A Comparison Of Luhrmans and Zeffirellis film Versions Of Romeo And Juliet Essays

A Comparison Of Luhrmans and Zeffirellis film Versions Of Romeo And Juliet Essays A Comparison Of Luhrmans and Zeffirellis film Versions Of Romeo And Juliet Essay A Comparison Of Luhrmans and Zeffirellis film Versions Of Romeo And Juliet Essay Essay Topic: To Build a Fire I am comparing Franco Zeffirellis version of Romeo and Juliet, which was produced in 1968 and has won several academy awards. One critic stated His film has become the definitive version in high school classrooms across the country.I am also reviewing Baz Luhrmans Romeo + Juliet. This was produced in 1995. What can you say about a version of Shakespeare that ends with a helicopter chase? As you would imagine it is a much more modern version than Zeffirellis. I am going to review 2 parts of each of the films and try and come to a conclusion to show which is better and why. The scenes I will be reviewing are the opening scenes and the party scenes.Both films are based on Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet but each portrays the play in a completely different way. Zeffirellis version was rated a PG although there are scenes including nudity. Luhrmans was rated a 12. I imagine this is because so of the violence throughout and the fact that guns were often used and scene s such as Mercutios death scene which is gory and gruesome.Luhrmans opening scene starts with a television in the middle of the screen. The television is showing a black American woman saying the original Shakespeare prologue as if it was a news report. As the camera zooms in the audience can see in the background there is a broken ring with Star Crossed Lovers below it. The dialogue is fast and quite a high tone. A narrator then repeats the prologue. This time the voice is a deeper tone and slightly slower. It is spoken in a way that is slightly threatening and hints at the fact there will be evil in the film.As the scene moves on there is also text on the screen as the prologue is being read. It is certain parts of the prologue such as A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life which really emphasises certain things that become a lot more obvious in the play. The characters also appear on screen with their name next to them. There is also text to tell the audience how each char acter is related to either Romeo or Juliet. The camera is constantly panning from side to side. As soon as you see the title you get a hint of religion and race from the cross between Romeo and Juliet. The same cross also appears on the screen when the words Take Their Lives. The T on Take is shown as a cross, which again emphasises the religion and race throughout the film.The camera zooms in on a crowded city, gradually slowing down and flowing into quick flashes of important parts of the play across the screen, making a big montage of hint giving shots. In the background is some very dramatic, loud, and exciting music as shots of flames, chaos, helicopters, fireworks, police, and guns shoot onto screen. There are also shots of two tall office buildings, one with Montague on it and the other with Capulet on it and shots of newspaper articles with titles such as Capulat vs. Montague and Star crossed lovers.The shots of the buildings and newspapers are an extremely strong hint of co nflict between Capulet and Montague and a story of love and hate. Each frame lasts less than a second. This fast editing and use of dramatic music really gets your heart beating and makes you want to watch on and find out why all these images were included in the opening scene. Luhrman also uses bright lighting to really get the film going. The images show that there is going to be police involved and the flames and the chaos hint at some traumatic events. The fireworks also hint at the fact there may be a party and that it is going to be a lively and exiting film.Zeffirellis opening scene is very different from Luhrmans. It starts with a male narrator speaking slowly at a constant tone with little emotion in his voice. The words spoken are exactly the same as Shakespeares original prologue. The dialogue sounds quite sad and romantic, which gives a hint of romance in the film. The camera is paused on a birds eye view of a foggy village. There is lots of natural light as the sun slow ly breaks through the fog. The camera editing is much slower than Luhrmans.It then breaks into a long shot of the historic looking city with slow classical music in the background. The music has no lyrics and hints at a romantic film. The city looks very old and historic. This gives the impression of how a city would have looked in Shakespeares time. Unlike Luhrmans, Zeffirellis has no sound effects or people in the opening scene. The lighting is also a lot dimmer and less modern than Luhrmans. The text in Zeffirellis is in an old fashioned style and it just states the name of the play and characters. This has a much lesser effect than Luhrmans text does.The camera shots are a lot longer and therefore show a slow, romantic, and love filled film. The slow constant tone of the narrator and slow editing techniques are a lot less exciting and intriguing than Luhrmans.Both Luhrmans and Zeffirellis techniques are used throughout each of their films, each giving a strong impression of the directors style.Luhrmans party scene, like his opening scene is modern, bright, loud, and very entertaining with use of fast editing mixed with slow, long shots and fast modern music.The party scene starts with a big display of fireworks that gets the audiences attention and shows them that the scene to come is going to be lively and entertaining. It then moves on to quick moving party lights flashing throughout the Capulets house. Then we see Mercutio, in the middle of some huge stairs, dressed in womens clothes. Dancers surround him and loud party music is playing in the background. This shows modernism in the film. Zeffirelli wouldnt have dreamt of putting this in his film. Purely because peoples attitudes to sexuality, cross-dressing etc. has changed a lot since 1968. The carpet on the stairs is bright purple and there are bits of strong reds all around the room. Again, this is one of the many things that makes this film modern and relates it to a modern audience.The camera is c onstantly closing in on Romeo and then quickly panning to a close up of Juliet, showing their facial expressions and hinting at their feelings. The camera is mainly level with the actors heads. This makes the audience feel as if they were in the room with the characters.The party is set in a big house with large, bright stairs in the centre of the back wall. The room where the characters are dancing is brightly decorated with flowers. There are also lots of mirrors and a very large window. The mirrors and decoration show that the Capulets are wealthy. The characters are wearing shiny, brightly coloured, modern outfits. It is actually fancy dress. Juliet is dressed as a fairy, which shows she is a soft, caring, and loving character.The music in the background is slow and repetitive. It is by Desiray, which are a modern group and is perfect music to show love in the film because the lyrics state about love. The music pauses and the camera stays in a fixed position when Romeo and Julie t stop and stare at each other. This shows strongly the fact that something significant is going to happen between the two characters.The lighting in Luhrmans party scene is extremely technical. There are spotlights, spinning lights, neon lights, and fairground lights. Each one giving its own effect. The spotlight highlights Mercutio when he is dancing. There are also fireworks going on outside the house, which give the setting a more romantic feel.Overall Luhrmans party scene is a lot different to Zeffirellis because it is more lively, modern and wild. In Luhrmans the audience see passionate kissing, excessive drinking and hints of drug use. This plays a big part in relating the play to a modern audience.Again, Zeffirellis party scene is very different from Luhrmans. It is a lot more traditional and historic. The whole scene is much slower and more romantic than Luhrmans.In Zeffirellis there is a lot of singing. Especially near the end. Like Luhrmans there are a lot of close ups on Romeo and Juliet and the camera is at the same level as the characters heads. This, again, makes the audience feel more like they are at the party. The editing is a lot slower than Luhrmans and the shots tend to be a lot longer, giving the audience a sense of love. There are a few faster scenes to highlight the conflict between the Capulets and the Montagues.Like Luhrmans the party is set in a big mansion that had big stone walls and huge stone pillars. The pillars give focal points for the party. There are beautiful mosaics on the floor. Towards the end of the scene a man is singing with a circle of people around him. He is stood in the centre of one of the mosaics and it, again, gives a sense of love and romance. This is also given by the fact that there are lots of large candles spread around the roomThe characters are all wearing old costumes to represent Shakespeares time and all the men are wearing hats. Romeo is wearing a mask so that the Capulets will not see that he is a M ontague. The colours are all quite soft and more elegant than in Luhrmans. All the Montagues are wearing dark colours and all the guests at the party are wearing soft oranges and crà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½mes. This is a sneaky little hint of conflict between the two households. That hint is needed in this scene because the audience could forget about the conflict because both households are at the same party.The music is mostly slow but when there is a long shot of the guests dancing the music becomes a lot faster and livelier. This change gets the full attention of the audience. There are no sound effects in Zeffirellis party scene.The lighting in the scene is a lot more modest than in Luhrmans but still creates good images and hints at important things. One of the walls of the castle has a blue light shone onto it and it really gives a calm, relaxed atmosphere. Instead of having a spot light like in Luhrmans, Zeffirelli has used the natural light from outside the window to shine on the man si nging. This again shows love and romance and still keeps the film as if it were set in Shakespearian times.After having seen both versions of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet I think that each film was made for a very different reason. I think that Zeffirellis film was made to be as accurate to the original as possible but I think that Luhrman wanted to modernise the play for a modern audience. I think both directors achieved this.Zeffirellis version was much more about love, romance, and conflict between two families. He made the audience feel this by constantly using slow camera techniques and classical music with modest lighting. He also gave lots of hints about the conflict such as using different costumes for the Capulets and Montagues. Zeffirelli also made his film as much like the original as possible. He did this by using settings, lighting, music and costume that would have been around in Shakespeares day. He didnt use many modern effects because these would not have been avai lable when Shakespeare wrote his play.Luhrmans film was a lot more modern. He has turned a historic play into a modern film for the people of today. His fast editing and constantly panning camera angles along with his fantastic sound and visual effects made this film an amazing version of a fantastic play. He modernises the play so well by doing things such as making the character Paris into Dave Paris and Prince into Captain Prince. He uses guns instead of swords, which not only modernises the film but also makes it a lot more interesting and fast moving. A sword-fighting scene could go on forever but by using guns the fight is over with one shot.I think that the only things these films have in common are their titles and the language used in them and even that is spoken in completely different ways.I think that Luhrmans film is a lot better than Zeffirellis purely because I can relate to it. Its modernisation makes it fast and exciting. It is a completely enjoyable film and I woul d certainly recommend it.

Definition and examples of Alphabet

Definition and examples of Alphabet An alphabet is made up of the letters of a language, arranged in the order fixed by custom. Adjective: alphabetic. The basic principle of alphabetic writing is to represent a single sound (or phoneme) of a spoken language by a single letter. But as Johanna Drucker notes in The Alphabetic Labyrinth (1995), This phonetic writing system is at best an approximation. The orthography of English, for instance, is notoriously plagued by inconsistencies and peculiarities. The First Alphabet In about 1500 B.C., the worlds first alphabet appeared among the Semites in Canaan. It featured a limited number of abstract symbols (at one point thirty-two, later reduced to twenty-two) out of which most of the sounds of speech could be represented. The Old Testament was written in a version of this alphabet. All the worlds alphabets descend from it. After the Phoenicians (or early Canaanites) brought the Semitic alphabet to Greece, an addition was made that allowed the sounds of speech to be represented less ambiguously: vowels. The oldest surviving example of the Greek alphabet dates from about 750 B.C. This is, via Latin and give or take a few letters or accents, the alphabet in which this book is written. It has never been improved upon. (Mitchell Stephens, The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word. Oxford University Press, 1998) The Greek Alphabet [T]he Greek alphabet was the first whose letters recorded every significant sound element in a spoken language in a one-to-one correspondence, give or take a few diphthongs. In ancient Greece, if you knew how to pronounce a word, you knew how to spell it, and you could sound out almost any word you saw, even if youd never heard it before. Children learned to read and write Greek in about three years, somewhat faster than modern children learn English, whose alphabet is more ambiguous. (Caleb Crain, Twilight of the Books. The New Yorker, Dec. 24 31, 2007)The Greek alphabet ... is a piece of explosive technology, revolutionary in its effects on human culture, in a way not precisely shared by any other invention. (Eric Havelock, The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences. Princeton University Press, 1981) While the alphabet is phonetic in nature, this is not true of all other written languages. Writing systems ... may also be logographic, in which case the written sign represents a single word, or ideographic, in which ideas or concepts are represented directly in the form of glyphs or characters. (Johanna Drucker, The Alphabetic Labyrinth. Thames, 1995) Two Alphabets English has had two different alphabets. Prior to the Christianization of England, the little writing that was done in English was in an alphabet called the futhore or runic alphabet. The futhore was originally developed by Germanic tribes on the Continent and probably was based on Etruscan or early Italic versions of the Greek alphabet. Its association with magic is suggested by its name, the runic alphabet, and the term used to designate a character or letter, rune. In Old English, the word run meant not only runic character, but also mystery, secret.As a by-product of the Christianization of England in the sixth and seventh centuries, the English received the Latin alphabet. (C.M. Millward, A Biography of the English Language, 2nd ed. Harcourt Brace, 1996) The Dual Alphabet The dual alphabetthe combination of capital letters and small letters in a single systemis first found in a form of writing named after Emperor Charlemagne (742-814), Carolingian minuscule. It was widely acclaimed for its clarity and attractiveness, and exercised great influence on subsequent handwriting styles throughout Europe. (David Crystal, How Language Works. Overlook, 2005) The Alphabet in an Early English Dictionary If thou be desirous (gentle Reader) rightly and readily to understand, and to profit by this Table, and such like, then thou must learne the Alphabet, to wit, the order of the Letters as they stand, perfectly without book, and where every Letter standeth: as b near the beginning, n about the middest, and t toward the end. (Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabetical, 1604) The Lighter Side of the Alphabet Educational television ... can only lead to unreasonable disappointment when your child discovers that the letters of the alphabet do not leap up out of books and dance around with royal-blue chickens. (Fran Lebowitz) Writers spend three years rearranging 26 letters of the alphabet. Its enough to make you lose your mind day by day. (attributed to Richard Price)Dr. Bob Niedorf: Name as many mammals as you can in 60 seconds. Ready? Go.George Malley: Hmm. 60 seconds. Well, how would you like that? How about alphabetical? Aardvark, baboon, caribou, dolphin, eohippus, fox, gorilla, hyena, ibex, jackal, kangaroo, lion, marmoset, Newfoundland, ocelot, panda, rat, sloth, tiger, unicorn, varmint, whale, yak, zebra. Now varmint is a stretch; so is Newfoundland (thats a dog breed); unicorn is mythical; eohippus is prehistoric. But you werent being very specific, now, were you, Bob?Dr. Bob Niedorf: Well! Ahh, Ill, uhIll try to be more specific.(Brent Spiner and John Travolta, Phenomenon, 1996) EtymologyFrom the Greek,  alpha  Ã‚  beta Pronunciation: AL-fa-BET