Compare a literary piece from an author we’ve read in this class with its cinematic counterpart.

Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 adaptation is arguably the most faithful to William Shakespeare’s original text. As such, much of it follows traditional stage conventions due to its roots in theatre culture. Costumes are lavish yet still maintain an air of authenticity given the period setting; actors speak with Elizabethan diction and inflection; scenes are staged like a typical Shakespearian production complete with soliloquies and heightened language; even blocking mirrors what would be seen on stage during such plays, with characters mostly standing still or walking around as if on a stage walkway rather than engaging in any sort of physical action or movement that cinematography permits. Even though this adaptation offers more visual interpretation than simply reading the original text (as was done before cinema), its technical elements remain true to those which have traditionally accompanied readings throughout time—from soliloquy delivery to costume design—and thereby preserve more theatricality than other adaptations might allow for while also keeping faithfulness with regards to source material accuracy.

Conversely, Baz Luhrmanns’ 1996 adaptation takes far greater risks when it comes down adapting Romeo and Juliet for film audiences—namely taking liberties with respect to timeline compression (which allows for certain plot points being revealed quicker) as well as incorporating anachronistic aspects in order move along narrative momentum faster than just having characters talk at length about their plights (as per Elizabethan tradition). Musically speaking, this movie adds an array of modern songs that incorporate both English lyrics from some parts within Shakespeare’s play alongside contemporary music from popular genres like rap/hip hop/dancehall unlike many other prior adaptations that kept entirely within classical sounding scores composed by composers like Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev instead relying on existing hits from pop stars like various members of The Cardigans or Garbage etcetera . Furthermore visually speaking there are extreme contrasts between this movie compared against earlier interpretations especially through utilization heavily stylized visuals which includes handheld camera work transitioning quickly between different shots combined with bright lighting saturated colors placed atop vivid backdrops reminiscent movies directed by Tony Scott specifically Top Gun–all together creating distinctively urban feel throughout entire picture never explored previously until then offering viewers completely new experience beyond just seeing classic love story told once again albeit slightly differently .

Finally Carlo Carlei’s 2013 adaptation restores much classic theatrical elements present first portrayal yet does not shy away deviating somewhat comparison nonetheless–particularly through implementation CGI effects create realistic looking backgrounds resembling Renaissance era architecture perfect complimenting costumes chosen better capture vibrant atmosphere time period back when tragedy itself taking place also leaning upon traditional visual grammar seen vast majority productions before him featuring consistent use master shots panning over scene transitions focus characters themselves allowing audience observe inner emotions each character whenever needed without becoming too invasive terms intruding viewer perspective something greatly valued deliberation aesthetics department bringing everything full circle presenting timeless tale classic style mannerism integral part appreciation cinema itself while staying true initial intent presented centuries ago via works great bard himself: William Shakespeare himself making sure legacy continues living future generations come!