Everyday there is something that one must interpret whether it is a book, movie, or even the news. One must come to one’s own conclusion about the information they are interpreting. For instance movies are mostly easier to understand then books though the plots may have slight differences. In the 1996 movie “The Tragedy Of Romeo and Juliet” by Baz Luhrman, there are some major differences between his version and the book “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare. One of the major differences is that the book takes place in the seventeen hundreds in Verona, while the movie takes place in the late twentieth century still in Verona. This difference makes the movie to appear of a rather young intellect due to the fact that the movie uses the same language as the book. It seems out of place. Another major difference is the role of friar Lawrence. In the book the friar had a part of great importance yet in the movie his importance does diminish some. One more major difference is the Capulet’s tomb. In the book the tomb was said to be dark and dingy. Though in the movie the tomb appeared to be a beautiful almost church like cathedral the tomb had many candles around where Juliet laid. Also she does not lie in a coffin but in a beautiful bed that is encompassed by white sheets. Perhaps the most important difference between the book and the movie is the final scene. In the book the final scene is when Romeo kills Paris and then enters Capulet’s tomb. When in the tomb Romeo drinks the poison and dies. However in the movie Romeo does not kill Paris at all. When Romeo arrives at the tomb the police surround him. He takes a priest as a hostage so he won’t be shot. When he enters the tomb he walks to Juliet. This is where the most important difference is. Juliet starts to awaken while Romeo recites his speech.
The characters make a big difference in the movie and the book. One thing they both have in common is that Otis Amber and Berthe Erica Crow get married. And that Edgar Jennings Plum and Angela Wexler get engaged instead of Doctor Denton Deere. Also Jake Wexler is a gambler instead of being a bookie.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
A bold difference that stands out throughout the movie is the different time period. The play takes place in ancient Athens, while one can infer that the movie version takes place sometime
Romeo and Juliet is about purity. That´s what Romeo and Juliet are, a story of two young teenagers, against odds, falling in love in an absolutely beautiful way. The 1996 version ruins this purity by having the two lovers die in front of each other. It takes away the feel of originality. The play didn't need extra drama, and neither should the movies. The story line involves, the non adulation of two rebellious youth who decided to fall into a perfect world. Their death is suppose to be a tragic tale, in which fate killed them. This story doesn't need the excess drama of Romeo and Juliet dying in each other's
The tragedy, “Romeo and Juliet” was originally a play created by William Shakespeare, one of many world famous plays by the same. This play has been converted into its intended style many times in the past, the earliest version in 1968 was directed by Franco Zeffirelli, the latest film in 1996 by Baz Luhrmann. The latter is quite modern and only occassionally uses the words of Shakespeare. On the contrary, the older version was very traditional, and almost completely stuck to the original script. In this essay, I will compare the modern day film to the traditional version of the tragic play, “Romeo and Juliet.
One possible answer is the largest difference between the two narratives: setting. The film is
One of the most celebrated plays in history, “Romeo and Juliet”, was written by William Shakespeare in the late 16th century. It is a story about two lovers that have to meet in secret because of an ongoing family feud. Tragically, because of their forbidden love Romeo and Juliet take their lives so they can be together. In 1997, a movie was adapted from the play “Romeo and Juliet”, directed by Baz Lurhmann. However, as alike as the movie and the play are, they are also relatively different.
There is other little differences that I noticed added to the story that were in the movie and not the play. There are several scenes where Mother superior is interacting with Sister Veronica. Because of some of these scenes you see another side of Sister Aloysius that presents a more compassionate lady not so wrapped up in doubt. Although Sister Aloysius comes off as a strict woman that really has no sympathy for anyone or anything, which kind of makes you question how the heck she ended up as a nun. In the movie you can clearly see that she has a softer side and actually is hiding behind that tough façade she puts up.
One of the most obvious changes being in that the book is understandably vastly wordy in comparison to the film, which is wordless at points, and deeply internal. The novel takes place almost completely inside the characters heads, which turn out to be overly complex and complicated, which was understandably one of the hardest elements to convert to the screen. What the novel depicts through long sentences, paragraphs, and long scenes, the film concludes in one angry stare or longing glance – showing the audience what a certain character is thinking, and how they may behave as the story continues. It takes the reader some time to ease into McEwan's complex structural pattern and slow, considered pacing. The film on the other hand, with its extended silent pauses, excess dialogue, and striking images, make it more accessible.
On the other hand there were some errors and flaws in comparison to the play and the movie. In the movie they changed a few things with the plot ,some examples were: some of the conversations in the play took place inside but in the movie they were outside, also Giles Corey and Martha Corey weren't hanging out at Proctors home while talking about all of this.
The 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version of Shakespeare’s play, set in the Renaissance era of the 17th century, seems to be more of a better portrayed version than that of the 1996 Baz Luhrmann version, set in a more modern time of the 20th century. The Baz Luhrmann version of the play seems to be a lot more contempory than the older version. The way that Baz has cast the movie first of all gives the impression that this particular version of Romeo & Juliet is going to be very modernised than that of the Franco Zeffirelli version. The casting includes Leonardo De Caprio, and Clair Danes, both of which are not very suitable for the roles of Romeo & Juliet, as they give a more 21st century feel to the film than the casting of the Franco ...
What was better; the book or the movie? That is a question that is asked about movies based off a story. However, in the two movies based off Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” they have introduced two different and unique representations of this legendary tragedy. One of the films perspectives is set in modern day, yet at the same time it keeps the original script used for the play. Likewise, the film from the 1980’s still keeps to the true version of Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare wrote it. Even though the movies were sensational, the original work by Shakespeare was more superior to the others.
One major difference in the movie that was not in the book was the starting scene of the movie was set in the moor with Sir Charles being attacked by the Hound. In the book the starting scene was when Watson and Holmes had just found a walking stick that had the initials C.C.H. on it. I think that the movie starting scene was more informative because it let you know about what was happening and it also gave some more suspense to the film.
The films setting gives more of an idealistic tone to the imagery that helps the setting unfold itself in each scene compared to the book but the books setting has more figurative language and lets the readers imagine the setting as they read which gives the book a different tone. Both the book and the film use a great description for the setting which allows the reader to either imagine the settings as they please or to look at straight from the scene.
After having read the play and seen the movie I am struck by a number of differences. Seemingly subtle, many small details have a great impact on how the story can and is being perceived. The movie offers much more background information on other characters and events that are important to the story.