The environment surrounding the star-crossed lovers in the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet can influence audiences who may interpret the scenes in different ways. The audience can be greatly affected in their interpretation of the story by the mise-en-scene, costuming, and the hidden symbolic meaning. This great piece of literature was edited in two unique and intriguing forms, one Zeferelli directed which was filmed in 1968, and the modern version produced in 1996. The different scenes throughout the length of the party were the most influential to me in that I saw how different these movies were directed, and the different meaning I experienced from watching these movies. Focusing on the environment of the scenes and the costuming helped me in my interpretation, because I found hidden symbolism from these two qualities.
In the 1996 film version of Romeo and Juliet, the interior and exterior designing of the palace helped create certain symbolism. An exhilarating explosion of fireworks in the sky helped recapture an intense party scene. Beautiful colors were reflected throughout the scene. These different rays of colors were reflected in the faces of the actors and actresses. Music was also used to intensify this scene. The song "Young Hearts Run Free" was appropriate, because it produced an irony of how Romeo and Juliet would meet that night. The exterior of the Capulet's palace was intensified by red banners that hung down from the windows. White lights which strung along the palm trees showed an elegance. The interior designing of the house focused on an enormous staircase, and in the background the walls were painted red. The frames hung on the wall were outlined with gold trim, and there were two unusual gold statues by the staircase, that were half man and half fish.
The director's choice of lighting and music helped to create an actual party scene with the liveliness it brought. The explosion of fireworks in the sky could have been interpreted as an explosion of lust that would occur later on between Romeo and Juliet. Also I found that the use of fireworks in the sky emphasized the stars, and Romeo and Juliet were star crossed lovers of their time. The coloring of reds and gold helped make the Capulet house outstanding and showed the audience royalty and richness. The statues that were on each side of the staircase representing half man and half fish were showing the controversy of how a man is torn from being masculine, to being put in the direction of femininity or romanticism.
There were many ways the people spent their time. They did lots of things like going to the movies, playing board games, or listening to the radio all for free.(Reinhardt n. pag.) in 1940 rain was better and the federal government programs had electricity going to the house to make life a lot easier (Reinhardt n. pag.)
Baz Lurhmann’s creation of the film Romeo and Juliet has shown that today’s audience can still understand and appreciate William Shakespeare. Typically, when a modern audience think of Shakespeare, they immediately think it will be boring, yet Lurhmann successfully rejuvenates Romeo and Juliet. In his film production he uses a number of different cinematic techniques, costumes and a formidably enjoyable soundtrack; yet changes not one word from Shakespeare’s original play, thus making it appeal to a modern audience.
“The most filmed of all plays, ‘Romeo and Juliet’, with its universal themes… remains uniquely adaptable for any time period,” (Botnick, 2002). Directors Franco Zeffirelli (1968) and Baz Luhrman (1996) provide examples of the plays adaption to suit the teenage generation of their time. Identifying the key elements of each version: the directors intentions, time/place, pace, symbols, language and human context is one way to clearly show how each director clearly reaches their target audience. Overall however Luhrman’s adaptation would be more effective for capturing the teenage audience.
The Ways that Shakespeare Makes Act 1 Scene 5 of Romeo and Juliet Dramatically Effective
Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, is a tragic love story about two young lovers who are forced to be estranged as a result of their feuding families. The play is about their struggle to contravene fate and create a future together. As such, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood would try and emulate Shakespeare’s masterpiece. This had been done before in many films. Prominent among them were, Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 “Romeo and Juliet” and Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 “William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.” Both films stay true to the themes of Shakespeare’s original play. However, the modernised Luhrmann film not only maintains the essence of Shakespeare’s writings, Luhrmann makes it relevant to a teenage audience. This is done through the renewal of props and costumes, the reconstruction of the prologue and the upgrading of the setting, whilst preserving the original Shakespearean language. Out of the two, it is Luhrmann who targets Romeo & Juliet to a younger audience to a much larger extent than Zeffirelli.
How Baz Luhrmann Uses Props, Iconography, Costumes, and Settings to Create His Own Version of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet William Shakespeare’s best loved tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, has been portrayed in theatres and on film in many different ways. But none have been quite like Baz Luhrmann’s imaginative and unconventional adaptation. He has brought aspects of the plays Elizabethan origins and transfused them with a modern day background and created, what can only be described as a masterpiece. I believe that his use of Props, iconography costumes and the settings he has chosen has helped him to make this film such a great success. The settings of each scene have been specifically chosen to create a desired affect.
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
Capital punishment has long been a topic for heated debate throughout the United States of America and the civilized world. For many politicians, the death penalty has been a key pillar to winning a state or election; and, to some extent, politics have been a key influence in America’s justice system. Many nations have outlawed capital punishment, with the United States included between 1972 and 1976. In the United States, there has been a renewed movement for this “eye for an eye” method, citing such arguments as “deterrence” and “victims’ rights.” This movement begs a single question – is there any economical, legal, or statistical support for the ultimate punishment? This article will strive to answer that question by evaluating several key issues (be they supporting or otherwise) concerning capital punishment – the legitimacy of ‘deterrence,’ the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, and the cost associated with putting a man to death in relation to the cost associated with life imprisonment.
Analysis of the First Scene of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare William Shakespeare is a famous play writer from the 1500’s. Most of
“The Death Penalty in America: A Cultural and Historical Analysis.” Supreme Court Debates (2004): pp. 259-288.
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.
Pasquerella, Lynn. “The Death Penalty in the United States.” The Study Circle Resource Center of Topsfield Foundation. July 1991. Topsfield Foundation. 03 Feb 2011. Web.
"In U.S., Support for Death Penalty Falls to 39-Year Low." Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management. 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2011
For years now the Americans have debated over the issue of capital punishment. Many people believe that it no longer serves out its intended purpose of deterring crime. Others believe that the death penalty is an inhumane act of violence and that it should be banished from the justice system all together. The thought of playing God also is another aspect of the situation. Despite these allegations however, the facts still remain. The death penalty deters crime, stops repeat offenders, and gives Americans a real sense that justice has been served, and should therefore remain legal and in practice.
6. Kieter, Richard. “On the Front Line: Law enforcement views on the Death Penalty.” Feb. 1995. http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r03.html (5 Feb. 1999).