Looking for a difference in two adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

Essay instructions-Identify one difference between two adaptations of Romeo and Juliet. Then write a thesis-driven essay about the difference the difference makes.

Perspectives on Romeo and Juliet
The play Romeo & Juliet by William Shakespeare is a play that has a clear visual on what each scene is played out. How ever there are a couple of parts with one scene where any reader has to create what is being done or acted out in those parts. With any play that is created into a movie there is room for interpretation, more than just the two parts of one scene. This play has been adapted into numerous movies of the more recent past. Two specifically are Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet adaptation made in 1968 and Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Julietadaptation made in 1996. Granted These two adaptations are 28 years apart, both directors follow the play in the use of the language of when it was written. It is the scene, nonverbal language, choreograph (main characters & extras) and personal interpretation.

With each scene there is a title that tells me of the location. In that there come with it a basic visual of the scene that anyone would be able to picture. Then again no real clear or precise scene setting. An example would be from Act 2 scene 2-Capulet's Orchard. Both houses have been introduced and Romeo and Juliet have met at the Capulet's party. By just the title of the scene it is set in the orchard, but of what type and size or even proximity to the house. One can conjecture to think that it is of some fruit tree. To think, due to the time of the play it is not too large in size but large enough to be of use to produce enough fruit for the people who are living in it. Then to think with how the play has been written so far it is close to the main house. In Zeffirelli's adaptation it has trees that are of no real clear type, small and right next to the house. In Luhrmann's there is no orchard since the whole movie is in a modern day city.

Each director has there own interpretation of the scene. For both directors, the use of the language of the play is traditional. One director goes with the idea of setting the play in a city that one would think is the actual city. Then in the other a city that is present day makes for a drastically different feel. This different setting of the whole play leads to each scene having a different feel. Take Act 3, scene 1- A public place, this is of the two fight scene between Tybolt and Mercutio and of Romeo and Tybolt in the second. The scene in starting out, each is set in a public area not specifically a street. One leads to the final fight in a street the other an old theater that s barely recognizable as a theater. This adaptation is clearly shown of what should be similar since it is a scene. To then take the fights of this scene where there is no description of how they are to be acted out. The only thing written in the play is that they fight. This gives the director's free reign on interpretation of how they are to be done. No mention language verbal or nonverbal or choreograph.

The two adaptations are so different that if the language was not the same one could think that they are not both based on the Shakespeare's play. Zefirelli's being more traditional or more closely of when the play was written by using swords and the style of fighting of the time. This idea lead to the first fight being more of a friendly or comical duel of skill that ultimately leads to one of them dying. With the death of the first fight, Romeo seeks revenge and the second fight is a battle to the death. With each fight the choreograph of the sword fighting shows the skill of Tybolt is superior over Mecutio and Romeo. The way Zefirelli finishes the fight. Where Romeo kills Tybolt happens to be of good timing of Romeo. For to him conceal the sword he has under him and stabbing Tybolt at the last second. The fighting could very well been done where the characters where of equal skill. Romeo could have been done where he counters one of Tybolt's moves due to him being tired.

In Luhrmann's modern based adaptation Mecutio, Tybolt and Romeo are more equal in skill. The weapon in use are hand guns and not swords. At close range the difference in skill with aim can be close so for Luhrmann, he would have to choreograph the fights scenes differently. Especially in the second fight between Romeo and Tybolt. To start the fight where there is the car crash. It creates a sense of equal ground for the guys that are to be fighting. By having that sense of equal ground for the fight it also creates a sense of hope for Romeo to be able exact revenge for Mercutio's death. To then go on to show where the fight is give Romeo a justified reason for his action. It truly plays into the open-ended fight.

The time span between these movies has allowed for a new generation of high school or college students to be able to grasp the play. The language is not easy to understand. By creating a movie that is set in a modern time creates a better connection or understanding to the play. The people that where in high school and college at the time of Luhrmann's adaptation had a different environment growing up. So they have a different perspective of things. So Luhrmann's adaptation was perfect for them. Where as Zefirelli"s would be more of a challenge for the people of high school age in the 1990's. This still can be applied to the current high school students who are trying to understand the play.

Each and every one of people will have their own perspective of a play or story because of what we have experienced up to the point at which we read the play. Granted the experience we have maybe shared, there is still other experience that may influence the shared experience. So for either director it is those experience along with personal beliefs that has lead them to the way they made their movies. Each director could have done their version totally different if what they experience or their perspective of things where different.

The way that each director chose to do the choreograph of the characters, setting, music, etc. was their choice and had a good reason. I may not agree with the way they where done but can understand that it made sense to them. The technology in the movie industry has changed in the time between these two adaptations has allowed for Luhrmann to have the ability to do what he did. Today If either director where to remake the movie they have even more advanced technology to work with and may not even do it the same way. The fights scenes would most likely be where the directors would change things up but as to how or where they would set the movie is questionable.

These two adaptations show that a Shakespeare play can be enjoyable. We all have different thing we would like to have done in a movie. So by having these two adaptations, it allows for people enjoy a Shakespeare play. Shakespeare's plays to some are a challenge to understand. So with these different adaptations it can make the play understandable. Take time to find and enjoy a good adaptation of Shakespeare's plays. I am sure going to do so.

Let's eliminate the redundancy here.. just write:
Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare is a play...

When I read the first paragraph, I can't figure out the main idea you are expressing. I think it is not necessary to tell the reader the play has clear visual portrayals of the action. It's okay to just say what you intend to say: How ever there are Some parts of "Romeo and Juliet" make it necessary for the reader to do some interpretation.

It's okay to simply say it that way. The reader will understand what you mean.

I may not agree with the way they where were done but can understand that it made sense to them.

When you write your final draft, challenge your self to end the first paragraph with a sentence telling the main idea of the whole paper (in 1 sentence).

Also, begin paragraph 2 with a sentence explaining an important reason why the main idea/message of the whole paper is a strong, true idea.