A Comparison of the Fight Scene in Act 3 of Shakespeare's Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in the Film Versio

A Comparison of the Fight Scene in Act 3 of Shakespeare's Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in the Film Version by Zeffirelli (1968) and Lurhmann (1997)

The play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is about two families who have been fighting for years. When Romeo falls in love with Juliet and Juliet falls in love with Romeo, there are many consequences, including the deaths of a member of each family – Mercutio and Tybalt.

I will be studying the fight scene where Mercutio and Tybalt die, and comparing, the two film versions of the play, I will find differences and similarities as well as describing how each director / producer interprets and makes their version of the film. I will describe how eight different factors are present in each version of the film: Genre/Film, Institution, Audience, Representation, Mediation, Film Language and Ideology.

The characters in the play that appear in the fight scene are: Romeo from Montague, Benvolio from Montague, Juliet from Capulet, Tybalt from Capulet and Mercutio who is not from either house.

Each of the film produces has made a different type of film in a different type of genre. Genre is the type of film that it is, based on the camera angles and movements, the content, the adaptations and the interpretations as well as other general features that help to determine the genre.

Lurhmann has made a film that is like a modern drama in the way that strange camera angles and movements are used, also there are numerous small adaptations and changes to the script. Both films are a tragedy type film because people die, there is fighting and despair, and two of the main characters die during the fight scene and two more die at the end of the play. Both of the films are also romances, which is obvious, and the main theme of the play/film, but the romance is brought into the fight scene in Lurhmann’s version so as to make it feel more important and noticeable. I think that these adaptations of the script by Lurhmann make the film more like a modern drama and very different to the Zeffirelli version.

In the film production team (the institution), there are a lot of different people who want the film to be different. The people have different ideas of how to make the film and what to put in it. The shareholders want it to make money, the experts want it to be an Oscar winning film, the actors want to win awards and the public wants a good film to watch.

The film crew had to employ exactly the right actors for the job, as they are the most important part of the film. They are the only part of the film other than the scenery and props that everyone sees so if you have the wrong actor, the whole film is wrong. In the Zeffirelli version, not very widely known actors played Romeo and Juliet, they were chosen for their ability to play the part, although Michael York who played Tybalt was well known and played a large part in the publicity because of this. If there had been no well-known actors in the film, it would probably be much less successful as there would be less hype about the film and anticipation towards it before it was released. Lurhmann employed Claire Danes who was very well known at the time as well as Pete Postlethwaite who was quite well known. Lurhmann also made Leonardo Di Caprio the actor for Romeo. Leonardo Di Caprio was not well known at all at the time, but after the film, he became widely famous, which I think shows how good a choice Lurhmann made.

Different films are aimed at different audiences (the Audience is Who is the film aimed at, what group of people are expected to enjoy it the most and will want to go and see the film.). The Zeffirelli version is very faithful to the text and only does what Shakespeare has told them to with no fancy bits. It is aimed at people who want that – a film that is just like a play but with better scenery and cuts, although the nature of the play and the script means that different people can enjoy it, because of funny bits, like when Mercutio makes fun of Tybalt, that would make it more interesting for younger people. But Generally, Zeffirelli was aimed at adults like the play was. Lurhmann, on the other hand was aimed at a younger age group, as it is a lot more exciting and violent, and it is also set in modern times, so the young audience would feel like it is more believable and personal, not like some old thing that was written hundreds of years ago. Lurhmann's main goal was to make money, so he had to make a film that would do that, and so he made it as new and exciting as he possibly could. He did this by adding a lot of up to date music and sound effects. He modernized the play to suit the new audience and adapted the play so that it would be suitable for that new, younger audience.

Representation is anything symbolic in the film that the directors have put in themselves to make the film more interesting and to make the audience think about something.

The films have different interpretations in them, the directors have had to create the visuals where nothing is said by the text. The director has to be like your imagination when you read a book. Costumes are very different in both films, mainly because they are set in different times, but partly because of the way the director had interpreted the play. In Zeffirelli, the Montagues wear dull colours like grey and blue and the Capulets wear orange and black (which could indicate danger). In Lurhmann, however, it is the opposite; The Montagues wear really bright clothes and the Capulets wear black. Although the Montagues wear different clothes, the Capulets wear black in both films. I think that this is because the Capulets are meant to be the ‘baddies’ and evil, so if they wear dark clothes, it is really easy to see that they are bad. It is a typical clichйd film type (although maybe not at the time) with the heroes and the villains. The villains are dark and evil and everyone hates them whereas the good guys are the bright happy people that the camera follows around. Although if it were really clichйd then the plucky underdog would not win like they so often do, and it looks like that until the end which I think gives it a sort of realistic twist at the end instead of a ‘happy’ ending.

Lurhmann cast a black man for Mercutio, but it would have been out of the question for Zeffirelli to have any ethnic minorities in his film at that time let alone Shakespeare's time because there was a lot of prejudice towards black people and the film would become very controversial meaning that some people wouldn’t want to come and see the film when Zeffirelli just wanted a plain film that was for people who wanted to see ‘Romeo and Juliet’, so no one would consider. There is also a lot of religious symbols in Lurhmann that have been thought up and subtly implemented into the film so they are almost not noticeable, like the virgin Mary on the guns, the crucifix necklaces and the church arches behind them when they fight. At a very emotional moment, when Tybalt dies, the camera moves down to see the gun in Romeo’s hand, and stays there for quite a long time, which is very symbolic as it makes you think about what the gun can do and you see the virgin Mary on the side of it, the whole film pauses for a second so that everyone can contemplate on what just happened.

During the fight scene that I am studying, it is quite difficult to follow the plot / narrative if you don’t know the rest of the play and don’t already know what is going on (the narrative is the plot, or ‘story’ behind the film and how it happens and is described to the audience.), it is especially difficult to follow if you are watching the Lurhmann version; The plot is extremely difficult to follow and understand, it is like you are part of it and it is all happening around you really quickly. The film gives you this feeling because of the use of fast cuts and fast moving camera shots. The view is as if you are watching as a ‘spectator’ and most of the shots are close ups letting you see the emotion in the character’s faces and feel like you are in the film with them. The plot in Zeffirelli on the other hand is a lot easier to understand, not only because it is slower moving, but also because there are no sudden cuts or strange camera movements, and you can usually see almost the whole scene and what is going on. Even so, it is not that easy to follow the story during the fight anyway because the camera has to follow the characters and it all becomes a bit ‘jumbled’. In Lurhmann, the plot is enhanced by having exciting, up to date music and a fast moving picture, particularly the way that the scenery changes, at the start of the fight, it is a bright day and the beach is packed which makes it seem happy and normal, but as the fight progresses, the sky gets darker and eventually, a gale starts blowing and the beach is deserted. Then when Romeo kills Tybalt, the rain is pouring down and it is dark. All this makes the film very emotional and gripping. Zeffirelli on the other hand has only the bare necessities there, as if it was a normal play.

Mediation means the actual film and how it is filmed, using different settings, lighting, soundtracks.

The Lurhmann film is set in modern times, and that makes it more interesting for younger people as they can relate to it and understand and believe it. The lighting plays quite a large part in the mood of the fight scene as I said above, when it gets darker, the mood becomes more serious, but most of the time it is natural type lighting, possibly 3-point lighting if it is in a studio. During the fight scene, music is playing that intensifies the atmosphere by filling in any silences (apart from the purposeful silences to create tension) and using two of the five of the audience’s senses instead of one, it also helps to tell the story i.e. when the music gets fast or loud, the fight is picking up, but when it stops, its serious, it helps the audience along when they are trying to comprehend what is going on in front of them. The Zeffirelli film is quite basic, so it doesn't have anything out of the ordinary it has a little music when Mercutio dies, but apart from that it is all natural lighting, authentic setting and no soundtrack. This makes it feel like a play rather than a film because special effects, lighting and sound would be easy to produce in a theatre.

Each film uses different film conventions; they use different shots and camera transitions.

Lurhmann uses a wide variety of camera shots to make the film interesting and exciting, almost exhilarating at times, he uses long shots, which show the whole scene and let you know what is going on around you. He uses mid shots, which sets the main actors in the context of the setting. He uses close ups, which are quite personal and show the actor’s emotions, like when Mercutio and Tybalt are fighting and you see how into it they are. He also uses big close ups, where all you see is the actors expression, and you know that they mean business when you see the look in their eye that tells you that the character is willing to kill. Zeffirelli on the other hand uses a lot of long shots and mid shots, which are quite impersonal, but makes you feel like you are watching a play rather than a film.

Lurhmann also uses different angles, not only to make the film more interesting, but also to make you understand the character’s emotions better, when Mercutio is below Tybalt, he looks up and you see through his eyes, up at Tybalt. This makes you feel like Mercutio that Tybalt is stronger and is showing power over him as he is above him. Zeffirelli seems to me to be kind of un-innovative, and not doing anything new, he is simply acting out a play in front of a camera that is faithful to the text with no ‘extras’

Lurhmann also uses fast camera movements that are different and changing all the time, one point that I thought was quite effective what when Tybalt and Mercutio were going round in circles and the camera was following them from the middle of the circle, it took in the whole of the scene but really quickly while concentrating all the time on the characters.

Neither Lurhmann nor Zeffirelli used any special transitions during the fight scene, just simple cuts. If other transitions were used, they wouldn’t suit the mood because it is all happening at once, and a fade cut or wipe or dissolve all take time and would slow the film down and wouldn’t generally ‘feel right’ for the audience. Lurhmann has used MTV style editing, with strange camera movements and angles. I think that this makes it a lot more interesting, and gets you into the mood of the scene.

The Lurhmann film has a lot of ideas being conveyed and a certain ideology with his own interpretation of the play, a lot of the ideas are hidden (implicit), but some more noticeable than others (explicit). Like I said before, when Romeo shoots Tybalt, the camera stays on the gun for a moment I think that this is a very important point of the film certainly one of the most important points of the fight scene because it shows one of the main ideas of the film which is about violence. This makes us think about the violence and all the other things that have happened in the film so far. The pause is there to let the audience think for themselves instead of giving it to them in a neat little package, the audience have to think for themselves for a moment. There are other messages like the fact that even though they are fighting and killing, they still have strong religious beliefs. Also, Lurhmann may be trying to tell the audience or make them think about ethnic minorities. Why was Mercutio black? Why did the black man get killed? Another thing that the audience may consider is Mercutio’s sexuality. Why did he dress up as a woman at the party? Although this isn’t in the scene I am studying, I thought that the audience may be thinking about it, and it is another example of Mercutio in particular being a character that is slightly ‘cryptic’ and hard to understand. Zeffirelli didn’t seem to have any hidden messages in his film, although there may have been some that I haven’t noticed, although If I haven’t noticed them after I have studied this scene in detail, then it is very doubtful that the audience would notice them after seeing the film only once.

The two films that were made by Zeffirelli in 1968 and Lurhmann in 1997 are very different. A lot of this difference is due to the time that the films were made, each would be almost ludicrous for the other to make, Lurhmann wouldn’t make any money and Zeffirelli would be thought of as crazy, but the Lurhmann version was intended to be different to everything else so that it would bring in crowds of people because people want new things all the time. I think that both films are very different, one is an authentic replica of what the story was meant to be and one is an up to date film about modern times. It is hard to say, but I personally think that the Lurhmann version of the film is ‘better’ because it is more exciting, and it feels more like real life because it is set in modern times, although I may have felt the same about Zeffirelli’s film if I had been writing this in 1968.