- Baz Luhrmann
It is spectacular, extravagant, full of nervous emotion, energy, camera movement, rapid cutting� yet the acting, far from being operatic, is in a fresh, nontheatrical, nonelocutionary style. The director uses a pared down text, often interrupts the flow of lines with entertaining gestures and sounds, and generally keeps the talk out of the way of the action according to the convention of film realism.
- Jack Jorgens
That Jack Jorgens� summation of Franco Zeffirelli�s 1968 Romeo and Juliet could also apply to Baz Luhrmann�s 1996 production is not simply down to their shared choice of text. In constructing the aesthetic of his William Shakespeare�s Romeo + Juliet (and so claiming added authority through the authors name), Luhrmann consciously exhibits �an often quite reverential attitude towards his Shakespearean source� . Yet, rather than simply �update� the play and tie it to a particular time and location in twentieth century history, his creation of the fictional world of Verona Beach is a self-conscious attempt to mimic how the play functions in a theatrical context, �where the playworld is created on its own terms, for the audience to �buy into�� for me, the created world came down to the fact that Shakespeare�s plays were always a bit of a pastiche� . Rather than aim for an overtly �historical� or �contemporary� reading, Luhrmann attempted to create a world that is highly conscious of its status as film:
What we�ve done was set the film in the world of the movies. You will notice that the film changes in style very dramatically, echoing very recognisable film genres. These severe changes of style refer to cinematic worlds or loos or ideas that audiences are familiar with on some level; using them to construct this created world will hopefully produce an environment that can accommodate a stylised language and make it easier for the audience to receive the heightened language .
In considering what James Loelhin terms Luhrmann�s �postmodern aesthetic� , this essay will interrogate how William Shakespeare�s Romeo + Juliet actively engages with Zeffirelli�s version, using it as an established text to which Luhrmann responds in various ways. The intention will be to disprove Loelhin�s conclusion that �[Luhrmann�s] frequent borrowings from Zeffirelli� seem to be merely failures of imagination, simple replications rather than pointed re-workings� . Though Luhrmann�s points of reference span far wider than purely Zeffirelli�s film, I will suggest that many of Luhrmann�s decisions stemmed from a conscious recognition that his film would necessarily invite comparisons with the most successful screen Rome and Juliet to date . Henceforth, a consideration of the two directors� motives for transferring Romeo and Juliet to screen will be followed by detailed focus on specific scenes within the play-text, where Luhrman�s treatment will be compared and contrasted specifically analysed alongside Zeffirelli.
I: Approaches
In his essay �Film Versions of Romeo and Juliet�, Anthony Davies recognises how the transferral of Shakespeare�s work from page to screen requires different methods to those involved when mounting stage productions: �In the first place, both cinema and television depend upon a greater degree of visual credibility than does theatre� . In the theatre, Shakespeare�s work depends on the power of the author�s language to create a distinctive and believable play-world; it is the language that creates a play�s locations and characters, and its theatrical power resides in a free association of word with image. Thus, when considering Shakespeare on film, we must acknowledge that with the consolidation of a traditional narrative cinema founded on photographic naturalism, it is almost impossible to maintain the same level of �free-association� possible on theatres empty stage. A transfer from aural to visual modes of performance is necessary in any adaptation from stage to screen, and as Shakespeare�s dramatic work was constructed specifically for the former, it is the film-director�s responsibility to re-interpret his plays for the screen utilising the vocabulary of film.
.
Zeffirelli and Luhrmann�s response was to set the play in worlds where Shakespeare�s story could be effectively rendered. In Zeffirelli�s case, emphasis was placed on �the importance of creating a believable world, that of Verona, in the time of the Italian renaissance, with which an audience could identify and then engage with� . Luhrmann likewise affirmed that �as the case for any film, whether Shakespeare or not, the visual language has to reveal, support and clarify the storytelling� . Both made no secret of their (shared) intention to introduce a new generation to the play through film. Additionally, neither had any hesitation in turning to Shakespeare to justify their motives. For Zeffirelli, �It was because I wanted [Shakespeare�s] plays to be enjoyed by ordinary people as well as intellectuals� in a sense the bard himself was not only a popular artist but a populariser� . Luhrmann seems to echo Zeffirelli�s sentiments of opening Shakespeare up to a modern audience:
Shakespeare�s plays touched everyone, from the street sweeper to the Queen of England. He was a rambunctious, sexy, violent, entertaining storyteller. We�re trying to make this movie rambunctious, sexy, violent and entertaining in the way Shakespeare might have if he were a filmmaker .
Considering that the story concerns one of the most famous renditions of teenage romance, it is unsurprising that both directors sought to target groups who might most readily identify with the play�s title characters. In both cases, critics have noted the targeting of �youth audiences�. Davies suggests Zeffirelli �sought to stress the generation gap in the play� and how the voices of Verona originate as much the children of America�s Vietnam turbulence as from the children of the bloody feud between Montagues and Capulets� , whilst James Loehlin regards Luhrmann�s film as �an honest response to the culture of the new millennium� the violent media crazed culture of which both [Romeo and Juliet] and ourselves are, necessarily, already a part� .
