Can there be any doubt that Zeffirelli has made one of the most visually gorgeous movies of one of Shakespeare's play? His choice of two unknown actors to play Romeo and Juliet seems inspired. They not only fit the parts of Romeo and Juliet exactly but can say their lines and feel the emotions of their roles fully. Zeffirelli strove in this movie to bring Shakespeare to the mass audience: "With the cinema, you have to make up your mind whether you do a film for a small number of people who know it all – and it's not very exciting work for them – or really make some sacrifices and compromises but bring culture to a mass audience." To what degree do you think he succeeded?
- What effect, individually and taken together, do the cuts have? Here are some principal changes to consider:
- Friar Lawrence's opening soliloquy in Act 2.2.1-30. Notice that these lines do not advance the plot. But do they add to the meaning of the play? It is important to note that this passage was not in Arthur Brooke's poem upon which Shakespeare based his play. So, presumably, Shakespeare added this passage for a purpose. In addition, how is the mood and tone of both the friar's entrance and Romeo's entrance different from what is found in the play?
- What does it mean to be a man? Shakespeare's play shows Romeo searching among the many competing definitions that are presented to him in the persons of the Friar, Sampson & Gregory, Mercutio, Tybalt, Benvolio, and, significantly, Juliet.The friar, in 2.2.28, presents the opposing forces of "grace and rude will," among the lines deleted by Zeffirelli. An Elizabethan man who chooses "rude will" would not be considered a true man. Manhood should exhibit the ability to make those difficult choices the Friar discusses at the beginning of Act 2.2. Juliet herself at times in the play shows more "manly" courage and philosophical poise than the men, but Zeffirelli omits aspects of Juliet that show careful thought and rational choice, for example, 4.3.23-57.
- Do you think, by these and other cuts, Zeffirelli has turned a tragedy into a melodrama, has simplified the paradoxes of the play, and so lost much of the meaning of the play in order to emphasize the beautiful love story alone?