Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The differences between the 1968 and 1996 versions of Romeo
Transcript of The differences between the 1968 and 1996 versions of Romeo
Which film more effectively represents Shakespeare's original play? Why?
What are the strengths and limitations of each film?
Romeo and Juliet directed by Franco Zeffirelli
Accuracy with the play:
- Set in the city of Verona, Italy.
-Clothing/ Costumes (tights, etc).
-Ending - death in a tomb
- It followed the play as closely as possible
William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet directed by Baz Luhrmann
Accuracy to the play:
- Most dialogue but is made simpler
- Main scenes, although adapted to fit the modern theme of the movie
- Kills Paris
Difference to the play:
- Verona Beach
- Gate crashes party
- Much of the diagolue is changed to fit the modern theme of the movie
- Guns replace swords, but the brands are dagger and sword
- Some characters are given names or has had a name change
-Gregory and Sampson are Capulets, but in the film, they are Montagues
- Balcony scene is not really set on a balcony
-Romeo sees Juliet alive before he dies.
- Accuracy to the play/script
- The era it was created in
- Meeting through aquarium glass
- Elevator scene
- More dramatic/violent fight scenes
- Consists of all scenes in play
- It's an interesting adaptation to the modern time
- Dies seeing Juliet still alive
- Modern adaption took away the purity
- Juliet and Romeo are a lot older, therefore there's less youthful love
- Violence overwhelms the true meaning of the play; love.
The 1968's film sticks quite closely with the original script, therefore uses Shakespeare language predominately.
The 1996's film also used Shakespearean language although it felt out of place, some lines were modified for the modern audience
Juliet: O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name, or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, and I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo: I have night's cloak to hide me from their eyes, but thou love me, let them find me here. My life were better ended by their hate than death prorogued, wanting of thy love.
Juliet: Do not swear at all. Or, if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,
Which is the god of my idolatry,
And I’ll believe thee.
1968: The Balcony Scene" 9:26
1996: "Balcony Scene"
1996: too much light and the set took your eye off what you were supposed to be watching them talking
1968: Lighting was just about right, it was kept dark, therefore corresponds to the line "night's cloak"
1998: Interaction- eye level shots, mid shots, close up
1996: Viewing Juilet from a low angle, looks down on Romeo at a high angle
Differences to the play:
- A lot of lines were excluded tofit the time frame of the movie
- Paris is not killed by Romeo
- No apothecary
-Act 5 scene 2 is excluded
-There's no investigation by Prince.
Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 Film more effectively represents Shakespeare's play in the sense of dialogue, plot and setting
while Baz Luhrmann's film was heavily adapted to modern times but kept all the scenes in the play.
Winner: 1968's Romeo and Juliet
- Missing the scene when Romeo obtains the
- Missing the scene when Romeo slays Paris
- The meetings was rather long and slow
Juliet: O swear not by the moon, inconstant moon, that monthly changed in her circl'd orb, lest that they love prove likewise variable
Being in night, all this is but a dream,
Too flattering sweet to be substantial.