Kill Them All!: **** for splatter “Duchess”

The fourth production I saw would have been next in line for a review because it is thematically and aesthetically linked to “Oedipus”, being a more imaginative contemporary re-write of another Sophocles tragedy: “The Other Place” at the National Theatre, with great Pub food on the South Bank opposite St. Paul’s beforehand and G&T at the bar afterwards: perfect evening!

 

(So, we already knew the 21st century version of Antigone before all that other shit happened to her. As was to be expected, she only got “worse”!)

 

In principle, I found this “Antigone” rewrite much more convincing than “Oedipus”, and they succeeded in making me enter the “other place” I totally refuse to enter in real life: the place of perpetual despair one only leaves through the back door (= suicide). It was a long walk, much longer than the one and a half hours it actually took, but in the end I came to understand the obnoxious Antigone who refuses to lead a pointless, shallow life by “getting over” the past and who doesn’t tolerate the rest of the family living a lie. Even though – apart from the grieving - this is an existential theme for me as well, I won’t write anything more about it. Sometimes there isn’t that much to report BECAUSE it was so convincing. So, another **** experience – like the one I will be writing about instead: “The Duchess of Malfi” at the Trafalgar Theatre with Jodie Whitaker in the leading role (and a stellar cast at her side.)

 

Watching the contemporary version of this rather weird play was a hoot. (We were in the front row, and therefore my second greatest “live on the stage” experience, in retrospect, was actually Jodie Whitaker, but there is not much to tell. She was totally present and perfect and beautiful – the way only great actors can be beautiful because every last bit of them – down to their big toe! – makes sense. This effect seems to be enhanced by the stage, as if they are STILL a bit bigger than I remember them.) I left the theatre very well satisfied but totally devoid of feelings or any thoughts about what might be the point of taking this play to the stage one more time. Two hours later, when I got back to my hotel room, it suddenly all “came together”, and I realized that I had had a singular experience of the kind I could ONLY have in the theatre and wasn’t aware I WANTED to have in the first place.

 

(**** for the EXPERIENCE, as the production had a few minor flaws – like the music which was rather unprofessional. But I totally appreciated their knowing exactly what they were doing AND kind of letting it get out of hand!)

 

I usually never read the reviews before seeing something because I like to be surprised, but this time Claudia sent me a few links. They were all bad. After having seen it, we were asking ourselves if the critics had seen the same production because it had been so obvious and straightforward what they wanted to achieve, and it totally worked. It might not make everybody feel good, though, but no critic ever talks about their feelings. Or morality, for that matter, and this might be a bit of a problem in this case because the play is a revenge tragedy – which means that it is about REVENGE. And revenge – though strictly speaking morally incorrect – is all about FEELINGS, like fear and distress, and basic instincts - all these emotions we were so well taught NOT to have or to suppress. The whole point of this production, in my opinion, was to finally take the revenge in “revenge tragedy” seriously.

 

An important clue to understanding what had happened with me and my feelings was Claudia mentioning that “Hamlet” is also a “revenge tragedy”. It reinforced my recurring impression that “Hamlet” is the most overrated play ever written because it is a bit of everything, so that everybody can make of it what THEY like. So, among other things, it is a mediocre revenge tragedy, whereas “The Duchess” is a really good one. No more and no less. - Everybody who knows the first thing about revenge – and, frankly, I think that everybody does! – knows that it is NOT a dish best eaten cold. It is best consumed scalding hot, preferably within hours after the irreparable injustice has been done. In this case it might actually be therapeutic. In “Hamlet” it happens right at the end when everybody has long gone to sleep or got entangled in another storyline, so that nobody still cares about the old codger having been murdered – IF they ever did!

 

“The Duchess” focuses on the revenge – which is totally justified and even necessary because the extent of male dominance and unrestrained abuse of power doesn’t ALLOW a better solution. And only small adjustments had to be made to make this feel totally contemporary! “Kill them all” is in fact a Tarantinoesque solution, and not very subtle, but who says that Tarantino isn’t right about SOMETHING? “Inglorious Bastards” is in fact one of about three films about the Third Reich I ever watched, and I totally loved it because of the “happy” ending! And I am certain that billions of people had exactly the same thought I had when this idiot failed to kill Trump, even though they’d never admit it. It is a bit hard to face it – probably because “we” (= the female and the “good” part of the population) are still losing - that, for centuries, we are fighting a battle against a dominant minority who’s only excuse for supremacy is that they have a bit MISSING!

 

So there was little subtlety – or intellectual challenge – but, in the end, it was exactly what a tragedy is supposed to be: CATHARTIC. (Of course I am in a privileged position for watching in this case, and I’d have loved to have the take of a MAN after seeing it … wouldn’t have been much use, presumably, because they never talk about their feelings!)

 

There WAS a bit of subtlety at the end – and hope! – because the life of the remaining child gets entrusted to the killer Bosola who is correctly identified by the women as the only male still standing who has a thread of humanity left. But, basically, REVENGE!!! If you want it but are a bit squeamish about blood or actually pulling a trigger, there is a smarter solution. Just put all these men together in a room and give them a gun. Be assured: they’ll sort themselves out!

 

The truth about the truth: **** for relevant “Oedipus” update

My second London theatre event took place on October the 30th at the Wyndham Theatre, in the most uncomfortable seat I have ever sat in for such a length of time. Mercifully, like “Macbeth”, it was a concise affair, a slimmed down contemporary run through of the old myth. Oedipus, a charismatic politician, is waiting for the election results in the bosom of his perfect family, but his own eagerness to discover the truth about his past turns out to be his undoing … Sounds like a smashing idea!

 

Unexpectedly – and here I come to the missing star, or rather the one star more than it actually deserved! – it didn’t really work. In this case, my rating is less fair and more subjective than the one for “Macbeth” because the production as such was mediocre, but it will be explained!

 

The promise of a complete contemporary rewrite reminded me of the superb “Phaedra” with Janet McTeer, but it didn’t come close. There was nothing wrong with the idea, on the contrary, and some of the sub-plot was great too – like the unhappy teenage Antigone with whom the gleaming image sits uncomfortably. But apart from the main protagonists, Oedipus and Jocasta, there wasn’t really a reason for most of these people to be there. That Oedipus and Jocasta turned out much more convincing was mostly due to the actors. This time I had been looking forward to seeing TWO of my favourites live on the stage for the first time: Mark Strong and Leslie Manville. Leslie Manville I have seen on NTatHome a few times – she is very busy on the stage. She was as great as she always is, but not really a surprise. Mark Strong I have only seen in “A View from the Bridge” which was praised – I think he even got an Olivier award for that! – but I didn’t find it that special. Seeing him live on the stage, though, blew me away.

 

Talking with my friend later, we agreed that it is really difficult to make this play work as what it is – apart from this exemplary tragedy: a great thriller where the dreaded revelation should be ANTICIPATED all the time but not already known. As it is, everybody knows everything about Oedipus’ past, which makes it really difficult to tell his story in an interesting way. Nonetheless it should be possible. A more imaginative rewrite would have drawn us in notwithstanding, fascinated by the PROCESS of the truth being revealed and fearful for the characters facing the subsequent horrors. This kind of thing happened only once to me - when I saw these teenage boys sitting at the table, knowing that, very soon, they would have to realize that their father is also their brother and their mother also their grandmother. Felt like the world being turned upside down … but it was just a glimpse of what could be done with this play.

 

There is basically one reason why the update worked in the end. Mark Strong. I already had him down as an actor with an uncanny understanding of extreme characters and predicaments, still he surprised me. As I wasn’t exactly spellbound by the action most of time, I observed myself watching, and that was interesting. I just love Leslie Manville. She is one of these actors, like Toby Jones, I just cannot look away from because they are such a joy to watch. There is so much variety in what they are doing, so many different little things going on ALL AT THE SAME TIME. So, even when they were both on the stage, I was looking at Leslie Manville, that is, I had consciously to look away from her and look at Mark Strong. This irked me a bit but not much because I noticed that I didn’t miss anything when I wasn’t looking at him. He was still PRESENT and kind of radiating meaning, even when he wasn’t doing anything. There was only one other time I remember something like this happening: in the spectacular production of “No Man’s Land” with Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, where Ian McKellen is talking all the time and Patrick Stewart is sitting in his chair, just watching him, expressing his absolute disgust with this human being without saying a word or moving a muscle of his face. I have been lucky to be able to stream it recently, years after seeing it in the Cinema, because I didn’t remember how incredibly good Ian McKellen was in this. I think that is actually the best, most nuanced and humane, performance I have ever seen of him – even better than his great Lear. Still, I only remembered Patrick Stewart, the one actor I thought could actually play a chair and I would want to watch him for two hours. Now there are two.

 

(I just devised the shortest play ever, named “Chairs”. No dialogue, just Patrick Stewart and Mark Strong sitting in chairs and staring at each other. More of a performance, though, as I reckon after about ten minutes they’d spontaneously combust or something because of the energy they’d create.)

 

So, even though I wasn’t always watching, I had this crystal-clear notion, almost from the beginning, what is wrong with Oedipus – even though there is nothing wrong with him. (See below!) Afterwards, thinking about this extraordinary effect his acting had on me - more than once but never like this – I explained it by the observation that, even though he is physically so recognizable - GREAT body, by the way! – there is virtually no trace of the human being Mark Strong left in the characters he is playing. It appears to me that most actors use personal content – physical or emotional expressions, personal experience and so on – very successfully to “build” their characters. (Successfully because these bits, getting into a different context, are totally transformed and instrumentalized. I even like these recognizable bits, most of the time, but with actors I favour I am always looking forward to seeing them play a character that is totally “unlike them”.) Mark Strong is the only actor I know who doesn’t seem to do that, to a point that it is inexplicable to me. And the effect of this superhuman clearness seemed enhanced on the stage. Other actors, like Leslie Manville, always seem to be their own (great) size. (Being so tall probably helps? I didn’t even NOTICE before that he is tall!)

 

So, this “Oedipus” looks like the Mark Strong show? In retrospect, it certainly was. This should have been a weakness of the production, but it wasn’t really, which explains the four star experience. The reason is that the existential bit in “Oedipus” – the experience I was so pleased to have, and the truth I would have wanted so much NOT to learn – is located in the lead character and was transmitted by the actor with maximum impact. Oedipus really is one of the good guys, a politician after our own heart, somebody who cares. In particular about the truth. So much in fact that – against the advice of his experienced campaign manager! – he persists on looking into his own past. So perfect, charismatic, attractive … though maybe a bit naïve and self-centred? There certainly are these little warning “blips” at the back of our minds almost from the beginning. Nonetheless, he is “like us” – or rather as we would WANT to see us. Of course we are always telling the truth – the people that are lying twice (or 200 times, statistics differ!) in 24 hours are certainly not us! OF COURSE we want to know the truth, no matter what. We are even actively searching for the truth, about the world, about our own lives … At least I am.

 

Actually, it’s a strange thing about the truth because I was kind of aware that I was kidding myself. It was this well-known Greek tragedy, though, and Mark Strong’s Oedipus, that enabled me to nail THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TRUTH once and for all. When Oedipus is looking for the truth, he is looking for something he already knows (= that there is nothing fishy about his descent!), something he will be able to control when he knows the specifics. Something that will make the doubts and the threat to his career go away. What he will find is exactly the opposite. And sharing his own belief that he is such a great guy makes it easier for “us” to see that we are exactly the same: good people who consider the truth to be important and living a lie not sustainable. What we are actually doing, though, when we are looking for the truth, is to look for the facts that fit our own world view and how we see ourselves. Never – not ever! – are we looking for the facts that threaten our beliefs!

 

Don’t get me wrong: looking for the “truth” is an important activity which should be more wide-spread than it actually is. It makes us review and affirm our values and beliefs and act good and productively on an everyday scale. But, at least occasionally, we should listen to the annoying teenagers, like Antigone, whose brains are still flexible enough and whose beliefs not settled enough to spot the chinks in the perfect surface. We should be AWARE that what we are looking for, important as it may be, IS NOT THE TRUTH.

 

The truth - and there I was thrilled to find how close we still are to the ancient Greeks! – is what we cannot know, what we don’t want to know. What would destroy us, if we knew it. Globally, I am kind of aware of the threats – or like to believe so! - but please, spare me the details! Do we really want to KNOW if it will be one and a half degrees until the end of the century, or two and half, or even more …? And what FATE dealt us – the things we don’t know about our past, or have conveniently forgotten? What really awaits us in the future? What our end will be …

 

THE TRUTH? PLEASE, SPARE ME!!!

The Time is Free: ***** for breakthrough “Macbeth”

For once I had been completely sure that my blog was finally dead, but the 2024 theatre season in London revived it – and me. I practically feel compelled to write reviews for at least three of the four productions I have seen.

 

The first one on the 28th of October after we arrived for four days of theatre, too many books at Foyles, sensational food, and a tour of Roman Londinium. On the first evening we walked from the St Giles Hotel to the Harold Pinter Theatre – which location I was quite astonished to have remembered correctly, probably because I had had such a great experience there already, seeing “Uncle Vanya” with Toby Jones and Richard Armitage “before Covid”.

 

Even though it had been hyped, my expectations hadn’t been that high, apart from being thrilled about finally seeing David Tennant live on the stage. His Macbeth was indeed the immediate reason for the five stars because this time what I thought could never happen, happened: I finally felt as if I was seeing ALL of Macbeth – in the same way I saw all of Lady Macbeth when Indira Varma played her – even though it was not literally true. Actually, the whole play got off a bit slow, and many of the great psychological moments pre-assassination were kind of left out. Nonetheless it felt complete and perfect and entirely satisfying. Some, very few, actors are just able to do that with Shakespeare. The flipside is that I don’t really remember anything about his performance apart from “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow …” which was genuinely shattering. And that OF COURSE – even though PTSD appears to have been an issue - his MACBETH DOESN’T GO MAD! (“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow …” was the ultimate proof why this is such a rubbish idea. We need him to appear sane when he says it.) As I am so dissatisfied with my recollection in detail, I just WANT TO SEE THIS AGAIN! It’s very likely, though, that I’ll get a chance in the cinema – where it will probably turn out quite different. And after that almost certainly streaming on NTatHome. (Indira Varma is now streaming!) It really was this once in a lifetime event.

 

Strangely, I remember Cush Jumbo’s Lady Macbeth better, even though she felt a bit underwhelming in comparison – and with Indira Varma in mind. I think that is because I kept asking myself what she was doing, whereas in David Tennant’s case that was just obvious. In retrospect, I think that she did great, doing the right things at the right time with great precision and a minimum of “fuzz”. In her case I also wish my recollection to be more complete, but I noticed a few significant moments which I put to mind. On the whole, she took most of the responsibility for making the Macbeths appear as a couple, in her own words by showing the soft side of Lady Macbeth – which came through not really loud but certainly clear enough.

 

Both their efforts, though, might have fallen on barren ground, hadn’t the whole concept and execution of the production been so successful. Strictly speaking, the production would only have gotten four stars from me because it started out a bit weak. This weakness, though, was more than compensated by the outcome: For the first time, “Macbeth” didn’t feel anti-climactic. And I think this was not quite unintended because loosing most of the psychological “ballast” leading to the murder made it kind of run smoothly towards the end. The remake of my own “Macbeth” – and the failure of the DocX production - recently made me even more aware of how crucial timing is for this play – which entails making decisions and dropping stuff! - and they addressed this issue utterly successfully. I put this down as the main reason that the shortest production of “Macbeth” I have ever seen felt like the most complete, probably because I didn’t “drop out” way before the end. They really made me see this play with new eyes, and, even more so, HEAR it with new ears. It is very fitting that one of the most interesting quotes I picked up from Shakespeare about theatre then and now is from “Macbeth”: the one about the actor who “struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is HEARD no more.” Theatre at the time was at least as much heard as seen, and the Webster team took this up on an entirely new level. It was an utterly innovative and technically extremely complex thing they did there, and it totally worked. (More below.) The effect of finally not losing my thread in “Macbeth” was, in short, that I arrived at my favourite quote right at the end – which I didn’t even know was my favourite quote! – finally understanding why I liked it so much and what it means:

 

THE TIME IS FREE.

 

It is about this absolute best moment in history where the slate is wiped clean and there is a chance to make a new start.

 

I bought Max Webster’s edition of the play in the National Theatre’s bookshop, and I am glad I did, even though I will never look at the text. (The mutilations the text suffered because of the fear that people don’t understand Shakespeare anymore were the worst I have had to endure so far. In my opinion, this is a misconception. One always understands Shakespeare ON THE STAGE, even though one doesn’t understand every word. On the other hand, I am probably not “people” when it comes to “Macbeth”…) But I did read the interviews and rehearsal diary, and this was extremely helpful, way beyond a better understanding of how this production worked technically. There is also a lot about PTSD and child loss, which, in my opinion, is irrelevant and misleading when it comes to understanding the play but may be vital for the actors to make their characters feel contemporary. Fortunately, there weren’t any traces of it left on the stage. The reason why reading the interviews turned out crucial for me was actually the first thing Max Webster wrote about what the play means for him – not even in his own words but quoting the psychologist James Hillman. And what he writes here is EXACTLY what the play means for me and what I had tried to explain to myself unsuccessfully over – as it feels – hundreds and hundreds of pages of writing:

 

"Suppose we entertain the idea that the world is in extremis, suffering an acute, and perhaps fatal, disorder at the edge of extinction. Then I would claim that what the world needs right now is radical and original extremes of feeling and thinking in order for its crisis to be met WITH EQUAL INTENSITY."

 

Presently, I am totally at a loss about what “the world” needs, but this is exactly WHAT I NEED. I don’t know where this absolute urge comes from to know the truth at any cost, and – more ambitiously but also more importantly – kind of formulate an ADEQUATE EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. And why I can only satisfy this urge in a fictional context. To see the state of our world reflected through the media only crushes me. It is certainly important for me to know what is happening, but emotionally it just kills me and makes me unable to be me and to respond. There are so many things I LOVE about the theatre, but there is exactly one thing I NEED, and it’s THIS. And I am gratified and impressed beyond words that somebody had the same intuition about what to do with this play and was able to make it work.

 

Therefore: five stars, no matter what!

 

That was the general praise, now to the amazing details:

 

REMEMBER THE PORTER!

 

Even though I would never have thought of losing it, the porter’s monologue has always appeared to me to be one of the least important bits of the play on a contemporary stage. Nonetheless there was this sentence at the end that got stuck like a pin at the back of my mind because of the blatant, yet not understood, ambiguity. I only saw this done once, but I always felt that it should be spoken to the audience: “I pray you, remember the porter!”

 

In this production, they made sure we would because, to my utter surprise, they inserted a disproportionately long porter’s scene into this concise, fast and consistent presentation of the play that totally broke it aesthetically, with the text completely rewritten, leaving out all the sexual bits that only make for cheap laughs, and instead making the porter – literally! - crash through the fourth wall, engage annoyingly with the audience and make us aware that we already knew who this “other devil” is. That is an amazing example how context changes – currently we have a choice between Trump and Putin - and that it is still totally possible to do what Elizabethan actors must have done. More than possible, you have to rewrite these scenes, if you want them to work as they did at the time. (Shakespeare gave us a clear indication, by the way, by writing most of the bits in verse = these are the bits you DON’T change under any circumstance!!! (or only if you have a really good reason to), and some in prose = these are the bits you are very welcome to change, or HAVE TO change, as in this case.) And this is the reason why the porter’s scene is the first specific bit I wanted to praise. In fact, I have thought a lot about this scene and noticed a lot of important input Shakespeare has written into it, but had no idea how to realize this on the stage. In this case, the scene was not just a provocative or entertaining interruption, it became a pivotal point in the play where the audience’s own context got activated and with it OUR OWN fears, frustrations and anger. From this point on, “we” are in the boat, and the journey through chaos and disaster becomes our own, so that we may genuinely FEEL it when, at the end, the time is free again. I am now absolutely certain that this is the effect the scene was meant to achieve, and I have NEVER before seen it used in this way.

 

TIMELESS SCOTTISHNESS AND CLEAR CONTRASTS

 

Of course, before doing what I just did, I should have described the production aesthetically, which I will attempt now.

 

The stage set was just a raised empty stage with a glass screen at the back behind which the actors and musicians – in full view! – performed text and sounds which were brought to the audience directly over the earphones, whereas the action went on in front, with the actors also being plugged in. (I had been sceptical about this, just because I couldn’t imagine it. The effect was amazing!) There was virtually no contrast in the lighting or scene, just a dark background, and the costumes of the actors were uniformly charcoal kilts, black boots, grey knitted jumpers and beautiful silver swords. This extreme simplicity induced a total sense of timelessness and concentration on what is going on, and the few exceptions instantly took on meaning. In my recollection there were exactly three: The porter’s scene, with daylight lighting, the realistic effect of which I described above. The contrast of light breaking through the glass screen at the end when the time is free again. Great contrast because one becomes aware only THEN that it had been dark all the time! And Lady Macbeth’s milky white dress which – though, theoretically, it might have been solely an aesthetic choice - immediately took on meaning. (Especially with the traditional green dress in mind! Just one small detail of many where I noticed that decades of (mis)understanding “Macbeth” went into this production and clear decisions were made as a result.)

 

I also totally approved of the TIMELESSNESS – which I had recently discarded in favour of a strictly contemporary production. But it’s just the ideal way not to create unnecessary technical problems and keep things simple where they already are complex. There is so much less risk of taking semantic ballast on board that one doesn’t want. Utmost simplicity, clear contrasts, clear message – perfect!

 

The only context that was introduced very decisively but also very cleverly was the SCOTTISHNESS, immediately realized through the costumes and the music. The complete cast was Scottish as well, apart from Lady Macbeth, which apparently also was intended, though, in my opinion, rather unnecessary. (Nonetheless, the more I think about it, the more I like the feeling of Lady Macbeth standing out like a sore thumb because this character has been a challenge from the beginning and still is, whereas Macbeth works great just as the average male. In my opinion, every production has to rise to this challenge, and very few I saw did.) I realized that I totally approved of the Scottishness, if it is done in this TIMELESS way. More than approved, as I recently discovered “Macbeth” as a “history”. I just dreaded realistic kilts and historic folklore. And when only some of the actors have a Scottish accent, this totally breaks the illusion.

 

INSTRUMENTS OF DARKNESS The greatest single aesthetical achievement, though, that was at the same time totally semantic, was the way the supernatural world was presented exclusively through what we hear. I can’t go into details here because there is so much of it, but I was really, really thrilled about the weird sisters. I could never have imagined that “only” hearing them would make them so much more real, believable, and influential. Having them injected directly into the brain, one doesn’t even ask anymore who they might be and what they might be on about. It’s just obvious.

 

And even though this is almost impossible, I was more gratified still that all these spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, all the bloody and invisible hands and multiple instruments of darkness that Shakespeare took such pains to introduce THROUGH OUR EARS finally came on the stage and FINALLY made this play complete. They were suddenly there, and exactly in the place where they have to go and where they originate: OUR BRAINS. Of course, life could be simpler and the world a better place if we were all rational and reasonably happy, free of trauma and psychological defects, immune to collective scaremongering and dangerous fantasies, but it just isn’t. These days, we only have to plug ourselves in to Google to get the universal horror and collective psychosis uploaded directly on our phones. What this does to the unformed mind is the social experiment we are currently going through. I think until this point I didn’t WANT to realize how completely “Macbeth” is about the world as it is, not as it should be.

 

THE BIGGER PICTURE The unique approach to the spiritual world is a good introduction to the single most important achievement of this production. That it somehow never lost sight of the bigger picture, as addressed above. This pleased me infinitely, of course, as I had recently come to the conclusion that tragedy in “Macbeth” ultimately isn’t about individuals but about “the great scheme of things”, even though in “Shakespeare” that should never be a contradiction. Personal drama and global catastrophe are just going on simultaneously. They are two sides of the same coin. It is exactly the point that everybody is convinced that their own fate is so important that it is easier to imagine the “frame of things (to) disjoint” and the world to go down the drain than their own little world to end, whereas, in the great scheme of things, they are just pawns that greater forces use to play with. But to do this SIMULTANEOUSLY on the stage, to make us see the woods through the trees, is the ultimate challenge. There was individual tragedy in the way Macbeth just can’t take the death of his wife who has silently left their relationship long ago without him noticing. There was real personal chemistry, real drama in this relationship. There was genuine humanity when Lady Macbeth is the one to visit Lady Macduff – which shows efficiently why she cannot go with what her husband is doing anymore and “drops out”. There certainly was this focus on the domestic tragedy, but there were also always other people PRESENT on the stage – not just standing there, which is so important in Shakespeare - every single one wrapped up in their individual fate. (And, of course, the porter blundering in to upset it all!)

 

Individuals, society, the spiritual world, everything there on the stage AT THE SAME TIME, never clogging anything else up, permanently contributing to the universal catastrophe. And all of it over in two hours. Just: WOW!

 

The Cut – respite from underwhelming books

Obviously, I am on a mini break from “Macbeth”. I was investigating Lady Macbeth, but it is taking time and patience which I have not so much of as I used to. Therefore “memorial day” (on the 22nd of August) came in handy to get away from underwhelming novels about Roman Britain and listless attempts at finally putting it all together. It was an unexpected break because I would have forgotten “Bosworth Fields”, if Claudia hadn’t reminded me and proposed to meet for a coffee. That would already have saved my day as it was, but then I got an e-mail by Audible, informing me that “The Cut”, Richard Armitage’s second novel which I had preordered, was ready for me to download. Nice! Having done this, I looked in on Netflix which I had had no time for recently, and the opener was “Red Eye”, the (relatively) new ITV miniseries with Richard Armitage. I had already given up hope that I would ever see it, though, theoretically, ITV is still doing DVDs … Even nicer!!! People who give YOU presents on their birthday!

 

While I am at it: The reason I know ITV is still doing DVDs was “Mr. Bates vs the Post Office” (appalling!) with Toby Jones as Mr. Bates (amazing!). Totally got me. If I had followers, I’d say just two words: “Watch this!!!” About “The Cut” I’d have to say a few words more, though it also got me in the end. I’d recommend listening to it, but not before having checked your state of mental health and stomach lining.

 

I watched “Red Eye” right away. It’s great to watch and so short that it feels like one long film. And, if you are not feeling too good, it certainly doesn’t make you feel worse because it’s this kind of story about international incidents and secret services that doesn’t get too personal. I was practically watching it in one go because I enjoyed it. After that I had a relatively empty weekend before me and decided that I had earned a break. I listened to “The Cut” practically in one go – which took a few hours longer - not because I enjoyed it but because I couldn’t stop.

 

Audiobooks are great because I don’t have to stop listening when I am cooking or tidying or taking a bath, or because I am so tired that I cannot read on, though, in this case, I fall asleep at some point and have to go back on it. I kind of enjoyed “Geneva”, mostly because I liked to discover that Richard Armitage really can write. When it comes to this kind of books = the crime/thriller genre, I am not a good judge anyway because I don’t really like them. I enjoy the suspense of course like the next person, but I am more into the human stuff, and, even when there is really something new and interesting that I get invested in in the beginning, it usually gets “out of hand”, spiralling into some harebrained scheme towards the end, so that the books invariably end up “losing me”. Richard Armitage’s books are no different. They are both conventional thrillers. But even though I don’t really like it, I am constantly reading or watching this kind of stuff for all the wrong reasons. For example because I want to see certain actors perform, or am curious how Richard Armitage is doing as a writer, or because, to get to fascinating “real life” stuff about a Roman building site that actually existed, I need to work my way through a lame plot and characters that don’t feel like real people. “Geneva” and “The Cut” are certainly not like this. They are both GOOD thrillers. Initially, I enjoyed “Geneva” more because the experience was less disturbing, but – and that’s great for a SECOND novel! – “The Cut” is by far the better book.

 

Even where the plot is concerned, because there is this extremely dense and seamless construction of revealing the past progressively through what is happening in the present. Even though this set-up to revive the past is as lunatic and devilish as these plots usually are, it really works. Once I had started, I HAD to read on. And – extremely important for me who is not good at processing a lot of information – the story is told in a way that you always have all the information you need at a certain point and are not confused by irrelevant detail. I was never lost but in a permanent state of anticipation. Better still: the inevitable “plot twist” – not really a plot twist, though, but a slow turn-around - leads to a complete revolution of what I anticipated – in my view the hallmark of a great thriller. In this respect it might be one of the best thrillers I have ever read.

 

I was less happy with the characters, though: “top-dog” blond boy, who evolved into a star architect with two kids and younger girlfriend, in love with great alpha girl, and thin gay boy with cello who is kind of infatuated with him, even though he gets bullied or spared on a regular basis … Makes me cringe! The less important characters are even worse clichés. I know, though, that even those will probably turn out great on screen, played by the right actors of which there are still loads in Britain – probably more than ever - if this book will ever end up on screen, which I would be looking forward to a lot. Maybe people who like these books also have this kind of imagination when they are reading. I haven’t. So, it might be my fault that I got zero invested in any of these people, and this part of the “human stuff” is certainly not the reason that I read on. But the “character set-up” is just the surface. I soon overcame my disgust and almost immediately dived deeper, into the darkness …

 

The reason “The Cut” goes so much deeper than the average thriller, even to the point of the experience being disagreeable in a “good” way, is that the book is extremely dense and atmospheric, even more so than “Geneva”, because there is this uncanny sense of time and location, of being “bogged down” in a place in the past as well as in the present – or, even worse, needing to go back there. An atmosphere that often sounds, smells and feels uncannily like real memories. First reference to the multi-layered title: The Cut is a narrow lane or pathway where the kids have to pass through on their way home from school and where the bullying tends to happen. This is the kind of stuff that got me immediately, the recurrent “nightmare” through which all these characters are bound together. And it is the title of a film that is getting made in order to bring the past out into the open. The truth about it.

 

I first got stuck with the bits about the bullying. As in a lot of atmospheric detail and more than one biography, there are probably real memories woven in. It’s no secret that Richard Armitage once was the gay kid with the cello and oversized nose that got bullied at school, but until now this was just a bit of information about his past. Listening to his book, I could appreciate for the first time how absurd it really must have been for him to be turned into a national sex symbol when he played John Thornton. This book is an astonishing attempt of dealing with the past. As I wrote, I am just listening to it again. Good thing! It is more disagreeable to listen to than the first time – if one is willing to go “all the way” and expose oneself to the experience. By the way: great books are never about the author. They are about the readers.

 

The first bit about dealing with the past is referenced in the title and at one point explicitly, as explanation for making the film: the decision that “the cut” has to be reopened. As in: “This will hurt a bit!” Or, in this case, rather a lot. And a lot of people. Nonetheless it had to be done. In the novel there is more to it than the bullying, a whole case in need of reopening because somebody got killed and the wrong person ended up in jail. But I focused on the bullying, for obvious reasons. The rest is usually not part of one’s personal experience, though, strictly speaking, the bullying wasn’t either. But the way it gets represented in this book is a bit different from what we are used to in this kind of novel. Somehow it is not about putting the blame on certain people, making them accountable, but about the way “everybody” becomes a part of it, even the victim. I suppose this is the genuine experience behind it, and it might be the reason that, for the first time, I really dwelled on it and asked myself if it ever happened to me. There are so many things I forgot about the past, but this is not the kind of thing you’d forget, though … wait a minute! The thing I so conveniently forgot was that I bullied a girl in pre-school. I certainly hated her, but she had done nothing to deserve it. And this was not the reason I bullied her. I did it because I realized that I could!

 

So, this experience about why the cut needed to be reopened got unexpectedly and disagreeably personal. This SHOULD actually hurt a bit!

 

And there is another deeper personal level still, much more difficult to lay a finger on and even more existentially disagreeable. It is about getting to a certain age and about dealing with “our” past and our biographies. Last reference to the great title and what I was most impressed with: the decision that A CUT HAD TO BE MADE in order to deal with the past. At a certain age and regardless of our actual achievements, one thing we definitely have acquired is a past. We might want to get rid of it, forget it, cling to it in an absurd way like “top-dog” Ben Knot, but it is and progressively becomes what we are stuck with. What defines who we are because there is not so much left that we could become. Dealing with it in a truthful way most likely will be sad, and it will hurt, but it’s a big step to find a place to start.

 

Interlude: „My Macbeth“, act one continued

Still brainstorming, respectively taking stock. I noticed that I squarely hit the text vortex in my last post. And I inadvertently came up with the best way of explaining what I mean by it so far. Usually, my reading of a fictional text already has produced crucial ideas on what it is about, but they are still mostly isolated. As soon as I have figured out how they might HANG TOGETHER, my reading enters a new stage. The text begins to “work” and reading becomes real fun. (When I am writing fiction – which, in my experience, always contains a process of reading – this is the moment when I actually begin to write.)

 

Of course I kind of hit the text vortex before – just NEVER when I saw the play in the theatre – and the process released important issues, but I never hit it squarely, and I knew it. I was always aware that “Macbeth” was still going to happen. My two break-through moments so far I can sum up with “tragedy” and “How far would you go to further your career?”. And of course there are a lot of crucial sub-issues and discoveries that fit right in there, but I also knew that there were whole areas I basically left out, for example the weird sisters. I always had this impression they were really crucial but couldn’t figure out in what way. “Instruments of darkness” was a new attempt to get to the bottom of them that contributed to the working of the text vortex. Then there was history. I finally figured out in what way exactly “Macbeth” is a historical play, and, even more importantly, a POLITICAL play. There is probably no play of Shakespeare where you cannot find at least one important political issue that still works for us, but “Macbeth” is political through and through – just not in the way I have seen it represented so far. Tragedy remains an important issue, but tragedy and politics are indissolubly linked. This is what I figured out when I tried to reproduce how Shakespeare “processed” Holinshed. The term that links them, in my opinion, is ESCALATION – and it sums up why I always thought I was still not feeling BAD ENOUGH about this play. Now I do, having a better idea how it works, and why it concerns “us” still – and always will. There will be a separate post about this.

 

Another “sub-issue” also picked up speed, basically without me doing anything: LADY MACBETH. There are a few intricate issues concerning her that were always at the back of my mind, and it seems that my brain produced a few answers – or connections - in the meantime. I hope I will find time to look into this soon.

 

Now to my interlude – which might become my longest post ever – because I have finished Act 1 of my own hypothetical production of “Macbeth”. I changed my way of writing it slightly because I thought I would basically write stage directions and no text, which would have been shorter, but it didn’t work. And it reads much better with the text. I also started to write rather clumsy directions about what characters on the stage should do, when they should move and where, even about pauses and how they should express what they are feeling. They are not meant to be followed to the letter. Partly they are for my own orientation because, as it isn’t real, I have to know who is where at all times. The directions about when to pause and how to express their feelings are even less literal, they are mostly there to give a sense of TIMING. I realized that timing is an absolutely crucial issue of any theatrical production that needs to be “micro-managed”. In “Shakespeare” there is a lot of great timing already written into the text, but you have to get it out of it. (That might be the same with other great dramatists, but I never noticed it in this way. It might be that Shakespeare is special in this respect, as other historical plays get rewritten all the time extremely successfully. Rewriting a Shakespeare play wouldn’t work, and I think this is partly because the timing is impeccable.) I always notice when an actor has an especially good sense of timing, and I always notice and particularly hate it when somebody answers on the stage before giving himself the miniscule amount of time for taking in what the other person has been saying. My worst experience about this is the one I recently had with the DocX “Macbeth” because I know the text by heart. Then I heard it in the same way I am hearing it in my head – mainly by Ralph Fiennes, I am sorry to say – and this is really the worst thing that can happen with Shakespeare. No sense of timing AT ALL! These painful moments, though, are a great lecture about the importance of timing on the stage, and I realized that I had to include my own sense of timing in some way.

 

Another thing I noticed when I wrote this was that I had to imagine the stage this is happening on. This was actually a bit of a downer, as I realized that I imagined it to happen on a proscenium stage – my least favourite kind. But, at some point, I discovered that there was an aesthetical reason for it. I already wrote that I had to shed one of my original ideas, one of them that was in fact about escalation, though I never though of it in these terms. And I noticed that I had been kind of relieved about the absence of blood and violence on the stage in the Stratford “Macbeth”, though I criticized it. (They had a blackboard and chalk instead, and mostly blacked out the killings.) Now I noticed that there is at least one good reason for it – apart from its being gross and obvious, and maybe actors slipping on the blood. As it was a contemporary production, like mine, blood and violence wouldn’t work in the same way as in a historical environment. There certainly is as much bloody and violent action going on in our world, but seldom out in the open. Blood as a means of escalation wouldn’t work because the efforts of HIDING it would exceed those of shedding it – which theoretically could be made an issue as well. But I obviously dropped the blood in favour of a new aesthetical scheme. What I had rather liked about the DocX “Macbeth” was the amount of DARKNESS, though, on my stage, there shouldn’t just be darkness. I would like to use it as a means of contrasting this ominous atmosphere of EVIL with the little everyday-world people make up for themselves – where things are happening exactly as they were planned … (Ha, ha! – that’s the weird sisters from the off.) I would like only to illuminate little areas of the stage fully – where these things are happening. There also are these “natural” intervals of darkness between scenes where the darkness could be enhanced by sound like big iron machines working in the distance or some other kind of ominous, impersonal sound – not loud! (I haven’t thought about music yet, but at this stage I’d say: no music at all, apart from snatches of what people actually might put on, for example at the “Heath” when people are turning up to party.) In addition, the weird sisters could frequently emerge from the darkness and disappear into it. These ideas would work best on a rather high, good-size proscenium stage – which is what nobody likes, really, neither audience nor actors. Minimum requirement would be a stage with a background.

 

Now, finally, the fun bit:

 

 

1,3 (continued)

 

(“All Hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!”

 

Macbeth’s face “falls”.)

 

There is a short interval of darkness, about a second, then the lights come on again, flickering at the beginning. During this interval the sisters have relaxed and are now busy pouring champagne and passing on glasses.

 

Banquo (obviously sceptical about the quaint prophecies): “Why do you start and seem to fear things that do sound so fair?”

 

(Making up his mind about getting to the bottom of this): “I’the name of truth, are you fantastical, or that indeed which outwardly you show? My noble partner you greet with present grace and great prediction of noble having and of royal hope that he seems rapt withal. To me you speak not. If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not: Speak then to me who neither beg nor fear your favours nor your hate.”

 

The sisters, clinking glasses. (Mockingly):

 

“Hail.” “Hail.” “Hail.”

 

“Lesser than Macbeth, but greater.”

 

“Not so happy, yet much happier.”

 

The third sister, ceremoniously clinking with Banquo:

 

“Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none.”

 

Together, raising their glasses:

 

“So, all-hail, Macbeth and Banquo! Banquo and Macbeth – all hail!”

 

At this moment, disco-lights are flaring up, as a number of soldiers in combat-trousers and muscle-shirts and some made-up girls are storming the bar. In the ensuing commotion the sisters disappear. The party-guests are settling, one girl is taking the bar and handing out beer-bottles. The disco-lights are dimmed and stop flickering whilst a stronger light reveals Macbeth and Banquo still standing in the foreground, glasses in hand, looking stupid.

 

Banquo, looking around, then at his glass: “The earth has bubbles, as this water has, and these are of them. Wither are they vanished?”

 

Macbeth, striding towards the door, checking the outside: “Into the air, and what seemed corporal melted, as breath into the wind.” Disappointedly: “Would they had stayed.”

 

He returns and they are now standing together to the left of the bar in the spotlight, their backs to the crowd. Banquo drains his glass, shrugging as if to cast off the dream:

 

“Were such things here as we do speak about, or have we eaten on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner?”

 

Macbeth who has been drinking up, scoffing: “Your children shall be kings!”

 

Banquo: “You shall be king!”

 

Macbeth, collecting their glasses, turns towards the entrance handing them to one of the girls: “and Thane of Cawdor too – went it not so?”

 

Banquo: “To the self-same tune and words.” He has also turned and sees Ross and Angus entering.

 

Chuffed: “Who’s here!”

 

They all meet with hugs and patting backs. While they are joining, the spot phases out and the interior is gradually lit up. The four men are standing in the middle of the bar and are getting served drinks.

 

Ross: “The king has happily received, Macbeth, the news of thy success. And when he reads thy personal venture in the rebels’ fight, his wonders and his praises do contend which should be thine or his. As thick as hail came post with post, and every one did bear thy praises in his kingdom’s great defence and poured them down before him.”

 

Angus (impatiently): “We are sent, to give thee from our royal master thanks. Only to herald thee into his sight, not pay thee …”

 

Ross (interrupting): “And, for an earnest of a greater honour, he bade me call thee from him Thane of Cawdor …” Pausing, raising his glass: “In this addition, hail most worthy Thane, for it is thine.”

 

Instead of the expected pleased reaction, Macbeth and Banquo are petrified, staring at him. Banquo recovers first, blurting out: “What, can the devil speak true?”

 

Macbeth looks at him startled, then addresses Ross. (Subdued): “The Thane of Cawdor lives. Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?”

 

Ross: “Who was the Thane lives yet, but under heavy judgment bears that life which he deserves to lose. Whether he was combined with those of Norway, or did line the rebel with hidden help and vantage, I know not. But treasons capital, confessed and proved, have overthrown him.”

 

There is a moment’s pause, all four men looking grave. The barmaid comes to collect empty glasses and the group gets separated, with Macbeth to the left, slightly in the foreground.

 

Macbeth, facing the audience, muses: “Glamis and Thane of Cawdor. The greatest is behind.” Turning, with a step towards Banquo: “Do you not hope your children shall be kings when those that gave the Thane of Cawdor to me, promised no less to them?”

 

Banquo, noticing the eager tone, becomes even more sceptical: “That, trusted home, might yet enkindle you unto the crown besides the Thane of Cawdor.“ Macbeth frowns. Banquo is about to turn away to address the others, but suddenly turns back. Very seriously: “But tis strange. And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence.”

 

Seeing that the others are joining them again, he moves towards them, barring them from this conversation: “Cousins a word, I pray you.”

 

They are chatting amicably, while Macbeth, facing the audience, is slightly set apart from the others through lighting and space.

 

Macbeth: “Two truths are told as happy prologue to the swelling act of the imperial theme. This supernatural soliciting cannot be ill; cannot be good: If ill, why has it given me earnest of success, commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor. If good, why do I yield to that suggestion whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and makes my seated heart knock at my ribs against the use of nature? Present fears are less than horrible imaginings. My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical, shakes so my single state of man, that function is smothered in surmise, and nothing is but what is not …” Forcibly shaking off these terrifying and exciting thoughts: “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me without my stir.” Turning to the others, now quite matter of factly: “Come what come may. Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.”

 

The others are also preparing to leave. Banquo, clapping Macbeth’s shoulder: “Worthy Macbeth, we stay upon your leisure.”

 

Macbeth (apologetically): “Give me your favour: my dull brain was wrought with things forgotten.” Facing Ross and Angus: “I thank you, gentlemen. Your pains are registered where every day I turn the leaf to read them.” (Steering them towards the entrance where the crowd is leaving.) “Let us towards the king”.

 

While the two others are stepping outside, he turns back to Banquo. (Confidentially, in a hurry: ) “Think upon what has chanced, and at more time, the interim having weighed it, let us speak our free hearts each to other.”

 

Banquo: “Very gladly.”

 

The other two have turned in the entrance and Macbeth is hurrying towards them. Over his shoulder to Banquo: “Till then enough.” Touching the others at the shoulder: “Come, friends!”

 

As soon as they have turned their backs, the three sisters reappear from behind the bar, just for a few seconds. The first has retrieved her gun and is covering the window. The second is stuffing things into her backpack while moving toward the door. The third stands there for two seconds, looking at the audience, then switches off the light. Darkness.

 

 

1,4

 

Change of scene. A neutral curtain-wall has descended in front of the ruined building. The whole scene is now interior, a conference room/headquarters with a long conference table to the right, chairs, a projection screen in the background. The third sister, in a smart suit, is placing glasses and water bottles on the table. Malcolm and Duncan are entering from the left.

 

Duncan (impatiently): “Is execution done on Cawdor. Or not those in commission yet returned?”

 

Malcolm: “My liege, they are not yet come back. But I have spoke with one that saw him die, who did report that very frankly he confessed his treasons, implored your Highness’ pardon and set forth a deep repentance. Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it. He died as one that has been studied in his death, to throw away the dearest thing he owed as t’were a careless trifle.”

 

Duncan (turning towards the back of the scene where there is a slight commotion; soberly): “There is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face. He was a gentleman on whom I built and absolute trust.” Seeing Ross, Angus, Banquo and Macbeth approach, he brightens and steps towards them, opening his arms: “O worthiest cousin, the sin of my ingratitude even now was heavy on me. Thou art so far before that swiftest wing of recompense is slow to overtake thee …”

 

He reaches Macbeth. Hugs. They are all hugging, with Malcolm as well.

 

The new arrivals are still in their combat suits. Behind them more people are entering, dressed formally or business-like, among them the first sister, carrying a briefcase. While they are coming in, the third sister is leaving, slyly acknowledging her sister as she is passing.

 

Macbeth (self-effacingly with a convincing air of sincerity): “The service and the loyalty I owe in doing it pays itself. Your Highness’ part is to receive our duties; and our duties are, to your throne and state, children and servants, that do but what they should by doing everything safe towards your love and honour.”

 

Duncan (hugging again): “Welcome hither. I have begun to plant thee and shall labour to make thee full of growing.” Flustered because he has omitted Banquo: “Noble Banquo, that hast no less deserved, nor must be known no less to have done so: Let me infold the and hold thee to my heart.” (Hugging him.)

 

Banquo (genuinely moved): “There if I grow, the harvest is your own.”

 

Duncan (dabbing at his eyes): “My plenteous joys, wanton in fulness, seek to hide themselves in drops of sorrow.” He takes the head of the table, gesturing for the others to take seats. Macbeth sits down at the right-hand corner of the table, Malcolm on the left closest to Duncan. The first sister has retired towards the left of the stage, phone in hand and starts texting when Duncan is speaking.

 

Duncan: “Sons, kinsmen, thanes, and those whose places are the nearest. Know we will establish our estate upon our eldest Malcolm whom we name hereafter the Prince of Cumberland, which title must not unaccompanied invest him only, but signs of nobleness, like stars, shall shine on all deservers.” (Getting up and turning towards Macbeth.) From hence to Inverness, and bind us further to you.”

 

Macbeth, whose face has fallen during Duncan’s announcement, gathering himself together: “I’ll be myself the harbinger, and make joyful the hearing of my wife with your approach; So, humbly take my leave.”

 

Duncan: “My worthy Cawdor!”

 

Duncan is getting up and there is a general bustle as people are leaving. The first sister is approaching somebody with her briefcase, producing papers for them to read. Macbeth remains standing, facing the audience, and is subtly highlighted in the foreground whereas the bustle is going on more subdued.

 

Macbeth (shaking his head): “The Prince of Cumberland! That is a step on which I must fall down or else overleap, for in my way it lies.” (Looking about him to make sure he couldn’t be heard. More subdued while the background lights are fading: ) “Stars, hide your fires! Let no light see my black and deep desires. The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be, which the eye fears, when it is done, to see.”

 

He is leaving in the opposite direction of the background entrance. Meanwhile people have been leaving, Duncan and Banquo last, chatting amicably. The last words of their conversation – casually spoken – are heard while they are passing the entrance: “Let’s after him whose care is gone before to give us welcome. It is a peerless kingsman.”

 

The stage is empty apart from the first sister close to the entrance, facing the audience for a second, smirking. Then she switches off the light. Darkness.

 

 

1,5

 

Swift change of scene again. The curtain wall is now background to a smart apartment in light colours with minimal furniture. A double bed to the right against the wall, a dressing-table with mirror in the foreground to the left where Lady Macbeth is sitting half-dressed. A moveable rack of clothes to one side in the foreground. Through the entrance on the left an atmosphere of a sunny morning permeates the chamber. The second sister enters, in expensive but casual clothes and sets a cup of coffee on the dressing-table. Lady Macbeth acknowledges her absent-mindedly. She lays out clothing-on the bed and leaves. Lady Macbeth’s phone makes a messaging noise. She checks the text and gets up excitedly, pacing the room. At one point she begins to read aloud.

 

“They met me in the day of success, and I have learned by the perfect’st report they have more in them than mortal knowledge. Whilst I stood rapt in the wonder of it, came missives from the king who all hailed me … Thane of Cawdor – by which title before these weird sisters saluted me and referred me to the coming-on of time with … ‘Hail king that shalt be!’ “ She pauses for a moment, eyes closed, the phone held against her heart, then reads on. “This have I thought good to deliver thee, my dearest partner of greatness, that thou might’st not lose the dues of rejoicing by being ignorant of what greatness is promised thee. Lay it to thy heart and farewell.”

 

(Standing still centre-stage): “Glamis thou art, and Cawdor. And shalt be what though art promised.” (Pacing again, thinking fast.): “Yet do I fear thy nature. It is too full of the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way. Thou would’st be great; art not without ambition but without the illness should attend it. What thou would’st highly, that would’st thou holily. Would’st not play false and yet would’st wrongly win.” She moves back to her mirror and remains standing before it, making some adjustments absent-mindedly when she is really concentrating on making plans. “Hie thee hither, that I may pour my spirits in thine ear and chastise with the valour of my tongue all that impedes thee from the golden round that fate and metaphysical aid does seem to have thee crowned withal.”

 

Meanwhile the second sister has appeared at the entrance. This time she is knocking softly because she hears her mistress speaking. Lady Macbeth (startled and annoyed): “What is thy tidings`?”

 

Second sister (coming forward): “The king comes here to-night.”

 

Lady Macbeth (freezes; after a moment, shocked): “Thou art mad to say it.” (Gathering herself.) “Is not your master with him, who, were it so, would have informed for preparation?”

 

Second sister (eagerly): “So please you, it is true. Our thane is coming. One of my fellows had the speed of him, who, almost dead for breath, had scarcely more than would make up his message.”

 

Lady Macbeth (authoritatively) : “Give him tending. He brings great news.”

 

The second sister leaves. Lady Macbeth moves to the middle of the room and stands still, nervously touching her forehead then proceeds to the bed, checking her clothes and starting to dress. She doesn’t finish, though, but moves restlessly towards the forefront with her dress in her hands.

 

(Laughing nervously: ) “The raven himself is hoarse that croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan under my battlements.” Pressing her garment against her breasts, gathering her resolve. When she speaks again, her voice is different. A slight but distinctive change has come over her. There is some change in the atmosphere as well, different lighting or some kind of faint sound:

 

“Come you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts. Unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood. Stop up the access and passage to remorse that no compunctious visitings of nature shake my fell purpose and keep peace between the effect and it. Come to my woman’s breasts and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers, wherever in your sightless substances you wait on nature’s mischief. Come, thick night, and pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell that my keen knife see not the wound it makes, nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark to cry: Hold! Hold!”

 

Macbeth enters rather noisily, still in his combat gear, breaking the atmosphere. Lady Macbeth turns and gasps in surprise. Then she runs towards him and they embrace and kiss passionately. At some point she moves back, holding him at arm’s length and looking at him: “Great Glamis. Worthy Cawdor. Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter! Your message has transported me beyond this ignorant present and I feel now the future in the instant.”

 

He laughs and they move towards the bed. They tumble on top of it in a mixture of attempting to remove the heavy clothes and foreplay. Suddenly Macbeth sits up, realizing that there are even more pressing things at hand: “My dearest love, Duncan comes here tonight.”

 

Lady Macbeth (immediately): “And when goes hence?”

 

Macbeth (after a pause cautiously): “Tomorrow … as he purposes.”

 

Lady Macbeth (promptly): “O never shall sun that morrow see!”

 

Macbeth turning away from her, getting half off the bed, feet on the floor. She moves to his side and turns his face towards her:

 

“Your face, my thane, is like a book where men may read strange matters. – To beguile the time, look like the time. Bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue. Look like the innocent flower but be the serpent under it.” She jumps up from the bed and paces the room, frantically planning: “He that’s coming must be provided for, and you shall put this night’s great business into my dispatch, which shall to all our nights and days to come give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.”

 

Macbeth, seeing her taking over like that, is beginning to have second thoughts. Getting up from the bed he grabs a towel from a pile on the dressing-table and is rubbing himself down, half turned away from her: “We will speak further.” (As in: “We will give this a rest for now!”)

 

As he is proceeding towards the entrance she follows him and turns him towards her. (Pressingly): “Only look up clear! To alter favour ever is to fear.” (Kissing him): “Leave all the rest to me!

 

The second sister emerges behind the rack of clothes where she must have stood all this time and is beginning to gather the shed items of clothing off the floor.

 

 

1,6

 

While the second sister is still tidying up, the furniture is removed by working staff in fashionable jeans and t-shirts. The left half of the background screen is removed so that light is flooding half the stage and the background reveals a blue sky. Fast-flitting birds are projected on it. The second sister disappears towards the backstage and reappears, impatiently overseeing the servants who are struggling to place two high, round tables to the right of the stage for the arrival of the guests that is already taking place. One gets furnished with a flower-arrangement, the other with champaign bottles and glasses. They are just finishing and retreat hastily towards the right when Duncan and Banquo are entering the stage, followed by Malcolm, Macduff with family, and staff. On the staff is the first sister in a smart suit with phone and briefcase. The second sister has stayed behind, pouring glasses of champaign.

 

Seeing nobody to receive them, Duncan is looking around, taking in the view: “This castle has a pleasant seat. The air nimbly and sweetly recommends itself onto our gentle senses.”

 

Banquo (indicating the birds): “This guest of summer, the temple-haunting martlet, does approve by his loved mansionry that the heaven’s breath smells wooingly here. No jutty, frieze, buttress, or coign of vantage but this bird has made their pendant bed and procreant cradle. Where they most breed and haunt, I have observed, the air is delicate.”

 

Lady Macbeth appears from the right in a smart dress or suit.

 

Duncan: “See, see, our honoured hostess!” He greets her delightedly with blown kisses or slight hug. (Lightly: ) “The love that follows us sometimes is our trouble which still we thank as love.”

 

Lady Macbeth (maybe taking his hands, exceedingly grateful: ) “All our service, at every point twice done and then done double, were poor and single business to contend against those honours broad and deep wherewith your majesty loads our house. To those of old and the late dignities heaped up to them we rest your servants.”

 

Duncan (looking around) while the second sister is passing champaign glasses on a tray: “Where is the Thane of Cawdor? We coursed him at the heels, but he rides well and his great love, sharp as his spur, has holp him to his home before us.”

 

Lady Macbeth throws an impatient glance to the right – the passage from the veranda into the house- and then smiles at Duncan apologetically.

 

Duncan, clinking glasses with her and drinking, to relieve her unease: “We love him highly and shall continue our graces towards him.”

 

He takes her arm and begins to lead her towards the indoors: “By your leave, hostess!”

 

They are leading the gaggle of people to the right into the house. Only the first sister is slowly passing to the front, phoning in a subdued voice. She remains standing there for a few seconds, then leaves the stage at the forefront on the right. The second sister is collecting glasses and is spoken to by one of the guests. While everybody is leaving and the stage is getting quiet, the light changes towards a late afternoon glow and the piercing cries of the swallows in the background can be heard over very remote party-noises. A long leisurely afternoon unfolding …

 

 

1,7

 

Macbeth enters at the right-hand front of the stage, pacing towards the centre of the stage, phone in hand, checking messages. He stops and looks around, noticing that he is alone and pockets his phone. He walks to the back of the stage where there are still a few glasses and a bottle left and pours himself a glass but doesn't drink. He is pacing back towards the audience instead. The light changes suddenly, as if a cloud was now covering the sun. All noises have stopped. (The light keeps changing gradually towards sundown during this scene.)

 

Macbeth looks briefly on the glass in his hand, then looks up as if he has just reached a decision, but begins his speech very casually: “If it were done when t’is done then it were well it were done quickly. If the assassination could trammel up the consequence … and catch with his surcease success, that but this blow would be the be-all and the end-all here, but here, upon this bank and shoal of time – we’d jump the life to come.” He makes a few steps. “But in these cases we still have judgement here. That we but teach bloody instruction which, being taught, returns to plague the inventor. This even-handed justice conveys the ingredience of our poisoned chalice to our own lips.”

 

He turns around to the house where, in the meantime, lights have been lit and there is a faint warm glow and very subdued noises. These noises stop when he speaks again, in a lower voice, having made sure that nobody could hear. “He is here in double trust. First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, strong both against the deed. Then as his host who should against his murderer shut the door not bear the knife myself.”

 

He pauses, making a gesture like touching his face to dispel the horrifying thoughts. Firmly and louder: “I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent. Only vaulting ambition that overleaps itself and falls on the other …”

 

During his last sentence, Lady Macbeth has entered from the main entrance of the house, looking for her husband. She sees him and he sees her. She approaches him, relieved, whereas he shows unease.

 

Lady Macbeth: “He has almost supped. Why have you left the chamber?”

 

Macbeth: “Has he asked for me?”

 

Lady Macbeth (annoyed, impatient): “Know you not he has!”

 

Macbeth (getting closer to her. In a low tone, as if fearful to be overheard but impatiently, as if trying to put a lid on a recent discussion): “We will proceed no further in this business. He has honoured me of late, and I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of people which would be worn now in their newest gloss, not cast aside so soon.)

 

Lady Macbeth, stepping back, after a slight pause in a sharp, provocative tone: “Was the hope drunk wherein you dressed yourself. Has it slept since and wakes it now to look so green and pale at what it did so freely?” Stopping Macbeth who makes a movement as if to protest, meaning business: “From this time such I account thy love.” (Which stops him!) “Art thou afeared to be the same in thine own act and valour as thou art in desire?” (Visibly not waiting for an answer): “Wouldst thou have that which thou esteemst the ornament of life and live a coward in thine own esteem, letting ‘I dare not’ wait upon ‘I would’ like the poor cat in the adage?”

 

Macbeth (angrily): “Prithee, peace! I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none.”

 

Lady Macbeth (with a show or noise of frustration, accusingly): “What beast was it then that made you break this enterprise to me?” (Pause, gathering ammunition, then fast): “When you durst do it, then you were a man. And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man. Nor time nor place did then adhere, and yet you would make both. They have made themselves, and that their fitness now does unmake you.” (???) Very deliberately, like pulling her last weapon: “I have given suck and know how tender it is to love the babe that milks me. I would, while it was smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you have done to this.”

 

Some kind of pause ensues, some visible or invisible movement that makes the finality of this argument clear. She has crossed a line he knew she wouldn’t have crossed under any other circumstances. He CANNOT deal with this.

 

Macbeth, very quietly and matter-of-factly: “If we should fail?”

 

Lady Macbeth (relieved): “We fail? But screw your courage to the sticking place and we’ll not fail.” (She paces.) "When Duncan is asleep – whereto the rather shall his day's hard journey soundly invite him – his two chamberlains will I with wine and wassail so convince that memory, the warder of the brain, shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason a limbeck only. While in swinish sleep their drenched natures lie as in a death, what cannot you and I perform upon the unguarded Duncan? What not put upon his spongy officers that shall bear the guilt of our great quell?”

 

Macbeth (visibly tuning in with her, matter of factly): “Will it not be received, when we have marked with blood those sleepy two of his own chamber and used heir very daggers, that they have done it?”

 

Lady Macbeth (in a tone and stance very much like his): “Who dares receive it other, as we shall make our griefs and clamour roar upon his death?”

 

Macbeth (promising her): “I am settled and bend up each corporal agent to this terrible feat.” (Taking her hand or touching her shoulder and making for the entrance to the house): “Away, and mock the time with fairest show.” (Looking back at the audience in a slightly different, more reflective, tone): “False face must hide what the false heart does know.”

 

“Macbeth” and history: Just politics?

So, that was bit of fun, actually! – Now it will become very demanding very fast because there are a lot of conclusions to be drawn from this structured historic data, affecting all sorts of issues I have already raised.

 

First of all: I noticed that, summarizing Holinshed, I inadvertendly got into structuralism which I liked initially at uni but then rejected because I noticed that I just forced structure on text that was already structured, or, if I defined structure that was there, this was mostly just redundant. Now I noticed by chance the real usefulness of structuralism. It only engenders new information if it is used for COMPARING different texts. So, of course I kind of forced structure on “Holinshed” – which might be structured according to totally different categories! – but using it to understand a fictional text that is based on it shows why I felt the inclination to structure it in this way. Using Holinshed, I can nail it why I now regard “Macbeth” as “history” – or rather “historical tragedy”, with both of these categories blended to perfection. I also see more clearly why I was stubbornly barking up the wrong tree when it came to tragedy because I didn’t take the political issues seriously enough - which I now do as I think I know what they are. And I think I did a step forward on the matter of EVIL – the key issue of the play in my opinion. I will come to that …

 

This post will be rather chaotic, I feel, because I am still brainstorming. And it will need an awful lot of patience because I always discover that I should deal with another issue FIRST before I can deal with the one at hand and so on … So, I’ll just tackle them in the order they come to mind and go back to the issue of the weird sisters in my personal production of “Macbeth”. As to establish the identity of the sisters would require to make up my mind about EVIL first, it will have to be provisional. I brought up the question if they could be English spies with Claudia, and she said that they couldn’t because the English are not evil – in the context of the play - which certainly is a valid argument. My first idea was that they might be Norse spies, and I discarded it on the spot. Asking myself why I don’t like it at all instantly lead me deep into my quest for the nature of EVIL. At first glance, the Norse are a much better candidate for harbouring “instruments of darkness” because, in the context of the play, they are the arch-enemy. These Norse invasions where a great threat and ultimate catastrophy at the time (in 1034!), and people living in the early seventeenth century in England were still much closer to this than we are. Nowadays “Vikings” are cool, at the time they were so not! Nonetheless, I don’t think that they really were an important contemporary issue. As to the play: the Norse threat is already over when it begins and the tragedy is set up. More importantly still: the Norse represent danger from the OUTSIDE. The true nature of evil as an element of tragedy is INTRINSIC. This is why I always feel that explanations like war or social inequality – though they might be part of the dynamics! – are falling short.

 

Of course – and this is the great thing about them – the weird sisters can be whatever we want them to be on the stage (apart from witches!): binmen, transvestites, refugees, mythical beings, homeless people, or children – as long as they are part of an explanation I can take seriously. It seems that the REQUIREMENT, in my case, is that they – in their main function as “instruments of darkness” – have to be seen to set into motion the workings of evil in the play. Apart from being highly entertaining, they have to be GENUINELY THREATENING, and this is a high bar – almost impossible in fact! – to set on a stage. Apparently, I have decided to take EVIL in “Macbeth” extremely seriously – as serious as buckets of blood, but this would only be an indicator. (Blood is red because it's a colour that gets our attention – or is it the other way round?) As an “explanation” it falls way too short. The “weird sisters” instead have great potential as a metaphor. So: really serious AND entertaining, how do we do that? Fashionably, I seem to have opted for the action movie version.

 

I am now quite sure that my idea that the “weird sisters” might be spies – or SECRET AGENTS, which is what they actually are concealing their identity to manipulate people! – comes from my involvement with “Spooks” (the BBC series) which I watched countless times. I always feel that, if we want to REALLY understand a phenomenon we think we know everything about, like EVIL, there is nothing like a change of perspective. In fact, people like me know nothing at all about evil because we are fortunate not to have had first-hand experience of it. That’s what all these “violent” films and tv programs are for: to enlighten us about it, but most of the time this is just pretence because they are usually designed to keep evil ON THE OUSIDE. A threat to “normality” and family life the good side has to fight off. This seems to be a requirement for them to be deemed entertaining, but it is not. For me, the fascination of “Spooks” springs from these people having to get involved with evil – not just fight it! - for the sake of the “greater good”. Nobody would think of Tom Quinn (played by Matthew Macfadyen) as an evil or even shady character. He is a genuinely good guy who loves his girlfriend and her daughter and has their best interest at heart. If anything, he is MORE moral than average people. On the other hand, lying and killing dangerous people is part of his job description. It is not an uncommon predicament for “action heroes”, but the perspective is somehow completely different because evil cannot be kept on the outside. It invariably infects their life and who they are as people. One of the most extreme moments, in my opinion, is when Danny Hunter (played by David Oyelowo) – who is actually a sweet guy and a genuinely good person! - finds himself in a situation nobody can prepare for. He has to murder a man, who might be disgusting and dangerous but no threat to him personally, in his sleep. This was one of these rare occasions where I got a bit sick watching - morally, not literally like the character. And my favourite character is Ros Myers anyway, probably because it doesn’t even make sense to ask, in her case, if she is good or evil. She seems to be in a completely different category of “human”. Nonetheless there is no doubt that she is on the “good” side. There is one type of spy to which all these characters ultimately belong: they are “clerk” spies who are loyal to their country and would always put the good of the nation above even their own lives. This is what “redeems” them, whatever they do. My “sisters” would of course belong to the other kind: people who are doing this basically out of self-interest and – not to forget! – for the thrill of it. The kind that usually are double agents. For whom? God knows … except that – metaphorically speaking! – in this case it would be the devil.

 

So – I know now WHY my weird sisters turned out to be spies. The next question is if they could be English spies. Under the preliminaries I have just established, I feel that they can, though I wouldn’t make it a main issue because on the stage things easily become convoluted, and it might send the wrong message. My next project – if I was a producer, that is – might be a “Macbeth” film or mini series which would start with an ingenious idea from Claudia: the weird sisters, respectively (double) agents, on the payroll of the English king, “turning” the Thane of Cawdor. My point is: If it was a film production, I would want to be much more specific about the historic background as it would be set in 1034 and would have a lot of tall, bearded Norse warriors in it. (Love them!) And an English king laying plans for a future invasion of Scotland probably quite early on. Of course, Shakespeare didn’t want to dwell on this but he is faithful to Holinshed in this point and doesn’t seriously want us to believe that King Edmund is taking Malcolm in and furnishing him with the means to invade Scotland solely from the goodness of his heart. At least I would be sorely disappointed in him, if he did! - But that’s just POLITICS – not a question of good and evil in the first place. “Shakespeare” I always regard as this genuinely political battlefield where no opposing side or different truth is concealed or left out. The more the merrier – or the more entertaining! Good and evil doesn’t come into this, it’s a different sphere. But “Macbeth” – which I always envisaged as this straightforward play, compared with “Hamlet” or “Lear”, where I always think I understand everything – has developed into this rather uncomfortable and dark space where these two spheres clash with deadly precision. This is the reason why it is the PERFECT tragedy, in my opinion. All this political complexity AND the workings of the human stuff - ambitions, strength and weaknesses - lead to this singular ESCALATION of events that HAS to occur in this way and which nobody has the power to stop. With our “sisters” at the heart of it, wielding their “crucible”, making everything worse. It is this FATALITY that is so endlessly fascinating, not least because we see it constantly at work in our own world.

 

Not surprisingly, my brainstorming landed me in the middle of the text-vortex too soon. There are more tedious points to be cleared up first. They will be about where and why Shakespeare deviated from Holinshed – or where he pointedly used stuff from Holinshed that doesn’t seem to make sense in the first place. Basically, it’s about the contemporary issues on which the comparison with Holinshed sheds some light. I don’t really know why I tend to label these issues as tedious. Maybe because – from a 21st century point of view! - they seem to get in the way of the play reaching its full potential. But I know that this is unfair. In the case of “Macbeth” the culmination of contemporary issues has a name: KING JAMES I. And I don’t really like him … (Who does?) Nonetheless, without him, my favourite play might never have been written at all or might have turned out completely different. Here is why:

 

THE WEIRD SISTERS AS WITCHES

 

In fact, I had this rather complicated semantic bundle of the weird sisters as “Fates” and witches disentangled at length already. As “Shakespeare” isn’t really big on supernatural beings, it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the weird sisters would have become witches – and thus have figured so prominently as “instruments of DARKNESS” - were it not for King James’s interest in witchcraft and the book he had written about it. (I haven’t read the book, it might contain more direct proof.) As goddesses and witches are a fairly long stretch apart, there is a semantic breach that leads to all kinds of consequences I am constantly struggling with. It just doesn’t “add up”. Nonetheless, I see it as a major achievement to have thus brought the issues of FATE and EVIL together, even though I don’t think it was deliberate and still haven’t quite worked out why.

 

WHY BANQUO AND MACBETH COULDN’T HAVE BEEN BEST PALS

 

Another issue closely related to King James doesn’t seem equally important, but I recently discovered that Claudia felt the same about it. Therefore it is likely that people will be asking this question: Why couldn’t Macbeth and Banquo be best pals? In fact, Claudia always took it that they were, and I did too, in a way. In my case the idea probably came from the “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy as Joe Macbeth, a chef whose co-worker and best buddy is also the one he has later killed by a hired hand while he is out biking with his little son. I loved the idea, of course, because it is SO DARK. As I know Shakespeare, he usually would have built on this, more so as Holinshed clearly states that Banquo was the chief supporter of Macbeth in his rebellion against King Duncan, and I have ample proof how closely Shakespeare read Holinshed. It would have been such an obvious choice: the both of them having been fighting side by side against the invader … But it couldn’t be. I had noticed already, reading the text closely, that Shakespeare subtly rejects this idea by putting a bit of distance between Macbeth and Banquo from the start. He seems more intimate with the King as well than Macbeth, even though Duncan seems to see Macbeth as the main achiever. But the first encounter with the King conveys more personal warmth in his exchange with Banquo whereas the relationship with Macbeth is more formal. I also always wondered why this idea hasn’t been realized in any of the productions I have seen, apart from the “Shakespeare Retold”. Basically, they were right. Banquo and Macbeth couldn’t be too chummy in “Shakespeare” because Banquo was regarded as the ancestor of King James. According to Wikipedia, Banquo, the Thane of Lochaber, is a fictitious person, but at the time there was a family tree linking King James and the Stewarts to Banquo and his son Fleance. This was, of course, of chief interest to Shakespeare who even tried to cram in the chapter in Holinshed about Fleance and James’s ancestry via the rather awkward lining up of Banquo and his innumerable descendants in the “cauldron scene”. It is also the point where the play might have been part of political “propaganda”. The Stewarts actually needed a bit of patching up of their genealogy, as their ancestry – unlike the one of the victor Malcolm in “Macbeth” who belongs to that ancient line of Scottish kings we read about in Holinshed! – was obscure. They actually were the House of the Stewards of these kings until the ancient line died out and the stewards took over. Banquo and Fleance had to be invented to fill the gap. Shakespeare didn’t make them up, but he made a point of it. - As my personal production of “Macbeth” would be entirely contemporary, James I wouldn’t come into it, not even indirectly, and Banquo and Macbeth might be as chummy as the actors might want them to get. I even think that, in this way, one could make more of the moments where Banquo subtly distances himself from Macbeth … But there is, in my opinion, a much more fundamental impact King James had on the play. He is actually where we can nail a semantical shift throughout history.

 

KING JAMES AND THE NEW BRITAIN

 

Reading Holinshed really made me aware of these long periods in history that are just repetitive. The wheel of fortune grinding round and round and, after a terrible amount of bloodshed and suffering, we are exactly where we were before – at best! If there is change, it is gradual and subtle and might reveal its potential many years or even centuries later – like the instalment of a “Prince of Cumberland”. From this perspective, the big changes that lead to a new state of affairs entirely are few and centuries apart. One of these certainly was the ascension of the Scottish King James I to the English throne, putting an end to the age-old bloody rivalry between England and Scotland that was such a persistent cause of indissoluble predicaments, bloodshed and suffering. I think that this was genuinely felt at the time as a respite and a step forward into a better and brighter future, leaving the latest traumatic episode of the execution of James’s own mother, Mary Queen of Scots, behind. PEACE, finally … I even imagine there might have been a sense of the new BRITAIN that effectively started when the two biggest nations on the British Isles finally joined together. Before that, Britain had just been some kind of tale from the past where native Britons and Romans fought one another and King Arthur’s knights fought dragons and mythical beings. Suddenly it had become a REALITY. I really had to “conjure up” this spirit to be able to imagine that “Macbeth” might have been something else, to begin with, than the darkest, most fatalistic tragedy. At the time, some of the worst political issues regarding England and Scotland finally appeared to be solved. So, basically, “Macbeth” must have been intended as a “celebratory issue”. Of course, there is something very important about the Elizabethans I will never really understand, but to celebrate the expectations of a bright future with a gruesome, bloody tragedy seems to have been just what they liked. Still, all this darkness must have been felt as the background against which the present and future could be made to shine more brightly. The wheel of fortune never stops – nobody knew this better than Shakespeare! – but it creaks to a halt from time to time like the Ferris wheel, and to be then on the top is the best view on life you will ever get. So – celebrate away!!!

 

Knowing the future, naturally, we wouldn’t want to celebrate. My best memory about the DocX “Macbeth” – apart from Indira Varma as Lady Macbeth – was this big, brewing darkness like the gathering of a really vicious storm. No wonder I am scared of the future, of Britain or Europe or the world, the way things are looking right now, though there is this inextinguishable hope that, some day, we will be back on top ... At the moment, “we” are definitely on the way down, probably already further than we realize.

 

“When shall you three meet again?”

 

“Oh, we already have, a while ago! You just haven’t noticed.”

 

From Scone to Colmkill: “Macbeth” and history

With “Macbeth”, I think, there is always this temptation to do what I would also do, even though it‘s SO obvious: to make it circular and end with the beginning. Having the three sisters somewhere, on the stage or from the of, say: “When shall we three meet AGAIN?” Ouch, spoiler – but it IS so obvious, isn’t it? So, why is that?

 

I got into the historic Macbeth by beginning to look into all the petty issues, like strange words and names, and, generally, the background of the characters involved, almost a year ago now. As I was also looking into the main source Shakespeare had – Holinshed’s “Chronicle of Scotland” – and – reading the text so closely – the historical issues of Shakespeare’s own time, all this became so complex that it is really difficult to break the tangle at one point by teasing out a thread … So, I’d just try and start with what I remember as the beginning: SWENO – “the Norway’s king”.

 

It was just a coincidence, as he is in the second scene and was the first name that “lept out”. Was this Sweno just a name from Holinshed, and we don’t really know who he was, or was he a real king of Norway? Of course he was! In this case, a quick check with Wikipedia delivered everything I needed. (Wikipedia, by the way! I hope ChatGPT will not be the end of it. I was so happy to have it that I donated, for the first time, for online content. It sent me into the Scottish woods in the end, but not before I had retrieved great input about Gruoch, daughter of Boite mac Cinaede, the historical “Lady Macbeth”. There definitely is a story in it …) But first: Sweno = Svein Knutsson (1016-1035). He probably wasn’t even a king of Norway in his own right, but some kind of “pawn” of his father’s, the “great” King Canute who arranged a marriage with an English noblewoman and sent him over to govern. Svein was there only a few years and failed spectacularly campaigning in Scotland where he got cheated by King Donnchad I (“our” king Duncan) newly come to office upon the death of his father. He negotiated a peace with Sweno and provided his army generously with food and drink while they were waiting for the silver to be paid. During the night, Donnchad sent his “dux” (= general) Macbethad mac Findláech – the future king Macbeth! – with his troops to slaughter the inebriated Norsemen. Sweno himself got away and had to return to Norway where he died only about a year later at the age of eighteen or nineteen. I was thrilled as I now had a DATE for the beginning of “Macbeth”: 1034 – the year Donnchad took over as king and had to deal with the Norse invasion. The historical Donnchad was about the same age as Macbethad and got killed by him in battle in 1040 because he attacked Moray, Macbethad’s province, obviously thinking his former general had become insubordinate, and a threat. As it is known that Macbethad was defeated and killed in the battle at Dunsinane Hill in 1057 by Donnchad’s son Malcolm who invaded Scotland with the help of English troops provided by King Edward the Confessor, we have now gathered all the historical dates for “Macbeth”:

 

1034-1040 for Act I

 

1040 for Act II

 

1040-1057 for Act III-V

 

Of course, timelines like this don’t matter when a play is produced, but they provide this historical context that changes what kind of a story it is in my mind. And I wouldn’t have expected it to be so precise! On top of this, as it is in Holinshed – with just a few years difference – Shakespeare must have been aware of it.

 

Even though Wikipedia might have saved him a lot of time – as it did me! - it wouldn’t have furnished him with the STORIES the way Holinshed’s “Chronicle of Scotland” did. A surprising amount of detail about Macbeth, his contemporaries, and the broader history of Scotland ended up in the play, a lot of it as “historical background.” It is an artificial separation anyway – though not unimportant for my decision what kind of text I am reading! - but Holinshed let me revisit “Macbeth” as one of the “histories” as well as a “tragedy”. In truth, the historic anchor point is so obvious: both the crowns of Scotland and England coming together on one head with King James I.

 

I am tempted to start with the year 830 where great King Kenneth made WAR on the Picts, effectively annihilated them – BLOODbath! - and then moved the famous marble seat from Argyle to a place called SCONE; the seat on which the Scottish kings sit when they receive their crown. After this decisive victory, there follows a time of PEACE for Scotland as it has not seen in a long time, and would probably not see anytime soon, accompanied by extensive legislation. When King Kenneth dies in 856 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL, everthing is well.

 

Under his reign, for a few decades, Scotland also seems to have been as big as it would ever be, after he had pushed the Picts back to the fringes of Cumberland. Already under his successor, his brother Donald – apparently the first king having been CROWNED AT SCONE - the Britons and the ENGLISHmen join with the Picts pretending to help them get back their land – in truth, obviously, to lay their hands on it. Donald loses this WAR, and considerable BLOODshed ensues at the hands of the victors. A treaty is sealed that fixes the border with the Britains on the Clyde, the one with the English on the Forth. So, PEACE restored, at a considerable price, but this king doesn’t work out as well as his brother. He falls into such DEPRAVITY that he gets deposed and ends his life in prison in 860. (Obviously the first of quite a few rulers Macduff refers to whose vices have cost them their throne!)

 

Constantine, King Kenneth’s son, succeeds him and is CROWNED AT SCONE. He appears to have been a man of order and stern justice ( -> PEACE!) and is ascribed a part in having made the Scots as tough as they are still perceived in our day and age. Not a day too soon, one might say, as he is also the first king having to deal with a Norse invasion. The GREAT DANISH ARMY simultaneously covers England and Scotland with WAR, leaving chaos and BLOODshed in their wake. Kind Constantine is captured and MURDERed, and BURIED AT COLMKILL. The invaders continue into Northumberland where they anihilate the joint armies of King Osbert and King Ella – two more kings slain! - then East Anglia where King Edmund suffers the same fate. From a Scottish and English perspective, this is the beginning of very dark times.

 

Rather chaotic times too, politically, until Gregory, son of the Thane of Argyle, takes the reins of the kingdom, is CROWNED AT SCONE, and becomes an exceptional WARleader. He scores a decisive victory over the DANES at Berwick, pushes the Britons back behind the Welsh border for good and takes possession of York, which makes King Alfred remember the “old alliance” (against the Norse), granting Scotland possession of Northumbria in exchange for its loyalty. We are now in the year 780, and things are looking up for Scotland! A time of PEACE and quiet follows. Having restored order to his kingdom, Gregory dies, an old man, and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

The next CORONATION AT SCONE is for Donald V, a descendant of Constantine, who applies himself to keeping up the good order of Gregory’s reign (PEACE!), but there is “malice domestic brewing: a BLOODY CONFLICT between Rosse and Murreyland (= MORAY!). (CIVIL WAR) Even though the Thane of Rosse seems to have been the instigator, it ends with draconic measures against Moray. PEACE is restored. King Donald dies in 903 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

Constantine the III succeeds him, son of Ethus, who has been king for a short time before Gregory. He is CROWNED AT SCONE and soon challenged by the ENGLISH kings Edward and his son Aethelstan for Cumberland, Northumbria and Westmoreland. This leads to an alliance between DANES and Scots which gets DEFEATED at Brunanburgh by the English under King Aethelstan. (The first English victory over the Scots inscribed into the “Making of England” story King Alfred “triggered” when his kingdom of Wessex first resisted the Norse invaders.). King Constantine dies in 942 and is BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

Malcolme, son of Donald, Constantine’s general, succeeds him as king in 942/43 and is CROWNED AT SCONE. Under his reign, the ALLIANCE between ENGLAND and Scotland is renewed. England under Aethelstan gains Northumberland, Scotland keeps Cumberland and Westmoreland. Indulphe, the son of Constantine III, is made PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND and heir to the crown of Scotland. (“Prince of Cumberland” having become a Scottish equivalent of the “Prince of Wales”, that is: the heir apparent – which Malcolm will become in “Macbeth”!) Scotland experiences a period of PEACE under a king who is looking after his subjects in worldly and spiritual matters. He gets MURDERed in 959 and BURIED AT COLMEKILL.

 

The heir apparent, Indulphe, is CROWNED AT SCONE. His nine years of reign are shaped by continuous WAR with the DANES. In league with the ENGLISH king Edmund he gains a decisive victory over the Northumbrian Danes which leads to another massive Danish and NORSE INVASION. Indulphe is slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMEKILL in 968.

 

His successor Duff, son of King Malcolme, is CROWNED AT SCONE. He has to deal with a REBELLION of the WESTERN ISLES, which results in his antagonizing the thanes there (– a problem that pops up in “Macbeth” when the rebel Macdonwald is recruiting from the isles!) A sickness of the king encourages further rebellions, with MORAY at the forefront. (There is also precedent for witches, as King Duff is healed after the witches who caused his illness are found out and executed.) The Captain in charge of the castle of Forres in Moray, Donwald, turns traitor when his kinsmen, who partook in the rebellion, are hanged. On the instigation of his wife – “though he abhorred the deed greatly” - he bribes his servants to MURDER King Duff in his sleep. He kills the servants and blames the murder on them. (The story of “Macbeth” therefore seems to be an amalgamation of the biography of the rebel Donwald and the actual King Macbeth!) After the murder, for months together, there is such bad weather that neither sun nor moon appear in the sky, outrageous lightnings and tempests are causing great destruction, and “unnatural” phenomena are reported, for example a sparrowhawk strangled by an owl, (some of which Shakespeare used in “Macbeth”.) Initially, the king’s body was buried in a ditch but got later recovered and BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

After having pursued the crime and dealt with the rebels in Moray, Culene, son of King Indulph and former PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, is CROWNED AT SCONE in 972. He doesn’t work out in the way he initially promised as he succumbs to sensual lust – “sparing neither maid, widow, nor wife, …, sister nor daughter” – and neglects the administration of his kingdom. (DEPRAVITY!) He gets “punished” by contracting a “filthy disease” and is MURDERED by REBELLIOUS thanes in 976 and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (Obviously another of the depraved Scottish kings Macduff refers to in his conversation with Malcolm.)

 

Thereupon Kenneth, the son of King Malcolm I, is CROWNED AT SCONE. He is the exact opposite of Culene, a model king, but so severe in his execution of the law that he antagonizes his thanes and soon has REBELLION on his hands. After PEACE is restored, it is immediately threatened by a new DANISH INVASION. Again the king acts decisively and utterly destroys the invading army, but the notorious “Kernes of the WESTERN ISLES” perceive their chance to raid Rosse, other countries join the fray. King Kenneth suddenly has to deal with CIVIL WAR but again succeeds in restoring the PEACE and, this time, keep it for almost 20 years. He has his cousin Malcome, Prince of Cumberland and heir apparent, poisoned because he wants the throne to go to his own offspring (MURDER!), and has a law passed for succession by birthright. His own son Malcolm is made PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND. (I found it interesting that Malcolm passed the law using the same reasoning as Shakespeare did indirectly: to keep the peace. Garantied succession by birth should forestall rebellion because, if there is an heir apparent, killing the king to get the throne won’t work - but, in both cases: Just see what happened!) Malcolm ultimately repents and does penance to avert divine retribution. Nonetheless he gets MURDERED by a relative of the murdered cousin in 994 and BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

The legislation King Kenneth instigated under the pretence of preventing rebellion had the opposite effect. REBELLION raises its head instantly upon his death when a rival king, Constantine, gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. Malcolme, the PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND and heir apparent, raises an army. (CIVIL WAR … again!) Whilst the country is divided, King Edward (alternatively: Ethelred?) entreats Malcolm for help against the DANES. Whilst Malcolm is fighting in England, his cousin meets Constantine in battle at the Forth. Constantine is killed and, as he was crowned at Scone, inevitably BURIED AT COLMEKILL in the year 1002.

 

Grime (or Gryme – does he really have a Norse name = Grim???), brother of Malcolm, gathers the remains of Constantine’s following behind him and gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. Because of the accomplished fact Malcolm has to negotiate. He gets the rule of Cumberland, and succession is granted to him and his heirs. Grime turns out as the most abominable tyrant and oppressor (- another example of the misdemeanor Macduff laments!) to the point that his nobles REBEL and make WAR upon him. He is defeated, dies of his wounds, and is BURIED AT COLMEKILL in 1010.

 

Malcolm summons the thanes to Scone but refuses to take the crown before his father’s succession legislation is confirmed. After that he gets CROWNED AT SCONE and becomes an exemplary king. Justice is “ministered (…) throughout the kingdom, with such equity and uprightness, as had not been heard of in any age before him …” So, finally, BLISS!!! Of course not! This is the moment (the first) Sueno – in Holinshed apparently the father of “our” Sweno from “Macbeth” – invades England with a large army of Danes, Norsemen, Swedes and Goths. WAR again, and the old ALLIANCE of ENGLAND and Scotland against the NORSE threat is revived. It suffers a disastrous defeat which leads to England temporarily falling under Norse reign. DARK TIMES indeed - for England AND Scotland because Sueno continues his campaign in the North, taking Moray. After many BLOODY battles, though, Malcolm can persuade the invaders to leave Scotland. Follows a time of PEACE, but Malcolm cannot settle the internal conflicts and is slain by REBELS in 1034, and, of course, BURIED AT COLMKILL.

 

His grandson DUNCAN succeeds him and is CROWNED AT SCONE. His general is Macbeth, who is also his first cousin (their mothers being both daughters of Duncan). His reign begins PEACEfully, but he is a weak king and soon has to deal with REBELLION against Banquo, Thane of Lochaber and King Duncan’s steadfast ally. He sends Banquo and Macbeth to deal with the rebels under Macdonwald who is recruiting “Kernes and Gallowglasses” from the WESTERN ISLES. (CIVIL WAR again!) They defeat the rebels; Macdonwald kills himself. “Justice and law restored again” (PEACE!) But not for long, as SUENO, King of NORWAY, arrives at Fife with a mighty army to bring the whole of Scotland under his reign. (WAR!) Duncan is defeated and retires to Bertha where he is besieged by the Danes; meanwhile Macbeth gathers a new army. As their provisions are running out, Duncan can persuade Sueno to raise the siege. The food and drink he sends are “spiced” in a manner to induce sleep. During the night Macbeth arrives with his troops to slaughter the Norse. (Massive BLOODshed!) Sueno escapes with a few of his followers and sails back to Norway. Dealing with the remaining Norse, Macbeth gets a fair amount of gold out of them for letting them bury their dead at St. Colme’s Inch. PEACE restored ,,, (These events, occurring in the sixth year of Duncan’s reign, deliver the context of “Macbeth” and are related rather faithfully and in great detail at the beginning of the play – apart from the fact that the Danes were not vanquished in battle but betrayed and slaughtered in their sleep, which would have put such a damper on heroism!)

 

(In like detail Shakespeare uses the following) encounter of Macbeth and Banquo with the three “weird sisters” on their way to meet King Duncan. “Whereupon Macbeth devises how he might attain the kingdom.” Even more so, apparently, his ambitious wife “brenning in unquenchable fire to bear the name of Queen.” He gathers supporters, “amongst whom Banquo was the chiefest”, and MURDERS king Duncan in the sixth year of his reign. His body is CARRIED TO COLMKILL.

 

Macbeth “usurpeth the crown” and gets himself CROWNED AT SCONE. We are now in the year 1046. The sons of Duncan, Malcolm and Donald Bane escape from Scotland and are taken in by the English King S. Edward, son of Etheldred, and the Irish king respectively. In the beginning, Macbeth becomes an exemplary king who “set his whole intention to maintain justice and to punish all enormities and abuses which had chanced through the feeble and flouthful administration of Duncan.” Even though he administers justice with outstanding brutality, people, at long last, enjoy “ good PEACE and tranquility”. He also passes a good deal of legislation, mostly for the benefit and security of the crown. (I had read in Wikipedia that he was surnamed “the Red” – which made me automatically think of red hair. Probably the most likely explanation, but, reading Holinshed, another interpretation came to mind: BLOOD on his hands???) This cruel streak seems to have grown throughout his reign. “He began to show what he was, instead of equity practising cruelty. For the prick of conscience (…) caused him ever to fear, least he should be served the same cup as he had ministered to his predecessor.” (Here Shakespeare even dug into the imagery!) He arranges for Banquo and his son Fleance to be MURDERed, but Fleance escapes into Wales, and there follows a lengthy account of how his descendants became the house of STEWARD (to the king) and ultimately ascended to the throne of Scotland which they did currently hold. (Quite an important contemporary issue, as we shall see …) Macduff, the Thane of Fife, joins Malcolm in England to help him get the Scottish crown. (REBELLION!) As soon as Macbeth learns this, he sends people to Fife to MURDER his family. Malcolm obtains ten thousand soldiers under the command of Syward, Earl of Northumberland, to invade Scotland, and Macduff facilitates his plan by communicating with the Scottish nobility. CIVIL WAR ensues. Macbeth withdraws to his fortress at Dunsinane. He is put to flight and slain by Macduff (- very much in the way Shakespeare tells it in his play -) in the year 1057. It appears that, as a “usurper”, he is not buried at Colmkill. (The issue of rightful succession and usurpation of the throne will be the subject of further discussion.)

 

Malcolm gets CROWNED AT SCONE and immediately sets upon repairing the rift the rebellion caused by calling a Parliament and advancing many of the Nobles, giving them the title and privileges of (ENGLISH) earls. So, PEACE reigns again in Scotland …

 

This was an extremely condensed extract of Holinshed’s “Cronicle of Scotland” from great King Kenneth to great King Malcolm (surnamed “Big Head” according to Wikipedia, which might be a physical description but, more likely in my opinion, due to his importance as a ruler). There is much more, especially about the reign of King Macbeth which I will examine further. (On his account, it seems, the master of historical empiricism and tedious detail, Holinshed, temporarily aspired to become the Ken Follett of his age. Steep template for Shakespeare who doesn’t see the need to invent anything.) But, at the moment, I will do the contrary and condense the account even further, leaving out all the specifics and concentrate on the recurring features that, in my perceptions, stood out:

 

830) King Kenneth. WAR. BLOODbath. PEACE. BURIED AT COLMKILL. (856) King Donald CROWNED AT SCONE. ENGLISH invasion. WAR. BLOODshed. PEACE. DEPRAVITY. Downfall. (860) King Constantine CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. DANISH invasion. WAR. BLOODbath. King Constantine MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. Intervall of chaos. (870) King Gregory CROWNED AT SCONE. WAR against the DANES. Victory. PEACE. King Gregory BURIED AT COLMKILL. King Donald V CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. CIVIL WAR. BLOODshed. PEACE. King Donald BURIED AT COLMKILL. (903) Constantine III CROWNED AT SCONE. ENGLISH aggression. Alliance with the DANES. WAR. Defeat. King Constantine BURIED AT COLMKILL. (942/43) King Malcolme CROWNED AT SCONE. Alliance with ENGLAND. PEACE. Indulphe PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND. King Malcolm MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (959) King Indulphe CROWNED AT SCONE. WAR with the DANES. Alliance with ENGLAND. NORSE invasion. More WAR. King Indulphe slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (968) King Duff CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. King Duff MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (972) King Culene, fomer PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, CROWNED AT SCONE. DEPRAVITY. REBELLION. King Culene MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (976) King Kenneth CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. PEACE restored. DANISH invasion. WAR. Victory. REBELLION. CIVIL WAR. PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND MURDERed. King Kenneth MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (994) King Constantine CROWNED AT SCONE. REBELLION. Malcolm, PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND, raises an army. CIVIL WAR. Alliance with ENGLAND against the DANES. King Constantine slain in battle and BURIED AT COLMEKILL. (1002) King Grime CROWNED AT SCONE. Tyranny. REBELLION and CIVIL WAR. King Grime slain and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1010) King Malcolm CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. NORSE invasion. Alliance with ENGLAND. WAR. BLOODshed. Utter defeat. Agreement with the Norse. PEACE restored. King Malcolm slain by REBELS and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1034). King Duncan CROWNED AT SCONE. PEACE. REBELLION and CIVIL WAR. PEACE restored. NORSE invasion. Norse defeated and slaughtered (BLOODshed). PEACE restored. King Duncan MURDERed and BURIED AT COLMKILL. (1046) King Macbeth CROWNED AT SCONE. Malcolm, PRINCE OF CUMBERLAND exiled to ENGLAND. PEACE. Tyranny (BLOODshed.) Former ally Banquo MURDERed. REBELLION. CIVIL WAR. Malcolm invades Scotland in alliance with the ENGLISH. King Macbeth slain. (1057) King Malcolm CROWNED at SCONE. PEACE restored …

 

So, that’s two hundred and thirty years of Scottish history in a nutshell. And there IS a bit of a pattern, isn’t there? Speaking of CIRCULAR … I usually don’t see history in this way because I don’t think it’s interesting. For me history is this river we don’t jump in twice, but the trouble is that the water doesn’t feel so different at times – especially “dark times”! At the moment, it feels as if “we” - as Europe – might have arrived at such a juncture. It’s still not so bad where I am, but heavy clouds are gathering, the past raises the ugliest of its many heads, and there is very little in terms of a a silver lining …