The newlyweds are now to be parted. Source: http://www.geocities.com/queeniemab/ EbertRJ.htm

Of course, on some levels, this film is very different from Shakespeare's play. For one thing, it's sensual. We can believe this boy and girl are in love or something. There is passion and fire. Of course, Shakespeare couldn't have this level of passion, working, as he was, with a man and a female impersonator.

But there's sensuality on another level. The sets are luscious, the costuming is gorgeous. The soundtrack is one of my favorites, and the love theme, "What is a Youth" is still heard today. Everything is rich and a feast for the eyes and ears. It's clear to see that this is a director with experience in opera.

In 2000, Roger Ebert wrote about Zeffirelli's film in Variety newspaper, Hollywood's trade paper:

"The costumes by Danilo Donati won another Oscar for the film [Pasqualino De Santis also won for best cinematography] (it was also nominated for best picture [lost to Oliver! ] and director [lost to Carol Reed for Oliver ]) and they are crucial to its success; they are the avenue for color and richness to enter the frame, which is otherwise filled with gray and ochre stones and the colors of nature. The nurse (Pat Heywood) seems enveloped in a dry goods sale of heavy fabrics, and Mercutio (John McEnery) comes flying a handkerchief that he uses as a banner, disguise and shroud. Hussey's dresses, with low bodices and simple patterns, set off her creamy skin and long hair; Whiting is able to inhabit his breeches, blouse and codpiece with the conviction that it is everyday clothing, not a costume.

"The costumes and everything else in the film - the photography, the music, above all Shakespeare's language - is so voluptuous, so sensuous. The stagecraft of the twinned death scenes is of course all contrivance; the friar's potion works with timing that is precisely wrong, and yet we forgive the manipulation because Shakespeare has been able to provide us with what is theoretically impossible, the experience of two young lovers each grieving the other's death."

But another reason that this film version is famous is that it's the first version made with actors who were really close to Romeo and Juliet's actual ages.

Ebert wrote about them:

Juliet drinking the potion. Source: http://www.geocities.com/ queeniemab/EbertRJ.htm

"Hussey and Whiting were so good because they didn't know any better. Another year or two of experience, perhaps, and they would have been too intimidated to play the roles. It was my good fortune to visit the film set, in a small hill town an hour or so outside Rome, on the night when the balcony scene was filmed. I remember Hussey and Whiting upstairs in the old hillside villa, waiting for their call, unaffected, uncomplicated. And when the balcony scene was shot, I remember the heedless energy that Hussey threw into it, take after take, hurling herself almost off the balcony for hungry kisses. (Whiting, balanced in a tree, needed to watch his footing.)"

In 1980, critic Douglas Brodie wrote the following about the young leads in Films of the Sixties : "Teenagers Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey didn't so much play Romeo and Juliet as they lived out the parts. Although each proved perfect in his role, Hussey was the standout of the two only because she looked to be precisely the right person for Juliet, while he was exactly the right type for Romeo. Whiting was natural, honest and never ruined the show trying to act; probably dozens of the other young men could have fared as well. Hussey, however, seemed irreplaceable; in the balcony scene her face changes in a matter of seconds from the innocent smile of a child to the mature stare of a woman."

Zeffirelli did not use box office stars when he did his film, which of course proved to be a wise choice. But he wrote about the difficulty in his autobiography in 1986:

Juliet joins her Romeo in death. Source: http://www.geocities.com/queeniemab/ EbertRJ.htm

"Cinema has to be more cautious than the theatre because such huge sums of money are involved and, even for a low-budget film like this, it was insanely risky not to have a big-name star somewhere on the billing. On top of that, the cinema with its huge close-ups exaggerates everything, and my principals would have to be extra beautiful and exceptionally talented to pull of so difficult a feat. There was certainly no lack of choice. Agents, mothers and fathers all pushed their clients, sons and daughters forward when they heard we were casting for the ideal Romeo and Juliet. Paramount [the studio] wasn't sure how to handle it. On the one hand they were worried about the idea of unknowns playing the lead in the film; on the other, they didn't know what to make of it since I appeared to be successful and to know what I was doing. Unable to cope with something so far from their experience, they left me to it for the time being. I tested various combinations of boy and girl, trying to find a pair who worked really well together."

And over 10 years later, speaking at a director's symposium, he said of the experience of not using classically trained actors:

"What's needed is proper direction and the proper talent. I've experienced the full range of actors and actresses playing in my films, from the two little `green' actors playing Romeo and Juliet--he was a Cockney boy and she was fourteen but I pulled out of them what I was looking for--youth, innocence, and passion. The words were conquered practically one by one, through the painstaking efforts of voice coaches and the actors themselves. On the other hand, I've used the most illustrious, experienced actors, like Richard Burton, so every case presents its own problems, its own advantages."

Bednewlywed: The infamous nude scene the morning after the wedding. Source: http://members.tripod.com/Barry_Stone/ movie_art.htm

Oddly, Zeffirelli's insistence on using young people for his Romeo and Juliet makes this film of a timeless story very much a part of its time. The late 60s--the days of Flower Power and Youth are reflected in the film. As Brodie notes:

"During the opening days of the decade [Robert] Wise and [Leonard] Bernstein had re-interpreted Shakespeare for the early sixties by transplanting the star-crossed lovers to New York tenements in West Side Story ; now, as the decade neared its end, Zeffirelli showed that Romeo and Juliet could prove equally relevant to the Free Love generation. Despite the exquisite period costumes, this 350-year-old tale appeared amazingly in tune with the current situation. Romeo in his first appearance is introduced as a flower child; Juliet as a naive teen who has not yet been radicalized against the insensitivity of the elders. Never before had actual teenagers been permitted to play the protagonists. But in an era when Hair had become the most successful show on Broadway, it made sense that Romeo and Juliet were at last depicted as teens who want to drop out of the establishment run by their parents. Their fight is with an unfeeling system and, by the end, they are destroyed by their idealistic actions. Zeffirelli clicked clearly not only because of his admirable artistic qualities, but also because he re-interpreted a time-honored tale in light of what was happening to society in 1968."

Brodie's comments are echoed in Ebert's writing:

"The movie opened in the tumultuous year of 1968, a time of political upheaval around the world, and somehow the story of the star-crossed lovers caught the mood of rebellious young people who had wearied of their elders' wars. ‘This of all works of literature eternalizes the ardor of young love and youth's aggressive spirit' wrote Anthony Burgess.

"Zeffirelli got some criticism for purists by daring to show Romeo and Juliet awakening in her bed, no doubt after experiencing physical love. In the play the same dialogue plays in the Capulet's orchard - I am sure as I can be they have just left Juliet's bedchamber, and after all, were they not wed by Friar Laurence and is it not right they should consummate their love before Romeo is banished into exile?"

Another thing clues us that this is a totally "modern" Romeo and Juliet. The very nudity being discussed. This was 1968. The Hayes Codes had just been scrapped the year before. And while directors had been skirting the edges of the code for a while, it was finally truly lifted.

Quite a bit of Shakespeare's play is missing in this version. As Ebert wrote,

The famous balcony scene. Source: http://www.hhs.helena.k12.mt.us/Teacherlinks /OConnorj/RomeoJuliet/clips.html

"Zeffirelli severely pruned, trimming about half a play. He was roundly criticized for his edits, but much that needs describing on the stage can simply be shown onscreen, as when Balthasar is shown witnessing Juliet's funeral and thus does not need to evoke it in a description to the exiled Romeo. Shakespeare, who took such wholesale liberties with his own sources, might have understood.

"What is left is what people the play for - the purity of the young lovers' passion, the earthiness of Juliet's nurse, the well-intentioned plans of Friar Laurence, the hot-blooded feud between the young men of the families, the cruel irony of the double deaths. And there is time, too, for many of the great speeches, including Mercutio's poetic evocation of Mab, the queen of dreams."

During the director's symposium, Zeffirelli addresses the issue of making cuts in Shakespeare and gives his reasoning behind it:

"Anything created in another medium, like a novel or a play, has to accept certain rules when it migrates into the formidable medium of cinema--the length of the film, the language of images, and so on. I cannot think of one novel or play that has been transposed entirely--apart from an exception like Branagh's Hamlet --because otherwise your film would last five hours. Adaptation is therefore inevitable, a necessity that no one can escape. Not just cutting obscure lines, which is automatic, because, if the audience doesn't understand the dialog, you must cut it or find other solutions. You must also deal with the redundancy of verbal illustration, which is not necessary in cinema, and also the subplots. Subplots are all right on the stage, or when reading, but in films, subplots interfere all the time and they're very difficult to deal with."

But Zeffirelli did more than cut the text. He subtly added to it, either through camera shots or reassigning some of the lines.

The marriage ceremony. Source: http://www.hhs.helena.k12.mt.us /Teacherlinks/OConnorj /RomeoJuliet/clips.html

One of the first things he did was to make the relationship between Lord and Lady Capulet strained, and he blames it on young marriage, thus somewhat strengthening Shakespeare's point. When Paris is trying to convince Lord Capulet that Juliet is old enough to marry for many are married and made mothers younger than she, in this version Capulet pensively answers, "And too soon marr'd are those so early made," (1.2.13) while looking out the window across to Lady Capulet, who scowls at him and walks away.

Later, we see Lady Capulet being attended by servants and she seems spoiled and unhappy. In her scenes with Juliet, she seems to be at a loss with the duties of motherhood. Then during the ball scene, one can tell that Lady Capulet is not happy with her husband. He scolds Tybalt, but Zeffirelli gives some of Lord Capulet's lines to Lady Capulet, making her scold him. "-For shame! / I'll make you quiet," she says to him (1.5.87-88)

By cutting Act 4, scene 4, with its affectionate exchange between the Capulets, Zeffirelli effectively shifts the relationship between the two. And speaking of couples, he no longer has Lady Montague die at the end. Lord Montague tells us "my wife is dead to-night; / Grief of my son's exile hath stopp'd her breath" (5.3.210-11). In Zeffirelli's version she appears at the Prince's final speech, which takes place on the steps of the palace instead of outside the Capulet tomb.

The Prince's role is much changed as well. It's no longer clear that he's Mercutio's kinsman, and while I think this weakens the reason for his anger, it does make for a clearer narrative.

Zeffirelli also subtly changes the role of Tybalt. In this version, one of Tybalt's reasons for being so angry with Romeo is that not only has Romeo crashed the party, but he sees Romeo flirting with his young cousin Juliet and he doesn't like it. Then the scene of Tybalt's death also has a shift in emphasis. In the play, Romeo would have let Tybalt live, but Tybalt comes back and taunts Romeo, who then loses his temper and fights to the death. But in the film version, Romeo chases down Tybalt, showing a hotter temper.

Tybalt and Romeo's fight to the death. Source: http://www.hhs.helena.k12.mt.us/Teacherlinks/ OConnorj/RomeoJuliet/clips.html

And the death of Mercutio is much more Romeo's fault in this film version. From the staging of the fight scene between Mercutio and Tybalt, it looks more like they are having fun. They are not fighting for real, they are entertaining themselves, each other and the crowd. They seem to be enjoying their mock combat (both of them are bored and show-offs in Zeffirelli's interpretation), and it's Romeo's intervention that causes Mercutio's death. In fact, in this version, Tybalt and the rest of the on-lookers think Mercutio is joking with them until he dies and they see the blood.

I think this version points much more to Romeo's youth and inexperience than Shakespeare's version would have you see.

Just a word here about Tybalt. At the time the film was made, Michael York, who played Tybalt, was already a famous face. He was also an experienced stage actor, having worked at Laurence Olivier's National Theater Company - where he worked with Franco Zeffirelli, who gave him his film debut in Taming .

The year before he'd been in a BBC miniseries of The Forsythe Saga by John Galsworthy, which was a smash hit, and that same year he was Lucentio in Zeffirelli's Taming of the Shrew . Lucentio is the handsome young man who woos Bianca, Katarina's sister. As Brodie notes: "But rather than waste a great actor in the role of Romeo, Zeffirelli wisely saved his young talent for the part of Tybalt: Michael York brought the "prince of cats" to life, and his eyes burned with a brooding feline intensity and his ears actually seemed to be as pointed as Mr. Spock."

The famous "Love Theme to Romeo and Juliet" actually has words, and the words very nicely fit the film:

The final scene. Source: http://www.hhs.helena.k12.mt.us/Teacherlinks/ OConnorj/RomeoJuliet/clips.html

What is a youth? Impetuous fire.
What is a maid? Ice and desire.
The world wags on.

A rose will bloom
It then will fade
So does a youth.
So do-o-o-oes the fairest maid.

Comes a time when one sweet smile
Has its season for a while...Then love's in love with me.
Some they think only to marry, Others will tease and tarry,
Mine is the very best parry. Cupid he rules us all.
Caper the cape, but sing me the song,
Death will come soon to hush us along.
Sweeter than honey and bitter as gall.
Love is a task and it never will pall.
Sweeter than honey...and bitter as gall
Cupid he rules us all

Brodie, Douglas. Excerpt from Films of the 60s on www.geocities.com/hollywood/9251/68articles.html

Ebert, Roger. "Romeo and Juliet- Franco Zeffirelli -1968" Variety, 17 September 2000, http://www.geocities.com/queeniemab/EbertRJ.htm

"Shakespeare in the Cinema: a Directors' Forum", Cineaste 24.1, 1998, pp. 48-55.

Spreading the Wrong Gospel: An Interview with Franco Zeffirelli: http://www.tipjar.com/dan/zeffirelli.htm