3.1 - Tybalt, Mercutio and Romeo duel
Act 3.1, encompassing the deaths of both Mercutio and Tybalt, figures as a central scene for both Zeffirelli and Luhrmann�s films. A pivotal point in Shakespeare�s text , Jorgen�s observation of Zeffirelli�s film that �the style of the film changes radically after the death of Mercutio� rings true for both works. Luhrmann again invokes elements of Zeffirelli�s film yet the tone of the scene is radically different in parts. Zeffirelli signals the significance of the scene as a turning point from where the tragedy will begin in its very beginning by opening it with one of his most memorable images: a close up of Mercutio as he mocks Benvolio. Mercutio�s white handkerchief covers his face, and Zeffirelli�s camera, jarring repeatedly in and out of focus for the first time in the film, hints at the tragedy about to unfold by emphasising the shroud motif that we will see culminate in Juliet�s funeral as well as evoking the hazy morning depicted in the prologue. Luhrmann�s tone echoes Zeffirelli�s remarkably closely: opening with Mercutio and Benvolio on Verona Beach, the camera pulls away to a long shot of the beach where a storm is gathering, prefiguring the turbulent events to come. As Benvolio and Mercutio talk, one of the still images first shown in the montage of the prologue (that of an animated Mercutio on the beach) is finally placed into its context, reminding us that several of the film�s scenes have already been glimpsed in advance, heightening the feeling of fate in action.
As Zeffirelli placed the scene in the overtly public place of the market square, so Luhrmann�s beach is densely populated by onlookers; John Luguizamo�s Tybalt is just as conscious of Mercutio�s public mocking of him as Zeffirelli�s. Similarly, Zeffirelli�s first extended use of a hand-held camera when they begin to fight is mirrored by Luhrmann as the two characters circle each other and trade insults. Though the two films� aesthetics are radically different, it is important to note that both Zeffirelli and Luhrmann deliberately disrupt their own with such camera-work in this scene, both to involve an audience in the excitement of the sparring and signal the moment as a crucial turning point.
The fatal wounding of Mercutio is portrayed in radically different ways by Zeffirelli and Luhrmann. Zeffirelli makes Tybalt�s stab almost accidental as he, Romeo and Mercutio all grapple together. A close-up of Tybalt�s face, contorted in horror as he sees blood on his rapier, suggests that the fatal act has been the unintentional but fateful by-product of �their ingrained antipathy� , spurred on by the peer pressure of the watching households. Though the motives for Luguizamo�s Tybalt are almost identical, Luhrmann gives the act a certain pre-mediation as he picks up a piece of broken glass while Romeo stalls Mercutio: unmistakably, the act is revenge for the character�s hurt pride. But by framing the scene within a derelict theatre surrounded by a growing storm, Luhrmann implicitly suggests the power of fate in an unprecedently new way. Just as the prologue demonstrated a consciousness of Romeo and Juliet�s performance history, so the derelict theatre of Sycamore Grove (which stands in itself as a post-modern icon) reminds us that Shakespeare�s drama, and therefore Tybalt�s murder of Mercutio, has already been played out countless times before. Though by no means a definitive interpretation, in this context Tybalt�s act can be read as performative fate: anyone who knows the play recognises that Mercutio must die, just as the play itself must end in the tragic death of the lovers.
Through this and more obviously, the growing storm , Luhrmann thus succeeds in imbuing his film with an overwhelming sense of fate. This is additionally borne out in Romeo�s subsequent killing of Tybalt. As Zeffirelli emphasises how the act is half-unintentional (Romeo reaches for his sword as much out of self-defence, and Tybalt runs onto it), so Luhrmann�s sequence (this time consciously replaying the �chicken run� of Rebel Without a Cause ) suggests the power of fate through a grotsesque evocation of other popular films about fated youth. By briefly cutting to Juliet, turning around in horror �as if hearing the shots� , before cutting back as Romeo shoots Tybalt, Luhrmann reminds his audience of the fatal consequences such actions will have. By integrating Juliet�s �Gallop apace� speech into the chase scene, a brutal juxtaposition of styles is also created: the violent editing of the latter shatters the idyllic excitement of her poetry, returning again to Luhrmann�s central motif of the lover�s �aquatic insulation� that is always subject to disruption by the outside (heavily edited and fast-cutting) world of Verona Beach. That Romeo looks vacantly, almost pleadingly to the statute of Jesus after screaming �O, I am fortunes fool� (3.1.131) but receives no answer can be read as a commentary on the corruption of traditional icons � Luhrmann�s film may seemingly �embrace post-modernism� in its aesthetic, but his protagonists certainly do not, as the final scene demonstrates.
5.3 - Juliet�s Tomb
Like Zeffirelli, Luhrmann chooses to make the lovers� final scene almost completely self-contained. Both cut Paris completely from the scene in order to consolidate the focus on the title characters, and Luhrmann even dispenses with the Friar in order to �depict the lovers in complete isolation, in their own world� . Zeffirelli conventionally located 5.3 in the Capulet tomb, and his Romeo attempts to make peace with Tybalt�s corpse. At the end of the film, Zeffirelli�s motif of the shroud resonates most strongly. Having featured in the deaths of Mercutio, Tybalt and Juliet, there is an almost perverse logic in Romeo�s descent into a tomb populated by shrouded corpses to commit suicide. The growing sense of tragic destiny is suggested by the bleeding away of almost all colour, leaving only �imprisonment in colourless stone� . With the exception of the scene�s from opening, very little of either Romeo or Juliet�s text is cut. Yet whilst this pushes Shakespeare�s text to the fore, it also places a heavy responsibility on the two actors to hold the scene, and �there is a distinct tendency to lapse into sentimentality with the verse speaking� . The most crucial problem with Zeffirelli�s ending is that there is no sense of the lovers� self-realisation, no acknowledgement that their love bears out the Friar�s meditation (which is cut by Zeffirelli), �Virtue itself turns vice being misapplied� (2.2.21).
