Romeo and Juliet - a Film by Baz Luhrmann

Romeo and Juliet. What?! Just let me take a deep breath. Am I dreaming or are my senses getting mixed up? A fourteen year old boy, standing at the entrance to the cinema, grabbing ticket in one hand and in the other, extra-large bucket of salty popcorn known to modern society as butcher of steady blood pressure - I would say it's a common natural phenomenon. But a ticket for Romeo and Juliet written by William Shakespeare about 400 years ago! I don't think so. However, first impressions are often misleading.

The adaptation by Baz Luhrmann was somehow different. It was appealing to teenagers. He wanted to spread the word about Shakespeare to a younger generation. He wanted them to identify word 'Shakespeare' not as boredom but as a thrilling journey into Renaissance England where everything is possible. By challenging his directorial skills, he chose a very demanding as well as stereotypical target audience. An audience, who would never forgive any mistakes. An audience, who would never think about going to cinema to watch Shakespeare's love story. An audience, who would leave the room at any point where film doesn't deliver entertainment. These people were able to seriously freeze his career for a couple of years.

Aware of the risks involved with his project, he took a gamble and yet he was successful. The question now is: How the hell did he do it?

At the beginning he puts forward a short summary of a film called prologue, which is very unusual for modern, cash-loaded film industry. A prologue was used ages ago in ancient Greece, for goodness' sake - not now! So, why he didn't stick to the status quo?

Dead simple. His vision was to create a 'tasty' sample of a two hours tale about 'star cross'd lovers' as well as sense of anticipation which will accompany us straight away from the opening scene. It all looks very well on paper but how exactly did he mange to pull off an exciting prologue?

Frankly speaking, I think use of mis-en-scene at the very beginning of film is spot on. The director wants to inform audience about events which are going to occur later on. By using a standard TV news format as an establishing shot, it clearly lets the teenage viewers to realise that they are about to hear information which are worth paying attention to. Something what they need to remember. And yet it is all subliminal.

The news reader's voice creates a strange, positive mood. Usually, when watching a film, you are just a spectator who can turn off himself at any time because the plot does not refer to you personally. But here, the roles are swapped. The audience becomes involved in the creation of the film. They are the ones to whom the actor is addressing her words. Now you cannot simply stop following the film. The pressure applied on audience makes it unable to do not think about the message from the prologue. Hence losing interest is quite impossible.

Other good aspect of mis-en-scene is use of camera zoom. As the news speech is gradually getting to the end, the camera zoom increases. It makes feel audience that every second they see a clearer 'picture' even if they do not understand fully the particular passage. And here the controversy arises. Baz Luhrmann is using an original Shakespeare's script which is nearly unmodified. How on earth is a teenager going to understand Elizabethan language? However, the Australian director has an ace up one's sleeve.

One is called placard and the other caption. Both are immensely important to the Luhrmann's arsenal. Without them, this film would be a total disaster. Their aim is to backup images and voice over as well as explaining and clarifying the message.

After the finish of short speech from the news reader, the whole mis-en-scene changes. The prologue is shown once more but in a completely different manner. Suddenly, there is non-diegetic music, iconography, aerial shots, montage.

In this case use of these devices is an evidence of true craftsmanship. In the second part of prologue he is using newspaper headings very wisely to help the audience in understanding the voice over. It makes the film much more accessible for younger generation but it also creates sense of excitement. After all, few of them are front pages from magazines' parodies. For example, name 'Time' is changed into 'Timely'. Bravo, Mr Luhrmann!

Another interesting aspect of the prologue is non-diegetic sounds. At the beginning of the second part, very rare choral music is being played. In my opinion it really builds up to the tension and makes the atmosphere very nervous. It might be also considered as a little bit scary for a few members of audience. However, the crescendo at the end eases off gently all the 'pains' and you instantly forget all the bad aspects about the music.

Iconography. What would I do without you? It is the same with Romeo and Juliet prologue. No iconography, no wit. No wit, no profit. Baz Luhrmann knew this simple truth and took care of every detail. Through the whole prologue the statue of Christ appears very often on the screen. By this the director wants to show the importance of religion 'in fair Verona where we lay our scene'. The use of statute indicates that it is a very strong power. But the symbol could be double-interpreted. As the plot is set in a big city with high percent of crime and districts controlled by different youth gangs, it is very appealing to teenage boys. They like weapons and stories about brave men not necessary on the right side of the law. There is a thought which do struck every viewer: Where is the real setting of the film? Or there is a 'model' city?

If you think carefully you would probably associate the statute of Christ with Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Baz Luhrmann puts forward a very interesting matching symbol because some of the problems of the characters are actually present in South America at quite big scale. And this topic could be better known to young people.

However, every plan has a floor. According to this saying, it should be the same with Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet adaptation. And it is.

The montage. Oh, yes. In my opinion it has a devastating effect on the prologue. The director tried to compress too much information into such a small time scale - definitely way too small. It creates sense of confusion which could possibly lead to the loss of a part of the audience. And let's remember - it is very hard to regain it later on. If I would direct this prologue, I would sacrifice much more time to deliver the same message more punchy rather than a short glimpse.