What Is The Elements Of Romeo And Juliet

[Brigitta Martini]

Canyou talk us through your process for designing a new show?

I usually start from the script and the narrative, where I discover the main themes and points of focus and visual elements that can help enhance these themes. In the case of Romeo and Juliet by Beats & Elements, thanks to some very strong ideas coming out conversations with directors Conrad Murray and Lakeisha Lynch Stevens (and Shakespeare), I was able to pull inspirations from practically what happens in the play, as well as the themes around hip hop, internet culture, teens romance and South London.

The set is designed to be built with metal frames, mirror and concrete I see a lot around London and generally in larger cities in the world, whilst taking the shape of a Renaissance Cathedral facade and dressed with fabric collages of digital remix renaissance paintings. The idea of the fabric in two separate colours for the two opposing families comes from family motifs and flags.

The set is separated into 5 movable flats, which allows different formations that creates the flexibility for numerous locations. The flats are also relatively light as they are frames lined with fabric. In this way, I am able to not compromise the visual effect of the design and to also create more possibilities for the actors.

What is the best part of your job?

The best part of my job is probably to creatively solve problems (such as the touring questions) and turn them into unique design identities. I love the process of being given a story and visualising it to give it its look that is both memorable and exciting to the eye, a kind of brand of the show if you like.

Especially when designing a Shakespearean play when it has been imagined millions of different ways, I tend to lean into my instincts and to utilise social trends in the contemporary world we live in, such as the internet culture and the concrete jungle. I really and truly belive in the fact that theatre has a responsibility to connect to the world we live in and to inspire our youth, and I think associating current affairs with design is a great way to do that.

I have also used the Luhrmann version in my classroom as a practice in symbolism. My students have several symbols they must look for throughout and note when it pops up. Water is one of the major ones, as we see it when we first meet Romeo and Juliet, and when they first meet as well. The balcony scene is set in water, Tybalt is killed in a fountain, and Mercutio is killed on the beach. By the end, the students usually work out that water symbolizes death or fate.

As I've surveyed other versions for use in my classroom, though, I continue to come back to this one and Zefferelli's because both directors took some big steps in their decision making. What about in Zeff's version, when Mercutio is stabbed in the street fight, and everyone's standing around laughing at him, thinking that he's just hamming it up while he's dying? My kids are normally more affected by that than Luhrmann's street fight or even the Juliet/Romeo twist at the end.

In the three years I've taught R&J with both movie versions, I always do a compare and contrast paper, which the students really do good work on, since they normally feel passionate about one version or the other. I require them to write about 4-5 differences, including music, costume, set design, acting/line delivery, direction, casting, and a category I call "other," which includes anything else. Looking at the movies from a director's point of view after working through the unit in Shakespeare Set Free is really effective, I'm finding.

I struggle with using the Luhrmann film in teaching for the reasons you outlined. For me, there is a personal connection with the adaptation that extends from seeing it in high school on up into using it as a primary text for a Master's (mini) thesis.

Oh, #5 on my list (thanks Molly for reminding me) is Symbolism. Water is key, and most of the imagery written by Shakespeare gets tossed out of Zeffirelli. Amazing choice with water for the pool sequence- they fall in on the line "newly baptized"

I completely love the Lerhmann version of Romeo and Juliet. While I will most definitely show this version in my classroom, it will be accompanied with the Zeffirelli version. I think to pair the classics with its modern counterpart is what students of today need. Moreover, I think that showing two vastly different versions of Romeo and Juliet, along with reading the play itself, gives the students the idea of creativity. I feel that students will get more out of the play if given more options in which to study it.

Lubo, there is nothing in the text of the play to support such an interpretation; rather, it is a device Luhrmann used exclusively in his movie, and one could argue removing the scene from a balcony to a pool substantially alters it.

I've read this and some other plays by William Shakespeare. And I love Luhrmann's film. He made a great job of copying Shakespeare's own tricks. His most important trick IMO was the combination of contrasting elements (a thing Ian already mentioned), such as:

As for the balcony scene: yes, one reason for shooting it in a pool (aside from the reason lubo mentioned) was amping up the sexuality. But is it a bad thing to amp it up?? We shouldn't only see this from an academical point of view. Romeo and Juliet is world literature's most famous love story, so the passion must be visible. And visible it is.

Lurhmann uses alot of reoccouring symbolism in Romeo + Juliet, such as water and religious symbols. i believe that he put Romeo and Juliet into a pool when they confess love for each other as a symbol, rather than amping up the sexuality. Next time you watch the movie pay attention to the symbols, it is very interesting.

Luhrmann's film actually made me physically sick and caused a nervous breakdown that lasted for three days (I could hardly move my limbs for anger and screaming). Of course, saw it when I was a great deal younger, and I cared a lot more about Shakespeare then.

Like the updated "Hamlet" with Ethan Hawke, the text is mumbled, mushed and regurgitated with little feeling and less understanding. The characters (can I even call them that?) scoop, whine, and roll over their lines, but they rarely ever speak them naturally. Worst of all, this movie bored me. I was forced to watch it in my college classroom. Halfway through, I was clutching my head, trying to hold within myself sobs about the mangled text and horrid, constantly-changing camera angles and the people in drag who couldn't act and who had missed the entire point of Shakespeare. *breath*

Near the end, I cheered up a tad, believing that at least watching these horrible spoiled teenagers die would grant me some sort of catharsis. No such luck. Unfortunately, I was doing an intensive study of Richard Wagner's music at that time. When the transfiguration music from "Tristan und Isolde" piped on over Juliet's suicide-by-tacky-looking-gun, I literally ran from the classroom. I did wait until I was outside of the building to scream, though.

I feel even the most traditional Shakespeare critics should notice that Baz Lurmann's film is entitled, "William Shakespeare's Romeo+Juliet." In college, all of my instructors called it "Romeo plus Juliet." The title frees people both to credit Shakespeare and to discredit Luhrmann, doesn't it?

Still, to me, "Romeo+Juliet" seems to preserve the original idea of a family feud buried in young lovers' blood. And I still feel the Dicapprio Romeo would waste the Zeffirelli Romeo, whereas nobody should have defeated John Leguizamo in combat. But even that leads to a valuable discussion with students; an actor's previous roles generally affect our perception of his present roles.

It's not always a simple relation. I personally prefer the Heath Ledger "Joker," while preferring the Michael Keaton, "Batman." Yet I think Christian Bale makes for the exceptional Bruce Wayne. Today, Michael Keaton's other roles are virtually unkown, and I'm not certain they affect my perception of his performance. Christian Bale's other roles ("Newsies," and, "Reign of Fire," and "Terminator: Salvation," etc.) seem communicable. He doesn't seem very tough in any film, though, which is why he is a great Bruce Wayne. No one is supposed to suspect that Wayne is Batman.

For this shoot, I would say the most literal reference was the film, especially the iconic scene where Juliet took the potion. The lighting, candles, imagery of crosses and the intense colors created such a strong mood, which is what we wanted to base this shoot on.

I wanted to use The Berkeley Church as the backdrop as the lighting (of the stained glass windows) creates such a nice mood, and we contrasted this with the darkness of the florals, seating and stationary, and added warmth through the candles and gold elements. Our photographer (Laura May) also is amazing and worked with the lighting of the space so well.

Yes definitely! I love having different types or variations of chairs to create interest for seating; either mixing different types of chairs or having different types of seating (couches, benches, etc.) is a really fresh take on seating!

This quote is beautifully written on the handmade calligraphy invitations. This concept is very relevant to how couples wish to feel at their wedding, creating a moment of awe in the event they have created for themselves and their guests. What are some of the ways this moment can be achieved?

With this palette I definitely looked at Verona, Italy for references and cues. This is essential is styling events, but especially when you have a specific theme for a styled shoot. The Veronese art is famous for their use of lighting and color and its portrayal of space- Berkeley Church was a great fit for this, especially with the style and shape of the venue itself. Architecture was also huge, and still is, in the 14th/15th centuries, so the location was so perfect.

3a8082e126