First Impressions- (Acts 2-3)
The play Romeo and Juliet is about how two star-crossed lovers fall in love but have to keep their relationship a secret because their families are enemies. Acts 2-3 are about how Romeo and Juliet are trying to secure their marriage while still keeping it a secret. In Act 3, a big fight breaks out and Mercutio (a Montague) and Tybalt (a Capulet) are pronounced dead. Soon, Romeo is banished from the town while still trying to be with Juliet.
In only a few acts, a lot has happened in the Romeo and Juliet play. One part that I found was pretty exciting was when Mercutio and Tybalt were fighting and later when Tybalt and Romeo were fighting. Something that I found that was pretty questionable would be when Juliet says she would rather have like 1,000 more killed Tybalt’s (her own family) than to be without Romeo. I still just do not understand why Juliet was willing to give up her family name for someone she just met, the same goes for Romeo as well.
The whole love at first sight idea has come a long way in the play. This idea of love at first sight is progressing in such a fast way already Romeo and Juliet confessed their love for each other and are about to get married. Not only did they do that, but Romeo and Juliet are willing to give up their families names in order for them to be together.
One question that my classmates and I came up with before reading the play was, does not at first go both ways (do both people feel the same way)? Since we started reading the play, I can confirm that love at first sight can go both ways. Right away, both Romeo and Juliet confessed their love for each other and wanted to get married. This was right after they saw each other at the Capulet party. This shows that love at first can go both ways, but it might not always be the case.
In the play, many things have happened without a clear understanding of who is responsible for them. I believe that Romeo is responsible for many things like deaths, character developments, and many more. For example, if Romeo decided to fight Tybalt in the first place maybe no one would have died. Also, maybe if Romeo didn’t get over Roseline so fast, many other events that followed would not have happened.
Juliet + Hate- (Character Analysis)
In acts 2-3, Juliet shows a lot of hate as her character is played out. She mostly shows her love for Romeo as she is not expressed as much as Romeo was. However, she shows hatred in many parts like when she first realizes Romeo is listening to her thoughts to when Romeo is banished from killing Tybalt.
1. In this scene, she finds out that someone (Romeo) was listening to her private thoughts (about Romeo) and gets angry that they heard her.
2. In this scene, she hates Tybalt for starting the fight and she hates that Romeo is banished from her town.
|1. This provides evidence as to why Juliet was so angry at first when she found out that Romeo was listening to her thoughts.
2. This provides evidence as to why Juliet was so angry while talking to her Nurse about the fight and Romeo’s banishment.
Mercutio vs. Tybalt-
In Act 3 scene 1, Mercutio and Tybalt fight. At first, Romeo is challenged by Tybalt but says, “Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee Doth much excuse the appertaining rage To such a greeting. Villain am I none. Therefore, farewell. I see thou know’st me not” (3.1.48-36). Since Romeo does not want to fight Tybalt, Mercutio takes his place in battle. Mercutio is then hurt and later dies because of Tybalt.
Who is the blame for their fight? It is not clear however, there are many different ideas on what or who is to blame. At first, I strongly believed Romeo was to blame for the fight. Maybe if Romeo fought Tybalt in the first place no one would have died. Maybe if Romeo fought he could have tried to calm Tybalt down. However, after hearing other peers opinions, I now feel that hatred between the two families is to blame. If there was no hatred, no one would have fought to begin with meaning that no one would have died.
Why might Shakespeare have killed them both off so quickly? This question confused me very much. I do not understand why Shakespeare would kill off the characters so quickly since one was known for his wits (Mercutio) and the other for his intensity (Tybalt). However, I feel as though Shakespeare killed them off so easily because it gives the play more suspense and adds more drama.
Zeffirelli vs. Luhrman-
In class, we watched both versions of the Mercutio vs Tybalt scene. Each movie captured the hatred between them in different ways. In Zeffirelli’s version, Mercutio was wittier and kind of making a joke of things. It kind lighted the mood even after Tybalt was very angry and wanted to fight. Luhrman’s version was much more serious while Mercutio and Tybalt were talking. There was no remorse and things were much more brutal showing more hatred between the two.
Not only was the way the scenes were played out different but also the camera work involved was different too. In Zeffirelli’s version, the camera work was shot from farther away, following the bodies of the two men fighting. In Luhrman’s version, the camera work was much closer to the actors facing making it seem more intense and more fast-paced.
Even the character development was different between the two movies. In Zeffirelli’s version, the characters seemed more relaxed like they were just talking to each other and not fighting at all. In Luhrman’s version, the characters showed more emotion and the scenes were more advance and real looking, especially when they were fighting. Luhrman’s version, to me, felt more compelling and it moved in into believing that the fight was actually happening.