Shakespeare\'s Play, Romeo Juliet, Film Version: Note

¶ … Shakespeare's play, Romeo Juliet, film version: note defend effective ineffective. Do unknown young actors, Leonard Whiting Olivia Hussey, opposed recognizable stars, made film appealing? Please explain

Although some might be inclined to believe that it is impossible to compare two works of art because they should each be analyzed from different points-of-view, it is only safe to consider that William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet needs to be compared with the film that was inspired from it. One of the first things that the director needed to take into account was that the play that he wanted to screen contained a particularly powerful storyline and the actors thus needed to be prepared to express its full intensity. Franco Zeffirelli decided to cut some of the play's major parts and in spite of the fact that he created a less dramatic piece he managed to create a motion picture that was successful in instilling inspiration into more recent generations.

The moment when the couple gets married is essential in the play because of the seriousness associated with it. However, its equivalent in the film is less impressive because the actors employ less genuineness at this point. This demonstrates that Zeffirelli actually wanted the two to appear as inexperienced adolescents who were not completely aware of what they were doing. Rosaline is not present in the film and this makes it difficult for viewers to understand the reason for Romeo's initial reason to be upset. The fact that Zeffirelli did not show the two families reconciling at the end of the film contributes to the overall graveness of the storyline. This contrasts Shakespeare's ending and makes the play feel less happy, especially considering that it is essentially meant to put across a dramatic occurrence.

Whiting and Hussey were right as the film's protagonists, considering that most viewers were already acquainted with the storyline and that they primarily wanted to see its screen version.

2. There are not a lot of differences between Tennessee Wiliams' play "A Streetcar Named Desire" and Elia Kazan's film with the same name, but one is likely to observe a few subtle changes that add to the overall message that the storyline is meant to put across.

The opening scene in the film shows Blanche with streetcars, most probably in an attempt to demonstrate that the women found it difficult to adjust in the city. Furthermore, the moment when Blanche is trying to stall the newspaper boy with the purpose of kissing him is shown as being particularly enjoyable for the individual while the play presents him as being scared. In spite of the fact that Kazan was able to reproduce most scenes in the play, she apparently had trouble displaying concepts that were taboo at the time. The director shows Blanche expressing disgust with regard to the fact that her husband is a poet instead of doing so because of his homosexuality. The music in the film is essential in emphasizing certain feelings experienced by the characters and it is obvious that Kazan used it with this purpose, as she most probably acknowledged that the storyline needed the right music at the right moments in order for it to captivate audiences.

Kazan used two of the most influential actors in Hollywood during the 1950s and this reflected on the fact that the film was a success. People were virtually inclined to appreciate the film solely because they considered Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando to be two of the most important actors in the world at the time. In spite of Brando's later recognition, he was considered to be less significant during the era and this is reflected by the fact that he is credited after Leigh in the film's ending. The fact that Leigh was from London most probably assisted her in identifying with the character that she was playing, as she needed to feel like individuals around her considered her to be a stranger.