Discussion Topic
Comparing Film Adaptations of Romeo and Juliet to the Original Play
Summary:
Film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet often diverge from Shakespeare's original play. The 1968 version by Zeffirelli uses visual imagery, omits scenes like Paris's death, and introduces modern elements like a nude wedding night, while maintaining core themes of young love and familial conflict. The 1996 adaptation, Romeo + Juliet, set in modern Verona Beach, retains the play's essence through passionate performances and thematic elements despite its contemporary setting and artistic liberties, such as modern weaponry and visual symbolism.
Compare the 1968 movie version of Romeo and Juliet to the original play.
Film, with its potential to use rich visual imagery to convey meaning, gives filmmakers advantages Shakespeare did not have. While he had little choice but to rely on words to paint pictures in his audiences' minds, filmmakers, by using visuals, can cut the words in a play. Zeffirelli does this, using only about 35 percent of the play's words, according to Patricia Tatspaugh in an article called "The Tragedy of Love on Film." But beyond using images instead of language, Zeffirelli also cuts entires scenes. One notable erasure is the scene in which Romeo kills Paris when both appear at Juliet's crypt.
The film, made in 1968, adds some modern innovations. To appeal to a youth culture, Zeffirelli filmed Romeo and Juliet 's wedding night as a nude scene, something Shakespeare could not have done because males in his time period played female roles. This scene, though tame by...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
modern standards, was shocking at the time. Further, Zeffirelli adds hints of a homoerotic charge betweenMercutio and Romeo and tensions in the Capulet marriage. Zefirelli also has Tybalt showing grief and surprise that he actually killed Mercutio in what the film depicts as a sword fight engaged in out of boredom rather than a desire to do real harm. That is a significant departure from the original play, in which Tybalt is shown as aggressively upset over Romeo flirting with his cousin Juliet and out for blood.
Despite these differences, the film is also noted for the many ways it is a faithful adaptation of the original, such as by casting teens to play the title roles. The film captures, like the original, the way the feuding and violence of the adults has a destructive impact on young people, as well as the energy and vigor of young love.
Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet is a much-loved work, and it has been adapted to film multiple times. It should not come as a surprise that any film version doesn't entirely adhere to the original script. Some things invariably get tweaked or cut completely. While this does bother some purists, directors often do this because some things can't be replicated quite the same with film. Additionally, sometimes things are cut for no other reason than to get the film to fit a predetermined time limit.
Let's start with a few similarities as they are far less interesting to talk about. The 1968 film stays in line with the general conflict of Romeo and Juliet falling in love with each other as they belong to warring families. Character names remain the same, and the film doesn't change the tragic ending of having the title characters die. Tybalt is portrayed as an angry guy, and Romeo's original love for Rosaline is still present.
However, the Rosaline plot is also something that is quite different in the film. In the play, audiences never see her. We only hear about her and Romeo's affection for her. The movie makes her a much bigger deal, and we even get to see her make an appearance at Capulet's party.
Juliet's soliloquy about the risks of drinking the potion is an example of a filmmaker cutting something from the original text. In the original play, Juliet has a long discussion with herself about drinking the potion. She worries about suffocating and other horrors. It's a lengthy sequence, but the movie just has her saying "Love give me strength" before drinking it down.
Compare the 1996 movie version of Romeo and Juliet to the original play.
One of biggest contrasts between the 1996 movie that starred Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo and Claire Danes as Juliet and the play is that the movie is set in modern day in Verona Beach instead of Verona, Italy. Verona Beach in upstate New York is a far cry from Verona in Italy.
The film is true to the story of a feud between the families that leads Romeo and Juliet to hide their love and come up with a secret plan to be together that ultimately leads to their deaths. However, at the party they meet in front of a fish tank, which is not mentioned in the play and which introduces the water theme that is continued in the love scene in the pool. The dress in the film is, not surprisingly, modern (or at least, modern to the '90s). Whereas in the play, they carry swords and duel, in the movie they carry guns. The brawls in the film are like a modern day rumble between gangs or gang war and the area is set afire, underscoring the violence.
In the play, there is a lot of repetition of the word “banished.” It appears 30 times and describes Romeo’s status after he kills Tybalt, as in
"Tybalt is dead, and Romeo banished."
That “banished,” that one word “banished” ... (3.2.113–114).
In contrast, in the movie, the word is emphasized with the scream “Romeo is banished,” elongating and underscoring the word.
The Christian themes represented in the play by the participation of Friar Lawrence are presented in more vivid imagery in the film in placement of translucent crosses and the religious icons as Juliet prays.
Does the 1996 movie version of Romeo and Juliet capture the essence of Shakespeare's original play?
The "essence," eh? What an interesting question! This is my absolute favorite version of the play (which is actually called Romeo + Juliet and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes), but I've never quite considered whether it has the "essence" of Shakespeare's original. Let's explore the evidence together.
In opposition, there's the issue of setting. If you consider the essence of Shakespeare to be rooted in the Elizabethan time period, then you certainly would have trouble here. Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed live on stage. This presents real problems for a movie to surpass. Further, Shakespeare's play would have been set in Elizabethan times on the stage while this movie is set in (what was then) the present with the "rapier" and the "dagger" both being types of guns. However, I do not think either of these issues get to the heart of what makes Shakespearean plays "universal."
As my first bit of evidence, I must mention the first moments that Romeo and Juliet first set eyes on each other. The view through the aquarium gives the whole love-at-first-sight idea such a magical and even mystical appeal. The entire exchange in the elevator and beyond with the word play of the banter with the "holy palmer's kiss" is done so incredibly well and a perfect rendition of the flirtation between the two. (Although, yes, it's quite ironic that Juliet is dressed as an angel and Romeo as a knight, but it is a costume party, after all.)
Further, I want to mention the awesome scene of Romeo's and Juliet's wedding night which is strewn with billowing sheets and blissful smiles when the two are together consummating their marriage. Juliet's expression and deliverance of the lines when she realizes that she must be pulled away from her love is priceless. This is just one of the ways that I think the true love of the two main characters is truly shown in this version.
In my opinion, the complete desperation of the lovers exhibited in the final scene is unmatched. I find it hard to explain this in words, actually. Everything from the tears streaming down the cheeks of the actors to the wide-eyed and glassy look of Juliet before she takes her own life. The lines are read with such passion, it just takes my breath away. Then there is the setting of the candles and flowers and crosses that bejewel the tomb that add to that same passion. Amazing!
Therefore, if one thinks that the "essence" of Shakespeare's play is truly the actual love of the two main characters, then this is the movie version that fits the bill perfectly. However, if you want to delve into artistic licence (with Queen Mab being drugs and Friar Lawrence being more of a strange botanist and the weird relationships between the mothers and boyfriends) then, yes, one could take issue with this rendition. All in all, though, this is a play about "star-crossed lovers," and it is the adaptation relevant to those lovers that I believe deserves applause.