Mercutios death in the high and the low culture

If one decided to discuss the phenomenon of mixing high and low culture, Baz Luhrmanns Shakespeare adaptation would be worth discussing: the film is a strange example, when the extreme change in the set meets not complete, nevetheless, extreme faithfulness to the original story and text of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet. The atmosphere generated by this striking contrast between the set and the text is exciting in itself. Nonetheless, I would like to focus on not only this characteristic of the movie, but rather on one scene, a famous part of the original play, Mercutios death. Furthermore, other symbolic elements will be discussed which significantly influence the understanding of the scene with regard to its importance and message. These all lead to a subjective interpretation on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to a very own message of the film, which makes it a completely individual work of art. This part is short but significant. The unexpected deat h of Mercutio immediately leads to Tybalts death, both of which mean an irreversible impact on the play and the fate of the characters. Things have ultimately gone wrong, and after that it is highly unlikely that the couple can ever be happy thereafter. In other words, the death of the two characters leads to a border situation in the Jaspersian sense for every significant character: this event results in the dramatic change of every characters personality (e.g. Romeo, Juliet), or if not, the revelation of the limits of their personality (e.g. the Nurse). That is the point where the romantic comedy turns into a tragedy. This is the same in the movie: before the scene the movie is roughly a slow, romantic teen movie. After the scene the events become faster, and the schocking death of Mercutio was made one of the most memorable and dramatic scene of the movie. The audience is made to feel that there will be plague o both their houses from now on. Firstly, I would like to briefly focus on Mercutios depict ion in the movie. The fact that he does not belong to any of the two families is emphasised by that he is the only black character of the younger generation. Although there is another important black character, Captain Prince (Prince Escalus in the original play), funnily, both are typical clichs of American movies: one of them is the

stereotypiocal black chief of police, and the other one, Mercutio, is the typical only black guy in the group. This is the first element which moves the original play closer to the average moviegoer; the difference is that Mercutio is given a strong and important character contrasting to the stereotypical and insignificant depiction of such. The only stereotypical feature he bears is his sense of humour. Besides this, Mercutio is also differentiated from the other characters by his sophisticated, metaphorical, often ambiguos but still prose-like language. Nevertheless, the dialogues are not significantly adjusted to the audience. It is impossible to find out how most people feel themselves hearing this archaic Shakespearean language, what and how they understand. However, it is obvious that after a while the language gives a unique atmosphere to the whole film, and there is a striking difference between this language and the slangy language one would expect from a movie which is about the war of two gangs. Still, the effect might be similar. The makers were apparently faithful to the original text, therefore any omission and additions are worth discussing, and that is the point where the focus should shift on the aforementioned scene. Here some parts of the original texts were omitted, dialogues are not that rich comparing to the original play, which results in the greater emphasis of what is left. Curiously, many omitted parts belonged to Mercutio. First of all, after Romeo arrives, Mercutio and Tybalt do not talk until the former attacks the latter, whereas in the original play Mercutio is taunting Tybalt in the presence of Romeo. Later in the scene other parts are also missing from Mercutios part , but now I would like to focus on that small part, the encounter of Rome and Tybalt. The adherence to the original dialogue results in a strange scene: although Romeo, the teenage icon, is depicted as the romantic hero, he says I love thee (in more sophisticated forms, of course) several times to another male character. He could say I love you as well, the whole event would be still unusual for the average audience. The confusion is reflected by Tybalts (and many of the other characters) facial expression, whose face is full of despair during the heat of the moment. However, they begin to fight, more precisely, Tybalt bashes up Romeo, who is lying on the ground. Despite Tybalts willingness, there is no fight between them either in the original play or in,

for example, Franco Zeffirellis adaptation. Only between Tybalt and Mercutio. In this movie, there is not a real fight either, but their confrontation lasts much longer comparing to the original play. Therefore it was necessary for the dialogues dynamic that Tybalt be given a line for he does not remain speechless: Thou art my soul's hate! That line does not exist in Shakepseares play despite its authenticity in terms of language. In the original play after Romeo finishes their conversation with his line be satisfied, Mercutio interrupts (while in Zefirellis film Tybalt mocks on Romeo , which provokes Mercutio into a duel). All in all, the movie needed a fight, which could also show Romeo behaving as a brave tragic hero and not just as a murder that he becomes later on. And that scene needed supplement from the moviemakers in terms of dialogues. Nevertheless, the enraged Mercutio, sealing his fate, interrupts. Following his famous line, O calm, dishonorable, vile submission! he attacks Tybalt. Before that, again, something happens which cannot be interpreted as faithfulness to the original play (as nothing similar happends there), but it is obviously something important added by the filmmakers: Mercutio draws his gun, stare at it, and then unexpectedly throws to the ground, so that it thrusts into the sand. Instead of what the average cinemagoer would expect, that Mercutio shoots Tybalt to save Romeo, we can see his dagger (for a moment this word can be seen graved on the pistol), and the unarmed Mercutio attacks Tybalt. There is some disturbing irrationality in that scene: Mercutio obviously wants to kill Tybalt, which is not so evident in the original play or most adaptations, and it would have been easier to do it with his gun. Usually, in a typical American film we perceive similar irrationailities on the villains part, who make killing the protagonist for themselves as difficult as possible. It is a tempting interpretation that Mercutio, even subconsciously, wanted to face his destiny, which might be hard for common people to understand, although it is not an unusual element of fiction. If it had been Mercutio who killed Tybalt, everything would have happened in a different way. However, the reason why it might not be so strange is that it follows the scene where Romeo hands over his gun to Tybalt, and prior to that when Tybalt does not shoot Romeo immediately but prepares for a duel. There is the high contrast between a traditional movie about a gang war and this film. Namely, they are still gentlemen in some ways or another, they stick to rules that are not

respected today. However, it is revealed that their adherence to the chivalrous traditions is lex: Tybalt cannot control his anger, and bashes Romeo while exacting being a gentleman from Romeo. In the same way, while Mercutio shows some courage by throwing his gun away, there is no sign of elegance in his method of fighting. Despite being only a relatively small part of the original play, the fight between Mercutio and Tybalt is a great opportunity for a subjective interpretation. Besides omitting the Latin phrases, much of Mercutios taunting is missing, and despite being a rather dialogue-dependent film, here the focus is on a violent, plain bar fight. It bears no resemblance to the humour of Zefriellis interpretation, but a flicker of humour would have been unlikely after Tybalt had nearly killed Romeo. As it was mentioned before, much of Mercutios dialogue is missing, but the most famous and important ones were preserved: You rat-catcher!, Good King of Cats, nothing but one of your nine lives!, and after he is hurt, he utters the famous, ambiguous pun: Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man., and, as a matter of course, the curse on both houses after he must finally realise that he will die. Let us focus on this part, Mercutios dying, from another aspect. There are obvious signs that lead to the tragedy: sunny beach gradually turns into dark at sunset (the night which once symbolised eroticism during the movie now symbolises death), and Mercutios death is accompanied by a thunderstorm. The music becomes more and more dramatic, beginning at the moment of Romeos arrive, while during Mercutios death Requiem aeternam can be heard. When Romeo halts Mercutio from striking Tybalt, he wants to save both of them, although noone mentions the argument from the original play that fights are strictly forbidden in Verona. Nonetheless, Romeos first attempt leads to a strange moment: while he holds Mercutio, the latter looks at him with an inexpressive face. One who knows the plot could believe that Mercutio is already hurt. However, it only stirs tension, as, seeing Tybalt rising from the ground, Mercutio attempts to strike again, and when Romeo stops him, Tybalt, defending himself, fatally injures Mercutio. Another piece of music starts.

What happens then is full of symbols. We should recognise that the fight happens next to a stage, part of a ruined theatre. However, after Mercutio is hurt, he crawls on the stage, and replies to the question, Are thou hurt ?, with the famous answer just a scartch. Then he very expressively rises with one hand reaching out like an actor, and repeats that it is only a scartch. Somehow Benvolios question sounds like the words of an actor who, fearing that the there was a mistake in the fights scene and the actor was really hurt, steps out of his role. Nevertheless, Mercutio first sticks to his role, but then something else happens: he looks into the camera, through the fourth wall, and without breaking the latter, turns to Romeo and Tybalt, and curses them. It can be interpreted as that the unwise, fictious comedy ends here, cannot go on. From now on, reality takes a role. There are two significant differences in the set from the original play (besides the ones already mentioned): firstly, the curse is adressed directly to both Tybalt and Romeo. In Shakespeares work Tybalt flees before that, and only the group of Montagues can hear it. Moreover, they can hear it not only three times, but twice as much, as it echoes. This gives an opportunity for showing Tybalts regret, although it is obviously too late. Secondly, Mercutio dies in Romeos arm, while in the original play Romeo only learns about his death from Benvolio. As death could hardly be shown in theatre during Shakespeare time, it is not a strange change. Zefirellis adaptation also showed Mercutios death in Romeos presence. However, there is still a striking difference in Mercutios death in Romeos arms: it draws some parallel between the brotherly love Romeo expresses towards Tybalt and the one depicted here. On the other hand, the scene is so effective for the audience to comprehend the tragedy that happened, and this kind of expression love by a male character towards another male one is not that unusual for the common audience. All in all, what happens here can be interpreted as an event where high and love culture meet. Only looking at the whole movie, on the one hand, it can be looked upon as a work or art popularising Shakepeares works, and it would be a completely accurate interpretation. It might say that one should read the original plays, and discover the value of them. On the other hand, and it supports the latter, this modern interpretation is still an independent work of art in itself, it has an own message, besides that similar events can happen today as well. It reassures the eternality of the

original story. Nonetheless, it might have an independent message which is very own of this movie, more precisely, this interpretation of the original play. Mercutios death in itself seems to be the turning point where the low culture meets the high culture as well. On the one hand, there is the reference to the theatre, what had not appeared before that (only the masquarade might be a kind of allusion to that). However, here we are reminded that we are still in a Shakespearean play, and the crack in the plot is what gives a light to it. On the other hand, there is a turn regarding the genre: the romantic comedy becomes a romantic tragedy. While one cannot say that any of them is typically associated to high or low culture, there is a striking contrast between the ease of the first part and the depth of the second part. What happens in that scene demands much from the audience to interpret well, and while a tragedy can still enertain the audience of the low culture, only the audience of the high culture can understand the real depth of the rest of the story. All in all, it can be concluded, that to some extent the second part represents the high culture, and the story goes on in more dimensions. In conclusion, the presence of both high and low culture can be perceived on many layers of the film. The filmmakers apparently wanted to make not only an adaptation of a popular play, but also wanted to make clear reference to the connecting features as well: from the chracteristics of the Shakespearean theatre to the eternity of the main story.