TIME is inexorable

Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,

So do our minutes hasten to their end;

Each changing place with that which goes before,

In sequent toil all forwards do contend … (Sonnet 60)

Sounds quite familiar, apart from the stilted tone, doesn’t it? The RSC made quite a striking collection of time references IN “MACBETH” in their leaflet, so I was prepared … The first thing I noticed about TIME was what I wrote already: that the strict regime of time and pressure made the storytelling consistent in a way I have never seen before. Much of what happens in “Macbeth” became logical just because there seems to be NO TIME for it to turn out otherwise. And I liked this.

On the other hand, this approach was probably responsible for a lot of “incisions” into the original intention of the play which I didn’t like or didn’t understand at first. I think, THESE were the places where the audience gets separated in those who know the play so well that they are not willing to make these sacrifices just to see something new – which might not even convince THEM! - and the ones who were thrilled, like me. I was glad that I was not the only one who was thrilled. Talking with my companions after the play, it appeared as if they hadn’t liked it one bit, and the applause wasn’t overenthusiastic – so, how should “they” know that there were people like me in the audience who had loved it? But my landlord, who asked me the next morning if I had liked it, obviously was one of those people. Pity that there was NO TIME for a discussion, but he said that there had been a very DIFFERENT interpretation of the play which he seemed to have liked, and this would have been a good start … though I was then in this phase of the aftermath where I probably looked like the cat that has eaten the cream but where my mind was entirely blank. I just came to realize how HAPPY I was, and just began to EXPLAIN to myself why … And then I began to write to explain it some more, and the brew just boiled over – like this morning at work when I had all the crucial insights at once and had to make notes instead of tugging into my shit pile …

One of the most telltale changes was the beginning when the three little weird sisters sat in front of the bed where an obviously very old and frail Duncan lay sleeping. I couldn’t make anything of this, and, like the others, I disliked it that Duncan was this weak and pathetic old man without any visible authority to go with a crown. But I came to understand that the whole point about Duncan, in this production, was to show that he is “getting counted”. He is nearing his end, and a younger, more vigorous and promising successor is already on his way towards the throne … This is how it is supposed to be, and no regrets because TIME is inexorable.

I DIDN’T LIKE IT BUT I UNDERSTOOD IT – that might in fact be the tenor for this review. Even about Macbeth himself there wasn’t much that “stood out” in a memorable way, like monologues … We are always waiting for them, and then he says them just like normal things you say … which isn’t entirely a bad thing. Or not at all. I always saw the ASIDES in Macbeth as difficult because, unlike in “Richard III”, they are not spoken to the audience but are inner debates that are revealed to no one in particular without any obvious reason. They often do this nowadays by “freezing” the other actors and changing the light. In this case, there WAS no problem. The asides just appeared naturally to blend in with the rest. And I think there was a reason for this, apart from the inconspicuous way Christopher Eccleston dealt with them. Claudia said that he “carried the production”, and this is certainly true, but there is an aspect to it with regards to content, and which, I think, is the most significant REDUCTION they made for making it so consistent. The focus is ENTIRELY on Macbeth himself. Regarding what I had observed on playing Shakespeare so far, I would never have thought this could be a good thing. It was, though, thanks to Christopher Eccleston who didn’t even THINK of making Macbeth special or spectacular in any way. (I kind of knew he wouldn’t do that …) Instead he made him feel very authentic in the way of people “we” already know. It is what HAPPENS to Macbeth that is important, and everything else has to come second. But there often was this feeling that there should be more. Especially in the final phase where, if I remember this correctly, a lot of the great self-inspection was just canceled. I suppose there was NO TIME for it.

I quite liked Raphael Sowole as Banquo. More because of the kind of person they casted than because of the acting – which, I am afraid, I couldn’t really do justice because I was captivated by the outside. (There is the audience’s TIME and attentiveness to be taken into account as well when it comes to producing Shakespeare. I just came to think how much I loathe idling on the stage – and there wasn’t a SECOND of it!) First of all, Raphael Sowole was a massive physical presence, with a great voice – the only one who looked as if he EASILY could elbow Christopher Eccleston into a corner, and THIS as such was enough to explain why Banquo HAS to die. Claudia said, though, that she had liked it that Banquo didn’t just appear to be the “good one” but as if he actually wanted the job for himself. So, Raphael Sowole must be a good actor – on top of being gorgeous – because there wasn’t much TIME for showing this, but, of course, I believe her (and am looking forward to the DVD …). He certainly was very clear and obvious, and - when I am thinking about it – he made Banquo hugely CONFIDENT and SLIGHTLY threatening. (I remember now that I liked it very much how he said: “So I lose none by seeking to augment it …” charged with second thoughts.) As I wrote, subtle and quiet worked very well in this production. And I liked the way Macbeth and Banquo were together. It wasn’t kind of “chummy” – as I had thought it should be in the beginning – they acted AS EQUALS. People who are both strong and confident, and actually are looking down on everybody else from their respective heights, INCLUDING the frail Duncan and his pathetic offspring.

Niamh Cusack’s Lady Macbeth I didn’t like ONE BIT. Probably not even because of the actress I would have wanted to be changed (though I just FORBID myself to imagine Anne-Marie Duff in her stead …). Even though I didn’t like anything of what she did I followed her closely and could see that she acted it well and very clearly. I just didn’t like WHO Lady Macbeth is in this production. I STILL imagine her to be very strong and confident IN THE BEGINNING, and I STILL don’t like her running about the stage like a mad spectre in the attic and NEVER WILL. But Lady Macbeth, for me, obviously is still more difficult than Macbeth, and I just put this to one side – as I already observed, the focus of the production clearly is on Macbeth. So, the thing I was most unhappy with was the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth which - as usual! – was more or less inexistent. My companions DID see some “chemistry” between them – which I couldn’t. So, I just stick to that and be done with it (– and am looking forward the DVD). NOT to the moment, though, where Lady Macbeth is dissolving into tears in Macbeth’s lap after having received the “compliment” about bringing forth “men children only”. (They were sensitive about this kind of issue – as a contemporary audience demands – and this was certainly not entirely a bad thing. I suppose you can’t have it both ways …) So, basically, I could accept Lady Macbeth for the sole reason that she was CONSISTENT. But what I liked least, I think, of all the things I didn’t like is that there was NO JOY in their relationship in the beginning. When she receives the letters Lady Macbeth is definitely thrilled, I’d even say “violently happy” (as Björk put it in one of her songs), and she begins to make plans and cannot wait for Macbeth to come home, and wants to embrace him and confirm that she is in on this … and Macbeth, coming home as the victor from the battlefield with his great news he cannot wait to share with her, his great love and the only person with whom he can share ANY of this … and you might imagine all sorts of things to happen – which can’t happen, of course, because there is NO TIME for them. Duncan is already on his way, and they have to act quickly. I understand this, but nonetheless they might have found one of these ingenious “shortcuts” they had for other things, just to bring it out how brutal the change is that TIME inflicts on their relationship. (For example just NOT making her look like a wreck already in the BEGINNING … but then she would have had to go through makeup again, and there would have been NO TIME …???) I am adamant on this, though, because it will ALWAYS be wrong to make her appear broken and weak already in the beginning as her part in the fatal act is minimized. Macbeth WOULDN’T NEED HER to convince himself to commit the murder. Which, if I am thinking about it, is entirely consistent in this case. He ACTUALLY doesn’t need her because he WILL do it anyway. And this is how I have always seen Macbeth. There IS a choice which isn’t really a choice because, having been pushed up to where he is, he CANNOT turn back. That I saw this in Christopher Eccleston’s Macbeth, though, might be because I WANTED to see it. Claudia said that she liked it how he REALLY didn’t want to do it … So - IF there is a contradiction!? - I am probably wrong …???

The Macduffs I liked in the beginning because they naturally appeared as this happy little family – and Macduff as a kind father who will be broken by losing them WITHOUT actually having to show it. But he is the only one who gets a very … very … VERY … long TIMEOUT – for grieving! This was clever as well because they made TIME matter in the opposite way. To some things there will be NO END … So, there is no “redemption” for him by killing Macbeth, and it doesn’t really matter that the end appears as some kind of hoax – as puny little Macduff could never EVER have brought down big, brawny Macbeth anyway, no matter what The Fates say …! It may even have been this ending that triggered the notion of “arrogant” – which will become important … The way Macbeth just beats Macduff to the ground and kicks him until the countdown is done, hands over his sword, and then gives himself the cue for dying with “Enough!” There were LOTS and lots of kicks, probably because they were behind on the countdown, but I don’t know … it looked a bit like: “Fuck the countdown, I want to check out my mobile and have a pint …” I didn’t like this change, but I accepted it because it explained HOW all this doesn’t really matter. TIME will bring this to an end WHEN TIME IS OUT – no matter how.

What became most significant on behalf of the Macduff/Lady Macduff action was how much they cut down on VIOLENCE. They obviously didn’t want any dead children on the stage, and this made the scene where the Macduff family is killed more than a bit lame. (Though they took one of these ingenious shortcuts by showing Lady Macduff as being pregnant. Great! Why did this never occur to me …?!) And they took advantage of Shakespeare’s intuition to hide Banquo’s murder by using “Who did strike out the light?” as a stage direction! - which the Elizabethans couldn’t have done because there was daylight. It just occurred to me that their reluctance to show violent deaths on the stage might have been mostly because they lacked the means of making it convincing. Red ribbons instead of blood would have looked as ridiculous to them as they do to us, I suppose, and “dark night” with its horrors cannot enter the stage for real, so it had ALL to be IN THE TEXT.

I was critical about suppressing violence because I have always seen it as crucial for how we see Macbeth. Truth demands that we should SEE what he has done - though I always felt it to be wrong to dwell on violence for violence’s sake … Well, Christopher Eccleston solved this dilemma once and for all by proving me wrong. (To be continued in my next post …) Instead of being shocked in an obvious way there was this scandalized laughter in the audience a few times, in places where nobody WOULD laugh. I think it was this laughter of RECOGNITION: when we recognize something we already know being highlighted in an unexpected way. And I think this is a much more interesting and genuine RESPONSE to be got out of the audience than trying to get us shocked about something we know anyway.

I REALLY LIKED Malcolm! Apart from the production by the Globe Theatre I have on DVD, it was the first time where they could - or would - get ANYTHING out of Malcolm. Of course there never is ENOUGH TIME for that … but at least there is this long scene with Macduff which I always have felt to be important and never understood, actually until I saw Luke Newberry play it on the RSC’s stage. He was very clear and knew what he was doing with almost EVERY SENTENCE – which made it one of these vignettes of really special and successful Shakespeare acting that I have “collected”, mostly by Brian Protheroe – who is “in the business” for a lifetime and likes to show that he can do it with one hand tied behind his back. And here comes this wispy youth showing us that he can do the same … Amazing! But most of all I liked it how the clever acting made this scene count in regard of what I have always thought HAS TO HAPPEN in the play. Of course Malcolm is very young and – actually! – very scared, and anything else but a great warrior, but he has to display and DEVELOP the potential of becoming a leader – probably a better one than Macbeth is. And I have always felt that this scene is very cunningly written to show just that: Malcolm coming into his own in a VERY SHORT TIME - Macbeth seriously “being counted” now, and Malcolm finally finding “the time to friend” and seizing it.

One of the most important “changes”, though, was what they did about the WEIRD SISTERS. In my opinion they reduced and marginalized them making them children – who looked great and appropriately “weird”. This made them feel satisfactory as an aesthetic presence, but they had no FUNCTION at all as to what happened on the stage.

I initially DISLIKED this, as I see the Weird Sister as a great opportunity of doing all kinds of things to link the scenes, make it more consistent in an entertaining way … but all these ideas are very vague and, tried out, might not amount to much. So they easily convinced me that the Weird Sisters can be “made redundant.” But before I come to examine this, I must take note of my many “DISLIKES”. There were definitely “likes” as well, but - looking back on what I have written - the “dislikes” have it. Naturally, being so happy after having seen it, I was disappointed that the others hadn’t liked it. Counting my “dislikes”, I can easily understand this. So, why the hell did I LOVE it???

Of course, I knew the answer when I began to write this, and I chose my headline very carefully. And, even though I don’t like to do this, in this case I must explain it. It is some kind of pun about one of my favourite book series by Bernard Cornwell about the Anglo-Saxon warlord Uthred of Bebbanburgh. His motto, linking the interminable succession of novels, is that “FATE is inexorable.” I kind of loved this because I am very much into early history where people lived and thought entirely differently, were their lives were shaped by different morals and circumstances. I loved it, but didn’t really understand it – as I have always liked the Weird Sisters in “Macbeth” BECAUSE I don’t understand what they are about. Though they have always been the “Three Fates” for me, and always will be. But FATE, for us, is just some kind of placeholder, whereas at the time it must have had a distinct meaning. “We” cannot really understand a life ruled by distinct powers beyond our reach – be it supernatural “liabilities”, like witchcraft, or God. The religious concerns that Michael Billington mentioned in his review for the Guardian of the National Theatre’s “Macbeth” aren’t really our concern anymore. But TIME IS.

TIME is what shapes our lives and what we understand intimately. We constantly have this feeling of time being most precious, as well as the factor that mercilessly rules our lives. There never appears to be enough time for the things that are really important. And, as good and successful as we may be right now, time will bring us down in the end. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE – and, as the sonnet shows – Elizabethans already felt the same. Maybe not people like me, who tend to deny change, are deeply suspicious of the internet (and Twitter!), and basically want things to continue as they are … in Elizabethan terms: believed that their lives are ruled by fate, and tragic sin, and supernatural powers. Not THIS kind of people, but people like Shakespeare, or Thomas Cromwell who, according to Hilary Mantle, knew already that the world was ruled by time and money, NOT by kings … Understanding this, I came to love what they had done – using TIME as an exterior structure AND interior motivation in the text they created on the stage. As far as I am concerned, it worked great, and it definitely UPDATED the text for me – way beyond where my own imagination could reach. And of course I loved this!