Kids today, man … no morals whatsoever.
Ah, but it did…
Just not quite in the manner he was hoping it would…
Point taken. Be careful what you wish for, eh? :eek: 
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.
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
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:
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.
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!
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. ;))
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.
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… ;))
Yeah, that Greedo shooting first annoyed me–Han was originally painted as a smuggler hotshot who’d do anything to save his skin sigh.
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. 
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