Romeo and Juliet – 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison

Romeo and Juliet– 1968 and 1996 Movie Comparison

William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a valued piece of literature that has actually been remade into movies often times throughout history. The 1968 variation and the questionable 1996 version offer various point of views of Shakespeare’s popular play. While the 1968 classical version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet should be valued, the contemporary variation depicts the intricacy of love in a busy society by utilizing narrative and stylistic components integrated with energetic modifying in a sophisticated, creative method. Mostly, casting decisions had a huge effect on character representation and the success of the motion picture.

Romeo was played by a “pretty kid” in both movies to portray sensitivity and vibrant beauty. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Leonard Whiting illustrated feelings well, however DiCaprio seemed less refined or proper in his movements to put a modern-day spin on the character. Likewise, Leonardo DiCaprio’s popularity assisted in the movie’s success while Whiting was unusual in the world of acting. The function of Juliet as played by Olivia Hussey was delicate and elegant. She appeared flawlessly beautiful and fit the classical role perfectly, although her frantic crying fits were played somewhat out of proportion.

Claire Danes played the part extremely well, and was better for the contemporary variation, her popularity assisting in the movie’s appeal as well. Mercutio was a fascinating character in both films, but Harold Perrineau Jr. brought the character’s dialogue and actions into today’s world. Crazy and loud are some necessary ingredients included when the majority of people consider comedy today, and Perrineau portrayed these qualities to the extreme. His skin color caused the concern of race to be brought up in the motion picture. It informed people into a more modern-day and open frame of mind since black actors were not included in the cast of middle ages time films.

Nevertheless, John McEnery’s performance in the 1968 version was appropriate for the motion picture and time setting. He imitated a jester would in the fourteenth or fifteenth Centuries. The Nurse’s ethnicity also played a role in the characterization of the modern-day movie. Her Spanish accent triggered names to seem like “Romayo” and “Hooliet.” Modern society is utilized to racial and ethnic diversity, but this was seldom dealt with in the gothic ages. Additionally, the plot likewise included distinctions in between the 2 variations. The time period was an apparent variation.

While the 1968 version placed the story in the middle ages times, the 1996 variation put the story in contemporary times with police control taking over the city as compared to the Prince’s males. Television press reporters filled in narrators and corruption appeared (prostitution, drugs). In addition, the setting was drastically different. While Verona was the initial setting, the modern variation changed the setting to Verona Beach to give the audience a feel for the modern, busy, and problem-filled city. Scenes were set on the beach or in a swimming pool hall or at a mansion as compared to cobblestone structures or castles of the middle ages centuries.

These contemporary settings caused stylistic modifications in overall costume style and use of props. For instance, the Capulets wore tight black clothing with slicked hair while the Montagues opted for casual Hawaiian t-shirts. The 1968 version played together with the stereotypical timeless outfit of tunics and tights to assist in the classical feel of the movie. Also, rather of swords, the modern-day characters masterfully utilized guns, which they described as “swords”, and changed horses with vehicles. These props were artistically included whenever possible to trigger thriller and action.

The scene in which Romeo and Juliet initially meet consisted of many varying stylistic components. Visual Effects, sound impacts, modifying, and music added to making the modern-day version advanced and innovative than the 1968 variation of the scene. The modern-day celebration scene is embeded in the over-decorated, glitzy, up-scale Capulet estate. The festive atmosphere assisted in the energy of the scene. In contrast, the older version revealed the Capulet home as a traditional, spacious estate. Costume for the scene dramatically differed, however was effective for each movie in thoughtfully setting the mood.

Ladies in the first variation wore standard charming gowns, while in the second, innovative and outlandishly flashy masquerade outfits were used that created intrigue and energy that poured off of the screen to the audience. A few of the character’s outfits were things of meaning. DiCaprio used a knight costume, possibly due to his mindset at the time. (He declared that he had a “soul of lead” in the preceding scene.) Danes used an angel costume to represent her innocence and pureness at the time. Perrineau, playing Mercutio, was the most dramatically various costume and makeup modification.

Perrineau skipped the traditional tunic and tights combination to dress in drag. His fancy and skimpy silver skirt and top assisted to make his insane funny bone obvious simply by looking at his wardrobe. Also, Tybalt and his accomplices used red and black sequined death-related or wicked outfits to foreshadow their dark intents. Lighting played an essential role in perceiving the scene. The castle was lit most in the center (the dance floor), yet appeared foggy with soft lighting. Torches and candle lights were implied to be sources of light. Classical Hollywood lighting produced a conventional, aged feeling.

The estate setting of the 1996 movie was poorly lit other than for the dance flooring. Lighting was distinctively utilized when Mercutio was singing. Colored lights flashed and spotlights roamed and panned the vocalist producing excitement and energy and added to Mercutio’s absurdity. These innovative lighting concepts proved to be more intriguing to me and gave a fresh and intriguing viewpoint of the scene. In both films, lighting was somewhat dimmer during conversations between Romeo and Juliet to make it more intimate and sheltered from the remainder of the action. In addition, video camera shots and modifying contrasted to produce really various effects on the audience.

In the 1968 version, Romeo first sees Juliet on the dance flooring. This is a book method to film initially encounters in between lovers. Long shots showed the dancing, and the cam then followed Romeo and Juliet’s faces. As the music sped up, the film used rhythmically equivalent edits to stay up to date with the music’s rate. Edits cut down and forth in between Romeo and Juliet quicker and much faster to create an interesting, youthful sensation. The modern variation was significantly various, and totally interesting. It triggered adrenaline to pump along with the characters. Due to taking an acid-like drug, DiCaprio’s perception was distorted.

The cam and editing made the audience see things from Romeo’s point-of-view. Individuals appeared to be moving in sluggish motion and sounds were distorted and unusual. Rhythmic modifying was used throughout Mercutio’s tune and dance. The drug then takes a different effect on Romeo by making whatever appear faster than it in fact was taking place. The video camera spins with him while developing a blurred background. Then very fast edits of various faces combined with flashing colored lights and odd sound effects to make it appear as if he was losing his mind. Remarkably, he sobers up with an underwater shot of him plashing his face.

Video camera use differed when Romeo and Juliet initially saw each other in the contemporary version. Romeo initially spotted her eyes through a fish tank divider. Both movies utilized close-ups to reveal their emotions and timidness at the first encounter. Nevertheless, the very first kiss was portrayed differently in the two films by the usage of cam shots and editing. The 1968 variation uses a close-up of them kiss privately. The kiss was enthusiastic in a softer, more refined method. In the contemporary movie, Romeo and Juliet kiss in an elevator after running around playfully.

The camera whirls around the welcoming couple in a circle. This was rather effective in triggering the viewer to be caught up in the spontaneous romantic sensation. The viewer can nearly feel the “butterflies” in their stomachs. Music played an additional part in the general impact of the scene. The very first version included soothing, courtly music to provide the audience a sense of time and manners that were employed then. The party atmosphere itself was then calmer. The tune, “What is a Youth?” also had meaning in the story. The song described that youth fades simply as a flower does.

It connected to and foreshadowed the future of the star-crossed lovers. Slow, enjoyable music is played behind conversations in between Romeo and Juliet that contributed to the state of mind. In variation, the positive dance music at the start of the modern-day scene gave way to an energetic and joyful party state of mind. Parties in present time may utilize comparable music to make visitors having fun. Mercutio sang the words; “Young hearts, run totally free.” These words connected to the sensation that was in the air in between Romeo and Juliet. Lastly, visible themes happened in the 1996 variation that added to the consideration and creativity of the movie.

First, religious signs were found all over the film. Crosses and the Virgin Mary appeared ironically on weapons of death such as guns in the opening scene. Tybalt wears a sign of Virgin Mary on the front of his shirt and a fellow Capulet sports a cross that it is shaved into the back of his head. In the celebration scene, Mercutio dances below a mural of the Virgin Mary. It seems ironic that faith was stressed even when wicked and unGod-like acts were going on. Secondly, water was a prominent concept. Water mostly was included in the setting. Romeo at by the beach to believe or create poetry.

An underwater shot of DiCaprio’s face was used in the party scene when he sprinkled his face to change his drugged state-of-mind. The fish tank gave the viewer an intriguing viewpoint on their very first encounter. Likewise, the pool developed suspense and a sense of playfulness after Romeo came to Juliet. Whenever water was used, it caused a modification in Romeo’s state-of-mind or a change in occasions concerning the fate of the two lovers. Water signified ever-changing fluidity in the story.

What did critics and viewers think about the two films? Steve Rhodes examined the 1968 film and declared that, “A more romantic and practical performance of the nature of love I have never ever seen” (Rhodes evaluation, 2/18/99). Many appreciated the conventional style and beauty of the movie, also do I. The 1996 film got blended reviews. Some thought it to be fantastic, astonishing, and visually stunning, much to my contract. The controversial movie handled to win awards from Smash hit and MTV, along with nominations for the Oscars. Personally, I appreciated the 1996 film of Romeo and Juliet, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and Claire Danes.

I discovered this variation far more appealing and exciting to view. The innovative stylistic components and modifying contributed greatly to my fascination with the movie. The powerful images and circumstances warped my initial impression of the terrible romance and emphasized the severe reality of society. Love in today’s society can be made a lot more complex than feuding families. Fresh and existing scenarios impacted the predicament of the star-crossed fans. The modern version showed the hectic world and provided the audience an in-your-face look at the problems that can emerge for modern-day fans.

You Might Also Like