William Shakespeare, the famous English playwright, wrote the play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in a very effective way. Anybody could come up with such a storyline but nobody could put it together as well as he did. He used barely any stage directions, meaning the play can be interpreted in various different ways. This essay will compare and analyse the differences and similarities between the original text and Baz Luhrman’s more recent film interpretation of Act 1 Scene 1 of this play. The audience are almost immediately made aware of the fact that the first few lines that were originally given to Capulets have been given to Montagues.
This may be because Baz Luhrman wanted to portray the Montagues as the family that you tend to prefer as opposed to the Capulets who are proposed as evil and dislikeable. Shakespeare portrays the Montagues as people who like to have fun and joke around. The Capulets are the ones who enjoy ruining the fun of the Montagues. The scene starts off showing a yellow truck owned by the Montague boys. The first shot we see is one of a tattoo on the back of one of the Montagues’ head. The tattoo is of the name ‘Montague’ and also has a religious symbol.
This is how we immediately know that these boys are in fact Montagues.Also, the number plate on the back of the car and the first few lines read out by the characters make it obvious to us that they are Montagues. In the original text, both families are portrayed equally in the way that neither one in particular is favoured. The original text starts off with Sampson and Gregory, two young and cocky men, joking around and having a laugh.
They are servants for the house of the Capulets and in this first section; it is made obvious they find status very important. Sampson’s first line is ‘Gregory, o’ my word, we’ll not carry coals’.In other words, this means that they do not want to be seen as unimportant servants but as respectable young men. They are denying who they are. The next lines use the word ‘coals’ but in different contexts with basically the same meaning.
Shakespeare uses the words ‘colliers’, ‘choler’ and ‘collar’ as a kind of play on the word ‘coals’. This makes the text more complex because different vocabulary is being used to represent the same thing. Also, in this first section it is made noticeable that, at the time, women were seen to be like prizes or possessions.Men used to enjoy abusing and raping their women because it made them feel superior. To make this point clear, Shakespeare uses phrases like ‘thrust his maids to the wall’ and women, being the weaker vessels’.
Another very noticeable difference is the setting. In the original text, it is set in the Italian town of Verona, whereas in the film version it is set in a laid-back American town. Usually setting makes a big difference to how a play is presented, due to the fact of the societies and different cultures. In the original text, the fight is held outside, on a street.
In the Baz Luhrman film version, the fight scene happens at the petrol station which works well because a fire is caused and therefore, the event is publicised. The script has rearranged so that it makes sense but it actually works well and is a clear example of how versatile Shakespeare’s work can be. In both the film version and the original text, the characters of both Benvolio and Tybalt are portrayed in the same way. They have totally different views to each other; Tybalt being someone who is always eager to fight, Benvolio being someone who will always try and prevent a fight from occurring.Tybalt is immediately presented as a dislikeable character, as one of his first lines is, ‘peace! I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues’. This shows that Tybalt loves to fight and is often trying to cause a scene because he knows fighting is one this he is good at and something that can make him look like powerful and manly, linking back to the idea of status being important.
Automatically, we start to dislike Tybalt. Benvolio is the peace-maker who tries to stop the fight but, by doing so, gets involved instead.One of his first lines is, ‘I do but keep the peace: put up thy sword, or manage it to part these men with me’. Benvolio is offering them a chance to decline the fight but of course Tybalt doesn’t like this idea because, as we know, he loves fighting. However, there are some similarities between the script and Baz Luhrman’s film interpretation. For example, the character of Romeo does not change.
In both versions he is portrayed in the same melancholic way, with the idea of the four humours and possessing an excess of black bile.In the script, when talking about Romeo, the character of Montague uses the idea of pathetic fallacy various times. Pathetic fallacy is when the weather reflects emotions; it is done quite a lot in films to set the scene well. At many times throughout the play, especially in ‘Tears augmenting the fresh morning dew’, ‘clouds more clouds with his deep sighs’ and ‘the all-cheering sun’ are all examples of pathetic fallacy being used and in the film version we can see these ideas of pathetic fallacy being put into place when we meet the character of Romeo and at various other times.Romeo tends to talk about love a lot, especially in this first scene because he believes he is in love with someone who doesn’t love him back. However, we start to realise as we dig deeper that Romeo is not actually in love at this point; he is just in love with the idea of being in love.
Although, Romeo is baffled by what love actually is and is constantly trying to find an answer to what it is. Shakespeare writes, ‘Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs; being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers’ eyes’. He is using the technique of metaphors to express Romeo’s confusion as he is trying to work it out for himself.Shakespeare has also used various oxymorons to show Romeo’s confusion.
For example, ‘O brawling love! O loving hate! ’ Romeo is questioning is these things can even exist, because he is so confused. Also, the scripted words are still used in the film version, although they have been reorganised to make more sense. They have, in many cases, been given double meanings to fit in with the more recent time period. The storyline has not been changed at all from the original and is still recognisable as being the same play.
In conclusion, there is about the same amount of differences and similarities between the script and the film version because of the fact that the play can be interpreted in various different ways. This makes every different version you watch interesting because, although the basic storyline will be the same, it will have been interpreted in a different way every time and there will always be certain aspects that will remain the same. All of this can be revealed just by looking at and analysing one small section of the play.
