Baz Luhrman vs Franco Zeffirelli

[@racheldoesfandom]

Hey Nerds, so if anyone's wondering why the majority of the 1996 film clips are still images, it's because the original vid kept getting slapped with a copyright claim and banned worldwide. Hope this vid is still enjoyable (maybe even enjoyable enough to like, leave a comment and consider subscribing ❤️) Also, sorry for the weird glitch at 1:40!

[@cheyennerose2177]

The 68’ version is so beautiful. I think I was the only one who enjoyed it in school.

[@Magic_4792]

Me too! I had a whole debate with some friends and classmates about ‘96 falling flat on character, especially Juliet

[@Fazil-q5b]

Why didn’t they let u watch the 1997 version

[@gschreckster]

Love the Zeffirelli version!!!!!! It came out when I was in high school. I remember friends buying the 33 1/3 record of the movie and listening to it over and over. It was the version shown to freshman English classes when I was teaching in the 80's and 90's.

[@deniseoates7147]

This was a very good compilation of comparison of the two version of Romeo and Juliet. I prefer the Franco version to be more toward the time period of when the story was supposed to depict. I like the characters better in the 1968 movie, Baz's is so much circus like. See I did notice the background was weathered and authentic looking but did not think that it would have been on the newer side during when this play was placed, I like the location in Italy. The imagining of this 1968 movie was like a renaissance painting. I like they were actually children and acted as a child would as they are transitioning into becoming an adult. The music was excellent and brought the viewer the emotions that were being felt. Thanks for sharing and blessing to you and all in the days to come

[@TinyPple45]

I’m honestly not a Luhrman hater (actually I watched Moulin Rouge as a kid so many times that I can’t help but have a bias for his over-the-top storytelling lol) but the Zeffirelli version is the one that had the 100% needed unapologetic sweet romance that made me ask my mom to put it on “to make fun of it” when I was too embarrassed to be totally into that. I’ll always find it superior tbh🤷‍♀️😂

[@meghandann3284]

Tbh I feel like the chemistry between the characters was so much less in the Luhrman version than in the Zeffirelli version. I believed the characters were in love and enjoyed the story more in Zeffirelli's. Now that you've brought up Juliet's lack of character in Luhrman's version... it makes so much sense why that is.

[@misseli1]

I'm not sure if she was arguing Luhrmann's Juliet lacked character, just that she was more subdued and then became more passionate toward the end of the film. That said, I've yet to watch the 1996 version, so I can't say anything about that adaptation one way or the other

[@JustAPrayer]

To be fair I can see Olivia Hussey’s boldness and recklessness and Claire Danes’s submissiveness and lack of agency as both valid interpretations of Juliet. She’s an impulsive teenager but she’s also being raised by a violent and impulsive family.

[@immstarry7175]

I guess the chemistry was like that because the actors hated eachother behind the scenes

[@theladyprincess]

this is what makes me love moulin rouge over r+j 1996, the chemistry between nicole kidman and ewan mcgregor in MR was ridiculously raw and off the charts whereas leo and claire were just hmm alright. but in terms of romeo & juliet adaptations itself the 1968 version will always be the one for me!

[@trisprior9272]

You have definitely convinced me to watch the Zeffirelli version now.

[@JustAPrayer]

This is fascinating. I love how you contrast Romeo and Juliet in each film. The great thing is they are both equally valid interpretations of the characters in the play.

[@gabrielleandsamuel4073]

This was so great! I love both of these adaptations so much, and it was really interesting to hear your analysis.

[@thae1532]

The 1968 version has really good music

[@Blossom44100]

1968 for me

[@BLINKGreenTeaAddict]

Franco's classic, close-to-original, and beautiful. Baz's modernized and remake.

[@kateealer7]

Oh, man. We had to do a 10,000 word paper comparing and contrasting these two movies over Christmas Break in the eighth grade. Now I could whip that out in half a day, but back than it was pure torture. It was a real Charlie-Brown-has-to-read-War-And-Peace-Over-Christmas-Break (something I did voluntarily to be ironic over sophomore year of college Christmas Break) moment.

[@wednes3day]

Holy yikes .... that is the sort of length of a bachelor or almost master thesis

[@Morrigan71]

I love Baz Luhrmann, and while I did enjoy his version, the chemistry between the two leads and the acting in the ‘68 version is just leagues above the Luhrmann film. I found Danes’ Juliet lifeless and dull, which is not true to the source material at all. That made it difficult to understand why Romeo would even notice her, let alone fall head over heels. The ‘96 version is all icing, but no cake, imo.

[@aaliyabamboowala1665]

Thank you for this excellent comparative analysis!

[@spaghettiitacos]

the 1996 one is just so much better for me personally .. i really loved it

[@jakebrii5497]

Me too i love.

[@elizabeths4371]

A Very good analysis of both films but Zeffirelli's interpretation is hand's down, the better version of the two

[@melodyclark1944]

I notice how you say Claire Danes Juliet is around color in the beginning because color is significant throughout the movie. She wears white until she's told she has to get married and then she wears red or black. I also enjoy the meaning of the other costumes, her date from space and lover a knight.

[@PresUlyssesSGrant]

The modern one was an interesting and intriguing idea, but poorly executed. A great example of something that works better on paper than in actuality. You just can’t go wrong with the 68’ version. It’s the definitive version of Shakespeare’s story in my opinion.

[@elinorcackett2314]

I knew there was a reason I disliked the modern version. Shakespeare has few enough female parts without reducing them even further.

[@benjaminfischer3229]

1968 was and is much more accurate than 1996.

[@indeehood7882]

Could you please add the review of the 2014 version. I really liked it.

[@jakebrii5497]

Nah

amazing analysis, congratulations! I love both movies.

[@lucadicarlofelice809]

Sono Bellissimi entrambi questi films e anche le rispettive colonne sonore. 😊

[@belindamarcoaldi7090]

Il film del grande Zeffirelli è imbattibile...è impossibile superarlo. È un dato di fatto. Stop.

[@shelisadaniel6718]

Working on this now with my English class. When I first saw these two interpretations in high school, I heavily favored the Zeffirelli version. However, as time has gone by, I've learned to appreciate them both for what they are. I think I still prefer the Hussey/Whiting versions of Romeo and Juliet slightly more though. At times, Claire Danes Juliet is a bit whiny for my liking and Leo's crying/shouting just before Tybalt's death is a bit much, but overall, I like both interpretations for different reasons.

[@jessicalaz5261]

I hate the 1996 version I don’t understand it. Maybe I’m biased since the 1968 one is the one I was shown in school, but 1996 is just a Leo movie to me not a movie about Romeo and Juliet

[@Maca494]

"Luhrman uses his propensity for melodrama..." actual real weather as they film Mercuttio's death: HURRICANE yeah, this is why i like Luhrman's. Life is drama

[@whywherewhenhow]

i love shakespeare but a few of the plays i can't stomach ( taming of the shrew for example). romeo and juliet is like the one i hate most because i fall firmly in the "it's a dark comedy/ cautionary tale/ parody of the popular romance plays of the time" camp and broadly speaking it's not the interpretation pop culture goes with. which is why i love the melodrama in the luhrman version. it's objectively a really melodramatic story to the point of hilarity. i think his version captures that, whereas the zeffirelli version is incredibly sincere (and if you look at R&J as a genuine love story it's the one to go for). one thing that is undeniable however is that the 1968 version has a lot more chemistry between the two characters (as far as i heard claire danes and dicaprio didn't get along irl which.....combined with how passive luhrman's juliet is, doesn't make for a super convincing love match). but that kind of also works for my interpretation of the play so it doesn't personally bother me.

[@JustAPrayer]

Yes I like Luhrman’s version of the play too because he portrays the relationship as less romantic and more as an escape from their lives. I also liked how he interpreted Juliet and Romeo’s parents, as rich party animals who avoid parenting unless it’s convenient for them. I always find it interesting that we readers are so quick to judge Romeo and Juliet for being impulsive and quick to violence when they’re raised by families who are the exact same way

[@BLINKGreenTeaAddict]

1968 is th classic and closer to the original. 1996 is modern.

[@brandonlambert9768]

Leo 😍😍

[@luciadilazzaro2285]

Which one?

[@giuliapicchiotti]

I personally didn't like the Luhrman version, for me it's just was TOO MUCH !! .

[@racheldoesfandom]

I actually agree with you there. I have a very love/hate relationship with the Luhrman film. On the one hand, I appreciate what he was trying to do in updating the story for a modern audience and, like all Luhrman films, it is visually stunning. On the other hand, the MELODRAMA! It really can be too much at times.

[@giuliapicchiotti]

​@@racheldoesfandom : The strange thing is that : the first version that i saw between the two, was actually the "Luhrman version", and the first time i watched that version, i loved it soooo much !! , then i watched the "Zeffirelli version" ; at the beginning i was skeptical, but then after seeing it, i fell in love with it instantly, especially thanks to Olivia Hoult's acting skills, and then later out of curiosity i saw "Luhrman version" again and i must say that i found it too exaggerated and over the top !! .

[@sakunaruful]

@@racheldoesfandom I agree. The Luhrman film is laughably bad with its over the top nature and melodrama I commend it for trying to be a modern update while keeping the Shakespeare dialogue.

[@justcallmeangel2805]

1968 the chemistry and purity looks between the characters is uncomparable. The modern versión is weird but Leo's eyes in that fishtank scene are everything.

[@puppetjames8932]

It's funny. I haven't seen the older version, but all this video did was convince me that I really do love the Leo/Claire version so much. I really have no need to see the old one, your detailed recap says it all and I definitely prefer the second versions of the characters, by a lot :) Great vid! :D

[@racheldoesfandom]

Nooo, that was the opposite effect this vid was supposed to have 🤣 I would highly recommend watching the '68 version, it's beautiful and sumptuous and my absolute favourite retelling of the play!

[@moonbow7590]

Yeah, watch the 1968 version! You’ll see for yourself why it’s called the definitive version by most people who’ve seen most all of the R&J adaptations. It’s also where the R&J theme song/melody comes from 😁

[@jakebrii5497]

Look, it's a simple question, if you like the original, which is a real piece, watch the 68s which is beautiful. Now if you like something that isn't black and white it's bizarre modernized crazy i love it and i can count on Baz on this, i love the 1996 romeo and juliet more than the 1968 one watching them both but the 96s one i love a soft spot for he

[@hasanaturner]

this was a great video but it rllr reiterated why i love luhrmans version i dont think id like zeffirelli's as much

[@ellegarrels2317]

Olivia and Leonard should get their money and wtv from paramount and zeffirelli bc that nude scene should have never happened they were both minors

[@hannie484]

1968 is much better, I only liked the 1996 movie cuz Leo is there

[@garzie88]

DiCaprio's romeo is unrivaled

[@Shaylovespopeye]

Sorry not sorry the better one is William Shakespeare’s, Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes Romeo and Juliet is better way better