Love Is All There Is English Literature Essay

Romeo and Juliet was Shakespeares 2nd tragedy drama written between the old ages of 1594 and 1596. The focal point throughout the drama is a domestic calamity that involves the destiny of two lovers which ultimatelyleads to their deceases. This is arguably one of Shakespeares most celebrated calamities and has been adapted into both movies and telecasting programmes. However, the most recent version is Romeo and Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann and is described as both a ‘fascinating modern reading of 16th century play ‘ and a ‘shakespearean piece gone incorrect ‘ .

H.R Coursen describes the procedure of version between Shakespeares play Romeo and Juliet and Baz Luhrmanns movie as being portion of a ‘melodramatic unconventional procedure ‘ that reflects a more ‘inner adulthood and strength of character ‘ . Coursen holds a position that the version is ‘marvellous ‘ and brings Shakespeare into modern twenty-four hours life. He besides states that Luhrmann slightly downplays the function of destiny within the narrative utilizing a different technique to the original of flashbacks and flashforwards, this suggests sarcasm within the play/film that what was done could hold been changed. Harmonizing to Coursen, Luhrmanns movie is described as ‘post mortem collage ‘ in that it pays ‘homage to Shakespearean plants ‘ for illustration, the rundown town within the movie is called The Globe, and the merchandiser of Verona beach. Coursen states the scene within the version is an of import factor as it has been ‘cleverly fitted to accommodate the modern twenty-four hours Shakespeare with a turn ‘ . An illustration of this can be seen at the really beginning of the version, being a telecasting intelligence reader that undertakings prologue from the original book in both voice and text as we are introduced to the scene, Verona beach and the dramatis personae of characters. Therefore connoting to the audience that it is Shakespeare but a ‘modern version ‘ that ‘s appealing to all audiences. Furthermore, Tori E Gibbs supports the position of postmodern version, but his argue differs as he states that it is through the spiritual imagination and puting throughout the modern version that makes it a postmodern collage instead than the indicant of homly Shakespearian factors. Throughout Luhrmanns movie the priest ( Friar Lawrence ) has a tattoo of a cross on his dorsum and it is apparent that spiritual statues such as angels and virgin mary that loom ominously over the action that takes topographic point within the movie. ‘Religious imagination suggests that faith is extremely represented throughout by the pre ponderance of spiritual icons that are unequal in explicating the confusion of postmodern life ‘ .

In add-on David Ansen besides holds the position of Coursen in that ‘ the antic version reflects the strength of the characters and the focal point of their interior adulthood instead than the naivete as in the original ‘ . He states that, their destiny is ever decided throughout the narrative, but their interior modern adulthood gives the audience a ‘fascinating new mentality on the original drama ‘ . He besides states that, Luhrmann is able to incorprete Shakespeares original gags and semblances of historical events into his recent dad civilization, in order to remain, faithful, to the original text, in a linguistic communication sense. He says that the fidelity of utilizing original mentions and linguistic communication can be seen by the fact that both Shakespeare and Luhrmann ‘endeavour to please their audience and besides portray basic ethical motives that are built-in in the original narrative ‘ . In add-on to this, although Ansen praises the cultural simalarities claiming there are certain facets that stay faithful to the original drama, he besides praises and recognises critical differences in which the version has such a scene, costume and props, and thinks these are all an of import positive factor in modernizing the original Shakespeare. This can be seen during act one scene one within the version, here the ‘montague male childs ‘ sail down the expressway in a xanthous convertible, smoke, laughing and draw into a gas station. None of these were ‘conventions that were conceived, or popular during the clip that Romeo or Juliet was written or performed. When the capulet boys show up, the Shakespearian facet of seize with teething 1s pollex is still present within the version. However, as Ansen states the characters are ‘possesed with handguns bearing with the name of the several houses, nevertheless, the exchange of the word blade for handgun ne’er happens and it remains as it is in the original text ‘ demoing to the audience that it is slightly faithful in of import in Shakespearian facets but modernizing other factors.

Whilst being on the topic of alteration ……… argues that Luhrmann ‘s version is one of the ‘best Shakespearian version, ‘ with differences that non merely catch the audiences ears as Shakespeare intended but alwso their eyes. He argues that no pretence of English or Italian linguistic communication or speech patterns for that affair, that would suit to the original seting were involved. He argues that this is a good thing as ‘when Shakespeare wrote these dramas they were written for an speech pattern that was much more American souind, and when you do Shakespeare with an American speech pattern it makes it really strong, really alive. ‘

Whilst Coursen, Gibbs, Ansen and …….. statements are launded with congratulations, this position is broken by much unfavorable judgment of the moderinised version by Graham Holderness and James. R. Keller.

The Southern Cross of Kellers statement against the version holds the opposite position of the positive statement of Gibbs who states ‘Baz Luhrmann ‘s set Romeo and Juliet in a slightly created universe, a montage of both modern and classical images and besides engineering and pop civilization. ‘ Even though he does non differ with this position, he states that it is non and can non be seen as a positive as [ pect of a Shakespearian version. Keller thinks this is a negative thing as ‘Juliet and besides Romeo, endered the Centre of a littered universe of packs and dysfunctional households, in which the adapted Verona Beach creates an opaque montage that is nonmeaningful in human experience and emotion. ‘ It is seen every bit negative as the two immature lovers are angry and slightly rebellious against the universe around them, experiencing nil but resentment and hatred towards their society. He holds the position that ‘the version is a slightly bad and distorted reading on linguistic communication and the4 beauty of Shakespeares work. ‘

Graham besides states that he is against the version and holds the negative position upoin the version. Sing the ‘moderinised western Romeo and Juliet as turning a beautiful love narrative into a violent, aggressive and homicidal version. ‘ His position is that it gives out the incorrect feeling to its intended audience. He states on an educational degree it appears to be the younger coevals that will be interested in the new noderinised version and the fact that the dramatis personae within the movie is highly immature which makes it debatable. The blood, force, harlotry, nakedness, pack related deceases and auto assults that tak topographic point within the version are giving ouit the incorrect feeling to the younger coevals of today. He realates his statement and the version as being a cause of force and slayings that happen within todays society. ‘if teenages are made to watch versions such as this and larn them off by bosom for tests it gives some the feeling that factors such as pack maltreatment and auto assaults are all right to perpetrate. ‘ He besides states that the scene is a bad thing unlike Coursen and Gibbs as the backgrounds hold largely hoardings that advertise spirits, drugs and coffin nails. ‘ Again giving ouit the feeling tgo a immature audience that is ot correct. Many critics disagree with this position such as Taylor and …… as they believe that it is a modwerinisation of a sixteenth century love narrative and the purpose is none of the above but merely to guarantee that ‘Shakespeare stays popular. ‘

In decision, there are more than a thoudand words to depict the diverseness of the original drama and the Luhrmanns modern version. In my position there is traveling to be a monolithic diverseness between the two, and the major alterations as the universe has changed over and over since the Shakespearean epoch. Despite this, it stands clear that whether sentiments are good or bad, both versions tell the same narrative in two different ways that are able to acquire the societal ethical motives across to the audience. Traditionalists such as Graham will evidently be more compelled to maintain Shakespeares original drama alive, whereas Luhrams modernised movie will whisk people away that enjoy alteration and want to bask his disbutable endowment. However all differences and simalarities aside, there is a common yarn that still ties them together and that is the narrative of the true love and calamity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *