Appendix 1: A footnote on "Macbeth"

When I learned that there would be a new „Macbeth“ film coming to the cinemas in late October I probably refused to become excited about it. I went to the cinema without any expectations – or rather with the vague expectation that it would probably be some kind of “Hollywood like” adaptation, with larger than life pictures of beautiful Scottish landscapes and a lot of gory fighting in it. And was very surprised – and pleased! – to find it to be something completely different. At least I HOPE that the people who recommended it to the “Games of Thrones” crowd have caused a great deal of disappointment! (Though I might be underestimating “Games of Thrones” and the people who watch it, of course, as it happens with “worlds” I don’t like.)

So, first of all, I was pleased to see something different. Even though the film contains, of course, beautiful Scottish landscapes and gory fighting. Which isn’t something I don’t like, as such. I was more surprised how much I liked the film despite its containing much of what I DEFINITELY don’t like: especially actors just speaking their text without acting it - apart from looking gloomy, or tragic, or shocked. (And I mean: all of them!) I don’t even think they were “encouraged” to act, and exactly this kind of dealing with the text – hacked to pieces and just kind of smashed on the big screen beside a dramatic landscape, significant faces and a superb soundtrack - developed its own poetic value. It is a really beautiful film, more of a “poetic” and subjective version of the story than an “epic” one. The way the camera closes in on people, and the ideas about bringing inner content on screen and finding additional motivation for the main characters, chiefly Macbeth himself, makes it more about their “souls” and their suffering than about what I usually want to see “in Shakespeare”: what exactly happens, and why, and why these characters behave the way they do. And this appeared to me as an interesting idea because I haven’t seen the play being “used” in that way – except in another film version: “The Tragedy of Macbeth” from 2012, which is rather good as well but no longer available, so I don’t have it on dvd. And both films show (like the “Hamlet” film with Ethan Hawke) that this approach certainly works.

But even though I liked the film, a lot!, it didn’t really “catch”. I even saw it twice because I wasn’t sure why I had liked it, but the second time wasn’t any more conclusive. I reckon this is because of my own, developing, version of “Macbeth” which is blocking the access to other versions. But I had an enlightening experience shortly after that, when I saw “Steve Jobs”, a totally amazing film – with Michael Fassbender, of course! (If it is not Colin Firth, it is Michael Fassbender these days.) And I thought: THIS is what I want to see when I see him. This is why I consider him to be one of the most significant and special actors I know. (Did, by the way, for quite a long time before there were at least two films with him every year!) And, “something like this” would even be a much more interesting version of “Macbeth” because, for me, a contemporary version of this play would be about somebody who violates his moral integrity – and WHO he is, as a person - because of his carrier. “Fame and fortune”, or whatever it is that most people think they want, of course. And then finds out the hard way that it wasn’t worth it. (This is not what “Steve Jobs” is about, by the way, but this kind of contemporary character fits my idea of what is interesting about “Macbeth” much better. On the whole, I always find the “acting” much more interesting than the suffering – more interesting and rewarding for the actors themselves, I suppose.) There is one thing though I totally agreed with, and which would be in my version as well: the amount of blood at the beginning and the end of it, and in between! (And this would even be the greatest disadvantage of a contemporary version: that you cannot SEE the blood!) In general I am not that “blood-thirsty”, but in “Macbeth” the blood is really significant.

And I came to understand only by and by why I had liked the film so much. Not because of the great acting, which OBVIOUSLY isn’t there! (To say that Michael Fassbender is one of the most significant actors I know doesn’t mean that I haven’t seen even some incredibly bad acting by him (in “Jane Eyre”) and some insignificant acting (in “Macbeth”), and in both cases it was probably not “his fault”.) And it wasn’t even because of the beautiful landscapes and powerful “aesthetics”. It was because of the determination to tell the story in a different way – NOT to deal with what Shakespeare has written. And this is even one of the benefits of film adaptations, compared to theatre productions where the opportunities of “avoiding” the text – just taking out of it what you please and put it wherever you like – are limited. There is much more room for telling YOUR OWN story – and this means to tell a version which is probably significant for the times we live in. And what makes “Macbeth” significant for our time appears to be that we cannot deal with the question which – obviously? - is at the centre of the play: How can it happen that somebody who is considered to be a “good person” by the people who know him – even “kind”, if his wife is to be believed who probably knows him best! – anyway exactly the kind of person that deserves trust and promotion, can turn into a blood-thirsty tyrant? This is so OBVIOUSLY what I read when I am reading “Macbeth”, and the interesting thing is that in only one of the nine versions I have on dvd people appear to be bothered by that question. And this is the contemporary tv version of “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy as (Joe) Macbeth. As this is the only version where I can see that people have read the same text I read myself it is my favourite version, even though it has only “scraps” of “Shakespeare” in it. The other two versions where the “authors” were obviously bothered by that question to a point that they found it necessary to write a different story, where Macbeth – and Lady Macbeth – appear less guilty, are the two contemporary ones from 2012 and 2015 I have cited above. And this I find extremely interesting.

I still don’t know why “Macbeth” is my absolute favourite play, and, consequently, must be one of my absolute favourite “stories” as well. (Which is great, by the way!) But maybe this film has brought me a step closer to understanding it. My first conscious step in that direction was when I understood about the concept of “equivocation”, and what the “weird sisters” might be about – another great feature in “Macbeth” ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, apart from the authors of “Shakespeare Retold” (again!), shows any real interest in! And exactly this principle of “equivocation” which we find EVERYWHERE in Shakespeare appears to be extremely difficult for “us” to deal with. Whereas it is something I obviously understand, and love. And which is probably why I absolutely love “House of Cards”, and why the only bit from Goethe’s “Faust” I remember (and love) is:

“Alles, was entsteht, ist wert, dass es zu Grunde geht.”

(Everything which comes into being is worthy(!) of being undone)

(And there is a contemporary “version” by somebody called Nam June Paik I love even more: “Wenn zu perfekt, liebe Gott böse.” (If (something gets) too perfect god (becomes) angry.)

I know I am not even close yet, but - as, by the way, in “Hamlet”, “Lear”, and “Othello” - in “Macbeth” Shakespeare must have written something about ourselves, our lies and our lives which we absolutely DON’T WANT to deal with. Maybe the way we use the word “tragedy” in a contemporary context is an indication, because a “tragedy” nowadays is something horrible that happens to INNOCENT people. Whereas “tragedy” for the Greeks, and probably the Elizabethans as well, was a story about somebody who becomes guilty and is spending the rest of his time on stage DEALING with the consequences. And as I have this absolute horror of doing even the tiniest little bit of harm to anybody – I suppose not because of an unusual amount of “human kindness” in me, but because I couldn’t face the consequences! – this cowardice might even be at the root of my fascination with tragedy … What I absolutely loved about “The Crucible”, and found most appaling at the same time, is that practically everything that happens originates in this single moment of a single person losing control. (And, what makes Arthur Miller even more of a genius about telling the truth about human matters: He knew that, if something like this ever happened to me, my “guilt” would be the least of my worries …)