|
Post by inhiding on May 1, 2002 17:36:03 GMT -5
I think that Romeo and Juliet were really pretty much the duds of the play. They met one day, and were in instant love. I know back in those times, wooing and marriage were occurences that happened close together in time, but they were all over eachother. Then, they just barley keep convieniontly missing eachother each time something good is about to happen, and it turns sour. The real stars of the play imo are Mercutio (my favorite) and Tibult (hate him). I think that Romeo and Juliet are air headed duds.
|
|
|
Post by Bardolph on May 1, 2002 18:26:00 GMT -5
Unless I'm mistaken, you mentioned that you were thirteen in another string. Within a year or two R&J will occupy a brand new place in your mind. Certainly they are immature. It is, in a way, a sort of emotional idiot plot. But their blundering is the product of untempered youth. This makes them all the more to be pitied. When you are older you will view them from the standpoint of shared experience. Later, you will see them as younger siblings whom you might wish to advise and protect. Still later they will be children to you and they will activate a parental instinct in you. The driving force of their foolish passion is that very fresh, hormone driven, out of control first love. As you grow older, and your own experiences fade in your memory, R&J will be there to remind you what that was like. The lamentation of the Nurse will have greater meaning. You may still think of them as young and foolish. That won't change. What will change is your perspective on the concept of being young and foolish.
|
|
|
Post by inhiding on May 1, 2002 18:29:08 GMT -5
I know that will change. I have always expected it too. I am just saying what my views seem to be as of now.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on May 1, 2002 22:00:50 GMT -5
What's important is that you have opinions and express them. There really isn't a right and wrong in this, just different perspectives. Your perspective is as valid as those of others. And, as Bardolph mentioned, your perspective will change.
Love and Marriage didn't exactly go together in Shakespeare's day. A friend on one of these sites used to hold forth that the notion of romantic love was invented by Shakespeare. I don't know if I entirely agree with that. What is true is that the notion of the ideal love was changing in Shakespeare's time and Shakespeare was part of that change. The earlier ideal was "courtly love." This had been around since the days medieval troubadors sang for Eleanor of Aquitaine (the mother of Richard the Lion-Hearted and a character in Shakespeare's King John). Courtly love was the notion that a knight was purified and strengthened through the love of a woman he couldn't have sex with. That was best achieved by loving another man's wife. Needless to say, the result was a horrible muddle. Think of Launcelot and Gueniviere or Tristan and Iseult--love affairs that turned out badly when the husband found out. They inspired endless songs and stories--right up to modern times--but the stories themselves were pretty sordid.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 1, 2002 22:52:02 GMT -5
I can easily see where you're coming from, Iago. I agree that Mercutio and Tyblat (to a lesser extent) become the most fascinating characters in the play. I saw a fascinating interpretation of R&J done by The Royal Shakespeare Company two years ago in which Mercutio and Tybalt both watched the progression of the play from above after they'd died, looking down with spite, and suggesting that it is their curse that causes the unusual circumstances leading to the ultimate tragedy.
I think there is more to R&J themselves, but it lies in their dynamic rather than their individual characters. What helped me was clearing my mind of the notion that R&J is the "ultimate romance" as some would call it. Being in love can only be so much fun to watch for 5 acts.
But there are some more subtleties in their relationship suggesting something more. Romeo is the professional mad lover, spending his every waking moment devoted to Rosalynd and then suddenly switching gears to Juliet without batting an eye. His view of romane is very immature and obsessive, much like a screaming girl at an N Sync concert.
Juliet, on the other hand, is feeling the control her parents have over her life and is attempting to break free of that restraint. In Juliet, Romeo finds an immature obsession. In Romeo, Juliet finds a way to rebel and grow up.
Notice that in both their first and second meeting, Juliet is constantly instructing Romeo on how to woo, despite her obvious passion and excitement. Romeo is all passion with little thought, while Juliet tries to be pragmatic. This surfaces largely with Romeo's physical advances, first attempting to kiss her (which she permits) and in their second meeting, attempting to get into her pants (which she rebuffs and may pretend not to notice). As the play progresses, Juliet is the one seeking the Friar's council, debating about her loyalties, and attempting to make the circumstance work, while Romeo is moved by passion, first foolishly coming between Tybalt and Mercutio, then slaying Tybalt, and finally crying up a tantrum in the friar's chamber, unable to approach the situation he has created as a resoponsible adult. Even his final decision to slay the Prince and ultimately himself in Juliet's tomb are haste decisions. Romeo is a teen and he is Italian. Both equalled passion in the extreme in Elizabethan society. This passion is ultimately even more his undoing than the hatred of his and Juliet's passionate Italian parents. It is the balance that Juliet attempts to bring to Romeo's passion that makes the play so exciting for me; her attempt to undo the pattern of tragedy in her family that Romeo is repeating. For me, R&J is her tragedy, while Romeo is the fool who gets in the way. All of Shakespeare's female leads are strong, pure charaters, but Juliet is one of the more strong-minded ones that you'll find in the tragedies. She truly stands out.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate_Cheetor on May 4, 2002 11:08:59 GMT -5
I recently saw this play,only a modern day version.not bad,but..... Romeo and juliet=
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2002 11:17:50 GMT -5
heheh. Have you seen the movie version with Caire Daines and Leonardo DiCaprio? If we don't already have a topic about it in Film Discussion, I'm going to add it now
|
|
|
Post by MelanieS on May 4, 2002 15:03:13 GMT -5
Nobody seems to mention the Zeffirelli version of Romeo and Juliet (1968) which was really good.
MelanieS
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 5, 2002 12:00:51 GMT -5
The last time I saw the Zefferelli version, I was too young to appreciate it, though even then Michael York's performance stood out in my mind, as did Olivia Hussey's. I need to see it again.
|
|
|
Post by Bardolph on May 5, 2002 16:13:30 GMT -5
I recently bought Shakespeare in the Movies, From the Silent Era to Shakespeare in Love. It's by Douglas Brode. At 242 pages it is not a compilation. It is more a chart of the landmark interpretations. I'm finding it very enjoyable on the subject of WS in cinema.
|
|
|
Post by Bardolph on May 5, 2002 19:45:19 GMT -5
Iago,
My response to your post was poorly worded and incomplete. You are absolutely right. R&J's instant love for each other is dramatically convenient. I think that the psychological part of the story has some hidden sophistication. Romeo's pining at the opening shows him to be a young many ready for love. Juliet is the spark that lights that flame. Beyond that, there is the nature of our tendency to be attracted to those things that are forbidden. But in spite of that, it could still have yielded to more dramatic devices.
Mercutio and Tybalt are my favorites too. I think that they are meant to characterize the conflict between the houses. I think Mercutio's death is meant to show that the moment when someone knows that death approaches is one wherein a rare wisdom descends. "A plague on both your houses."
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2002 12:10:00 GMT -5
That, or the moment in which the patient friend who has been biting his tongue must finally get his resentment off his chest before he dies. Mercutio's taking the Monteque boys to the Capulet Ball can be interpreted as an attempt to bring some sort of peace to the situation. Either reading is interesting, as is Mercutio's character, in general. Mercutio's monologue about Quen Mab suggests some incredibly complex aspects of his character, yet he dies before we can see most of that. I think it intensifies the tragedy of his death. We would have liked to have spent more time with him.
By the way Bardolph, if you enjoyed that book, then you should pick up a video called "Silent Shakespeare". It's a compilation of the first seven Shakespeare films ever made, from King John (1899) to Richard III (1911). I have it and can't get enough of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on May 7, 2002 13:32:01 GMT -5
I think what's most annoying about R&J is not the play itself, but how people have interpreted it. Romeo and Juliet are perhaps the most famous lovers of all time in western popular imagination. A guy who's good with the ladies is called a Romeo. I mean, come on. I feel like most people haven't even read the play. There's so much more to it. I agree with Iago-- Romeo and Juliet do feel like duds, especially whenever you think of all the cheesy melodramic stuff that's based on them. And casting Leo as Romeo solidified it whole for a whole new generation of girls who scream at Backstreet Boys and N'Sync concerts. (I'm sorry, but I'm personally not a fan. ) But I admit this happens to most of Shakepseare's plays. Polonius's stale advice becomes a motto for individuality ("To thine own self be true."), Antony and Cleopatra becomes an epic love story (both characters seem like duds to me in the play-- see the discussion on this board), etc, etc. The real plays get obscured by all the false publicity, which turns a lot of people off and keeps them from every getting into Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by inhiding on May 7, 2002 18:20:42 GMT -5
Nobody seems to mention the Zeffirelli version of Romeo and Juliet (1968) which was really good. MelanieS I saw that version a few months ago. It was my R&J introduction. I liked it. I still think of the characters as depicted there.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 7, 2002 20:43:20 GMT -5
But I admit this happens to most of Shakepseare's plays. Polonius's stale advice becomes a motto for individuality ("To thine own self be true."), Antony and Cleopatra becomes an epic love story (both characters seem like duds to me in the play-- see the discussion on this board), etc, etc. The real plays get obscured by all the false publicity, which turns a lot of people off and keeps them from every getting into Shakespeare. "Alas, poor Eurich. I knew him well." ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
|
|