated happiness," with "the ornate rhetorical flourishes which fuel so much else in the play"--flourishes that Zeffirelli severely pruned, trimming about half the play. He was roundly criticized for his edits, but much that needs describing on the stage can simply be shown onscreen, as when Benvolio is shown witnessing Juliet's funeral and thus does not need to evoke it in a description to the exiled Romeo. Shakespeare, who took such wholesale liberties with his own sources, might have understood.

What is left is what people love the play for--the purity of the young lovers' passion, the earthiness of Juliet's nurse, the well-intentioned plans of Friar Laurence, the hot-blooded feud between the young men of the families, the cruel irony of the double deaths. And there is time, too, for many of the great speeches, including Mercutio's poetic evocation of Mab, the queen of dreams.

Hussey and Whiting were so good because they didn't know any better. Another year or two of experience, perhaps, and they would have been too intimidated to play the roles. It was my good fortune to visit the film set, in a small hill town an hour or so outside Rome, on the night when the balcony scene was filmed. I remember Hussey and Whiting upstairs in the old hillside villa, waiting for their call, unaffected, uncomplicated. And when the balcony scene was shot, I remember the heedless energy that Hussey threw into it, take after take, hurling herself almost off the balcony for hungry kisses. (Whiting, balanced in a tree, needed to watch his footing.)

Between shots, in the overgrown garden, Zeffirelli strolled with the composer Nino Rota , who had written the music for most of Fellini's films and now simply hummed the film's central theme, as the director nodded. Pasqualino De Santis, who was to win an Oscar for his cinematography, directed his crew quietly, urgently, trying to be ready for the freshness of the actors instead of making them wait for technical quibbles. At dawn, drinking strong coffee as cars pulled around to take his actors back to Rome, Zeffirelli said what was obvious: That the whole movie depended on the balcony and the crypt scenes, and he felt now that his casting decision had proven itself, and that the film would succeed.

It did, beyond any precedent for a film based on Shakespeare, even though Shakespeare is the most filmed writer in history. The movie opened in the tumultuous year of 1968, a time of political upheaval around the world, and somehow the story of the star-crossed lovers caught the mood of rebellious young people who had wearied of their elders' wars. "This of all works of literature eternizes the ardor of young love and youth's aggressive spirit," wrote Anthony Burgess .

Zeffirelli, born in Florence in 1923, came early to the English language through prewar experiences hinted at in the loosely autobiographical " Tea With Mussolini " (1999). His crucial early artistic influence was Laurence Olivier's " Henry V " (1945), which inspired him to go into the theater; he has had parallel careers directing plays, films and operas. Before the great success of "Romeo and Juliet," be first visited Shakespeare for the shaky but high-spirited "Taming of the Shrew" (1967), with Burton and Taylor. Later he directed Placido Domingo in "Otello" (1986), Verdi's opera, and directed Mel Gibson in " Hamlet " (1991).

"Romeo and Juliet" remains the magical high point of his career. To see it again is to luxuriate. It is intriguing that Zeffirelli in 1968 focused on love, while Baz Luhrmann's popular version of 1996 focused on violence; something fundamental has changed in films about and for young people, and recent audiences seem shy of sex and love but eager for conflict and action. I wonder if a modern Friday night audience would snicker at the heart-baring sincerity of the lovers.

Zeffirelli got some criticism from purists by daring to show Romeo and Juliet awakening in her bed, no doubt after experiencing physical love. In the play the same dialogue plays in the Capulets' orchard, where "enter Romeo and Juliet, aloft" -- on her balcony, that is. I am as sure as I can be they have just left Juliet's bedchamber -- and after all, were they not wed by Friar Laurence ( Milo O'Shea ), and is it not right they should consummate their love before Romeo is banished into exile?

The costumes by Danilo Donati won another Oscar for the film (it was also nominated for best picture and director), and they are crucial to its success; they are the avenue for color and richness to enter the frame, which is otherwise filled with gray and ochre stones and the colors of nature. The nurse (Pay Heywood) seems enveloped in a dry goods' sale of heavy fabrics, and Mercutio ( John McEnery ) comes flying a handkerchief that he uses as a banner, disguise and shroud. Hussey's dresses, with low bodices and simple patterns, set off her creamy skin and long hair; Whiting is able to inhabit his breeches, blouse and codpiece with the conviction that it is everyday clothing, not a costume.

The costumes and everything else in the film--the photography, the music, above all Shakespeare's language--is so voluptuous, so sensuous. The stagecraft of the twinned death scenes is of course all contrivance; the friar's potion works with timing that is precisely wrong, and yet we forgive the manipulation because Shakespeare has been able to provide us with what is theoretically impossible, the experience of two young lovers each grieving the other's death. When the play was first staged in London, Holden writes, Shakespeare had the satisfaction "of seeing the groundlings moved to emotions far beyond anything before known in the theater." Why? Because of craft and art, yes, but also because Romeo and Juliet were not distant and august figures, not Caesars, Othellos or Macbeths, but a couple of kids in love, as everyone in the theater had known, and everyone in the theater had been.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Peter Sobczynski

Boy Kills World

Simon abrams.

Taking Venice

Matt zoller seitz.

Sheila O'Malley

The Strangers: Chapter 1

Brian tallerico.

Nowhere Special

Film credits.

Romeo and Juliet (1968)

138 minutes

Leonard Whiting as Romeo

Olivia Hussey as Juliet

Michael York as Tybalt

John McEnery as Mercutio

Pat Heywood as Nurse

Milo O'Shea as Friar Lawrence

Paul Hardwick as Lord Capulet

Natasha Parry as Lady Capulet

Antonio Pierfederici as Lord Montague

Esmeralda Ruspoli as Lady Montague

Produced by

Anthony Havelock-Allan
John Brabourne

Directed by

Franco Zeffirelli

Screenplay by

Franco Brusati
Masolino D'Amico

Photographed by

Pasquale De Santiis

Latest blog posts

Fear, Hope, and Joy: Ramata-Toulaye Sy on Banel and Adama

When ‘Bad Boys’ Began, Martin Lawrence Was the Top Dog

Expecto Patronus: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban at 20

Female Filmmakers in Focus: Bridgett M. Davis

Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968)

By franco zeffirelli.

Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) Summary

The film takes place in Verona, Italy, where a violent, ancient feud between the Montague and Capulet families ravages the city and terrorizes the townsfolk. One day, a brief spat between the enemy families erupts into a full-fledged street brawl, which is then broken up by Prince Escalus, who warns that from now on, those who fight will be put to death.

Romeo Montague, a handsome youth of about 17, is miserably in love with a girl named Rosaline (who makes no appearance in either the film or the original play). Meanwhile, Juliet Capulet and her family are preparing for a great masquerade ball at their home that night. A wealthy, older bachelor, Count Paris, has asked the permission of Juliet's father, Lord Capulet, to marry his only daughter, which her father asks to postpone until her approaching 14th birthday. That night, Romeo and the other Montagues secretly attend the Capulet feast. The objective of the evening is for Romeo to overcome his love for Rosaline, and when he meets and dances with Juliet, the two teenagers immediately fall in love.

Later, in one of the most famous scenes in all of Shakespeare's works, Romeo approaches Juliet's private garden and hears her speak of her feelings for him from below her balcony. He accidentally startles her, telling her that he has the same feelings and that he would renounce his family name if it meant that he could be with her. The two make plans to see each other again the next day.

Romeo goes to Friar Lawrence, a friend and confidant of his, and asks him to wed the two lovers in secret. The Friar is frustrated that Romeo's passions have switched from Rosaline to Juliet so seamlessly, but agrees to marry them, citing his hope that it will bring peace to their families. Next, Juliet sends her Nurse to meet Romeo in public. Romeo asks the Nurse to have Juliet meet him that afternoon to get married in secret. The Nurse is elated and agrees. At the chapel, the Friar warns Romeo to love Juliet in moderation, lest their love meet its untimely end. He then proceeds to marry them.

The next day, another battle in the street breaks out between one of Romeo's best friends, Mercutio, and Juliet's cousin, Tybalt. Tybalt initially wants to confront Romeo, citing his intrusion at the masquerade ball as a grave insult. Romeo, however, is riding the high of his new marriage to Juliet and greets Tybalt with warmth and respect. Thinking he's mocking him, Tybalt insults Romeo, and Mercutio jumps to defend his friend. He and Tybalt duel, and though Romeo tries to stop the fight and create peace, remembering the prince's warning, he accidentally gets in between them, and Tybalt mistakenly stabs Mercutio under Romeo's arm.

Mercutio dies a horrific, drawn-out death in which he begs for help and his friends only laugh, thinking he's kidding. When they finally realize that he was concealing a mortal wound, it is too late. Romeo becomes enraged and avenges the loss of his best friend by dueling with and slaughtering Tybalt. The bodies of Mercutio and Tybalt are brought before the prince, where Benvolio, another one of Romeo's best friends, explains to him that Romeo acted to avenge Mercutio. The prince, a relative of Mercutio's, shows mercy and banishes Romeo from Verona instead of sentencing him to death.

Unaware that Juliet has already married Romeo, Lord Capulet arranges for her to marry Paris. Juliet refuses, sending her father into a rage in which he threatens to throw her out on the streets. The Nurse implores Juliet to forget Romeo and marry Paris, which Juliet sees as a monstrous betrayal. She seeks out Friar Lawrence and together they concoct a plan to fake Juliet's death so that she can escape and be with Romeo. The Friar gives Juliet a potion to drink that will make her look dead for around 42 hours. The plan is that the Capulets, thinking her to be deceased, will send Juliet to her tomb, and then Friar Lawrence will send another Friar, Friar John , to alert Romeo of his lover's fake death. Meanwhile, Friar Lawrence will plan to meet Juliet at her tomb and help her flee.

Friar John is delayed in delivering Romeo the letter, however, and a friend of Romeo's named Balthasar witnesses Juliet's funeral and reports to Romeo that the false news she has died. In despair, Romeo goes to Juliet's tomb and, bereft at what he thinks is his lover's demise, kills himself by drinking a poison that he bought in Mantua. Friar Lawrence arrives and finds Romeo's body besides Juliet's. She then wakes up, and the Friar tries desperately to get her out of the tomb without noticing Romeo's corpse. She sees it, however, and refuses to leave him. Hearing the police approaching, the Friar flees. Juliet tries to find a way to get the potion out of Romeo, and when she can't, she uses his dagger to stab herself. She collapses onto his chest, dead.

After the police arrive, the two families and the Friar attend the funeral for Romeo and Juliet and the families agree to end their feud.

GradeSaver will pay $15 for your literature essays

Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

The beginning prologue only mentions that the feud between the Capulet s and the Montagues stemmed from a grudge between the two families. I don't think the reasons why the feud started are ever explained.

What kind 1996 Baz Luhrmann film version of Romeo & Juliet

The characters carry swords.

Who said, "Oh I have brought the mansion of a love, but not possessed it"?

Study Guide for Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968)

Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) study guide contains a biography of Franco Zeffirelli, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

About Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968)
Character List
Director's Influence

Essays for Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968)

Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) literature essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968).

Romeo and Juliet: A Film Study
Mercutio in Two Romeo and Juliet Films

Wikipedia Entries for Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968)

Introduction
Release and reception

+1 888 701 5192

Studying the Similarities and Differences of Romeo and Juliet Versions 1968 and 1996

Romeo and Juliet can be considered as William Shakespeare’s most successful play in terms of popularity and impact on popular culture, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it. It has been mounted on stage in numerous productions, adapted into film many times, used as the basis for hundreds or even thousands of other works, and referenced countless times in art and popular culture. More than that, Romeo and Juliet has been studied by students and scholars for generations. The sheer number of essays , research papers , and reaction papers about this play is a solid reminder of its importance. The average person will likely be able to tell you the gist of Romeo and Juliet even without having seen any of its productions or adaptations. Romeo and Juliet , of course, is famous for good reason. After all, most people can relate to the theme of forbidden love. For this reason, people should see the play at least once in their life. But if seeing the play performed live on stage is not possible, there’s always the option of watching film adaptations. Among the many films made about this play, two of the most important are Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 adaptation of the same name and Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film Romeo + Juliet . Though both films depict Shakespeare’s play, the two cannot be more different in their approach to adaptation. Whereas the 1968 version presents a more traditional approach to production, the 1996 version takes great artistic license in its interpretation of the work.

To start with, it is clear that both films are faithful to the original play as far as the language and general plot is concerned. True to the text, both films begin with the famous prologue: “Two households, both alike in dignity, / In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, / From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, / Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.” This allows both films to set the stage for the drama about to unfold. Furthermore, both the 1968 and 1996 adaptations use the original Early Modern English text. Many adaptations modernize the language to make the dialogue easier to understand and relatable to modern audiences. However, the two films present the story in its original language, which means that both are faithful to the material when it comes to language and retaining much of the play’s poetic forms. The same faithfulness is observed with regard to the general plot. Both films open by establishing the conflict between the Montagues and the Capulets, and from thereon proceed to present major scenes until the climax where Romeo and Juliet die in each other’s arms. In this regard, the two versions offer a more or less complete picture. While both films are faithful to the language and the general plot, the two wildly diverge when it comes to the approach to production and aesthetics.

Zeffirelli’s 1968 version of the film can be considered as a more traditional adaptation since the film presents Romeo and Juliet within 16 th century Italy. Most productions of the play set it within the traditional context by dressing the characters in 16 th century clothing. The same is true for this version. For one, much of the film takes place in locations that were built during the Renaissance Period. For example, some of the locations used for the film are the Palazzo Borghese, the town of Gubbio in central Italy, and various places across Italy. The opening scene, in particular, shows the unique characteristics of Italian cities during the Renaissance such as narrow streets and stone structures. The rest of the play also features markers of the Italian Renaissance through its art and architecture. While the movie was not shot in the real-life city of Verona, it certainly convinces the viewer that the movie takes place in an Italian city in the 16 th century. Apart from the setting, the 1968 version also uses 16 th century costumes. It is clear the film pays attention to detail when it comes to the characters’ wardrobes so that they match the setting. The music used in the film sounds like the music that one can expect to have been played in the 16 th century. Finally, even the way the play is performed on screen is traditional. This version stays well within naturalistic acting despite the characters’ highly dramatized performances. All in all, it can be said that Zeffirelli’s version of Romeo and Juliet is faithful to tradition because it places the story within its original setting. The only difference is that adapting the play into film offered new possibilities such as making use of real-life locations instead of stage props and flats. Indeed, it can even be argued that Zeffirelli’s version is intended to present the play in the way that Shakespeare might have imagined it: a tragic tale that takes place against a romantic Renaissance Italian backdrop.

Whereas Zeffirelli’s version attempts to stay true to the play’s 16 th century context, Luhrmann’s 1996 version consciously deviates from traditional depictions by taking great artistic license in its approach. This version not only shifts the setting to the modern era, but it applies a distinctly punk theme as a twist. For one, Verona is no longer the romantic Renaissance city recreated in most productions; in this film, it has become a hostile and crime-ridden city characterized by harsh urban decay. In line with the blighted urban landscape, the characters are dressed in modern clothing but with a distinctly punk style. If in the 1968 version the characters’ social standing is communicated through their luxurious Renaissance clothes, the 1996 version conveys the wealth of the characters by way of garishness. Everything in Luhrmann’s film is excessive: the cars are big, the guns are bigger, the colors are assaulting to the eyes, and the jewelry overflows. The music, too, is modernized, since the songs used for the movie are hits from the 1990s. As for the performances, this version involves a high degree of theatricality. While the 1968 version is dramatic but still naturalistic, the performances in this version are modified so that the characters appear angrier, more dejected, or more uninterested. Furthermore, many of the elements are changed or updated, such as when Mercutio performs in drag and when Juliet uses a gun to commit suicide. In the end, the 1996 version of the play is undoubtedly intended to fulfill the director’s unique vision. It uses a highly stylized approach that sharply deviates from tradition. Whether good or bad, that is for the critics to say. What is clear, though, is that Luhrmann offers something new.

If ever there is one play by Shakespeare that everyone will agree is his most famous, no doubt the answer will be Romeo and Juliet . More than four hundred years after it was first played, people still study it by way of literary analysis and adapt to new forms. Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 version and Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 version are just two of the many, many films about the play shown here and in other countries. But while both films are faithful to the language and the plot, the two differ when it comes to production and aesthetics. Zeffirelli’s version is more traditional in its approach. It sets the story within 16 th century Italy and uses locations, costumes, and music that are reminiscent of the time. On the other hand, Luhrmann’s version is highly stylized. The directory clearly took great artistic license in modernizing the work. Departing from the traditional approach that Zeffirelli abides by in his dramatic adaptation of the play, Luharmann’s version applies a punk theme that sees the action taking place in a hostile world. This is not to say, however, that one is better than the other. Surely each adaptation has its merits. Ultimately, it is up to the viewer to decide which adaptation they prefer—the 1968 version for those who like their Shakespeare classic and the 1996 version for those who like their Shakespeare with a twist.

Let’s get your assignment done!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Romeo and Juliet – 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison

Word count: 1872
Category: Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare Short Story

A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a cherished piece of literature that has been remade into movies many times throughout history. The 1968 version and the controversial 1996 version give different perspectives of Shakespeare’s famous play. While the 1968 classical version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet should be appreciated, the modern version portrays the complexity of love in a fast-paced society by using narrative and stylistic elements combined with energetic editing in an advanced, creative way.

Primarily, casting decisions had a huge impact on character portrayal and the success of the movie. Romeo was played by a “pretty boy” in both movies to depict sensitivity and youthful attractiveness. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Leonard Whiting depicted emotions well, but DiCaprio seemed less refined or proper in his movements to put a modern spin on the character. Also, Leonardo DiCaprio’s fame aided in the movie’s success while Whiting was unheard of in the world of acting. The role of Juliet as played by Olivia Hussey was delicate and graceful. She appeared flawlessly beautiful and fit the classical role perfectly, although her frantic crying fits were played somewhat out of proportion. Claire Danes played the part very well, and was more appropriate for the modern version, her fame aiding in the film’s appeal as well.

Mercutio was an interesting character in both films, but Harold Perrineau Jr. brought the character’s dialogue and actions into today’s world. Crazy and loud are some essential ingredients included when most people think about comedy today, and Perrineau depicted these traits to the extreme. His skin color caused the issue of race to be brought up in the movie. It enlightened people into a more modern and open state of mind because black actors were not included in the cast of medieval time films. However, John McEnery’s performance in the 1968 version was appropriate for the movie and time setting. He acted like a jester would in the fourteenth or fifteenth Centuries. The Nurse’s ethnicity also played a role in the characterization of the modern film. Her Spanish accent caused names to sound like “Romayo” and “Hooliet.” Modern society is used to racial and ethnic diversity, but this was rarely dealt with in the gothic ages.

Moreover, the plot also contained differences between the two versions. The time period was an obvious variation. While the 1968 version placed the story in the medieval times, the 1996 version placed the story in modern times with police control taking over the city as compared to the Prince’s men. Television reporters took the place of narrators and corruption was apparent (prostitution, drugs). In addition, the setting was dramatically different. While Verona was the original setting, the modern version changed the setting to Verona Beach to give the audience a feel for the modern, busy, and problem-filled city.

Scenes were set on the beach or in a pool hall or at a mansion as compared to cobblestone buildings or castles of the medieval centuries. These modern settings caused stylistic changes in overall costume design and use of props. For example, the Capulets wore tight black clothing with slicked hair while the Montagues opted for casual Hawaiian shirts. The 1968 version played along with the stereotypical classic costume of tunics and tights to aid in the classical feel of the movie. Also, instead of swords, the modern characters skillfully used guns, which they referred to as “swords”, and replaced horses with cars. These props were creatively included whenever possible to cause suspense and action.

The scene in which Romeo and Juliet first meet contained many differing stylistic elements. Visual Effects, sound effects, editing, and music contributed to making the modern version more advanced and creative than the 1968 version of the scene. The modern party scene is set in the over-decorated, glitzy, up-scale Capulet mansion. The festive atmosphere aided in the energy of the scene. In comparison, the older version showed the Capulet home as a traditional, spacious mansion. Costume for the scene dramatically differed, but was effective for each film in thoughtfully setting the mood. Women in the first version wore traditional lovely gowns, while in the second, creative and outlandishly glitzy masquerade costumes were worn that created intrigue and energy that poured off of the screen to the audience. Some of the character’s costumes were objects of symbolism.

DiCaprio wore a knight costume, possibly due to his state of mind at the time. (He claimed that he had a “soul of lead” in the preceding scene.) Danes wore an angel costume to represent her innocence and purity at the time. Perrineau, playing Mercutio, was the most dramatically different costume and makeup change. Perrineau skipped the traditional tunic and tights combination to dress in drag. His flashy and skimpy silver skirt and top helped to make his crazy sense of humor obvious just by looking at his wardrobe. Also, Tybalt and his accomplices wore red and black sequined death-related or evil costumes to foreshadow their dark intentions.

Lighting played a key role in perceiving the scene. The castle was lit most in the center (the dance floor), yet appeared foggy with soft lighting. Torches and candles were meant to be sources of light. Classical Hollywood lighting created a traditional, aged feeling. The mansion setting of the 1996 film was dimly lit except for the dance floor. Lighting was uniquely used when Mercutio was singing. Colored lights flashed and spotlights roamed and panned the singer creating excitement and energy and added to Mercutio’s absurdity. These creative lighting ideas proved to be more intriguing to me and gave a fresh and interesting perspective of the scene. In both films, lighting was somewhat dimmer during conversations between Romeo and Juliet to make it more intimate and sheltered from the rest of the action. Furthermore, camera shots and editing contrasted to produce very different effects on the audience. In the 1968 version, Romeo first sees Juliet on the dance floor. This is a textbook way to film first encounters between lovers.

Long shots showed the dancing, and the camera then followed Romeo and Juliet’s faces. As the music quickened, the film used rhythmically equal edits to keep up with the music’s pace. Edits cut back and forth between Romeo and Juliet faster and faster to create an exciting, youthful feeling. The modern version was noticeably different, and completely intriguing. It caused adrenaline to pump along with the characters. Due to taking an acid-like drug, DiCaprio’s perception was warped. The camera and editing made the audience see things from Romeo’s point-of-view. People appeared to be moving in slow motion and sounds were distorted and abnormal. Rhythmic editing was utilized during Mercutio’s song and dance. The drug then takes a different effect on Romeo by making everything appear faster than it actually was happening. The camera spins with him while creating a blurred background.

Then extremely fast edits of various faces combined with flashing colored lights and odd sound effects to make it seem as if he was losing his mind. Interestingly, he sobers up with an underwater shot of him splashing his face. Camera usage differed when Romeo and Juliet first saw each other in the modern version. Romeo first caught sight of her eyes through an aquarium divider. Both movies used close-ups to show their emotions and timidness at the first encounter. However, the first kiss was portrayed differently in the two films by the use of camera shots and editing. The 1968 version uses a close-up of them kiss privately. The kiss was passionate in a softer, more refined way. In the modern film, Romeo and Juliet kiss in an elevator after running around playfully. The camera whirls around the embracing couple in a circle. This was quite effective in causing the viewer to be caught up in the spontaneous romantic feeling. The viewer can almost feel the “butterflies” in their stomachs.

Music played an additional part in the overall effect of the scene. The first version contained calming, courtly music to give the viewer a sense of time and manners that were employed then. The party atmosphere itself was then calmer. The song, “What is a Youth?” also had meaning in the story. The song explained that youth fades just as a flower does. It related to and foreshadowed the future of the star-crossed lovers. Slow, pleasant music is played behind conversations between Romeo and Juliet that contributed to the mood. In disparity, the upbeat dance music at the beginning of the modern scene gave way to an energetic and festive party mood. Parties in present time might use similar music to make guests have a good time. Mercutio sang the words; “Young hearts, run free.” These words related to the feeling that was in the air between Romeo and Juliet.

Finally, noticeable motifs occurred in the 1996 version that added to the thoughtfulness and creativity of the film. First, religious symbols were found all over the film. Crosses and the Virgin Mary appeared ironically on weapons of death such as guns in the opening scene. Tybalt wears a symbol of Virgin Mary on the front of his shirt and a fellow Capulet sports a cross that it is shaved into the back of his head. In the party scene, Mercutio dances below a mural of the Virgin Mary. It seems ironic that religion was stressed even when evil and unGod-like acts were going on. Secondly, water was a prominent motif. Water primarily was included in the setting. Romeo sat by the beach to think or create poetry. An underwater shot of DiCaprio’s face was used in the party scene when he splashed his face to change his drugged state-of-mind. The aquarium gave the viewer an intriguing perspective on their first encounter. Also, the pool created suspense and a sense of playfulness after Romeo came to Juliet. Every time water was used, it caused a change in Romeo’s state-of-mind or a change in events concerning the fate of the two lovers. Water symbolized ever-changing fluidity in the story.

What did critics and viewers think about the two movies? Steve Rhodes reviewed the 1968 film and claimed that, “A more romantic and realistic rendition of the nature of love I have never seen” (Rhodes review, 2/18/99). Many appreciated the traditional style and beauty of the film, as well do I. The 1996 film received mixed reviews. Some believed it to be wonderful, mind-blowing, and visually stunning, much to my agreement.

The controversial movie managed to win awards from Blockbuster and MTV, along with nominations for the Oscars. Personally, I appreciated the 1996 film of Romeo and Juliet, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and Claire Danes. I found this version much more intriguing and exhilarating to watch. The creative stylistic elements and editing contributed greatly to my fascination with the movie. The powerful images and situations warped my original impression of the tragic love story and emphasized the harsh reality of society. Love in today’s society can be made much more complex than feuding families. Fresh and current circumstances affected the plight of the star-crossed lovers. The modern version showed the fast-paced world and gave the viewer an in-your-face look at the problems that can arise for modern lovers.

Comparison Between Novel and the Movie of “Romeo and Juliet”, Essay Example

Pages: 10

Words: 2626

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In present paper I’m going to compare two works of art: “Romeo and Juliet” – tragedy written by William Shakespeare, and “Romeo + Juliet” – film adaptation of Shakespeare’s play by Baz Luhrmann (1996). I’ve enjoyed them both and have gotten my own perception of two interpretations of Shakespeare’s masterpiece that I’m going to present here.

“Romeo and Juliet” is probably the most well-known play of William Shakespeare. It’s an amazing tragic love story, full of action and inevitably arousing strong emotions in a reader. In addition to being a masterpiece of dramatic literature, it has become a classic love tragedy with Romeo and Juliet becoming archetypical young lovers. The actual story is believed to be borrowed by Shakespeare from Italian tale dating back to antiquity and consequently interpreted by a number of other authors. Shakespeare significantly developed the plot, making more focus on supportive characters.

The story tells about the tragic love of two youngsters coming from two feuding clans. The young people go through every kind of trial on the way to reunification and in the pursuit of common happiness. Supported by Juliet’s Nurse and Friar Lawrence, Romeo’s spiritual director, they arrange wedding ceremony, and even manage to spend a night together as a married couple. Eventually, they get separated again: Romeo is banished from Verona for the murder of Tybalt on whom he has taken revenge for the assassination of Mercutio, Romeo’s best friend. While Juliet is being forced to become Paris’ fiancée by the will of her parents, and Romeo is lying in hiding in Mantua, Friar Lawrence arranges a plan of Juliet’s escape from Verona by drinking a liquor that will put her into the state similar to death. Yet Romeo, being misled by tragic news of Juliet’s death does not wait till finding the truth out, he mourns her death so desperately that eventually poisons himself at Juliet’s tomb, previously killing her unwanted suitor Paris.

Consequently, when Juliet wakes up from sleep after being unconscious for about 42 hours, she discovers dead Romeo by her side, and stabs herself with the help of Romeo’s dagger in despair. All three dead bodies are discovered then by both Juliet’s and Romeo’s relatives and the Prince, and as a result, Capulet and Montague make peace and pledge to never fight again.

It is hard to say what version of the story I like more. I prefer the play from the aesthetic point of view, – I love the language and the image of ancient Italy, Verona in particular, that serves as a background for tragic events. Yet I prefer the film from the romantic point of view, since I believe the actors look amazingly realistic demonstrating the emotions that Shakespeare laid as the foundation of his narrative.

The movie version of Romeo and Juliet story follows both the plot and the text of the play. That is what really great about the film for it doesn’t conform to the overall tendency to distort and ad details to the original version of the work of literature being adapted for the screen.

The movie is amazing, but not necessarily in a positive way. The action takes place in modern US town Verona-Beach. Two families of the nobility are turned into Mafia clans, swords being turned into guns. Representatives of hostile clans now look more like skinheads, hooligans and Italian Mafioso, obviously abusing drugs and alcohol. However, they still speak like Shakespeare’s characters do, saying rhymed lines and elevated phrases with the most natural expression possible in the provided context. The shocking contrast between sophisticated language and the appearance of bandits that the speakers have somehow makes the movie unbelievably gripping. The fact is I has been extremely curious through the whole of the film how would they perform that or this scene, because the interpretation proposed in movie is really unusual. I also loved the actors’ performance. I believe they personified the characters in the most successful way possible. They looked natural which is truly important, and intrigued me with the power of feelings that seemed surprisingly sincere. What I didn’t like was the background presented by the director. It’s not only about the modern interpretation; it’s more about the details which I believe where out of place. All the characters except but Romeo and Juliet are too eccentric in my opinion. In some scenes they are unnaturally bizarre which makes the whole plot look unrealistic. Still, I believe that the film excel the play in the expression of romantic context and emotional richness of the love between two young people. The mutual tenderness, affection and sexual attraction that they feel to each other are illustrated with a great power and vividness due to the contrast that the dismal and hostile environment provides. Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes are really gorgeous and wonderfully young.

Comparing the two versions I’ve discovered for myself that they seem more to complement than to contradict one another. From the very beginning of the first scene in both play and movie it is obvious that the enmity between two families is rather absurd. Referring to “two households, both alike in dignity” ( The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet 1.1), Shakespeare doesn’t really mean the representatives of the clans to have any dignity at all. And if the play seems to disguise the ridiculousness of those young men being provocatively hostile, the movie illustrates their selfishness, arrogance, offensive treatment to other people with the shocking vividness. Those guys are obviously looking for a fight, they simply look like people begging to get into trouble. The movie version emphasizes this feature of the rivalry.

Romeo is not involved in the first fight, as well as he’s evidently trying to avoid any involvement in any of those brawls. He’s fully absorbed in his lover’s worshipping, being in love with some Rosaline, whom we never actually meet. The fact of Romeo’s being in love with another girl when so abruptly falling in love with Juliet is absolutely disgraceful. At the very beginning of both play and movie we find him being tormented by the tortures of unrequited love, he seems to be desperate and behave as someone experiencing the greatest shock in life. However, very soon we find him suffering from similar symptoms but now caused by passion to another girl. When reading the play the whole situation doesn’t seem that ridiculous since we can attribute oddness of Romeo’s behavior to the specific character of those time relationship between men and women. However, when we observe the same behavior in the modern context, it strikes by the obvious superficiality of Romeo’s romantic feeling. If it were not for a suicide he committed at the end driven to despair by the news of Juliet’s death, I would think he never actually loved any of his objects of passion.

From the very moment when Romeo and Juliet meet till their very death, the movie provides much more physical contacts between young people than the play does. They kiss passionately when meeting at the ball that takes place at Capulet’s mansion, they go much further during the scene in the Capulet’s orchard, while the famous scene by the balcony in the play does only mention the conversation they have, no hugging and kissing at all. I believe that’s a tribute paid by movie-makers to the present time. It emphasizes the sexuality of their sudden passion that in my opinion can be interpreted as the strongest drive that connected those two. It’s obvious that true love cannot come into being with such rapidness. Whether they are star-crossed lovers or not is a question, yet the seriousness and depth of their feeling is under a serious doubt as for me. Can Romeo’s feelings be trusted? Both lovers are completely inexperienced and obviously unable to judge own case. They are confused, unable to think over the problem and to resolve the conflict reasonably. After all, they both are just too young to take responsibilities even for own decisions. Friar Lawrence words seem to be some kind of prediction whose true sense is not realized till the very end of the play:

“These violent delights have violent ends And in their triumph die, like fire and powder, Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey Is loathsome in his own deliciousness And in the taste confounds the appetite: Therefore love moderately; long love doth so; Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow” ( The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet 2.5.9).

Through the whole of the story Romeo goes through certain transportation. It can be summed up by the decisions he make, – the three decisions ending with Tybalt’s murder. At first, Romeo is determined not to get involved in the argument between representatives of two households. Then he decides to stop the conflict and to call the rivals to peace. Finally, he ends up killing Tybalt avenging own best friend. Eventually, he kills himself and provokes Juliet’s suicide. His choices have led him in wrong direction, his constant haste and lack of thoughtfulness resulting into blood shedding.

Shakespeare presents society as an uncontrollable force. Once again, this point is illustrated more vividly in the movie. Even though the author depicts Italian town in the play, I believe he is still referring to the one society he used to live in – The London society. The author’s background actually influences a lot of plot details. It’s not for nothing that the failure of lovers’ reunification plan is due to the plague, even though indirectly. Plague was Shakespeare’s present time’s everyday reality. As far as I know, theatres happened to be closed because of the epidemic of plague in London. Many of playwright’s relatives and acquaintances died of plague. A somber and deadly essence of the disease plays a significant role in the tragedy’s finale. And yet, it’s not in the movie, which somehow alienate movie plot from Shakespeare’s original intent, depriving film adaptation of some meaningful details.

I believe that Romeo is represented in some way by each character in the story. Tybalt is an embodiment of anger, male aggression and readiness to kill. Mircutio is endowed with playful, artistic and talented personality. He’s full of charm in the play, though he obviously lacks charm in the movie. Juliet represents Romeo’s lover’s side, his tenderness, passion and readiness to love. Romeo has a many-sided personality. He embodies all those qualities remaining perfectly natural in all his upsurges of romantic passion, noble impulses, fits of temper, all occurring on the spur of the moment. He’s considered to be a really good fellow, treated with some kind of liking even by his enemies. He is a charming young man, beautiful and full of good human qualities. And his untimely death is a great pity indeed, especially when performed by Dicaprio.

Juliet is charming as well. In my opinion, while the play makes more emphasis on her natural beauty that fascinated Romeo for less than a moment, the movie Juliet is more about charm, charisma and magnetizing innocence. In the movie she is cute and fascinating indeed, but not gorgeously beautiful as I believed her to be after original version reading. Her particular charm is also due to her loneliness. She has very formal relationship with her parents, her mother doesn’t seem to know her at all. There is no affection between them that daughter and mother usually have. Her father doesn’t seem to be fond of her as well. They only seem to care about her marriage. What is really disgusting is how they put pressure on her all the time without a single attempt to be supportive or loving. Her Nurse is also a kind of person she cannot be fully open with. The Nurse has a primitive personality, rather rough in fact. No doubt she also has a kind and loving nature, but can such a tender child as Juliet be absolutely frank with someone rather vulgar and dull? I guess not. And that is why Juliet is so lonely and so precipitate in her decisions. There is no truly authoritative opinion that could influence her resolutions, she has no one to rely on, thus her decisions are irrational and are barely based on anything but emotions.

Both Juliet and Romeo put trust in Friar Lawrence’s opinion. Eventually, his actions turn out to have fatal consequences. His help has only pushed two lovers to the grave. Instead of trying to bring those to mere children to reason, he attempts to make use of their love affair in pursuit of peace between two feuding families which would also bring peace to the town’s social life. The movie Friar Lawrence is nice, but not very considerate, he doesn’t act wisely indulging lovers’ haste. Should he really marry them off? Was it a reasonable decision? Most of his recommendations appear to be bad ones. And there is a certain portion of guilt for the tragic fortune of two teenagers that is his. Probably Shakespeare makes an allusion to the role of religion in society, and uses his ways of highlighting the fact that advices of church should not always be trusted.

One of the most interesting moments in both play and movie is Mercutio’s speaking his monologue about Queen Mab, which takes place in the fourth scene when we meet Romeo’s best friend for the first time ( The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet 1.4.53). Young man’s speech is very unusual and very mysterious. In the movie interpretation Mercutio is referring to drugs, ecstasy in particular, when talking about “fairies’ midwife” that “comes in shape no bigger than an agate-stone”. It is unclear what Shakespeare truly meant by this piece of text, but I am declined to accept the idea of his pondering on the issue of “idle brain”.

One of the central ideas of the play, which is though being vague and not distinct I believe to be the most important one, is the danger that the idleness of human mind can cause. What are groundless quarrels, hostile aggressiveness and obsessive love, if not the results of the exercises of idle brain? What is presented in movie as a drug effect was probably meant to represent the lack of reasonable thinking aimed at useful activities. There is a strong enmity between two family clans, hostility that has eventually ruined many people’s lives, and yet there is not even a single hint of what the initial reason of conflict is. There is no explanation of the quarrel at all. All we can see is a dull confrontation of two groups of people, represented mostly by stupid aggressive boys, behaving arrogantly and cockily. The true conflict is aroused by those who lack maturity even to think for themselves. Their boyishness affects every aspect of life they lead. Isn’t Romeo’s being a devoted fan of courtly love due to the similar childishness? I believe, and that what Shakespeare is probably making focus on, that if it were not for immaturity being indulged by everyone in the play, the finale of the story could have been different. And even if Romeo and Juliet were not supposed to live happily together, they could at least stay alive and build separate lives none the less happy. Because what can be ‘for sure’ when you are fourteen?

In my opinion, no matter how many hypothesis and speculation about the famous tragedy are suggested, it will always remain something partially out of understanding and partially very personal for each reader. In addition to being a socially and philosophically meaningful work of art, it will always maintain its reputation of a great love story. And it is great indeed “for never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo”.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet . Yale University Press . Richard Hosley. New Haven, CT, 1954.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Remembering an Event of My Life, Essay Example

Substance Use and Abuse Assignment, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

A Place For Peace

Romeo and juliet movie comparisons (1968 and 2013 versions).

This is a comparison of two different versions of Romeo and Juliet films. The first is the 1968 version Romeo and Juliet which was directed and co-written by Franco Zeffirelli and starred Leonard Whiting (Romeo) and Olivia Hussey (Juliet). It was known for being the most financially successful film adaptation of a Shakespeare play during the time it was made. While the 2013 version of Romeo and Juliet which was directed by Carlo Carlei and starred Douglas Booth (Romeo) and Hailee Steinfield (Juliet). This film has led to controversy by some critics because this film only follows the plot and only uses some of Shakespeare’s traditional language.

Most of the prologue of the play was said by the narrator
The setting of Verona is just a giant castle covering a small village. Its completely different than what I imagined it to be
The thumbing bite insult by Sampson was used from the play and the fight scene was extremely over the top with the Capulet, Montagues, and the citizens of Verona participating so it was more like a riot than a fight
Some lines in the play are skipped and the lines that were said were exactly from the play
When Romeo is first introduced he is telling Benvolio about his love but he does not use Rosaline’s name
Benvolio appears more older and wiser than I imagine him to be in the play
Juliet looks a lot younger than I imagined in this film (even though the person playing her was 18 at the time)
The nurse claims she has 4 teeth yet she has all of them
The Queen Mab speech was a bit strange and Mercutio was portrayed as being insane but in the play I imagine him to be a knowledgeable and sophisticated person since he is the princes kinsman
Romeo is first portrayed as shy but during the party he looked very creepy by hiding in the corners and behind other people just to gaze at Juliet
The kiss between Romeo and Juliet was quick but had more passion
The music in the film was very loud and unnecessary
The clothes were bizarre and unusual
The dancing in the party was weird because the guest were holding their arms up and shaking their wrists
Some of the scenes were skipped in the movie but most of Act 1 is there
When Tybalt sees Romeo at the party Capulet doesn’t want to cause a scene for unknown reasons

The narrator only read the first four lines of the prologue than he talks about a jousting match
The setting of Verona for this movie is exactly what I imagined it to be
The fight scene was more like the play and all characters were present but the thumb biting incident was not included
Romeo looks older in this film and he is a lot more confident. Also he is a sculptor
Benvolio looks a lot younger in this film approximately 3-5 years younger than Romeo and he looks wimpy
Juliet looks older and more mature and she looks exactly like I imagined her
The nurse still has all her teeth
The setting of the party looked more clean and elegant
The costume design for this film is alto more simple and normal
Benvolio tries his chance at Rosaline after Romeo falls for Juliet
The kiss for this movie is quite long
The movie is very quick and Act 1 takes about less than half hour
Tybalt is in love with Juliet
The dancing is simple and elegant and matches the scene for the party
Juliet and Paris dance together at the party and Romeo steps in to dance with Juliet much to Paris is liking and it never happened in the play
Capulet didn’t want to cause a scene after Tybalt seen Romeo at the party ( it wasn’t explained how Tybalt saw Romeo) because he didn’t want to face severe punishment by the prince

If I had to pick my favourite between the two I would have to favour the 2013 version over the 1968 version for many reasons. Most people would say the 1968 version is better because it better resemble the play written by Shakespeare, but for me that’s the reason why I don’t like it. The 1968 version does tell the story of Romeo and Juliet well on paper but the movie itself has a lot of flaws. First of all the acting is bad, the music is too loud and unnecessary, the costumes look outrageous, the setting looks like a dump, and the movie is too bland and boring because it’s exactly like the play. Think about like this why you would go to a movie if you know exactly what’s going to happen at each scene. In the 2013 version there are better characters, the costumes are better, the setting looks nicer, the music is good, and the movie is exciting because there are different scenes. Also the 2013 version is more understandable for those who have haven’t read the play and more appealing for those who have. I find the 2013 version would also encourage younger children to read the play too.

‘Romeo and Juliet’ Review: Plenty of Style, but Little Love

The London production, starring Tom Holland, sold out in hours. But its understated rendering of the central romance may leave some theatergoers wanting more.

A man in a black hoodie and a woman in a black jacket stand face-to-face, looking into each other’s eyes.

By Houman Barekat

The critic Houman Barekat saw the show in London

As the male lead entered the stage in a new production of “Romeo and Juliet” in London, a single, very loud whoop erupted from the orchestra level. Nobody else joined in — this is Britain, after all — but the breach of decorum was telling. This particular Romeo is the big-screen superstar Tom Holland, of “Spider-Man” fame, and his pulling power helped tickets for this show’s run sell out within hours — even though the actor playing Juliet wasn’t cast until many weeks later.

Yet this “Romeo and Juliet,” directed by Jamie Lloyd (“ Sunset Boulevard ,” “ The Effect ”) and running at the Duke of York’s Theater through Aug. 3, is no straightforward crowd-pleaser. The visuals are stripped-down and the staging unconventional; instead of indulging the giddy melodrama of young love, the emphasis is on brooding atmospherics. The show is slickly executed by a talented cast and production crew, but its understated rendering of the lovers’ romantic infatuation may leave some theatergoers wanting more.

The stage is dark, and entirely bare except for a sign that announces the setting in chunky capitals: VERONA. The performers, in monochrome streetwear, are illuminated by hazy spotlights. (Set design and costumes are by Soutra Gilmour.) In several scenes, they speak from fixed positions, stationed behind microphone stands, sometimes facing the audience rather than each other. The gloomy visuals are complemented by snatches of ambient techno and a dull humming sound that conjures a sense of anticipatory dread. To keep the audience on its toes, some scene changes are punctuated by blinding lights and obnoxiously loud flashbulb clacks. (The sound is by Ben and Max Ringham, the lighting by Jon Clark.)

The minimalist staging puts an extra onus on the actors to make the script shine, and they don’t disappoint. Holland gives a controlled performance as Romeo, evoking the halting, hopeful awkwardness of a love-struck teenager with understatement. As Juliet, Francesca Amewudah-Rivers is similarly restrained: Tentative and inscrutable during the early phase of the courtship, she is at her best in the scenes in which she stands up to her father, Lord Capulet (Tomiwa Edun) as he pressures her to break it off with Romeo. In these moments, Amewudah-Rivers — who is making her West End debut — displays an impregnable abstractedness that rings true to the stubborn determination of adolescence.

The supporting cast is also less experienced than the illustrious leading man, but for the most part, you wouldn’t know it. Edun convinces as the hectoring, overbearing patriarch. Freema Agyeman plays the Nurse, the affable go-between who enables the lovers’ forbidden affair, with a fine blend of sassy assertiveness and quasi-maternal tenderness. Ray Sesay’s Tybalt is impressively menacing and Nima Taleghani, with his wide-eyed and gentle bearing, is tenderly protective as Romeo’s trusty friend, Benvolio.

At times the spectacle feels more like a reading than a play, but some nifty camerawork injects dynamism. A camera operator intermittently appears onstage and films close-up footage of an actor’s face, which is relayed in real time onto a screen above the stage. This technique — familiar from the work of directors such as Ivo van Hove and Christine Jatahy — can sometimes feel frustratingly gratuitous, leading to a sense of visual clutter, but it feels smooth here. During some scenes, actors are filmed elsewhere in the theater — in its foyer bar, corridors and balcony — while others occupy the stage. This gives a fitting sense of simultaneity in a narrative replete with back-channel dialogues and conspiratorial maneuverings.

Lloyd has tried to condense the story to its essence, just as he did in his Olivier-winning take on “Sunset Boulevard.” To this end, one or two scenes — such as the finale in which the Montagues and Capulets agree to set aside their differences after Romeo and Juliet’s deaths — have been abridged. The production’s artful subtlety is encapsulated in the tragic denouement, when the lovers’ deaths are conveyed simply by Holland and Amewudah-Rivers removing their mics.

The restrained portrayal of the lovers’ passion is aesthetically brave, but there’s a downside: In his determination to eschew the easy charms of melodrama, Lloyd slightly undercooks the romance, which in turn diminishes our investment in its terrible ramifications. There are other Shakespeare plays that lend themselves better to this kind of high-concept treatment, because they are more psychologically complex. ( A similarly stylized “Macbeth,” staring David Tennant, which ran at the Donmar Warehouse last year and will transfer to the West End in the fall, comes to mind.)

Leaving the theater, I encountered an excitable throng of mostly young fans hoping to catch a glimpse of Holland. His superstar status will attract a mainstream audience to this show. But what will they make of it? “Spider-Man” it most certainly ain’t.

Romeo and Juliet Through Aug. 3 at the Duke of York’s Theater in London; thedukeofyorks.com .

Arts and Culture Across Europe

A production of “Richard III” at the Shakespeare’s Globe theater faced criticism because a nondisabled actor plays the scheming king. But disputes like these miss the point , our critic writes.

The violent history of the Dutch colony that is now New York is not well known in the Netherlands. The curators of a new exhibition at the Amsterdam Museum want to change that.

The Victoria and Albert Museum in London is a treasure trove of art and design. Here’s one besotted visitor’s plan for taking it all in .

The Royal Shakespeare Company’s co-artistic directors have put together a challenging debut season . But many visitors come to Stratford-upon-Avon seeking something more traditional.

The Venice Biennale, the art world’s most prestigious exhibition, opened recently to some fanfare, some criticism and a number of protests . Here’s a look at some of the standouts from the 2024 edition.

IMAGES

Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison Free Essay Example
Romeo And Juliet Film Analysis Free Essay Example
Romeo And Juliet Movie Comparison Essay
Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison
Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison by Christine's Modest English
Romeo and Juliet Film Analysis by AltLearners

VIDEO

Romeo & Juliet 1968
Romeo & Juliet
Evolution of Romeo & Juliet from 1936 to 2024
romeo and juliet 1968 romeo and juliet 1996 #shortslove #love #movie
Romeo and Juliet (1968) Final scene 2/2
Romeo & Juliet 1968

COMMENTS

Romeo and Juliet 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison Essay: A Tale of Two
Essay Example: Ah, "Romeo and Juliet"! The age-old story of star-crossed lovers that Shakespeare spun into literary gold. And guess what? Filmmakers couldn't resist turning this tragic tale into cinematic magic. We've got not one but two iconic adaptations from the late '60s and the '90s. Buckle
Romeo And Juliet 1968 And 1996 Comparison
Romeo And Juliet 1968 And 1996 Comparison. Decent Essays. 837 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. William Shakespeare's famous romantic tragedy recounts the lives of two young fictional characters, 'Romeo and Juliet' who dare a brief love against their own opposing families, the Capulets and the Montagues. The two star-crossed lovers proceed ...
Romeo And Juliet: 20 Differences Between The Play And The Movie
In 1996, Baz Luhrmann turned his eye to the works of Shakespeare and created a finished product with several differences between the Romeo and Juliet play and the movie. William Shakespeare's 38 plays have proven to be quite memorable, but the one most adapted is Romeo and Juliet.It may have been first performed in the 1500s, but elements of the tragic play ("the star-crossed lovers") can be ...
Romeo And Juliet 1968 And 1996 Essay
In the 1996 Romeo Juliet movie, Baz Lurhman kept an authentic text, but updates the setting and makes Shakespeare familiar to a whole new generation. It is easier for the audience to understand what is happening even if they do not really understand the text.
Romeo And Juliet Play And Movie Comparison Film Studies Essay
It is an exciting task to make a detailed study of the play, and its comparison in different aspect with the immensely popular 1996 version directed by the Australian, Baz Lurhmann. Romeo and Juliet, though termed as tragedy carries more of Shakespeare's comedy elements. Love is obviously the dominating and most vital theme of this play.
Romeo and Juliet Movie comparison Essay
First off, the biggest difference is the time periods of each movie. The older movie was set in Early Renaissance times. The newer movie is set in the early ninety's. Another difference is the use of special effects. In the …show more content…. Romeo got dizzy for a minute at the party and then he was fine. It had no relevance to the ...
Romeo and Juliet (1968) vs. Romeo + Juliet (1996)
Romeo and Juliet (1968) vs. Romeo + Juliet (1996) Posted on September 3, 2016 May 13, 2024 by Francesca Amalie Militello Having watched the two most famous versions of Shakespeare's tragedy ' Romeo and Juliet ', I decided to compare the two and say which one, at least in my opinion, is the best of the two.
Romeo And Juliet 1968 Vs 1996
Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story which encompasses an essence that defines the story no matter the context. Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet embraces the physical violence, rivalry, death of lovers and reconciliation, thus constructing a movie with the same emotional response intended by the original play.
Romeo And Juliet 1996 Analysis
2469 Words10 Pages. Romeo and Juliet: comparison of the 1968 movie, the 1996 movie, and Shakespeare 's original text. Romeo and Juliet has been a popular story for over 400 years, either by the play written by Shakespeare, or a poem written earlier than that. In the 20th century, two directors created their own interpretations of the play.
Romeo and Juliet movie review (1968)
"Romeo and Juliet" remains the magical high point of his career. To see it again is to luxuriate. It is intriguing that Zeffirelli in 1968 focused on love, while Baz Luhrmann's popular version of 1996 focused on violence; something fundamental has changed in films about and for young people, and recent audiences seem shy of sex and love but eager for conflict and action.
What are five differences between the two Romeo and Juliet film
One difference is that they drive around in cars and have "gangs" in the newer movie rather than walking around town in the old one. A second is that they use guns in the new movie and swords in ...
Romeo and Juliet (Film 1996) Essay
Join Now Log in Home Literature Essays Romeo and Juliet (Film 1996) Romeo and Juliet: A Film Study Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) Romeo and Juliet: A Film Study Anonymous. Romeo and Juliet - as characters, as symbols of love, and as symbols of innocence torn apart by a hardheaded society - are cultural icons so ingrained in society that they are often synonymous with the very concepts they ...
Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) Summary
Romeo and Juliet (Film 1968) Summary. The film takes place in Verona, Italy, where a violent, ancient feud between the Montague and Capulet families ravages the city and terrorizes the townsfolk. One day, a brief spat between the enemy families erupts into a full-fledged street brawl, which is then broken up by Prince Escalus, who warns that ...
Compare the 1968 movie version of Romeo and Juliet to the original play
Quick answer: Zeffirelli's 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet has been praised as a faithful adaptation. Zeffirelli, for examples, casts teenagers in the title roles, captures the lush beauty of the ...
Sample Comparison and Contrast Essay: 1968 and 1996 Romeo and Juliet Movies
More than four hundred years after it was first played, people still study it by way of literary analysis and adapt to new forms. Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version and Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version are just two of the many, many films about the play shown here and in other countries.
Similarities And Differences Between Romeo And Juliet 1996 And 1996
Romeo and Juliet is a classic play by William Shakespeare, In 1968 it was adapted in a full movie, and later on in 1996 was again adapted into the big screen, both movies have so many similarities and so many differences, in the 1968 movie it is a more realistic, more true to the script, but the 1996 movie takes place in verona beach in the US, in modern times, the sword fights are actually ...
Romeo And Juliet Movie Comparison Essay
Romeo and Juliet Movie Comparison. In Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet, is a traditional adaptation of Shakespeare's original Romeo and Juliet, with some variations. Baz Luhrmann directed the 1996 version, also known as the MTV Romeo † Juliet. This version is very modernized, but keeps the language intact with few changes.
Romeo and Juliet
The scene in which Romeo and Juliet first meet contained many differing stylistic elements. Visual Effects, sound effects, editing, and music contributed to making the modern version more advanced and creative than the 1968 version of the scene. The modern party scene is set in the over-decorated, glitzy, up-scale Capulet mansion.
Romeo and Juliet
The play Romeo and Juliet has been around since it was written by William Shakespeare in 1595. The themes inferred in this play have stuck around, despite the social changes that society has went through. We watched three different movies on Romeo and Juliet, and each was set in a different time period (1968, 1996, and 2014).
Comparison Between Novel and the Movie of "Romeo and Juliet", Essay Example
In present paper I'm going to compare two works of art: "Romeo and Juliet" - tragedy written by William Shakespeare, and "Romeo + Juliet" - film adaptation of Shakespeare's play by Baz Luhrmann (1996). I've enjoyed them both and have gotten my own perception of two interpretations of Shakespeare's masterpiece that I'm ...
Romeo and Juliet Movie comparisons (1968 and 2013 Versions)
Posted on April 6, 2015 by nhersi4167. Romeo and Juliet Movie comparisons (1968 and 2013 Versions) This is a comparison of two different versions of Romeo and Juliet films. The first is the 1968 version Romeo and Juliet which was directed and co-written by Franco Zeffirelli and starred Leonard Whiting (Romeo) and Olivia Hussey (Juliet).
PDF Teachers' Notes
'Romeo and Juliet' the Arden edition of the works of William Shakespeare (edited by Brian Gibbons) published by Routledge (1996). Synopsis The film 'Romeo and Juliet' is set in the created world of Verona Beach - a violent, other-world set neither in the future nor in the past where the Montagues and Capulets share an enmity that has
Comparison Of Romeo And Juliet 1996 And 1996
In the 1968 film, both houses were Caucasian, however, in the 1996 film, there is an ethnic difference between the Montagues, who are white, and the Capulets, who are Hispanic, except for Juliet and Juliet's direct family. Another difference is that the fight between the houses in the 1996 version was more gang-related, violent, and involves ...
'Romeo and Juliet' Review: Plenty of Style, but Little Love
Yet this "Romeo and Juliet," directed by Jamie Lloyd ("Sunset Boulevard," "The Effect") and running at the Duke of York's Theater through Aug. 3, is no straightforward crowd-pleaser ...