A Rose by Any Other Name: Shakespeare and the Cinematic Bridge of Love

Submitted to the

School of Interdisciplinary Studies

(Western College Program)

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Philosophy

Interdisciplinary Studies

Cameron Berner

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2009

APPROVED

Advisor ______Dr. Chris Myers ii

Submitted to the

Miami University Honors and Scholars Program

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for graduation with

University Honors with Distinction

Approved by:

______, Advisor Dr. Ronald B. Scott

______, Advisor Dr. Christopher A. Myers

______, Reader Dr. William H. Newell

Accepted by:

______, Director University Honors Program iii

ABSTRACT

This project analyzes love in William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. As part of a case study and practical application of the natural harmony between the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood several filmic adaptations are discussed, including Romeo & Juliet (1968) directed by Franco Zeffirelli, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) directed by Baz Luhrmann, and Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (1988) directed by Mansoor Khan. This project advocates for American appreciation of the foreign cinema of Bollywood (Mumbai, India) based on the understanding of the universal human experience of love.

iv

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1

Part One: The Bridge of Love...... 6 Chapter One: Fated Love ...... 7 What is love and how does it happen? ...... 7 Types of Love ...... 11 Interpreting Love ...... 16 Fated Love ...... 24

Part Two: The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo & Juliet ...... 28 Chapter Two: The Bard ...... 29 Who was Shakespeare? ...... 29 Shakespeare and Love ...... 35 Universality ...... 37 Chapter Three: The Star-Cross’d Lovers ...... 43 A Tale of Fated Love ...... 43 What’s in a name? ...... 46 Tragedy of Character or Tragedy of Fate? ...... 49 Adaptability of the Star-Cross’d Lovers ...... 52

Part Three: Shadows on a Silver Screen ...... 55 Chapter Four: Cinema ...... 56 Chapter Five: Hollywood ...... 60 Chapter Six: Bollywood ...... 64 The Hindi Cinema ...... 64 What makes a Bollywood movie? ...... 66 Global Appeal ...... 72

Part Four: Creative Exploration of the Star-Cross’d Lovers ...... 74 Chapter Seven: Exploratory Study ...... 75 Purpose ...... 75 Survey ...... 75 Survey Results ...... 78 Discussion Group ...... 85 Discussion Group Results ...... 88 Closing Remarks ...... 90

Conclusion ...... 92 Chapter Eight: Conclusion ...... 92 Bridging the Gap ...... 92 Bollywood and Hollywood ...... 95 Cinema’s Natural Evolution ...... 97 Star-Cross’d Cinemas? ...... 99 Works Cited ...... 101 Appendix ...... 108

Introduction 2

Introduction

“Here’s much to do with hate but more with love.” ~Romeo & Juliet1

The story of Romeo & Juliet is almost as well known as the name of the writer that popularized it, William Shakespeare. A young couple meets, falls in love, discovers that they are from feuding families, gets married anyway, and eventually kill themselves.

It is a classic love story that has been adapted and produced on the stage, the screen, the television, in books, songs, and so forth for almost as many years and times as there are stars in the night’s sky to have cross’d these young lovers by. It is beloved not only by the English from which it originated, but by people all over the world, especially in its widely disseminated cinematic incarnations.

This project explores the ability of cinematic productions to cross cultural bounds, being enjoyed by various peoples of the world even when they have little to no previous training or exposure to the foreign cinematic tradition being enjoyed. Were cultures completely individualized, were there nothing universal about the experience of being a human – i.e. if humans were solely a product of their cultural upbringing – such an interaction would be impossible. People would not be able to share ideas nor even relate to one another as a result of an insurmountable cultural gap. This however, has proven untrue as people are able to relate to one another.

Giving practical and applicable reasoning for this otherwise mystifying phenomenon, this project contends that people are able to relate to each other rather easily – at least when they are inclined to do so – because all humans experience love.

1 (Shakespeare 1993: I.i.173) 3

We experience it differently, true, but its experience is an inherent part of our existence.

Because of this universal understanding, people are able to identify with one another.

Within the scope of this project, the worldwide followings of both the American

Cinema (Hollywood) and the cinema of Mumbai, India (sometimes referred to as

Bollywood) are specifically considered. It is observed that an individual is able to relate to a story as a witness to either the conveyance or denial of love, no matter what cinema originated that particular portrayal. For example, even individuals not brought up in

American culture can still relate to and comprehend (at least on a basic level) the sights and sounds of a Hollywood production. The same is true for Bollywood, though someone may not have been raised in the Republic of India, may not speak Hindi, it is still possible to interpret the movements and gesticulations, tonal qualities and vocal inflections, and the actors and actresses’ other forms of verbal and non-verbal communication.

The fact that there can be striking differences in cultural constructions of meaning is not denied. Nixon learned this lesson the hard way when he gave what he believed to be the “peace” sign in Asia, but some intentions may be conveyed and understood universally. A kiss may mean something far more intimate from one cinema (and culture) to the next, but the emotion and exchange which it signifies is universally understood – love. It may indicate passionate, romantic love to some while others view it as indication of innocent adoration, but its base significance remains unchanged. In truth, all the stories in the world can be boiled down to tales of different types of love – friendship, parental, romantic, et cetera. It is through this universal understanding or rather experience of the human emotion of love that this project explores the relationship between Hollywood and

Bollywood – two titans of cinema. 4

This project is written is to explain how an American viewer is able to appreciate the cinema of Mumbai. As a practical application, it specifically analyzes the universal adaptability of the themes established in the writings of William Shakespeare. Though some meanings have been lost in the centuries since their original creation, as they undoubtedly are in such a cultural exchange as well, the preeminent genius of

Shakespeare is evident in the fact that several of his themes succeed in transcending both time and culture. A Rose by Any Other Name compares incarnations of his Romeo &

Juliet in the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood and their ability to be enjoyed equally by the average American viewer.2

Of course, the universality of love is only one of the potentially many factors determining how close Bollywood is to Hollywood, and how different individuals receive cinematic productions. Though some may not consider it to be the most important factor, its ubiquitous experience does permit individuals to relate to one another. Thus, a bridging of cultures in a cinematic exchange is established.

As a note, I will loosely interchange the name of the cinema with that of its major geographical base throughout this project. For example, even though there are production companies in New York, Miami, Chicago, et cetera, I am specifically referring to

Hollywood when referring to the American cinema as it remains the dominant and unsubstantially disputed seat of American movie making. The same goes for the interchangeable use of Mumbai, the Mumbai cinema, and Bollywood. This cinema, however, will not be referred to as the “Indian cinema” as there are other, entirely

2 Though the degree and type of this enjoyment, of course, is different for each individual 5 independent cinemas in this billion-person nation, so even though Bollywood is the dominant cinema of the Republic of India, it is not an uncontested assignment.

Furthermore, “Bollywood” itself is a disputed term. Several filmmakers spurn the title, arguing that it has abruptly reduced the “multiple cinematic traditions within India and the diverse ranges of themes addressed . . . to one all-encompassing stereotype of the

‘masala musical’” (Punathambekar 2005: 153). In the context of this project, however,

Bollywood is used as a positive term in direct correlation to the overall global reception of this film tradition. It is not here seen as an inferior imitation of the American cinema from which its name is partially derived, but as a peer – a goal of this project being to advocate for a mutual appreciation of the two cinemas by American viewers.

~

Love is everywhere. It is a ubiquitous part of the human experience that can be used to bridge the seemingly vast separation between the cinemas of America and

Mumbai. The relative similarities of these cultural titans will be analyzed using adaptations of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Through the universality of human emotions, barriers of culture, language, and even cinematic convention can be transcended so that the average, native viewer of one cinema can appreciate, if not participate in, the development of story as portrayed through the lens of the cousin cinema.

6

Part One The Bridge of Love

7

Chapter One Fated Love

What is love and how does it happen?

Love. It is something that people have discussed, wrestled against, been crushed by, and blessed with for ages. For as long as history has been recorded (and probably further back unto the dawn of mankind), minds both great and small have endeavored to understand love. Speakers have talked about it, musicians have sung about it, and authors have written about it. Aristotle said love “is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies” (Lanford & Lanford 2008). The Beatles (the United Kingdom’s shaggy haired sages) sang that “love is all you need.” In Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare wrote that love is “A madness most discreet,/ A choking gall and a preserving sweet” (I.i.193-

194). Love has caused wars as well as ended them. It can impart devastating consequences when it is lost. It can give cause for eternal hope. It is a polarizing fact of the human experience under the banner of a four-letter word.

This chapter investigates love from its definitional to its neurological implications, exploring whether what we truly feel is love or if it is just some combination of circumstances and excreted chemicals in the brain. It also discusses whether there is such a difference between emotion, logic, truth, and love. Finally, this chapter begins to explore the central theme of this project, introducing Romeo and Juliet and its relation to the cinema, citing Shakespeare’s sources for his play, and discussing that nasty habit of dying which fated lovers seem to have.

Having such an effect on so many people for so long begs the question: what exactly is love? This, however, is a deceptively simple question. Though love is a small, 8 ubiquitous term in the English language there is much confusion as to its definitional scope, range and effect. In fact, many of the leading thinkers (or perhaps it is more appropriate to refer to them as ‘leading feelers’) avoid altogether giving a concise definition to describe what love is. Fischer, regarded by many as one of the leading modern scholars on the subject of love, really only describes it as an irresistible power.

She goes on to say that it is something by which “men and women of every era and every culture have been ‘bewitched, bothered, and bewildered’” (2004: 6). Schaeffer goes further by saying that love is “a state of being that emanates from within us and extends outward. It is energy, it is unconditional, it is expansive, and it needs no specific object”

(1987: 3). The object which Schaeffer refers to being some ‘other,’ most typically another human, but possibly also an ideology, animal, collection, et cetera, really anything that individuals can attach themselves to and invest their emotions in – which

Schaeffer asserts love has no true need of. Others tend to disagree with Schaeffer’s assessment of love, pointing specifically to the need for an ‘object’ which these feelings and emotions are directed towards and caused by. In The Neuroscience of Human

Relationships, Cozolino specifies the need for the object, defining love as “the ability to change for another” (2006: 332). Freeman also affirms a belief in this transformative power of love and the necessity of an object (1995: 7).

Perhaps the need for an object can explain the prevalence of metaphors in the descriptions and interactions of love. The first example that comes to mind is Valentine’s

Day. Every year people become exceedingly bubbly and giddy towards their loved one(s) on February 14, aided by an armed, half-naked cherub we lovingly refer to as Cupid. Both the day and the angel are objects that direct the emotions of people, to such a profitable 9 extent that Hallmark created Sweetest Day exactly six months its opposite in order to

‘help the common lover’s good.’3 Such objects are not limited to Western ideology however. Like the Cupid of the West, the Hindu god of love, Kamadeva, is portrayed with a bow of sugar cane and arrows.4

Objects are often referenced cinematically as well. In It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

George Bailey asks Mary what she wants for Christmas: “What is it you want, Mary?

What do you want? You . . . you want the moon? Just say the word and I’ll throw a lasso around it and pull it down. Hey! That’s a pretty good idea! I’ll give you the moon, Mary.”

Mary, of course, becomes his wife shortly after this exchange. In The Wizard of Oz

(1939) though not an example of romantic love, young Dorothy is finally able to return to

Kansas in focusing on the object of her ‘home’ which she has discovered personifies all that love means to her, most specifically her family and friends. Juliet, in finding love for who he is and not what family he was born into, compares Romeo to a flower. “What ’s in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet” (II.i.90-

91). It is from this particular metaphor that this project takes its name – the idea that things should not be judged by their name or place of origin but by their inner content and what they have to offer. Juliet chooses the correct path in judging her true love, not by the Montague title into which he was born, but by the individual that he has become.

Objects aside, what seems to be the prevailing argument is that “love” requires an individual to interact with another individual in some way that is mutually ‘special’ to them, and (most likely) involves sexual attraction. The Christian-Platonic theory of love,

3 And make more money 4 This parallels the fact that religions are generally directed towards and through objects: Christianity has the cross and the bread and wine of communion; Judaism has the menorah and Star of David; and Hinduism has the Om and statuettes of the gods. 10 presented by Ficino in Platonic Theory (2001), states that love is something that allows humans to transcend their individual self and become a god. As quoted by Freeman

(1995), Plato described love similarly as “the best of all forms of divine possession and

‘the source of the greatest good’ (7). This is echoed in the definition presented in

Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.) which states that love is “a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons” (850).

Additional definitions by Webster’s reference altruistic feelings for others and the inherent connection of love to sex and sexual passion.

A seemingly contradicting point to this emotionally significant line of thought about love is a biologically based theory posed by Kenrick and Buss in The New

Psychology of Love (2006). According to these two behavioral scientists, love is more or less a catalyst for reproduction. The emotions are nice, but they find that their true purposes are nothing more than to provide a conduit through which a male and a female might mate. However, even if romantic love is not truly an emotion but more of a biological scheme to ensure an intimate relationship with a preferred mating partner, the idea of transcendence is not discounted. To suppose so would be to say that just because something is built to serve one purpose it cannot serve any other. Human beings are notoriously resourceful, able to take two sticks from a tree and create fire, a few stones and some water and pour concrete into the tallest skyscraper imaginable. A movie, for example, even in today’s technologically advanced environment, is nothing more than a series of still photographs splashed upon a screen in quick succession. Add in a little music, turn the lights down, and you have the potential for a truly special experience from nothing more than a quickly replaced image on a beam of light. 11

Likewise with love, it may be a divine reckoning or just a series of electrical blips across the gelatinous landscape within our heads. It does not really matter where it comes from, but where it is going, the experience. It is up to each couple to make what they will out of what they have.

Types of Love

Now that the purpose or definition of love has been discussed, it is important to identify the different types of love that exist. This issue is raised and explored most notably in the compellation of essays that comprise Sternberg and Weis’ The New

Psychology of Love (2006). In this critical look on love three groups of today’s leading behavioral science experts - Hendrick and Hendrick, Berscheid, and Clark and Monin – discuss the taxonomies of love. Hendrick and Hendrick (2006) follow the classifications of Lee (1973) and identify six types of interpersonal love: eros (passionate love), ludus

(game-playing, uncommitted love), stroge (friendship love), pragma (calculating/practical love), agape (altruistic love), and mania (obsessional love). Following these six classifications, the relationship of Juliet and Romeo cannot be clearly classified. Their interactions could most certainly never fall under pragma as there is nothing practical, realistic, or rational about the whirlwind pace of their love affair, nor storgic since they are immediately lovers and even married before there is ever an opportunity for them to develop even a semblance of a friendship. Their relationship would more clearly fall under a manic description as such lovers often discover their partners by haphazard means, like the chance encounter at the Capulet ball where the fated lovers discover each other. These relationships also do not typically end well (153), another clear connection 12 to this renowned couple. Mania finds love as a means of rescue, or a reinforcement of value, saving Romeo from the despair of his unrequited attraction towards Rosaline.

Manic, however, is not a complete description of the love between these two. There are also elements of eros and agapic love. The passionate love known as eros is sexual in nature. Eros, being the Greek root that leads to the term erotic, is replete with individuals who fall in love at first sight (i.e. Romeo and Juliet) choosing their partners by intuition or ‘chemistry’ (again, Romeo and Juliet). Agapic lovers are self-sacrificing. In the extreme, this invokes the mutual suicides of Romeo and Juliet resulting from their feelings of unbearable guilt at the loss of their loved one.

Berscheid (2006) finds that there are only four types of love: attachment

(unlearned love – serves the need for protection), compassionate love (altruistic – concerned for others’ welfare), companionate love/liking (affection is based on the principles of reward and punishment when people who are liked are rewarded and those who are disliked are punished), and romantic love (passionate love or erotic love – incorporates sexual desire). These two models seem to have a great deal of overlap. For example, from the basic definition of Hendrick and Hendrick’s agape a clear connection can be seen to Berscheid’s description of compassionate love. Following this line of reasoning, Juliet and Romeo’s bond would also fall under the description of compassionate love while bridging into the Romantic love due to the overt sexuality woven into Shakespeare’s play – “By her fine foot, straight leg and quiv’ring thigh,/ And the demesnes that there adjacent lie” (II.i.21-22).

The third model of interpersonal love, set forth by Clark and Monin, sees love in terms of a communal responsiveness where attending to the welfare and needs of the 13 partner are of paramount importance. Instead of looking at how love can be experienced differently amongst different individuals, Clark and Monin essentially indicate five practices that indicate the presence of love between individuals: helping, support for reaching future goals, creating something in collaboration with another person, exhibiting caring behaviors when the other person has transgressed, and symbolic (when there is no clear need apparent and one nevertheless shows that one cares for the other). Romeo and

Juliet show their love to only be in the most infantile of stages. True, they know each other for only a day before they are married and a week before they have both killed themselves, but in this time they display no actual evidence of the cultivation of a healthy, lasting relationship. With regards to Clark and Monin, Juliet and Romeo as a couple are only involved in the helping practice, being spurred on essentially by a combination of mutual need for each other, and lust. One could argue that the newlyweds also display the practice of exhibiting caring behaviors when the other person has transgressed; however, this is not an act that they undertake as a couple, rather that Juliet acts on alone as only Romeo has erred. In fact, of the two Juliet is the better lover, forgiving her husband (a man she has known for only two days) for slaying her own flesh and blood, her cousin Tybalt, and in turn helping him (one of Clark and Monin’s practices) escape from Mantua that he may not be put to death as the Prince decreed. In doing so she supports their future goal of being together (another of the practices which indicate the presence of love). This leads directly into issues of gender and its relation to love.

Can (and more importantly do) the sexes experience love in the same manner? As was stated before, Fisher argues that love has “bewitched, bothered, and bewildered” 14 every era and culture of men and women (2004: 6). This implies only that both sexes experience love, not that they necessarily experience it in the same way. While Freeman argues that it is not limited by “gender, personhood or age” (1995: 7), the overwhelming sentiment seems to be that the experiences that an individual has in or through love are categorically based upon the sex of that individual. In other words, what I, as a male, take away from the interactions of love and being loved are different than what a female would. It is even possible that the female whom I share this love with – though our interactions would appear ostensibly the same to an outside observer – actually experiences something quite different from what I do. For example, the act of going on a date would be recorded as ‘they went to the movies’ by an unbiased third party but would leave the girl experiencing XX while I take away XY from the same series of events.

It is necessary to go so far as to note that this project may also have been heavily influenced by the sex of its author. I am not implying that my view on love has been compromised by my chromosomes, but am pointing out that it has probably been influenced by them. Were this project penned (or typed) by a member of the ‘fairer sex,’ stylistic points aside, even the same line of argument on how true love allows for the establishment of a cross-cultural bridge of mutual enjoyment for viewers of the cinematic products of both Bollywood and Hollywood may have been approached or at least treated in a different manner.

According to the experts, women are ‘better’ at loving than men. Rhodes and

Potash (1989) argue that men are amateurs at intimacy. They are “in pain, suffering from discomfort, unease, and a downright terror of intimacy” (xii). These therapists would point to the ridiculous state Romeo is in when we are first introduced to him – depressed, 15 despondent, and despairing at the unrequited love he has experienced at the hands of

Rosaline. This, however, is incorrect of not only Romeo but men in general. Fischer

(2004) disputes the belief of Rhodes and Potash, stating that “men and women even among two very different societies are much alike in their feelings of romantic passion”

(5). Fischer finds no statistically viable difference between the ways in which women and men describe, fall in, and experience love. Men may try to avoid intimacy at times but women do as well. Conversely, both men and women also actively pursue intimacy.

Romeo was not cowering away from developing a love-filled connection with another but actively trying to attain one. In fact, in the same breath that he first beheld Juliet he had essentially forgotten Rosaline. He was consumed and distracted by an unsuccessful attempt at love, but not to the point where he was unable to act on the stirrings of true love when they presented themselves.

Grant points out that the term ‘true love’ essentially refers to the concern for the well-being of another and is typically different in quality from sexual desire or aesthetic attraction (1976: 39). Grant, therefore, classifies ‘true love’ as some form of Berscheid’s

Compassionate Love and Hendrick and Hendrick’s stroge and agape. Such reasoning disagrees with the common understanding of true love that places it somewhere in the realm of Romantic Love.5 Grant clarifies by saying that though it is not a form of ‘true love’ there is no form of love that is a less valid or important type of love. “Sexual love, or amorous emotion, is not only a fully authentic experience but at its peak one of the most powerful human experiences” (42).

5As discussed by Fehr’s essay on “Implicit Theories of Love” in The New Psychology of Love (2006). 16

Marston, Hecht, and Roberts (1987) have found six different ways in which romantic love can manifest itself between lovers. Their divisions are: collaborative love, active love, secure love, intuitive love, committed love and traditional romantic love

(387). Essentially, when people talk about romantic love or attachment love, they do not necessarily have the same concept in mind. Weis writes in The New Psychology of Love that the “goal of having one all-encompassing theory of love that is able to explain all of its phenomena without contradictions is a distant prospect” (2006: 313).

Love can clearly be different for different people, and as such it can be misunderstood. Sometimes lust is even incorrectly referred to as love. People say that they make love but really they are just making sex – engaging in a carnal act. Within this context, it is important to consider the emotional and environmental factors that could lead individuals to make judgments about the differentiations between loving and sexual activity. This innately raises the question: what are the relative contributions of reason and emotion to love?

Interpreting Love

The issue of whether the emotion an individual is experiencing is actually love is critical for a complete discussion of love. In other words, what is the interaction between love and the brain: what is the effect of the brain on love versus the effect of love on the brain? Leach argues that the mind is essentially able to look at love for what it is – implying that a person can actually have control over love, no matter how powerful the emotion (1980: 99). Countering this line of thought, Lewis, Amini, and Lannon quote the

French mathematician Blaise Pascal, who said “the heart has its reasons whereof Reason 17 knows nothing” (2000: 4). They state that the neural systems responsible for emotion and intellect are separate, and that there is a relative chasm between them in human minds and lives. “Because of the brain’s design, emotional life defeats Reason” (4). There is very little connection between reason and love. The brain is nearly completely illogical when it comes to the feelings, emotions, and the experience of love.

For an in-depth look at the relation of the brain to perception and love, we turn to

Salovey (2007), from whom the following section is primarily taken. Salovey is an active social psychologist, and the founder and developer of the concept of emotional intelligence. On 14 February 2007, he gave a lecture at Yale University titled “Evolution,

Emotion, Reason: Love.” In this lecture, he offers three elements for true love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. All three must exist for an interpersonal interaction to be considered ‘true love.’ Love at first sight exists, but it is more of an aggrandized infatuation, while arranged marriages have commitment but not much else. What is interesting is that such marriages are just as likely to survive (i.e. not end in divorce) as marriages for love. The reason for this being that they are more likely to occur in societies that frown on divorce itself, which make it more costly – economically and socially – to divorce.

Within his lecture, Salovey also identified the three most common ways in which romantic attraction may form. The “big three” are: people near to you in space; people similar to you; and people with whom you are already acquainted. “All things being equal, similarity breeds attraction” (2007). In response to a couple that describe themselves as different, especially ‘complete opposites’, he wishes them good luck, pointing out that opposites don’t really attract. “All things being equal, similarity does 18 not breed contempt. Similarity breeds attraction,” which leads to the importance of the idea of familiarity. “We tend to fall in love with people in our environment with whom we are already familiar.”

Familiarity applies to lots of things in our lives, even words. Salovey (2007) postulated that it is possible to conduct an experiment in which a group of people are shown words from another language with which none of the participants of the experiment are familiar. One can just briefly splash them on a projection screen and then later splash those same words on the screen but mix in new words with which the group is also unfamiliar before asking the group which words they like, which words are more appealing to them. The overwhelming majority of the time, the group will select the foreign words which were previously displayed on the screen, the words with which the group has more familiarity even though they have no idea what any of the words

(introduced in either the former or the latter grouping) mean. Even if that familiarity is generated with such speed that the participants do not even recall being exposed to them originally, the power of familiarity works even at a subconscious level.

Salovey (2007) points to another trick that can be played on our emotions known as the Pratfall Effect. This effect states that we are attracted to competent people who occasionally blunder because we find people who are consistently competent on all levels threatening. This increase in apparent charm applies only to competent persons as a pratfall by a mediocre person causes that person to appear even more mediocre. Our liking of the competent person grows when that person makes a mistake. For example,

Bill Clinton is a competent man who made a huge error that became a sexual scandal.

Polls did not see his popularity diminish as a result of this scandal however, but rather 19 this pratfall caused him to seem more human. Any blunders on the part of Juliet or

Romeo would, according to the Pratfall Effect, cause us to find them even more attractive and lifelike. This, of course, is assuming that the viewer finds the characters to be competent, for if they see Romeo and Juliet as incompetent, foolish, or even just mediocre children then these selfsame blunders would cause a loss in respect and admiration directed towards the hero and heroine of The Most Excellent and Lamentable

Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.

Perception heavily influences interpersonal relationships, especially love.

According to Salovey (2007), people report that warmth, sensitivity, intelligence, compassion, and sense of humor are all important but that looks are not important. “We believe that looks don’t matter and unfortunately they do.” This is the relationship of emotion and reason in love as is proved by blind dates. While on such dates, the highest indicator of which couples would go on a second date is the rating of looks or physical attractiveness. What is it about physical attractiveness that makes people want to pursue the relationship? Consider the Frizzy Wig Experiment by Elliot Aronson, the same gentleman who originated the Pratfall Experiment. He hired an attractive woman to pose as a graduate student in clinical psychology and to interview male participants. At the end of the interview she gave each male feedback, a ‘clinical evaluation’ about their personality. She was either made to look very good or rather unattractive with frumpy clothes, poor makeup, and a frizzy wig. When she was made to look attractive, the male participants were delighted when she gave them positive evaluations and really upset when she gave them negative feedback. When she was in the frizzy wig and made to look unattractive, the male participants did not really care what kind of opinion she gave them, 20 either positive or negative. In other words, this experiment shows that the feedback of attractive people matters more to us.

Aronson’s Gain Effect characterizes another important influence on interpersonal attraction. According to Salovey (2007), this concept states that we “are really attracted to people whose regard for us is gaining momentum over time.” Conversely, we are hurt the most by people whose regard was originally positive but begins to fade over time, a situation characterized as the Loss Effect. Romeo and Juliet are the epitome of the Gain

Effect. They come from dueling families – ‘hating love and loving hate’ but then start to show affection towards each other. This growth of affection outweighs any other love for them, eventually even that of their families and their ancient blood feud. Even County

Paris, who has always professed his love to Juliet, falls victim to the Gain Effect as his consistent adorations are outweighed by the growth of Romeo’s affections towards her.

Misattribution is the final effect described by Salovey (2007). He describes misattribution as when individuals become physically stimulated or aroused due to something else but they “mistakenly attribute it, misattribute it to: physical attraction, romance, intimacy, passion, and commitment.” The heart pounds, the blood pressure rises, the body begins to sweat because of some external stimulus, but individuals interpret these physical changes within them as a result of interacting with this other person. They incorrectly believe that they are experiencing heart flutters and the beginnings of attraction or even love. For example, Salovey talks about accidentally receiving caffeinated coffee from Starbucks when you ordered decaf. The adrenaline that individuals who drink this mistakenly caffeinated coffee experience is a direct result of the caffeine, but they in all likelihood would incorrectly attribute it to their interaction 21 with the person they are drinking coffee with in Starbucks. In other words, they might think they are falling in love with this person but really they are just falling under the influence of caffeine.

Romeo and Juliet could be classic victims of misattribution, mistaking the rush and thrill of danger for love. They meet at a Capulet party where Romeo, a Montague and by name a mortal enemy of the party’s hosts, is in the proverbial lion’s den. He could easily have mistaken the consistent threat to his personal safety as a result of his risky choice in surroundings for legitimate romantic feelings directed towards Juliet. When they meet later that night Juliet blatantly states that “The orchard walls are high and hard to climb,/ And the place death, considering who thou art,/ If any of my kinsmen find thee here” (II.i.112-114). Both of the lovers clearly know of the mortal danger in their meeting and the idea of misattribution could explain their hasty nuptials, not being caused by true love itself but rather the misplaced and misunderstood physical sensations caused from risky practices. As proof of this possibility, consider the studies of misattribution discussed by Salovey. Such studies have shown that people who are subjected to elements of fear, danger, and even cardiovascular exercise rate the experimenter as more attractive than control groups who are removed from those sensory affecting elements find that same experimenter.

Life could essentially be seen as a struggle between perceptions of the brain. It is not so much what is real but what our brains think is real, what they interpret 'reality' to be. The brain is an extremely complex organ. In fact, unless your brain interprets matters of the heart to truly be contained within the realm of that muscular organ which shuttles 22 blood throughout our bodies, the brain is far and above the single most complicated structure within the human being.

In its most simplistic description, the brain is simply a gelatinous, organic substance that is driven by short bursts of electrical shocks. Its likes include: information, oxygen, interacting with others, and growing. Its dislikes include: asphyxiation, external electric shocks, staring at computer screens for too long, lack of sleep, and being struck in the head. Chemicals such as the endorphins released through periods of exercise and even fear affect the ability of the brain to function impartially, so there is a direct relation among the brain, its chemicals, and the interpretation of love. Cozolino (2006) points out the neurological effects of love on the brain indicating that research suggests that the insula is involved with mediating emotions such as love:

Love activates the brain’s social engagement and reward systems: It creates positive feelings through the activation of biochemical networks throughout our brains . . . Love is a drug – in fact, a number of drugs – that includes endorphins and dopamine and results in similar patters of brain activation as taking cocaine. (240)

Consider the addictive factor of love. Perhaps Romeo was spurred on to fall so hard for both Rosaline and Juliet in quick succession as a result of a biochemical addiction to the release of dopamine and endorphins. With this line of thought it is not hard to imagine the existence of such a love junkie, someone willing to do anything to find that next heart, to feel that next buzz, but what happens to love junkies when they are forced to go cold turkey? What happens to the brain when it can no longer achieve that drug-like high? What happens when love is lost?

The final major issue regarding love is what happens to the individual when love is unfulfilled, negated or lost. The brain’s drug-like addiction to love can pose horrible 23 consequences when such a loss occurs. Cozolino states that negative “interpersonal experiences not only impact an individual’s ability to relate to others, they also damage the body’s ability to maintain and heal itself in response to physical illness and subsequent psychological stress” (2006: 240). Schaeffer mirrors these observations of lost love’s detrimental effects on interpersonal interaction and physical health in pointing out that “a baby who is seldom touched or not touched at all may get sick, depressed, or in severe cases, may become mentally retarded or die” (1987: 4). The reason for this as

Cozolino points out is that the brain is a social organ. It requires positive interaction with others to remain healthy and grow. Yes people can live without love, but love is a type of social interaction. No love, no interaction; no development of the brain.

Without knowledge of the chemically addictive nature of love on the brain and the potentially dire consequences of that selfsame love’s loss, it may be difficult for audience members to fully understand the ultimate act of affection from both Juliet and

Romeo. Having never personally experienced a love so intense that its loss resulted in their deaths, as is proven by the continued ability of the audience to patronize plays such as Romeo and Juliet, audience members would have to take the existence of such a love on faith in the ability of William Shakespeare to have correctly penned a realistic account. They could have potentially assigned the suicides to foolish haste without ever considering the possibility of incontrollable chemical pressures steering the courses and otherwise helpless bodies of the fated lovers.

24

Fated Love

What, then, is fated love? Semantically speaking, it is important to point out that there is no difference between the phrases fated love and ill-fated love. The more negative connation that the latter phrase may appear to harbor is a misnomer. Webster’s New

World College Dictionary (4th ed.) defines the term “fated” as “ordained or determined by fate; destined to destruction; doomed” (517). Scholarship tends to agree that fated love involves love at first sight and a direct relationship with death. Salovey (2007) regards love at first sight as a cultural myth. He does, however, concede that it happens on occasion. Grant goes further stating that a “wealth of biographical and autobiographical sources confirm its reality. It has been observed among the lower animals” (1976: 70).

Conzolino also agrees, stating that “Love at first sight involves triggering of positive associations and projection of them onto another person, thereby creating a sort of positive prejudice” (2006: 252). Science acknowledges the possibility of love at first sight. Even if it is an exceedingly frequent occurrence its reality still helps to legitimize the fictionalized events and love portrayed in The Most Excellent and Lamentable

Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.

On the opposite side of this immediate connection through fated love lies the tragedy of death for the heroes. Bloom (1998) says that tragedy is the only way for

Romeo and Juliet to end since “a passion as absolute as Romeo’s and Juliet’s cannot consort with comedy” (102). Stilling (1976) identifies a motif of the opposition of love and death in Renaissance tragedy (1). Going back to the discussion on the importance of the play, Stilling argues that Romeo and Juliet is revolutionary and a major monument as it “summed up the romantic tradition and passed its conventions and its attitudes on” (4). 25

In essence, Romeo and Juliet creates a whole mythology of love. Wymer (1986) argues that not only death but suicide was a dramatic convention during the Renaissance.

However, Wymer states that the convention of death/suicide only becomes “fully tragic when there is a balancing of opposed implications, when dignity grapples with despair”

(156). In fact, “the two faces of suicide – dignity and despair – could be said to comprise an important part of the paradoxical effect of tragedy just as they encompass the

Renaissance view of man as ‘a proud and yet a wretched thing’” (4). Human nature is likewise both self-divided and potentially self-destructive and the conflicting implications of triumphant self-assertion and sinful despair gave suicide an especial dramatic expressiveness and tragic value (1).

Fated love is an extreme of true love, one so intense that it cannot be sustained. It can be likened to the Red Super Giants that burn brighter and faster than any other stars in the Universe. Such stars put off more light than their smaller, more common counterparts. However, they burn at such an extreme heat and rate that they cannot maintain themselves for long. The process of fusion continues until the very core of these massive stars collapses, causing a colossal shockwave that radiates throughout the home galaxy of the star. Such a cataclysmic explosion in the final moments of these celestial bodies leaves behind it an abyss devoid of light and of heat – a black hole. The repercussions of these short lived though exceedingly powerful stars transform the very face of the galaxy – an immediate change that echoes throughout history.

Clearly Romeo and Juliet are not the perfect lovers by any definition of this broad term. They are, however the perfect lovers for each other – fated to be together. Aside from all of the psychoanalytic and behavioral theory that this chapter has presented, the 26 claim of their perfect love is supported if for no other reason than the play itself says that they are supposed to be together. The play is the scope of reality for these characters making Shakespeare the metaphorical god of this fictionalized love. If there is one thing we know from religion – any religion – it is that what God, G-d, or even just a god says goes. If William Shakespeare, the god of The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of

Romeo and Juliet, decrees that this man and this woman are perfect for each other then they are perfect for each other. They are not without their flaws but such details only serve to make them all the more human. The mistakes and errors which Juliet and Romeo make cause them to appear more realistic, allowing audiences the world over to identify with this play.

Love is complicated, but it is everywhere. The theories and classifications of love that this chapter has discussed (Pratt Effect, compassionate love, Gain Effect, agape, etc.), though not all encompassing, aim to explain and define the human experience of love. Not just the American experience of love, or the British, or the Spanish, or the

Canadian experience, but the human experience of love. Even members of Eastern or collectivist societies experience the neurologic release of adrenaline and dopamine. It simply cannot be helped when interacting with the subject, or object of their affection.

Even if such feelings are strictly prohibited by their families, threats of impending danger can actually increase the feelings of attraction, even though they be misattributed.

Identifying with this possibility of forbidden romance overpowering the senses and logic of an individual is part of the reason Romeo and Juliet remains so popular. Love truly conquers all. Even time has proven no match for the enduring popularity of this iconic 27 tale of love nearing four hundred years since the death of the very playwright who originally dubbed Juliet and Romeo as a pair of star-cross’d lovers.

The next section of this project explores the life and legacy of William

Shakespeare, before taking a closer look at the now timeless love story he versed into the popular consciousness.

28

Part Two The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo & Juliet

29

Chapter Two The Bard

Who was Shakespeare?

When discussing the famed author of Romeo and Juliet, one must first raise the issue of who is or was William Shakespeare? As with love, however, this is a deceptively simple question. The concise answer is that no one really knows. This chapter explores historical facts and clues into the life and person reverently known as The Bard. It details his life through both factual evidence and scholarly suppositions, while also speculating on his personal views of love.

As Mazer (1993) points out in “Introduction: Shakespeare on Stratford” from

The Yale Shakespeare: The Complete Works, not much is actually known about the man we today refer to as William Shakespeare. Aside from historical records which indicate that a child was born in Stratford-upon-Avon and given the name William Shakespeare, that he was baptized on 26 April 1564, and that he died at the age of 52 on 23 April 1616, very little is known (vii-ix). In fact, you may have noticed that only the dates of his baptism and of his death are listed above. This is because there are no surviving records that identify the precise day on which he was born, though one can surmise that he was likely born sometime after 19 April 1564 as all good Christian families had their children baptized with all due haste in those times, owning to the particularly high rate of crib deaths experienced. According to Mazer, Master Shakespeare himself suffered the pain of losing a child. Anne Hathaway, another resident of Stratford-upon-Avon whom

Shakespeare wed at the age of 18, bore him three children. Tragically, Hamnet,

Shakespeare’s youngest child and only son, died at the age of 11 (vii). 30

These sparse details are essentially the extent of Master William Shakespeare’s historical footprint. In fact, there is a period of his life where there is absolutely no trace of him. Mazer and others refer to the period of time spanning from 1585 through 1592 as

Shakespeare's "lost years." Bloom (1998) writes that with “Shakespeare, we know a fair number of externals, but essentially we know absolutely nothing” (718). His summary of

Shakespeare’s history differs only from Mazer in his suspicion that Shakespeare first joined the London theatrical world in 15876. Bloom states that Shakespeare returned to

Stratford in 1610 and retired as a dramatist after he composed The Two Noble Kinsmen with John Fletcher in 1613 (vii).

So who really was this man and what did he do with his life? The commonly accepted account is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was a master writer and poet. On behalf of the general perception of his accomplishments, Mazer credits him with 38 plays, 154 sonnets, and several other poems (1993: vii). However, there is some heated contention as to the actual authorship of these writings. In

Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man

Who Was Shakespeare, Anderson (2005) argues that William Shakespeare of Stratford- upon-Avon was not the individual who wrote all of the plays and sonnets attributed to him. Instead, Anderson insists that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford was the true author of these monumental works writing under the pseudonym of ‘Shake-speare.’ He argues that it would be impossible for a commoner such as William Shakespeare to have as much foreign, domestic, social, scientific, etc. knowledge as would be required to craft so many

6 Mazer does not give an exact date. Rather, he states that it is “probable that William Shakespeare began working as an actor in London sometime during the 1580s” (1993: viii). 31 insightful, diverse, and lasting writings. Going along the same line of thought that it would have been impossible for one man to complete so much in such a short time, especially considering his lack of privileged upbringing, others (such as Christopher

Marlow) have been suggested as the true crafters of all things “Shakespeare.” However,

Bevington, Welsh, and Greenwald (2006) as well as Bloom (1998) show such beliefs to be held by only a small minority, confirming Shakespeare’s authorship over all of the things for which he has been historically credited.

I believe that the man known as William Shakespeare did in fact write all of the plays and sonnets which are canonically accredited to him. In response to allegations that he has erroneously been awarded the title of The Bard as well as had generations of theatrical and literary praise and admiration heaped upon him, one need look no farther than the immediate results of his death. Mazer (1993) writes that his “accumulation of wealth is well-evidenced in the bequests of his will. His accrual of honors is equally apparent from the many eulogies published after his death, of which perhaps the most eloquent was proffered by Ben Jonson, who was Shakespeare’s friend and perhaps also his fiercest competitor and frequent critic” (viii).

People do not get rich from doing nothing.7 This should be especially evident as we move into a global recession resultant of the irresponsible lending practices that have plagued our economies of late. People were receiving loans and access to money which they had no actual ability to pay back. Phantom economics and number crunching lulled the world into a false sense of economic growth and prosperity. Shakespeare however, had accumulated actual wealth, pulling himself up by his bootstraps to a place of renown

7 Winning the lottery and marrying for money aside, which arguably both require at least some (albeit minor) level of exertion. 32 and even nobility8. Henderson (2007) writes that if one were to place young William

Shakespeare in one cultural location:

it would not be among the elite. He was born neither noble nor ‘gentle,’ did not attend university, worked as an actor and provider of scripts for a professional theater of such dubious status that it was not allowed to perform within London’s city limits, and wrote in a vernacular with little enough belabored classicism to remain generally comprehensible to most English speakers centuries later. (7)

Shakespeare came from the most common of origins. There was no silver spoon in his young mouth, nor golden quill in his chubby little hand. He is quite literally the exemplar of the American dream impressively seizing his opportunities and fulfilling his dreams an entire century before there even was an America9.

The true vein of any argument for Shakespeare’s writings having been performed under a pseudonym only serve to advance ironic twists of fate. Anderson (2005) has a point in his argument that a writer of place such as Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford would need to assume a pseudonym in order to write pieces similar to those produced by

William Shakespeare. Such writings were of common direction – wholly unacceptable and exceedingly vulgar. Writing itself was not unheard of amongst the nobility as many of them were learned scholars and poets; however, the style and some of the subject matter invoked by Shakespeare unsettled them. Such scribbles were below the breeding,

8 According to Mazer, John Shakespeare (William’s father) was granted a coat of arms in 1596. In all likelihood, this grant was “a reflection of his son’s ambition and prosperity, [and probably] paid for by William Shakespeare himself . . .William Shakespeare could then claim its insignia and the status conferred therein as part of his own heritage” (1993: viii). 9 This is in reference to the fact that in Shakespeare’s time, the Americas were colonies of the British Empire. They did not emancipate themselves to form the sovereign nation of the United States of America until 1776. More impressive even is the fact that Shakespeare’s success preceded the conception of the “American Dream” to an even greater extent as this term did not come into wide usage until the immigration booms of the mid and late 1800s. 33 expectations, and regard of high society, especially that of direct nobility. As a result, the need for a pseudonym stands up in this instance, but Anderson’s theory flounders when one realizes that the pseudonym was not simply a protective pen name to write under, but an actual person. It simply does not make sense that someone, especially a member of rank, would allow another person to receive praise upon praise for a sustained period of several decades when that praise was justly earned under the toil of their pen to parchment. This is especially surprising when considering the pride that is traditionally associated with such prestige of place and power. The pseudonymic forfeit of such success would obviously cause resentment to such a pride, especially as the purportedly unearned reputation propelled William Shakespeare into eternal fame (not to mention fortune) to the point where Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford would be unable to maintain the silence of his authorship, no matter the consequences within his social circle.

Similarly, no other author would have sustained such epic plagiarism, especially

Christopher Marlow. Marlow was Shakespeare’s contemporary, a writer himself. There were no laws preventing the number of plays an individual could write in a year. If a playwright created more plays than his company of actors could perform, he could save those extra scripts for another year. He could also sell or lease his surplus to other companies that he might garner some spare silver for his change purse. Even with such an exchange, those pieces would still bear on them the name and sign of authorship that the original author might continue to earn his due prestige through all of his endeavors.

It is an absolutely ridiculous claim that a writer would brand himself under the name of another man so as to create competition against his own work. Even if one were to consider such a pursuit, personal bias would compel such a fool to pass off only lesser 34 or experimental works to the invented, spurious author. He would retain the jewels of parchment for himself10. He would not continuously pass off his best writings, eventually eclipsing his own name in history for that of his pen. Any author would clearly feel great connection and pride to such monumental works of individual triumph and historical literary and theatrical significance, particularly as they received honors. It is not as if these people did not know there was something special about the writings of

Shakespeare. Actual fame within the lifetime of an artist is very rare, yet William

Shakespeare was renowned practically throughout the entirety of his career. His company of actors, originally known as The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, was retained by the King of

England himself. King James becoming the patron of Shakespeare’s troupe was clearly a huge honor, effectively causing the re-designation of those same players, in that same company, under that same genius of a playwright to the title of The King’s Men.

Any fool would have been able to recognize the signs of greatness and impending infamy which made up the career of Shakespeare. Pride, money, inklings of fame, and several other of the less honorable yearnings of frail humanity would have forced the hand of any author who actually bore the load for this author. It is for this obvious recognition of destined fame within his own lifetime, and the decidedly obvious lack of attempted intervention and assumption by Christopher Marlow, Edward de Vere, or any other person of their due recognition that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon has to be the noted author and poet which history regards him as, definitively and without reproach.

10 In Shakespeare’s time, women were legally not allowed to perform, work, or participate in the theater other than as audience members. 35

Shakespeare and Love

In response to the paucity of actual facts, scholars also tend to speculate on the views and love life of William Shakespeare. Some of the theories that have been advanced are that Shakespeare: was a Roman Catholic; was gay; was a skirt-chaser; had no religion at all; wrote the sonnets to the Earl of Southampton; wrote the sonnets to the

Earl of Pembroke; wrote the sonnets to Emilia Lanier; et cetera. Clearly these speculations are at odds with one another and are again not based directly on any recorded facts.

Even Shakespeare’s view on love is unclear. According to Line (2004)

Shakespeare followed the Christian-Platonic philosophy of love originally set forth by

Marsilio Ficino11. Parker (1987) disagrees, proceeding:

on the conviction that neither Romanticism nor Neo-Platonism nor a capitulation to passion’s intransigence underlies Shakespeare’s love theory, but rather a fusion of Augustinian principles of right and wrong love with the precepts of right reason as the latter were refined by Christian humanism and Reformation theology. (6-7)

Divergent still, Vyvyan (1960) asserts that the allegories and writing are elusive so as to avoid prosecution. He believes that Shakespeare’s philosophy was informed not by

Christianity, but was “heretical by the orthodox standards of his age” (188). He goes on to describe how Shakespeare held the view that love leads to a recognition of unity (188), showing that “Hell cannot hold the soul that loves. And it is always possible to learn to love again” (194).

Coming from a feminist perspective Gajowski argues that Shakespeare’s

“emphasis falls on female protagonists who are profounder in feeling, more realistic, and

11 This philosophy essentially states that love is a means through which humans could get closer to God. 36 more mature in love than are the male protagonists” (1992: 25)12. He goes farther arguing that Shakespeare’s view on love is not Platonic, logical, or even directly heretical, but that “We know of love in Shakespeare, indeed, as something women feel for men” (25).

Charney (2000) disagrees with all views and opinions that Shakespeare maintained a unified theory of love that he professed and implemented through his writings. She states that a close reading of Shakespeare proves that there is no overall doctrine that emerges.

According to Line, Shakespeare definitely does not follow the Platonic ideas of love, instead arguing that all of Shakespeare’s portrayals of love stem from his desire to

“pursue dramatic and theatrical opportunities rather than to express a unified set of ideas about love. In other words, his works seem to be full of contradictions about the nature of love and the expected behavior of lovers” (4). Bloom agrees, simplistically stating that in terms of love, Shakespeare “seems too wise to believe anything” (1998: 14). However, he goes on to say that “the Sonnets seem more than a fiction and, at least in this aspect of life, Shakespeare evidently was not so cold as his Hamlet” (88).

What can be concluded about Shakespeare’s view on love is that there can be no conclusion. William Shakespeare clearly experienced love, but it is unknown though which framework the beating compass of his heart was guided. Perhaps there was no formal system that he followed. Perhaps he merely wrote what he felt was right. Perhaps, even for The Bard, emotions defeated reason.13

Tucker (2003) states that all of the propositions about Shakespeare are obviously contestable, even on an individual basis. He says that “not enough primary data has come to light concerning Shakespeare’s life to settle these intellectual skirmishes, and barring

12 See Chapter One for more on the relation between the sexes the experience of love. 13 See Chapter One for more on the relation between emotion and reason. 37 the discovery of a major biographical tool – for instance, the personal diary of William

Shakespeare – students and scholars will have to remain content with their surmises” (6).

In other words, we know when the man lived, we know what he wrote, but we will never know what he thought or what he was truly like. Even without ever really knowing

Shakespeare, his accomplishments are unmatched. This is verified by Bloom, who states that without Shakespeare “we would be very different, because we would think and feel and speak differently. Our ideas would be different, particularly our ideas about the human, since they were, more often than not, Shakespeare’s ideas before they were ours”

(1998: 716).

Universality

Today, William Shakespeare’s influence is practically unmatched. His name is essentially synonymous with “literature,” but this has not always been the case. What then accounts for the overwhelming adaptability and influence of Shakespeare’s writings

– particularly his plays?

Part of the reason for Shakespeare’s popularity is that he wrote for the masses.

While he kept the high paying ‘elite’ crowd in mind, he catered his craft to attract (and obviously retain) the commoner. According to Henderson (2007) it was not until “the studies of Romantic and twentieth-century academic critics – with the exaggerated split between textual and theatrical cultures – did Shakespeare ever become divorced entirely from the ‘hurly-burly’ he created (both literally and figuratively), or from the crowds he wrote to please” (23). Shakespeare did not write to be the greatest literary figure the

English language has ever seen. He wrote to entertain, to draw a crowd, to fill the Globe 38

Theater, his primary venue. It is we, the academic, the elite, who have analyzed his workings into the upper crust of high society. Henderson argues that this duality of existence – originating from a common form of entertainment before being reborn through the discovery of literary mastery – is arguably the very reason that Shakespeare’s

‘bifold authority’ continues to draw a crowd” (23).

Though it was not his original intention, Shakespeare has truly become a champion to the world. His prose is rich enough to satiate the scholar while remaining grounded enough to placate even the most plebian playgoer. Not only was this level of varied enjoyment present in his own lifetime, Line (2004) states that this adaptability of

Shakespeare’s work is “not confined to any particular age” (2). Illustrating this point,

Jackson (2003) comments that:

The times change, and Shakespearean performance at Stratford has changed with them – even if not sufficiently for some commentators. The fifteen productions of Romeo and Juliet staged there between 1947 and 2000 constitute an intriguing commentary on the range of the text’s possibilities, and at the same time reflect the changing aims and circumstances of the organizations that produced them. (2)

If the Royal Shakespeare Company–but a single production group based in

Stratford-upon-Avon – can find such variety and depth while performing a single text, imagine the near-infinite scope of creativity which the entire world could discover14 from working with the complete catalogue of William Shakespeare.

Time and again, Shakespeare’s legacy has proven to be uniquely qualified and blessed when it comes to resonating with the people of the world. He skillfully crafted

14 Aebischer and Wheale (2003) list all of the various formats Shakespeare’s plays have been adapted into. In addition to staged performances, there are “a plethora of contemporary formats – novel, horror, screenplay, musical – in foreign performance traditions – kathakli, theerukootu and kudiattam, for example – and in a bewildering range of media-forms, from film via video to DVD, CD-ROM, and the internet” (4). 39 such universal themes that Bloom (1998) identifies him as “the best and central writer in

English, [who] already is the only universal author, staged and read everywhere. There is nothing arbitrary in this supremacy” (718). Burnett (2007) adds that “discussion of universality has mainly ceased, to be replaced by a discourse of endless Shakespearean versatility” (48).

Aside from the inherent gift and quality of writing which Shakespeare’s works exhibit, another factor that contributes to their global adaptability is the legacy of British colonization.15 British imperialism was once so vast that it was said the Sun would never set on the British Empire. British rule was not simply a flag that was hung or a vague allegiance owed, it was an entire way of being. Part of the reason for such a large empire was to profit greatly from trade, but it was not a unidirectional flow of goods – such as moving spices westward as is relevant to India.16 Issues of economic fairness and equal rights aside, there was an exchange taking place. Just as the Romans left an intercontinental network of roads and trade routes after their fall, the imprint of British culture, language, and other sensibilities remained after the emancipation of their former colonies. For example, not only do many Indians continue to study and speak English, but English words have become indoctrinated into many of India’s native languages. As a result, English poets and playwrights (such as our boy Will) have become available to not only the masses of the homestead, but of the world in general. Additionally, as the community of one society places emphasis on something in its home arena, it would

15 Note that the results of colonization are not strictly limited to the cross-cultural enjoyment of his works alone, but can draw from the whole of the colonizing entities society, culture, lifestyle, and heritage. 16 The next section of this project (chapter six) will discuss India. Specifically, it will focus on the film industry of Mumbai, India, which is sometimes referred to as “Bollywood.” 40 obviously carry its rapture over to all its spheres of control, sharing its greatness with all those entities under its influence. Truly, all the world’s a stage for the acclaimed works of

The Bard, or as Bevington, Welsh, and Greenwald (2006) put it, Shakespeare’s popularity is truly worldwide (3). Such a global interaction with his work is possible, in part, as a result of love.

As discussed in chapter one, everyone encounters love. It is a ubiquitous part of the human experience. While individual cultures help to define, facilitate, and even regulate the manner in which love is extrinsically communicated and displayed, they do not define the existence of love. Love is not created by the framings of a culture, but occurs on a neurobiological level. It is truly wired to our cores as an intrinsic essence of our existence. Cultures help to define the expression of love17 but their effect on the basic existence and experience of love within each and every individual is no more relevant than the other modes of communication those cultures have developed.18

Culture merely allows the expression of the inner dialogue we experience naturally. After the establishment of these feelings is recognized, culture assists in the communication, growth, and evolution of these feelings as individuals have the opportunity to engage in the customary wooing and mating patterns learned through their upbringing. For example, basic attraction can lead to flirting, which in turn can lead to a serious relationship and deeply invested attachment.

This is true in our individualistic society where we are typically free to pursue those things that make us happy. This process of love, however, can be different in

17 For example what types of affectionate displays are appropriate in public – kissing, touching, holding hands, et cetera. 18 For example language, both written and spoken: English for England, Latin for Rome, Hindi for parts of India, and so on. 41 collectivist, or typically eastern societies (such as India). In these cultural structures, the needs of the family – not those of the individual – are of primary concern. As a result, arranged marriages that satisfy the needs of the families involved, and not those of the individuals’ love per se, have been the common practice for centuries.

This is not to say that love does not exist in these collectivist societies –its pursuit is simply different in different cultures. The same is true on an individual level – no two courtships are exactly the same, but that in-and-of-itself does not value the experience of one couple in love over that of another. I say again that experiencing love is part of the human experience. Just as we all have two arms, two legs, twenty fingers and toes, one head, two eyes, 23 pairs of chromosomes, bleed when pricked, and have blood which is red flowing through our veins,19 we all share in experiencing love. The same areas of gelatinous material which activate within our brains when one of us is interacting with the person we love activate for all of us when interacting with the person we each love.

We may interpret it differently, to be sure, but we each experience it.

It is because of this universal experience of love that we can discover a bridge between cultures. Each of us are able to build upon such a foundation – irrespective of the potentially limiting cultural frameworks for which we have been indoctrinated – to connect and relate to our fellow woman and man.

Love is one of the most basic of human occurrences yet so vast is it in consequences, offering equally the potential of joyful triumph and crushing despair, that when one realizes its true scope there can be no limit to the connections. It is in

19 Of course it is possible for some or all of these generalizations to be found untrue of an individual human being if she or he: has suffered a disfiguring accident such as loss of limb; is anemic, asphyxiated, or has some anomaly of the blood; and so on. 42 recognizing our similarities and not our differences that we find true strength and are able to grow. Incidentally, that growth is a growth towards one another. Such development is one of the results of British colonization where a quest for spices led to the foreign introduction and acceptance of a national, literary icon – William Shakespeare.

No matter who he really was or what he truly believed about it, Shakespeare experienced love and believed in its power. Today he is a standard-bearer for the English language, and it is in part because of love that he is so well received and relatable the world over. Love serves as a bridge between the experiences of cultures, allowing

Shakespeare to be so readily adaptable not only across the boundaries of time but those of society as well – every society. A universal identification with the unavoidable experience of love is also why The Bard’s tale of a young girl and boy from rival families has so captivated the imaginations and hearts of so many, for so long, from all over.

43

Chapter Three The Star-Cross’d Lovers

A Tale of Fated Love

The universality of Shakespeare’s writings allows for the acceptance of, and identification with, the tale of his star-cross’d lovers. Romeo and Juliet is essentially an omnipresent cultural theme.20 Loehlin (2002) states that “Romeo and Juliet is not only one of the most popular of Shakespeare’s plays, it is one of the most popular stories in the world. It is probably the most widely disseminated myth of romantic love; the very names of its heroes have become synonyms for young lovers” (1). As a result, Jackson

(2003) states that “Romeo and Juliet carries with it a formidable reputation as a transcendent story of romantic and tragic love” (13).

When approaching the practically revered tale of the star-cross’d lovers, one must ask what makes Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet? The world is replete with tales of forbidden love and untimely death – these then are obviously not the distinguishing elements of the Romeo and Juliet legend of love. What then constitutes Shakespeare’s true version of the star-cross’d lovers’ tale? The answer, much like that of ‘what is love’ and ‘who is Shakespeare,’ is rather elusive.

William Shakespeare did not originate the story of the star-cross’d Romeo and

Juliet. As he did so often with his writings, Shakespeare built upon an existing literary tradition when he began writing his version of Romeo and Juliet. Bevington, Welsh, and

Greenwald (2006) analyzed stories of fated love throughout time to discover that

Shakespeare’s main source of inspiration was a:

20 At the very least, this is true within the cultures of the Western world. 44

narrative poem by Arthur Brooke, itself a version of a popular legend by the Italian writer Matteo Bandello: The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, written first in Italian by Bandell and now in English (1562). The plot device of a sleeping potion to escape an unwanted wedding goes back as far as 500 C.E. to a romance story by Xenophon of Ephesus. By the fifteenth century, the Italian Il Novellino by Masuccio of Salerno combined the sleeping draught narrative with a misunderstanding and suicide that derives from the Pyramus and Thisbe story in Ovid’s Metamorphoses . . . Luigi da Porto later shifted the scene of his similar story to Verona. Da Porto in turn inspired Bandello, who is the major source for the Brooke poem that Shakespeare knew. (501)

Hosley (1993) agrees with Bevington, Welsh, and Greenwald that Brooke’s poem was Shakespeare’s true source for Romeo and Juliet; however, he places much more emphasis on the role of Luigi da Porto in the development of the story. According to

Hosley, it is da Porto who is responsible for naming:

the lovers Romeo and Giulietta and setting them against a background of civil strife, da Porto names the Friar Lorenzo; invents the characters of Marcuccio, Tebaldo, and the Conte di Lodrone (Shakespeare’s Mercutio, Tybalt, and Paris); develops the characters of Giulietta’s mother and father; introduces the meeting of the lovers at a Cappelletti ball which Romeo attends in disguise; [and] considerably develops the psychology, dialogue, and actions of the lovers beyond Masuccio. (900)

Such blatant borrowing of the works of others was not only acceptable, but expected of writers in Shakespeare’s time and also prior to it. For them, the role of the writer was more to preserve the oral and written traditions of yore, and not to conceive original workings. Writers were like scribes that popularized classic tales. Instead, it would be more appropriate to refer to them as “auteur.” This writing tradition did not change until the Romantic period when the concept of authorship arose. Coincidentally, this is also the time when Shakespeare’s prominence as a literary figure elevated his works from the level of solely common performance to inclusion in elite scholarship.

What makes Shakespeare’s version of the myth so much more memorable than the other versions, of course, has to do with the skill with which Shakespeare creates a 45 play. He is such an amazing writer that the other versions have become eclipsed by his prowess, which directly correlates with the overwhelming – and continued – popularity of his rendition of Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare literally implanted the story of Romeo and Juliet into the common consciousness. He made the legendary love of Juliet and

Romeo popular, even though we are unsure of the precise manner in which he did so.

William Shakespeare never published any of his plays or writings. As a result, his original work – in its purest and most authentic sense – has been lost. What remains are scholarly recreations, mostly adaptations of the prompt books used for staging the original plays and the ‘foul papers’ or working manuscripts used by Shakespeare himself.

Loehlin (2002) says that “all we really know is that Romeo and Juliet was performed by a professional theater company, of which Shakespeare was a member; that the women’s roles were played by male actors; and that the play availed itself of such scenic resources as the Elizabethan playhouse afforded it” (5).

Within the play itself, there is an overwhelming passion for the moment. The plot of Romeo and Juliet is based on haste: hasty love and marriage, hasty murders of

Mercutio and then Tybalt, of exile, Juliet's betrothal to Paris by her father, her sleeping potion, Romeo's poison, and finally Juliet's true death. Though deafening in real life, this whirlwind makes for a structurally entertaining play. Of all of these factors however, “It has long been acknowledged that in Shakespeare’s play the tragic turning point occurs following the deadly clash between Tybalt and Romeo, which is also the scene that critics have traditionally identified as the structural knot or figurative navel of the Romeo and

Juliet legend” (Lehmann 2001: 214). Jackson (2003) adds that at:

one level, the play works through a series of situations, dilemmas and moments of behavior and (critically) choice. These derive their potency from the vividness 46

and poetic force of the figures portrayed. ‘Passion lends them power,’ and the play’s account of the passions – specifically love and hate – depends on the way its central characters are represented and understood. It also reflects the different priorities with which actors and directors and reviewers have approached the script. (2)

After hundreds of years of careful analysis and study, scholars have achieved a near fidelity in recreating the work of The Bard. Though some questions may remain – some syntax and wording debated – the plays which bear his name are definitively the work of William Shakespeare.21

What’s in a name?

Why has so much time been spent reconstructing the play – what is the significance of Romeo and Juliet, and why should it be analyzed? Deats (2000) describes her conviction that Romeo and Juliet has a special resonance for young people today, not only because Shakespeare is:

a writer for all times or because this tragedy embodies essential, universal insights but because in this drama, as in many of his works, Shakespeare brilliantly synthesizes the traditions and customs from which our contemporary mores have evolved. Thus, despite the enormous technological advances and monumental social changes that have occurred during the past four hundred years, the problems confronting Romeo and Juliet . . . are still a part of our culture. (108)

Loehlin (2002) describes how the value of Romeo and Juliet lies not only in that it is one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays22 but also that it is one of the most popular

21 Hosley (1993) evaluates the merits of the reproductions, noting that he has used Quarto 2 (i.e. the “good quarto’) as the basis for the Yale edition of Romeo and Juliet, as it most resembles the original work of William Shakespeare (899). 22 Included in the Appendix are chronologies of William Shakespeare’s writings as proposed by The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009) and by Bloom (1998). See Appendix Ch. 3 and tables 3.1 and 3.2 for a brief discussion on why separate chronologies are provided.

47 stories in the world. Describing it as a definitive love story (i), he states that it is

“probably the most widely disseminated myth of romantic love; the very names of its heroes have become synonyms for young lovers” (1).

However, even with its popularity – or rather because of it – Romeo and Juliet has sometimes been critically undervalued. Bloom (1998) argues that Romeo and Juliet matters because of the “four exuberantly realized characters” (89) of Mercutio, the Nurse,

Juliet, and Romeo. The scholarship on this play today, however, is frequently

“surrendered to commissars of gender and power, who can thrash the patriarchy, including Shakespeare himself, for victimizing Juliet” (87). Charlton (1939) states that the value of Romeo and Juliet lies in its role as an experimental tragedy for Shakespeare.

Bloom also agrees with this sentiment, stating that “Romeo and Juliet is a training ground in which Shakespeare teaches himself remorselessness and prepares the way for his five great tragedies, starting with Hamlet” (103). Charney (2000) agrees that Romeo and

Juliet is an apprentice style play for Shakespeare but sees it not as a successful first step, but a near failure. “Shakespeare tries valiantly to make Romeo and Juliet into a love tragedy by lugging in references to the inauspicious stars, but the lovers end without any clear complicity in their tragedy, ‘poor sacrifices’ (5.3.304) of the enmity engendered by the family feud” (5). Hall (1989) concurs writing that “Romeo and Juliet is not a profound play. Unlike the mature tragedies, which explore the nature of men, the workings of the gods, and similarly weighty subjects, it is content with showing that feuds are evil and that young love can be thwarted in the most pathetic ways” (72).

Even though the literary supremacy of Romeo and Juliet is not as widely acknowledged as that of its creator, Shakespeare’s star-cross’d lovers have always been 48 popular with the masses. Hall argues that the reason for its continued success is a combination of its splendid poetry and “Shakespeare’s most carefully wrought and systematically developed plot” (72). Ryan (2002) states that the “source of the play’s abiding power lies in the way it foreshadows a more satisfying kind of love, freed from the coercions that continue to drive men and women apart and prevent their meeting each other’s emotional needs” (74). Stilling (1976) discusses how “as the love of Romeo and

Juliet is developed, it takes on special qualities that make it the quintessential statement of the Elizabethan romantic ideal” (77).

Parker (1987) disagrees, stating that the love of Juliet and Romeo is “essentially a lie, a hallow shell, an empty form” (160). This could appear to be true if it is taken in conjunction with Cozolino’s (2006) argument that “Getting to know another person requires that we know who we are. Although this might seem obvious and simple, knowing who we are involves an extremely high state of awareness that includes self- insight, curiosity, wisdom, and a still point from which to experience the world” (342).

From a purely logical standpoint, it is possible to assume that the love of Juliet and

Romeo was as bleak as Parker describes it – they did not know each other for long,23

23 The events of the play take no more than one week at most, but in all respects occur within four days. The introduction opens on a morning (let us arbitrarily assign it as a Friday morning), a fight breaks out between the Montagues and the Capulets, Romeo mopes over Rosaline all afternoon, and the day is completed when he and his friends crash the Capulet’s party. Romeo and Juliet meet that night and quickly exchange looks, kisses, and intentions to marry. The next day, Saturday, they exchange vows. Almost immediately after the wedding, Tybalt and Mercutio get into a fight and Mercutio is slain by Tybalt. In a fit of rage, Romeo murders Tybalt before going to spend the night with his new wife. For that murder, Romeo is exiled by the Prince and secretly flees Sunday morning, only to have Juliet immediately forced into an engagement with Paris by her father. Her solution, of course, is to take a magic sleeping potion which will make her appear dead for 24 hours, which she takes Sunday night. Romeo hears of her supposed death and returns Monday night to drink poison by her side. Shortly after his death, Juliet 49

Romeo was pining for another woman just before they met,24 Juliet told her mother she did not want to get married to anybody,25 and they both wound up dead. Logically, they could not truly have been in love – they were but carried away by a swell of emotions which they did not, and could not, control.

Love, however, defies logic.26 Those emotions that carry Juliet and Romeo away are emotions of love – recklessly tragic love, but love nonetheless. Additionally, we must consider the information we are given in the context of the play itself. Shakespeare, as creator and therefore god of the reality in which Romeo and Juliet actually exist, informs us from the very beginning – from the prologue itself – that this pair of lovers are destined for one another. He calls them “A pair of star-cross’d lovers” (I.i.6) – Romeo is literally made for Juliet, just as she is for him. It does not matter how long they know each other, their love is meant to be, and it is true.

Tragedy of Character or Tragedy of Fate?

This true love led to untimely death, but was such a tragedy resultant of some inherent flaw within the star-crossed lovers, or some wickedly unavoidable destiny of fate? Gajowski (1992) states that concern with “whether the play is a ‘tragedy of character’ or a ‘tragedy of fate’ has ebbed” (26). She does, however note the main proponents of each point of view in her Chapter 2 footnotes (129-130):

awakens to discover her truly dead husband, and she stabs herself to death for real. Thus, the span of time from the introduction to the conclusion of The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is but four days. 24 Romeo went to the Capulet party hoping to woo Rosaline, who is Lord Capulet’s niece (I.ii.72). 25 “It is an honor that I dream not of” (I.i.56). 26 See chapter one 50

Tragedy of Character

Gervinus originates the view of Friar Lawrence as a choral character and asserts that ‘excess in any enjoyment, however pure in itself, transforms sweet into bitterness’ ([1850] 1892, 211); John Masefield labels the lovers’ passion as ‘the storm in the blood’ (1911, 69); Donald Stauffer claims that ‘the dangerous fault of the two lovers is their extreme rashness’ ([1949] 1964, 30); for Brents Stirling, Friar Lawrence’s ‘Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast’ is the play’s theme (1956, 10-25); Franklin Dickey gathers sixteen pages of evidence against Romeo and asserts that ‘his impetuous nature leads him to despair and die’ (1957, 63- 117); for Virgil Whitaker, Friar Lawrence’s opposition between ‘grace’ and ‘rude will’ sums up the central conflict (1956, 109-119). (129)

Tragedy of Fate

Edward Dowden disagrees with Gervinus: ‘Shakespeare did not believe that the highest wisdom of human life was acquirable by mild, monastic meditation, and by gathering simples in the coolness of dawn. Friar Lawrence too, old man, had his lessons to learn” (1880, 206). Franz Boas follows Dowden in claiming the protagonists have no consequential faults, but further claims that fate determines the tragic outcome (1896, 206). Later proponents of this view include H.B. Charlton (1939; 1948); William Allan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill (1942, 974- 75); Harley Granville Barker ([1947] 1975, 2:300-49); G.I. Duthie (1955); Geoffrey Bullough (1957, 1:276-83); and Brooke (1968). (129-130)

Gajowski’s eulogistic description of the true nature of the star-crossed lover’s tragedy holds true even 17 years later. Even with the blockbuster success of Baz

Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) and the subsequent renewed interest in the fated lovers that it garnered, this particular ancient grudge doth not break to new mutiny.27 Even though it is not longer discussed, the debate is not truly concluded,

This, however, is as it should be. Hamilton (2000) argues that “any text is partly created by the reader/viewer and we generally accept that no interpretation is definitive” (118). In other words, there can be no unified, ultimate Shakespeare production. Such a concept is foolish – an illusion.

27 Reference to I.i.3 of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet 51

As there can be no unified, ultimate Shakespeare production, there can be no true realization as to the definitive nature of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Each production can be adapted by its director, enacted by its players, and interpreted by its audience in a distinctly unique manner such that the same inspiration for the “fearful passage of their death-mark’d love”28 could inspire completely different conclusions as to the ultimate cause of the tragic deaths of Juliet and of her Romeo.

Likewise, there are literally millions of ways in which I could have structured this project and drafted this argument. The ultimate realization of the greater discussion on which this project focuses is not concluded upon the several pages you now hold in your hands. In fact, dear reader, such a document does not and cannot exist. This project is but one possibility, drafted by this author. It cannot even realize its own potential until being engaged by a reader, such as yourself. As you read these words and digest these paragraphs, you are entering into a discussion with its content. A natural evaluation of facts, statistics, arguments,

This is why I take issue with books, anthologies, et cetera that label themselves as the “definitive” issue or edition. The semantics are off. True, it could be the ultimate production, but it would only be so within the scope and ability of that author, only at that point in her or his life, and only engaging that audience which explores that “definitive” topic. There will always be something more, something new, a different way to look at something, to contextualize an event, interaction, or other occurrence that strays entirely or even only somewhat from that eventually usurped goliath of a “definitive” substance.

28 I.i.9 52

What I am getting at is that nothing is every truly fixed. Things change – they develop, grow, and adapt. For example, think of cultures and their global interactions with one another. They were once independent entities, but this can no longer be true with the onset of globalization. Cultures are now interacting with each other, sharing and growing on a continuous basis. Parts of one culture influence another, which in turn can influence yet another culture while also influencing the first culture. While this is a slightly idealistic commentary on one of the effects of globalization, it does not discount the fact that such evolution is occurring. Nothing is every truly fixed – it can continue to be adapted as is needed and desired.

Adaptability of the Star-Cross’d Lovers

The fact that there is so much room for interpretation even within such a well- known literary work as The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet lends directly to the exceeding adaptability of the star-cross’d lovers. Coursen (2005) argues that Romeo and Juliet is easy to recontextualize, as it is a simple story. “Two teenagers fall in love, in spite of objections of the young woman’s parents, and die as a result of parental priorities and

Romeo’s impetuously wrong conclusions. Furthermore, while the play is set in a Catholic country, no inhibiting ‘cosmic imperative’ interferes with modernizations” (25).

Loehlin (2002) adds that:

while Romeo and Juliet has rarely been off the stage since Shakespeare’s time, it has rarely – if ever – been there as Shakespeare wrote it. Wide discrepancies between the two quarto texts suggest a degree of instability in the play even in Shakespeare’s day, and since the theaters reopened after the Restoration the play has undergone radical transformations. It has always been popular, but it has also 53

been edited, adapted, and rewritten.29 In spite, or perhaps because, of its enduring appeal as the definitive love story, Romeo and Juliet has been a dynamic and unstable performance text, endlessly reinvented to suit differing cultural needs. (1)

Jackson (2003) admits that after a number of viewings, “The play itself may seem jejune to some, and over familiar to other experienced playgoers, but its power and vitality can survive even misconceived or over elaborate performances. Passion lends it power, even after decades of change in the way we expect passion to be expressed” (24).

The true draw of Romeo and Juliet is the ability of this myth to survive practically any production, adaptation, or even spin-off, no matter how hackneyed or brilliant that individual incarnation might be. It especially thrives in cinematic recreations.

29 Coursen (2005) cautions that the “major error that adaptations of Romeo and Juliet make is to differentiate the two lovers via class, race, or origin. Shakespeare’s immediate source, Arthur Brooke’s Romeus and Juliet (1562), emphasizes the “equal state” of the Montagues and Capulets. Brooke, in fact, makes that equality the source of the “envy” out of which “black hate and rancor grew.” The play claims that the “two households” are “alike in dignity.” The feud – easily understood if the lovers are differentiated in any other way than by gender – is a “given.” It is not to be “understood,” but to be felt as a terrible power that undermines any prospect of a comic ending. A pagan fatality broods over the lovers – they are “star-cross’d,” as the chorus informs us, and thwarted by “a greater power than we can contradict,” as the Friar says to Juliet. Romeo can “defy” the “stars,” but the inherited feud that seeps along the sewers of Verona is reflected by a zodiac that looms irrefutably above the fist he shakes at it (26).

54

Part Three Shadows on a Silver Screen

55

Chapter Four Cinema

I have a simple idea of what it means to go to the movies. You buy your ticket and take a seat in a large dark room with hundreds of strangers. You slide down in your seat and make yourself comfortable. On the screen in front of you, the move image appears- enormous and overwhelming. If the movie is a good one, you allow yourself to be absorbed in its fantasy, and its dreams become a part of your memories. ~Roger Ebert30

Cinema is something that I am sure all of us are already acquainted with.31 It is nearly impossible to drive down a street, turn on the television, read a newspaper, or surf the Internet without being bombarded by advertisements, billboards, and pop-ups promoting an upcoming movie. For this reason, I only briefly discuss the cinema, touching on and offering a few comments relating to the film industries of Hollywood and Mumbai in order to better illuminate the discussion that takes place in the next section of this project.

A form of presentational entertainment, the cinema is related to the theatrical tradition as it employs actors, conveys plot, and is designed to be experienced by an audience through its presentation. It too provides a multi-sensory experience. Augmented by the presence of related auditory stimuli, the cinema is inherently an incarnation of visual art – a derivative of the evolution of human expression blended with advancing technology. Considering that “Elizabethan dramatists define the eye as the organ of

30 (Ebert 1984: 1). 31 I would like to point out that I am writing under the assumption that you, the reader, have at least a basic understanding of and moderate exposure to this medium. In other words, you can watch an average movie and understand it. For a more in-depth discussion of this topic, please be directed to Bordwell and Thompson’s Film Art: An Introduction/Second Edition (1986), Lewis’ American Film: A History (2008), and Mitry’s The Aesthetics and Psychology of the Cinema (1990).

56 perfect perception, capable of the purest communication with the mystery of things”

(Lemaitre 1972: 29), it makes sense that a visual medium such as cinema could have such a profound impact on its viewers.

Unlike the theater however, filmmakers have almost complete control over the experience of the viewer. Wead and Lellis (1981) explain that they have the ability to:

stylize our perceptions. The illusion of movement tricks the eye; points of attention constantly shift within the frame; continuity alternates real time with spatial tempos; movie sound intermixes volume levels; and color, although bound to reality, is artificial in many ways. Sometimes we notice these interplays, more often we do not; the whole system of stylization is alternately transparent and noticeable. At the level of perception, then, we find a system of counterpoints and balances that help explain the overall fascination of the movie experience. (199)

This is why shots and imagery are so important in films. Unlike in any other art form where the attention of viewers is more or less free to explore the presentation – to look at whatever portion of a stage, section of a painting, or individual in a dance routine they may choose – the film truly grabs your attention and commands it as a result of the quick succession of action which is the cinema. The concept of the proscenium arch, or fourth wall present in the theater relates closely to this direction, but only for a fleeting portion of time. From the time the show begins to just before the curtain call, the experience of the theater is limited to the run of the production within the confines of a stage designed to resemble or invoke a setting.

Cinema, on the other hand, bridges the suspension of reality. Through its images, sounds, editing, et cetera – which may be replayed perfectly at any time – viewers are able to directly experience what they are being exposed to. According to Mitry (1990) it is a means of:

reproduction and communication, inasmuch as it is initially no more than a series of moving photographs of real or imaginary events. But the cinema – which is to 57

images what literature is to speech – is understood at one and the same time as the instrument of a particular dialectic, the art of exploiting that instrument and the means of communicating the result. There is, unfortunately, only one word to cover these three meanings. We would need to be able to say: motion picture to correspond with speech; film effect (or art of the cinema) to correspond with literature; and cinematic effect to correspond with printing. (14)

Films both convey meaning and display reality – or fantasy at the discretion of the director and indication of the script. Either way, the cinema connects us to our understanding of the world. It presents “an image of reality which, though similar to the reality it records, is nevertheless different from it. It is a mental transposition through which reality is transformed while preserving all its formal aspects” (Mitry 1990: 88). It has the potentiality for deep connections within the viewer as the images of which it is composed are loaded with the means of expression that inspire emotional responses in their interpretation. The cinema – in good examples – is as connected to emotion within the viewer as experience is to reality.

Moving from a novelty of crude recordings – such as that of a horse running or the tide coming in along the beach – to a highly lucrative business, films have come a long way in just over a century of existence. The cinematic medium has evolved to include better photography, sound, color, and various special effects, including those generated by computers. What has never changed is the effect of cinema on an audience.

Cinema itself is actually short for cinématographe, the name of the 35mm camera invented by the Lumière brothers in 1895. Unlike the bulky, indoor Kinetoscope invented by Thomas Edison in 1891, the cinématographe was easily portable, and “could also be used as a projector and a printer” (Mast and Kawin 1996; 666). The cinématographe revolutionized the process of capturing live action, but the Lumières did not stop there. 58

They went a step further in establishing the cinema beyond the invention of its revolutionary namesake, sending:

the first camera crews all over the globe, recording the most interesting scenes and cities of the earth for the delight and instruction of a public who would never be able to travel to such places on their own. Theirs were the first films to be showing in India, Japan, and other countries, inspiring film industries and filmgoers around the world. (Mast and Kawin 1996; 22)

It is because of the Lumière brothers that this project even exists. Without their influence, the existence of Hollywood, Bollywood, and the other cinemas of the world may not have been possible. Thus, there would not have been an opportunity to evaluate and advocate the relationship between them.

59

Chapter Five Hollywood

The heart of American cinema is based out of a suburb of Los Angles, California known as Hollywood. Selected in the early 1900s for its predominantly sunny and warm climate – great for outdoor shooting – it is for this area that our cinema obviously takes its name, and it is with the cinema that the once small village of Hollywood has grown.

Barnouw and Krishnaswamy (1980) point to WWI as the major impetus for

Hollywood’s growth and subsequent global domination:

The outbreak of war in 1914 almost stopped film production in France and Italy, handcuffed English production with scarcities and restrictions, and isolated the German studios. But audiences everywhere remained ravenous for films, which were suddenly regarded as necessary for morale. American producers, now establishing themselves in Hollywood, were ready to fill the need. A fantastic American expansion began, which soon made Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and other emerging stars household deities throughout the world, created fortunes, and set the stage for further expansion after the war. By the time the treaty of Versailles was signed Hollywood was the world film capital. (39)

As a result, unlike the American cinemas where screens have traditionally been dominated by domestically controlled productions, excluding foreign products to a near novelty, other viewers have always had the opportunity to experience the foreign

Hollywood as a welcome enjoyment. The essential take away point from this awareness is that if they can do it, so can we. America brags of being the best nation in the world, even if we do not always overtly advertise it, but our tolerance is consistently outclassed.

True, watching a foreign movie is something new, but at one point so was watching a movie in general. Trying to understand Hindi can be very difficult as well, and filmmakers have had to contend with the barriers of language since the introduction of sound to movies. Just over eighty years ago, on October 6, 1927, The Jazz Singer was 60 premiered in New York City. It was the world’s first talking feature, and its “reception signaled the end of an era” (Barnouw and Krishnaswamy 1980: 58).

Silent films had a much more inherent adaptability than the descendants of The

Jazz Singer. As this project has argued, there is a bridge crossing cultural bounds resultant of the joint human experience of love. These natural connections are displayed and interpreted through the physical reactions and expressions which are as universally understood as the bridge of love is experienced. A silent film is composed of not much more than these base physical indicators which created many international opportunities for these productions.

Oral language, however, interferes with this ease of exportation. There exists a

Babel effect where our greatest efforts are deterred by incompatible methods of applied communication. Verbal language and dialogue cripple the innate, biological connections of understanding and relations that we are born into. As Jacobs (1968) describes:

There is no more signal testimony to the force of cinema as particularity achieving the universal than its mercurial sweep over national and cultural boundaries in the early years of this century. And, in the long view, there is sufficient corroboration in the continued, if not accelerated circumfusion of film through all the years of apparent decline, following the addition of recorded speech. The point may bear upon the long-chewed issue of dialogue as either destroyer of an essential visibility of the cinematic art, or as natural constituent of an organic screen experience. The immediate bearing, however, is upon a common view, among film historians, that the impact of sound shattered the screen as universal communicator amid a proliferation of local production, and a Babel of spoken noise. (ix)

Jacobs concludes with a rather defeatist view of the incorporation of sound, seeming to agree with the line of argument that views sound as a destroyer of the ability of cinema to convey meaning. Were this true, films would not be able to be distributed around the world whatsoever. The practice of subtitling a piece would probably not work 61 either since the sound would be so utterly distracting that no one could hope to override it with any amount of intelligence, will power, or bridges. This, of course, has been proven false.

A foreign language is really not a problem when it comes to cinema. You can grow around the exposure to the conflicting element of sound with just a slight amount of engagement. If you are going to view a film you have to engage yourself anyway, at least to the level of being able to decode loaded images, cuts, and other cinematic elements.

There is really no change in the experience other than being actively engaged. As a bonus, with enough experience being engaged in this manner, it will eventually become second nature, just as watching a domestic movie is essentially resigned to a passive experience. True, you will not glean every nuance as you would from a cinematic piece produced in a tongue with which you have mastery, but that is not the true point of watching a movie.

The true purpose of the cinema is to entertain. To make money, yes, but mostly to entertain.32 The same was true with Romeo & Juliet33 and all of Shakespeare’s other plays. If you enjoy yourself, what does it matter if you miss some things? An exam is not going to be distributed at the end credits to make sure that you understood every detail.

The principal is not going to be called on you, but if the information lost is that critical,

32 In order to draw a crowd and continue to make money, allowing for future entertainment, and money. 33 The first filmic production of the star-cross’d lovers was as a 1908 silent short directed by J. Stuart Blackton titled Romeo and Juliet (IMDB).

62 one can always turn to subtitles, which even the most average American viewer can enjoy.34

Rote understanding of dialogue, however, is not enough to forge a conveyance of meaning. Lines alone do not make the dramatic experience of the cinema. They are but supplementary to the wealth of human experience we share in common, activated by the nonverbal recognition of the existence of this bond. Between our understanding of love, our struggle to realize it, and our inherited and adaptable traditions portraying it, the bridge clearly exists. It is just a matter of whether or not we care to use it.

34 See chapter seven 63

Chapter Six Bollywood

Film history began in India on July 7, 1896, when a Times of India advertisement invited Bombay residents to witness ‘the marvel of the century, the wonder of the world’ at Watson’s Hotel that same day. The attraction was described as ‘living photographic pictures in life-sized reproductions, by Messrs. Lumière Brothers.’ It was called the cinèmatographe and would be shown at 6, 7, 9 and 10 p.m.35

The Hindi Cinema

Hollywood is not the only cinematic giant the world has to offer. While the combined efforts of the major studios and independent financers yield several hundred

American movies each year, the Indian film industry of Mumbai alone produces nearly twice that – an average of close to 1,000 movies each year (Tsering 2003). A view of

Hollywood as the global cinematic powerhouse is clearly only relevant in the parochial sense.

As a result of the assumption that the reader will have not much, if any, background or previous exposure to the Hindi cinema of Mumbai, and in order to address more specific points relating to it, this chapter goes into more detail regarding the origin and nature of Bollywood than the preceding chapters were given in treatment of Cinema and Hollywood respectively. This is, of course, but a general introduction to a rich cinematic tradition to which an entire project could be (and was) dedicated.36

Like the suburb of Los Angeles from which American cinema derives its name, the primary Indian cinema is often referred to by its geographical location – Bombay, which is now known as Mumbai. The term Bollywood is a combination of the city name

35 Tsering 2003 36 Bollywoodizing Diasporas: Reconnecting to the NRI through Popular Hindi Cinema by Pulkit Datta (2008) among many others. 64 of Bombay and our own Hollywood, which was, at the time that this nomenclature originated, the predominant cinema of the world. Even with the renaming of its home city, it is a safe bet that Bollywood will almost certainly stick because Mullywood just does not have the same ring to it.

Bollywood itself is a disputed term. Several filmmakers spurn the title, but in the context of this project however, Bollywood is used as a positive term in direct correlation to the overall global reception of this film tradition. It is not here seen as an inferior imitation of the American cinema from which its name is partially derived, but as a peer

– the goal of this project being to advocate for a mutual appreciation of the two cinemas.

It is critical to stress that Bollywood and Indian cinema are not freely interchangeable terms. Unlike America which has only one cinema, India has several. In terms of production, distribution, and renown, Bollywood is overwhelmingly the largest and most influential of the lot. These smaller cinemas, however, have established themselves through productions in languages other than Hindi – the staple language of

Bollywood and the official language of the Republic of India. For example, in the

Chennai cinema, films are recorded in Tamil.

With the advent of sound, Indian filmmakers were in a predicament similar to, if not more serious than that of their American peers. Hollywood was able to take advantage of the breadth of use of the English language not only within their domestic viewership but nearly all parts of the world as a lasting effect of British imperialism.

Indian filmmakers, however, were victims of the Babel effect to a greater extent. Even though Hindi is the official Indian language, there are major sections of the billion-person 65 land37 that simply cannot speak or understand it. As a result, there are over 18 individual languages recognized by the various regional governments of the Republic of India.38

In 1929, one year after The Jazz Singer made its debut in New York City, “The

Melody of Love, a Universal Pictures production, became the first sound feature to be shown in India” (Barnouw and Krishnaswamy 1980: 58). To many, it must have seemed like the end of a fledgling industry – a pronouncement of doom, just as sound was pessimistically received in the states, but they had not considered the existence of the bridge of love. Even with the linguistic barriers of the Babel effect, people all over the world are connected by this base human experience. This is continually proven not only today, but at the advent of sound as well where by1933 “trepidation over the coming of sound had given way to unbounded optimism” (Barnouw and Krishnaswamy 1980: 68).

It is this individual relation to the universal truth of what it is to be human that the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood have both survived and thrived.

What makes a Bollywood movie?

Bollywood movies are not the same as Hollywood movies. For one, they are much longer, typically running at least three hours and usually shown with an intermission. They make use of dynamic colors, striking visuals, and are filmed in Hindi, as has already been mentioned. Of all the elements, however, the use of music is the largest difference. It is also the most critical component of which a Bollywood movie is composed.

37 Such as most of the south of the Republic of India 38 Examples include Tamil, Punjabi, Telegu, Malayalam, and Bengali to name a few. 66

Hindi productions are often referred to as masala films. Masala is a spicy curry mixture popular in India which appropriately describes the cinematic “blend of many different elements -- romance, action, fights, melodrama and, especially, music” (Tsering

2003). To the Indian audience, the music, song, and dance offered in Bollywood films tap into a powerful cultural current – one that goes back at least two thousand years.

According to Barnouw and Krishnaswamy (1980), this Indian identification goes back to the Golden Age of Sanskrit theater, where:

the idea of drama was already inseparably linked with song, dance, and music. In fact, we are told that Sanskrit and some of its derivative languages had no separate terms for “drama” and “dance,” and that the notion of drama as a separate entity, independent of the other elements, is still strange and “disconcerting” to many Asians. (69-70)

Best of all, one need not have been raised in the cultural descendent of Sanskrit theater to appreciate the musical convention of the Mumbai cinema, or even understand a single word of Hindi to be swept up in the fun.39

Compared to American cinematic standards, Hindi films are exceedingly innocent. In fact, until recently, characters – no matter how in love they were – were not allowed to kiss on screen, let alone engage in any other form overt physicality.

Filmmakers were restricted to their creative imaginations, resorting to visual allegories if a kiss was absolutely necessary to the story – flower petals blowing together in the wind, a gentle caress of the hand, or even a quick kiss on the cheek. Though this is no longer the case, the “portrayal of sexuality and gender roles in film narratives are far from being an open topic of discussion” (Datta 2008: 75).

39 For more on this, see chapter seven 67

Bollywood filmmakers rely heavily on time proven results when crafting their films. They adapt popular works such as other films and plays. William Shakespeare’s work has been especially sampled, creating such ravenously received works as the late eighties phenomenon Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (1988),40 an adaptation of Romeo &

Juliet. Such continual use of The Bard’s material exists – not only in India, but in

America as well – because of the universal bridge of human experience. Romeo & Juliet especially fits well into Indian culture and society because traditionally two people falling in love with each other, without the approval of their respective families, was looked down upon. Arranged marriages were preferred by society, so the idea of two people being in love and their families being against it was very relatable.

Bollywood has also remained true to a recipe for success for created some decades ago. Barnouw and Krishnaswamy (1980) indicate that the formula:

called for one or two major stars, at least half a dozen songs, and a few dances. The story was of declining importance. It was conceived and developed toward one objective: exploitation of the idolized star. The subject matter, with increasing concentration, was romance. An overwhelming number of Bombay films now began with the chance acquaintance of hero and heroine, often in unconventional manner and novel setting. In backgrounds and characters there was strong bias toward the glamorous. Obstacles were usually provided by villainy or accident, not by social problems. Dance and song provided conventionalized substitutes for love-making and emotional crisis. (155)

Bollywood had no reason to abandon this formula because throughout India theaters remain crowded. Of course there have been divergences in the practice of this formula, innovations and slight changes for example, but overall it has remained the same.

Movies draw and retain audiences because they are interesting – because they offer something to the viewer. It does not matter if the presentation is in a similar form as

40 This film is further discussed in chapter seven 68 that of others. As humans, in fact, we are conditioned to expect such patterns. We identify with them based on our past experiences and encounters. When we go to a restaurant, we expect to sit down, order our food, consume it, and then pay for it. When we read a book or a project such as this, we expect an explanatory introduction, a substantive body to support and elaborate upon its claims, and a conclusion that concisely summarizes all of its major points. When we watch a Hollywood action movie, we expect to see a lot of guns, a bunch of explosions, and our hero get the snot kicked out of him and almost killed before finally defeating the villain ‘just before it’s too late.’

These are the formulas – the patterns – that we expect from life. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if something is completely original, drawing upon no previous work or model, viewers would probably be unable to comprehend what they were witnessing. It could be akin to the near panic experienced by the first audiences of the

Lumière Brothers when viewing the recorded image of a locomotive apparently running directly towards them – some screamed, some fainted, most attempted to run out of the room. Even though these patterns are to be expected, however, there is no reason one cannot have a little fun with them – such as my summation of an American action film.

For a humorous take on the patterns and unwritten rules of Bollywood productions, see

Table 6.1: 10 Rules for Bollywood Filmmaking.41

41 Retrieved from Killer (2009). 69

Table 6.1 10 Rules for Bollywood Filmmaking

1. Two brothers separated in childhood will always grow up on different sides of the law. The law-breaker, however, will suddenly turn over a new leaf before the end, bash up the villain (who is the *real* bad guy), and be pardoned for all his sins before the last-scene family reunion. (This is possible only if he has a heroine - see rule 2 below).

2. If the number of heroes is not equal to the number of heroines, the excess heroes/heroines will a) die b) join the Red Cross and take off to Switzerland before the end of the movie.

3. If there are 2 heroes in a movie, they will fight each other savagely for at least 5 minutes (10 if they are brothers).

4. Any court scene will have the dialogue "Objection milord". If it is said by the hero, or his lawyer, it will be overruled. Else, it will be sustained.

5. The hero’s sister will usually marry the hero’s best friend (i.e. the second hero). Else, she will be raped by the villain within the 1st 30 minutes, and commit suicide.

6. In a chase, the hero will always overtake the villain, even on a bullock-cart, or on foot.

7. When the hero fires at the villain(s), he will never a) miss b) run out of bullets. When the villain fires at the hero, he will always miss (unless the hero is required to die, as in rule 2).

8. Any fight sequence shall take place in the vicinity of a stack of a) pots b) barrels c) glass bottles, which will be smashed to pieces.

9. Any movie involving lost and found brothers will have a song sung by a) the brothers b) their blind mother (but of course, she has to be blind in order to regain her sight in the climax) c) the family dog/cat.

10. Police inspectors (when not played by the hero) come in two categories: a) Scrupulously honest, probably the hero`s father - killed by the villain before the titles. b) Honest, but always chasing the anti-hero (as in Rule 1), saying "Tum kanoon se bach nahin sakte" (“you cannot escape the law”), only to pat him on the back in reel 23. Usually, this inspector’s daughter is in love with the anti-hero. c) The corrupt inspector, (usually the real villain’s sidekick) unceremoniously knocked about by the hero(s) in the climax 70

Though funny jokes can be made regarding Bollywood,42 do not be dissuaded from the fact that it is a legitimate cinema, as respectable as any other. Barnouw and

Krishnaswamy (1980) describe it as an industry of:

sharp contrasts, with work ranging from the noblest to the most preposterous, from the most hedonistic to the most devotional, from the most jovial to the most despairing. The contrasts stem from those of the Indian society . . . The films serve a country marked by deep tensions-between wealth and poverty, old and new, hope and fear. The tensions are the basic material of the medium. Its images and sounds are only the means for playing on those tensions – sometimes subtly, sometimes powerfully. (vii)

Is Hollywood so different? Is America? We are a county deeply consumed with philosophical debates43 – one which cries out to ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’ while building a wall at the south of our great nation to bar their entry. It has been generations since the emancipation of all peoples, but there remains a consistent conflagration of ageist, sexist, racist, and other derogatory isms permeated throughout the very soul of America. We too have tensions between wealth and poverty.44

Hollywood exposes the condition existent in America, just as Bollywood is a reflection of its own country. This is especially apparent in the critically acclaimed Crash

(2004), whose characters are so realistically blinded by prejudices that only a few are able to escape utter catastrophe. Additionally this salvation is crafted by hardly anything more than utter chance. For example, the shop owner who does not become a murderer even though the gun he is menacingly wielding goes off at point blank range into the

42 I stress that Table 6.1 is included only as a joke, not as a legitimate summation of the entire industry. Additionally, most of what Killer (2009) describes was typical of Bollywood in the 80s and early 90s, not the Bollywood of today, which as is described in the Global Appeal section of this chapter, has reinvented itself into a legitimate cinematic contender of Hollywood. 43 Pro-life v. Pro-choice, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, et cetera. 44 Consider the example illustrated in 2005 by the fallout and scandalous resolution of Hurricane Katrina. 71 back of a little girl, because his own daughter had tricked him into purchasing blanks instead of actual bullets.

People are distinct, individuals in the truest sense of the word, and different societies are exactly that – different. Even when they share a great many things in common they may still appear to be irreconcilable. Such societal conflict is the base reason behind all of the crusades for example, where even with the same holy places and

(arguably) the same God, two bastions of religion found it more acceptable to slit each other’s throats than to share.

Even with all of the ugliness of the world, the hate, the fact that each cinema is crafted around portrayals of the very people it caters towards, and yet stories such as that of Romeo & Juliet can be easily adapted, applied, and understood is just further proof of the existence of the universal bridge of love.

Global Appeal

As has already been hinted, Bollywood has a global following which may be more popular than the average American viewer realizes. In 2002, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie

Gham made over $1 million on only 73 screens in its opening weekend in the United

States. “It was the biggest ever opening for an Indian movie here, but its producers didn't report the figures to Variety or Exhibitor Relations promptly, losing out on the chance to place the film in the U.S. top 10 and make international news” (Tsering 2003). The year before that, Lagaan (2001) received critical acclaim and was nominated for an Oscar.

According to Barnouw and Krishnaswamy (1980), there are many reasons for the increasing interest in Bollywood films, such as: 72

-The astonishing output of the Indian film industry, for many years exceeding that of any other in the production of theatrical films; -Its extraordinary hold over Indian audiences, exceeding that of any other medium; -Its structure, featuring a huge public-sector documentary industry meshed with a private-sector fiction industry; -Its persistent devotion to a song-and-dance tradition inherited from ancient Sanskrit drama; -Its development of a parallel avant-garde that has earned world recognition and, occasionally, foreign exchange; -Its fragmented financial structure, sometimes involving the thorny problem of “black money; -Its maharajah-like stars, whose popularity sometimes propels them into politics; -Its Indian music “tainted” by Western rhythms and instrumentation; -Its multilingual enterprise, involving more than a dozen Indian tongues. (vii)

Indian film is evolving at an astounding pace. As each year goes by, more movies are produced and more fans created. In the “impassioned drive to enter the world stage of cinema and cultural arts, Hindi Cinema has taken strides in reevaluating its narrative traditions and being more inclusive of the burgeoning audiences, especially outside of

India” (Datta 2008: 93).

The relatively high production values of the Hindi films and the star power of their heroes and heroines have led to Bollywood's domination of Indian entertainment, while the bridge of love has led to its global appreciation.

73

Part Four Creative Exploration of the Star-Cross’d Lovers

74

Chapter Seven Exploratory Study

Purpose

As a practical application of the bridge between foreign cinemas that this project describes, it became necessary to design a measure in which to test its real world impact.45 Because of the inherently qualitative aspect of this measure, it becomes impossible to definitively identify the ability of an American viewer to identify with a

Bollywood film beyond the fact that it is, in fact, possible. The purpose of this exploratory study is to gain a general idea of people’s understanding of the existence of the bridge. Such exposure will hopefully also raise questions, thereby sparking interest within individuals to further pursue exposure to Bollywood productions.

This study was broken up into two major portions – a survey and a discussion group. Both were administered in Miami University’s Peabody Hall on the evening of

February 17, 2009.

Survey

The survey was based on nine short clips46 from Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo &

Juliet (1968) and Mansoor Khan’s Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (1988). The latter is a

Bollywood adaptation of the Romeo & Juliet legend, though it has several distinct

45 The term test, of course, is used loosely here in that it is not of a completely quantitative scientific nature. The test did not yield definitive results about the ability of an American viewer to identify with a Bollywood film. In fact, no such test exists or could ever exist. Such a measure is completely on an individual level and what effects one person would logically effect another in a different way based on the differing mental schemas, experiences, tolerances, et cetera of the two individuals. 46 All of the clips used in the survey and in the discussion group are included in the DVD found in this project. 75 differences from Romeo & Juliet. For example, there is no Tybalt character in Qayamat

Se Qayamat Tak. Juliet (known as Rashmi in this movie) has no cousin whom Romeo

(i.e. Raj) slays in retribution for the murder of his close friend, Mercutio. Mercutio also does not appear in this movie, nor do both of the lovers kill themselves in the end. Rather, the devastated Raj takes his own life after Rashmi is accidentally murdered.

Though slightly different with regard to some narrative details, a clear connection between these movies is evident in the star-cross’d origin from which they both draw.

Though Zeffirelli’s is more of a literal adaptation while Khan’s is a modernization, both movies were greatly received by their home cinemas. As a result of their success and cinematic regard, they are both good candidates for an exploratory study of this nature and were therefore selected to serve as representatives for their respective cinemas.

Clips of both of these movies were shown as part of the survey in order to yield tangible, numeric results in regards to the existence and impact of the bridge between the cinemas. The survey was administered to 25 college-aged men and women, ranging in age from 18-22 years old. All of the participants were of American cultural upbringing and students at Miami University.

Each of the clips chosen represents a pivotal point in the Romeo & Juliet legend.

From falling in love at first sight (clips 1 and 2) to participating in a secret marriage ceremony (clips 3 and 7); from the forced engagement of the heroine by her father to a man she does not love (clips 5 and 6) to the climactically tragic death of the two lovers

(clips 8 and 9), these elements – though adapted to serve the particular vision of the director – are prominently present in both Zeffirelli’s Romeo & Juliet and Khan’s

Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. The clips were chosen in order to test the similarities, 76 differences, and connections of the cross-cultural adaptations of this story, as observed by the typical college-age American viewer. In using these films as exemplars of their home cinemas, they also test the similarities, differences, and connections which can be derived between Hollywood and Bollywood.

In addition to the four pairings of clips, I included a musical number from

Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (clip 4). This was done as a test of the current potential acceptance of a Bollywood production by the subjects as song and dance are staples of

Mumbai’s films. I of course acknowledge the potential detriment that such an inclusion poses to this experiment as it disrupts the balance of clips in favor of Qayamat Se

Qayamat Tak. The potential result of having five clips to four presented as part of this survey is that the subject could develop a subconscious favoritism to Qayamat Se

Qayamat Tak as a result of greater exposure to it. For example, any marketing professional would tell you that the key to a successful advertisement campaign is to dominate the field – to make sure that your product is seen by the target audience more than that of your competitors.

If we were to follow that logic, Bollywood movies in general would stand absolutely no chance of being accepted by an American viewer. Hollywood has our complete attention when it comes to advertisements. As was stated at the beginning of the chapter four: it is nearly impossible to drive down a street, turn on the television, read a newspaper, or surf the Internet without being bombarded by advertisements, billboards, and pop-ups promoting an upcoming movie. All of these upcoming movies, of course, are conceived, produced, and financed by Hollywood. True, an occasional British James

Bond or other movie may sneak in there, but you are not going to catch something 77 advertising a Bollywood movie. In fact, you are more likely to see a cigarette advertisement on American television than you are to see an ad for a Bollywood movie.47

After viewing all of the clips, a three-page survey was completed by the participants.48 Another, albeit minor reason that this cannot be a definitive test is the lack of diversity found within the population of the test subjects. But again, this is only intended to be an exploratory study, where questions are generated and a discussion can arise.

Survey Results

In creating this exploratory study, there were four major questions I wanted to address: 1) Are American audiences alienated by the Bollywood version of Romeo &

Juliet; 2) Does the song and dance number undermine or alienate an American audience;

3) Do American viewers acknowledge the existence of the ubiquitous experience of love; and 4) How does acknowledging the existence of love effect the American viewer’s reception of the Bollywood movie?

1) Are American audiences alienated by the Bollywood version of Romeo & Juliet?

To test this question, survey participants were asked to rank each of the clips on a scale from 1 to 549, where a ranking of 1 meant that the test subject “did not enjoy” and a ranking of 5 indicated that she or he enjoyed the clip “greatly.” The results of these rankings can be found in Table 7.1: Mean Clip Rating.

47 It has been illegal for commercials advertising cigarettes to run on American television since 1971. 48 See Appendix 7.1 for a copy of the survey 49 A likert scale 78

Table 7.1 Mean Clip Rating

At face value, there appears to be no direct correlation between the ranking of each individual clip and the cinematic origin of that clip. Statistical comparisons of these means supports this observation. While there were significant differences among all clips

(df=8; p= 0.0038),50 those differences were not a result of whether the clip was from

Romeo & Juliet or Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (df=1; p= 0.73).51 As indicated by the P value52 of Table 7.3: One-way Analysis of Clip Rating By RJ or QS, there is a 73% chance that you can explain the differences in rating between Romeo & Juliet and

Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak by chance alone. In other words, though people are certainly preferencing clips, it has nothing to do with what movie each of these clips are from. As

50 Table 7.2: One-way Analysis of Clip Rating By Clip Name is a statistical analysis comparing the mean rankings for each clip. 51 Table 7.3: One-way Analysis of Clip Rating By RJ or QS provides an analysis of the rankings for Romeo & Juliet (1968) compared to those of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (1988). 52 P equals the probability that the differences you observe can be explained by chance alone. So if P< 0.05, that means that patterns have a less than 5% chance of being explained or caused by chance alone, making that a significant rating. If P>0.05, then it is non-significant. In other words, there is a relatively high probability that the results are due to chance alone. 79

Table 7.2

80

Table 7.3

81

proof, the highest ranked clips were the ones from each movie about love at first sight

(clips 1 and 2). These two scenes really resonated with American viewers. Additionally, three out of the four top ranked scenes were from Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak,53 but so were the two lowest rated clips.54 This shows that a natural bias towards the viewer’s home cinema does not exist, while also demonstrating that no cinema is wholly preferred over the other – a point driven home by Table 7.3: One-way Analysis of Clip Rating By

RJ or QS.

2) Does the song and dance number undermine or alienate an American audience?

In order to analyze this question, the ratings of the musical number from Qayamat

Se Qayamat Tak (Clip 4) were compared to the interest of the subject to view films produced by a foreign cinema (“Rate Interest”). As is seen in Table 7.4: Bivariate Fit of

Rate Interest by Clip 4, there is no significant relationship (p= 0.80) between these two variables. In other words, the musical number – one of the staples of Bollywood – has no statistical effect on the American viewer’s desire to see a Bollywood film. While it was not a significant factor that could draw an American audience into a theater, it is also not one that would keep them away. Statistically, the song and dance number does not undermine or alienate an American audience.

53 Clip 1 (love at first sight), clip 7 (marriage), and clip 4 (the musical number) 54 Clip 9 (death of the two lovers) and clip 6 (forced engagement) 82

Table 7.4

83

3) Do American viewers acknowledge the existence of the ubiquitous experience of love?

This was addressed in the seventh question of the survey – a yes/no response asking “Do you believe in love, specifically romantic love?” The overwhelming response to this question was yes. In fact, all of the participants (100%) identified a belief in love.

Because there is no variation, this question is disqualified from further statistical analysis, because no comparison groups can be formed between people who believe in love and people who do not among this population.

4) How does acknowledging the existence of love effect the American viewer’s reception of the Bollywood movie?

A real dilemma was encountered in attempting to answer this question as a result of the disqualification of question number seven from statistical analysis. In an ideal test, the question of an American viewer’s belief in love would be compared to her or his interest in viewing films produced by a foreign cinema (“Rate Interest”). This would not work in this particular instance as all of the results rating the desire of the subjects to view films produced by foreign cinemas would be plotted against the “Yes” column while there would be no values in the “No” column. These results would be so horribly skewed that they would mean absolutely nothing, statistically or otherwise.

So as to avoid the potentiality of not even being able to attempt to answer this question, the eighth survey question – a yes/no response asking “Do you believe in the existence of soul mates (i.e. one perfect match for each individual)?” – was selected as the next closest alternative to the seventh question, and compared to “Rate Interest.” This 84 of course is not the ideal test and does not yield ideally applicable results, but I remind the reader that this is an exploratory study – designed as much to raise questions as it is to answer them.

Table 7.5: One-way Analysis of Rate Interest by Soulmates shows that there is no significant relationship (p=0.42) relating a belief in soul mates to an average American viewer’s desire to view films produced by a foreign cinema. In other words, the results could be explained by chance alone.

As a supplementary analysis, Table 7.6: Contingency Analysis of QSQT by

Soulmates shows that there is also no significant relationship (p= 0.37) between a belief in soul mates and the likelihood of an American viewer preferring Qayamat Se Qayamat

Tak over Romeo & Juliet. Six people said yes to both soul mates and to Qayamat Se

Qayamat Tak, while the expected value was 5. Whether they wanted to see Qayamat Se

Qayamat Tak is independent to whether they believed in soul mates. These findings reiterate the conclusions drawn from question 1 of the survey results section of this chapter,55 specifically that neither cinema is preferred over the other.

55 1) Are American audiences alienated by the Bollywood version of Romeo & Juliet? 85

Table 7.5

86

Table 7.6

87

Discussion Group

When the surveys were completed, several subjects (five males and four females) volunteered to participate in a discussion group so that further insights could be obtained.

The aim of the discussion group was to be totally open, thus maximizing the voice of the audience. Driving questions from the moderator (i.e. the author) were avoided as much as they could be as they would have biased the discussion to focus around the main points of this project, thus controlling and influencing the discussion.

Prior to participating in the talking circle, the nine subjects watched four clips from Baz Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1996). Each of these clips directly corresponded to a pairing originally established in the survey of Zeffirelli’s

Romeo & Juliet and Khan’s Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak: love at first sight; the secret marriage ceremony; the forced engagement; and the climactically tragic death of the two lovers.

Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet was selected to facilitate a discussion on the relationship between the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood as it itself is a hybrid of the national and foreign cinemas – a product of Hollywood that was created by an Australian director who admittedly draws heavily from the Mumbai film industry. Borrowing from both traditions, this adaptation of Romeo & Juliet harkens to the natural evolution within and between cinemas – an ongoing process of bridging the gap.

88

Discussion Group Results56

Generally, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet was the most well received of the three movies shown. Discussion group participants identified an ease of relating to it as a result of its taking place in our time setting while still remaining accurate to the text of Romeo & Juliet. American viewers celebrated the juxtaposition of modern and classical elements (i.e. the use of guns instead of swords combined with Shakespearean dialogue). A distinct interest in the use of color and movement was expressed,57 showing an acceptance by American viewers of the natural bridging between these two cinemas as

Luhrman’s adaptation is itself a hybrid of elements from both Bollywood and

Hollywood. In fact, Participant I summarized this acceptance saying “I really liked how the idea could travel from these two places and time as well, which was shown through the clips we watched tonight. I was really impressed with it.”

In regards to the purely Indian Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak, the discussants cited some difficulty identifying with it. A consistent theme was referring to the movie as

“cheesy.”58 This could be attributed – as identified by the discussion group – to the age of the movie as Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak is over two decades old. Even participant G who described it as “the cheesiest thing I have ever seen in my entire life” clarified by saying that he did in fact make a connection to it, even if he did not “relate to it all the way.”59

It is highly likely that this terminology – “cheesy” – though appearing to originate from a slightly negative subtext, could be explained by the natural purpose and tendencies of Bollywood movies. As was discussed in chapter six, films produced by the

56 A transcript of the discussion group can be found in Appendix 7.2 57 Participant C on page 115 of Appendix 7.2 58 For example, participant G on page 116 and participant A on page 117 of Appendix 7.2 59 Page 116 of Appendix 7.2 89

Mumbai cinema are typically escapist in nature. They are supposed to be detached from reality. This “cheesy” may be nothing more that the average American viewer’s interpretation of a foreign element contextualized against the conventions and expectations developed by Hollywood. Thus, an apparently negative comment proves to simply be an example of cross-cultural exchange where American viewers are exposed to something new, interpret that new information, incorporate it into their psyche by comparing it to expected cinematic norms, and are able to classify it. While doing this, they are also clearly identifying with it.

Though presented with something new – something “cheesy” – the average

American viewer is able to equally identify with both Bollywood and Hollywood cinematic productions. Besides, Shakespeare is supposed to be a little over the top – supposed to entertain the plebian masses.60 Perhaps in this respect, Qayamat Se Qayamat

Tak, is a more faithful production than either of the other two movies.

Closing Remarks

It is not statistically predictable – based on the origin of the film – which clips would be more well received by the average American viewer. By extension, the preference of American viewers has nothing to do with what cinema a clip they view is from. Even with the potential barriers of language and foreign conventions, American viewers have the ability to identify with cinematic productions from both Hollywood and

Bollywood.

60 See the Universality section of chapter two 90

This study found that there was not much correlation between the subjects’ belief in love and which adaptation of Romeo & Juliet they preferred. This can be interpreted not as counteracting the concept of the bridge between cinemas formed through the universal human experience of love, but as one of its greatest supports. The bridge does not serve to trumpet one cinema over another but to equalize the two – to put them on a level playing field so that viewers from either society can engage them in mutual appreciation. The equally high rankings of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak and Romeo & Juliet proves the possibility and success of this cinematic appreciation as cultivated through the existence of the bridge of love, and the positive regard with which William Shakespeare’s

Romeo + Juliet was received solidifies it.

91

Conclusion 92

Chapter Eight Conclusion

Tybalt. Romeo, the love I bear thee can afford No better term than this, thou art a villain.

Romeo. Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee Doth much excuse the appertaining rage To such a greeting. Villain am I none, Therefore farewell, I see thou know’st me not. ~Romeo & Juliet61

Bridging the Gap

This project describes a bridge between the cinemas of Hollywood and

Bollywood fostered by the concept of love. This bridge is not established upon the belief that we have all loved another human being in the exact same way, but that we have all experienced it in one way or another. Love is biologically wired into our brains, so it is an inescapable condition of human existence.

As a ubiquitous experience, love has the potential to connect every cinema to every human being. Language and conventions aside, the true kernels of any cinematic presentation – whether it be French, Italian, Russian, Iranian, Indian, American, or anything else in origin – can be understood by any individual.62 While language and conventions allow for the conveyance of nuances within the film, they are not crucial for understanding.63 Describing the image as a symbol, Mitry (1990) says that any film:

61 (Shakespeare 1993: III.i.55-60) 62 This statement is made assuming that the viewer has already been exposed to and learned to interpret the cinematic medium. I.e. it would be unapplicable to the first customers of the Lumière brothers as they were almost entirely unable to interpret the new medium which they were being exposed to. 63 This has been shown true by the recent success of Wall-E (2008) – an entire movie that is conveyed with hardly any dialogue in the form of actual words.

93

is found to be loaded already with a certain meaning, even before the most basic of combinations comes along to create an eventual signification. By themselves, by their very presence “in-the-world,” all things, all events, all individuals are possessed of a certain signification. Since the image presenting them to our eyes is composed of everything of which it is an image, it is normal for its primary signification to be that of the objects represented. (38)

As a result of our ability to recognize and interpret the encoded information within images, connections can be made across any individual, across any cinema, across any border.

Previously this discussion of a Western appreciation of Bollywood films had been conducted only within the framework of academic and filmic criticism. This project advocates, however, that this same understanding, even admiration for Bollywood films64 can be easily fostered within average the American viewer. Though American viewers have been raised, nay indoctrinated into the Hollywood way of doing things,65 the experience of love within each and every human being creates a forum though which this appreciation may arise.

It is not argued that a first time viewer of a Bollywood film will fall immediately and completely in love with it. Rather, it is entirely possible that such viewers will dislike that first movie that they are exposed to. This is fine because if we are completely honest with ourselves, there undoubtedly exists at least one American movie that we dislike or utterly cannot stand.66

64 Albeit probably not to the critical level of intensive academic study 65 This, of course, is not entirely true as cinema is always evolving and innovating to the point that there can be no true ‘way of doing things.’ Things change – the Hollywood of the past is different from the Hollywood of the present. Similarly, Bollywood is also innovating. People can now kiss on screen for example, something which would have been strictly taboo a decade ago. 66 Mine are typically horror movies. No me gusta. 94

Bollywood, like anything new – whether it be a foreign cinema, a new style of fashion, a new management structure at work, or any other deviation from an individual’s perceived conception of what is normal – can (and probably will) be an acquired taste.

Just like wine, which requires a mature and typically informed pallet, we must be willing to expose ourselves to several samplings before discovering a true joy in this new experience.

You may not remember it, dear reader, but the same application of repeat exposures was administered to you when you were first introduced to the Hollywood productions you now comprehend with easy enjoyment. Moving pictures on a bright screen are not a natural phenomena. You had to learn how to understand them – how to decode the experience – in much the same way that you had to learn English that you might read this project.

Most of the cinematic things we view and take for granted are not natural events that occur freely throughout our daily lives. There is not a moving orchestral piece building and accentuating your reading just as there is not a honey voiced speaker such as

James Earl Jones narrating my process of writing this piece. Those things simply do not happen in the real world and so an ability to interpret and accept their existence is a learned trait. By extension, the ability to interpret anything at all is also learned. We all start off as blank slates – ignorant children to a bright and mysterious world. We have to learn the things that are good to eat and the things that are bad, and to overcome the horrible irony where the things that are bad to eat often taste so good. We must discover 95 how to walk, to talk, to read, to swim, and to write as none of these things are inherently coded into our psyche.67

With regards to the psychological effects of being exposed to cinematic pieces, viewing a cinematic product is equivocal to our continued growth and relation to the world. We first learn how to understand them, then we learn how to live with and through the emotions that they inspire within us.

Bollywood and Hollywood

All of these effects are learned. We had to be exposed to them over and over again until the nuances of our native cinema became as clear as the subtle churnings of life which required our equal interaction in order to properly engage with. Likewise, seeing all of the colors, songs, movement, et cetera which Bollywood films offer and having to read from subtitles may be difficult, even jarring at first but it is possible to gain an appreciation for this new offering of the world with relative ease and repeat exposure.

The ability to decode and subsequently enjoy Bollywood movies is a wonderful opportunity to enhance oneself as we all continue with the process of learning to live life.

That love which we have all experienced allows for our mutual understanding of

Hollywood’s cousin cinema, Bollywood. It does not guarantee an immediate understanding but acts as a Rosetta Stone through which basic interest and exposure can and undoubtedly will yield a rapturous appreciation analogous to that of the native cinema of the viewer.

67 Unlike love 96

Bollywood as a whole is most closely related to the American genre of musicals.68

Though song and dance are not the primary vehicles for modern American cinema as it is for Mumbai’s masala films, they are still exceedingly popular. For proof of this one need look no further than the titanic Disney franchise known as High School Musical. A few years ago, no one knew who those actors were or could have guessed the near super stardom that they are now benefiting from as a sole result of their musical series. This is especially true for the lead couple, Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens who are nearing bona-fide Hollywood power couple status with their constant inclusion in celebrity gossip and entertainment news segments.

Though it takes a well thought out and produced story, musicals have a unique ability to permanently imprint themselves upon the viewer. This conception even caught the industry executives by slight surprise when producing High School Musical.

Originally it was only slated to be a Disney Channel Original Movie. It garnered so much attention and praise (the most popular Disney Channel Original Movie ever produced) that a sequel was soon announced. Again the executives misjudged the American love of musicals when they released High School Musical 2 as another Disney Channel movie. It too became the most popular Disney Channel Original Movie ever produced, so a third movie was announced. Its potential – both that of the franchise and of the genre – finally acknowledged, High School Musical 3 was given a theatrical release. In the end, it not only became the most successful musical opening ever,69 but its over $90 million box office return domestically (Gray 2009).

68 See Table 8.1 in the Appendix for a simple comparison of the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood. 69It brought in over $42 million in its opening weekend alone (Gray 2009). 97

This would be a rather interesting phenomena in a culture whose conception of

‘musical’ remained outdatedly defined by the Rodgers and Hammerstein production of

The Sound of Music (1965). Yes it was a hugely successful piece at the time, and Julie

Andrews will forever be fondly remembered as singing about the hills being alive, but the

American people have a secret love affair with musicals. Even though the fervor died down with very few musicals produced in the nineties, they are back with a vengeance,70 as was declared by Hugh Jackman during his opening number as host of the 2009

Academy Awards.

Cinema’s Natural Evolution

Cinema looks to do with Shakespeare the same thing Shakespeare looked to do with the stories he himself adapted for his plays: bring them to the mass audience. While each cinema in which the legend of Romeo & Juliet is produced has its own requirements for the complete communication and understanding of the text, the viewer is still able to walk away with an understanding of what is going on – of what is being conveyed

In being a vehicle to the populace, the Hollywood tradition of filmmaking is both the product of American society and an influence upon that society. According to Wead and Lellis (1981):

Hollywood gave body to fundamental needs and ideals of the American people. In its turn, Hollywood has had impact on that culture. By focusing social forces into very popular forms, Hollywood movies have affected styles, attitudes, and the social order in general. (203)

70 See Table 8.2 in the Appendix for a listing of recent Hollywood musicals and their box office results. Though few in number, the high grosses of these musicals demonstrates the continued popularity of this genre. 98

Similarly, Srinivas (2005) comments that beyond the:

escapist narratives and extravagance, there lies an ability Bollywood has possessed for decades: the films are “frequently at the forefront of recognizing social change and are often ahead of sociologists and anthropologists in their anticipation of and commentary on significant issues in Indian society. (321)

With this recognition of social importance and the ability to advocate for the greater good,71 cinemas cannot help but be distinctly related to one another.

Whatever happens in the cinema is evolutionary. Movies are not created in a vacuum, but build upon the success and learn from the failures of the past. Directors borrow from others in order to tell their stories more effectively. They may also move to new countries, incorporating their storytelling abilities and discoveries into the repertoire of the cinema into which they have immigrated.

This is especially poignant in the American cinema whose constant drive for global success has both attracted and emulated the best features of cinemas the world over. For example, Josef vonSternber and Eric Stroheim emigrated to the United States during the silent era, bringing with them the German style of lighting and Expressionism

(i.e. the use of space and light/shadow), which is now a staple of American cinema.

Another example is the director of The Cabinet of Dr. Calligary (1920), Fritz Lang, a great German director who came to Hollywood and became a great American director.

Today there is no truer example of this natural evolution, this growing together of the cinemas, than Baz Luhrmann – a Hollywood director of Australian origins who draws heavily from the Mumbai Cinema. The influences of the masala use of color, movement, imagery, music, song, and dance are patently identifiable in Moulin Rouge, Australia, and

71 The greater good being just as much a universal truth as the experience of love 99

Williiam Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, to name a few. In fact with regards to its style and entertainment value, Lehmann (2001) declares that Luhrmann’s William

Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is the kind of movie Shakespeare himself would have created were he to direct a movie (220).

Star-Cross’d Cinemas?

The exchange between Tybalt and Romeo found at the beginning of this chapter can be metaphorically viewed in terms of the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood, respectively. Indians, as well as viewers all over the world, have accepted Hollywood as a cinematic fixture. They may not prefer its productions over domestically crafted fare, but they receive it as an equally legitimate institution. Similarly, Romeo places value on the life of Tybalt: Tybalt, who is supposed to be his enemy by birth and upbringing;

Tybalt, who sneers at his very existence; Tybalt, who desires nothing more than to forcibly drive the life from his body in a fit of capitalistic rage. Romeo attempts not to unleash all of his power upon his cousin, but to love him.

Tybalt however, selfishly pursues his own desires, ignoring both the intentions of

Romeo as well as the bond he shares with him. In the end, this ignorant selfishness leads to both of their destructions. Perhaps if Hollywood does not acknowledge its cousin cinema a similar fate may be had by both as they frivolously battle it out for cinematic domination.

Hollywood itself is a global cinema. Though you may not realize it, having been indoctrinated to its styles as a lifetime domestic viewer, it naturally pools and blends the cinematic talent of the world. Considering this line of thought, every person that 100 identifies with the cinema of Hollywood, enjoying it to any extent, inherently enjoys foreign cinemas as well as a result of their influence on the natural evolution of our own cinema. Not only does the bridge of love allow for individual cross-cultural exchanges of information and understanding, but the American cinema itself has continuously prepared each and every one of its viewers to engage in such an amicable inter-cinema exploration.72

Placing specific emphasis on those films constructed in the cinemas of Hollywood and Bollywood through the exploration of selected adaptations of William Shakespeare’s

Romeo & Juliet, A Rose by Any Other Name advocates a cross-cultural acceptance and appreciation of cinemas through the universal human experience of love. Like the tossed salad version of the American dream where individuals provide their own unique flavor to the greater whole, the cinemas of the world need not bleed into a homogenous brood for global understanding. In fact, that would be a true crime and loss for the culture of the world. It is through the bridge of love - which already exists but is often overlooked – that this mutual cinematic appreciation73 may be cultivated and advanced.

72 For further proof of this, consider the Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire (2008), fanatically received by American audiences. Though not technically a Bollywood production, its cast, theme, and especially style pay clear homage to the great cinema of Mumbai. 73 And possibly many other appreciations 101

Works Cited 102

Acharya, S. (2004). Bollywood and globalization. San Fransciso: San Franscisco State University.

Aebischer, P., Esche, E. J., & Wheale, N. (eds.) (2003). Remaking Shakespeare: Across media, genres, and cultures. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Agnes, M. (Ed.) (2004). Webster's new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Cleveland, OH: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Andrews, M. C. (1989). This action of our death: The performance of death in English Renaissance drama. Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Anderson, M. (2005). Shakespeare by another name: The life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the man who was Shakespeare. New York: Gotham Books.

Barnouw, E., & Krishnaswamy, S. (1980). Indian Film (2nd ed).New York: Oxford University Press.

Berscheid, E. Searching for the meaning of “love.” In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Bevington, D. M., Welsh, A. M., & Greenwald, M. L. (2006). Shakespeare: Script, stage, screen. New York: Pearson/Longman.

Bloom, H. (1998). Shakespeare: The invention of the human. New York: Riverhead Books.

Burnett, M. T. (2007). Filming Shakespeare in the global marketplace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Buss, D. M. The evolution of love. In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Charlton, H.B. (1939). Romeo and Juliet as an experimental tragedy. Proceedings of the British academy, 25, 143-185.

Clark, M. S. & Monin, J. K. Giving and receiving communal responsiveness as love. In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Charney, M. (2000). Shakespeare on love and lust. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cohen, R. (1988). Theater (2nd ed.). Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Company. 103

Coursen, H. R. (2005). Shakespeare translated: Derivatives on film and tv. New York: Peter Lang.

Cozolino, L. J. (2006). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain. New York: Norton.

Datta, P. (2008). Bollywoodizing diasporas: Reconnecting to the nri through popular hindi cinema. Oxford, OH: Miami University.

Deats, S. M. (2000). “Teaching Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy of the generation gap and of Teenage Suicide.” In Hunt, M. (Ed.) Approaches to teaching Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Ebert, R (1984). A kiss is still a kiss. New York: Andrews, McMeel & Parker.

Fehr, B. A prototype approach to studying love. In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Ficino, M., Hankins, J., Bowen, W. R., Allen, M. J. B., & Warden, J. (2001). Platonic theology [Theologia Platonica. English & Latin]. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Freeman, W. J. (1995). Societies of brains: A study in the neuroscience of love and hate. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Gajowski, E. (1992). The art of loving: Female subjectivity and male discursive traditions in Shakespeare's tragedies. Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Grant, V. W. (1976). Falling in love: The psychology of the romantic emotion. New York: Springer Pub. Co.

Gray, B (2009). Chicago. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chicago.htm

Enchanted. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=enchanted.htm

High school musical 3: Senior year. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=highschoolmusical3.htm

104

Mamma mia! Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mammamia.htm

Moulin rouge! Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moulinrouge.htm Slumdog millionaire. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=slumdogmillionaire.htm

Sweeney Todd: The demon barber of fleet street. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=sweeneytodd.htm

The Phantom of the Opera. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from Box Office Mojo Web Site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=phantom%20of%20the%20opera &p=.htm

Hall, M. (1989). The structure of love: Representational patterns and Shakespeare's love tragedies. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Hamilton, L. Baz vs. the bardolaters. Literature/Film Quarterly. 28:2, 118.

Henderson, D. E. (2007). From popular entertainment to literature. In Shaughnessy, R. (Ed.) The Cambridge companion to: Shakespeare and popular culture (6-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick,S.S. Styles of romantic love. In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Hosley, R. (Ed.). (1993). “The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet: Introduction.” In Cross, W.L. and Brooke, T (Eds.) The Yale Shakespeare: The complete works (pp. 895- 901). New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

IMDB (2009). Romeo and Juliet. Retireved March 6, 2009, from IMDB Web Site: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000754/

Jackson, R. (2003). Shakespeare at Stratford: Romeo and Juliet. London: The Arden Shakespeare.

Jacobs, L (1968). The rise of the American film: A critical essay. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kenrick, D.T. (2006). A dynamical evolutionary view on love. In Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Killer, (2009, March 12). 10 rules for Bollywood film making. Retrieved March 19, 105

2009, from Earn4Blog Web site: http://www.earn4blog.com/killer/10-rules- bollywood-film-making

Lanford, J. & Lanford, A. Top 10' famous love quotes and quotations. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from Famous-quotes-and-quotations.com: http://www.famous-quotes-and-quotations.com/famous-love-quotes.html

Leach, W. (1980). True love and perfect union: The feminist reform of sex and society. New York: Basic Books.

Lehmann, C. (2001). Strictly Shakespeare? Dead letters, ghostly fathers, and the cultural pathology of authorship in Baz Luhrmann's William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Shakespeare Quarterly. 52, 189-221.

Lemaitre, H (1972). Shakespeare, the imaginary cinema and the pre-cinema. In Eckert, C. (Ed.) Focus on Shakespearean films (pp. 27-36). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A general theory of love (1st ed.). New York: Random House.

Line, J. (2004). Shakespeare and the fire of love. London: Shepheard-Walwyn.

Loehlin, J. N. (Ed.). (2002). Shakespeare in production: Romeo and Juliet. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marston, P.J., Hecht, M.L., Roberts, T. (1987). ‘True love ways’: The subjective experience and communication of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(4), 387-407.

Mast, G. and Kawin, B.F. (1996). A short history of the movies (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mazer, S. (1993). Introduction: Shakespeare on Stratford. In Cross, W.L. and Brooke, T (Eds.) The Yale Shakespeare: The complete works (pp. vii-ix). New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Miles, J. & McLennan, D. (2001). Global crossing, part one: The movies. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from Arts Journal Web site: http://www.artsjournal.com /artswatch/Globalculture%20-1.htm

Mitry, J (1990). The aesthetics and psychology of the cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Parker, B. L. (1987). A precious seeing: Love and reason in Shakespeare's plays. New York: New York University Press. 106

“Plays” (2009). Encyclopaedia Britannica's guide to Shakespeare. Retrieved February 10, 2009: http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/browse?browseId=248006

Punathambekar, A. (2005). ‘Bollywood in the Indian-American diaspora: Mediating a transitive logic of cultural citizenship’ in International Journal of Cultural Studies Vol 8, Issue 2, 151-173

Rhodes, S., & Potash, M. S. (1989). Cold feet: Why men don't commit. New York, NY: New American Library.

Ryan, K. (2002). Shakespeare (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Salovey, P. (2007). Introduction to Psychology: Lecture 9: Evolution, emotion, reason: Love. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from Google Video through the Freeversity Foundation: http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=- 4134653308153301392&hl=nl

Schaeffer, B. (1987). Is it love or is it addiction? Falling into healthy love. San Francisco, CA: Harper/Hazelton.

Shakespeare, W. (1993). The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (R. Hosley, Ed.). In Cross, W.L. and Brooke, T (Eds.) The Yale Shakespeare: The complete works (pp. 895- 901). New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Srinivas, L. (2005) ‘Communicating globalization in Bombay cinema: Everyday life, imagination and the persistence of the local’ in Comparative American Studies: An International Journal Vol 3, Issue 3, 319-344

Sternberg, R. J., & Weis, K. (eds.) (2006). The new psychology of love. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Stilling, R. (1976). Love and death in Renaissance tragedy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Tsering, L. (2003, Jan, 28). Bollywood confidential. Salon.com, Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/feature/2003/01/28/ bollywood/index.html

Tucker, K. (2003). Shakespeare and Jungian typology: A reading of the plays. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.

Vyvyan, J. (1960). Shakespeare and the rose of love: A study of the early plays in relation to the medieval philosophy of love. London: Chatto & Windus.

Wead, G, & Lellis, G (1981). Film: Form and function. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 107

Company.

Wymer, R. (1986). Suicide and despair in the Jacobean drama. New York: St. Martin's. 108

Appendix

109

Appendix Chapter 3

It is interesting to note that just as there is not a complete history or account of who Shakespeare was, there is also not a perfectly complete transcript of Shakespeare’s plays. He, himself, never published them. They were instead transcribed by others from a variety of sources. Hosley (1993) and the majority of the academic community contend that “The most authoritative source of the text of Romeo and Juliet is the ‘good’ Second

Quarto, printed ‘by Thomas Creed for Cuthbert Burby’ in 1599 (897).

Because of the lacking historical evidence there can be no definitive chronology of William Shakespeare’s writings. At most, both of the tables contain information that can be no more than educated speculation. Note not only the different attributions in ordering the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays, but the discrepancies in time frame and year completed as proposed by The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009) and by Bloom

(1998). For example, Love’s Labour’s Lost was originated anywhere from 1588 to 1597 according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, meaning that even though this play could have been penned in 1588, making it Shakespeare’s first major theatrical work, it could just as easily have been created in 1597 tying it with Henry IV, Part 1 and The Merchant of Venice as Shakespeare’s sixteenth play. Bloom on the other hand specifically identifies its origin in either 1594 or 1595, tying it as Shakespeare’s 13th major work.

Again, there are no actual records to otherwise indicate the original publication dates of all of Shakespeare’s writings. These sources and are only provided as loose reference materials. See Tables 3.1 and 3.2 110

Table 3.1 Encyclopaedia Britannica’s chronology74 Love’s Labour’s Lost 1588–97 Henry VI, Part Two 1590-91 Titus Andronicus 1589–92 Henry VI, Part 1 1589–92 The Comedy of Errors 1589–94 Henry VI, Part 2 1590–92 Henry VI, Part 3 1590–93 The Taming of the Shrew 1590–94 The Two Gentlemen of Verona 1590–94 Edward III 1590–95 Richard III 1592–94 King John 1594–96 Romeo and Juliet 1594–96 A Midsummer Night's Dream 1595–96 Richard II 1595–96 Henry IV, Part 1 1596–97 The Merchant of Venice 1596–97 Henry IV, Part 2 1597–98 The Merry Wives of Windsor 1597–1601 Much Ado About Nothing 1598–99 As You Like It 1598–1600 Henry V 1599 Julius Caesar 1599–1600 Hamlet 1599–1601 Twelfth Night 1600–02 Troilus and Cressida 1601–02 All's Well That Ends Well 1601–05 Othello 1603–04 Measure for Measure 1603–04 King Lear 1605–06 Timon of Athens 1605–08 Antony and Cleopatra 1606–07 Macbeth 1606–07 Pericles 1606–08 Coriolanus 1608 Cymbeline 1608–10 The Winter's Tale 1609–11 The Tempest 1611 The Two Noble Kinsmen 1612–14 Henry VIII 1613

74 “Plays” (2009) 111

Table 3.2 Bloom’s chronology (xiii-xv) Henry VI, Part One 1589-90 Henry VI, Part Two 1590-91 Henry VI, Part Three 1590-91 Richard III 1592-93 The Two Gentleman of Verona 1592-93 Hamlet (first version) 1589-93 Venus and Adonis 1592-93 The Comedy of Errors 1593 Sonnets 1593-1609 (possibly 1589) The Rape of Lucrece 1593-94 Titus Andronicus 1593-94

The Taming of the Shrew 1593-94 Love’s Labour’s Lost 1594-95 King John 1594-96 Richard II 1595 Romeo and Juliet 1595-96 A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1595-96 The Merchant of Venice 1596-97 Henry IV, Part One 1596-97 The Merry Wives of Windsor 1597 Henry VI, Part Two 1598 Much Ado About Nothing 1598-99 Henry V 1599

Julius Caesar 1599 As You Like It 1599 Hamlet 1600-01 The Pho enix and the Turtle 1601 Twelfth Night 1601-02 Troilus and Cressida 1601-02 All’s Well That Ends Well 1602-03 Measure for Measure 1604 Othello 1604 King Lear 1605 Macbeth 1606 Antony and Cleopatra 1606 Coriolanus 1607-08 Timon of Athens 1607-08 Pericles 1607-08 Cymbeline 1609-10 The Winter’s Tale 1610-11 The Tempest 1611 A Funeral Elegy 1612 Henry VIII 1612-13 The Two Noble Kinsmen 1613 112

Appendix Chapter 7.1

R&J Survey Questions Age: ______Sex: M (1) F (2) Sexual Orientation: Straight (1) Gay (2) Other (3) Ethnicity: ___Caucasian (1) Asian (2) Black (3) Other (4) ______Cultural Upbringing: USA (1) or Other _(2)______Year in School: Freshman (1) Sophomore (2) Junior (3) Senior (4) Fifth Year (5) Do you believe in love, specifically romantic love? Y (1) N (2) Have you ever been in love? Y (1) N (2) What does love mean to you? (Please describe your definition of love) ______

Do you believe in the existence of soul mates (i.e. one perfect match for each individual)? Y (1) N (2) Please provide your reasoning: ______

Do you believe that there is a soul mate for each and every individual? Y (1) N (2) Please provide your reasoning: ______

~ (PLEASE ANSWER AFTER VIEWING THE CLIPS) Please rate each clip on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = I did not enjoy it and 5 = I enjoyed it greatly Did not enjoy ------neutral------I enjoyed it greatly Clip 1 (R&J - love at first sight) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 2 (QSQT - love at first sight) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 3 (R&J - marriage) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 4 (QSQT - musical number) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 5 (R&J - forced engagement) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 6 (QSQT - forced engagement) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 7 (QSQT - marriage) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 8 (R&J - death) 1 2 3 4 5 Clip 9 (QSQT - death) 1 2 3 4 5 113

Which clip did you like most? Why? __(Clip 1-9) ______

Which clip would you most like to see again? Why? __(Clip 1-9) ______

In which clip(s) could you see yourself portraying the action (which one do you identify most with)? Why? ______(Clip 1-9) ______

Which couple seems to be more in love? Why? ______Romeo & Juliet (1)______QSQT (2) ______

Does watching the clips of Romeo & Juliet make you want to watch the movie in its entirety? Why or why not? ______

Does watching the three clips of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak make you want to watch the movie in its entirety? Why or why not? ______

If you were to watch both movies in their entirety, which do you think you would like the most and why? ______Romeo & Juliet (1)______QSQT (2) ______

Please describe any connections you see between these two films. Do you think that these similarities and/or relations apply to the separate film industries of America (Hollywood) and Mubai, India (Bollywood)? Why or why not? ______

114

Please describe any differences you see between these two films ______

Would you be interested in viewing this or other films produced by a foreign cinema (ex: Bollywood)? Why or why not?______

Please rate your interest in viewing films produced by a foreign cinema Not interested -----Neutral -----Very Interested 1 2 3 4 5

Anything else that stood out for you about these clips and/or this presentation? ______

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COMMENTS!

115

Appendix Chapter 7.2

Romeo & Juliet Discussion Group

The population of the discussion group was composed of four females, six males, and one moderator (also a male). All participants were students of Miami University, ranging in age from 18-22 at the time of the discussion group.

Participant: A – Female, 22 B – Male, 22 C – Female, 22 D – Female, 21 E – Female, 20 F – Male, 21 G – Male, 20 H – Male, 19 I – Male, 18

The Moderator is the author of this paper, Cameron Berner – Male, 22.

Moderator: Basically what I am interested in is having an open discussion group. I’m not really going to ask questions. I really just want to know your opinions of the three films you have seen tonight, any connections you see between them. Please go around an introduce yourselves.

[The participants introduced themselves]

Moderator: Okay. I will start out with this first question: what did you think about this?

A- I liked this version (William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet) the best, mostly because it’s not so corney as the other ones were and it’s easy to relate to because it is in our time setting.

H- I thought it was weird though because it was in our time setting, but they were still using the original Shakespeare.

C- It’s my favorite too, just because I love Baz Luhrmann. I know that Franco Zifferelli is more accurate to the text, but this one, I don’t know. I love the color and the soundtrack too.

I- I really liked how the idea could travel from these two places and time as well, which was shown through the clips we watched tonight. I was really impressed with it. I also like how you questioned if we would like to see the rest of the movies that we hadn’t seen based on watching the clips, that is definitely something I would have written if you hadn’t asked. 116

G- I’ll just say the Indian film (QSQT). I thought it was honestly the cheesiest thing I have ever seen in my entire life. The actors just seemed like they were, well, acting. You know how actors are supposed to make things seem real? It just seemed like in that film they were trying to make something corny or cheesy about it. In the first Romeo & Juliet film they acted to the extent that they actually seemed like they genuinely loved each other even though they didn’t. I just thought that the Indian film had something awkward about it.

Moderator: Was it awkward to the point where it alienated you from the connection?

G- I wouldn’t say that it completely alienated me. I made a connection. I could see how he tied the Romeo & Juliet theme into it, I just think he diverged it in a way. I just didn’t relate to it all the way.

B- I was distracted by the music.

C- I wonder how much this has to do with the film styles though over the year that the film was made in?

Moderator: The first Romeo & Juliet is from 1968, Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak is from 1988, and this one (William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet) is from 1996. So knowing now the times in which these movies were made, does that change any of your opinions?

B- I liked the last two. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet had the same language, but it was still set in the nineties and you could tell. Same with Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. It was clearly set in the eighties - had all the eighties styles music. It was clearly a product of the pop culture of the time. If the one made in ‘96 (William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet) had been made in the eighties, it would have done the same thing.

A- I liked the eighties one (Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak) because I like the styles, and the hair – how he was kinda flipping it around, and everything felt fancy and the music. I like the special effects, like when she got shot and there were like big chunks of fake blood – I was laughing.

E- I think the eighties one (Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak) looking at it as two young people and love at first sight, really fast paced romance, I think, to me at least, was the most accurate to real life. I thought it was really cheesy and I was alienated like a bunch of people, but the guy was just really nonchalant and he was laughing, and the girl was real. I don’t think that their love was as related to chance as it was in the other two. It showed kinda how young people are when their feelings take over. I didn’t get the sense of intensity from that one, until the end.

Moderator: The plots from the clips I showed jump around a lot, but that is because I cut huge portions out of them. Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak is about a three hour movie, and you watched the main points in about 20 minutes. It makes sense where the gunman 117 comes from – he is actually hired by the girl’s father to kill Raj. The plot makes sense if you watch the whole thing, I just did not think it would be fair to have people come in and watch two hours and a half of Zefferilli and then three hours of Khan and another hour and 45 minutes of Romeo and Juliet Luhrmann style. Secondly, I do not have that kind of time, so I doubt you guys do either. I apologize that it was distracting in regards to the plot.

E- It’s cool. It didn’t really bother me.

A- Even with that, everybody knows the story of Romeo and Julietl I don’t think scenes interfere with that understanding. I mean, I didn’t know who that guy was with the gun at the end of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak but could figure out what was going on.

D- If he was hired by the parents, why did he shoot the girl?

Moderator: They told the murderer that nobody else would be there and so the dad went to collect his daughter and keep her in that little fake house they were living in while Raj was out getting wood. So when he saw somebody else there he was like ‘woah, nobody is supposed to be here’ and he killed her.

F- That dude really sort of messes with the plot of Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet because they are supposed to end up killing themselves, whereas if it wasn’t for that guy shooting the girl they could have easily gone about with their happy lives.

I- I took it as the fact that Rashmi didn’t know that she was giving her life necessarily for Raj, whereas that was Juliet’s purpose. I don’t think that the presence of the gunman is the issue but whether she knew she was going to die as she went running and screaming towards the gunman and Raj or if she was just trying to save him.

C-In a way I think that also changes the expected gender roles of the story. I know that whenever I have read or studied Romeo & Juliet I always thought that Juliet seemed much more sincere in her love and that Romeo was more infatuated than in love. He kills himself first, yes, but it is Juliet who proceeds to take the final step in the death scene and in this Bollywood version it is switched up, showing Romeo as being really strongly in love – taking that last step and having the female death. I thought it was interesting that the way they were portraying love, at least in my eyes, was a stronger indication of their character.

B – It’s always frustrating to watch the second person kill themselves.

A – It seemed almost like the Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak version is less tragic because it is so cheesy.

I – Do you think it is easier to view as a film knowing that it is less tragic? Bollywood is a little less mature than Hollywood. Bollywood is still moving through the path that Hollywood has already set for it. The whole movie in and of itself, Qayamat Se Qayamat 118

Tak, is a little less mature with the cinematography, with the singing scene verses even the 1968 film which has more the true tragedy that is the essence of Romeo & Juliet.

A- It seems to me that in the Bollywood version they almost make the girl a little bit dumber. She’s like ‘oh, where’s Raj?’ ‘Oh, the other man’s holding a gun’ but the dad is like ‘he’s getting firewood’ and she can’t seem to put it together. I’m just like “you’re an idiot.”

I- Was she going to college and then her dad told her that it would be up to her new husband whether or not she could continue going?

E – Yeah.

H – Did she know that the guy was coming to kill Raj?

Moderator – No. That is why she freaked out and ran after him when she realized what was going on – when Raj’s family showed up with a gun themselves. It was like a meeting of the Montagues and the Capulets.

A- And so she just ran off after Raj, stupidly and unarmed.

Moderator - I know I asked in the survey if you would be interested in: A) seeing the rest of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak; and B) if because of what you have seen today or what you have seen or know in general, if you would be interested in watching other foreign films, specifically those from Bollywood?

A – I would want to see all of Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak because it is so funny, but overall I would be interested in seeing more movies from Bollywood, or just other cultures in general.

H – I would definitely want to see more of both Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak and Bollywood movies in general because I just think it is so interesting to see how other cultures do things – how they deal with situations.

C- I would like to see the rest of it if for nothing more than to clear up the plot points. I’d get all the characters straight, understand why grandma was there in the end.

F – I wouldn’t because I don’t fell like three hours is worth the payoff.

Moderator – It is quite long. Bollywood movies typically have intermissions in them and you definitely need to take them.

D – I would like to watch it because doing so can give us insights into our own culture. Seeing what other cultures do, how they handle things, et cetera can show us our own strengths and weaknesses by comparison. It’s always great for reflection. But I thought that the Bollywood version of Romeo & Juliet definitely detracted from the tragedy 119 genre, because it took away all of the violence. It took away the motives of the characters. That, for me, if they are helpless and they are victims in situations not necessarily of their own doing then it is not so tragic.

I – That makes me wonder if the people in Europe, or the people in random places around the world are looking at America and saying ‘wow, look at the crap they are producing.”

A- I think that of all the love stories, Romeo & Juliet fits India really well because they do have arranged marriages, which helps this Romeo & Juliet idea to really apply. I think that classic Shakespeare can just really apply and is so easily applicable.

D – I don’t know if it is necessarily love rather than tradition. They are all under the belief system that this is what love is. It is not actually an experience but more of a ritual, that’s where I argue that love is not applicable to that culture – to arranged marriages in general. Love there is not an experience but more of a contract.

C – Well that leads to the question of whether you see love as something that you have to have at first sight, that initial attraction, or whether it is something that you can garner over the years in a caring relationship with another person. Even if you didn’t love them at first, after years of depending on one another and sharing experiences with them can not love be made?

D – I don’t think that you can have love at first sight. I think that it is a process. It is infatuation or lust that we misconstrue as love at first sight.

E- But isn’t it great that we get to chose who we have that process with?

C- Exactly.

A- I think that the whole concept of love at first sight stems back to biology. You pick your mate off of what you find attractive, because what you find attractive is what you think will reproduce well.

F – On a separate note from all of this, the more I think about the fact that it was only a day between when they got married and killed themselves, they are Italian. I could totally see Italians doing that. I always sort of forget where they are from, because Shakespeare was English I always just imagine them as English as well. The English wouldn’t have done that, because they are so proper and much slower moving, but the Italians, they would do that.

E – I don’t know. I mean, the way I interpret Romeo & Juliet, they are really in love. However, the way that I read it, these two kids are just crazy. I wouldn’t do it as an Italian thing, I would do it as a hormone thing.

C – So is that love then or is it just lust?

120

E- Exactly.

I – Well sure we have been hardened over time, but wasn’t there a time when you were hollering at your dad because you liked somebody that he didn’t want you to see? Or he wouldn’t let you go to a dance even though you were going to meet somebody there, or something like that. It was hormones but –

F – But that doesn’t make it love!

I – Maybe that’s what love was for you at the time and at that age; at that time in your life when you were just in rampant hormone stage.

F- But just because you think it is love doesn’t mean that it is love.

C- Yeah. I – I don’t know. If you feel that strongly for somebody and you don’t even know them that well, well I would venture to say that that is a form of love, but that it is immature.

C- But if it’s immature, how can it be love?

F- I think that each person makes their own definition for what love really is to them because love is different for each person.

D- It’s impulsive, just like they were so impulsive to fall in love and to kill themselves.

E – And it was a fruitless effort because it was all done for nothing, because of one huge mistake.

D – I don’t think Shakespeare was trying to be romantic. I think he was just trying to get audiences in seats.

I – If you are going to kill yourself for love. I mean, the person is already dead, so why would you kill yourself? More importantly, they weren’t really killing themselves for love. They were being selfish and killing themselves to escape their own pain, which only supports the fact that they were irrational, immature, et cetera. It wasn’t necessarily true love, more something that made them happy at the time.

H – Yeah, but that’s how they killed themselves for love – they just loved the other person so much that they couldn’t live without them.

C- Or were they killing themselves because they knew that they were going to feel like crap for years afterwards because they lost this thing that matters to them so much? And socially, at the time, had it come out that Juliet had gone behind her parents back and married this guy from a feuding family, she would have been thrown out of her family and wound up a bagger on the streets or even a prostitute to just stay alive, if that even happened for long. When you compare that to dying immediately, it’s just a continuation 121 of them taking the easy way out. They got married as soon as they fell into lust – taking the easy way out.

D – This is a reflection of Shakespeare’s commentary on society.

C – So was he commenting on Italian society then?

F – Yup.

D- Here’s the question: is love class-ist because that is a question that comes up in Shakespeare? I think love is class-ist because that is how you are defined.

E- But love isn’t class-ist, people are class-ist.

D- But isn’t love a product of our existence? As a result, wouldn’t it then have to be a product of our class-ism?

C- Are you saying that different classes experience love differently?

D- No, but I feel like it’s confined to only certain classes.

C- Oh, so only certain classes are given the luxury of love as opposed to marriage or reproduction? That might have been true in Shakespeare’s time, but I wouldn’t say it’s true in American culture. Maybe in other cultures, but not here. Of course, we try to argue that we live in a classless society, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I – I agree with that. I mean, you have the opportunity to love anyone you want, but are you really going to ever be exposed to anyone but members of your own class? There just isn’t a real opportunity to share experiences with members of other classes, so there is no real opportunity to find love between the classes.

A- Only if you’re from Ohio. I’m from Chicago and I have plenty of interactions with all kinds of people.

E- I think overall thought, from what I know it sounds like you are right though. Schools and even extracurricular activities, maybe upper-middle class and middle class mingle together, but lower class and upper class are not going to be in the same groups anywhere. They are not in the same schools, they don’t play on the same sports teams, and they can’t relate to each other either. So class definitely plays a role in who you love. Whether or not it is the determining factor I don’t really know.

C- If you can only love the people that you meet, then are there soul mates? What if you never meet your soul mate?

F- It is statistically improbable! 122

I – Well soul mates are essentially the idea of predestination and if you don’t believe in predestination then you can’t really believe in soul mates. I don’t believe in predestination because I like to think that I have at least some control over my actions.

D- I think soul mates is a term that qualifies experience. We are so caught up in making comparisons and declaring that ‘this is my soul mate.’

H- I would have been interested in having some Indian students in this room. You know, to see what they have to say about all of this and all.

Moderator: I thought about doing that but I came to the realization that the audience I am writing to in this project is the average American, Hollywood raised individual. As a result of this, the brains that I really want to pick are the ones sitting in this room, to see whether or not there exists within our culture of patriotism and nationalism, this ability and openness to pursue different things. Like participant D talked about before where the foreign film acts as a mirror to our own culture. I want to see if there is a way for viewers that were raised with Hollywood, which is technically and visually the best cinema in the world, whether they could enjoy other cinemas. So I have kept you all here a very long time, and I thank you for everything that you have offered and done through this process. If there is nothing more to add, I bid you all a good night, and thank you again for helping me to graduate!

123

Table 8.1

Bollywood Hollywood

-Large sets -smaller sets, but not always -Casts of thousands -smaller casts, but not always -Singing and dancing -multiple genres -Escapism -Universal appeal – it is a pure -Colors cinema in that it is about the visuals -Movement which will talk to a wider audience. This is because Hollywood wants to -Bollywood is almost like a sell, wants to make as much money perfection of one of the genres as possible so it is made as broad which Hollywood has to offer – the and wide ranging (inclusionary) as musical. possible

-Sexual modesty -Sex sells

Table 8.2 All box office results are from Box Off ice Mojo (Gray, 2009):

Moulin Rouge! (2001) - $57.4 million domestic; $179.8 million worldwide

Chicago (2002) - $170.7 million domestic; $306.8 million worldwide

The Phantom of the Opera (2004) - $51.3 million domestic; $154.6 million worldwide

Enchanted (2007) - $127.8 million dom estic; $340.5 million worldwide

Sweeny Todd (2007) - $52.8 million do mestic; $152.5 million worldwide

High School Musical 3 (2008) - $90.6 m illion domestic; $250.6 million worldwide

Mamma Mia! (2008) - $144.1 million domestic; $597.9 million worldwide

Slumdog Millionaire (2009) – As of March 4, 2009: $117.7 million domestic; $214 million worldwide