Romeo enters the scene after coming back from his wedding, and becomes aware of the situation. He refuses to accept Tybalt’s challenge as he is now related to Tybalt:
‘And so, good Capulet, which name I tender as dearly as my own, be satisfied’
Mercutio is mortified that Romeo is refusing to fight Tybalt and takes matters into his own hands, and Tybalt accepts. Romeo tries to make peace between the two, and Mercutio gets hurt under Romeos arm. At this stage, he is raging with fury and says:
‘a plague o’ both your houses! ‘
Mercutio then dies and Bevolio rushes to tell Romeo.
Romeo then seeks vengeance for the death of his dear cousin and slays Tybalt.
‘Either thou or I, or both must go with him’
After the prince finds out he banishes Romeo for the death of Tybalt which is the start of the turn point for Romeo and Juliet.
Shakespeare’s original intent was most probably to make money. This is shown from him plays as he knew the theatre audience enjoyed being shown their history. However Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy and I think that Shakespeare wrote it to deliver a message about Elizabethan life because most of his tragic plays were written when one of his children had died and also when the country feared the death of Queen Elizabeth.
‘That heaven means to kill your joys with love!’
I think that this is a subliminal message to tell us your life is fated from the start because in the play there is a lot of foreshadowing of death. The audience already know that Romeo and Juliet both die as we are told from the prologue, so it looks like to us that the only reason for their love is for them to die and end their parent’s strife.
In the scene I will be analysing, act 3 scene 1, I think that Shakespeare intended us to think that Mercutio was to blame for the death of himself and Tybalt. There are numerous amounts of reasons why I think this. For one, Mercutio brought on the brawl by rousing the fight up between Capulets and Montague’s. The feud wasn’t even between him and Tybalt but with Romeo. Also, his character is known as a person who is always looking for a fight, so him being the cause of their deaths isn’t surprising. However it is still left quite ambiguous because if Tybalt hadn’t slain Mercutio, than neither Mercutio nor himself would have died. This goes back to the point I made earlier, about how Shakespeare didn’t want to offend anyone. One of the reasons why Shakespeare would leave things ambiguous is because he did not want to offend anyone. Other reasons that Shakespeare created this play may have been to send out a message about the social life during the Elizabethan times. For one thing girls were married off at a young age, and until then they stayed at home learning domestic skills while boys went to school. Shakespeare may have been making fun of the fact of how girls are married at a young age by showing in Romeo and Juliet that at that age you are senile and vulnerable.
Shakespeare’s ambiguity is present in Franco Zeffirelli’s interpretation of act 3 scene 1. During the period of time that Zeffirelli produced Romeo and Juliet, there was a civil rights movement which resulted in the death of three young college students. This may have been why Zeffirelli chose to remake Romeo and Juliet, to send out a message, that the feud between people for no reason may lead vulnerable people astray and cause deaths.
Zeffirelli chose to show act 3 scene 1 near the church. The brawl between Tybalt and Mercutio was giving us the impression that the whole thing was a joke. However there is no textual evidence that this is how Shakespeare intended it to be. We are made to assume that the fight is a joke as the sarcasm in their voices makes us think it. Also the laughter of the crowd in the back ground makes us assume that they are all joking around. Another thing that makes us think everything is a joke is the expression on Tybalt face when he realises he has slain him and he makes a quick escape before anyone else realises it to. However we are given the impression by Shakespeare that the quarrel is serious as Romeo steps in and says
‘The prince expressly hath forbidden bandying in Verona streets’
This proves the fight was serious otherwise it wouldn’t be a threat.
The reconstruction of act 3 scene 1 is relevant to the Elizabethan times and swords are used in the fight scene and Elizabethan clothes are worn which is most probably how it was performed in the Elizabethan times.
On the other hand, Baz Luhrman’s version of act 3 scene 1 was quite the opposite. For one thing the play is set in a modern Verona beach that is part decaying Miami and part Mexico City. Fast cars with roaring engines replace horses. Guns stand in for swords and daggers. The resulting hybrid background is startling. The camera is always moving and there are times when the rapid cuts and the raging soundtrack may cause confusion between the movie and a rock video. Luhrman’s intent was never to drown Shakespeare’s dialogue in technique, but it happens, especially early in the film. In the process, the more subtle intangibles of the romance are irretrievably lost. The scene is made very dramatic; everything seems to happen so quickly. It proceeds with Romeo taking kicks and punches from Tybalt for going to the Capulet party. Mercutio, being a good cousin and friend, steps in to take matters into his own hands. He then dies and in fury Romeo chases after Tybalt who doesn’t seem that distressed that he had killed someone. I think Luhrman did this because he wanted it to look like the cause of Mercutio’s death and his own was because of him.
Romeo then kills Tybalt and at that point the mood changes and you can only hear the thunder and hear Romeo scream
‘I am fortunes fool’.
In this version I think that the characters are more faithful to what Shakespeare intended them to be like: Mercutio was a comedian but he was always up for a fight, and he showed loyalty to Romeo.
Tybalt is interpreted as an evil villain as when we are first shown him, cowboy music is played. Also at the masquerade he is costumed as a devil which symbolises his character.
Overall, I think that Baz Luhrman’s construction of act 3 scene 1 was most faithful to Shakespeare’s original intent. There is various reasons why I think this. One of shakespear’s intents was to entertain and that is what Luhrman did. Although he changed the clothing of the characters and the weapons used, he did it to make it modern for us, the audience, so we can relate to it. This is what Shakespeare did. Another reason, is because of Luhrman’s constant reference to death (Virgin Mary, which appears in every scene) which is what Shakespeare did. Religion played a huge part in the play along with foreshadowing the death of Romeo and Juliet. Also Shakespeare did a lot of contrasting in moods. For example, just before Romeo killed Tybalt, he had come from his wedding. Luhrman showed this contrast when Romeo killed Tybalt they kept cutting the scene to Juliet in the tranquillity of her own home to the intensity of the streets of Verona.
