Comparing and contrasting both versions of Romeo Juliet Essays

Comparing and contrasting both versions of Romeo Juliet Essays Comparing and contrasting both versions of Romeo Juliet Essay Comparing and contrasting both versions of Romeo Juliet Essay Essay Topic: Film For My essay I am going to compare and contrast the two different movies by two different directors made in two different decades. Although they are very different in setting, special effects and props, they still use the same story, Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. But If You were to watch the two films straight after each other you would not think there were based on the same story, and here is why. Zefferellis 1968 film is a traditional adaption of the Shakespearean Play, which from my point of view was probably aimed for younger audiences in 1968 but nowadays its audience will most likely to consist of the older generation. Whereas Luhrmans version is Shakespeare for the nineties, aimed at a younger generation but just like the Zefferellis version, in years to come its audiences will probably consist of the older generation of that time. Each director achieves their aim using completely different settings, techniques, props and special effects. Both films approached the opening scenes in completely different ways and moods. Zefferellis film had quite a slow and mind-numbing beginning, in contrast to the rapid and furious opening scenes by Luhrman. The settings in the two films are completely different from each other. The 1997 Baz Luhrman Version is set in a Petrol station in downtown Verona Beach, a made up seaside culturistic city slightly similar to Miami Beach in USA, with the same social gang warfare and Political aspects. Although Verona as some similarities with Miami Beach it does have its differences. In other words Verona is a made up place in a made up world, with no exact time era but sort of reflecting todays world with the same technology, styles and everyday images of 5O clock rush hours, shops etc. A world everyone today can comprehend. The 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version is the complete opposite as I said earlier. Zeffirelli tried to keep the settings as close to the original Shakespearean play as he possibly could. The Setting is in traditional Verona which as been made to look very similar to Tudor England. Zeffirelli set the opening scene within the castle walls amongst a very crowded market square. The market square was your typical fruit and veg stalls on a cobbled castle forecourt. It was very noisy and hectic with hundreds of people gathering. In the Luhrman film the characters needed to be changed to fit in with the setting. Luhrman changed the characters by their attitude, personality and the way they dressed. The Montagues are very similar to a stereotypical seventeen-year-old adolescent of today. The Montagues seem more mischievous and less aggressive of the two gangs, more of the lad next-door type who loves fast cars, girls, partying, having a laugh and continually causing a nuisance of themselves. The reason behind my statement is in the opening scenes when the Montagues were first introduced to us, they were introduced to us in a fast car, speeding down the highway, blasting out the latest music, and screaming with laughter this suggests to me they are very light-headed. On the other hand we have the Capulets who seem the more vicious of the two, and straight away as they first appeared on film you could sense the power and tension they gave out which put the viewers on edge every time they appeared. To me they see med more like a drug dealing gang with pistols hidden in the belts and socks, walking around ready to lash out at anyone who stood in there way. Another main difference is the way the characters have been changed to fit in with each film. In the 1997 movie, Luhrman dressed his characters in the latest fashions to fit in with the settings, in contrasts to the traditional wonderful, extravagant costumes of the Zefferelli film. In the Luhrman film, the Montagues were dressed in typical beachwear consisting of brightly patterned shirts and black trousers and trainers, the sort of modern fashions of today. The Capulets wore jeans, leather jackets, boots and vest tops with a religious icon on, especially Timbalt who modelled a red vest top with a huge crucifix on, which covered most of his vest top, this to me slightly resembles the Mafia who also have lives that religion plays a big part of. This also suggests to me that they idolise their religion, just like many fans of pop groups, artists etc who parade around in their favourite souvenir t-shirt of today. One thing I liked about the Luhrman film was the use of the newsreader at the very beginning of the film. Straight away you could tell this film was going to have a modern setting. The newsreader introduced the prologue and informed us on the latest freud and the history between the two families, just like a real news report on a 6 Oclock news programme that me and you would watch today. Obviously this idea would no way work in the Zefferelli version because of the time era Zefferelli set it in as there was no televisions in the seventeenth century, so therefore there wasnt any daily televised news reports. The very first scenes start with a small television screen in the centre of a black backdrop, as the camera moves closer towards the television screen you realised that there is a newsreader, this is the same newsreader I mentioned earlier. After she has finished introducing the prologue of the play the camera quickly moves onto an overview of the city. The camera is speeding up, this only lasts for a matter of a few seconds, but during them few seconds you will of noticed several scenes of a huge statue of Jesus that towers over Verona this backs up my statement about Verona being a very Religious City. During them scenes there was music, this same piece of music is used during the introduction of the characters and works very well in building up tension straight away to the film. After the overview of the city, the words In Fair Verona in bold appear across the screen, again against a black backdrop the camera freezes for several seconds then continues to view the city and again p aying special attention to the statue of Jesus with lots of close ups. Luhrman keeps the modern theme alive still by using different types of medias to stress the recent conflict between the two families, as many newspaper headlines and Magazines covers slide across the screen, again stressing the hatred and conflictations between the two. As the music continues to build up tension, the cast of the film begin to appear, they appear with their character name as the camera takes a close up on them and freezes for a few seconds then continues to the next person. This is very similar to the beginning of many American soap operas for example Dynasty. In Dynasty there characters were introduced in the same way. When the Montagues were first introduced to the viewers there are in a car, the camera follows the car along the highway. Also the music changes to a more modern style. The first shots of the Capulets were of their feet. The camera focuses on a close up of Abras steel-heel boots putting out a cigarette end. Cowboy music starts to creep in as the tension begins to build up again. When the two gangs begin to fight the camera does an extreme close up on Abras Pistol as he opened his jacket so his gun was on full show. Then the camera pointed straight at Benvolio who was also holding a hand pistol, Luhrman also brought in some small amounts of humour because as Benvolio screamed put up your swords the camera did a close up of the gun so the viewer could read Sword 9mm. When Timbalt, the capulets leader arrived on scene, there was a lot of close ups involved especially on Benvolios face as you could sense the fear within his face as Timbalt pointed his gun at him. Unlike The Luhrman Version, Zefferllis film is very slow starting. The camera focuses for several seconds on the city of Verona a traditional Tudor like town a bit like what London would of looked like in the seventeenth century, then the camera slowly glides across the city, the graphics are very dated and the colour is sort of grey, old looking and broody. There is traditional Shakespearian music playing in the background which is not building up any sort of tension, whereas the music being used in the beginning of Luhrmans did. Most Of The shots were long or medium shots, the only real close ups were of Timbalt. I think the reason behind this was to show the importance and the strength of his character within the play. The shots of the fighting were as though you were there in the peak of it all. The first shots of the Capulets were of there feet, I also believe the reason behind this was similar to the reason behind the extreme close-ups of Timbalt, which was to show his characters importance and strength within the play. This is the end of my essay; my favourite of the two films would probably be the 1997 Luhrman version although I could understand what the characters were saying more clearly in the Zefferellie version. The Luhrman version kept me from falling a sleep where as the Zefferelli was very boring and slow. It was also something I could comprehend, because of the modern settings and styles in the movie. The Luhrman movie was full of tension throughout the introduction and kept you on the edge of your seat at all times. He also brought in some humour, although it was very mild it was better than nothing, and I think the bit where the nuns were hitting one of the Montagues over the head worked very well and fitted in nicely with the modern theme. I also liked the music at the beginning, im not sure exactly who it is composed by, but I think it played a huge part in building up the tension.

Perlocutionary Acts Definition and Examples

Perlocutionary Acts Definition and Examples In speech-act theory, a perlocutionary act is an action or state of mind brought about by, or as a consequence of, saying something. It is also known as  a perlocutionary effect. The distinction between the illocutionary act and the  perlocutionary act is  important, says Ruth M. Kempson: The  perlocutionary act is  the consequent effect on the hearer which the speaker intends should follow from his utterance. Kempson offers this summary of the three interrelated speech acts originally presented by John L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words published in 1962: A speaker utters sentences with a particular meaning (locutionary act), and with a particular force (illocutionary act), in order to achieve a certain effect on the hearer (perlocutionary act). Examples and Observations A. P. Martinich, in his book, Communication and Reference, defines a perlocutionary act as follows: Intuitively, a perlocutionary act is an act performed by saying something, and not in saying something. Persuading, angering, inciting, comforting and inspiring are often perlocutionary acts; but they would never begin an answer to the question What did he say? Perlocutionary acts, in contrast with locutionary and illocutionary acts, which are governed by conventions, are not conventional but natural acts (Austin [1955], p. 121). Persuading, angering, inciting, etc. cause physiological changes in the audience, either in their states or behavior; conventional acts do not. An Example of a Perlocutionary Effect Nicholas Allott gives this view of a perlocutionary act in his book, Key Terms in Pragmatics: Consider a negotiation with a hostage-taker under siege. The police negotiator says: If you release the children, well allow the press to publish your demands. In making that utterance she has offered a deal (illocutionary act).  Suppose the  hostage-taker accepts the deal  and as a consequence releases the children. In that case, we can say that by making the utterance, the negotiator brought about the release of the children, or in more technical terms, that this was a perlocutionary effect of the utterance. Shouting Fire In her book, Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate, Katharine Gelber explains the effect of shouting fire in a crowded venue: In the perlocutionary instance, an act is performed by saying something. For example, if someone shouts fire and by that act causes people to exit a building which they believe to be on fire, they have performed the perlocutionary act of convincing other people to exit the building....In another example, if a jury foreperson declares guilty in a courtroom in which an accused person sits, the illocutionary act of declaring a person guilty of a crime has been undertaken. The perlocutionary act related to that illocution is that, in reasonable circumstances, the accused person would be convinced that they were to be led from the courtroom into a jail cell. Perlocutionary acts are acts intrinsically related to the illocutionary act which precedes them, but discrete and able to be differentiated from the illocutionary act. The Accordion Effect Marina Sbis, in an essay titled, Locution, Illocution, Perlocution, notes why perlocution can have a surprising effect: Perlocution has no upper border: any consequential effect of a speech act may be considered as perlocutionary. If breaking news surprises you so that you trip and fall, my announcement has not only been believed true by you (which is already a perlocutionary effect) and thus surprised you, but has also made you trip. fall, and (say) injure your ankle. This aspect of the so-called accordion effect concerning actions and speech actions in particular (see Austin 1975: 110-115; Feinberg 1964) meets general consent, apart from those speech-act theorists who prefer to limit the notion of perlocutionary effect to intended perlocutionary effects.... Sources Allott, Nicholas. Key Terms in Pragmatics. Continuum, 2011.Gelber, Katharine. Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate. John Benjamins, 2002.Martinich, A. P.  Communication and Reference. Walter de Gruyter, 1984.Sbis, Marina. Locution, Illocution, Perlocution in Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by  Marina Sbis and Ken Turner. Walter de Gruyter, 2013.