The Globe Theatre’s efforts to introduce teenagers to Shakespeare have gone drastically wrong. At first sight this seems an ingenious plan to broaden the minds of youths with historical literature and increase their academic capacities whilst keeping them off the streets. However, it appears a crucial oversight has been made. The play is centred around enduring family feuds and stabbing is a recurring event within the plot. In Elizabethan Britain, scenes of stabbing would have instilled shock in the audience, while in the UK today knife crime is no rarity. Actors staging events teenagers see and hear about on modern streets are communicating their acceptance of such crimes with the audience. Furthermore, it could be argued that the play itself with is extravagant setting in Verona and involvement of two wealthy families provides circumstances to which young teens may aspire.

Critics of the current Romeo and Juliet production have ignored the play’s severely tragic ending. If the events had resulted in a positive conclusion there could perhaps be some weight attributed to claims that stabbing is glamourised in the sense that it provides a means to an end. It seems illogical to suggest knife crime is promoted as its use in the play only causes further trauma. Additionally, it is tenuous to relate today’s stabbings with those intended for an Elizabethan audience; if this were the case surely the prevalence of knife crimes in Britain would have begun centuries ago. Boris Johnson argued those responsible for stabbings should be portrayed as moronic rather than glamourous, though he fails to notice Mercutio’s role as a comic foil within the play. (2) (2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/15/knifecrime.justice

Observational learning is of particular significance in childhood as we look to figures of authority for guidance on how to behave. This may be the case for many of the teenagers watching actors wielding knives to defend their relatives and uphold family values. Such conduct may be respected for its motives and successful outcome of putting an end to the particular dispute by killing the opponent. Evidence for such a theory derives from studies in which children that played violent video games or watched violent scenes on television were found to exhibit similar behaviour. (3) If we accept this view, it seems reasonable to identify a link between current knife crime and what is being portrayed in the theatre.

(3) http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm

While social learning theory can encourage certain conduct, it can also discourage it. Surely by witnessing the negative consequences which ensue after the three stabbings, the modern audience will lack the motivation to commit knife crimes. It is no defence to argue that rising statistics would be absent if we were unaware of the possible option of resorting to knife crime; the play has hardly introduced a new method of attack. Furthermore, if the adaptation of a Shakespearian play causes teenagers to react violently, the same could be said of crime documentaries such as CSI and Crimewatch which also provide visual scenes of similar actions.

While it may be the case that Shakespearian plays are far less popular with today’s minors than for previous generations, the argument that crime is being glamourised and thus promoted need not be so specific. Films such as Kidulthood and the earlier Quadrophenia depict teenagers engaging in all varieties of immoral and criminal conduct and are far more likely to attract teenage attention. (5) However, it cannot be said that these portrayals of fictional events persuade viewers to indulge in similar pursuits. Moreover, if a theatre production has such an effect, what were the consequences of Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation? (5) http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article736252.ece

Teenagers on average have a notorious aversion to Shakespeare; it doesn’t follow that they would look to one of his plays for inspiration governing behaviour. Nevertheless, the play concerned was intended as a modern adaptation to provide ‘an honest reflection of what the 14-year-old audience may be experiencing’. (4) Crucially though, the scenes involving knives remain in the play with the object of promoting awareness that knife crime affects numerous London teenagers. Consequent knife crime instilled by a viewing of Romeo and Juliet remains highly unlikely (4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/4592467/Romeo-and-Juliet-production-sparks-fears-over-knife-crime.html.

Boris Johnson’s opinion was stated last year; it is no coincidence that parallels have been drawn between Romeo and Juliet and rising knife crime on two occasions. Rather than attributing blame to escape the spotlight of accountability, it is clear that notions of culpability are being channelled in a single direction. Furthermore, the director himself consulted the police as he feared the play glamourised knife crime, confirming the connection.

It appears Boris Johnson’s zero tolerance policy on knife crime is failing. Nevertheless, it was he who commented ‘this is not the death of Mercutio taking place on the streets of London’, when attributing the cause of knife crime to glamour surrounding gangs. (6) It seems plausible that he is trying to shift the focus of responsibility away from himself so as to protect his reputation, whether accusing the Shakespearean adaption of glamourising stabbing or the attitude of gangs in general. The UK’s blame culture requires someone to be held responsible for the various evils within society; if the theatrical adaption could be deemed culpable, the problem appears easier to solve. (6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/4592467/Romeo-and-Juliet-production-sparks-fears-over-knife-crime.html

We are concerned here with knife crime alone; not prostitution nor any other immoral activity. Romeo and Juliet has been identified as a potential source of motivation for the stabbings that occur on London streets; it is irrelevant that it is classified as entertainment. The issue of suicide differs hugely from acts of stabbing; knife crime can be part of a lifestyle while suicide clearly lacks the same capacity. It seems unlikely an audience could be provoked to take their lives by seeing similar conduct on stage; in contrast, carrying a knife could be viewed as a simple accessory.

If actors, directors and playwrights are responsible for promoting knife crime, we must question the effects of numerous sources of entertainment. Songs containing explicit lyrics, films displaying unsightly activities and plays exhibiting violent scenes must all be carefully vetted. To say that Romeo and Juliet glamourises knife crime is to say that Moulin Rouge glamourises prostitution. While both perceptions may be true to an extent, there is nothing to suggest viewers will consequently aim to replicate their observations. If we accept that stabbing is encouraged by the play, we must then consider whether suicide is also promoted, as Juliet’s death is a major concluding scene. If such a stance is taken, all forms of entertainment must display only positive behaviour, causing naivety to wrongs of which all should be aware.

While many activities are banned because of the resulting health and safety threats, the extent of the UK’s knife culture falls into a significantly higher-risk category. When school trips are banned owing to pupils’ deaths, there is no question of doubt over the decision. Knife crime has demonstrated its tendency to end in death; it has proved a fatal activity to participate in. On these grounds it seems any event which may trigger involvement in knife crime must surely be dismissed.

While teenagers in modern society have access to a wealth of opportunities, they are also restricted to some extent by rules of health and safety, often in relation to sport played in schools. As a result, it is no surprise that children are being labelled obese. By assigning the blame for knife crime to Romeo and Juliet, teenagers will be further prohibited from educational entertainment; perhaps they will even be discouraged from Shakespeare altogether. If teenagers are turned away from the theatre, it is probable they will indulge in less intellectual pursuits. We are sacrificing their potential capacity by drawing tenuous links hinting at danger.