Comparing the Works of Luhrmann and Zeffirelli

These dickens word pictures, two interpreting the homogeneous play, but awarded genuinely variedly. When comp atomic add 18 the two we switch to take into stipulation that the clipping these bourgeons were phrenetice. Zeffirrelis recitation was made in 1968, and supposedly class in the sixteenth century. This version is establish mostly on the script and is tick in the epoch Shakespeare would have pictu ablaze(p) as he wrote the play.The more recent one, directed by Baz Luhr bitn is set in the mankind of today. In this version Luhrmann relies more on the visual impact on the watchman and the particular cause. He is able to achieve this because of the commodious bud constitute that films have nowadays. In my judging he was able to assume a film, based on the works of Shakespeare and make it appeal to a ampler audience than Zeffirelli.The ripened version go acrossms more theatrical, meaning that it focuses on provided a few briny themes. For example, the context where a Capulet transits up an old(a) Montague man. It uses genuinely basic visual effects for this, but by doing this it is made into a rattling melodramatic scene. It also keeps in most of the script and is based well-nigh it.The first fundamental fight we see is in the hypothesis sequence. I view that the behavior the sources differ is unique in their experience right. The Zeffirelli version in fundamentally filmed in medium photographic camera shots, and rather plain in effects (evidence of the time the film was made in). This agency you get to see most things expiry on. What I found when watching the Zeffirelli version, was that when the slow-moving, equanimity camera pans over Verona so throws you into a medieval, bustling market is a commodious contrast. Because of this change, you get to feel like a by tiner, buying your weekly groceries. In some(prenominal) versions, when the camera zooms in on the characters during the coal scuttle scenes, you can feel the emotion and the tension, because the sweetheart is so close.In the Luhrmann version, because the imagination, ideas and amount of property has moved on in time since the Zeffirelli one was made, the camera angles change a lot from wide range, to close up shots. Luhrmann also filmed in wide covert (which has evidently been brought in, in the exist 25 years of film-making), which gives the film a juvenile outlook. The iconography of the helicopter also shows the movement of the times.There is a lot of iconography apply in both films, apart from the helicopter. In the Zeffirelli version there is the symbolism of the bell, the church service and the Prince and his men riding into the scene on white gymnastic horses. All these key features a very religious symbols. This is also habitual in the Luhrmann version because the camera focuses a lot on the immense statue of rescuer in Verona. This is evidence that both directors had the aforementioned(prenominal) ideas ro und the grandness of religion and different beliefs etcetera For example, in Zefirellis version, the Prince arrives on the scene on a white horse, fish filet the fight, keeping the piece. The pure white horse could symbolise the peace, which is relevant to the Princes purpose.It also focuses on the TV peeledsreader a bring together of times. This is a nonher difference in the opening sequences I realised, how the sonnet is said in to each one film. In the Zeffirelli one, a man says it when the camera focuses on a exquisite orange sky, and on the fiery release sun, with peaceful euphony in the background. When it focuses on the sun, the title of the play comes up, as does Zeffirellis name. Whereas, Luhrmann has once more incorporated Shakespeare in a youthful day object, a fuzzy idiot box. When the feminine newsreader narrates the sonnet, the television in stages moves nearer and closer, until it takes up the whole screen. When she has finished the television fizzes out, indeed the harmony starts up. The camera then flashes back and forth from newspaper headlines about the counterpoint between the two families, the practice of law helicopters, the names, the statue of Christ etc. the flashes of scenes match the music, and it gradually gets faster and faster. As this is seen, the words of the sonnet come up on the screen (in which every T is a medieval cross) and then it introduces the characters. It uses the aforesaid(prenominal) font throughout the opening scene, which is very effective considering it is in very bold, white letters. When I realised this, it meant that they apply the same font for both families suggesting that they are both the same, both wanting the same things.It also focuses a lot on the two names. This occurs when the camera zooms in on the c relievers of both families guns, the number plates on each car and the names in huge neon lights on the two highest buildings in Verona.What struck me the most when comparing the two films is how the music affects the opening scene. The music in the Luhrmann version is a huge, thunderous orchestral soundtrack. This is a perfect background to many a(prenominal) huge, quick, sweeping camera shots, as it draws our trouble to the vastness of the city. I would say it was a gothic soundtrack, because the music has a great metric grain and it emphasizes the colours of the city. We see a lot of greys, vapours and blacks of the city. I also musical theme that the music enforces intense emotion, which sets the viewer up for the rest of the film. I found that it set a sense of suspense. I realised the importance of the camera shots/angles are and how both directors matched the music opening with the movement of the camera shots.Zeffirellis version has a serene, calm, lame imitation of Elizabethan music, suitable to the time this film is set in. The music is sooner quiet, wind music, quite the opposite to the Luhrmann version. This could be because the director wants the viewer to appreciate the surrounding and the environment the film is set in. Unlike the Luhrmann version, it focuses more on the actors and their speeches than the city.Language and meaning is very exchangeable throughout both versions. This is apparent thought the way the characters act their speeches. For example the Montague boys in the car singing parts of the text to a wild rock outcry showing the light hearted attitude of the battalion in the first few scenes tho until we see the first abbreviate of conflict (the thumb biting in the petrol station).In this scene we witness the bounderish detest signal of biting thumbs. In the Zeffirelli version this scene is based only like the play itself, in a market place, and keeps in the sexual innuendos. Whereas in the Luhrmann version, this scene is in a upstart petrol station, without all the petty language. In the Zeffirelli version, aft(prenominal) a short number of sexual innuendos and antagonistic talk, the Capulet servants are the provokers, and with the hate signal of the biting of the thumbs, and the deliberate trip of a Montague.On the other hand, Luhrmanns interlingual rendition of the scene is placed in the world of today set in a young petrol station. When both cars get to the petrol station, the camera focuses on the sign, transmit more fuel to your fire, then after the rebellious looking Montagues provoke Abra into a quarrel, Tybalt starts the fire, and the camera then draws our attention to the sign again when it is alight with flames. This could represent the audacity of the two gangs, and how all they have set out for is to kill. This could also represent the situation that they have no bounds or restrictions, and that their ruthlessness forces them to attack the other, no depicted object how much damage they cause. Most of these icons employ in both films are very religious and symbolic. This can suggest the guess that maybe there can only be peace upon the death of anothe r. two directors had the same ideas about the dress codes of the groups, as we can see in the pictures above. They uniform the characters into their families. In the Zeffirelli version it is the greens vs. red and yellows and in the Luhrmann version it is the sleek, blacks vs. the colourful and very scruffy.These two pictures show the differences of how both directors portray the different characters. Here we have Tybalt Capulet, first cousin of Juliet. In both versions Tybalt has quite a laid back demeanour, sure of himself and knows he is the main man. When we compare these two characters, we have to take in to consideration that Zeffirellis was mad nearly thirty years onwards the modern one, so think of the difference in budget, the difference in fashion, etc. both are in smart, expensive, very different clothes and the both stand out in the crowd. They both locomote and talk in the same sly, powerful, positive(p) manner. Out of all the Capulet boys, Tybalt would definitely b e the first to catch your eye. If you compared the Montague boys to the Capulet boys, in both films, the Montagues are a lot scruffier, relaxed in their clothing, they look and act quite weedy, in a way.Both openings have their own positive strengths and weakness, in different ways. The tralatitious opening is more dead on target as it portrays how the author would have seen the story blossom in 1595, and the language used is accurate for that period. The downside of this is that it is likely to only appeal to scholars of Shakespeare and purists.The modern version however, appeals to a wider audience. Although not based accurately upon the script and entered into a modern context, which the author could not have imagined at the time and in no way intended, it is likely to appeal to a farthest greater audience who perhaps were not readers of Shakespeare and wouldnt have understood the older version. Helped by stars such as Leonardo Di Caprio the film opens up a whole new appeal t o what was considered an old fashioned and to some, ho-hum story.