On watching Zefferelli's 1968 film adaptation of 'R&J', it struck me that there's a glaring logical hole in the plot to this Shakespeare play that everyone seems to miss: why doesn't Juliet join Romeo in exile? It is practically offered to her as an option by her father - and obviates the need for the elaborate 'fake your own death' scheme that goes so badly wrong. The intention of the scheme was for Juliet to join Romeo in exile in any case, so she'd be effectively disinherited from the Capulet family. No need for the scheme at all, in that case! For more, see my blog:
http://blog.myspace.com/daveyshrike
2007-02-11 03:09:36 · 6 answers · asked by D 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Theater & Acting
It is called suspension of disbelief..
Suspension of disbelief refers primarily to the willingness of a reader or viewer to accept the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the illusion. However, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.
Just sit back and enjoy the play. Besides look at the movies we watch each day. Talk about plot holes.
2007-02-11 03:23:10 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer R 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I love the answer above mine--you bet it woulda been a shorter and less dramatic play without the death scene!
Seriously--that IS why Juliet fakes her own death--so that she can run away with Romeo. She knows that if her family believes she's dead they won't come looking for her. Consider the extreme clannish-ness of the two families, the extreme overprotectiveness of Lord Capulet. Do you really think these are people who would've let her run away? No way. They'd've come looking for her. And remember, everybody knows exactly where Romeo's gone in his banishment--it's no secret. The kids would be found in a heartbeat.
So, although it seems ridiculous to us, Juliet is actually carrying out the plan that she thinks will be easiest and simplest in the end. Her family will mourn her properly--she won't cause them any shame or worry by running away with the circus--and, most importantly, they will LEAVE HER ALONE to be with Romeo.
I won't even go into the fact that Juliet's a kid in the most dysfunctional of families and probably wouldn't know her own name without them around to tell it to her. I also won't mention how neither Romeo nor Juliet, as privileged city kids, wouldn't have a clue how to survive on the lam. Nor the extreme Elizabethan taboos on both a) marrying someone your parents disapprove of, and b) bringing shame on said parents through acts of disobendience like running away and shacking up together. Nah--all that seems secondary to the fact that they TRIED...and it just didn't work.
2007-02-11 10:32:41 · answer #2 · answered by waldy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could say that it was due to the age they were.
I thought they were 12 - 14 years old. So you would not expect them to be that mature to think of escaping together.
All emotion and no thought to it.
Best play I have ever seen, because it is so inoccent but tragic!
2007-02-11 03:14:08 · answer #3 · answered by lawsonblue 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think she did not want to dishonor her family, faking her own death prevented this as her family would not have to live with the shame that their only daughter ran away with a murderer
2007-02-11 03:27:21 · answer #4 · answered by Lucy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called the "I know that would be the best way to solve the problem, but this way would be much interesting and we could extend the play/movie by another hour" syndrome.
2007-02-11 03:43:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Greedy wench wanted her cake and eat it, got her comeuppance. Besides, would have been a short play if Bill had used your version of the plot.
2007-02-11 03:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by Del Piero 10 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋