o, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied? analyzing sex in romeo and juliet

 O, WILT THOU LEAVE ME SO UNSATISFIED?
ANALYZING SEX IN ROMEO AND JULIET Renata Pires de Souza* Professora responsável: Sandra Sirangelo Maggio RESUMO: Este trabalho analisa como o sexo é mostrado em Romeu e Julieta, de William Shakespeare, bem
como em algumas de suas adaptações para o cinema: Romeo & Juliet (1968), de Franco Zeffirelli, Romeo +
Juliet (1996), de Baz Luhrmann, e West Side Story (1961), de Robert Wise. Inicialmente, a questão do sexo é
discutida de acordo com a perspectiva do Cristianismo, sopesando as muitas mudanças que o conceito sofreu
ao longo do tempo, no intuito de delimitá-lo em um contexto histórico específico; em segundo lugar,
observa-se como a relação sexual (ou a sua ausência) aparece no texto original; e, em seguida, avalia-se de
que forma ela é explorada nas adaptações cinematográficas citadas. Por fim, salienta-se a razão pela qual o
sexo é mais aparente nos filmes, mas, contrariamente, encontra-se subentendido na peça em si –
considerando textos literários e fílmicos como sistemas semióticos distintos. A conclusão mais plausível é de
que a temática do amor é evocada pelo autor basicamente em tragédias, enquanto temas relacionados à
sexualidade estão vinculados a comédias e sonetos. Ademais, percebe-se que a lacuna deixada pelo
dramaturgo pôde, de algum modo, ser compensada nos filmes através do ponto de vista de cada um dos
diretores. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: sexo em Romeu e Julieta, tradução intersemiótica, tragédias e comédias. ABSTRACT: This article analyzes how sex emerges in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and some of its
adaptations to the cinema: Romeo & Juliet (1968) by Franco Zeffirelli, Romeo + Juliet (1996) by Baz
Luhrmann, and West Side Story (1961) by Robert Wise. First of all, the issue of sex is discussed according to
the perspective of Christianity, taking into account the many changes the concept has undergone over time, in
order to enclose it in a specific historical context; secondly, it is observed how the question of sex (or its
absence) appears in the original text; and then we evaluate how it is shown in the cinematographic
adaptations chosen as objects of analysis. Finally, it is pointed out the reason why sex is more apparent in the
movies, but, on the other hand, it is implied in the play – considering literary texts and films as different
semiotic systems. The most plausible conclusion is that the theme of love is evoked by the writer basically in
tragedies, whereas issues related to sexuality are associated to comedies and sonnets. Moreover, it is clear
that the gap left by the playwright could somehow be compensated in the movies, in accordance with each
director’s viewpoint. KEY-WORDS: sex in Romeo and Juliet, intersemiotic translation, tragedies and comedies. 1 Introduction Generally speaking, it can be assumed that people have been concerned about the
questioning of sex and pleasure since always. Although it represents an important issue, its
conceptualizations have changed throughout the centuries. According to Ronaldo Vainfas
(1992, p. 81): *∗
Mestranda do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras da UFRGS. E-mail: [email protected] 1 From the time of Apostles to nowadays, Christianity has stimulated many moral
manifestations about sex. And if there were a unifying feature of all these
"moral", it was the refusal of pleasure, sometimes flexible, but always present in
all discussions and ethical codes based in Christianity. In a sense, the Christian
questioning about flesh mixes up with this pattern of refusal, which implies
pleasure as an evil in itself, and also as an impasse to eternal salvation, and main
responsible for the scourges of humanity. 1 In early Christianity, centuries ago, the pleasures of flesh were completely
prohibited, since they hindered the ascent to God by stigmatizing the body. In this specific
aspect, this point in time could be summarized taking into account the pursuit of chastity
and asceticism as something really decisive to society. Virginity, being a Christian ideal,
was stimulated and, on the other hand, desire was considered a crime. “It was based on
ideas such as Paul’s that came to light a vast literature devoted to virginity over the third
and fourth centuries. Tertullian and Cyprian, the African, were the pioneers [...]”
(VAINFAS, 1992, p. 8).2 As might be expected, the advocacy to virginity was directed to the female
audience. It was a speech made by men in order to educate women, that is, to dissuade
them from getting married, to keep them pure, so to speak. Moreover, marriage still had a
negative worth at that time, since it disallowed the ascent of the soul by clinging to the
flesh. “In the ideal world, where everyone lived chaste and pure, the human species would
be propagated as angels, without the intervention of sin” (VAINFAS, 1992, p. 12).3
Thereby, it was believed that virginity was the “real” matrimony, a sign of union between
God and Men, Christ and the Church. The “other” matrimony, that one which connected
men and women, was still far from holiness (VAINFAS, 1992). St. Augustine was perhaps the first one to highlight the relationship between
marriage and the sacrament, affirming that God had instituted the first since the origin of
the universe. With the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, many changes
occurred. This way, marriage became common over time, even though virginity was still
encouraged in some specific contexts. 1
Do tempo dos Apóstolos aos dias de hoje, o cristianismo estimulou diversas manifestações morais acerca do
sexo. E se houve um traço unificante de todas essas “morais”, este foi a recusa do prazer, às vezes flexível,
mas sempre presente em todas as reflexões e códigos éticos fundamentados no cristianismo. Em certo
sentido, a problematização cristã da carne se confunde com este ideal de recusa, que supõe o prazer como um
mal em si mesmo e também como obstáculo à salvação eterna, e principal responsável pelos flagelos da
humanidade. [My translation] 2
Foi com base em idéias como as de Paulo que surgiu, ao longo dos séculos III e IV, uma vasta literatura
consagrada à virgindade. Tertuliano e Cipriano, o Africano, foram os pioneiros [...]. [My translation] 3
No mundo ideal, onde todos vivessem castos e puros, a espécie humana seria propagada como os anjos, sem
a intervenção do pecado. [My translation] 2 Despite the growing influence of Christianity in the medieval Occident, the
union of couples and the celebration of marriage were kept as domestic acts in
which the clergy hardly intervened. The hesitation of Christian morality in the
first centuries, oscillating between combat and defense of matrimony,
contributed to this situation (VAINFAS, 1992, p. 25).4 Later on, from about the twelfth century, matrimony has become sanctified and the
sex had to be allowed inside the institution of marriage, but it was regimented and had the
purpose of procreation only. So, despite all the changes, the Church continued to monitor
this question, using the confession as a way to discover whether men and women had
sinned or not. This way, sex was not a problem related to the couple as it should be, since it
turned into a society’s issue. “Marriage and copulation were formalized; the secrets of the
couple were violated. But little by little, the theologians realized that the rules of marital
coitus may not go too far” (VAINFAS, 1992, p. 48).5 They finally recognized the intrinsic
limitation in watching over pleasure: it was possible to control it, perhaps to guide it to
certain ends, but it could hardly be obliterated. Vainfas (1992) affirms that conjugal love was not an ideal value in marriage ere the
nineteenth or maybe twentieth century. So, what was the significance of love in relation to
matrimony and sex long before? First of all, love meant to get into religion, to dedicate to
contemplation and charity. Secondly, it was something stylized, related to knights, ladies
and troubadours, being the union of hearts here and there, and the mix of bodies other
times. In the course of time, this frequently idealized meeting was overtaken by a profane
experience for people, in which “love fruited in illicit relations, stylized by the knights,
poets and troubadours, played by men and women everywhere” (VAINFAS, 1992, p. 56).6 Furthermore, marriage was eventually accepted as a legitimate space for different
practices concerning pleasure – although it was assumed only for its natural end of
procreation at the beginning, as I pointed out previously. Even with all these significant
changes, sex was still a taboo and, from the twelfth century, it was outlined a synthetic
notion on the flesh, included in the seven deadly sins: lust. According to Vainfas (1992),
4
Apesar da crescente influência do cristianismo no ocidente medieval, a união dos casais e a celebração das
núpcias conservaram-se como atos domésticos nos quais o clero praticamente não intervinha. A hesitação da
moral cristã nos primeiros séculos, oscilante entre o combate e a defesa do matrimônio, contribuiu, sem
dúvida, para essa situação. [My translation] 5
Sacramentaram-se o casamento e a cópula, violentaram-se os segredos do casal. Mas, pouco a pouco, os
teólogos perceberam que as normas do coito conjugal não poderiam ir muito longe. [My translation] 6
O amor frutificou nas relações ilícitas, estilizado pelos cavaleiros, poetas e trovadores; vivido por homens e
mulheres em toda parte. [My translation] 3 we can include many different practices in the morphology of lustful acts, such as
fornication, sodomy, and bestiality, for instance. “Considering all we saw, it would be a mistake to think of a homogenous and
immobile ‘Christian moral’. It would be better to assume various ‘morals’, which were
articulated or opposed in accordance to the time” (VAINFAS, 1992, p. 85).7 Finally, it
might be added that the confession – made compulsory by the Lateran Council in 1215 –
would have vital importance and would be lasting in the methodology of power in the
Occidental world (VAINFAS, 1992). 2 Sex in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is thought to have written Romeo and Juliet in
the mid-1590s. The play, a tragedy of young love becoming sacrificial in an adverse
environment of family feuds and mischance, is one of Shakespeare’s earliest efforts in
tragic genre and bears many of the traits of the lyric poetry and romantic comedies with
which it is contemporaneous. Having been written in the mid-1590s, the play did not directly confront the issue
of sex, but it still brings reminiscences of a time when kings and clerics discussed the
problem – mainly during the XII, XIII and XIV centuries (VAINFAS, 1992). The theme of
“innocent love” doomed to an untimely end, as it is known, it is not that simple, since it
involves many intricate elements such as love, passion, desire, marriage, family, religion,
suicide, and so on. The sex scene in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is not explicit whatsoever. We
know that the characters get married and we also know that there is a famous wedding
night after Romeo kills Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin. We are certainly able to affirm that there is
no sex in the storyline, since it is not clear for the reader that something sexual happens
between the couple. We just can infer that they had sex, because we have the conscience
that every marriage has to be consummated. What I mean is that Shakespeare did not offer the act itself; he just wrote lines in
which we can see evidences of the two lovers’ consummated marriage. Below, we can
7
Por tudo o que vimos, seria um erro pensar-se numa "moral cristã" homogênea e imóvel. Melhor seria falarse de várias "morais", que se articularam ou se opuseram conforme a época. [My translation] 7
4 observe part of the scene (Act III, scene V), which shows us the parting of lovers, the
morning after spending the night together in Juliet's room: JULIET Then, window, let day in, and let life out. ROMEO Farewell, farewell! one kiss, and I'll descend. [Descends. JULIET Art thou gone so? my lord, my love, my friend!
I must hear from thee every day in the hour,
For in a minute there are many days:
O, by this count I shall be much in years
Ere I again behold my Romeo! ROMEO Farewell!
I will omit no opportunity
That may convey my greetings, love, to thee. JULIET O think'st thou we shall ever meet again? ROMEO I doubt it not; and all these woes shall serve
For sweet discourses in our time to come. JULIET O God! I have an ill-divining soul.
Methinks I see thee, now thou art below,
As one dead in the bottom of a tomb:
Either my eyesight fails or thou look'st pale. ROMEO And trust me, love, in my eye so do you:
Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu! [Exit. JULIET O fortune, fortune! all men call thee fickle:
If thou art fickle, what dost thou with him
That is renown'd for faith? Be fickle, fortune;
For then, I hope, thou wilt not keep him long,
But send him back. (SHAKESPEARE, 1993, p. 60) There are no elements – not even a word – to prove what they were doing during
the dawn. This part is omitted, since we are led directly to the morning call, when the nurse
arrives and Romeo has to leave. The main question is: why is the play so abridged in this
specific moment? 5 3 Sex in the cinematographic adaptations As Gerald Mast (1982, p. 280) points out, “a film adaptation of an important
literary work has an obligation to be faithful to the spirit (or, even, the letter) of the original
text and, at the same time, to be a cogent and unified work in its own terms.” He also
affirms that “any filmed version of a literary work must take something out – words – and
put something else in – sights and sounds” (p. 281). Therefore, a film adaptation functions
in a new system, but it is still related to the primary art that has inspired it. This way, a play transposed to the screen, for example, has its verbal message
transformed through the images in movement: during the actions of characters, the position
of the camera, the dialogues, the soundtrack, etc. From these changes, we can establish the
adaptation level. A film might be a commentary, an analogy or a real adaptation in relation
to the original source. This feature has to do with how the new art maintains the essence of
the old one. But can we define essence? What could be more important to preserve in a
transposition of a play to the screen: the plot, the characters, the settings? Translating from the theater to the cinema means to see the other text as a sign in
another semiotic system. The translation process between these two activities
may starts previously and goes through an intermediate level, when the dramatic
text is first transformed into theatrical text, that is, it is performed on stage. The
text staged already represents, in itself, an intersemiotic translation, marked by a
tension among the freedom of human imagination provided by the written text
and the stage limitations (DINIZ, 1994, p. 1002).8 Romeo and Juliet was adapted to the cinema more than once. The first two versions
I analyzed “share two common goals: to make Shakespeare’s famous young lovers
attractive to the cinema audience and to portray realistically the society in which Romeo
and Juliet live” (TATSPAUGH, 2000, p. 135). The first one, by Franco Zeffirelli, released
in 1968, brings two really beautiful actors to interpret the couple: Leonard Whiting and
Olivia Hussey, almost as young as the characters in the play. The other version, by Baz
Luhrmann, released in 1996, brings also two juvenile and good-looking actors: Leonardo
DiCaprio and Claire Danes. 8
Traduzir do teatro para o cinema significa pois ver o outro texto como um signo em um outro sistema
semiótico. O processo de tradução entre essas duas atividades pode iniciar-se previamente e passar por um
estágio intermediário, quando o texto dramático é transformado primeiro em texto teatral, ou seja, é encenado
no palco. O texto encenado já representa, em si, uma tradução intersemiótica, marcada por uma tensão entre a
liberdade da imaginação humana propiciada pelo texto escrito e as limitações do palco. [My translation] 6 Both directors “appealed to a youthful audience by casting young actors as Romeo
and Juliet and by presenting the conflict between generations within a contemporary
context” (TATSPAUGH, 2000, p. 140). But one of them was speaking to the generation
that rebelled against Vietnamese war, whereas the other was trying to make contact with “a
younger audience, the MTV generation of teenagers roughly the age of Romeo and Juliet.”
The main difference is that Zeffirelli’s movie is sort of bucolic, while Luhrmann’s visual
images and soundtrack “offer several fruitful veins of enquiry; they are, for example, witty,
allusive, provocative. Darkly parodic visual images and scenes link love with the violence
that will destroy it, foreshadow tragedy and characterize the tragedy of love”
(TATSPAUGH, 2000, p. 143). The third version I analyzed was West Side Story (1961) by Robert Wise, starring
Natalie Wood as Maria and Richard Beymer as Tony. As the characters’ names may
suggest, the story was modified, as well. For this reason, I do not believe it is an adaptation
of Shakespeare’s play, but maybe a commentary, an analogy or a “free adaptation” (such
as the Broadway play that has inspired the movie). The plot, in spite of being similar, takes
place in the 50’s, amid the fights between two gangs, when love arises to the protagonists.
The actors are not as young as those chosen by Zeffirelli and Luhrmann, and the story ends
up in a different way, since Maria does not die as it would be expected to happen to the
original Juliet. In relation to sex, the three films work differently. If Shakespeare did not describe
how the lovers’ intimacy happened, the directors did somehow, especially Zeffirelli. In his
movie, the actors appear without clothes in the forenoon: Leonard Whiting totally naked on
his back and Olivia Hussey showing her breast. We can say that this was quite audacious
for a movie in the 60’s. And what can we say about the “real situation” as belonging to the
16th century? Besides, all the scenes between the couple are glowing, full of warm kisses,
lascivious body contacts. The relation between them seems naive, but, at the same time, is
extremely burning. 7 Image 1 – screenshot from the film Romeo & Juliet by Franco Zeffirelli. (Source: DVD movie – Paramount Pictures, 1968) Luhrmann’s adaptation, being darker, does not show all that carnal passion, but
explores the protagonists’ emotional side, mainly DiCaprio’s Romeo, in which eyes we are
capable to see love and giving. Claire Danes’ Juliet is not as vivid as that incorporated by
Olivia Hussey, maybe because the violent environment builds the character with a more
intimate aura, a melancholic behavior. There is a pre-sex scene, when Romeo arrives
through the window: they kiss each other, and take their clothes off. Anyway, the post-sex
scene is there, more sublime, for sure, but still there. Image 2 – screenshot from the film Romeo + Juliet by Baz Luhrmann. (Source: DVD movie – Twentieth Century Fox, 1996) 8 And, finally, in Robert Wise’s free adaptation, we see Tony and Maria in her room
at night; nevertheless we cannot watch anything happening. All we are able to see is Tony
without his shirt. It is quite contradictory, if we think that the story takes place in the
suburb, amid the chaos of gangs’ conflicts. Considering the circumstances, the relationship
between them had everything to be angry and desperate, but, on the other hand, it seems
graceless, as if they were just two dummies that were accidentally placed side by side in
the same window. Image 3 – screenshot from the film West Side Story by Robert Wise. (Source: DVD movie – Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, 1961) Beyond the scenes, what also might raise sexual or loving aspects is the soundtrack.
The main song in Zeffirelli’s adaptation, “What is a youth” by Nino Rota, allows us to see
both things, but, in this specific part, it sings the desire: What is a youth? Impetuous fire. What is a maid? Ice and desire.
The world wags on In Luhrmann’s film, love is emphasized through the main song, “Kissing you” by
Des’ree: 'Cause I'm kissing you, oh
I'm kissing you, Love And, to conclude, in Wise’s version, love is sung through many songs, for example,
“Somewhere”: 9 There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us
Somewhere. 4 Final considerations Prado (p. 6) says that “love, sex and marriage have become recurring themes in
Shakespeare’s work and his contemporaries. In Romeo and Juliet, society imposes and
invades the private world of the couple, who tragically cannot escape from the conventions
requirements.”9 But, if sex represents a theme largely explored by Shakespeare, why is it
almost hidden under the lines of Romeo and Juliet? Why did not he explore more this topic
in this specific play? Because of love? Because sex and love are considered separated
things sometimes? We simply do not know, but I may risk that a play which talks about
love at that time was not allowed to talk about sex simultaneously. It seems that one thing
excludes the other instead of working as additional poles. In addition, we can also take for granted that love is a subject commonly explored
by William Shakespeare in tragedies – Othello (1603) and Antony and Cleopatra (1607),
for example –, whereas questions related to sex (and sexuality in general, it has to be
added) appear mainly in sonnets and comedies – A Midsummer Night’s Dream (15901596) and The Merchant of Venice (1596-1598), for instance. On the other hand, as we know that Shakespeare explored controversial themes, we
can adventure to look for sexual clues in the play subtext, and one example is when Romeo
asks to Juliet: “O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?”, she replies “What satisfaction canst
thou have to-night?”, and he answers back “The exchange of thy love's faithful vow for
mine” (Act II, scene II). His words are not innocent and we are sure about that in
Luhrmann’s version, when Danes’ Juliet looks at DiCaprio’s Romeo with a suspicious – or
horrified – expression, as if he were proposing something promiscuous. So, undoubtedly,
the films transcend the play in this specific point. And Juliet, in a different way than
Romeo’s discourse regulated by physical necessities, “does not restrict herself to a
9
Amor, sexo e casamento tornaram-se temas recorrentes na obra de Shakespeare e de seus contemporâneos.
Em Romeu e Julieta, a sociedade se impõe e invade o mundo privado do casal, que, tragicamente, não escapa
às exigências das convenções. [My translation] 10 relationship of two people only. Using the words ‘marriage’ and ‘ceremony’ in her
discursive context, she compromises social and religiously” 10 (SILVA, 1994, p. 1339). Can a person fall in love in the course of a day? Did not Romeo love Rosaline in
the first place? Prado (p. 20) also affirms that “the interpersonal relation, both in affective
context and in political context, finds itself entangled in social organization. Even though
having individual values and beliefs, the characters follow a common ideology of
Elizabethan times.”
11
Therefore, taking into account the social organization, mainly in
relation to Christianity, the lovers could be considered lustful, since they seem to have got
married only in order to have sex with each other. We can speculate on all these questions, but we do not have the answers, since
Romeo and Juliet is a piece of literary art and not a part of reality. The sex gap left behind
by Shakespeare is somehow fulfilled by the cinematographic adaptations, depending on the
director’s point of view. In a way, the moment of absence in the original text becomes
extremely significant because it allows inferences by the reader and creates certain
tendencies to the intersemiotic translation – as the visible necessity of filling gaps. And it is
easier for a director to explore controversial topics through the cinema, since it represents a
modern language that no longer faces many taboos like some writers faced in the past. In
addition, drama is constructed with free dialogues, but – in the case of Shakespeare – with
no descriptions of characters’ actions as we may see in a narrative or even in a text
transposed to the screen. Lastly, cinema has been recognized as a powerful cultural and artistic force and, as
stated by Mast (1982, p. 303), “it is time to try to understand how it does what it does and
how we do whatever we do that allows it to do what it does”, being this force connected to
Shakespearean works or not. And the essence has to be felt – a process really subjective in
which each viewer/reader has a different response. Therefore, to gather all the elements
that compose a film adaptation, the director needs to elicit his impressions on the original
work, always respecting what it was said, but with freedom enough to imagine and
(re)create. Maybe that is why it is almost impossible to define what would be the spirit of a
10
Ela não se restringe a um relacionamento a dois somente. Ao se utilizar das palavras "matrimônio" e
"cerimônia", no seu contexto discursivo, compromete-se social e religiosamente. [My translation] 11
O relacionamento interpessoal, tanto no campo afetivo como no âmbito político, acha-se imbricado na
organização social. Mesmo tendo valores e crenças individuais, as personagens obedecem a um ideário
comum da época elisabetana. [My translation] 11 work, since this perception depends not only on who makes the literary work, but also on
people who will make and evaluate the adaptations later on. REFERENCES DINIZ, Thaïs Flores Nogueira. A tradução intersemiótica e o conceito de equivalência. In:
IV Congresso da ABRALIC - Literatura e diferença. 1994. MAST, Gerald. Literature and film. In: Interrelations of Literature. Edited by Jean-Pierre
Barricelli and Joseph Gibaldi. New York: The Modern Language Association of Americas,
1982. PRADO, Célia Luiza Andrade. Organização social em Romeu e Julieta: análise de uma
tradução e duas adaptações. Available in:
http://www.unibero.edu.br/download/revistaeletronica/Mar05_Artigos/Romeu%20e%20Ju
lieta_FINAL2.pdf. Access: 25/06/10. ROMEO + Juliet. Direction: Baz Luhrmann. Writers: Craig Pearce and Baz Luhrmann.
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio; Claire Danes; Brian Dennehy; John Leguizamo and others. US:
Twentieth Century Fox, 1996. 1 DVD (120min), son., color. ROMEO & Juliet. Direction: Franco Zeffirelli. Writers: Franco Brusati and Masolino
D’amico. Cast: Olivia Hussey; Leonard Whiting; Milo O’shea; Michael York and others.
Italy: Paramount Pictures, 1968. 1 DVD (138min), son., color. SHAKESPEARE, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. New York: Dover, 1992. ______. Romeo and Juliet. New York: Dover, 1993. SILVA, Emanuel M. C. Romeu e Julieta: um discurso de amor. In: Estudos Linguísticos
XXIII Anais de Seminários do GEL. Vol. II. São Paulo, 1994. TATSPAUGH, Patricia. The tragedies of love on film. In: Shakespeare on film. Edited by
Russel Jackson. Cambridge University Press, 2000. VAINFAS, Ronaldo. Casamento, Amor e Desejo no Ocidente Cristão. 2ª Ed. São Paulo:
Ática, 1992. WEST Side Story. Direction: Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins. Writer: Ernest Lehman.
Cast: Natalie Wood; Richard Beymer; Russ Tamblyn; Rita Moreno and others. US: MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Studios, 1961. 1 DVD (152mim), son., color. 12