#i know i have a pretty specific vision regarding romeo and juliet and even i don't think it's necessarily entirely 'correct' but i just

[cakemoney]

i don't want to die on any hills but i sometimes feel like I'm the only person who read the last scene of romeo and juliet

paris stands between romeo and juliet's tomb. he is not part of the audience; he has no idea juliet and romeo had secretly fallen in love and gotten married; he is not privy to the plot of the story. all he knows is that tensions between capulets and montagues are at an all-time high, and now a banished criminal is breaking into the capulet mausoleum. he does what anyone with the information that he has would think is honorable. romeo approaches, rambles at him unhinged and doesn't explain anything, and calls him a boy; a youth, the same way everyone else talks about romeo throughout the play. in fact, he does it again after he's killed him and come closer to see who it is:

this isn't meant to be a defense of paris, really; i think paris's character very much varies based on how his lines are performed, and depending on the production he could be anywhere between outright sleazy to obliviously presumptuous. it's certainly true that many of his lines are possessive of juliet, and that he is incredibly pushy about pursuing marriage, but no, he is not way older and definitely an adult. and i think that detail matters, because i think the real thesis of the play is unveiled when we reach the end and check the tally and realize that all five people who died—mercutio, tybalt, paris, romeo, and at last juliet—were all explicitly or implicitly referred to as young at some point.*

i see the point in the original post! the enforcing of patriarchy is absolutely a part of romeo and juliet, but it's woven into the greater premise; the social order and power that maintains the rivalry between the two houses is the same social order and power that disregards the opinions and agency of all the women in the play, starting from the very beginning when both ladies capulet and montague fail to deescalate the brawl. montague doesn't show up again until the end, but we see a lot of capulet, arguably responsible for setting most of the wheels in motion. in act 1 scene 2, he's in a good mood; he says outright that it's time to put the rivalry to rest, and tells paris that if he wants to marry juliet, "my will to her consent is but a part", that it matters whether or not juliet likes him. it's clear in his initial resistance to the marriage that he cares for her. but then tragedy strikes, he's reeling and upset, and though he was hesitant, he decides that the best course of action is for juliet to marry paris; and, having decided that, he flies off the handle when juliet disagrees. he had promised juliet to someone, so if juliet doesn't follow through, it will reflect poorly on him, and that's the last thing that he needs right now. his behavior is inconsistent; sometimes he's jovial and chill, but sometimes he's overtaken with fury and lashes out at people he has power over. his wife, just as before, is powerless and falls in line quickly; the nurse attempts to defend juliet, but once they are alone, she counsels juliet to accept her father's decision as the best outcome she can hope for. they live in a patriarchal society, and in this specific society, the patriarchy manifests in the form of a rivalry based on nothing but pride.

the patriarchs themselves are fully grown adults. they know that the rivalry is frivolous and perhaps even in bad faith. capulet is able to threaten violence (over some random servants crossing paths on a public street?) during the day and then dismiss romeo montague crashing a party in his house as not a big deal that very night (tybalt tells capulet about romeo's presence, and capulet tells tybalt to take no note of it). montague's first lines on first appearance are "let me at him!!!" but then once the crowd has dispersed, he has to ask benvolio what happened and who even started it; he was starting a fight for no reason, and he knows that. but the young men in the play have grown up in the shadow of this nebulous hatred; they take it seriously, because they don't know any better, because they don't have the life experience and context to understand that they shouldn't. they take their cues from the leaders of their society—men who, instead of controlling their anger, blow up at random things and then call it honor. in act 1 scene 1, the first time tybalt picks a fight, he's saying dramatic shit like "turn thee, benvolio, look upon thy death"; more grandstanding than combat. he brandishes his sword because it's what his uncle capulet does, so it's the honorable thing to do, so he tries to do it again at the party that night and is so confused when his uncle berates him and calls him a "saucy boy". he's belittled and dismissed, and he doesn't understand why, so in act 3 scene 1, desperate to prove himself, he's now talking completely differently. he ignores benvolio who he had claimed to hate, does not rise to mercutio's taunts and even says "peace be with you"; he states his challenge to romeo plainly, uses formal language and frames it as defending the honor of his house, and does not even draw his sword until mercutio did it first.

romeo is repeatedly described as sensitive and well-mannered by other characters; he tries to keep his cool, keep the peace, he resists tybalt's challenge. but then tragedy strikes; his love is no match for the expectations of hatred and violence that surround them. o sweet juliet, thy beauty hath made me effeminate, he says, and kills tybalt, because that is what masculine honor demands. he's devastated, grieving, angry for how unfairly tybalt had targeted him, horrified at what he's done, terrified of what this means for his future and the life he had wanted with juliet, and he doesn't know how to process any of this except as hatred, for others and for himself; he spends the rest of the story desperate to die, threatening to kill himself when his execution is converted to banishment, because violence, as always, is the only honorable path open to him. his love for juliet was the only thing that stopped him, and then again his love isn't enough, because juliet is dead. in the last scene of the play, in a graveyard, paris calls romeo a villain and challenges him, exactly the way tybalt did, and romeo sees him for what he is: just another boy playing at being a man, in a neverending cycle. do not urge me to fury, he says. i'm a man, i've killed before, and i cannot control what i will do.

that's what the play is about. if you raise your children in a hateful environment, they will destroy themselves. the future of the noble houses, even the prince's, is ruined, because this society is unsustainable, because the men (the boys) that it creates don't know how to function as adults; they don't know how to mediate and resolve conflicts and compromise, they don't know how to express emotion and assert their personhood except through violence, and even when there is no longer anyone around to inflict violence upon, they turn it upon themselves. when the carnage is discovered in the morning, both capulet and montague vow to personally make amends, because both of them know intimately that the tragic, wild, seemingly unpredictable actions of these children were their fault.

*mercutio is the only one for whom i can't recall any lines regarding age. his behavior and friendship with romeo seem to indicate that they are peers, but mercutio and benvolio also have the air of older guy friends (boyfriends?) who are dragging their depressed younger cousin with them on outings because romeo's mom asked them to cheer him up. relatedly, i think there is a viable interpretation (although i'm not married to it) that when mercutio is killed and curses both houses, it's because he's flabbergasted that his goading on of tybalt and romeo's fight led to real consequences. like "wtf, did you just kill me for real, i thought we were playing around"

It’s always so funny to me when people push the “Romeo was grooming Juliet” theory, especially when Paris is right there.

Romeo is around Juliet’s age and we can tell by his lines that Paris is way older and definitely an adult. Like. Look at R + J’s banter, it’s two total equals having fun with each other. They kiss and then Juliet asks for another kiss!! They match each other’s weird vibe!! Romeo says shit like “I wish I was your pet bird” and Juliet responds that she would literally crush it to death because she’d love it too much. Weirdos!!! They match each other’s freak!!!

Compare that with how Juliet interacts with Paris. He’s predatory and possessive over her, and it’s pretty obvious she’s uncomfortable. He pushes her dad to let him marry her even though he knows she’s too young!! Instead of playful banter we get Juliet being quiet and subdued, the complete opposite of her fiery, weird self she is with Romeo!!

“Oh, Juliet should’ve just married Romeo” No! If she did she would have ended up just like her mother, forced to marry an adult man and have a baby way too young, rendering her unable to connect with her child, and then the cycle would continue!

The theme of men preying on young girls and the patriarchy leading to destruction is there!! But Romeo is not the problem!!! He’s actually the opposite of the problem !!!!

[halla12345]

Very Long Ramble™ about Yann’s reaction to Lucas coming out

(Alternative title: Where I say the word tragedy a million times because what is a thesaurus?)

What gets me about the Vendredi 17.05 clip is how it contradicts one of the fundamental and powerful messages presented in the original season.

Now, the remakes obviously have no obligation to follow the original, and I  agree that any adaptation/remake can and should interpret works with their own vision in mind. That said, that does not mean, in return, the audience has to enjoy or positively receive their interpretation. We can simultaneously encourage creative free will in reimagining works and critically engage with what is subsequently produced.  

So the message I am referring to is the subversion of the idea that the lives of queer and mentally ill people must inherently be tragic and painful.

The references to Romeo + Juliet and Pretty Woman in this season have a number of functions. The primary one being a tool to understand Even’s character - his insecurities, being bipolar and his struggles with suicidal thoughts, his romanticism, his desire to have control over his own narrative. But the season is furthermore framed with these two films in mind to discuss the tropes about love/relationships (specifically for queer/mentally ill people) they put forth.

Romeo and Juliet may not literally be a queer love story; however, it is one quite easily read as such through a queer lens. It is a story of lovers who are torn apart by external forces - families who police their desire and demand the status quo. Their love is a forbidden one that society cannot understand or accept. This speaks volumes as a queer subtext!!

So when Skam season 3 blatantly builds its narrative as a subversion of Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, it is telling us to reject this notion of the inherent tragedy of queer romance. In the episode 2 clip ‘Even’, we’re presented with the claim that ‘the lead must die, otherwise it’s not an epic love story’. And then throughout the season, the story parallels Luhrmann’s movie. Reenacting the pool scene, use of the same soundtrack (Talk Show Host, Kissing You, Local Scene), and visual homages (like the shot at the end of episode 5 clip ‘ Bros’ where Isak falls to the ground screaming mirrors a shot of Romeo doing the same in the film).

But then we don’t get the same ending. Instead, we’re given Pretty Woman (I’ll spare everyone from an additional deep dive into the PW references as this is already going to be a long post). So I’ll just say that after building up a story that parallels Romeo and Juliet, they flip the ending in O Helga Natt: the imagery of the blue neon-lit crosses, the use of montage showing their relationship, Isak/Romeo running through the street may all be parallel, but the outcome is different. We have the contrasting imagery of Romeo entering the church with Isak leaving the church, Romeo not receiving the message from Juliet versus Isak getting and understanding the text from Even. This culminates in the vastly different ending where Romeo and Juliet die while Isak and Even are reunited. We were told to expect tragedy and are instead given the Holywood romantic ending where the two mains save each other. (Now, of course, the final - and my favourite - episode then goes further to critique the idea of viewing one’s life and relationships through the prism of movies altogether, but that’s for another post!).

What we are presented with is a story of two characters who think their stories must be tragic ones because they are queer, because they are mentally ill. However, not only do they find love from each other, but also from everyone else around them. It is a story about learning to reach out to others and ask for support, and in return, they’ll receive not only that love and comfort but also have their lives enriched in the process! When Isak comes out to Jonas, of course, Jonas accepts him - and then Jonas in return can help Isak reach out to Even. When Isak is open and communicates his anxiety about how religious people view homosexuality, Sana is able to give him words of support and the language he needs to come out to his own mother. When Isak is vulnerable and confused about what Even being bipolar means, Magnus can knock some sense into him and dispel the notion that Even was only into Isak because he was manic. This story as such not only disputes the notion that their story must end tragically, but also that their friends and family would be anything other than supportive. Their story need not be one of forbidden love that society (i.e. their peers and family) rejects, but one of community and love!

So with all of that said, why do I dislike how Skam France has reinterpreted this story in regards to Yann’s reaction to Lucas coming out? I mean, I am aware we don’t know yet how the story will end! We have three episodes left, and I still expect Lucas and Elliott will end up together and that Lucas’ friends will eventually come to accept his sexuality. So unless that changes, it will still be a functionally similar ending. And since we don’t know how it will end, why am I even rambling about this now?

Because they have - regardless of the ending - thrown out this message of love and support, this subversion of tragedy in queer stories, in the Vendredi 17.05 clip. Whether or not Yann turns out to have reacted in the manner that he did because Lucas is gay or he wasn’t told first (just ugh no) or something else entirely, their intention is clearly to lean into this tragedy rather than reject it. They’ve given us a narrative where the main character is broken down and thought to believe that his best friend has deserted him because of his sexuality. And even if in the end Yann comes around, in this clip he absolutely has done so. Whether or not that is his intention or motive.

So okay, this argument won’t be convincing to people that view the different Skam shows as ‘completely different stories’ with ‘completely different characters’. However, I believe that media is relational. A story ultimately is a commentary on all that has come before it. Through homage, subversion, expansion, reimagining, and so forth, stories communicate with one another. They do not exist in bubbles. Like as I’ve just said, the original season 3 is a commentary on Romeo + Juliet! And all the Skam remakes are ultimately commentaries on the original. Not necessarily overtly or consciously, but when handed the original script, the directors and their teams have, at every step, chosen to either follow what the original did or change it. And with every decision comes the questions: how? why? and to what effect?

How did they change this from the original? How is it fundamentally the same?

Why did they keep one scene the same but change another one? Why did they change it in the manner they did?

What do these similarities or differences tell us about the story they are trying to tell? What does this change about the themes presented in the original? What themes are they exploring now?

And this change in the coming out scene tells me that they have fundamentally rejected the message that Julie presented in season 3. They have taken her subversion of tragedy and instead decided to play into it. Telling us that ‘this is France in 2019. This isn’t Disneyland. He isn’t a liar.’ (Even when this coming out scene is based on a real story!) That he would rather take this loving, true story of a best friend being supportive when coming out, and make it into a tragic one.

Now, I’m not saying we should never explore dark themes on screen. Homophobia exists and people absolutely do react in this way. We can and should delve into hard experiences in our media. It just hurts to see what once was a story about questioning how we present queer stories contorted to display the very tropes the original wanted to reject. To confirm the very real fears that LGBTQ+ people have about how the people close to them could react if they came out. Again, it’s so so so heartbreaking to see this realised in a version of a story that was telling us that media about queer people doesn’t have to be that way!

Of course, there have been a number of people who have responded to Skam France’s version of this scene positively because it reflects their own experiences. I’m not saying that the way they have changed the scene is objectively wrong or bad. Everyone responds to media differently. I am happy that other people have taken something positive from this, truly! So I’m not trying to change people’s opinions about this clip or Skam France in general. I just needed to express why some people (or at least just I) have reacted so negatively to this scene.

I am still curious to see how the last three episodes play out and what they do with Yann’s character, but I am certainly weary and disappointed that this is the direction they have taken thus far.

Thank you for anyone who has had the patience to read all of this. Alt er Love.