Shakespeare builds the plot around the ancient family feud - the backbone and basis of the play. The structure of the plot adds to the tension because of the dramatic irony and the way some scenes are left in the fashion of a cliffhanger. You think one minute that everything is going to be all right, and the next you find someone’s dead. The single plot is chronological and easy to follow. There are no flashbacks and no dream scenes. The attention is generally paid to Romeo as the focus follows him through the play. The first fight shows the extent of the feud and the expectation of more violence. The initial incident that set the story moving happened at the party. Romeo meets Juliet and falls in love with her at first sight. The rising action starts to rise greatly at the balcony scene where each professes their love for each other. They decide to get married and plan it out. The rising action continues with their separation and the violent deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt. The climax is the in acting of the father’s plan. Juliet pretends to be dead, and Romeo does not know it and commits suicide. The action begins to fall after Juliet commits suicide after finding Romeo dead. It continues as both families find their children dead. The conclusion is when the Prince tells everyone that the deaths are the result of their feuds and everyone feels guilty. If it wasn’t for the violence no one would have died or felt guilty.
In act 1 scene 1, an opening full of rousing action that is sure to capture the audience’s attention (and designed partly for that purpose), Shakespeare provides all the background information needed to understand the world of the play. In the brawl he portrays all of the layers of Veronese society, from those lowest in power, the servants, to the Prince who occupies the political and social pinnacle. He further provides excellent characterization of Benvolio as thoughtful and fearful of the law, Tybalt as a hothead and Romeo as distracted and lovehorn, while showing the deep and long-standing hatred between the Montague’s and Capulet’s. At the same time, Shakespeare establishes one of the major themes of the play – violence. The script starts by saying ‘Enter Samspon and Gregory, with swords and buckler’ , this is very alarming because there are people walking around with swords, (which are the props). This immediately evokes tension among us, and our mind sub-consciously transports into a land of insecurity. The first thing to do with violence that is said is, ‘I strike quickly, being moved, but thou art not moved to strike’, they are talking about fighting, which shows their intentions. After that Abraham and Balthasar (Montague) enter, and a big quarrel takes place, as Samspon says ‘my naked weapon is out. Quarrel I will back thee’. From that we can see that Samspon started the quarrel, so he is a violent character, also show by the quote ‘I do bit my thumb sir’ (it was a rude gesture in Elizabethan times). After Abram asks them again if they bite their thumb Samson says yes, however Gregory says no, which shows he doesn’t want to be involved; hence showing he is not a violent character. Subsequent to that Samspon tempts them to take out their swords by saying ‘Draw if you be men’, the Montague’s get tempted into doing so. This again would evoke a lot of tension; the audience would think of sacrilege and violence as connotations to the swords. But cleverly Shakespeare makes Benvolio intervene to try to stop it, by beating down their swords, ‘part fools you know not what you do’. This really engages the audience, as they want to see when the violence takes place, if there is any. Moreover from the previous quote we can see that Benvolio isn’t violent, a kind of ‘peace maker’ because he tried to stop the fight. But Tybalt comes and aggravates Benvolio, ‘Turn thee, Benvolio look upon thy death’, he’s telling Benvolio he’s going to die – this suggests that Tybalt is violent. Benvolio couldn’t resist and a fight started, so this shows that not only is Tybalt violent, but also a good provoker, as Benvolio wasn’t looking to fight. Eventually the Prince comes and restores calm and order, threatening death to anyone who was to create a problem again. Benvolio also discovers that Romeo is in love with a girl who will not respond to his advances. Benvolio advises him to forget her and to look elsewhere for someone better but Romeo swears that no one will surpass her in beauty and his favour. The characters actions and vivid language were used to reflect the theme of violence, verbally and physically. It whetted the reader’s appetite for the oncoming action and violence; we felt that there was more violence to come, as the outcome of the brawl wasn’t known because of the Prince. It was also very early in the play – so anything could have happened. It also showed that Romeo was in love with a girl (Rosaline), but more importantly Shakespeare’s main intention was to show how potentially great the Capulet’s violence was. The opening of Romeo and Juliet is a marvel of economy, descriptive power of violence, and excitement.
The moment we were waiting for was in act 1 scene 5. Romeo sees Juliet and forgets Rosaline entirely; Juliet meets Romeo and falls just as deeply in love. The meeting of Romeo and Juliet dominates the scene, and, with extraordinary language that captures both the excitement and wonder that the two protagonists feel, Shakespeare proves equal to the expectations he has set up by delaying the meeting for an entire act. The first conversation between Romeo and Juliet is an extended Christian metaphor, ‘Have not saints lips, and holy palmers too?’ Using this metaphor, Romeo ingeniously manages to convince Juliet to let him kiss her. But the metaphor holds many further functions. The religious overtones of the conversation clearly implies that their love can be described only through the vocabulary of religion, that pure association with God. In this way, their love becomes associated with the purity and passion of the divine. But there is another side to this association of personal love and religion. In using religious language to describe their burgeoning feelings for each other, Romeo and Juliet tiptoe on the edge of blasphemy. Tybalt recognizes Romeo’s voice when Romeo first exclaims at Juliet’s beauty. Capulet, acting cautiously, stops Tybalt from taking immediate action. This shows us that Capulet is not a violent person from the quote ‘content thee, gentle coz, let him alone’ However the violence escalates and Tybalt’s rage is set, creating the circumstances that will eventually banish Romeo from Verona. He says ‘To strike him dead I hold it not a sin’, and ‘I will withdraw, but this intrusion shall, now seeming to bitterest gall.’ He’s saying that if he kills Romeo he doesn’t see it as a sin, also calling him an intrusion. This clearly justifies that Tybalt is a violent person; his vivid language reflects his harsh and inconsiderate personality. The meeting between Romeo and Juliet laid the seeds of their tragedy and the violence continued. So from this scene we can see the contrast between the romantic and violent atmospheres, Shakespeare made us subconsciously think that everything would be fine with Romeo and Juliet, but dramatically brought Tybalt in to alter this.
In act 2 scene 3 we are introduced to Friar Lawrence as he meditates on the duality of good and evil that exists in all things. Speaking of medicinal plants, the friar claims that, though everything in nature has a useful purpose, it can also lead to misfortune if used improperly: ‘For naught so vile that on the earth doth live, But to the earth some special good doth give, Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use, Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse: Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied; And vice sometime’s by action dignified’. At the end of this passage, the friar’s rumination turns toward a broader application; he speaks of how good may be perverted to evil and evil may be purified by good. The friar tries to put his theories to use when he agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet; he hopes that the good of their love will reverse the evil of the hatred between the feuding families. However the Friar knows that violence or even death may lurk ahead as a result of this, but he has to take the risk to try and solve the problem. The Friar is seen as a sort of father figure and a friend to Romeo.
In act 2 scene 4 Romeo shows himself to be as proficient and bawdy a punner as Mercutio. This punning Romeo is what Mercutio believes to be the “true” Romeo, suddenly freed from the ludicrous melancholy of love: ‘Why, is not this better than groaning for love? Now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo’. In the last scene, Juliet tried to battle the social world through the power of her private love; here Mercutio tries to assert the social language of male bravado and banter over the private introspection of love. Interestingly, both Juliet and Mercutio think they know the “real” Romeo. A conflict emerges; even friendship stands in opposition to Romeo’s love. Romeo must remain both the private lover and the public Montague and friend, and he must somehow find a way to navigate between the different claims that his two roles demand of him. We as an audience can sense some kind of violence or danger evolving from this, contrasting from the beginning of the act.
In act 3 scene 1 the sudden, fatal violence in the first scene of Act III, as well as the buildup to the fighting, serves as a reminder that, for all its emphasis on love, beauty, and romance, Romeo and Juliet still takes place in a masculine world in which notions of honour, pride, and status are prone to erupt in a fury of conflict. The viciousness and dangers of the play’s social environment is a dramatic tool that Shakespeare employs to make the lovers’ romance seem even more precious and fragile - their relationship is the audience’s only respite from the brutal world pressing against their love. The fights between Mercutio and Tybalt and then between Romeo and Tybalt are chaotic; Tybalt kills Mercutio under Romeo’s arm, flees, and then suddenly, and inexplicably, returns to fight Romeo, who kills him in revenge. Passion outweighs reason at every turn. Romeo’s cry, “O, I am fortune’s fool!” refers specifically to his unluckiness in being forced to kill his new wife’s cousin, thereby getting himself banished. From this scene we as an audience can see that Romeo and Tybalt’s attitude to violence and murder is high as they both killed someone, a surprising contrast to Romeo’s attitude. The death of the 2 characters would have really engaged the audience and their emotions would have been, their expectations would have been fulfilled. In the end the Prince states that Romeo is most responsible, so he banishes him, ‘Therefore use none. Let Romeo hence in taste, else, when he is found, that hour is his last’. I think that this was unfair to Romeo as it happened all at once, don’t you? He probably never intended on killing Tybalt anyway, he had no choice. The violent behaviour in that scene is universal and unfair, it is also very compelling and powerful. Paris asks an interesting question "Can vengeance be pursued further than death?" When Romeo tries to break up the brawl between Tybalt and Mercutio, it ends with the demise of his best friend, Mercutio, as stated before. What was once a negotiator, an attempt at peace, Romeo now charges at Tybalt and takes his revenge not through a nonphysical method of justice brought on by so many violent acts in the past. As Romeo stated, instead of rational thinking, ‘fire-eyed fury be my conduct now’. As a result of this deed, the feud reigns still, and the battle continues. This shows the audience how overpowering an image violence is, and how it can affect everyone so fluently.
In Act 3 Scene 5, Juliet attempts once more to change the world through language: she claims the lark is truly a nightingale. Where in the balcony scene Romeo saw Juliet as transforming the night into day, here she is able to transform the day into the night. But just as their vows to throw off their names did not succeed in overcoming the social institutions that have plagued them, they cannot change time. As fits their characters, it is the more pragmatic Juliet who realizes that Romeo must leave; he is willing to die simply to remain by her side. In the confrontation with her parents after Romeo’s departure, Juliet shows her full maturity. She dominates the conversation with her mother, who cannot keep up with Juliet’s intelligence and therefore has no idea that Juliet is proclaiming her love for Romeo under the guise of saying just the opposite. Her decision to break from the counsel of her disloyal Nurse—and in fact to exclude her Nurse from any part in her future actions—is another step in her development. Having a nurse is a mark of childhood; by abandoning her nurse and upholding her loyalty toward her husband, Juliet steps fully out of girlhood and into womanhood. When Lady Capulet says that she will poison Romeo in Mantua it raises alarm bells, the audience would think that extreme violence or death would lurk ahead. After Juliet refuses to marry Paris, Capulet become outraged and verbal abuse and threats are said to Juliet, again the audience would feel that if Juliet didn’t marry Paris then there would be catastrophic violence, even death. Lady Capulet and Capulet turn against Juliet, so this means that their love has really escalated the violence. The audience would now feel really engaged and feel that someone would die. The violent behavior universal and unfair, it is also very compelling and powerful. Paris asks an interesting question "Can vengeance be pursued further than death?" When Romeo tries to break up the brawl between Tybalt and Mercutio, it ends with the demise of his best friend, Mercutio, as stated before. What was once a negotiator, an attempt at peace, Romeo now charges at Tybalt and takes his revenge not through a nonphysical method of justice brought on by so many violent acts in the past. As Romeo stated, instead of rational thinking, ‘fire-eyed fury be my conduct now’. As a result of this deed, the feud reigns still, and the battle continues. This shows the audience how overpowering an image violence is, and how it can affect everyone so fluently.
The setting of Act 5 scene 3 was in a churchyard near a tomb, this would be very alarming to the audience. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet occur in a sequence of stages: first, Juliet drinks a potion that makes her appear dead. Thinking she’s dead, Romeo then drinks a poison that actually kills him. Seeing him dead, Juliet stabs herself through the heart with a dagger. Their parallel consumption of mysterious potions lends their deaths a peaceful symmetry, which is broken by Juliet’s own stabbing. Throughout Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare has held up the possibility of suicide as an inherent aspect of intense love. Romeo and Juliet long to live for love or die for it, but violence became their obstacle leading to the inevitable of their deaths. The double suicide represents both the fulfilment of their love for each other and the self-destructive impulse that has surged and flexed beneath their love for the duration of the play. The Friar’s embodiment of good and evil are united in a single act: suicide. Juliet tries to kill herself with a kiss: an act of love as intended violence. When that fails she stabs herself with a ‘happy dagger’, which is personification, the dagger is connoted as something happy to her. ‘happy’ because it reunites her with her love. Violence becomes an assertion of independence over the self and a final deed of deep love.
The pure visual interpretation of the violent nature in that scene shows exactly how the lower classmen, although not directly, truly involved in the Capulet/Montague rivalry are drawn into the violence among everyone else in the families. The contrasting side of society which higher level, somewhat noble characters such as Paris, Romeo and Tybalt represent also take part in this aggressive violence. This completes the universal image. In this world, we therefore learn that every person can be affected by their violent nature no matter whom they are. Shakespeare makes violent nature out to be a blanket over this world in the play, in which everything is underneath it and ruled by it. No matter who one is, or what they believe, it is still impossible to escape the violence or at least be affected by it in some way. Friar Laurence and The Nurse are not violent characters by nature--but they are still exposed to it and have to deal with it within the play as the events unfold around them. To recap: the idea that violence is viewed as a universal, all-encompassing image is prominent in the play through the fact that each character in "Romeo and Juliet" is forced to deal with the violent world around them.
As an audience we felt sad, yet happy for the final consequences of Romeo and Juliet because they died together. A coincidence I noticed was that all the characters that died in Romeo and Juliet were young, maybe because they weren’t all fully matured. I think that the way the characters died was very unpredictable, but we knew it would come eventually. Shakespeare has used different types of violence both physical and verbal to lead up neatly to the deaths. The different type of violence adds to the audience enjoyment, because there was verbal violence, which escalated to physical violence, it would have engaged the audience immensely. The audience’s expectations would have been fulfilled. So Shakespeare used violence and death effectively for audience engagement and enjoyment – it made the play more interesting and came to life.
One final image that Shakespeare makes violence into is one of hope. The world of Verona was trapped inside the bloody quarrel of the two families, and it seemed as if it had the continuous affect of a snowball, and that nothing was powerful enough to stop it. Yet, in the end, the violent deaths of Romeo and Juliet is what opens up the eyes of their two fathers, as Lord Capulet looks at the two children as ‘poor sacrifices of our enmity’. Hence the only way that they learn is through the horrible deaths of their children, which ultimately serves to end the feud. This sickening and depressing image turns violence into a vision of hope almost--in that after war comes peace, and after violence comes rebirth. The themes of death and violence permeate Romeo and Juliet, and they are always connected to passion, whether that passion is love or hate. The connection between hate, violence, and death seems obvious – hate led to violence, which led to death.
Without the unfairness, omnipresence, and power that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet's violence incorporates, the play itself may had not as turned out so effective. Imagine if diplomatic measures were taken to try and cease the feud between rival families, and the fuel behind the characters' actions were just not as strong. However, the conflict’s closure through the violent ends of Romeo and Juliet tie the play up well, in that it also shows that from all this violence it also serves as an image of hope and rebirth. Shakespeare strengthens the intensity and interest we take in viewing or reading the work, and helps to portray the themes and lessons to be derived from doing so. If the action of the play had not moved so quickly, the course of events in the play would have been likely to be different. What if Romeo had not killed Tybalt? The lovers could have then made their marriage public and possibly ended the feud without any more bloodshed. If the Friar Laurence’s note had gotten to Romeo, he would have known of Juliet’s plan to fake her own death. Also, if Romeo had waited to confirm Juliet’s death instead of galloping off to the tomb, their lives would have been saved. Unfortunately, none of these events took place. Verona bares witness to the family feud, between the Capulet and the Montague families, which has been in existence for generations. In a matter of days, however, the feud finally ends. However it takes the deaths of five of the family members for Capulet and Montague to make their peace.
I think that the only think that could have been better was the establishment of the characters, and Shakespeare not revealing so much about the play, as early as the prologue.
