In contrast, Luhrmann maintains only the importance of �clashing low comedy with high tragedy, which is the style of the play, for it�s the low comedy that allows you to embrace the emotions of the piece� . Justifying his approach through the style of Shakespeare�s own writing, Luhrmann emphasises the importance of having a flexible style that �could shut up the rowdy drunkards in the pit and simultaneously touch the hearts and deepest imaginations of an audience� . Though it must be acknowledged that Zeffirelli�s stressing of the need to make concessions could simply extend to the necessary editing of the text for film, it is nevertheless important to note that whilst for him obtaining large-scale popularity is a question of concession, for Luhrmann it is more an issue of reinvention within a filmic medium.
Prologue
The very beginning of Luhrmann�s film demonstrates his willingness to playfully rework elements of Zeffirelli�s version through pastiche, whilst still following through his own artistic intentions. The 1968 film opens with a series of scenic establishing shots that introduces an audience to the �authentic� Verona that Zeffirelli�s movie takes place in, backed with a low-key classical score. Simultaneously, a severely edited version of the prologue (lines 9-114 are cut) is delivered as a voiceover by Laurence Olivier. The establishing shots work on a very simple level by allowing a film audience to immediately identify the world in which the story of Romeo and Juliet will take place, but Jorgens astutely points out that,
Zeffirelli is also doing much more� using imagery in a significant way. To begin with, the shots provides a visual equivalent to the godlike, distant, formal tone and style of the prologue which contrasts so vividly with the passion and violence inside Verona�s walls. The city, shrouded in fog, also has a formal rightness� for the white shroud is one of the central motifs of the film, recurring in Mercutio�s white handkerchief and deathlike mask.. and the winding sheets in Juliet�s funeral.
Olivier�s omnipotent, R.P. voice (evoking memories of his past Shakespeare films Henry V and Hamlet) immediately seeks to give Zeffirelli�s film an added authority, the Olivier �stamp of approval�, whilst heightening the tragedy to come by confirming for the audience that they are indeed watching a �Shakespeare film�. Additionally, Zeffirelli�s picturesque panning shots bathed in early morning light pre-figure the later visual motifs Jorgen�s notes above. Both Olivier�s tone of delivery and Zeffirelli�s visual imagery seek to reaffirm the pervading feeling that events are already fated, reinforcing visually and aurally the text�s description of Romeo and Juliet as being �star-crossed lovers� (prologue, line 6): we are given the calm both before and after the storm.
Luhrmann responds to Zeffirelli�s prologue with his own post-modern aesthetic. Though both directors seem to be demonstrating their belief that the visual capacity of film can reinforce and often replace the text, Luhrmann�s prologue is simultaneously visually more self-conscious yet retains four lines more of the prologue, which is repeated twice for good measure. Presenting first a TV that bursts into life with a hail of static, Luhrmann recasts the chorus as a newsreader (played by real-life anchorwoman Jesse Bradford) who �reports� the prologue. An attempt to introduce the audience to the play through the easily recognisable format of news reportage (even including the back-title �Star-scrossed lovers�), the camera gradually approaches the TV before violently crash-zooming into the screen, and so �the world of the movie itself� . What follows is a fast-cutting collage of images drawn from the created world of Verona Beach, accompanied by a repetition of the prologue. But this second delivery self-consciously apes the voiceover in Zeffirelli. In response to Zeffirelli�s use of the �Olivier voice�, with all the baggage of a classical tradition (what Luhrmann terms �Club Shakespeare� ) attached, Luhrmann orchestrates a self-conscious pastiche. Using the only �classically trained� British member of the cast to deliver the prologue (Pete Postelthewhaite), Luhrmann pastiches �Club Shakespeare� film whilst simultaneously giving his audience the opportunity to adjust to the film�s aesthetic of amalgamated styles.
The intention is not to demonstrate the superiority of one style over another, but rather to remove the air of exclusivity he sees the tradition of Club Shakespeare enforcing on the text. By creating a play-world that a contemporary audience can recognise, and then presenting them with two significantly different readings of the prologue, Luhrmann deconstructs the legacy of �classical� filmic Shakespeare without dismissing it: he too is using a deconstructed aesthetic. Rather than make huge textual compromises, he cannibalises contemporary culture and film genres in a distinctly post-modern way in order to illuminate Shakespeare�s play for an audience that might be new to the play-text itself or may recognise his referencing of Zeffirelli. Every image presented is a pastiche, from the magazines tracked past documenting the feud to the introduction of the characters via title cards . As Loehlin observes,
The doubled presentation of the prologue, once in a cheeky pop-culture parody, once with grave seriousness and an earnest bow to textual authority, sums up the films divided approach to the chaotic world of Verona beach and the time less tragedy of the lovers.
He succeeds in making the opening of his film accessible to a contemporary audience by presenting them with all the fast-paced music and rapid editing a modern filmgoer could want. Yet he also acknowledges the place previous film Romeo and Juliet�s occupy in the play-text�s performance history. Through the explicitness of his filmic techniques, Luhrmann emphasises that his Romeo + Juliet too is an aesthetic construction that �is not intended to be definitive, but rather a version of Romeo and Juliet for the millennium� : his film does not intend to replace Zeffirelli�s, but render the film in a more contemporary post-modern aesthetic where both directors creations are acknowledged and embraced as artifice.
