# Why doesn't Romeo ever kill Paris in the movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 19, 2000, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316 "2000-12-19T07:50:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/21 "2001-05-06T20:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tclouie \* > If she were alive today, she’d be a heroin-shooting teenage welfare mom with three kids, and she never would have bothered to get married. Kids today, man … no morals whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/22 "2001-05-06T21:28:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Katisha \* > \*\*In defense of Friar Laurence (again) – the reason he agreed to marry Romeo and Juliet was to end the feud: > > “In one respect I’ll thy assistant be; > For this alliance may so happy prove, > To turn your households’ rancour to pure love.” > > It didn’t _work,_ of course, but still…\*\* Ah, but it did… Just not quite in the manner he was hoping it would… ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/23 "2001-05-06T21:37:52Z")
Point taken. Be careful what you wish for, eh? :eek: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/24 "2001-05-07T00:11:27Z")
A couple things. First, yes dueling was common and sometimes illegal. I would say that if you were to judge Romeo by the standards applied to him by his time he probably would come off ok, not perfect but ok. Second, where did R&J come from? I’ve heard that, although Shakespeare used a later text, the original story was inspired by the political struggles of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines (those of you who know what I’m talking about are either saying “ah yes, makes sense” or "what! no way!). Third, everyone seems to be talking about this story as if it was an Anglo-Saxon story. It’s not. It is a story about two ITALIAN lovers in Verona. Yes Shakespeare didn’t write for historical or geographical accuracy, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at R&J as a story about an Italians. Finally to the subject of the OP. I agree whole-heartedly, something about cutting the Paris scene pisses me off. It just fits so well, why get rid of it? For one thing Romeo now has a better reason to act quickly and kill himself because Paris’s page has run off to fetch help. The whole symetry thing, it works so much better. I wish I knew why the scene was cut, and appeal to others with greater knowledge to provide some information on this. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/25 "2001-05-07T00:30:03Z")
Back to the OP. I believe a couple of things traditionally go into the decision of modern directors to not include Romeo’s duel with and the death of Paris (sorry, I have no cite). First, I think it has to do with time. You’ve got a five act play and modern attention spans are about 16 minutes or so. At least that’s what modern film makers believe. Second, Paris is a character who has not been truly established in the plot except by exposition - much of which is deleted in most movie productions. If you look, his part has markedly shortened (or eliminated, depending on the production) in the “ask for Juliet’s hand scene,” “the masked ball scene,” and in “discovery of Juliet’s body scene”. I am sure directors ask themselves, "Why should I bother killing off a character, in a featured manner, who hasn’t really been in the film yet. Third, Hi Opal! Fourth, I believe it was as you who alluded to it. Modern film directors question what is advanced by letting the hero be painted with the brush of a killer. Tybalt, despite what Leo’s movie suggested, was clearly a villian. Look at the very first scene of the play where he tries to kill Benvolio, who is trying to break up the street fight between servants of the house of Montague and Capulet. Look when he refuses to let it lie when ordered to by Old Man Capulet at the masked ball. And look at the way he goes after Romeo when Romeo clearly does not want to duel. So Romeo killing him was like John Wayne killing Richard Boone in “Big Jake”. He killed so he can be killed. But Paris, here is a man who’s only sin is that he also loves Juliet. I’ve read research that has suggested that one of the reasons that Shakespeare included the fight between Romeo and Paris in the first place was because, like action movies of today, a certain number of fights was expected from certain actors. Just a side note nere, I also read while reviewing dissertations a few years ago, a paper that suggested that Lady Capulet and Tybalt were lovers. In the paper, the author suggested this would explain, Tybalt’s privileged status, Lord Capulet’s clear dislike for the man and Lady Capulet’s over the top reaction to Tybalt’s death (and, yes, I and the author realized that this would be incest). But, think of the two characters in this light next time you see a performance of R&J. TV ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/26 "2001-05-07T02:15:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Modern film directors question what is advanced by letting the hero be painted with the brush of a killer. There’s a lot to this, actually. Two examples follow. Dominic Sena directed _Gone in 60 Seconds_ for last summer, and _Swordfish_ for this one. He says the studio didn’t want anything bad, anything at all, to occur as a result of Nicolas Cage’s character’s actions in _60 Seconds._ This despite the fact that he’s a car thief who roars down streets at high speeds, ahead of the pursuing police, something any rational person would consider reckless and dangerous. According to the studio’s dictates, although Cage’s character can cause physical damage, not a single person (bystander, other character, whomever) can be killed or even injured as a consequence of anything he does. He’s the hero, so he has to be entirely, totally whitewashed, without stain or blemish. Sena says it was much more fun directing _Swordfish_, because the topline star – John Travolta – is the villain, so he can do whatever he wants. Weird, huh? And example number two: Greedo now shoots first. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/27 "2001-05-07T02:43:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sjc \* > **Second, where did R&J come from? I’ve heard that, although Shakespeare used a later text, the original story was inspired by the political struggles of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines (those of you who know what I’m talking about are either saying “ah yes, makes sense” or "what! no way!).** Interesting…I’ve never heard that before. Where did you hear it? I still stand by my remark that the story essentially derives from the Pyramus and Thisbe story, though. > [@](#): > > \*\*Third, everyone seems to be talking about this story as if it was an Anglo-Saxon story. It’s not. It is a story about two ITALIAN lovers in Verona. Yes Shakespeare didn’t write for historical or geographical accuracy, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at R&J as a story about an Italians. \*\* But I don’t see how the location of the story has any bearing on anyone’s commentary on the play. All the examples of dynastic marriages/betrothals occurring at a young age have been English – and generally drawn from Shakespeare – but of course the same was true throughout Europe. It is true, though, that a lot of the qualities (stereotypically) associated with Italians in modern times are visible in R&J as well. And the Italian city-states do have a history of civil strife, the aforementioned Guelphs and Ghibellines being the most famous example. I don’t think, though, that anyone’s done much violence to the play in their remarks! > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by TV time_ > **Just a side note nere, I also read while reviewing dissertations a few years ago, a paper that suggested that Lady Capulet and Tybalt were lovers. In the paper, the author suggested this would explain, Tybalt’s privileged status, Lord Capulet’s clear dislike for the man and Lady Capulet’s over the top reaction to Tybalt’s death (and, yes, I and the author realized that this would be incest). But, think of the two characters in this light next time you see a performance of R&J.** When they staged R&J in Stratford, Ontario a few years ago, the theater critic for the Detroit Free Press took them to task for not implying that. It’s not specifically hinted at in the text itself, but it can certainly be inferred. (BTW, I saw this production – it wasn’t too bad, though it’s probably the weakest Stratford production I’ve seen. And Paris DID die in it, so we can all rest a bit easier tonight. ;)) > [@](#): > > **Tybalt, despite what Leo’s movie suggested, was clearly a villian. Look at the very first scene of the play where he tries to kill Benvolio, who is trying to break up the street fight between servants of the house of Montague and Capulet. Look when he refuses to let it lie when ordered to by Old Man Capulet at the masked ball. And look at the way he goes after Romeo when Romeo clearly does not want to duel. So Romeo killing him was like John Wayne killing Richard Boone in “Big Jake”. He killed so he can be killed.** Indeed. Also, it seems that directors commonly make Tybalt quite brutal in his goading of Romeo – which also gives Mercutio some motivation to jump in and fight on his behalf. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by xtal_ > **What I REALLY HATE is when the directors remove the very first scene when Romeo is musing hormonally over another woman, named Rosiline or something like that. It’s like they are trying to make it a \ tragedy instead of two dorky children who come to an unhappy end.** The ironic thing is that omitting Romeo’s crush on Rosaline makes his love for Juliet seem a lot more…I don’t know, shallow than it would without the whole Rosaline infatuation to serve as a foil for it. (And, from a strictly plot perspective, the only reason Romeo goes to the Capulets’ party is because he hears that Rosaline will be there, and Benvolio agrees because he wants Romeo to check out other girls so he can get over Rosaline. Yeah, real swift, Benny… ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/28 "2001-05-07T02:53:10Z")
Yeah, that Greedo shooting first annoyed me–Han was originally painted as a smuggler hotshot who’d do anything to save his skin _sigh_. ---
**Author:** ![DRY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@DRY](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DRY)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/29 "2001-05-08T06:35:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Katisha \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by DRY_ > > **It also should be noted that some of these marriages were set up while both parties were still children. The marriages were often not official ones, but rather betrothals. Said betrothals could be broken, but these betrothals were more often broken when the marriage alliance dissipated (loss of power, change in alliance, etc) as opposed to one of the betrothed deciding "I just don’t want to marry that ugly creature."** > > Indeed. And breaking one for reasons of personal choice could lead to all sorts of problems – cf. Henry VI-Margaret of Anjou) and Edward IV-Elizabeth Woodeville. > \*\* Nitpick–I don’t think that Henry VI broke any betrothals to marry Margaret of Anjou. My recollection was that the English were in **negotiations** for Henry VI to marry the Earl of Armagnac’s daughter (I think it was her), but they hadn’t reached the betrothal stage yet when Henry determined he’d rather have Margaret. Your point is still valid of course, and the Edward-Elizabeth example is particularly valid. Are you a Wars of the Roses history buff? If so, cool. I am. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Redboss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8baadc/32.png) [@Redboss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Redboss)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316/30 "2001-05-08T07:41:39Z")
Couldn’t you have put SPOILER in your thread title, **tclouie**? Now you have ruined Romeo & Juliet for **all Australians**. I never thought Romeo would kill Paris, of all people. Down here we’re just getting the bit where he’s climbing up to her bedroom window. Please do **not** tell me if they have sex or not!!! Um, this is a joke. I couldn’t resist. **tcl** mate I’m glad to see your name again. I have been looking and not seeing you. I don’t know if you ever got to read my apology to you in a Survivor-related thread (No link provided, to protect everybody’s reputations). Now the show has finished (spoiler alert to all Danish and Sri Lankan Dopers - it does finish) I have regained my balance and am generally a NICER person. Hope all is well with you. I love to see W Shakespeare issues raised here. I’m very fond of him, and actually sometimes read his plays out of choice, just for pleasure. I don’t tell many people because nobody believes that. But I do. thanks Red [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-romeo-ever-kill-paris-in-the-movies/46316.md?page=1)