When I
left the theatre after having seen “Macbeth” I was “violently happy” because
“they” had done it. They had made something happen which I felt had to happen,
and it was the first time for me that this happened with “Macbeth”. I know that
I cannot really BEGIN to read a Shakespeare text before it is played in a way I
like. And, as I explained in my last post, “Macbeth” is special for me – thence
the happiness. But the strange thing is: I didn’t really know WHAT had happened.
I knew why I loved it how Christopher Eccleston had played Macbeth, and set
this down right away. The most important thing about it was that I was certain
to have seen some CHANGE in Macbeth, saw him change in a way that CONVINCED me,
but I couldn’t lay my finger on it. It is rather a strange state of affairs
that I was so conscious that something relevant had happened but couldn’t say
what … And then there was this other strange impression that popped up: that I
had found Christopher Eccleston rather ARROGANT as an actor. It isn’t THAT
strange as such because there were definite reasons for it. I find it arrogant
when an actor doesn’t know his text (– though there might be a number of reasons
which have nothing to do with arrogance, like having had a shit day, or more
important things than Macbeth coming up. It couldn’t have been Manchester
United, but: was England playing in the World Cup …?). Maybe it was more about
the ending which appeared to me as if he had been allowed to choose for himself
how Macbeth should die – and decided to give himself his cue for dying. But, of
course, I can’t know anything about this either. And it doesn’t even matter if
I was right or wrong. The strange thing is that I MADE this judgment because it
is not at all the kind of judgment I WOULD make. Especially not about an actor
I like. This made me suspicious, and I thought there MIGHT be something in it
after all …
But
first about something completely different … apparently! As I was writing this,
I followed the final of the football World Cup between France and Croatia on
the radio. I completely hold back my judgement about the football because I
haven’t SEEN any of it, I was just curious as, some time into the World Cup,
when France began to appear as one of the winning teams, it began to bother me
how much I had been right about my impression that NOBODY (outside of France)
likes the French. To the point that, when Germany was out, and even though
England and Sweden – as nations I definitely like – were still in, I began to
develop a predilection for the French JUST BECAUSE this appeared so unfair. The
funny thing is that this has nothing to do with the football. It bothered me
that “we” still like the British so much – in spite of their damned “Brexit”
which just shows that they don’t have ANY respect for the other European
nations, and NEVER HAD! Whereas the French always “behaved” when it came to the
European Union – and what good has it done THEM! And it bothered me that you
just have to drop a French name in an international film to indicate that there
is something fishy. But, knowing my own inclination to disagree, I was STILL
suspicious if I wasn’t just blowing this up … Well, after hearing the
commentary on the final I can put my mind at rest about this. I really would
have liked to have it word for word because THIS was amazing! After having been
going on and on about the Croatians being the “dominant” team, the commentator
concluded that the Croatians had been the dominant team throughout, but the
French had COLDLY (!!!) exploited their chances … Well, you MIGHT think that actually
scoring THREE goals (the first having been an own goal) in a WORLD CUP FINAL
against these BRILLIANT Croations might have counted in their favour. At least
a little bit. And it isn’t “Holá les bleus!” you ignorant prick, but “Allez les
bleus!” - if you MUST say it. I say: VIVE LA FRANCE! (Now you can all go home and
drink champagne, and carry on making boring films which “everybody” thinks are
so special and speaking the most beautiful language in the world without being
bothered by the rest of it … And - even though you don’t care - I will always
love you!)
I am
still collecting evidence though it might not appear so …! But now I am closing
in by doing something I know I am not supposed to do. So, more apologies …!!!
And I feel the urge to state AGAIN that I have the highest respect for Christopher
Eccleston as an actor that I am able to have. It should be evident from my
initial “wonders and praises” – and from my statement about him being one of the
most accomplished method actors I know. I have been collecting his work on DVD
for about a year now - and am still doing it (just ordered “Fortitude”!) -
because I like it to be amazed EVERY TIME I see this fundamentally DIFFERENT
person emerge “from” the same actor. Nonetheless - though this might not appear
so - I don’t do reverence, and I was a bit relieved when I stumbled upon the
interview and was able to do what I will do now, sowing the seeds of doubt …
The
McLean interview begins with the “Doctor Who” disaster. Not so surprisingly
perhaps, it was when I finally watched “Doctor Who” that I “discovered” him,
and as I make it my business NOT to know anything about these actors(, they are
much too precious to me!) I was intrigued … and dismayed! I would have thought
that Christopher Eccleston had had one of these CAREERS that other actors might
envy – being constantly employed on playing these many substantial and
different characters I have seen him play by now. For him, apparently, it
didn’t feel like this for a long time:
“I’ve
got to the point where I believe I will work. But for the first 15, 20 years, I
saved. I saved because I thought: ‘This is all going to fall through. And when
it falls through, I want something to show for it.’”
Very
different dynamics from what I would have thought it had been like! And I WOULD
have thought that “Doctor Who” must have been a career boost. For my part, I
began to collect his work after having seen him as the Doctor – and couldn’t believe
what I had missed! For him it obviously had turned out very different. He left
the show of his own accord, and “the BBC” never forgave him.
“I gave
them a hit show, and they put me on a blacklist!”
Hmmm???
I must say, reading this statement, I am not THAT amazed that somebody
(important) might have thought he was ARROGANT … It reminded me of the “Doctor
Who” interview I had seen - as it is on
the “extras” for the DVD - where he didn’t strike me as arrogant. Just very
CONFIDENT – as he should be! - and kind
of matter of fact about it. He didn’t appear to think it so special that he had
been chosen to play the Doctor. I remember that he said that he liked it to
make something “for children”, which he had never done so far. HMMMM??? As to
myself, I never mind being one of the children, but there must be “Doctor Who”
nerds who are taking this very seriously. In fact, I don’t think that “we”
foreigners can even UNDERSTAND what “Doctor Who” means for the British. Christopher
Eccleston obviously had liked the show AS A CHILD but often preferred playing
outside to watching it. Not even SHOWING this eagerness to be part of “the
loop” might in fact APPEAR arrogant to a lot of people … (Thinking about it, I
am not surprised that I liked it.)
OF
COURSE his life’s ambition has never been to play the “Doctor”, nor “being a
whore” in blockbusters like “Thor”. (Sorry, his own words!) Instead he wanted on the RSC’s stage – to play
“Macbeth”. He played “Hamlet” (not with the RSC), but that appears more like a
necessary step he had to take on the way there. There is certainly nothing wrong
with great expectations – on the contrary! – but some people might bear a grudge
about how he came by it. That is, not working his ass off in supporting roles
over years and years, hoping there will be Macbeth for you, perchance … Well – same
as for Macbeth! – the secret of being successful is probably to STOP DREAMING!
But there will be people grinning behind his back because he forgot his text,
and because “Macbeth” probably didn’t turn out as the hit show it was intended
to be …
Christopher
Eccleston’s commentary: “I am reasonably secure in my career, and if this
finishes me as a theatre actor …”
Defiance
as arrogance or self-defence? Personally, I believe it is the latter. Even
though this interview appears extremely candid I will never know how achieving this
great goal - which he curbs with: “I
needed to stretch my legs a bit”(!) - turned out for him. It probably was too
early to tell. (As for myself, I hope fervently that it will NOT finish him as
a theatre – and “Shakespeare” – actor! TIME will show …) He said that he REALLY
didn’t read the reviews this time “because it doesn’t matter”. (He is right
there, even if he is STILL lying about it. It DOESN’T matter because now we
have Twitter!!!)
Of
course, Christopher Eccleston would never think of himself as arrogant. Nobody
thinks of themselves as arrogant anyway. (I know everything about this as I
know that most people don’t like me because they think I am arrogant. Well, MEANWHILE
they might be right about this. I don’t even PRETEND to be interested in their small
talk having realized that I haven’t got TIME for it. In the past, I was just
scared – I don’t even REMEMBER of what … Shakespeare, by the way, knew about
the danger: “I have almost forgot the taste of fears …”!) What is more
important is that Gareth McLean, who strikes me as a good judge of people,
doesn’t think so. Anyway - somebody who knows himself so well isn’t likely to
be arrogant.
“I think
when you are working at your best you are constantly humble.”
This is
a very PRECISE statement – which I know I cannot comprehend completely because
I lack the experience. (I am probably rather arrogant – or, in my opinion:
confident??? – when I am reading … which, even though nobody will understand
this, I consider to be WORK. At least when, like right now, it appears to
consume the rest of my life. Method acting and “method reading”, as I already
observed, have some things in common. :-) ) Nonetheless it is my favourite kind of
humbleness – which actually includes a lot of confidence. In his line of work –
as, in fact, every line of work where the product will fall through when it is
not calculated exactly – overconfidence or misjudgment must prove deadly.
By the
way, I don’t have to apologize about “analyzing” Christopher Eccleston. He
obviously did a great job doing it himself. I suppose it is part of his work.
Of WHY he is so good.
When I found
the interview, being at work, I just took a quick look at it and was intrigued
… then I pushed it to the back because there was all this other stuff that had
happened when I saw “Macbeth” and which I had to deal with. When I picked it up
again I became more intrigued – about the NUMBER of issues that are in the
interview which have also been in MY reading of “Macbeth”. And I had to put it
away again because it became too much to digest. To say that I was dismayed …
ARROGANCE
was an issue I didn’t pick from the interview in the first place. I am glad to
have my notes still where I set down my surprise at finding Christopher Eccleston
arrogant “as an actor” BEFORE I read the interview. But there is the statement
on “humbleness” by Christopher Eccleston himself, and that he considers
“self-hatred” to be a “form of arrogance”. I was intrigued by this because of
what I had seen on the stage and began to read between the lines … ARROGANCE OR
CONFIDENCE: naturally, having a career that others might envy and which has
taken you “everywhere” – even on the RSC’s stage! – it becomes more difficult
to tell them apart!
Of
course I was dismayed about “Doctor Who”. It is something I cannot really
comprehend: that the BBC can afford to cast off “arrogant” actors when they are
such assets as Christopher Eccleston, but I see that they CAN because we see it
time and time again. It is probably not something that all these great actors
really want to do – “being the whore” for Disney. They’d all rather play
substantial characters in great BBC adaptations of Dickens and Austen (– if the
money was right!?) Or, of course, be on the RSC’s stage. But they are “all” doing
it at the moment because there are so MANY great British actors that not even
the BBC can keep them in work, which already is on the next generation of interesting
talents and faces that haven’t been used while the generation they have already
“used up” are hanged out to dry. Maybe THIS was when I finally understood how
important it is to “take the jump”, and that it is probably just part of the
REALITY of these careers … The point about “Macbeth” here: Great careers
usually turn out different from what “we” might have imagined.
As I
have written in my last post, MY “update” of “Macbeth” has been to make it
about what happens when you actually have this great career you have always
dreamt of … Even though I have probably buried ALL the dreams I have ever had
(and THEN found happiness!), and have had no career WHATSOEVER, it appears to
be something that intrigues me – in a not entirely pleasant way. Probably
because it is this great CONTEMPORARY tale of what happens to our dreams and
hopes when we actually achieve them. Of course, about other people – and great
actors! – I always HOPE that it will not turn out “in this way” …
Reading
between the lines of the interview, I can almost smell the FEAR. Though, of
course, it is other people who smell of “shit and fear”. But there are a lot of
fears IMPLIED in Christopher Eccleston’s reading of his own PAST experience and
career, even though he doesn’t use the word. We won’t acknowledge our own feet
of clay. I DON’T! - There was also SELF-HATRED – which he has put to bed
because it is “a waste of everybody’s time”. But this sounds as if it had been
a major issue. It wasn’t too obvious when he played Macbeth, though, and I
think this was a good choice. Shakespeare is so right about this: We DO forget.
About Macbeth I always felt that he might have WANTED to forget what these
great exploits on the battlefield REALLY had been like – finally having climbed
up to a “desk job”. Anyway, he cannot SHOW fear – it is the last thing he would
do, and he cannot even TOUCH self-hatred. I always found it such a great
analysis of Shakespeare about what we DO when what shouldn’t have happened HAS
happened: “Things without remedy should be without regard. What’s done is
done.” Right! We just DEAL with it.
I wasn’t
wrong, obviously, reading a lot of “contemporary” fears and issues into
Macbeth. … As being INSECURE about his masculinity. “As I AM: As most men, I
hope, are” (!!!??? Just SOMETIMES I find that there is a real benefit in being
a woman!) Of course, when Christopher Eccleston is speaking about Macbeth, he
nails it. It IS insecurity about his masculinity, and the way his wife knows
and uses this, what finally takes his choice away. Makes him do the deed even
though he knows better. And I have also seen Macbeth as this “packhorse in the
wars” (as Richard III sees himself), somebody who is “FANTASTIC at his job” (Christopher
Eccleston, he actually uses this word !!!) “He lays his life on the line, and
then he sees a chinless, milky blue-blood become King of Scotland”. I couldn’t
agree more – though the real-life experience that Christopher Eccleston
attaches to it is missing. There IS some
danger that “we” might STILL sympathize with Macbeth, during his “very SOLITARY
journey into depravity” (again: just NAILS it!), because we UNDERSTAND him. It
is a pity that I didn’t get round to writing my post about “To be and not to
be” – which I actually WILL do when I have tackled “Macbeth”. I observed that
the state of mind behind these lines is not usually available to “us” – or
certainly not to people who are just having their great career as actors. (A
bit of self-hatred might help, though …). Christopher Eccleston said that he
didn’t feel close to Hamlet whereas he ALWAYS wanted to play Macbeth. The
“secret” about Macbeth – the reason why it is such a favourite play, and, as
Claudia and I agreed, appears so easily accessible – might be that even people
like me – who aren’t male or have worked their way up into a career – know what
he is about. It is the reason why it was such a good choice, in my opinion, to
focus on Macbeth and marginalize the “bloody deed” even though there WAS
“collateral damage”. And this familiarity was probably the reason why
Christopher Eccleston’s Macbeth felt so “genuine” – but I wouldn’t know that.
It was certainly interesting and helpful to see that he was preoccupied with
these issues - which I myself find in Macbeth - when he played it. But still this
is not the point. The point is WHAT HAPPENS on the stage.
(DEEEEP
BREATH!!!)
And now
about something completely different … as it might appear. It is time for the
one-million-pound question: Why do we dislike the French? Shouldn’t be too
difficult to answer after this … We don’t dislike them because they play bad
football and win, or because they are self-serving pricks or criminals – all
this could easily be disproved. But we can always feel free to dislike them
because they are ARROGANT. As I have attempted to prove, arrogance is a quality
that lies more in the eye of the beholder than the person we “behold”. And THIS
can make it a real asset when it comes to the stage … (To be continued …)
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen