The most evident division of The Merchant of Venice arouses when the characters of Antonio and Shylock are brought into light, but that is just an example of what happens generally in the play. It is left out of consideration, though, that the mayority of the character's happiness depend on Shylock as their goodness is created in contrast to the character of the Jew.
The Merchant of Venice, 2004 move adaptation.
The Merchant of Venice was first wrote as a comedy, which results obvious when considering that it shows a happy ending where all the characters are contempt: Antonio still lives, Portia makes sure Bassanio is in a debt of love to her, Bassanio holds no grim on his back, Lorenzo and Jessica love each other...but what about Shylock? He is the sole chap of the play who is, in a allegorical way, erased of the plot, and since he was the object of despise of the other characters, his nonexistence results in the joy of them. The happiness of the characters depends on Shylock, more specifically, his disappearance and defeat.
By despising the Jew along with his mates Bassanio, Lorenzo and the Anti-Semitic Gratiano, Antonio builds this identity of good fellow even though they are not morally better than Shylock. Antonio, as Harold Bloom (1892) portrays him, has another hidden side which basically "manifests his piety by cursing and spitting at Shylock;" Bassanio borrows money and favor from almost everyone; Lorenzo is basically a lusty bandit; and Gratiano can be perfectly considered a xenophobic flatterer. They need a foil to whom contrast their own behavior and they get that in the person of Shylock.
Such ideas lead to questions about ourselves: Are we that good we think we are? Have we used someone to gossip about as an excuse for establishing relations? Have we been happy when a hated one is in pain or sorrow?
References
Bloom, H.; Wright, W.A.; Shakespeare, W. (2005) Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. NY: Riverhead Books.
Romeo & Juliet: How Romeo's Recklessness Led to Their Demise
It was an unavoidable conclusion. Throughout the entirety of the play, Romeo exhibited such rash and impulsive behavior that the only way he could have gotten a happy ending was to fundamentally change who he was. This, of course, is an impossibility, as is the power and extent of Romeo and Juliet's "love" had Romeo been a more mature and patient individual. This truly is one of those "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" situations. If Romeo had just waited a little bit before killing himself, or if he had thought about the consequences and repercussions of his actions BEFORE actually acting on his impulses, then surely both of them would have lived. However, had they lived, their love would not be one of legends, and their story would not be firmly cemented as the quintessential love story of all time. Nevertheless, the very "legendary" status of Romeo & Juliet's story worries me. Why, after all, is their love thought of with such esteem? Their love isn't any different to the thousands of stories we hear (or even experience ourselves) about two people falling MADLY in love, only to end up dead, beat up, in prison or alone. This crazy, passionate love is actually a result of chemicals going crazy inside our heads, giving us the feeling of "loving" the other person, when in fact we're simply high out of our minds and thus any decision that we make is neither logical nor rational, but in fact, can be quite dangerous and destructive. I believe it wise to make a distinction between "love" and "feeling-in-love". Love, after all, is not a feeling, but a decision. If love were a feeling, then it wouldn't last more than 2 years, because feelings change constantly and if we experience a feeling long enough, eventually it will cease to satisfy us. No, love cannot be a feeling. It MUST be a logical and rational DECISION to be with another person, both in the good and the bad, or so the marriage vows go. What Romeo experienced was a surge of serotonin (a "feel good" chemical released in our brains with the purpose of procreation) and every action he took part in was a result of, quite simply, being on drugs. We shouldn't hail their love as the most magical of all love stories; instead, we should see it as a warning, a warning of what happens when we lose all objectivity and chose to listen to our emotions against the better judgement of our minds. What would have happened, I wonder, had Romeo and Juliet survived their ordeal? Would they have lasted more than a year? Two? Or would they have been in love forever, as fairy tale princes and princesses often are? They are FAIRY TALES. People get married expecting to be in love forever, and when things get rough they simply get a divorce. How romantic. Why do we value the superficial relationships of fictional characters more than those of real individuals sticking together in spite of the hardships and problems that come with life and real human relationships? These fairy tale stories are lies, and the problem is that we still believe them. We believe Romeo to be a true romantic, when in fact he was quite a selfish and murderous child. How many people did he kill? 2? 3? Oh, but he did it for love. Right...
In my opinion, Romeo's rash and destructive personality led to his and Juliet's death, and all because of believing that what he felt was true and immaculate. The "love" that he felt is called infatuation, and the deaths that he caused are called murder. Romeo and Juliet's story is not a healthy view of romantic relationships, and should be considered quite accurate in depicting the end result of a tumultuous and obsessive romance.
We have discussed that The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play.We have also discussed that Shakespeare does not really portray his opinion or position in his plays. Instead, he makes us think about the relationship between the old order and the new order.
In this regard, Shakespeare presents 2 counterparts to be described and represented as the Christian and the Jew; Antonio and Shylock. Antonio is supposed to be the faithful representation of the Christian values such as compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and willingness to give up his life for the well being of the other, following Jesus' example. And Antonio seems to portray those values, especially when dealing with Bassanios' wishes. He is a good person, willing to put his life in danger for Bassanio.
However, he abuses Shylock, the Jew, verbally and psychologically, hating him and his usury. And this is the important and paradoxical point. Some passages of the play make me think that the way Antonio reacts and thinks doesn't make him look so Christian as supposed. For instance, in Act 1-scene 3, when Bassanio looks for Shylock to lend him money on behalf of Antonio, it is clear that Antonio is not willing to apologize for all the times he called Shylock a dog and spitted on his face:
"I am as like to call thee so again To spit on thee again, to spurn thee, too"
These lines make me wonder where the Christian compassion and forgiveness are portrayed. Not to mention the resolution of the trial when Antonio's "mercy" was to make Shylock a Christian--convert him into Shylock's most hated nightmare. Antonio is expected to react with compassion, as he needed Shylock, but instead, he couldn't demonstrate a bit of the Christian values and character. Furthermore, I think this could be interpreted as his own revenge, being easily confused with justice.
So I wonder, what is Shakespeare exactly trying to tell us about being Christian? Does the true Christian really exist? Can a person be a Christian while keeping hatred for someone that is not?
I think or I hope that for all of us it is
familiar what is going on in Syria. The horrible stories from the news have
informed us about the terrible situation that the civil war has brought to
millions of people. It all began in 2011,
when nonviolent protest inspired by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia
rose up to challenge decades of dictatorship, corruption and violence. However,
the government responded in the most violent way, killing activists and their
families, kidnapping and torturing. The troops of the "government" opened fire on
protest and finally civilians started shooting back. The Syrian army positioned across the country
and civilians organized rebel groups. That
is how the civil war started. Political
science, James Fearon of Stanford University, has said that Syria’s civil war
will last at least another decade. Foreign
powers have supported different sides and the United Nations has persuaded to negotiate
without success.
Now, in relation to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice something quite
curious occurred on August, when the Syrian Parliament appears to have quoted
part of Shylock’s famous speech to the UK MPs (The UK public elects Members of
Parliament) in a try to convince them to not take military action against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad.
In the second paragraph of a five-page
letter, Mohammad Jihad al-Laham, speaker of the people's assembly of Syria,
writes:
"We write to you as fathers and mothers, as
members of families and communities really not so different to yours. We write
to you as fellow human beings for, if you bomb us, shall we not bleed?"
Probably the idea of the Syrian parliament
was to show Syria to the UK MPs as “the Jew” Even though Syria has been an
example of religious tolerance. Prior to the 2011, more than 87 percent of
Syrians ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they always treat people of other
religious ideas with respect.
I think
that the idea of the letter was to convince British members of parliament with
one of the most recognized English writers of all times, perhaps with those
words they will understand the pain and suffering that Syrian people have lived
as Shylock lived as a discriminated Jew in 16th century. However something is in my mind that I cannot understand. We know that Shylock was looking
for revenge, he was the bad guy of the play, but in the end he was seemed as a victim, at least for me. Did the Syrian parliament try to show themselves as
victims of a cruel war, or as victims looking for revenge? What do you think?
When I read Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, I
really loved Shylock's character and, in a certain way, I justified his actions
of cruelty. I believe that maybe the same has
happened to other people too, and that this is why it has been so difficult for
critics to define him.
Even though I know it is hard to pity him, I think
Shylock's hatred was a result of years of harassment, constructed by people
around him. People like Antonio who discriminated him for being a Jew and not a
Christian. The city thought of him as an outsider and even his daughter left
him alone without a strong justification, as she said that her father did not
mistreat her and asked for forgiveness through a letter, as it is shown at the
end of the play.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, a speaker and writer on philosophical
and spiritual subjects, once claimed that the inner always overcomes the outer.
He posed that outward beauty can never last, for it is marred if there is no
inward delight and joy. He stated that we can cultivate the outer, paying very
little attention to the thing inside the skin; nonetheless, it is the inner
that always overcomes the outer. (retrieved from http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20120831.php?t=Beauty)
This idea becomes, seemingly, evident when reading TheMerchant
of Venice. We know that Portia’s father had established that she was to be
chosen by one who would rightly love. As a result, Bassanio has to choose the
right casket, and by doing so, prove that his love is real. Therefore, unlike
the other suitors, Bassanio is not blinded by appearances. In fact, he states
that the world is deceived with ornaments, and it is probably that idea that leads
him not to choose the golden or silver casket, but the plead one. Consequently,
he finds the portrait of Portia and the key to her.
Apparently, what Krishnamurti poses is true; however, we
cannot forget that through the play, Shakespeare is making the audience
question what happens in “the real world.” Therefore, he might be saying that
in the real world the inner does not always overcome the outer. By reading the
Scpritures, we find in the Book of James a strong criticism against the sin of
partiality, for human beings tend to favor someone with golden rings and fine
clothing over someone poor and in shabby clothes, which seems to be a rather “natural”
attitude.
Human beings tend to believe what they see, yet what we see
may not necessarily be what we believe it is, because our eyes may be playing
some tricks on us.
Are the lines in between parallel to each other?
If we believe that the inner always overcome the outer, we
still have to question whether what’s inside is good or bad. Therefore, it should be asked about Portia
whether she is the obedient daughter and the good wife devoted to his husband, or
if she is a rather controlling and merciless person. Is it not true that “it is
the worm inside the apple that destroys the freshness of the apple?” (Krishnamurti).
Does the inner always overcome the outer? Do we believe
that, only for justifying who we are with? Can we trust what we see? How do we
know whether something is real or not? If human beings wear masks all the time,
can they be trusted? Perhaps, after centuries we still need to quote Socrates
and say “I only know that I know nothing."
We know
that Shakespeare’s influence in popular culture is massive. “Romeo and Juliet”
has influenced music, as in Dire Straits’ “Romeo and Juliet”; Titania and
Oberon have been mentioned in “The Simpsons” and “Star Trek”; and popular
actors and actresses such as Glenn Close and Mel Gibson have starred movies
based on “Hamlet.” But, what would you say if I told you that part of Oberon
and Titania’s disagreements appear in a Japanese videogame?
The game in
question is “Devil Summoner 2,” a spin-off of a saga called “Shin Megami
Tensei.” It was released in 2009 for the PlayStation 2 and tells the story of a
young detective, Raidou, who is trying to unveil a big mystery. The game is set
in the 1920s in The Capital (Tokyo), and naturally, the protagonist has to
travel to different places, accompanied by his cat friend Gouto. In one of these
places, he will be asked to solve a conundrum:
“There's supposedly a village that was wiped off the
map in theforest north of Tsukigata. Rumor has it anyone
who goes into that cursed place never comes back. I'd like to ask you to find
it. I know it could be risky, but I think a tough guy like you will do fine.
I'll give you a Fickle Dew as a reward.”
It turns
out that Queen Titania was the one behind the request, whose goal was to make
Raidou, “the darling Oriental boy,” her new consort so that they could live
forever together in the “Tento Woods.” After his refusal to such forced
invitation, Oberon, the Faerie King and Titania’s husband, gives Raidou a love
potion that can redirect Titania’s love to Oberon. Once Raidou accomplishes the
goal, the Queen and the King of the Faerie decide to turn him into a page, and
Oberon confesses that it was all part of his plan to regain Titania’s love and
a new servant. After revealing the truth, the battle begins. When the fight is
over, the effect of the potion wears off and the couple argues again, leaving
the area. Can you see the resemblance?
In the
original plot, Oberon asks Titania for a changeling (a baby or boy who is to
replace another one) because the one she had brought from India is really
beautiful and could be a good knight. Titania refuses, so Oberon asks Puck to
look for a flower whose liquid can make anyone fall in love with the first
thing that person sees. Of course, Oberon orders Puck to spread the liquid in
Titania’s eyes, but when she wakes up she sees and, consequently, falls in love
with Bottom, a donkey-head man.
As you can
see, the course of action is very similar in both the original play and the
videogame. Oberon wants a knight, but he fails in the process. What is interesting
in this analogy is the concept of the worlds. Just like Raidou and Gouto, the
characters from the play “travel” through different worlds, immersing
themselves in another reality where they will influence and will be influenced
by the new characters, coexisting altogether in the new dimension. Raidou would
be representing a new, naïve, Oriental Puck in this new world. Additionally,
the graphic aspect provided by the videogame helps to characterize the
environment of the “Green World” through the conceptual art behind the “Tento
Woods,” making it a good source for the mental representation of the stage
where the events occur.
What we
have here is not a mind-blowing recreation of the original play, but a good exemplification
of the main conflict between Titania and Oberon, a glimpse of their troubled
relationship, and a good graphical source for the representation of the
faeries’ environment. Moreover, we get to understand how Shakespeare’s presence
evident in many works of art around the world, not only in the West. Titania, Oberon, and Queen Mab have been recurring demons in the saga “Shin Megami Tensei” since
the very beginning (1990s), and they also rule a Faerie kingdom in a
post-apocalyptic Tokyo in the 2004 game “Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne.” Why do you think other cultures take a liking to Shakespeare's works?
P O R T I A By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is
aweary of this great world.
N E R I S S A: You would be, sweet madam, if your
miseries were in the same abundance as your good fortunes are ; and yet for
aught I see, they are as sick that surfeit with too much as they that starve
with nothing. It is no mean
happiness, therefore, to be seated in themean - superfluity comes sooner by white hairs, but
competencylives longer.
When I read Romeo and Juliet, I was able to sense
the differences between wealthy people and common people. The first one had to
face enormous contraries because of their position; they had to keep an image
–besides as the higher you climb, the harder you fall- and tested if the one
who were around them was because they had interest or they were sincere. On the
contrast, the latest lived their lives simply, they didn’t have interpersonal
issues and they knew their position and what they are.
In Merchant of Venice the difference is
even more notorious. We can see how Portia had to be the good daughter, respect
her father’s will and be cautious with the fortune inherited, which is why she
had to marry to a men with no interests made on her fortune. If we remember the
scene of the caskets, we can see the evidence that how worry was her father
about that issue: her father placed her not in the golden casket because that
will mean that men just wanted money; not in the silver one because it will
mean that men just desire her as a trophy; but the lead casket, the simplest
one will represent a leap of faith, a risk taken for those who actually love.
Moreover, Portia
had to be cautious enough to not commit any mistakes, since she was the head of
Belmont,
everyone will see if she failed. Keep up appearances was an issue, which is why
I previously stated that the higher you climb, the harder you fall.
It seems that those
who have more money have to be aware of golden diggers, be cautious about their
relationships and be always testing those who are around them.
Do you agree with
me? It seems as if wealthy people attract more problems. Can you think on other
example?
Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
When I first
watched The Merchant of Venice, I was
trapped reading the play (Act I, to be exactly) and watching the film was a
relief. Maybe some of you will immediately judge me because I didn’t give an opportunity
to this masterpiece of English literature, but I must admit that I am terrible
reader when it comes to understand and analyze old English. This adaptation
helped me not only to visualize the setting and context of the play, but also to
appreciate the different actor’s performances. Al Pacino’s performance, specifically,
was admirable because he brought humanity to one of Shakespeare’s most
controversial characters: Shylock. Bringing humanity to a human character may
sound a little bit silly, but I am not talking about any character, I am
talking about the supposedly despicable and greedy villain Shylock. Since I
read the play without meticulously noticing the protagonists’ temperaments, I
didn’t realize their complexity and ambiguity. Therefore, watching the film
gave me a fresh perspective, especially with Shylock.
Despite the
fact that Shylock has very few lines on the play (and on the film, as well), Al
Pacino’s performance—and obviously Shylock’s essence—portrays a palpable Jewish
man who makes us feel sympathy, and even sorrow.
My two favorite
scenes are Shylock’s. One of them is the Hath
not a Jew? a moment in which I personally felt the vulnerability and
desperation, as well as the rejection against Shylock only for being the Jew. My second favorite scene,
almost at the end, is when Shylock is outrageously demanding Antonio’s pound of
flesh when suddenly he is intercepted and questioned by a cross-dressing
Portia. He was about to accomplish his role as the Jew showing no mercy by killing the good Christian fellow
Antonio. However, what we don’t expect is having Antonio acting without mercy when
he demands that Shylock must convert to Christianity. As Harold Bloom mentions
in his essay “Antonio wins and has nothing except money, Shylock loses (and
deserves to lose) and has nothing, not even an identity”. There is an
unbearable irony in this part; it is either Antonio’s butchery or Shylock
baptism. We all know the endings for these two characters, but I believe that
Shylock received the worst punishment because as a Christian he cannot be
himself: neither a Jew nor a moneylender. He vanishes when he loses his own
identity, and Al Pacino captures that when he says “I am content”.
I probably shouldn’t be writing about Romeo and Juliet;
because the deadline was yesterday (I’m really sorry). But it was until now
that I watched this “romantic” movie called Tres
Metros Sobre el Cielo.
I am pretty sure you're wondering what this movie has to do with William
Shakespeare’s play. Surprisingly enough,
21st century romantic movies share most of the elements, symbols and imagery
that are present in some plays written
by Shakespeare.
When watching Tres Metros
Sobre el Cielo, it's possible to young Hugo (leading character) who belongs to a rich family, just like Romeo. The first time we see Hugo, we realize that his feeling are a mixed of hatred and sadness and alike Rome he es associated with "darkness".
Hugo and his friends decide to crash the
party of another wealthy family, "invade" the house, and it’s there where he meets young Baby, just
like in Romeo and Juliet.
In the party, Baby is wearing a white dress, which comes
to represent purity and coyness. It’s also posibble to see the water imagery, showing
transparency in twhat is going to become their “love”.
There are many more examples that make me think of a sort of
adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. We see Hugos’ best friend dying, just like
Mercutio, as well as the opposition of certain family members to the main character's relationship.
Some other aspects, up to a certain point, do resemble
Hamlet. For example, Hugo is called “H” which might be an allusion to Hamlet
himself. Hugo saw his mother cheating on his father, which is the origin of him being a rebel and mad at everybody.
Well this is more or less what I got from the movie, and maybe I got it all
wrong, and making this sort of connections is just craziness, but I do see that some intertextuality is present here, and it's just interesting to see that today's “entertainment” mirrors in certain ways that of Shakespeare’s society. Maybe, we are not too different from the man of the 1500's. After all, our lives still revolve around some of the same issues.
One last thing, my dear classmates, do not discard movies just because. If close attention is paid to little details, great analysis can be made. Besides it's always fun to mix some pop-culture with Classics. So give it a try and see how raising media awareness might
be helpful for dealing with topics like this
Thanks for reading!
Ya’ll have a good one =)
P.S. If you don't like the movie feel free to post!
“A pair of star-crossed
lovers take their life...” From the first paragraph of the play we can see how
through the dialogues their fate is stated. Romeo and Juliet’s love was forbidden
by society, yet was their tragic end just their parents’ fault? Or there was
something else?
From the beginning we see this
constant association with death that is always presented in the whole storyline.
First we see Romeo playing his role as the romantic hero, and sharing with us
his dark thoughts about unrequired love. Moreover, while the story follows its course,
not only he gives a hint of what’s going to happen next, Juliet is the chosen
one to show us which are the results of so much hate. Maybe, those thoughts
that we thought as premonitions of the worst, are no more than a judgment based
on so much hate that she perceived around their love. Juliet says:
“Give me my Romeo. And when I
shall die
Take him and cut him out in
little stars,
And he will make the face of
heaven so fine
That all the world will be
in love with night..”
This shadowy revelation that
Juliet experiments after her cousin’s death, might give us a sense of
monopolizing feelings over her beloved; however, Romeo died after seen her in
her grave as she asked the destiny to do so. Then, Shakespeare through those monologues
gave us the feeling of losing and leads us to the end we already experimented.
Reflections, premonitions, intuitions, signs, foreseeing;
all of them are mechanisms that helps the reader to sense tragedy and their
love as a destiny’s decision towards characters life.
According
to what we have studied in classes, Shakespeare was inspired by Arthur Brooke
to write one of the most important plays of all times, Romeo and Juliet.
Brooke’s poem was called “The tragicall
History of Romeus and Juliet” which was also inspired by a poem called “Novelli” written in 1554 by Matteo
Bandelo.
Romeo and Juliet
is a story magically created out of the unknown, rescuing visions that were
damned to oblivion, and turned into what we know now as one of the most
important tragedies ever written.
We know
that the 1590 play continues inspiring these days; filmmakers have been motivated
with Shakespeare’s love story, creating movies that have captured the soul of
the play; for example, the 1996 Baz Luhrman’s modern-setting version has
brought the original text into the big screen. Updating the old Verona into a
post –modern city, DiCaprio and Danes (Romeo
and Juliet) fill their classic role with passion and speak the Elizabethan
verse with grace, keeping the balance between the new and the old, the comedy
and the tragedy.
Most than
400 years have passed and the touch has not lost, so how does Romeo and Juliet keep influencing the
imagination of modern movie directors?
The play is
the most famous love story in the world; love is violent and powerful, it
easily transcends words, images and time. Love is pushed near its opposite ;
hate, both overwhelmed the main characters to a point in which Romeo and Juliet’s passion can be
described as a fusion of these two emotions. A supreme and beautiful union that
can be resisted only by this transcendent couple.
In my
opinion, the fusion between dark (hate) and light (love) are the themes that
have endured throughout the time until modern ages. We, as humans, are always
in contact with positive and negative forces that can make us do things that we
never thought about. It moves us, it fills us with something new, it pushes us
to the edge of life without paying attention to the dangers, or maybe such a
powerful feeling is just not made for this world.
The play
and the movie are representations of what cannot endure; love, the absolute,
the movie and the play themselves are not infinite performances, they have a
time and will come to an end, but in a way the play has been able to last for
more than 400 years, as master piece and, as the gold statue of the lovers, a
reminder of how true feelings govern people’s life.
We were born in a certain place, in a certain time, and with certain
people who are called our family. It is something that we cannot change (unless
we travel in time), because we have a blood union with them, and sometimes we
have things in common. In spite of the fact that people say “they are the
people who are always going to be with you”, this blood union is not as
important as the relationships we built through the pass of years. In fact, we
can see a clear example of it in one of the greatest works of Shakespeare, “Romeo
and Juliet”.
The relationship between Juliet and her parents is quite atypical. Her
father, someone who does not care if Juliet is happy or not, just wants to see
her married to Paris even when he told her that she is "free to
choose" her own mate. Lady Capulet, a distant woman who loves her daughter
even when she do not demonstrate her love, lives in a fantasy world in which she
has to do everything her husband say. In addition, the Nurse is the one who cares
and loves Juliet even more than her own mother. She is her confident and plays
the role as if she was Lady Capulet. Without having a blood union between them,
the Nurse was the person who raised Juliet and knew her personal desires.
In my opinion, there are people who do not care about their own family
and treat them like if they were strangers. As a result, they find friends who
play that role and built a non-traditional family with them. However, I cannot
imagine living in the medieval age having a distant relationship with my
parents. So, my question is: do you think family is overrated? Do you believe
that friends are the family we choose?
According to the story, we, as
the readers, tend to think love can make everything posible. Unfortunately, as
the play follows we realise there is no chance for the couple to survive from
their true love. Love that seems to be pure as they live for each other; there
is no more infatuation or a any fantasy which may them think or believe is love, because it actually is!
Besides, the concept of love was
considered quite different to what we think it is nowadays. In the play, this
complex feeling was described as an idealistic one, because at that time,
people used to getting married without compromising emotions whatsoever. The
confrontation of love takes place here, which must fight against political
authority, values and destiny.
Romeo and Juliet come from
opposite families, and they know in advance that they should not be together
,otherwise their families would find the way of separating them at any cost. However,
they decide to keep their strongs feelings, without measuring the tragic
consequences of that magic and
magnificent love… transformed in tragedy.
I would like to think that real
love lasts forever , perhaps this particular one really lingered forever till
eternity;nevertheless, it does not seems to happen in the current days.
Actually there are less people who fight unceasingly for their feelings, no
matter the obstacles or the people that may interfere in the relationship .
Finally, I would like to add that
even though this story is artificially true, it really made posible the
reconciliation of the two families involved. It was not fair – at least for me
– but “sacrifice” was the key for the
solution of their families’ forgiveness.
For centuries, people thought that our lives was pre-determined by God; for centuries, people believed that actions had a purpose and a reason -- even though they were not understandable. Society were simply convinced that things happened just because they were supposed to happen; indeed, they accepted fate, destiny. In fact, during the Elizabethan era, one's destiny or fate was viewed as predetermined; they strongly believed in the wheels of fortune, in fate, and in superstition.
Nevertheless, William Shakespeare once said, "it is not in the stars to hold our destiny bu in ourselves." He definitely went against the mainstream by saying that one's fate can be changed by our free will. In that era, many believed in the power of the stars to predict the future, and Shakespeare uses this idea to anticipate the desired and tragi ending, as it is shown, "a pair of stars cross's lovers take their life (R&J, prologue, 6)." However, throughout Romeo and Juliet
there are some glanes of hope that this young couple might overcome the adverse situations and survive. It is difficult to say whether it is a matter of fate or not, because through the story, characters have different options to choose, and a lot of incidents happen that throw readers into confusion. For instance, when the servant invites Rome and Benvolio to the Capulet party and the presence of Paris at Juliet's tomb (among other stituations) demonstrate that something is going wrong and, eventually, Romeo and Juliet are predestined to die together. Or, the eternal disputes between Capulets and Montagues, the fight between Romeo and Tybalt, and the suicide of the couple show that their actions were chosen by their own without any other influence or force. Yes, Romeo and Juliet demonstrates the idea of fate versus free well.
From the beginning of the story, we as readers can have a bird's eye view of the play. This young couple seems to be ruled by fate as everything is constantly related and linked to together; nevertheless, at the end, we end up unconnsciously questioning if the death of Romeo and Juliet is predetermined by destiny or it happens because of their free will. Is this a proof that, sometimes, the dice are not loaded from the start? This leads us to re-think about our own lives. Religion has lost importance in a predestined world, we do not longer believe that God may determine our lives. Without free will, there would not be a balance between good and evil, perhaps. Certainly, nowadays many elements of our lives seem to depend on our free will but, how many of them, actually, rely on man's free will? Maybe we think that it depends on us, but maybe it is a matter of fate, as well.
