To what extent does the final scene of Romeo and Juliet as written by Shakespeare provide a richer
theatrical experience for the audience than edited versions aimed at cinema audience?
The final scene of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as seen in the Baz Luhrmann edited film version
greatly differs form the one described in the original text, with great chunks of dialogue and even prominent
characters omitted completely form the scene. Some would say that what is left is a very biased re-telling of
Romeo and Juliet, which serves purely to entertain and hence neglects to include the richer and more
challenging themes presented to us in the original play. I am going to investigate as to whether Baz Luhrmann
has reduced a beautiful and intellectually challenging masterpiece to a facile love story.
It would not be the first time within edited versions of Romeo and Juliet that characters are omitted completely
from scenes in order to give Romeo and Juliet the privacy and intimate scenes Shakespeare never quite
allowed e.g. the infamous balcony scene. I think the reason Shakespeare incorporated these characters into
Romeo and Juliet’s more private scenes was to promote the sense of involvement of all the characters and
hence giving a more rounded view of the affairs taking place. By excluding these characters Baz Luhrmann
narrows the audiences perspective on Romeo and Juliet’s actions and delivers quite a biased view of Romeo
and Juliet’s love affair, rather disconnected from society, opposing to the love portrayed within the scheme of
things as written by Shakespeare. The absence of other character’s perspectives on matters also pushes the
audience’s allegiance further towards the two lovers.
I think Baz Luhrmann’s omission of Paris form the final scene is particularly significant, as Paris’ role in the
final scene is very challenging, adding to the complexity of the characters’ relationships and hence giving the
play a much richer thematic value. Paris is one of the main characters in Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet
who is significantly underdeveloped. He is portrayed as a slightly arrogant character and the implication is that
he chooses Juliet purely because of status and most certainly not because of love. His purpose in the
storyline is simply to be an obstacle to Romeo and Juliet’s love.
However, Shakespeare uses Paris as much more than this, and Paris’ main character development occurs
in the final scene, where there is a very strong suggestion that Paris was deeply in love with Juliet and truly
distraught at her death. It is here that Shakespeare uses contrasting imagery and layers of meaning such as
the contrasting references to light and dark, the personification of death including contrasting references to
eating “feasting presence” with many positive connotations and “jaws” with savage connotations, to allow and
ask the audience to make their own interpretation of Paris as a character and more importantly his
significance within the play, a technique used throughout the scene and play. Paris and Romeo can be seen
very much as contrasting characters and even opposites.
There are several very strong parallels drawn between Romeo and Paris even when they first enter the
scene. When Paris and Romeo are giving orders to their servants, Paris orders “Give me thy torch boy:
hence, and stand aloof. / yet put it out for I would not be seen.” This change of mind shows Paris is flustered
and worried. He goes on to order his Page to stand by and listen so that he can signal to Paris if someone is
coming. This passage serves several purposes. Firstly, by Paris suggesting that he could be found, this
immediately puts it into the audience’s head that he will be found, and this builds up tension. This is furthered
in the Pages short soliloquy. The second purpose may not be seen at first, but once Romeo arrives and says
his parallel speech, Shakespeare makes sure, though the speech itself is a parallel that there are absolute
parallels (Romeo and Paris use almost the exact same phrase “stand aloof”) so the audience is forced to be
reminded of Paris’ speech and hence compare Romeo’s to Paris’ as he says it.
Romeo threatens his servant, Balthasar, that he will “tear thee joint by joint / and strew this hungry
graveyard with thy limbs.” If he “Dost return to pry/ in what I farther shall intend to do”. This could not be more
different from Paris’ cautious and uncertain orders. Romeo is determined and purposeful, but could also be
seen as careless and rash, as he sends Balthasar away, and does not ask him to listen as Paris did,
opposing to Paris’ cautious manner. Romeo says himself that “the time and (Romeo’s) intents are savagewild, / more fierce and more inexonerable by far/ than empty tigers or the roaring sea.”
When Paris sees Romeo and refuses to leave without taking him with him, they fight and Paris ends up
dead. It is only now that Romeo realizes who it is he has killed. This could be seen as a foreshadowing of the
end of the play as it is only after death that the Capulets and Montegues realize what their feud has caused,
recognize their similarities and embrace each other as one of a kind (as Romeo does with Paris when he
realizes Paris has been “writ with me in sour misfortunes book”) and try to make up for their mistakes (as
Romeo does when he says he shall “bury (Paris) in a triumphant grave”). However we must note the
ambiguity of this last line; is it Paris who shall be triumphant in death or the grave who will be triumphant at
‘winning’ Paris.
Another example that supports the idea of Romeo and Paris being portrayed as opposites is Paris’s line as
he mourns: “The obsequies that I for thee will keep/ nightly shall be to strew thy grave and weep”. Though the
suggestion is that Paris is very distraught at Juliet’s death, manifested in the fact that he is visiting Juliet in the
middle of the night, a slightly unorthodox mourning rite, the way he goes about mourning is non the less quite
conventional. Laying flowers and shedding tears are widely accepted and even expected acts of mourning.
The word ‘obsequies’ is particularly significant. By the dictionary’s definition, obsequies are funeral rites or
ceremonies. They are formal and conventional ceremonies. Maybe Shakespeare is showing us that though
Paris’s love and grief for Juliet is undoubtedly true, he is either not so overcome with despair as Romeo is to
abandon the customs of his society, or is perhaps unable to let himself go entirely and could be perhaps using
these formalities of the funeral to help himself deal with the situation. Therefore Paris could either be
interpreted as a more balanced and rational character or as one who is closed, attempting to hide his
emotions behind formalities and customs, but in both cases opposite to Romeo as it was Romeo’s hotheadedness and impetuous behaviour that led him to be separated from Juliet, whilst it was Paris’s inability to
go out on a limb, go against the conventions and express his passionate love for Juliet that led him to never
have her. Other parallels that manifest these opposing characteristic of the two characters could be the fact
that Paris enters the scene bearing flowers, portraying his conventionality, whereas Romeo enters with a
crowbar portraying his unconventionality.
Paris’ dying wish is to be laid with Juliet, and Romeo obliges. He takes Paris’ corpse into the grave and
lays it by Juliet, and it is here that he makes his infamous speech before committing suicide. The setting on
which Romeo and Juliet kill themselves is very different from the romantic candle lit setting Baz Luhrmann
gives us. In Shakespeare’s original play, Romeo delivers his speech surrounded by corpses; Tybalt, who
Romeo had earlier killed, and Paris. I think this manifests the idea of the whole community’s involvement,
which is lost in the film version of this scene. It displays the repercussions of their affair. Bear in mind that the
set would be left after both Romeo and Juliet have committed suicide with the 4 corpses laid together as a
display of the wasted life that has come from these two lovers actions.
I have already said that Paris’ speech at the beginning has the dramatic effect of making the audience think
he is going to be interrupted, but you could even say that Shakespeare lightly hints that Romeo will interrupt
him by Paris’ asking “What cursed foot wanders this way to-night?” There are many, many references within
the play to fate, and I will now take a moment to explore the ideas presented here.
Fate is constantly referred to and plays a major part within the play; Romeo and Juliet are even introduced
as “star-crossed lovers”, which in itself is a very ambiguous description- does it mean that their stars are
crossed in the sense that they are marked with xs as if to indicate ‘wrong’ or that they are crossed as in they
overlap. Also Romeo’s lines “I am fortune’s fool!” and “Stars I defy you!” carry on the on-running idea of fate.
These lines could show that Romeo’s fate or at least he feels that his fate has been decided. Romeo’s lines
with reference to fate show that he sees his life and these events as out of his hands, and hence perhaps
therefore not his fault. Paris’ use of the word “cursed” could be seen to confirm this belief. There are many
other words that could have been used that would have still had the dramatic effect of reminding the audience
of Romeo such as foolish but Shakespeare chose this specific word so we can assume that it has some
specific significance. I think this word is very significant, as ultimately Romeo kills himself to “shake the yokes
of inauspicious stars from this world wearied flesh” i.e. to rid himself of this ill fate, and also as Paris ultimately
befalls the same fate. It seems that Paris is “one writ with (Romeo) in sour misfortune’s book”. Romeo’s
constant references to fate have two on running themes; firstly that Romeo is not accepting any responsibility
and not confronting the events and circumstances and secondly that he is fighting against fate. The beauty of
Shakespeare’s plays is that they can be interpreted in so many ways. Shakespeare is not telling us this is a
tale of two lovers destined to be together, but through no fault of their own are forced apart and, tragically can
only be together in death, or that it is the tale of two young and foolish lovers who through their own mistakes
fall foul of circumstances out of their hands, but ultimately are to blame, but rather asks us to make up our
own mind. I would argue that though I don’t think the audience’s emotional involvement with the play is lost in
Baz Luhrmann’s version, the intellectual involvement is significantly diminished.
Once the lovers are discovered dead later in the scene, the Prince says “Let mischance be slave to
patience.” He is talking about chance and bad-fortune which would imply that he sees the events as pure bad
luck, and yet he says be patient so that “we can clear up these ambiguities.” And see these “parties of
suspicion” implying that someone is to blame.
In the friar’s speech he talks about both acts of heaven and accidents, though it is very noticeable that the
only references the Friar makes to the intervention of heaven occur when he is trapped in a tight spot and
giving his ‘statement’, as if he is falling back on the system of faith, not because of ‘spiritual guidance’ but
because it will get him out of a predicament. Friar Lawrence is another character significantly underdeveloped
in Baz Luhrmann’s film. Before Juliet commits suicide she awakes to Friar Lawrence, though this is ommited
completely from Baz Luhrmann’s film. I think this is a shame because it takes away some of the emphasis of
the whole communities involvement in Juliet’s love affair.
As Friar Lawrence enters the scene and sees Romeo and Juliet dead, he say “Ah, what an unkind hour/ is
guilty of this lamentable chance?” To us now, unkind simply means unpleasant or unfriendly, but in
Shakespeare’s day it would have meant more. Kind comes from the word kindred and so unkind means
against nature. Friar Lawrence also makes several other references to forces that ‘oppose’ them “a greater
power than we can contradict” and work against them “hath thwarted our intents”. There are two other things
that need to be noted from the above quotations: firstly, again the ongoing themes of fate, and secondly the
friar’s use of the word “thwarted”. This seems quite a light way to refer to the unnecessary and tragic deaths
of 2 young men, one of whom the friar was supposedly very close to, and also the heart break of the girl
whose love he worked so very hard to nurture, and we must consider it’s significance.
As Juliet awakes and sees the friar here first words are “o, comfortable friar!”; comfortable meaning
bringing comfort. This line contains great dramatic irony as the audience knows there is very little the friar can
say to comfort Juliet. We do indeed find that the short speech the friar gives does indeed contain little words
of comfort. The Friar’s short speech is a perfect example of how Shakespeare uses oxymorons, ambiguity
and meter to create different dramatic effects. “Come from that nest of death” is an example of the two first.
The connotations of the two consecutive words ‘nest’ and ‘death’ are very contradictory. Whilst nest has
homely, secure connotations and implies the bringing of new life, death is the end of life and has unnatural,
dark connotations. The statement is ambiguous because it could be interpreted as death’s nest or as the nest
of death. I think Shakespeare presents us with these oxymorons and ambiguities to manifest the confusing
and ambiguous nature of the situation the characters are in and encourage the audience to interpret phrases
and their significance but also perhaps to imply the possibly shady nature of the character speaking the
words- the Friar. Perhaps the layers of meaning in his speech imply ulterior motives for his actions. He goes
on to say “Thy husband in thy bosom there lies dead.” This is the only line in perfect iambic pentameter which
could perhaps imply the first real ‘truth’- shed of double meanings and unclearness, but also emphasizes the
bluntness with which the Friar dispatches this information, his seeming disregard for Juliet by the absence of
words of comfort, which would note particularly with the audience due to Juliet’s use of the word comfortable
earlier. He also later says he will “dispose of (Juliet)” emphasizing again his disregard for them both
suggesting he is not and was not concerned for Romeo and Juliet’s happiness as a couple but for the
potential social harmony they could potentially bring. This also ties in with the idea of the Friar falling back on
the system of faith as a means of getting out of a predicament. It is here opposing to other parts in the scene
such as Romeo’s speech that I think Shakespeare wants us to sympathize with Romeo and Juliet. It is as if
they are pieces being played on a chess board.
The iambic pentameter then breaks down creating the dramatic effect of panic rising.
It is the next of the Friar's actions that summarizes his speech and his character in one. He waits only for
Juliet to say one line “Go, get thee hence, for I will not away” before he flees the scene leaving behind a
scene of total devastation with Juliet heartbroken and her husband dead on her bosom. This cowardice and
selfishness is definitely significantly underdeveloped if not completely omitted from Baz Luhrmann's film
version.
Juliet’s speech before she commits suicide is much briefer than Romeo’s, and is included in Baz
Luhrmann's film version so the audience gets the contrasting language “make me die with a restorative” when
the two subjects of the sentence contradict each other creating conflict. However, the reason her speech is
cut short is not included. In the play, the chief watch comes in to the scene as Juliet is speaking and enters
the actual grave seconds after she commits suicide, hardly giving the audience time to digest the fact before
the focus changes, whereas in Baz Luhrmann's film Juliet commits suicide with a gunshot that reverberates
around the church followed by a powerful silence in which the audience absorbs the tragedy. Again this is an
example of how Shakespeare wanted to portray the events as the whole society’s affair whereas Baz
Luhrmann wants to portray it as a private love affair.
Once the watch arrive at the grave and order “Go tell the prince; run to the Capulets; / Raise up the
Montagues; some others search.” people start arriving at the scene very quickly. This is very unrealistic and
so I think Shakespeare is reminding us this is a play and not real. He also does this at other times such as
very early on in the scene in Paris' first speech. He talks about hollow ground and yew trees whereas in
Verona, where the play is set, people are not buried under ground but have an open tomb, so therefore the
ground would not be hollow. The yew tree signifies eternity and it is an English tradition to plant a yew tree in
grave yards- not so in Italy. I think it is significant that he opens the scene with this reminder of the plays
fictionality and this suggests to me that Shakespeare is not simply producing this plot for entertainment values
but to portray a message. This is very different in Baz Luhrmann's film as when an audience today goes to
the cinema they expect the film to create an illusion of reality, and so the director will try to make things as
realistic as possible.
I think the other reason Shakespeare puts in this unrealistically quick arrival of the characters is because of
the dramatic effect of the stage filling up with people around this scene of devastation, once again promoting
the sense of total involvement of the society. To Baz Luhrmann's credit, even if he had wanted to portray this
sense of involvement to today’s cinema audience he would have had a much bigger challenge in front of him
that Shakespeare did as societies in those days were much more close knit and in many societies people
were all inter related so there was much more of a sense of one persons problem was everyone’s problem.
Today’s society is just not the same.
Paris also comes into the argument here, as when Juliet rebukes her father when he offers her Paris, Baz
Luhrmann plays this scene as one where the audience is supposed to think “o poor Juliet! How unfair and
unkind. Those two lovers have the whole world against them.” This attitude is not entirely because of the way
Baz Luhrmann played the scene but because society and it’s attitudes towards marriage have greatly
changed since the day when Shakespeare was writing. Whereas the common perception now is that you
should marry for love, in Shakespeare’s day, especially in the class to which Juliet belongs, marriage was
much more of a political affair, hence in Shakespeare’s day the audience would have been more likely to see
things from Juliet’s father’s point of view. He has gone out of his way to provide her with a suitable husband,
possibly a father’s greatest gift and yet she rebukes him with ill manners. This could be seen as a rejection of
her fathers love, and so the audience’s repugnancy would possibly be less. It is one of the many things that
has not worked so well in Baz Luhrmann's film version as the cultural differences between the date the play is
set and the 21st century has meant that certain situations have not transferred as well and have been
distorted.
The Prince, The Capulets and the Montagues all arrive very rapidly to the scene. While Capulet repeats the
prefix ‘mis’ (“mistaken” “missheathed”) to emphasize it’s meaning, and hence the idea of wrongness and
against nature, Montague brings news of his wife’s death, adding poignancy to the play, and asks “what
further woe conspires against mine age?” manifesting the idea of Romeo and Juliet plotting and working
against their elders and possibly implying that they are in the wrong as it is their mis-lead/messed-up plot that
has led to so much grief. When one stops to consider that the love of these two youths has consequented in
the deaths of 3 completely innocent people, plus two others (the lovers themselves), but more importantly
utmost turmoil within the society, one finds it very hard not to see Romeo and Juliet as very self centered and
finds it hard not to blame them. The use of the word conspires could also be seen as a parallel to the Friar’s
reference to forces working against them earlier (“a force greater than we can contradict…”) and so could be
seen to refer to acts of heaven/hell/fate.
The prince then seals of the scene “till we can clear these ambiguities”. I think this line, meaning till we can
get to the bottom of these contradictory elements, emphasizes how the audience is being smothered in
ambiguous lines, dramatic irony, by the use of the word ambiguities, but then also tells us that the characters
in the play are being faced with the same or similar ambiguities.
The Friar’s short speech is filled with antithesis, emphasizing the idea of contradictory elements or
“ambiguities”. We then move onto the Friar’s “brief” speech, which turns out to be not so brief at all. This
speech is not, and I would not expect it to be included in Baz Luhrmann’s film version, as the dramatic effect
of the speech on stage would be completely lost on a cinema screen. From the perspective of someone
reading the play, this speech could be seen as long and tedious and boring. However, one has to imagine
how this would be staged. Remember that at this stage the stage is completely full of characters, the secret
affairs that have been going on throughout the play have come to light and tension is running high. As the
Friar relays the sequence of events, you have to imagine the ripples of surprise, horror and outrage that
would travel through the gathered characters. You would also be able to watch the faces of the Capulets and
Montagues as they are told of their children’s defiance and secret love. When one imagines all this, you can
see how this seemingly boring speech could become a high point of the play. I think this speech is one of the
many things that makes the theatrical experience of Romeo and Juliet so much richer than the cinematic
experience.
There are parallels between this speech and the one of Balthasar later on; both use a threat of death as an
excuse for their actions. Balthasar’s speech is much shorter and so the parallel is much more prominent. This
emphasizes the more cowardly side of the Friar that is so underdeveloped in the film. Another aspect of his
speech that emphasizes this is that he makes sure that everyone knows that “the nurse is privy” i.e. he is
trying to spread the blame.
In his speech, the Friar refers to events as both an “accident” and a “word of heaven”, obviously a great
contrast. I think this does two things; firstly it asks the audience again ‘is this divine intervention or just
unfortunate?’ and secondly we see that no-one so far is excepting any blame for the deaths. The Friar is
admitting the secret mission he undertook but still, by the use of these two words, making it quite clear that
this ending was unhelpable and not his fault. He also does not admit his true motivation for marrying the
couple- to unite the two families. By this point, the audience could be starting to ask itself ‘will the “spring”, the
“head”, and “true descent” of these deaths ever be remedied? To finish the Friar’s speech, Shakespeare once
again emphasizes the cowardly side of his character in his seemingly brave and honourable proposal that “if
aught in this / miscarried by my fault, let my old life… unto the rigour of severest law.” However I think it is
quite obvious that the Friar’s true motivation is to give a good impression and hence put himself in the public’s
favour so that he should not be found guilty in anyway.
The Prince reserves judgment (“we have still known thee for a holy man”) but soon sees where the true
blame lies. “See what a scrouge is laid upon your hate, / that heaven finds means to kill your joys with love,”
he says to the Capulets and Montagues, in other words ‘see what a curse your hate is that heaven kills your
pride and joys to show you the power of love. He then goes on to say that “I, for winking at you (turning a
blind eye), and discords too, Have lost a brace of kinsman. All are punish’d.” The Prince is the first to accept
any blame. The line “All are punish’d” is included in Baz Luhrmann’s film version but it’s meaning is very much
lost because of the cultural setting. I have mentioned before how Shakespeare’s audiences would come form
close knit societies where everyone is interrelated, whereas the size of the modern day Verona's makes is
most incomprehensible that all would be or feel “punish’d”.
I think the next passage is very significant. At first we think that the two families are joined at last in social
harmony, but this is soon shattered by Montague’s line “But I can give thee more!”. Despite all that has
happened, the Capulets and the Montague’s are still competing. They talk of gold statues, a fine gesture, but
still an open and public display of power and wealth. Even the end of the play is left rather ambiguous as have
Romeo and Juliet’s deaths completely wasted upon these elders. We do see that at least Capulet sees that
Romeo and Juliet are “poor sacrifices of enmity” despite the fact that just a line earlier he contributed to the
despite-all-still-on-going competition between the Capulets and Montagues, i.e. he sees they are too blame.
In conclusion, when answering this question I think we need to remember that though the cinematic
experience of Baz Luhrmann’s film version of Romeo and Juliet could not be a more different one from the
theatrical experience of Romeo and Juliet performed on stage as Shakespeare intended it, the differences are
not one’s failings and the other’s triumphs, as the two performances set out with very different intentions.
Whilst Baz Luhrmann’s film, aimed at a Hollywood audience who seek solely to be entertained, aspires to do
just that, and hence excludes Shakespeare’s attempts to challenge the audience reducing the rich and
enlightening play to a facile love story, the Romeo and Juliet performance put on by many theatre companies
in England seek to broaden the faculties of the audience, and the audiences that go to see Romeo and Juliet
at the theatre have very different expectations than those who go to see Baz Luhrmann’s film version at the
cinema.
I think we also have to take into account how entertainment has very much changed since Shakespeare’s
day. Today, our entertainment is very visual, whereas in Shakespeare’s day an audience would have gone to
hear a play opposing to going to see a film today. I think we can see how unimportant Shakespeare
considered the visual aspects of his play to be from the stage directions “they fight”. This is very vague and
flexible, and I think this flexibility manifests its insignificance compared to the text. Throughout the film, Baz
Luhrmann replaces Shakespeare’s literary imagery and layers of meaning with spectacular footage and an
emotive sound track to cater for a very different audience.
I also think it is important to note that though texts of great dramatic effect, this is not necessarily lost as
whilst Shakespeare creates dramatic effect through character’s lines e.g. the breakdown of iambic
pentameter in moments of panic and perfect iambic pentameter and rhyming couplets when something of
significance is happening, filmography has other ways of creating these effects.
I think we can conclude that Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet with the full text and performed on stage as
Shakespeare intended definitely provides a richer theatrical experience, but Baz Luhrmann’s film version is
more effective in other ways.