We are instantly introduced to the bitterness held between the two conflicting families, as the play opens with both Sampson and Gregory, servants to the Capulet household, discussing their bravery and sexual prowess. Shakespeare’s language throughout this scene is quite comical since it is built through sexual jokes and witty backchat, which would have appealed to the Elizabethan audience of Shakespeare’s time who were considered to have had such crude taste. Sampson not only suggest that he will “…take the wall of any man…of Montague’s…” but also that he will “…be cruel with the maids…” and “…cut off their heads…”. This sexual pun is not intended to be taken literally and instead implies that he will take away the maids’ virginity, and that they will discover he is “…a pretty piece of flesh…”. This explicit brutality reflects these two crude characters’ deep hatred towards their opposition, but it is the fact that they joke about such a thing that implies that their banter is merely routine. As a result of their service to the Capulets, Sampson and Gregory would appear to have been indoctrinated by the Capulet convention to hate the Montagues, and no doubt their enemies feel the same way. Sampson’s impassive view on love and sex as he calls himself merely a “piece of flesh” without soul also shows how cynical and bland their culture is, which contrasts Romeo and Juliet’s poetic descriptions of compassion, as they desire to escape the tasteless world imprisoning them. On stage, perhaps Sampson and Gregory should act spitefully with a carefree attitude slovenly discussing without care of the consequences, as they indulge in what appears to be regular backchat. However, once Sampson begins to escalate the discussion, he should get carried away in the sexual implications and flail his arms in exaggerated gesticulation; bringing the audience into the conversation and also reflecting the inflicting effect that his “indoctrination” to hate has had. Shakespeare may be suggesting that as the Capulets and Montagues do so throughout the play, we create our own conventions that we see as ‘moral’ and ‘correct’, although also as in the play, these rules may obstruct real human qualities such as love.
As with all meticulously structured plays, there is a beginning a middle and an end with the middle establishing the inevitable passage towards the end. In Romeo and Juliet, Act 3 Scene 1 serves as the central, pivotal scene since it brings the tragedy described in the prologue to light. This dramatic effect not only appeals to the audience’s empathies, gripping them to the bitter end, but also brings about frustration since the characters we have grown to recognize within ourselves; Romeo’s dreams, and Juliet’s passion, now face a morose fate. We see two Montagues, Benvolio and Mercutio, enter the stage as they pace and twitch provoking a fight thus creating huge tension and anticipation in the audience. It would appear that the men in this play often prance around the streets in-fitting with their masculine roles, yet we only ever see Juliet within the confines of her father’s home which would suggest yet another contrast and conflict, this one being between stereotyped gender. Amidst the fidgety atmosphere on stage, Benvolio asks “…these hot days, is the mad blood stirring?”, setting the confrontational and heated scene. However, since this statement could be considered a rhetorical question, it can be assumed that Benvolio shows no liking to the ensuing confrontation and criticises “these hot days” for being so needlessly hostile. This pacifist nature contrasts Mercutio’s aggression as he states “…By my heel, I care not…”, which to an audience divides these two characters into both good and bad. In a way, Benvolio symbolises Romeo and Juliet’s potential success in that if his peace had greater influence, the fight may never have broken out. However, Mercutio’s bitterness appears to symbolise Romeo and Juliet’s impending tragedy since it is because of his violence that the quarrel ensues. With these two scenarios in the balance, a tremendous amount of tension is created as despite the prologue’s premonition, we desire for Romeo and Juliet’s romance to prevail over the conflict.
It would be possible to distinguish this contrast on a contemporary stage, as Benvolio could perhaps be surrounded by a white spotlight reflecting his pacifism, and Mercutio in a dim red ambience since he is the more troubled and stirred character of the two. Tybalt, a Capulet, then charges into the scene, chest held high reflecting his arrogant posture as he asks the two Montagues, “…a word with one of you…”, to which he receives the hostile reply from Mercutio “…make it a word and a blow…”. Great antagonism is implied as these two characters alike in their aggression clash face to face, creating a terrific surge of apprehension within the audience, since their petty quarrel may bring about impending tragedy. Benvolio however, in-keeping with his nature calmly interrupts reminding that their conflict is in the view of the public at a “…private place…”, which also reflects the feelings of the audience since neither do they want the imminent battle to ensue. Since Benvolio’s words go without notice, it would appear to an audience that Mercutio and Tybalt are almost fixed in a trance of confrontation, without regard as to the damage they are creating. This attitude also depicts the widespread disregard of the two opposing families as they embark on grim conflict almost robotically, without consideration of Romeo and Juliet’s compassion; the one thing that could bring these two conflicted parties together. Perhaps Shakespeare suggests that our society acts in this dismissive manner without care for “the individual”, which as a consequence conceals our deep, inner human emotions as it does Romeo and Juliet’s love.
Amidst the tension on stage, an infatuated Romeo enters the scene, yet his compassion ironically provides the catalyst for conflict. Tybalt’s initial intention was to vengefully seek Romeo, and as the smitten dreamer arrives, he shouts “…There’s my man…” which can either be interpreted as ‘the person that he seeks’, or the demeaning suggestion that Romeo is almost as a “possession”, or a “slave”. This notion of “owning” a person appears to encapsulate the way by which the conflicted families both feel that they “own” and control Romeo and Juliet’s emotions, which perhaps reflects how our own society seems to “own” an individual rather than house them as it should do. As this is said, perhaps Tybalt should rudely dismiss Mercutio, humiliating him as he pushes him aside to face Romeo. He then states “…the love that I bear thee can afford no better term than this – thou art a villain…”, which demonstrates Shakespeare’s use of contrast as the language evolves from loving prose to bitter hatred, reflecting the dramatic surge of loathing flowing deeply through his veins. Tremendous tension is created on stage as hostility seems to fuel the antagonistic characters’ actions. Romeo’s refreshingly poetic speech however, reflects Tybalt’s words back at him as he protests “…A villain am I not…”, to Tybalt’s scornful disgust, since it would appear that love is seen as repulsive in this destructive world of disagreement .
Romeo refuses to sullenly dispute, and instead tries to instil peace as he then states “…I have to love thee…”, yet unsuccessfully as it seems the “ancient grudge” that has infected the two families runs deep in their black veins. To an audience these radically contrasted characters create huge tension and anticipation, as their conflicting ideas of both love and hate clash with terrific dramatic effect, also giving harrowing implications of Romeo and Juliet’s fated tragedy. What seems ironic is that this is also the first time in the play that a character uses his ‘compassion’ to disagree, and in fact it appears to have greater effect since Romeo’s loving words give Tybalt no ‘moral’ reason to fight, exposing the futility of his aggression. In pure disgust and disbelief of Romeo’s ‘protest against conflict’, Tybalt rages “…O calm, dishonourable, vile submission…”. The use of comma breaks up the speech and takes away the traditional ‘flow’ of Shakespeare’s romantic language, reflecting Tybalt’s struggle to comprehend Romeo’s rebellious defiance of the two families’ convention to hate. This crafting of language also appears to escalate from Shakespearean poetic prose; down to bitter words of “vile” repugnance. I feel that this technique encapsulates the whole notion of conflict in the play, since Romeo and Juliet’s romance fatefully expires under the hatred of their two feuding families; just as the loving words in Tybalt’s speech slowly become polluted with bitter language.
Aside the central tension on stage, Mercutio observes Romeo’s apparent ‘cowardly’ actions with scepticism, and as a result his impatience intervenes. He calls Tybalt a “…Rat catcher…” which although in our contemporary society is not strikingly insulting, such a suggestion was absurdly offensive in Elizabethan England. To both Romeo and the audience’s dismay, the two rivals draw their swords and it becomes inevitably apparent that their conflict will ensue; echoing the cruel dramatic irony of tragedy established in the prologue. On stage, perhaps Romeo should kneel between Tybalt and Mercutio pleading for their peace, yet when they both draw their swords, the blades may obstruct the audience’s view of Romeo’s face symbolising to them the barrier effect that this ‘historic family feud’ has had on his fated romance. Shakespeare may be suggesting that our own society can behave in this restrictive manner; suppressing individual pleas and emotion in favour of the “general convention”. As the swordplay persists Romeo interferes by plunging between the two adversaries; his energy fuelled by the compassion within him, yet Tybalt manages to thrust his sword into Mercutio, fatally wounding him. The escalation of this climatic battle abruptly ends with a single cry of pain, creating huge shock and tension within the audience; since this shriek not only reflects Mercutio’s hurt but also the consequent disastrous turn of events to result in inevitable tragedy.
On stage the conflict should perhaps halt as a great ambient silence casts over the theatre creating a terrific contrast between the initial boisterous squabbling. This dramatic effect brings about a period of hurtful realisation since the immediate introduction of silence holds the audience in a sensation of both disbelief, and comprehension. From the stillness Mercutio should emerge as he valiantly attempts to restrain the seriousness of his injuries, calling it merely “…a scratch…”. He speaks of being “…peppered…” with holes as he tries to use his enthusiastic nature to repress the pain, yet this pitiable effort fails to show him as ever-strong, but instead rouses sympathy within the audience. Mercutio’s role throughout the play is as the cynical jester, and the fact that even in the face of death he remains in-keeping with this theatrical “code” suggests how pitifully shallow the characters are, as they never seem to deviate from their simplistic “functions”. It is this notion of bland and superficial society that Romeo and Juliet fatefully try to escape throughout the play; the fact that the people around them were not “genuine” or “realistic” but “programmed” caricatures without emotion. The sincerity of Mercutio’s curse, “…a plague on both your houses…” signifies the point at which the tragedy described in the prologue ensues, as this almost Godly decree states the inevitable punishment to cast over both families. It would appear that not only Mercutio himself is to die, but also his cryptic language suggests that the comic caricature that we see on stage expires within him, arousing a grim sense of reality that there never seemed to be up to this point. The pitiless nature of dramatic irony now begins to dictate the characters, as even the infatuate dreamer, Romeo, starts to understand the certainty that “…This day’s black fate on moe days doth depend…”. It is to know that petty conflict is to blame for such an atrocious fate that forces us to question our own conflicts; and whether these are worth sacrificing loving peace for.
As the impending tragedy unfolds, we see how the two lovers’ passion to escape their families’ convention can create dramatic conflict. Just as Romeo’s refusal to fight Tybalt ironically provoked an ill-fated confrontation, we see how Juliet’s defiance over her father’s firm policy of arranged marriage leads to a ferocious scolding. Ignorant to his daughter’s romance with Romeo, Lord Capulet initially shows fatherly concern believing Juliet’s tears to be distress over Tybalt’s death; a clear example of how he blatantly judges people’s emotions without consideration of what they might be feeling. This undertone of dismissing human emotion and confining a person to intransigent rules, suggests that Shakespeare believes we show no ‘real’ concern for others, just as Juliet’s father . To begin with, Lord Capulet’s uses rhetorical questions in order to reflect his sorrow for Juliet, as he asks “…What still in tears?”. However, although Lord Capulet’s words appear calming, it would seem there are some subtle hints within his language as to the conflict ensuing as he describes “…raging with thy tears…”, and “…the wind…”, which through these descriptions of a storm seem ironic since Lord Capulet is about to “rage” when he hears of Juliet’s rebellion.
The audience know of Juliet’s ‘forbidden’ romance, which creates an immense surge of dramatic irony as we are all waiting for Lord Capulet’s reaction with terrific apprehension. His fury begins with a series of rhetorical questions, although unlike the comforting questions of before, these reflect his sheer disbelief as he struggles to comprehend his daughter’s rebellion of the family convention. He stutters “…Is she not proud?” and “…What is this?”, which as he repeatedly asks we see the increasing escalation of his anger; a technique which amplifies the tension on stage dramatically. Lord Capulet also no longer refers to his own daughter by her name, but instead calls her by “she”; an example of his apparent rejection of her since it would appear that through her rebellious defiance he does not see her as part of the ‘family’. Whilst the furious man’s enragement swells, perhaps he should begin to tower over a cowering Juliet, which would create huge dramatics on stage as the collapse of this crumbling ‘tower’ becomes frighteningly imminent. Juliet’s answer to her father’s rhetorical questions, “…Proud can I never be of what I hate…”, provokes Lord Capulet’s eventual ‘explosion’ since the patriotic nature of the Capulets is destroyed as she states that she is not “proud” of her own family. He demeans his own daughter with outrageous insults such as “…carrion…”; a comparison to a corpse, and he also mockingly repeats Juliet’s pleas, almost destroying her very identity as she lies subjugated. He then issues the final “…decree…” that Juliet should “…Get thee to church a Thursday…” or “…never after look me in the face…”. This choice imposed upon Juliet creates tremendous drama since she can either follow her heart’s desires and flee the confines of her father’s grasp, or marry Paris through reluctance yet remain as part of her loyal family as the bitter conflict between the Montagues persists. Although at this point the audience do not know her final decision, the dramatic irony of the prologue’s forewarning ensures that whatever she is to do, death will eventually meet the two “star-crossed” lovers at the end.
Shakespeare’s passionate tale of two romantics battling to conserve the human quality of love is increasingly relevant today. Although designed to entertain an Elizabethan audience, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is built through morals that even our contemporary world can learn from. The conflict between ‘individual passion’ and ‘group convention’ is one such theme we can all reflect on; since it is through the same narrow-mindedness of the Capulet’s and Montagues that our society shrouds real human qualities.