I've written a few posts already on the alleged homoerotic undertones in Romeo & Juliet (and hopefully, this will be the last). As I’ve stated, I don’t see any real support for it in the text. Over the past few weeks, I’ve read a lot of material on the topic. I think the support for the interpretation is weak and simply lacks perspective.
The argument seems to go like this: since Mercutio is so obviously misogynistic, there must be a reason for it. And that fact, coupled with the fact that he makes sexual jokes around Romeo means he must be in romantic love with Romeo. I think it’s total crap. Now, that’s not to say that an actor playing the role couldn’t feel that this interpretation is supported by the text and make choices accordingly. But the idea that this is clear from the text, or that it’s the ONLY possible interpretation (as is sometimes implied), is just nonsense, as far as I’m concerned.
The first step in the analysis is a bit of a logical leap, in my opinion. It assumes that because something COULD be interpreted a certain way, it MUST be. I don’t see anything particularly misogynistic that Mercutio says or does. Certainly nothing that compares with the ending of The Taming of the Shrew or Two Gentlemen of Verona. Much weight is given to the fact that Mercutio speaks negatively about love. Let’s remember, though, that his friend, Romeo, has been walking around moaning and groaning about some woman who does not requite Romeo’s love. Romeo is in an UNHEALTHY state of mind. Mercutio is trying to cheer his friend up. ROMEO is the one with the problem, not Mercutio. The sort of hyperbole that Mercutio uses is used by people all the time. “Screw that asshole, let’s go get some drinks.”
Let’s be totally clear. What Romeo feels for Rosaline is an infatuation. It vanishes immediately when he sees Juliet. It is not a deep, meaningful love. And THIS is the love that Mercutio rails against. Also, let’s not forget that Romeo says that Rosaline will not “ope her lap to saint-seducing gold.” I don’t think there’s any way to know whether someone will have sex with you for money unless you ask them. So what about Romeo’s misogyny? Where is that in all of the literature?
Stanley Wells says in Shakespeare, Sex & Love that Mercutio is killed because he becomes dramatically unnecessary. I agree. But I disagree about the reason. Wells suggests that Mercutio represents an immature attachment which Romeo no longer needs because Romeo has finally found a mature love. I think Mercutio becomes unnecessary because Romeo is no longer lovesick. Romeo doesn’t need someone to try to get him into a healthier frame of mind once he gets there himself. The mere fact that he effectively trades one relationship for another does not mean that they both must be romantic.
Often, when I work on a role, I find a passage (or a few) that I think sum up the character. I think Mercutio’s intention is all summed up in this passage:
Why, is not this better now than groaning for love?
now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo; now art
thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature.
thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature.
You've touched on a problem that trips up many an actor and director: Because so much of Shakespeare lends itself to interpretation, the temptation to latch onto a particular approach to a character can be overwhelming. Why would I just be Mercutio when I could be gay Mercutio or misogynist Mercutio? Taking a popular conception of the character and running it with it often seems the more interesting route for an actor to take than simply playing a philosophically "neutral" version of the character or, God forbid, inventing one's own ideas about who that character is.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, finding the "crux" of the character and using that central idea as a springboard for other aspects of a performance can be useful. Take your comment about Romeo lamenting the fact that Rosaline refused sex for money. I agree that it's pretty clear Romeo must have flat out propositioned Rosaline in this way for him to have brought it up. This certainly makes the audience (and myself as the actor) see Romeo in a different light than simply that of the quintessential Petrarchan lover (a vague ideal that's impossible for an actor to play anyway). But it would be wrong of me to say, "well, there you have it, he's a misogynist, better stick with that for the rest of the play." Instead, I let this incident in Romeo's past inform my approach in a measured way. It causes me to ask myself hard questions like, Just how lustful is Romeo and how does that influence his whirwind romance with Juliet?
I've loved playing opposite you, because I see Romeo and Mercutio as two sides of the same coin: scratch a lover and you'll find a cynic, scratch a cynic and you'll find a lover. But thanks to the skills of the author, both characters are too complex and multifaceted to be so neatly pinned down.